Pentagon to open SEALs, Army Rangers to women

[BehindBlueI's]

In the Army, the Delusion Keeps Rolling Along? | US Defense Watch

Don't want separate standards... then change the test.
After all, there is no difference.

Sure seems like a fair and balanced article...

I'm 100% for job specific PT tests based on MOS. That's something I've mentioned as much smarter than the current 3 event test multiple times.

 

[epeery]

In the Army, the Delusion Keeps Rolling Along? | US Defense Watch

Don't want separate standards... then change the test.
After all, there is no difference.

Holy Resurrected Threads Batman! The previous post was 5 years and 26 days ago!

 

[Trigger Time]

Holy Resurrected Threads Batman! The previous post was 5 years and 26 days ago!

LoL yeah I noticed that too after I commented. Holy crap and guess what? Everything ****ing happened. The standards WERE lowered. The Army covered it up and pushed their little princesses through and once again took a **** on the Rangers. The general public doesnt know a difference between a scroll and a tab.

 

[actaeon277]

Yes, zombie thread.
But, I thought it was better than starting a new one.

 

[Trigger Time]

Yes, zombie thread.
But, I thought it was better than starting a new one.

I wish everyone did this

 

[epeery]

Yes, zombie thread.
But, I thought it was better than starting a new one.

Yeah, still on topic, so I would agree, just caught me off guard when I was flipping through.

 

[User 0]

Alright let's get ready for this next deployment... It looks like we have to cancel now because all the women hq decided to affirmative action in here just got pregnant.


Also if any of you leak this to the media you're getting a court-martial.

 

[Vigilant]

For **** sake. The **** show continues

Ain’t no thing man, we are OUT, nothing we did or can do will change today’s ARMY. As long as the left has a voice, they will drown out reason in the name of “equality” even at the expense of our nation, and lifestyle. Ask me, I’d say let’em be, we need a proper ass whoopin’. Those who refuse to cow to the “everyone is equal”Schlick will rise to the top, and make outperform country great again.

 

[Vigilant]

Sure seems like a fair and balanced article...

I'm 100% for job specific PT tests based on MOS. That's something I've mentioned as much smarter than the current 3 event test multiple times.

The three event test is stupid, but I’m against desk yoga type tests. Everyone in the MILITARY, not just Army, should pass the same physical standards test, at the same standard. Combat Arms and Combat Corps MOS’s should have additional standards, likewise with special units. But dumbing down the basic standards just because someone is deskbound defeats the purpose of an Army. For ****s sake, just contract all the non-combat arms MOS’s to no standard civilians if you want different standards by MOS. Hell, hire a temp service to fill non combat roles. You contracted, farming out non-combat roles isn’t a bad idea, it leaves a lot of $$’s available for budding entrepreneurs to fill jobs the Armed Services want to dumb down anyway.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

The three event test is stupid, but I’m against desk yoga type tests. Everyone in the MILITARY, not just Army, should pass the same physical standards test, at the same standard. Combat Arms and Combat Corps MOS’s should have additional standards, likewise with special units. But dumbing down the basic standards just because someone is deskbound defeats the purpose of an Army. For ****s sake, just contract all the non-combat arms MOS’s to no standard civilians if you want different standards by MOS. Hell, hire a temp service to fill non combat roles. You contracted, farming out non-combat roles isn’t a bad idea, it leaves a lot of $$’s available for budding entrepreneurs to fill jobs the Armed Services want to dumb down anyway.

Maybe wait and see what the baseline standards are going to even be before complaining? The pushups/situps/2-mile was ridiculous. In the Army I usually hovered between 210-220 lbs. Medics who scored in the upper 200s on the PT test could usually not lift me out of a tank cupola. If I was hurt and not just being a training dummy for their EFMB I'd have died. Conversely, I gives a poo how much Joe Finance can deadlift. It's not job relevant. That doesn't mean there should be no standard, but does he need to deadlift the same as a medic? Does someone who builds Bailey Bridges need more upper body strength then a cavalry scout? Well...yeah.

Ditching the age and sex specific tests and going to job specific is a smart move, IMO.

