[dwa]

Originally Posted by M47_Dragon

Say what now?

it really has, and im not trying to say i have a bigger ****. in addition to operations in Europe, the army was very active in the pacific and has more amphibious operations by nature of being much larger and involved everywhere. like how the navy has the most aircraft and the army had the most ships.

[dwa]

Originally Posted by zukieast

Somewhere I seem to recall a few articles in Army times calling for Army units to examine Marine Corps doctrine and military ethos in the Marine Corps ability to adapt and work with what they had.

As for commercials the Marine Corps has had 1 motto "The Few, The Proud, The Marines"

The Army changes its theme every couple years trying to attract recruits
“I Want You For the U.S. Army”
"Be All You Can Be"
"An Army of One"
"Army Strong"

The Army has faced the problem for years of trying to figure out who they are.

The Marine Corps has always known who they are. Also, the Marine Corps mission statement has never changed, and are beholden to the US Navy for funding, so they have less schools and resources for combat arms. The Marine Corps has no need of thousands of jump qualed troops. Cant land a C130 on an Amphib or Gator Freightor.

As a fighting force the Marine Corps was never designed with the Logistics in mind to support missions longer than 90 days. A Marine MEU goes in completely self sustained for 90days with all logistics in place ready to fight. All equipment and supplies are rolled off the ship at 1 time.

Specialized Army units may get to jump into places ahead of main battle group, but they lack the overall logistics to support a long term mission, and lack the heavy firepower required for sustained operations. They have to wait for their armor, aircraft, heavy artillery, medical units to catch up. They go in with what is on their backs and what is dropped from the sky.

Both sides have limitations, but they both augment and compliment one anothers capabilities. If the Army could do it all, then there would be no requirement for 2 sets of combat branches. Back to mission statement and that sets the two apart.

Plus the Navy guys get to boss their own little grunts around without having to leave their ships!

i forgot you have better commercials too. i dont think the army doesn't know who it is, it just doesn't do as good of PR, and nobody cares about buzzwords in the army. the marines provide a valuable service and both branches complement each other, the army also has a rapid deployment force as you stated and the marines have an expeditionary force, im sure if responsibilities where shifted either branch is more than capable than doing the others job as they have in the past.

[M47_Dragon]

Originally Posted by dwa

it really has, and im not trying to say i have a bigger ****. in addition to operations in Europe, the army was very active in the pacific and has more amphibious operations by nature of being much larger and involved everywhere. like how the navy has the most aircraft and the army had the most ships.

I believe you are maybe referring to a particular time in history... the army has performed more amphibious operations in the last century. In the entire history of the United States, I think it is a different story.

And again, the army having more ships than the navy is a misleading statistic. The army had more ships in WWII, but the vast majority were supply ships. The navy, although fewer in sheer numbers, still had more warships than the army.

[dwa]

Originally Posted by M47_Dragon

I believe you are maybe referring to a particular time in history... the army has performed more amphibious operations in the last century. In the entire history of the United States, I think it is a different story.

And again, the army having more ships than the navy is a misleading statistic. The army had more ships in WWII, but the vast majority were supply ships. The navy, although fewer in sheer numbers, still had more warships than the army.

i meant specifically ww2 but i didn't clarify. i did however say had more
ships, i meant it as another lil bit of history that would seem not to make sense.

[steelrain82]

Originally Posted by dwa

so you cant say that you are good without putting others down,

when i was a pfc i was sweeping brass at the shoot house at schofield barracks Hawaii. we were sharing the sight with the marines, my buddy and i were talking about how it was funny that the army and marines talk **** about each other yet theres a marine in the next room over sweeping up brass, a marine e-5 overheard and came by to say he appreciated that.... thought that would have something to do with this conversation.

ill get those citations for you in a bit. and as far as hating on each other. im just trying to keep the rivalry going. the army has done more landings than the marines though. ill give them that. but after ww2 they abandoned the amphibious operations. the army has always felt what was the point of the corps. they should just be absorbed into the army. the army is trying to become more of an expeditionary army. the army didnt want the marines in europe or africa though. i dont remember he exact reason why but ill try to find that out as well

[dwa]

