Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Women in Combat
Townhall.com ^ | February 6, 2013 | Walter E. Williams

Posted on 02/06/2013 3:46:10 AM PST by Kaslin

A senior Defense Department official said the ban on women in combat should be lifted because the military's goal is "to provide a level, gender-neutral playing field." I'd like to think the goal of the military should be to have the toughest, meanest fighting force possible. But let's look at "gender-neutral playing field."

The Army's physical fitness test in basic training is a three-event physical performance test used to assess endurance. The minimum requirement for 17- to 21-year-old males is 35 pushups, 47 situps and a two-mile run in 16 minutes, 36 seconds or less. For females of the same age, the minimum requirement is 13 pushups, 47 situps and a 19:42 two-mile run. Why the difference in fitness requirements? "USMC Women in the Service Restrictions Review" found that women, on average, have 20 percent lower aerobic power, 40 percent lower muscle strength, 47 percent less lifting strength and 26 percent slower marching speed than men.

William Gregor, professor of social sciences at the Army's Command and General Staff College, reports that in tests of aerobic capacity, the records show, only 74 of 8,385 Reserve Officers' Training Corps women attained the level of the lowest 16 percent of men. The "fight load" -- the gear an infantryman carries on patrol -- is 35 percent of the average man's body weight but 50 percent of the average Army woman's weight. In his examination of physical fitness test results from the ROTC, dating back to 1992, and 74,000 records of male and female commissioned officers, only 2.9 percent of women were able to attain the men's average pushup ability and time in the two-mile run.

In a January report titled "Defense Department 'Diversity' Push for Women in Land Combat" Elaine Donnelly, director of the Center for Military Readiness, points to U.S. Army studies showing that women are twice as likely to suffer injuries and are three times more undeployable than men. Women are less likely to be able to march under load -- 12.4 miles in five hours with an 83-pound assault load -- and to be able to crawl, sprint, negotiate obstacles with that load or move a casualty weighing 165 pounds or more while carrying that load. Plus, there are muscle-challenging feats, even for men, such as field repairs on an M1A1 Abrams tank.

Then there's the pregnancy issue, which makes women three to four times as likely as men to be undeployable. And once deployed, they often have to be medically evacuated, leaving units understrength. Finally, there's another difference between men and women rarely considered in deliberation about whether women should be in combat. All measures of physical aggressiveness show that men, maybe because of testosterone levels 10 times higher, are more aggressive, competitive and hostile than women. Those attributes are desirable for combat.

Here are a couple of what-if questions. Suppose a combat unit is retreating in mountainous terrain in Afghanistan, where a person's aerobic capacity really makes a difference, and the women in the unit can't keep up with the men. What would you propose, leaving the women behind to possibly be captured by the Taliban or having the unit slow down so the women can keep up, thereby risking causalities or capture? What if a male soldier is washed out of the Army's Advanced Infantry Training program because he cannot pass its physical fitness test whereas a female soldier who can't perform at his level is retained? Should male soldiers be able to bring suit and be awarded damages for sex discrimination? How much respect can a male soldier have for his female counterpart, who is held to lower performance standards?

There's another issue. The Selective Service System's website has the following message about draft registration: "Even though the Secretary of Defense has decided to allow women in combat jobs, the law has not been changed to include this. Consequently, only men are currently required to register by law with Selective Service during ages 18 thru 25. Women still do not register." How can that, coupled with differences in performance standards, possibly be consistent with the Defense Department's stated agenda "to provide a level, gender-neutral playing field"?


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: combat; womenincombat; womeninthemilitary
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

1 posted on 02/06/2013 3:46:19 AM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
"Even though the Secretary of Defense has decided to allow women in combat jobs, the law has not been changed to include this. Consequently, only men are currently required to register by law with Selective Service during ages 18 thru 25. Women still do not register."

I've always wondered why the N.A.Gs (National Association of Gals) never demanded equal rights in enrollment into Selective Service? I mean, if they truly want equality, they should have been demanding to be included in the draft registration for years.

Women in combat isn't about women in combat. It's about women officers commanding combat units so they can get the extra points towards promotion, ultimately to the General officer level.

2 posted on 02/06/2013 3:55:02 AM PST by Yo-Yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I find the notion that the US Military is a “playing field” to be extremely disturbing...


3 posted on 02/06/2013 4:01:38 AM PST by Hegemony Cricket (The emperor < still > has no pedigree.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I believe that every woman who want’s to be equal to a man must spend 4 years as a “roughneck” on a drilling rig prior to joining the military. That will give them the needed physical “bulking up” to even attempt to exhibit their manly traits and physical equality to men.


4 posted on 02/06/2013 4:04:35 AM PST by DH (Once the tainted finger of government touches anything the rot begins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I don’t have a problem with women taking up their 2A arms in the defense of restoring a legal and Constitutional America from Enemies foreign and domestic.

The whole thing is just a diversionary ploy by Obama, his skeet pics being the latest smokescreen.

His dictatorship lives to create division, to create smokescreens, to use one hand to get attention while the other is stealing your wallet.

Personally this situation will just have to be endured until America finds some way to get the stagehook upon this clown.


5 posted on 02/06/2013 4:07:13 AM PST by Eye of Unk (AR2 2013 is the American Revolution part 2 of 2013)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

If we assume that all of the info in the article is factual, it would seem that placing women in combat units is an insane thing to do ,and something that will get a lot of people killed.

Political correctness carried to insanity.


6 posted on 02/06/2013 4:16:08 AM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
There are yet more issues to consider.

1. Sexuality. Despite the Left's drive to ignore the aspects of this fact of life, we are pushing young men and women together into intimate proximity already in the services but it becomes a whole new issue in combat. As it used to be, you had units of men in isolated, miserable and highly stressed situations all suffering together. We developed a cohesion based on mutual deprivation and trust and we did our best for each other. Introducing some women means that some lucky individuals will have functioning relationships and they will focus on each other and inevitably to the exclusion of the others. The rest of the unit without relationships will resent those that do. Friction within the unit will damage cohesion and these rivalries will damage their combat effectiveness. Damaging combat effectiveness could mean that more people die than would normally be necessary.

2. Women usually can't keep up, as the article implies - the clusters of stragglers in most unit runs are mostly made up of women - because each infantry or other combat unit relies on each member of the team doing their jobs as integral parts of the unit, fire team members or squad members who can't keep up/do their job degrades the unit's performance. Therefore, more dead/wounded and greater chance of losing the fight.

3. Combat has not changed. We have had a couple of light counterinsurgency fights over the last decade that give the impression that wars are fought in vehicles and outposts but these are anomalies: most combat is of the high intensity maneuver variety and requires sustained exertion and continuous brutality. If you examine Tarawa, Hue City, or vignettes like the Battle of Fallujah and you get the picture. War has not really changed, we just conveniently think that it's changed - like a video game or something. Imagine how intense and vicious the fighting will be if we have to engage Iran or China sometime in the future.

These plans always come from people with no direct experience in combat - and always from people who won't be risking their own children. No, today's "decision makers" always risk somebody else's children with their social experiments.

7 posted on 02/06/2013 4:20:19 AM PST by Chainmail (A simple rule of life: if you can be blamed, you're responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Pregnancies won’t be as big an issue as in the past.....they’re going to be majorally a faggot/dyke force..... AIDS will be a bigger threat than pregnancy.


8 posted on 02/06/2013 4:23:44 AM PST by traditional1 (Amerika.....Providing public housing for the Mulatto Messiah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
...this will never happen...and then again, it doesn't need to be put into any type of actionable order...in an insurgency campaign - the battlefield is 360 degrees anyway...I knew and served with alot of MP females that were in engagements just like their male counterparts...the days of traditional warfare are over - no one wants to go onto a battle field with a nation that has command of the sky and space....insurgent warfare is where it stands now! To go way off topic - I submit this photo for your enjoyment!
9 posted on 02/06/2013 4:24:53 AM PST by BCW (http://babylonscovertwar.com/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BCW
no one wants to go onto a battle field with a nation that has command of the sky and space....insurgent warfare is where it stands now!

Our air fleet is geriatic. Drones can't see underground or underwater.

Generals are always fighting the last war especially if they won it (not sure if we won Afghanistan or Iraq) The next war may not be insurgent. We may have to go against someone who will fight back with modern weaponry.

10 posted on 02/06/2013 4:58:26 AM PST by USAF80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

This has NOTHING to do with “equality” or “equal opportunity”.

This is about destroying America and it’s infrastructure.

Tearing it down, brick by brick.


11 posted on 02/06/2013 5:10:54 AM PST by G Larry (Which of Obama's policies do you think I'd support if he were white?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

Equal opportunity would apply to officers more so than enlisted. The enlisted women I know want no part of combat. The officer ranks are a different story. They are more into getting promoted and being a woman with no combat experience can be a hindrance in the Army or Marines.

In the Air Force women can attain high ranks without any combat. It used to be aircrew in the AF would get all the rank. Aircrew who flew fighters and bombers saw combat so they had a higher rate of promotion. It is still like that. No one really cries about it because aircrew face danger and deserve the extra promotion points.


12 posted on 02/06/2013 5:20:08 AM PST by USAF80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
A senior Defense Department official said the ban on women in combat should be lifted because the military's goal is "to provide a level, gender-neutral playing field." I'd like to think the goal of the military should be to have the toughest, meanest fighting force possible. But let's look at "gender-neutral playing field."

The Democrats consider the military to be "meals on wheels" and world policemen. That is consistent with the new world order desired by communists, socialists, and Democrats. What suffers is combat readiness because too much is spent on social experiments, retrofitting ships to accommodate women, and deliberately insulting God.

You will see nothing related to the cost of taking care of pregnant women in the military, or the cost of accommodating women in formerly men only operations. I would guess that our military is only 60% of what it was before women and gays were brought into where they do not belong.

Being able to win is less important to Democrats in my opinion. Democrats value their warped and twisted view of a "Utopian" world where people are happy giving according to their ability and receiving according to their needs as determined by a centralized government.

13 posted on 02/06/2013 5:30:56 AM PST by olezip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G Larry
I believe it is more about tearing down white, heterosexual, Christian males.

They want to keep the infrastructure that we built.

14 posted on 02/06/2013 5:36:10 AM PST by Aevery_Freeman (Why high capacity magazines? Because there are so damn many liberals!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

That’s how I see it...this is yet another diversion (i.e. my photo above) to distract and pair off people that otherwise would not even consider this a topic of discussion...

This is to cause more division among troops and veterans...

Females I served with that were MP’s did what was expected of them - but to go after the 11B MOS - none of them wanted it nor would they have sought it out...

Liberals know this is going to strike a cord - while the time wasted in discussion - they further their plans elsewhere....

Kinda like the current ACU that is about to be replaced AGAIN with a newer digi-camo...and as an officer who just purchased new uniforms - these will last until the end of the year - until the NEWER ones come out...wasteful in time and money - just like thinking that the 11B will open up and females will run in and join - and PASS...doubt it...but as you have stated - it’s one more traditional platform they want to destroy!


15 posted on 02/06/2013 5:43:03 AM PST by BCW (http://babylonscovertwar.com/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Aevery_Freeman

“They want to keep the infrastructure that we built.”

You’re kidding, right?

Energy production,
Public Education,
Obamacare,
Farming,
Defense Industry,
Banking,
etc...


16 posted on 02/06/2013 5:44:40 AM PST by G Larry (Which of Obama's policies do you think I'd support if he were white?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Aevery_Freeman
When we are gone, the infrastructure we built will be no good to them.Why? Becaue the system we have only works for a moral Nation or a Nation with morals. When we are gone there will be no morality. Only degenerates preying on other degenerates. But as you say, they can't wait to get rid of us and our influence.

My only comment concerning sending women in combat is no culture, or Nation, or Empire in history that has sent its women into combatwhile its men stayed home has survived. We, as a Nation, wish to demonestrate that.

17 posted on 02/06/2013 5:46:35 AM PST by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Eye of Unk

I agree 100%. All diversion, all the time...as Obama does his real dirty work.

What convinced me was his releasing that ridiculous DON’T YOU DARE PHOTOSHOP THIS pic of his skeet shooting.

We are in big trouble.


18 posted on 02/06/2013 5:48:04 AM PST by Pigsley (nan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BCW

Yes.

That I can still meet the current “standards” as I turn 60 this year, is less a tribute to me, than a condemnation of the erosion of “standards”.


19 posted on 02/06/2013 5:49:37 AM PST by G Larry (Which of Obama's policies do you think I'd support if he were white?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

Good for you brother! Yes - I’m once again training for the APFT — got away from it - no excuses — once a warrior - always a warrior - therefore training never stops...


20 posted on 02/06/2013 6:01:09 AM PST by BCW (http://babylonscovertwar.com/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: All

When DoD suggests that allowing women in combat roles is “leveling the playing field” they are comparing combat to a game...

A GAME???????????????

What is WRONG with these imbeciles???????


21 posted on 02/06/2013 6:15:23 AM PST by Boonie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I was born with a blue cord on my shoulder, and retired with one, but...

I spent a short time in a Medium Girder Bridge unit with the engineers. In the 1990s, the unit picked up women in the mess, maintenance, and administrative sections of the company. One day, they came out to a bridge build in order to “try it out.” They grabbed the carrying handles and went over to a top panel - one of the lightest pieces on the site.

“Le ho, heave!”

Up went the top panel to knee level... for about half a second. Down went the top panel with a thud. They got it off the ground but immediately set it back down. Too heavy.

Everyone laughed.

On a REAL bridge build, the men often have to lift those top panels over their heads and hold them there until the chute bolts are put into place. Women can not do that. After I left that unit, it’s my understanding that the bridging sections finally got women. Their job on EVERY bridge site: PIN MAN. The *easy* job that everyone wants because it doesn’t involve lifting any bridge sections.

So much for a level playing field.


22 posted on 02/06/2013 6:24:28 AM PST by bolobaby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BCW
"Females I served with that were MP’s did what was expected of them - but to go after the 11B MOS - none of them wanted it nor would they have sought it out..."

Just because you don't seek out 11B doesn't mean it won't find you...


23 posted on 02/06/2013 6:29:39 AM PST by PLMerite (Shut the Beyotch Down! Burn, baby, burn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: G Larry
Not at all.

Energy production - love my electricity and gasoline: power without poop
Public education - progressives,not Christians: not guilty
Obama Care - see above
Farming - our biggest health problem is obesity not starvation
Defense Industry - the envy of the world!
Banking - double entry accounting allowed for the exploration (exploitation) of the entire world.
etc. Medicine, computers, TV's - Love 'em.

White Guys (used to) Rule

24 posted on 02/06/2013 6:29:45 AM PST by Aevery_Freeman (Why high capacity magazines? Because there are so damn many liberals!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: BCW
I suspect that there is an additional factor with this: fewer and fewer qualified males are signing up to serve their country. The services have had to make extraordinary changes to fill billets with women and older male candidates. It used to be that it was considered a rite of passage and a citizen's responsibility to serve a few years in uniform, particularly if a war was in progress. During Vietnam, we began to see this reverse with a majority of American males looking for deferments, dodging and hiding (Rush had butt cysts). I remember some darn woman yelling at me after I got back from Vietnam that she'd "never let her son join the Marines". I said "Ma'am, when I joined the Marines I didn't ask my Mom. When your son's a man, he won't ask you either".

Now those same dodgers and hiders are in positions of power and their children aren't serving either. The pool of parents supporting their children's enlistment is growing smaller all the time and the services are struggling to find the best available - since, contrary to mythology, only smart, fit, well-educated men perform well in the combat arms.

The bottom of the barrel will be visible soon as fewer and fewer top-quality volunteers will be available. We'd better hope that combat robots become available soon.

25 posted on 02/06/2013 6:31:26 AM PST by Chainmail (A simple rule of life: if you can be blamed, you're responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: USAF80

I have a hard time imagining a mixed sex battalion pulling off something like the Inchon landing, or invading a North Korea backed by the Chinese. I asked one person if they could imagine a battalion of 100% women making a landing at D-Day. I was told combat had changed.

That is a big part of the problem - the idiots think combat is a video game!


26 posted on 02/06/2013 6:41:34 AM PST by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Chainmail
We'd better hope that combat robots become available soon.

They have already spent millions to make this a possibility. Our combat troops are basically pack mules. The know that women can't hump the load. They have robotic mules and other stuff that they are testing. The issue they are having is portable power. A real mule just need some grass and water. A robotic one requires a power source that we have not invented yet. All fantasy on their part.

I never had to wear full combat gear but I had to wear all the protective gear, flak vest, helmet, LBE and chem gear, and that sh!t is heavy. I weighed 50lbs extra without the chem gear.

27 posted on 02/06/2013 6:58:24 AM PST by USAF80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Chainmail

I am also certain opening up the military to openly homosexual men did wonders for retention and recruitment. /s


28 posted on 02/06/2013 7:13:19 AM PST by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: jpsb

The economy is bad so no issues with retention or recruitment. Time will tell on those. Whatever negatives effects happen will be covered up or not reported for years. They are hoping that all us homophobes die off by then.


29 posted on 02/06/2013 7:18:47 AM PST by USAF80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: BCW

Sans using weapons of mass destruction and just killing everyone, boots on the ground win wars always have, always will.


30 posted on 02/06/2013 7:22:01 AM PST by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Aevery_Freeman

You’re missing my point!

This is the infrastructure BO is KILLING!!

Not “keeping”!


31 posted on 02/06/2013 7:26:54 AM PST by G Larry (Which of Obama's policies do you think I'd support if he were white?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: USAF80

I find that surprising, I could see that being true in the USAF, yall have nice quarters. but USA and USMC not so much.


32 posted on 02/06/2013 7:31:16 AM PST by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: USAF80

Robots will eventually take up all combat roles. Human reactions are too slow/can’t take Gs/have families. We are looking at only the beginning edges of this evolution with telecommanded devices (like drones). Autonomous devices will follow before long, as soon as the software catches up. We don’t have a lot of choices - we will not get enough volunteers, we have become too casualty-averse, and we have to get this developed before our adversaries do.


33 posted on 02/06/2013 7:34:12 AM PST by Chainmail (A simple rule of life: if you can be blamed, you're responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: jpsb

True, the new AF standard is everyone will have their own room. The most you would have to share is a bathroom. No issue with a flamer or dyke sharing. The only time you would share is at a deployed location.


34 posted on 02/06/2013 7:36:36 AM PST by USAF80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Chainmail

I, Robot.

One software glitch or virus and war over. Computer chips can’t replace the 3lb shoulder mounter computer.


35 posted on 02/06/2013 7:45:28 AM PST by USAF80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Chainmail

Last time I was a commander over a training CO (2005 Ft Knox) - I started seeing that...and actually - since you brought that up — I was conducting range op’s for the M16A2 - and it had rained - and the firing positions were full of water - and out of the soldiers coming through that week...I was asked by the COL who showed determination and stood out as a soldier — there was only one I could think of - a female that once in the water never moved - laid there - and finished her entire firing course until done - everyone else was either laying to the side or would get up between lanes....

Which goes back to my other comment - as an MP - females I served with in combat (Iraq 03-04) - did what everyone else was doing,...one that I served with in FT Leonard Wood lost her arm from a RPG...perhaps the 11B series is on the brink of collapse due to no one wanting it - or no those that sign up are far from ever achieving it...


36 posted on 02/06/2013 10:55:54 AM PST by BCW (http://babylonscovertwar.com/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: jpsb

Lately - we are not in the business of winning anything...

Iraq has fallen back into a roller coaster civil war...and Afghanistan will as well...those two campaigns would have been better had we gone in level their infrastructure and then set-up operations that monitored what they did — kinda like playing babysitter with a heavily armed FOB and a US Carrier sitting outside...but winning wasn’t part of the plan over there...why we wasted our time and money to reconstruct I have no idea...plus the lives lost, both civilian & military, was highly unacceptable...we have move away from wars like WW II - Korea...those days are gone...


37 posted on 02/06/2013 11:01:27 AM PST by BCW (http://babylonscovertwar.com/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Chainmail

You write good posts on this topic, but of all the non serving conservatives, why choose one with a medical deferment instead of the fit ones who clearly wanted to avoid service, people like Santorum, or Romney, or Michael Medved, or Hugh Hewitt, Glenn Beck, etc?


38 posted on 02/06/2013 11:07:53 AM PST by ansel12 (Romney is a longtime supporter of homosexualizing the Boy Scouts (and the military).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: BCW

Why mention the loss of an arm as a defense to weaken the military by replacing men with females?


39 posted on 02/06/2013 11:17:42 AM PST by ansel12 (Romney is a longtime supporter of homosexualizing the Boy Scouts (and the military).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
Ah Ansel12 my Buddy - I agree; we had way too many avoiders who claim to be conservatives now and some actually deign to try to make defense policy! My particular focus is my war, Vietnam. It was the watershed: we had some folks avoiding Korea but not the droves we had during Vietnam.

Glenn Beck was a bit too young - he was 1 year old when I went into boot camp. Michael Medved is the right age to have gone but Hugh Hewitt was a bit too old for even the earliest part of the war. Mitt Romney is another avoider - we didn't very many Mormons (or Seventh Day Adventists or Jehova's Witnesses) in the Marines that I knew. There are a lot of others too - good 'ol "I had better things o do" Dick Cheney and many, many others. I pick on Rush because he talks a good game but when the country really needed tough men, he got his doctor to help him get out of the draft with Pilonidal cysts, something that easily treatable. In my own case, I had a broken back (discovered during my boot camp physical) thanks to a motorcycle wreck but I still joined because that was the thing we did back then. I have trouble with some guy that wants to speak for me but found some lame excuse to get other people to fight in his place (which includes Mitt).

I didn't bring up any Democrats because it is usually big surprise when the join. I'm not at all bitter, but the guys who were in Vietnam or supporting the war by serving elsewhere during that period are the finest people in the world. The ones that stayed home are what they are.

40 posted on 02/06/2013 11:36:00 AM PST by Chainmail (A simple rule of life: if you can be blamed, you're responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: BCW
I have served with really outstanding female service personnel and like you, I have observed some females who were more professional than a whole pack of males. The difference is direct combat. It is a whole different environment than any other human experience and it requires an almost superhuman set of capabilities. There is a tendency among combat support and combat service support specialties to look down on the "lowly grunt" but the infantryman has to have the capabilities, the wits, the team and the talent to win and survive while doing it. Infantry is no place for the weak, the stupid, or the distracted. A buddy of mine once said that we have three types of combat troop; the Killer, the Filler and the Fodder. Killers amount to no more than 20% - they are the ones that can retain their focus in the nightmare of a firefight and actually aim their weapons and kill their enemies. Fillers make noise, a lot of noise, and if you're lucky, they don't hit you or bystanders. They make up the main proportion of people on the line. Fodder are going to die no matter what you do for them. They are the ones that didn't pay attention to their training, walk on the skyline, don't dig in when you stop, smoke at night, open gates, walk in the middle of the trail, etc.

Adding ladies adds yet more complication. Now we will have the young men focusing on something other than what they have to be focused on and we will have less success and more dead and wounded.

I admire the patriotisim, honor, and fidelity of the young ladies who would volunteer for this duty but combat is not the right place for them.

