Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Research Question: 1970's Era Women in Field Artillery Experiment
WilliamRussell.net ^ | 8/25/2015 | Bill Russell

Posted on 08/25/2015 7:58:15 AM PDT by Bill Russell

Fellow Freepers, I am looking for the name and results of a late 1970's (perhaps 1980-81) field artillery experiment in which an all female gun crew were tested to see if they could sustain a required rate of fire. I am having trouble locating a copy of it or information on it. I remember Brian Mitchell wrote about it in his book Weak Link: The Feminization of the Military @1990 (I lent my copy out years ago and have not seen it since.) Any links would be greatly appreciated. V/R Bill


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: armycombatarms; artillery; combat; women
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-44 next last

1 posted on 08/25/2015 7:58:15 AM PDT by Bill Russell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Bill Russell

Logic and facts play no part in this discussion.

This is about money and power.


2 posted on 08/25/2015 8:06:12 AM PDT by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueunicorn6

Yes, it is about money and power. However, facts and the perception of those facts, do impact the arguments for money and power...


3 posted on 08/25/2015 8:17:43 AM PDT by Bill Russell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bill Russell

Thanks for the reference...I will poke around and see if that surfaces anywhere in my library network...

Holy smokes. I watched a video to see the loading process for a 155mm weapon, and that looked like dangerous, back-breaking work to me (bunch of Marines out in Iraq). Trying to find out how much the shell weighs, it looks like 100+ lbs, and watching a guy pick one up, hump it over to the breech looking somewhat crab-legged...

I could see how average guys might be able to do it, but I am skeptical that average women (not pumped up by exercising constantly, taking steroids and/or drinking protein drinks all the time could do it.

That looked dangerous...lots of big, moving parts with lots of force to sever limbs behind them.


4 posted on 08/25/2015 8:19:17 AM PDT by rlmorel ("National success by the Democratic Party equals irretrievable ruin." Ulysses S. Grant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bill Russell

False choice. The question is not, at least primarily, what can women do or can’t do. The question is how will the behavior of men change. Not just the obvious “Love Boat” issues but otherwise. Remember the Japs tortured captives on Iwo Jima and Guadalcanal in the hearing of their buddies.


5 posted on 08/25/2015 8:20:17 AM PDT by wastoute (Government cannot redistribute wealth. Government can only redistribute poverty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bill Russell
I had this discussion the other day, and created this graph to illustrate the fundamental differences, which if correct (I think it is in the ball park) shows it at a glance:


6 posted on 08/25/2015 8:21:47 AM PDT by rlmorel ("National success by the Democratic Party equals irretrievable ruin." Ulysses S. Grant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bill Russell; GreyFriar

Hmm, I served in the Army field Artillery in the late 70’s and don’t remember this, pinging another FAer.


7 posted on 08/25/2015 8:21:48 AM PDT by PROCON (FReeping on CRUZ Control)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wastoute

True. I look at this in three parts not necessarily in the order of importance:

1.) Unit cohesion and dynamics

2.) Physical strength and capabilities of AVERAGE female vs AVERAGE male

3.) Logistical and operational consideration (assignments, maternity considerations, equipment differences gear/accomodations/etc)


8 posted on 08/25/2015 8:25:14 AM PDT by rlmorel ("National success by the Democratic Party equals irretrievable ruin." Ulysses S. Grant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PROCON

It looks to me like they still hump those shells, which I guess, in an extreme combat situation where you don’t have a nice little machine that helps out in some way (I don’t even know if they have those or not) you would have to revert to.

Is it as nut crunching as it seemed from the video (relatively high fire rate, it seemed)?


9 posted on 08/25/2015 8:27:18 AM PDT by rlmorel ("National success by the Democratic Party equals irretrievable ruin." Ulysses S. Grant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Bill Russell

They will argue that auto loaders can be built.

The Liberals want more control over the military and they think they can get it if half of the admirals and generals are female.

I believe that the Israelis had a female paratroop Infantry unit.

