All-male combat units outperform units that include women – study

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

How about this one. This is the twenty first century, not the twentieth or the nineteenth. Sure, men a physically more capable than women in a whole number of personal combat abilities but to what degree are even the men going to have to preform at that level of combat. My guess, only a small minority. My question is how well do the women rate to the men in modern warfare tactics like pushing buttons or drone control or hell, I don't know, any number of skills that are required of soldiers in this century. My guess? I guess you can figure it.

But this is about ground combat units.

The point is that a combat soldier has to be ready and capable to deal with any situation thrown at him. Why would the military settle for less capable soldiers.

Sure, this female soldier might be a great shot, but is she going to carry a wounded man out of harm's way?

a reply to: pheonix358

A basic combat load is a basic combat load, and that's why the weight stays the same. Your weapon doesn't have a sliding scale of weight based on your height and weight. Ammo doesn't weigh a proportional amount to your body weight. Water weighs the same. Comms gear weighs the same. A ruck weighs the same.

As for Israeli women in combat? Women make up 3% of total combat forces in the Israeli army. It's not as if half of all ground combat roles are filled by women. It's not even close. And I'll point out that Israel has compulsory service, so I mean if we want to emulate them, probably should bear that in mind, yea?

originally posted by: johnwick

originally posted by: TycoonBarnaby

originally posted by: pheonix358
Equally, a test could be devised, for combat, where women would equal or exceed the men.

Smaller body weight generally increases quickness and agility. Other areas such as pain tolerance are also areas where women can excel.

As long as it is men designing the tests with the the objective of keeping the women out, you will always see results such as this.

The Israeli armed forces seem to do very well with women in front line combat units simply because they acknowledge the differences between the sexes and plan around them. They do not expect women to carry the squad machine gun and they use women in certain specialized roles.

After all, we are not running around with swords and maces.

P

Smaller body weight?... Because you can't find men that fit this criteria (how is this your leading argument?)...

Pain tolerance?... link me a study.

Let us just end the pain tolerance thing now once and for all.

Getting kicked in the nutz, is more painful than childbirth..... I assure you I have thought this out very thoroughly.

Here let me explain

Woman has a kid, within a year or 2 she starts talking about having another.

Man gets kicked in the nutz, it doesn't matter how much time passes, you are not going to hear him say " Its been a while, think I will get kicked in the nutz again soon"

Lol, end of debate

You might actually know one, but I'll ask anyways. When was the last time you met a woman who gave birth without an epidural?

Also a kidney stone is a better comparison than getting kicked in the balls.

I would go through lots of pain to bring another child into my life. I'd also rather drink milk and have kidney stones than not drink milk. Mmmmmm I love milk.

a reply to: RogueWave

It's funny, I hear that argument a lot. Combat is all drones and buttons and air conditioned trailers now.

Funny, I don't remember flying any drones or pushing too many buttons in Fallujah. And there definitely wasn't any air conditioning.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

modern warfare tactics? i guess you don't realize women have been participating in those for a long time, fighter pilots,drone pilots, etc.

no matter how far how advanced weapons become, or technogloy to remotely control it there will always be a need for ground pounders, 03walk alots, grunts, dog faces, as 13, 14 years of the war on terror, and most recently the war on isis have shown.

hell short of a nuke i don't know of any weapon that rules out the use of troops. even then if one is used troops have to go in and inspect later, who do you think is gonna lead the way? that's right combat troops.

it has been shown time and time again that the majority of women and some men are not able to handle the psychical/mental stresses that combat can produce.

but for those that can pass all the same psychical requirements and the mental stress that it can produce i have no problem with them servicing in combat. but just as in the equal rights, don't cry when treated equally.

here's a interesting fact most people don't know, the two women that went through army ranger school, didn't pass on the first try, they were recycled through and given a three chances along with a third one that is still trying last i read. don't
know if she has made it yet.

The three female soldiers are on their third attempt to make it through the two-month course.
Official: All 3 women in Ranger School pass PT test

now there are men get recycled or drop out.

i guess the old adage try try try again is at work here, thing is in combat, when you have to do that people die.

originally posted by: pheonix358


Now if that ruck march was done with a pack that weighed a proportion of the carriers weight you may find a different outcome!


P

When I was in the Corps , there was basic standard equipment that went into the ALICE pack (ruck) for the infantry Marine so they all weighed pretty much the same . The standards were designed so that each Marine was required to carry enough equipment/ MREs'/weapons and ammo to survive in the field/combat situation for X amount of days without the need for resupply . Tell me how are they supposed to lighten the load for weaker or smaller Marines and soldiers ? Have a larger / stronger Marine carry it for them on top of their own gear ? Remember , they have to carry enough for each individual Marine to survive on and be combat effective without resupply and all of the issued gear weighs pretty much the same .

Then you add in (and I am going by the weapons/gear I used when in the Corps) additional ammo , weapons , tri-pods , M60/SAW ammo for assistant gunner , M203 40mm grenades , 50 cal receivers/barrels , mortar tube/baseplate and personal gear that the Marine chose to carry . So again I ask , are larger Marines or soldiers supposed to carry the standard weight , their weapons , ammo and then even more gear so the smaller Marines or soldiers can carry less or what would be proportional to their body weight ?

Not how it works . You carry your load , PERIOD . You can not say "Well , that Marine is smaller or this Marine is female , so they can carry less into the field ." If it were proportional to their individual weight , then that means said Marine is not carrying enough gear to survive in the field .

I have seen men struggle carrying the weight of just the standard, bare minimum at the time . It was why I was more than happy to be in artillery . But we were still required at the time to perform a force march as the infantry did . Have you ever humped several miles with an ALICE pack stuffed with gear , your personal weapon , and a baseplate for a mortar or ammo cans for a 50 cal or belts of M60 ammo around your neck ? I have and after a few miles it became brutal and I was/am a big guy .