Originally Posted by steelrain82

ill get those citations for you in a bit. and as far as hating on each other. im just trying to keep the rivalry going. the army has done more landings than the marines though. ill give them that. but after ww2 they abandoned the amphibious operations. the army has always felt what was the point of the corps. they should just be absorbed into the army. the army is trying to become more of an expeditionary army. the army didnt want the marines in europe or africa though. i dont remember he exact reason why but ill try to find that out as well

that is true the brigade combat team is a move toward that, i dont know of them being modeled after any marine formations but they are similar is structure.

i do have a question for you, if the efv doesn't get built do you think the corps with become much smaller? no efv mean no 40nm standoff to launch operation meaning no need for marine corps of current size.

[steelrain82]

i think with the politics involved both army and marines will get smaller again once the war is over. that just seems to be the cycle. but i think whether or not its built the marine corps will continue to function with what it has or find a cheaper more effective solution. hopefully the govt will finally realize we need a bigger army not a smaller one. and the Corps prides itself on being a small unit. if you look up fleet landing exercises, it shows that the marines and navy were conducting these and coming up with the manual. it wasnt till the end of the 30's when the first army unit trained with the marines to learn the doctrine which helped them during d-day and other landings.

[dwa]

Originally Posted by steelrain82

i think with the politics involved both army and marines will get smaller again once the war is over. that just seems to be the cycle. but i think whether or not its built the marine corps will continue to function with what it has or find a cheaper more effective solution. hopefully the govt will finally realize we need a bigger army not a smaller one. and the Corps prides itself on being a small unit. if you look up fleet landing exercises, it shows that the marines and navy were conducting these and coming up with the manual. it wasnt till the end of the 30's when the first army unit trained with the marines to learn the doctrine which helped them during d-day and other landings.

were the seamen brigades involved? as i recall i believe the army was responsible for their training. without further researching i would have to say that the marines introduced what they had at the time to the army who evolved the doctrine to fit ther particular requirements as anyone would. if your looking for a read check out the alamo scouts and 5307th Composite Unit (Provisional), the army in the pacific during ww2 doesn't really get talked about, not to take away from the marine and navy accomplishments.

[steelrain82]

from my understanding in he beginning the navy had some sailor companies but then gave way to the marines. the army and navy had to learn to conduct the land operation and bombardments like the army. but the army learned everything about the whole operation from the Corps. than they adjusted it to use their tactics. while the marines kept theirs. ill be honest i hate most ww2 stuff because its mainly about the army. its like we seem to forget we forgot about the japanese except for pearl harbor. but even when it is discussed your right the army is hardly discussed. kinda like korea. but then korea is the forgotten war. i like the movie the thin red line. thats about the army in the pacific.

[dwa]

Originally Posted by steelrain82

from my understanding in he beginning the navy had some sailor companies but then gave way to the marines. the army and navy had to learn to conduct the land operation and bombardments like the army. but the army learned everything about the whole operation from the Corps. than they adjusted it to use their tactics. while the marines kept theirs. ill be honest i hate most ww2 stuff because its mainly about the army. its like we seem to forget we forgot about the japanese except for pearl harbor. but even when it is discussed your right the army is hardly discussed. kinda like korea. but then korea is the forgotten war. i like the movie the thin red line. thats about the army in the pacific.

well if its in Europe the army was the main force there and the pacific hardly mentions the army yet they were highly involved.

i think that Europe is discussed so much more because fdr was itching to get at the nazis before the war began and made it the priority over the pacific. to the credit of the marines navy and army they won a theater of war while being on the back burner so to speak.

the Japanese army while having some interesting organizations (they had their own carriers) was essentially a ww 1 army lacking modern weapons or doctrine. a good example of that is when the roosikies rolled up the much hyped kwantung army.

[tacticalcity]

I was Air Force, which you would think would have been easy, right? It wasn’t. 1/3 of my flight did not graduate with us. They were either kicked out or "recycled" (made to start over or at an earlier phase of training). They don't tell you what's going to happen to a guy when the remove him from your flight. They use it as a mind game…and it works. The last thing you want to have to go home and face you’re friends and family in disgrace. Can you imagine the comments? “You mean you couldn’t even hack the Air Force? How big of a wimp are you?”