Some of them were captured during the 56 War.

The Israelis no longer have female Infantry units.

Nobody discusses that.

Auto loaders.


10 posted on 08/25/2015 8:28:06 AM PDT by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rlmorel

Depends on the time of the month. : )


11 posted on 08/25/2015 8:31:05 AM PDT by minnesota_bound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rlmorel
I was in the fire direction center, (FDC), believe me, those 175mm and 8" shells were HEAVY, not to mention the numerous powder charges they also humped to the gun or Howitzer breach depending on the range needed.

I don't specifically remember the rate of fire but probable 5-6 rounds per minute.

12 posted on 08/25/2015 8:34:51 AM PDT by PROCON (FReeping on CRUZ Control)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: PROCON

The video I watched looked like they could do four a minute (I timed it) maybe five, but I couldn’t see how they could speed it up at all. Looked like they were humping it as it was, but...if things were crazy, I could see how people could really bypass some of the safety things and squeeze out an extra round.

Ugh. It looked to me, though, that the things they do are somewhat written in blood, so they might have to be really hard pressed in combat to ignore them...


13 posted on 08/25/2015 8:45:40 AM PDT by rlmorel ("National success by the Democratic Party equals irretrievable ruin." Ulysses S. Grant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: rlmorel
Trying to find out how much the shell weighs, it looks like 100+ lbs...

IIRC, 95# for the 155mm HE round. The Marines use only towed 155 howitzers, the Army has a mix of towed and self-propelled (SP). The SP M109 has only power for ramming the shell, not picking it up, unless that's changed with some of the newer variants. Then, the difficulty depends on whether the loader is working out of the on-board racks or having to lift it from the tailgate when the shell is brought from the ammo vehicle. With the on-board racks, you work from about chest-high to belly-high on the ramming table.

14 posted on 08/25/2015 8:52:46 AM PDT by T-Bird45 (It feels like the seventies, and it shouldn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PROCON; Bill Russell

I was out of artillery units and at the pentagon by ‘81. I’ll do some searching.


15 posted on 08/25/2015 8:55:36 AM PDT by GreyFriar (Spearhead - 3rd Armored Division 75-78 & 83-87)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: T-Bird45

In the video I watched, the shells were lined up (”pointy end” straight up...:) and the guy would walk over, bend down, pick the thing up cradling it, and crab-walk about 10-15 yards over to the weapon!

My back got sore just looking at it sitting in a chair, but...you know how 19 year old guys are.


16 posted on 08/25/2015 8:56:14 AM PDT by rlmorel ("National success by the Democratic Party equals irretrievable ruin." Ulysses S. Grant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: rlmorel

The rate-of-fire is determined by two factors: one is human capability, the other is the rate that can be taken by the equipment. The rate quoted by PROCON is one that can be sustained for a certain period within the skills/strength/training of the crew. The rate can be exceeded in combat situations but will accelerate tube wear and require more time later for a replacement by ordnance.


17 posted on 08/25/2015 8:57:47 AM PDT by T-Bird45 (It feels like the seventies, and it shouldn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Bill Russell

If the report was not favorable, it was probably buried a long time ago.


18 posted on 08/25/2015 9:04:19 AM PDT by smokingfrog ( sleep with one eye open (<o> ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog
"...If the report was not favorable, it was probably buried a long time ago..."

Yeah. Like January 20, 1993 at exactly 12:15 PM, the fifteen seconds about how long it takes for an incoming president to recite the now meaningless oath of office.

I am surprised there isn't an opt-out option now for Muslim presidents, like there is for Muslims who are becoming US citizens.

19 posted on 08/25/2015 9:16:29 AM PDT by rlmorel ("National success by the Democratic Party equals irretrievable ruin." Ulysses S. Grant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: rlmorel

Oops, I meant 12:00:15 PM...


20 posted on 08/25/2015 9:17:12 AM PDT by rlmorel ("National success by the Democratic Party equals irretrievable ruin." Ulysses S. Grant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-44 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson