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
That makes sense. I suppose if they had guys lined up on one side holding shells, and guys on the other side holding propellant...they could speed it up.
Looks like a damn tough job to me though. Must make it a little easier to bear when you know people are depending on you with their lives to get those rounds outbound...
Must make it a little easier to bear when you know people are depending on you with their lives to get those rounds outbound... Watch "We Were Soldiers Once...and Young" to get a reminder on the importance the infantry applies to a quick response by the artillery.
LOL...on FR, it is never a good thing to be in the running for the “Understatement of the Day” award, but...at least it isn’t running up on midnight for me like it USUALLY is...:)
Ping
When I was a cadet (1981-84), the test was frequently cited as proof that women and men were equally fit for combat arms MOS’s in all of our Equal Opportunity courses. But there always seemed to be something off about the “study” and what it was touted to prove.
However, I later learned the test was skewed because it only included the actual loading and firing of the rounds (I do not remember if it was a 105mm or 155mm). The test did not include the very physically demanding crew drills for operations (transporting, laying, stacking rounds, etc). I no longer heard about the test after Brian Mitchell published his book.
Depending on the load or explosive charge, projectiles are 90 or 100 pounds. My battle station was first loader (projectileman) on a 5" 38 naval gun. The projectiles weighed 55 pounds IIRC. We used to train on a mockup of the gun on the boat deck. Fired a few for real in training, at floating targets but never one in anger.
That test is referenced here:
http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/MilitaryReview/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20150430_art009.pdf
Auto-loader.
Requires a (separate, but equal) power supply (electric or hydraulic or mechanical engine. And fuel supply. And a way to pull it, move it, load it - rather than more food, fuel, shells, or powder or spare parts or tents and sandbags.
Requires hoses, leads, clamps, something to pull it and its trailer or “limber”. Another two helicopter flights in, two flights out.
Isn’t developed yet. How long and how many dollars will that take?
Wirks only on a flat, dry, available surface - or takes up more room on the back/working deck, recoil area, loading area.
How do you load the automatic loader that loads the gun/howitzer/towed cannon? How do you get the shells and powder from the trucks to the loader-end of the automatic loader when the fire support base is at the top of the mountain/hill (as in Vietnam) and requires sandbags and trenches all around - but no roads? (Ke Sanh anybody?)
How do you unload planes or helo’s to get you ammo and supplies and food and water to the FSB?
Who digs trenches?
How flexible does the loader of the automatic loader-loader need to be? What happens WHEN it breaks? Not “if” - but “WHEN” it breaks? Will your FSB ALWAYS be exactly as it was laid out on the factory floor and training base with plenty of room to move trucks and tracked vehicles around? Somebody going to assign forklift trucks and cranes to the FSB loadout?
?
• In the Deadlift test, 100% of the men could lift 135 lbs., and 98.4% of the women were able to do the same. The report adds, “The deadlift is primarily a lower-body weight movement utilizing the larger and stronger muscles of the posterior chain.” (pp. 33-39)
• Participants in the Clean & Press exercise had to do single lifts of progressively heavier weights (70 to 115 lbs.) from the ground to above the head. Of the 409 men, 80% lifted the heaviest weight, but only 8.7% of 378 women did so successfully. Six repetitions of a lesser weight (65 lb.) increased the failure rate even more.17
• In the 120 mm Tank Loading Simulation, a gunnery skills test, participants were asked to lift a simulated round weighing 55 lb., 5 times, in 35 seconds or less. Quoting the NHRC report, “Less than 1% of men . . . [compared to] 18.68% of the women . . . could not complete the tank loading drill in the allotted time.” The report added, “It would be very likely that failure rates would increase in a more confined space [such as a tank] and actually taking a round out of a horizontal tube and placing it into a horizontal breech.” (p. 35-39) 18
• In the 155 mm Artillery Lift-and-Carry, a test simulating ordnance stowing, participants were asked to pick up a replica 155 mm artillery round weighing 95 lb. and carry it a distance of 50 meters in under 2 minutes. Quoting the NHRC report, “Less than 1% of men . . .[compared to] 28.2% of women could not complete the 155 mm artillery round lift-and-carry in the allotted time.” The report added, “Marines were not required to place the round on their shoulder and were allowed to cradle the round. [If women had been] required to ‘shoulder’ the round and/or carry multiple rounds, the 28.2% failure would increase.” (pp. 35-39)
http://www.cmrlink.org/data/sites/85/CMRDocuments/InterimCMRSpecRpt-100314.pdf
The Department of the Army Historical Summary for 1978 has this section as part of Chapter 5:
In December 1977 the Military Personnel Center completed
[80]
a study of the effect on Army personnel management of increased women accessions and end strengths of 60, 80, and 100 thousand. Data was insufficient to determine the optimum female force, but the study concluded that the impact would be most severe if the Army were required to enlist women quickly. A comprehensive review of programs and policies for women in the reserve components was conducted by the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel. It indicated that much work remained to be done before women strength objectives could be determined.
The Human Engineering Laboratory studied the impact of increasing numbers of women soldiers on Army equipment design. It demonstrated the need for further research. A historical review by the Center of Military History showed that through the ages and throughout the world women have performed remarkably well in combat and as military leaders.
Another major project, Evaluation of Women in the Army (EWITA), was conducted at the U.S. Army Administration Center at Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana. The final report was released in May 1978. It was quite controversial because some recommendations ran contrary to Army policy. The original purpose of the EWITA study was to determine how many women by specialty and grade could be assigned to an Army unit without reducing the unit’s ability to accomplish its primary ground combat mission. The study group was unable to develop a methodology for setting limits to female participation in units.
On the basis of revised objectives, EWITA stated that certain officer and enlisted specialties should be closed to women while others should be opened. The first category included fourteen enlisted specialties recently opened to women which EWITA charged required physically demanding tasks beyond the average woman. The study recommended that the Army establish specific physical strength requirements for each specialty and develop standardized tests of the strength potential of enlistees.
The EWITA study found that officers and warrant officers in the field regarded pregnancy as the greatest impediment to full integration of women in the Army. During fiscal year 1977 15 percent of enlisted women on active duty became pregnant. Of these, 25 percent chose to leave the Army, 36 percent had abortions, and 39 percent carried to full term with an average time loss of twenty-one weeks. Many problems were associated with pregnancy, including reduced unit readiness, deployability, and morale. EWITA concluded that the Army’s current pregnancy policy was not cost effective and suggested two alterna-
[81]
tives: involuntary separation or absence without pay. The study also called for reevaluating policies pertaining to sole parents and intraservice marriages, redefining unacceptable fraternization, improving coed housing overseas, and placing greater emphasis on human relations in leadership training.
In June 1978 the Secretary of the Army established an EWITA II team to reexamine unit and specialty openings and closings to women based on the 20 December 1977 combat exclusion policy. Meanwhile the Army kept working on physical strength requirements and tests for military skills and specialties. A seminar held in January 1978 to examine the leadership problems and challenges caused by increased numbers of women in the Army identified many of the same areas of concern as the EWITA study. Other evaluations completed this year did likewise. The most pressing issues were pregnancy and sole parenthood.
In June 1978 field commanders were asked to provide feedback on their experiences with women soldiers. They were requested to address pregnancy, sole parenthood, the assignment of intraservice married couples, fraternization, physical capabilities of women, training, leadership, housing, uniforms and equipment, and proper employment. Once again pregnancy and sole parenthood emerged as major areas of concern. They were reported to have negative effects on deployability, morale, operational readiness, field training, time on the job, military specialties, and harmonious relations among unit members. Many soldiers felt that pregnant women and sole parents received preferential treatment and did not perform a fair share of various duties. The Army has been aware of this situation for some time and has taken a number of actions to alleviate it.
Starting in November 1977 commanders were required to advise pregnant soldiers of their option to remain in the service or be discharged and to explain their entitlements and responsibilities. The primary purpose of this counseling was to allow the pregnant woman to make an intelligent decision without pressuring her to be discharged.
While pregnancy is restricted to women, sole parenthood is not. Although a higher percentage of women soldiers are sole parents, there are more male than female sole parents in the Army. In fiscal year 1978 about 2 percent of the active force and 4 percent of reserve component personnel were sole parents. Effective 1 May 1978, dependent care counseling was required for all personnel, male and female, with three years or less service, who were sole parents or married to another service
[82]
member and had dependents. Commanders directed these soldiers to arrange for the care of their dependents so they could perform their military duties without interference and remain eligible for worldwide assignment. The Army advised commanders to stress that no special consideration would be given in duty assignments or stations solely on the basis of responsibility for dependents.
The Army changed the regulations pertaining to pregnant officers in May 1978. Regular Army officers must complete at least three years of active military service before they can submit resignations for reasons of pregnancy. All pregnant officers will be counseled by their commanders, whether they plan to remain in the service or resign their commission. The officer who wishes to remain on active duty will have to outline a plan for the physical and financial care of the child and make arrangements for child care during duty hours. Although commanders generally considered the new counseling policies effective, pregnancy and sole parenthood were still major problems, and further studies were under way at the end of the fiscal year.
Link is:
http://www.history.army.mil/books/dahsum/1978/ch05.htm
Thank you. The actual 1978 report, that was based upon questionairres rather than tests should be available from the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) for anyone who wants it and pays their fee.
And all of the Department of the Army Historical Summaries are on line at: http://www.history.army.mil/html/bookshelves/collect/dahsum.html
Additionally, almost every book and pamphlet that has been published by the US Army Center of Military History is available online in html or .pdf or to order hard copy from the GPO at:
http://www.history.army.mil/catalog/index.html
This is like the homosexual marriage issue.