ETA : Now do not think I am saying a woman could not be combat effective and can not do the same things as a man . I know a few that can . But Marines (and soldiers in the Army I am guessing) carry all this gear for a reason and exceptions in combat situations can not be made to make it easier for someone who is weaker . You need the three Bs' when going into combat "Beans , Bullets and Band-aids" and you may have to carry your own , for a long distance and need to carry enough for several days . If one can not carry their own weight and what they need themselves then they are a liability to the unit . A unit is as strong as it's weakest link

ive always said that women are a distraction. whether it's in combat or just driving on the road. men are distracted by women. in male oriented jobs, though there are some/few women who can outperform a man. this is not the case for the majority. so we're taking in 99% distraction to get 1% female contribution that is up to standard.

now.. woman.. get back in the kitchen where i can distract you from cooking while expecting you to finish on time

its a tough job. but someone's gotta do it.

hugelolcdn.com...

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

"Study verifies that females are anatomically designed to give birth to human offspring"

I think the study should be whether males or females are better at giving birth... A good 10 billion should find the answer...

The truth is there are some women better then some men, so if ANYONE can meet the minimum standards they are good to go. If the passing score is 70 and mixed groups get 75 to 85 on an average and all male groups average 80 to 90 on the scores who really cares in the end unless we are giving our ribbons and we are not. Can you fight, or not, at a minimum level, period.

This also opens up 2X the number of eligible people for selective service. When the times comes for a draft we just increased the total number of our future fighters....as the saying goes "be careful what you wish for", you just might get it, and not like it.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Can you fight, or not, at a minimum level, period.

I doubt this has been said by any US Marine...ever.

The Marines are not, nor will they ever be, about the 'minimum level'. Quite frankly, that is the antithesis of their very ethos.

a reply to: trollz

But...but...wait!!!!

We're all equal! Nobody is better than anyone else at anything.

Little League Soccer gives you trophies for just plain showing up.

originally posted by: peck420

The Marines are not, nor will they ever be, about the 'minimum level'. Quite frankly, that is the antithesis of their very ethos.

Are you a prior Marine? I have been around 1000s of them side by side in Afghanistan and here in the states. Your 100% might be 71 on a score with 70 needing to pass, another persons 100% might be 95%....as a Marine both are looked as equals since both persons gave 100%. As I said there are no ribbons handed out...you either do or do not within a minimum standard. I'm sure EVERY Marine gets 100% on their PFT or they are kicked out....

a reply to: Xtrozero

Minimally capable combat troops are know by another name:

Cannon fodder.

a reply to: Xtrozero

The truth is there are some women better then some men, so if ANYONE can meet the minimum standards they are good to go. If the passing score is 70 and mixed groups get 75 to 85 on an average and all male groups average 80 to 90 on the scores who really cares in the end unless we are giving our ribbons and we are not. Can you fight, or not, at a minimum level, period.

That is idiotic. If you have a choice, why would you pick a group with a lower average?

If it is an all out war and there is a shortage of troops I could understand this line of thought, but not when maintaining a professional army. You want the very best you can get.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

It's not pushing buttoms in combat,it's frontline killing and fighting ,THAT is what they want women to do as well.

a reply to: pheonix358

I'll tell you...www.npr.org...

a reply to: Shamrock6

WHAT?
No cooling breeze of a bullet whizzing by?
Serioiusly it's about some wanting rank at the expense of all.
The name of the game is winning not social equallity.
JUST ONCE, I WISH we could take these people to a frontline fight so they could feel it and smell it,all the non quanitfying BS would be wiped from their minds with bullets coming their way.

originally posted by: RogueWave

That is idiotic. If you have a choice, why would you pick a group with a lower average?

Picked for what?

I see a level of ignorance here with a few posts as people seem to get butt hurt over my use of the statement "minimum standards", so lets get it straight, ok?

EVERYTHING in the military has a minimum standard associated with it, EVERYTHING. You want to be a Navy Seal you must do better than their minimum standards, now a Navy seal's minimum standard is a extremely hard thing to do and quite an accomplishment, but do not kid yourself they have a minimum standard.

I run a drone pilot school, and I have students that are rock stars and some that just squeak by, and I have a good number that fail out...unable to meet our minimum standards. Our minimum standards are pretty damn high so just doing better than them you are actually a very capable person.

In the Military there are minimum standards and if ANYONE can pass them for whatever job then they earn the right to be called a Soldier, Ranger, Combat Controller, Seal, Pilot, etc...

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Xtrozero

Minimally capable combat troops are know by another name:

Cannon fodder.

Or admin.... JKing

IDNK, but becoming the very basic troop is not a very hard event to accomplished... It's about as hard as getting a drivers license. Some people can't get one, but 100s of million have...so I would not call that a big accomplishment unless you are 14.

a reply to: trollz

If this is true:

...the top 25 percent of female performers and the bottom 25 percent of male performers overlapped, meaning that the strongest women had the same power as the weakest men

Then why is this also true:

The experiment also allowed women to take part in training programs that had previously been closed to them... ...While 71 percent of men successfully graduated from the Infantry Officer Course, not one woman managed to pass in 29 attempts.

If 71% of men pass then in 29 attempts 20 of them will graduate. If 20 graduate and 25% of them overlap with the top 25% of woman then 5 of them are comparable with top performing females. Shouldn't this mean at least a couple woman should have passed, if it was only physical constraints holding them back? Or is graduation STRICTLY based on physical power, meaning top performing woman WON'T graduate--also meaning the 25% weakest men won't graduate either?