One recruit was pulled from our flight simply for making the lead TI (Training Instructor) laugh.

Schaffer was a little guy. Must have gotten a height waiver just to get in. SSgt Vickers was like something right out of a cartoon about boot camp. Huge jaw, giant upper body, and tiny waist, and thick southern accent. About three weeks before graduation Vickers comes storming into our barracks and decides to have a spot inspection. We're all standing at at attention while he chews out one recruit after another. Then for the first time he finally sets in on Schaffer. He taps the brim of his "Smokey the Bear" hat into Schaffer’s forehead repeatedly while screaming at him at the top of lungs (pretty much the standard routine). Schaffer had not experienced it. I guess he was so little they left him alone. After all, it's not cool to picky on the littlest guy in the flight..not when there are so many other idiots you can torment. Schaffer leans back a little to avoid the tapping, VERY bad idea. Vickers just leans into him and keeps tapping away, yelling even louder. Schaffer leans back more. They cycle continues. Eventually Schaffer is leaning WAY back. It's like something out of cartoon, much like Vickers himself. So Vickers yells "Airman Schaffer, I want you to reach down into your drawers and tell me if you've got a pair!” So Schaffer follows the sergeant's order and replies, "Yes, Sir. Two big fat hairy ones, Sir". Vickers, the meanest of the mean, can't help himself. He laughs. He can't stop laughing. So much so that has to leave the room. A few minutes later Vickers returns, seriously pissed off that this little twit had caused him to break his military bearing...and yells "Schaffer, pack your sh__...you're outta here!" We never saw Schaffer again. I assume he was just recycled.

I've heard people say boot camp in the Air Force was a cake walk. That was NOT my experience. SSGT Vickers was convinced it should be as hard as the higher ups would let him make it. It was his Air Force, and if we wanted to be part of it we were gonna bust our rears to prove we deserved to be there.

Most of my "war stories" about the military happened in basic. SSGT Vickers is at the center of almost all them. He made the Drill Sergeant in Full Metal Jacket seem tame by comparison. His lines just as classic. I use them whenever possible.

When you consider some of the places I was deployed, and that I had a pretty unusual career for my short four years of active duty service, the fact that basic training still manages to out shadow the rest of it really says something.

Since somebody is bound to ask...I'll answer it here. The majority of people in the Air Force are Mechanics, Administration Staff, Medical Staff and never leave the base. I was part of a Mobile Aerial Port (actually it was a Aerial Mobility Port Flight but the term was short lived and nobody will recognize it). Our job was to setup and man temporary Air Bases for Special Operations (including our own but usually those from another service) whenever they were conducting missions in a theater were a base was needed but did not exist. As you can imagine, that's pretty much the norm these days. In such operations, the goal is to send as few people as possible, so we performed our own security (Air Base Ground Defense) and wore many, many hats. The roles that would normally be filled by Army Infantry in a full scale war, we performed ourselves. I'm not trying to say we were bad or anything...just that my experience differed from the typical Air Force career pretty drastically. My AFC (MOS) had very little to do with what I ended up doing all day long...and many people in the same AFC has much more boring careers. I spent a good part of my short career surround by special operations members of other services in the middle of nowhere. We bounced around the globe and never knew where would be from one week to the next. I loved it. I may not have been a bad mo fo, but I got to help the bad mo fos do their job...and I was proud of that. Then I was assigned to a desk job...which I hated. After being in a real world environment, a stateside assignment at a training base behind a desk just doesn't cut it. So instead of being a lifer, which i would have been if left me where I was...I decided to get out go to college instead. So there you go...my entire Air Force career in one paragraph.

Ok, back on topic...if you are joining the Air Force because you think Basic Training is going to be easy then you're not smart enough to pass the academic side of it, so try the Navy!

Seriously, Basic Training is going to be hard no matter what service you join. That is the entire point. It is supposed to be challenging. You have to prove you can cut it. You have to prove you won't panic under stress. You might get lucky and draw a kind hearted Instructor Staff, but it's highly unlikely. More often than not you will get instructors who will push your limits any way they can and play head games with you from the moment you show up until the moment you leave the base. That is their job.