 

[singlesix]

Maybe wait and see what the baseline standards are going to even be before complaining? The pushups/situps/2-mile was ridiculous. In the Army I usually hovered between 210-220 lbs. Medics who scored in the upper 200s on the PT test could usually not lift me out of a tank cupola. If I was hurt and not just being a training dummy for their EFMB I'd have died. Conversely, I gives a poo how much Joe Finance can deadlift. It's not job relevant. That doesn't mean there should be no standard, but does he need to deadlift the same as a medic? Does someone who builds Bailey Bridges need more upper body strength then a cavalry scout? Well...yeah.

Ditching the age and sex specific tests and going to job specific is a smart move, IMO.

You were at 200 plus =lbs and a tanker, yikes. Glad you weren't in my crew . 140 lbs at 5' 11 and a M60A1 was cramped.

More pressing issues for the Military than gender issues:
[video=youtube_share;sWN13pKVp9s]https://youtu.be/sWN13pKVp9s[/video]

 

[BehindBlueI's]

You were at 200 plus =lbs and a tanker, yikes. Glad you weren't in my crew . 140 lbs at 5' 11 and a M60A1 was cramped.

More pressing issues for the Military than gender issues:
[video=youtube_share;sWN13pKVp9s]https://youtu.be/sWN13pKVp9s[/video]

I was a Combat Engineer, M60 mine clearing tank. 2 man crew, little more roomy. Still, yes, probably not the best fit for a tank.

 

[jamil]

My opinion remains the same. Set standards that are necessary to achieve mission goals, and not with the purpose of being so high as to exclude some people. In other words, if the military needs special ops to march 30 miles a day with full pack - fine. However, don't set the limit at 40 miles just to keep some folks out.

The mission objectives should determine the standards sought. If that TRULY limits people under 5'5", or women, or whomever, I am fine with that. But the standards should not be lowered just to let those people in. The standards should be set and then whomever qualifies is good to go, in my opinion.

Regards,

Doug

If you have ANY standards they’ll be so high as to exclude some people. The standards weren’t put there for the express purpose of excluding women. And for the seals, if they lowered the standards so that women could make it, they’d have a lot more competition from the vast number of men who couldn’t otherwise hqve made it. The standards are high because the missions are hard and dangerous and require the best of the best to be successful and especially to have some chance to come home alive.

 

[jamil]

One other thing. If they lowered the standards to the point where women could make it, at least the soi bois could make it now. Right?

 

[Libertarian01]

If you have ANY standards they’ll be so high as to exclude some people. The standards weren’t put there for the express purpose of excluding women. And for the seals, if they lowered the standards so that women could make it, they’d have a lot more competition from the vast number of men who couldn’t otherwise hqve made it. The standards are high because the missions are hard and dangerous and require the best of the best to be successful and especially to have some chance to come home alive.

I agree. If you have standards then some people won't meet those. I am on board with that. Just don't set standards to target the exclusion of one group of people. The standard should be set due to need, and need alone. Where that standard is many won't make it, but those who do should be allowed to add their service to the nation.

Regards,

Doug

 

[BehindBlueI's]

You were at 200 plus =lbs and a tanker, yikes. Glad you weren't in my crew . 140 lbs at 5' 11 and a M60A1 was cramped.

Now that I'm on a computer, I'd like to examine that a bit more. How much physical strength is required to be a tanker? The hardest task for us was track maintenance or lifting the escape hatch back into place when it was dropped to service the batteries. I don't know poo about how the main gain on a M1 is loaded, so that might be a more beefy position. Being a driver is more about fitting in the space the driver needs to fit in. We have the means to test how much strength, endurance, and flexibility are required for a given job. Use it. We already do it with mental load via the ASVAB, why not physical load?

I was, as stated, a Combat Engineer. It's a pretty physical job. A cratering charge weighs 40 lbs, and the faster you can place them the better. Pounding pickets all night for a wire obstacle is physically demanding. It's not a mentally demanding job, though. Can you do basic algebra? You can calculate demo charges. Can you build a lego set by looking at the instructions? You can arm and disarm a land mine.

Now where it's going to get fuzzy is say you're the 1SG. You aren't really pounding pickets or humping demo. You aren't digging fighting positions or breaking track. Are you *really* a Combat Engineer at that point...or are you admin? What if you're the battalion XO? S1 NCO? The demands on my in a line platoon as a SAW gunner vs as a TC on a mine clearing tank were quite different. How "job specific" and granular will they go? Hopefully it's the ability to do anything your position could demand of you, with the realization that the top end ranks are really their own job category.