How many homosexual marriages has anyone been invited to?
I haven’t even heard of one.
The issue wasn’t that homosexual’s were crying their eyes out because they couldn’t get married.
It was about getting government benefits and screwing up the institution of marriage.
Same with this. Women want more rank to have more power and money.
What would have happened if every homosexual was required to be married? Yep, lots of screaming.
So, let the females in the Combat Arms, but the deal requires that every female between the ages of 18 and 55 must register for the Selective Service.
Then, in true social science fashion, an experiment must be conducted.
1,000 females would then be drafted. No deferments for anything. They will go through Basic Training and Infantry training. No deferments and no washouts. You can’t complete a task? Move on.
This battalion would then be deployed to Afghanistan for a year and engage in close combat. No early outs for anything.
Then, take a look at the data.
Women don’t care about this because they don’t have to. Every American male knows that his life is on the line and could be lost in combat due to having a female there. Make the women care about this.
That shell is 98 pounds and is supposed to be picked up by two cannoneers on a tray under ideal crew conditions. However, under reduced gun crew conditions or drills, it is not uncommon for one cannoneer to hump the shell up to the breech.
The really heavy parts are the base plate the gun sits on and the spades at the end of the trails. Those take two guys to seat. Spreading the trails is rough to if you only have six guys to do it. Not to mention when you have to hook the gun to the prime carrier...
Summary, not for women.
I remember it well rom an article in the Field Artillery Journal.
They cherry-picked some women, and put them on the M-101A 105mm cannon. With the light weight shells and gun, they were able to meet their requirements and it was trumpeted as proof that there was no difference between men and women in the FA.
Utter bullshit.
Sigh. That seems to me like a guarantee when deployed/in combat.
Especially in combat. This is crazy. WTF are these people thinking? They obviously AREN'T.
Depressing because it is true: There are AMERICANS who are pushing this agenda with no regard to national security, battlefield readiness, or the lives of the men and women who will be sacrificed when the bullets begin to fly.
Sad, because this is where we are: most men in the military are bending over backwards not to have their voice heard saying: "This is a bad idea. We cannot integrate women into combat units without severely degrading readiness and the ability to perform the mission.
Brilliant: If I can take the money passage: "...Meanwhile, the argument to maintain the combat exclusion makes itself easily in every aspect. Including women in combat units is bad for combat, bad for women, bad for men, bad for children, and bad for the country. The argument for the combat exclusion is provable all the time, every time. Political correctness has no chance against Nature. Her victories are staring us in the face at all times. The men just keep being able to lift more and to run faster, harder, and longer with more weight on their backs while suffering fewer inju- ries. They just keep never getting pregnant. The combat units have needs that women cannot meet. Women have needs that life in a combat unit cannot accommo- date without accepting significant disadvantage and much greater expense. Where 99 percent of men can do the heavy-lifting tasks typical of gunners, but 85 per- cent of women cannot, there is no gap women need to fill..." That pretty much sums it up.
Uplifting, because this Marine who wrote the article is a Marine, and has demonstrated and successfully argued that there is a role for patriotic, dedicated women who want to serve their country as she did, and her service means no less because she wasn't kicking down doors. She is an American Woman, and her heritage and ideals have more in common with the tough as nails frontier women who conquered this country with their men. She makes the feminists look like the petulant, spoiled, anti-American no-loads that they are. This sailor salutes her.
Ominous, because this movement, like the liberal cancers it shares all qualities with, is not going away. The article you linked, smoking frog, describes this perfectly, and why it is inevitable. Because military readiness and capability is being sacrificed on the altar of an Orwellian concept that men and women can do the same tasks exactly the same. This altar will run red with the blood of both men and women, and we are going to suffer lives needlessly ended, battles lost, and a national humiliation the likes of which we haven't seen.
It won't happen now, and it won't happen during some years of the peacetime military. But when we get to a point we are fighting an enemy who is going to be evenly matched with us, we are going to lose, because they cannot be stupid enough to follow the path we have. And when it happens, the people who will scream the loudest in protest, are going to be the successors to the people who made this all happen, since they will likely be kicking back somewhere, comfortable in their Monday morning armchairs, talking about how it wasn't the emasculation of the military combat units that caused this, it was that we didn't spend enough time, money, and effort to make it work.
Anyway, one more time, the link provided by smoking frog, for those of you who want to read it: Women in Combat - The Question of Standards
Besides the obvious physical limitations the female gender has, and IMHO, this is enough to keep them out of all the Infantry, Armor and Field Artillery MOS's.
These jobs are physically demanding and demand team and unit cohesiveness.
Adding in the pregnancy factor among women, for me at least, this should also preclude them from serving in the Combat Arms.
No sexism, just fact.
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.