All this talk about how much tougher one is over the other is mostly people's egos. Inter-service rivalry trumps reality every time. There are differences. Marines place a higher emphasis on physical fitness; they pride themselves on it, though all will challenge you physically just not to that degree. Academically, they say the Air Force is the hardest, though I found it fairly easy. Never scored below a B on test, and that was because I was so sleep deprived I could barely keep my eyes open. Two scores below 75% and you get a ticket home and the questions are worded oddly enough to confuse just about anyone. When it comes to head games...all are going to be the biggest challenge of your life. I'm told the Army instruction manuals all have cartoon pictures to help recruits understand the concepts? Is that true? I doubt it. Probably just that old inter-service rivalry again. Though ASVAB scores do have to be a little higher to get into the Air Force, so you hear a lot of jokes about how dumb the Army is...totally untrue...but we say it anyways. You will be sleep deprived, you will be hungry (the first few weeks you get only a few bites of food per meal before you are rushed out the door, you will be stressed out, you will be facing challenges you can’t possibly imagine, you will have people in your face like you've never experienced before all day long and for no good reason, and you’re going to have to keep it together. When you’re done, you will have earned the right to wear the uniform.

Is it worth it? You bet your a__!

[phroggunner]

Originally Posted by tacticalcity

So Vickers yells "Airman Schaffer, I want you to reach down into your drawers and tell me if you've got a pair!” So Schaffer follows the sergeant's order and replies, "Yes, Sir. Two big fat hairy ones, Sir". Vickers, the meanest of the mean, can't help himself. He laughs. He can't stop laughing. So much so that has to leave the room. A few minutes later Vickers returns, seriously pissed off that this little twit had caused him to break his military bearing...and yells "Schaffer, pack your sh__...you're outta here!" We never saw Schaffer again. I assume he was just recycled.

Once they found out he had a pair, they sent him to the Marines. Mystery solved

[phroggunner]

Originally Posted by dwa

ready your history the army has done more amphibious operations than the Marine Corps, the army has also done many joint operations so maybe you could drop the indoctrination crap?

No worries brother, just going tit for tat with the propaganda

[usmcchet9296]

Originally Posted by CavTrooper

So I guess if youre worried about basic training being too tough, you might wanna try the Marine Corps or the Air Force, seems that their basic training is the easiest to pass!

Ha ha fookin ha ha

[usmcchet9296]

Originally Posted by CavTrooper

According to the Coast Gaurd recruiter I spoke with, anyone who joins will go through their boot camp/basic training regardless of thier prior service, does this mean that the Coast Guard is just as hard as the Marine Corps?

Not really
prior service go thru a "bootcamp" but it isnt like the bootcamp non priors go thru

[cgseanp1]

Originally Posted by usmcchet9296

Not really
prior service go thru a "bootcamp" but it isnt like the bootcamp non priors go thru

It's called pitstop, or at least that is what it was called. It was 2 or 4 weeks, can't remember exactly.

[gordon freeman]

I started MC recruit training as my platoon's secretary and later became series secretary. I specifically recall starting with 71 and having 46 including 4 pick-ups from other series by the start of third phase. When I became series secretary, I found the other three platoons had about the same drop rates. Most recruits were really just held back a week and graduated with the series behind us. I tell you truly, that series was one big herd! This was many decades ago though.

[anthonyca]

Originally Posted by dwa

you didn't think that basic for air conditioner guys to be like ranger school did you?

No. I thought it would be basic that the guys went through before the pc days and girls in army.

[dwa]

Originally Posted by anthonyca

No. I thought it would be basic that the guys went through before the pc days and girls in army.

you went with a pog mos and were surprised when you had a pog basic. unless your 80 ill willing to bet there were women in the army before you went through.

[4thSBCT]

Originally Posted by tacticalcity

Seriously, Basic Training is going to be hard no matter what service you join. All this talk about how much tougher one is over the other is mostly people's egos. Inter-service rivalry trumps reality every time. There are differences. I could barely keep my eyes open.

I don't buy this. If the training isn't tougher than why don't I see females doing 12 milers...I've had friends in other services *cough* air force, who said they were woken up to nice peaceful music.....

[tacticalcity]

Originally Posted by 4thSBCT

I don't buy this. If the training isn't tougher than why don't I see females doing 12 milers...I've had friends in other services *cough* air force, who said they were woken up to nice peaceful music.....

Did you score too low on our ASVAB to get into the Air Force and have a little resentment you need to work out? Please, that is total nonsense. Your comment has ZERO basis in reality...just like my low ASVAB score comment about you probably has no basis in reality. Check the inter-service rivalry at the door. These kids need to know what to expect. If they join the Air Force expecting tea and crumpets in the morning they will wash out. You're not doing them any favors lying to them.

Basic was a giant mind game, and it wasn't an easy one. That said it was totally worth it.

For those of you considering joining the military...do it. No matter which branch of service you join, you won't regret it. You'll be proud of it for the rest of your life. You'll make friends you'll talk to for the rest of your life. I’ve been the best man at more military buddy’s weddings than I can count, and most long after we got out. You'll have really great stories you tell over and over again for the rest of your life. As much as I tease my buddies who were in other services, I totally respect and admire them for having served...and their experiences were as cool as or cooler than mine. None of my friends regretted having served, and that includes those who served in combat.

It won't be easy, but it won't be nearly as hard as you imagine it will be either. Basic training ends before you know it, and the rest of the military is NOTHING like basic training. At least, not in the Air Force. Never had anyone scream at me once I left basic training, and I consider many of the NCOs I served under close personal friends to this day. The Air Force has some pretty snazzy dorms (though for the first two years of my enlistment I never saw my dorm room because I was constantly traveling overseas). Most of the time you get your own room once you hit your first permanent duty station. Rarely are you required to share a dorm room anymore. My Dorm at Luke, AFB was as nice (only smaller) than most of the apartments I've lived in since. It made my college dorm room look like a dump. Oh, and comparatively speaking our chow halls are first rate. If you're lucky you'll get to travel somewhere cool. At the very least you will get out of your hometown. Odds are it will be the best time of your life.

Keep an open mind about what career field you’ll get, and where you’ll be stationed. No matter what your recruiter promises, those are extremely flexible. A computer makes the final decision, and the computer doesn’t give a damn what you want. Every job matters, and the better your ASVAB score the greater the chances you’ll get a good job that has a civilian counter part you would actually want to do…so study hard. I was supposed to work on A10 Warthogs, didn't happen. Your duty assignment is random, aside from the fact that they intentionally get you as far away from home as they can…when possible. So don’t expect to visit Mom on the weekends. Most people are allowed to PCS (transfer to a new duty station) upon completing their first four years, in my case I was transferred after being at McGuire for only two. So if you don't like your first duty station, don't worry...it is not forever.

If you have the chance to go to college first, and serve as an officer I recommend it. College ROTC will help, so do it. Those I know who earned a commission seemed to enjoy their time in the military more, and lot more of them chose to stay in for 20+ years than my friends who chose to enlist. If I had it to do over again that is how I would do it. Live and learn.

[5hundo]

Originally Posted by 4thSBCT

I don't buy this. If the training isn't tougher than why don't I see females doing 12 milers...I've had friends in other services *cough* air force, who said they were woken up to nice peaceful music.....

Yeah, I got woken up to "Battery" by Metallica one morning...

That's a lovely ballad...

Seriously...

...although, we did have lobster tails for dinner one night. I'll confess to that.

[professionalcoyotehunter]

There still are no women rangers.

[dwa]

Originally Posted by 4thSBCT

I don't buy this. If the training isn't tougher than why don't I see females doing 12 milers...I've had friends in other services *cough* air force, who said they were woken up to nice peaceful music.....

i thought they had to do 12 milers just slower or something like that, i can remember but wasn't it something like 12 miles @ 15 min pace was the universal standard for rucking with combat arms and associates of course thinking it was a joke?

[dwa]

Originally Posted by professionalcoyotehunter

There still are no women rangers.

well ya because women are not capable of doing all jobs, i had excellent air support provided by females and ive had crappy air support by guys. they are not capable of doing the more physical jobs, thats why theres 2 pt tests to make it less obvious to the uninformed the discrepancy.

[professionalcoyotehunter]

That is one of the many reasons.

[tacticalcity]

More and more career fields are opening up to women. Expect that trend to continue. I was a Luke, AFB when the Air Force got its first female fighter pilot and got to meet her she was very cool, very smart, very pretty and very tough. Now there are a ton of them. Eventually there will be female Rangers, Special Forces, Combat Controllers, Pararescuemen, Recon Marines, Navy Seals and so on. It is just a matter of time. Not all women would be incapable of it, there are plenty of women that could do it...just not at as high a ratio as men.

It is more about politics than anything else. The fear is that if a woman is hopelessly wounded in combat, the other male soldiers would continue to try and save her even if it meant getting killed because they have been socialized to view women as someone they MUST protect no matter what. Additionally, America has a hard enough time backing a war when we see pictures of mortally wounded men on TV. The fear is that if CNN shows video of a woman with her legs blown off people will lose all support for the war, even if it is a worthwhile effort. We don't have the stomach for war as it is. So that one I buy more than the other arguments. Over time, political pressure to be more inclusive will override those fears.

[professionalcoyotehunter]

I have seen many women who could easily go through Ranger school much easier than some of the recycles and pogs.

[dwa]

Originally Posted by tacticalcity

More and more career fields are opening up to women. Expect that trend to continue. I was a Luke, AFB when the Air Force got its first female fighter pilot and got to meet her she was very cool, very smart, very pretty and very tough. Now there are a ton of them. Eventually there will be female Rangers, Special Forces, Combat Controllers, Pararescuemen, Recon Marines, Navy Seals and so on. It is just a matter of time. Not all women would be incapable of it, there are plenty of women that could do it...just not at as high a ratio as men.

It is more about politics than anything else. The fear is that if a woman is hopelessly wounded in combat, the other male soldiers would continue to try and save her even if it meant getting killed because they have been socialized to view women as someone they MUST protect no matter what. Additionally, America has a hard enough time backing a war when we see pictures of mortally wounded men on TV. The fear is that if CNN shows video of a woman with her legs blown off people will lose all support for the war, even if it is a worthwhile effort. We don't have the stomach for war as it is. So that one I buy more than the other arguments. Over time, political pressure to be more inclusive will override those fears.

unless their body fat to muscle ratio and shoulder geometry is changing i just don't see it happening. look at the different pt tests there's a reason women can max with somewhere around 30 something push ups, the only way i think you see a "GI Jane" is if they lower standards specifically to allow it. this that aren't dependant on biceps however i think they sometimes do very well at, Ive also seen females pull some bull**** to get out of an honest days work. personally i think having multiple standards is sexists and there should be one pt test and one way to wear the uniform, either were are equal or we are not.

[professionalcoyotehunter]

I partially agree with that also. although I have seen quite a few women out perform men. Mostly Marine women. I have also seen plenty of men get out of work for stupid reasons ie. Sick call Rangers.

[dwa]

Originally Posted by professionalcoyotehunter

I partially agree with that also. although I have seen quite a few women out perform men. Mostly Marine women. I have also seen plenty of men get out of work for stupid reasons ie. Sick call Rangers.

but were the men they were out preforming stellar examples of good soldiers? i found sick call rangerettes using their period to get out of stuff infuriating.

[professionalcoyotehunter]

Wouldn't you use your power of the period if you had one? I seen guy with the diarrhea get out of most everything.

[dwa]

Originally Posted by professionalcoyotehunter

Wouldn't you use your power of the period if you had one? I seen guy with the diarrhea get out of most everything.

no because i wasn't a dirt bag, i have little sympathy for men on their rag that try to get out of stuff either, but if you have a set amount of personnel say 30 and 10 of then have a "condition" that precludes them from work, 33% of your work doesn't disappear. Additionally while it takes two to tango one of them gets shipped home if they get pregnant. i don't think women should not be in the military and like i stated earlier the best k dub pilot was a female but i don't think i would have wanted her to be in my fire team. women are great at a multitude of things and are not well suited to some others blame it on humans having different sexes.

[tacticalcity]

Playing Devil’s advocate for a minute...because I really don't care one way or another about this issue (I'm not a woman, don't have daughters and my days of military service are long behind me).

Based strictly on your argument there are a lot of jobs in Special Ops that would be a possibility for women.