 

[singlesix]

Standard joke I heard when I was in: What's the the biggest weakness of the Russian Tank Corp, not enough left handed midgets. There are MOS related physical standards and general standards, yes I was an Officer and didn't do much labor ( I did set up my own cot instead of having my driver do it, he was too busy setting up my tent).

As the video shows, the issue now is the military has a hard time finding recruits ( doesn't matter the gender) that can meet the lowest level of physical fitness standards. Belief was that general fitness improved the ability to withstand stress, better you can withstand stress the better decisions you make. I guess we better move to drones, so the "soldiers" can sit in chairs, drink diet cokes, eat chips, and fight by telepresence.

 

[jamil]

I agree. If you have standards then some people won't meet those. I am on board with that. Just don't set standards to target the exclusion of one group of people. The standard should be set due to need, and need alone. Where that standard is many won't make it, but those who do should be allowed to add their service to the nation.

Regards,

Doug

Yeah, but is there any case in the military where the standards are specifically set to target a group of people who would otherwise perform well without meeting those standards?

 

[Libertarian01]

Yeah, but is there any case in the military where the standards are specifically set to target a group of people who would otherwise perform well without meeting those standards?

In the military I honestly don't know, recently.

In the New York Fire Department they 100% did. They did this in order to prevent women from becoming firefighters. They made it a requirement to carry a 200# person, IIRC, so many feet out of a building. Women couldn't do that. In the court case the lawyers asked the firemen how many people they ever carried out of a burning building. The answer was ZERO. NONE! They drag them out! There wasn't a firefighter questioned that ever "carried" a full grown adult out of a building. So the requirement, which might sound reasonable to the ignorant (like me) was in reality an unreasonable barrier to entry. When women were then required to drag a 200# person so many feet many could and did pass that.

One problem I could see comes from WWI. In WWI the US Army did studies on how much weight a soldier could reasonably carry and be expected to march a full 20 miles, IIRC. The number they came up with was 1/3 of the soldiers body weight. So if you say the average soldier weighs 175#, divided by three (3), you get a maximum carry weight of 58 1/3 pounds. That number is a highly reasonable standard and should NOT change, barring more recent studies. So if they gather that special forces need to carry an additional 20% that would mean that every special forces soldier would need to carry 70 pounds. If a woman can do that, great! If she can't, I'm cool with that.

Presuming for the sake of argument that all my guesses on numbers are good, then if the special forces requires the carrying of 90 pounds that is an unreasonable standard that I would have no problem saying it should be dropped to 70 pounds, but no less than 70 pounds as that is what mission success requires.

To answer your questin in WWII the US Army refused to train black servicemen as pilots due to "poor night vision" until pushed. Up until the 1950's the US Navy refused to train black divers. In the late 1960's NASA (not military but govt) refused to train and use female astronauts even though they performed better than their male counterparts on many of tests regarding stress and fatigue.

So for me when any branch of the government says their standards are fair or necessary, I say prove it. If they can, great. If they cant', then change it.

Standards set on preconceptions are not standards, they are bigotry.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Brad69]

I am not sure but I think BBI stated that the 1SG doesn’t do anything? or your MOS doesn’t really apply? (Which it doesn’t I was the 1SG of a Infantry Company as a completely different MOS)
It could have been a jab still not sure.

Young people lack the physical ability and mental toughness required to perform many tasks. The men and women still exist it’s just you have to sort though many more to achieve the required number.
One startling fact is bone density I attended a conference addressing the issue of injuries of Soldiers in Basic Training. If you held a X-ray of someone 40ish up in comparison to someone 18-20. The bones of the older person were visibly thicker and the DR. Stated the density level was much greater as well.
This was due to better nutrition and physical activity in the 70’s compared to the present. This explains the high amount of Privates breaking bones conducting relatively easy training.
Stress is not the young people’s friend we were taught from a young age act out of line and get a swat,lick,paddled ect. Interpersonal relationship disputes were resolved by a fistfight. This has been replaced by hugs and singing and unnatural behavior.
When displine is applied to the young people though physical pain it takes them longer to understand why they are being displined and correct the behavior to stop the pain.