41 posted on 02/06/2013 11:52:02 AM PST by Chainmail (A simple rule of life: if you can be blamed, you're responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Chainmail

I agree 100% with what you are saying. Females don’t need to be in the main fight - be it support or direct - I can tell you we would have gotten alot more done without the female presence - and this notion that they should be able to join in combat is ignorant and is nothing more than a distraction...Yes, the females I served with that were MP’s did an outstanding job - but there is no place for them on the battlefield - in that, they are - the ones I have served with have sacrificed as we all did - some others been killed - some wounded - but I agree, they should be there.


42 posted on 02/06/2013 3:53:25 PM PST by BCW (http://babylonscovertwar.com/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: BCW
Females don’t need to be in the main fight - be it support

Females are terrible in support as well, all of the same inadequacies are there. The only places that they don't hurt things, is where they used to be, in finance, at the hospitals, in the legal buildings, strictly office work.

43 posted on 02/06/2013 5:13:54 PM PST by ansel12 (Romney is a longtime supporter of homosexualizing the Boy Scouts (and the military).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: USAF80
"Computer chips can’t replace the 3lb shoulder mounter computer."

At this moment in time, you are correct. Fairly soon, the battlefield won't have any places for humans except as victims. As an Air Force guy, you should be the first to recognize that we have antiair systems now that are nearly impossible to avoid or defeat - altitude, speed, maneuvering, jamming, even stealth attributes are being overcome by new systems. The air will be nearly unsurvivable soon. Standoff weapons are just an interim solution. The future is unmanned delivery, unmanned persistent airspace control, with no vulnerable links to remote piloting stations.

Like everyone else, I will remember the "white scarf in the slipstream" days with warmth (both of my Uncles were WWII fighter pilots) but the lower reaches of the atmosphere will be the province of machines in battle - and whomever has the best machines will be the winner.

44 posted on 02/07/2013 3:51:42 AM PST by Chainmail (A simple rule of life: if you can be blamed, you're responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Chainmail

All you say is possible now but they will still keep man in the loop for the foreseeable future. Robots may play a factor as far as freeing up the humans on some tasks.

The cheapest and very effective anti-missile technology is a loadmaster looking out a troop door with a chaff and flare release control. WW2 technology still being used.

A drone cannot tell the difference between a school bus full of kids or one full of people wishing to do us harm.


45 posted on 02/07/2013 4:59:08 AM PST by USAF80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: USAF80

I am not sure how current your knowledge is. We already have antiair systems that wouldn’t give your loadmaster any chance to recognize the threat much less react to it. Chaff and flares only work on slower shoulder-fired heat-seeking missiles. There are also target recognition technologies that will differentiate between different types of hostile people and friendlies/noncombatants. It’s not 100% yet, hence the wait. Robots will eventually take up all combat roles - possibly within our lifetimes. Drones are only the first rung in the ladder.


46 posted on 02/07/2013 10:38:05 AM PST by Chainmail (A simple rule of life: if you can be blamed, you're responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Chainmail; USAF80

Unless things have advanced greatly in the last 5 years, we’re a long way away from taking the man out of the loop in air combat. Your analysis of air defense systems is inadequate, BTW. Not that we can discuss it in detail here...


47 posted on 02/07/2013 10:46:55 AM PST by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Chainmail
I am not sure how current your knowledge is.

I know a lot more than I can post here. Lets leave it at that.

48 posted on 02/07/2013 11:07:02 AM PST by USAF80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers; USAF80

Sure. Like there’s not enough to support my contentions in Aviation Week...
Your loadmaster might have a problem with a Patriot, right?
I love the “if told you, I’d have to kill you” tack..


49 posted on 02/07/2013 1:54:41 PM PST by Chainmail (A simple rule of life: if you can be blamed, you're responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Chainmail; USAF80

Sorry, but I worked operational test before retiring. You don’t know enough to know what you don’t know. You can trust me, or you can at least review the history of EW enough to figure out that anything man can build, man can defeat.


50 posted on 02/07/2013 2:47:22 PM PST by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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