Some of the best marathon and triathlon runners in the world are women. Endurance tests seem to be their thing, and they have exceptional lower body strength.

Take the most elite unit, Delta Force. If Eric Haney's book Inside Delta Force is to be believed, upper body strength is not what their selection process is about. They are almost exclusively about endurance and ability to think when your body begins to fail. If you look at the picture in his book of a group of Delta Force guys, they are all scrawny little guys and not Arnold types. He specifically says the buff guys find their size to be a liability. He describes extremely long hikes, day-in and day-out followed up with non-stop mind games. Lots of word games that would confuse me even after a full nights rest. The tests are intentionally unfair, and the drop a lot of people for no other reason than they can, just to see how the others react to the unfairness of it and to increase the stress level. But he does not describe bench pressing contests or pushups at all. So based on his book, there is little doubt a woman would have as much chance as a man during the selection process with regards to the physical requirements. Since the tests are geared towards things they tend to be good at. Anyone with a history of running marathons and doing triathlons would do well in that selection process. Us normal mortals would have a very hard time. After selection, when they shoot thousands of rounds of .45 ACP a day in live fire training exercises with other team members sitting in front of targets, that is where upper body strength begins to matter and my argument falls apart. The right woman however, could handle it.

They should do alright any time water is involved. As a general rule they have more body fat, and muscle doesn't float. The super big buff guys have a lot harder time becoming a Navy Seal or a Coast Guard diver because of the time they spend in the water. So in one major aspect of those jobs, they have a leg up. Again, we do come back to your argument about upper body strength which eliminates the average woman. The seals stress it pretty heavily, not sure about Coast Guard divers but they probably do as well. However, the average man could not do those jobs either. Only the most exceptional person would make it. A woman who is a fitness nut would have a much better chance than the average Joe.

Eventually politics is going to win out. It always does. For example. There are hundreds of arguments against gays in the military. Eventually political pressure won out. Regardless of how you personally feel about it, it's the way it is now. The same will eventually happen with women in all sorts of combat rolls.

Hopefully it will be done in a common sense way. No separate tests. No gender norming. They either pass the same tests, or they don't get the job. If they can do the job then it makes sense to let them do it. If they can't, then it doesn't.

For the record, I never liked the idea of gender norming the tests. I want to know the person in the fox hole next to me can pull their own weight regardless of gender. I want to know I only have to worry about doing my job and not theirs. If they can do the job...why should you or I stop them? The problem with rigging the tests is they do allow a lot of people to get in that shouldn't be. It is based on the idea they they will be in the rear with the gear anyway. But in today's military, women find themselves in combat all the time. Strictly speaking they shouldn't, but the real world does not work like a text book and there are no safe areas when fighting terrorists. So yes, I agree...the tests should be harder just to get in. That said, plenty of woman could cut it even if the tests were the same.

[4thSBCT]

women as delta force? Although you are mostly correct on issues of lower body strength, build, and stamina, elite soldiers are also selected for their demeanor. Women, by nature, are more caring, nurturing, and emotional. Emotions will get you killed out in the field. Its different for female apache pilots who kill green heat signatures on a computer screen, its less personal. Sure, I bet there are some ruthless women out there, I know I'm married to one, but generally speaking I don't think women would make very good commandos.

[Dekker]

Is it true that women who get pregnant are given the option to separate from the Army? I remember a few Recruiters on the official Army forum telling me this little tidbit of info. And it came back up again because a co-worker told me her single niece was tired of being in the Army but still had a few years left in her contract(and no doubt a deployment mixed in there) and was contemplating getting pregnant by her boyfriend just to be discharged in an honorable code. Knowing her, she would have most likely gotten pregnant for the purpose of being separated and then would have either aborted or given the baby up for adoption. That's how serious some people are to get out.......

That's a pretty sweet trump card women hold.

[4thSBCT]

I think it only applies to women who get preg and are single. The same thing can happen to men who have or are awarded sole custody of their children.

[dwa]

Originally Posted by tacticalcity

Playing Devil’s advocate for a minute...because I really don't care one way or another about this issue (I'm not a woman, don't have daughters and my days of military service are long behind me).

Based strictly on your argument there are a lot of jobs in Special Ops that would be a possibility for women.

Some of the best marathon and triathlon runners in the world are women. Endurance tests seem to be their thing, and they have exceptional lower body strength.

Take the most elite unit, Delta Force. If Eric Haney's book Inside Delta Force is to be believed, upper body strength is not what their selection process is about. They are almost exclusively about endurance and ability to think when your body begins to fail. If you look at the picture in his book of a group of Delta Force guys, they are all scrawny little guys and not Arnold types. He specifically says the buff guys find their size to be a liability. He describes extremely long hikes, day-in and day-out followed up with non-stop mind games. Lots of word games that would confuse me even after a full nights rest. The tests are intentionally unfair, and the drop a lot of people for no other reason than they can, just to see how the others react to the unfairness of it and to increase the stress level. But he does not describe bench pressing contests or pushups at all. So based on his book, there is little doubt a woman would have as much chance as a man during the selection process with regards to the physical requirements. Since the tests are geared towards things they tend to be good at. Anyone with a history of running marathons and doing triathlons would do well in that selection process. Us normal mortals would have a very hard time. After selection, when they shoot thousands of rounds of .45 ACP a day in live fire training exercises with other team members sitting in front of targets, that is where upper body strength begins to matter and my argument falls apart. The right woman however, could handle it.

They should do alright any time water is involved. As a general rule they have more body fat, and muscle doesn't float. The super big buff guys have a lot harder time becoming a Navy Seal or a Coast Guard diver because of the time they spend in the water. So in one major aspect of those jobs, they have a leg up. Again, we do come back to your argument about upper body strength which eliminates the average woman. The seals stress it pretty heavily, not sure about Coast Guard divers but they probably do as well. However, the average man could not do those jobs either. Only the most exceptional person would make it. A woman who is a fitness nut would have a much better chance than the average Joe.

Eventually politics is going to win out. It always does. For example. There are hundreds of arguments against gays in the military. Eventually political pressure won out. Regardless of how you personally feel about it, it's the way it is now. The same will eventually happen with women in all sorts of combat rolls.

Hopefully it will be done in a common sense way. No separate tests. No gender norming. They either pass the same tests, or they don't get the job. If they can do the job then it makes sense to let them do it. If they can't, then it doesn't.

For the record, I never liked the idea of gender norming the tests. I want to know the person in the fox hole next to me can pull their own weight regardless of gender. I want to know I only have to worry about doing my job and not theirs. If they can do the job...why should you or I stop them? The problem with rigging the tests is they do allow a lot of people to get in that shouldn't be. It is based on the idea they they will be in the rear with the gear anyway. But in today's military, women find themselves in combat all the time. Strictly speaking they shouldn't, but the real world does not work like a text book and there are no safe areas when fighting terrorists. So yes, I agree...the tests should be harder just to get in. That said, plenty of woman could cut it even if the tests were the same.

id agree with you there i9f you have a super stud woman marathon runner type she should be doing some CIA type badassness not wasting their talent in an 11b slot.

[dwa]

Originally Posted by 4thSBCT

women as delta force? Although you are mostly correct on issues of lower body strength, build, and stamina, elite soldiers are also selected for their demeanor. Women, by nature, are more caring, nurturing, and emotional. Emotions will get you killed out in the field. Its different for female apache pilots who kill green heat signatures on a computer screen, its less personal. Sure, I bet there are some ruthless women out there, I know I'm married to one, but generally speaking I don't think women would make very good commandos.

tell that to her http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko

[tacticalcity]

Originally Posted by 4thSBCT

women as delta force? Although you are mostly correct on issues of lower body strength, build, and stamina, elite soldiers are also selected for their demeanor. Women, by nature, are more caring, nurturing, and emotional. Emotions will get you killed out in the field. Its different for female apache pilots who kill green heat signatures on a computer screen, its less personal. Sure, I bet there are some ruthless women out there, I know I'm married to one, but generally speaking I don't think women would make very good commandos.

You are dating very different women than I seem to meet. The ones I end up with are all soulness spawns from hell without any emotion other than hatred and don't have a single nurturing bone in their body. Then again, maybe I just bring that out them!