Posted on 10/16/2015 12:43:24 PM PDT by QT3.14
Since this finding conflicts with liberal theology that females can and should do anything that a man can do, this will soon be buried.
How do they shoot at 200 yds? at 300 yds? or at 500 yds?
Those are ranges Marines train at.....
Hang in there, Marine Corps - somebody has to preserve sanity in the combat arms.
How do they shoot when being shot at?
It seems the Army shredded their training records.
And it seems from other sources, female West Point grads have done a FOIA for the Rep. Russell's Ranger training records in retaliation.
maybe the tests were done for shooting by running and then shooting which is totally different than on a range just standing there. Could be they had to shoot with their equipment on too.
Just said the same. Doing a run carrying weight and then shooting on the move is much different than a range shot.
Not sure why some feel that they have to defend their mothers , wives over shooting when shooting with weight, after a run, panting is different.
bfl
I am totally flabbergasted!
Absolutely and totally flabbergasted!
In fact, I do not remember a time when my flabber has been more gasted.
Here is the money passage from her article: "...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.
I found the article 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.
But I also found this article ominous, because this movement, like the liberal cancers it shares all qualities with, is not going away. The article 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.
Here is the link for those of you who want to read it, I highly recommend it: Women in Combat - The Question of Standards, by Jude Eden
I think all or nearly all of the great snipers were also hunters.
The greatest of them all, Simo Hayha, along with Russias Zaitsev and Carlos Hathcock were all hunters. Spelling could be wrong on all these btw.
Of course Hathcock was also Wimbledon Champion. It makes me think that hunting is the best training for a sniper.
In particular, it is the red hatched area under the graph that is the problem, apart from the injuries, pregnancies, effects on unit cohesion, and so on. (though the red hatched area is probably directly related to the increased incidence of injuries. By the way, from that article, here is what she had to say about injuries:
In his 2013 book Deadly Consequences: How Cowards Are Pushing Women Into Combat, retired Army Col. Robert Maginnis describes several military studies showing the physical suffering of women in combat:
A U.S. Navy study found the risk of anterior cruciate ligament injury associated with military training is almost ten times higher for women than for men.
A sex- blind study by the British military found that women were injured 7.5 times more often than men while training to the same standards. ...
Women suffer twice as many lower-extremity injuries as men, an Army study found, and they fatigue much more quickly because of the difference in “size of muscle,” which makes them more vulnerable to non-battle injury.
Marine Capt. Katie Petronio, writing in the Marine Corps Gazette about Officer Candidate School, states, of candidates who were dropped from training because they were injured or not physically qualified, females were breaking at a much higher rate than males, 14 percent versus 4 percent. The same trends were seen at TBS [The Basic School] in 2011; the attrition rate for females was 13 percent versus 5 percent for males, and 5 percent of females were found not physically qualified compared with 1 percent of males.
We females can train as hard as we like, and we may increase strength, stamina, and fitness. Nevertheless, our increased fitness still will not put us on par with that of the men who are training to their utmost, like men in combat units and the Special Forces. They are the top ten percent of the top ten percent. We also bear too many other risks to be cost effective. No matter how widespread feminism becomes, our bones will always be lighter, more vulnerable to breaks and fractures. Our aerobic capacity will still be 20 to 40 percent less, and we will still be less able to bear heavy gear at a hard-pounding run.
I can assure you that in my 27 years of active service to the Republic I never, not once, degraded my unit's mission readiness by being pregnant.
well I don’t have a spot to shoot past 400yds, but with my hand loads with some of the wildcats, my wife could keep up or beat anyone I know personally. We usually play with .22 hornet out to 150yds. beyond that, we graduate to 25-06 usually, sometimes .220 swift (I’m kind of a legacy wildcat type). I was simply commenting on the lack of accuracy statement. the battlefield or even advanced field training is not a comparable environment, nor is it suited for women.
The issue is that combat isn't just shooting a gun, it is a lot of physical humping of a lot of stuff ranging from rations to 155 mm shells.
I agree 100% that there are some women out there who absolutely could hold their own with men. But they are more likely to be at the top of the physical pyramid for women which is likely closer to average or a bit above average for men.
It is very hard for a woman to go straight through 13 weeks of boot camp without sustaining an injury. My daughter joined the Marines right out of High School in 2005 and had to sit out twice and wait for the next rotation each time to re-join a platoon that was coming in behind her. She entered in February and graduated toward the end of June. She said her original platoon only had 5 women that made it through the normal 13 weeks.
I don’t doubt that is true for a number of career military females, but the issue isn’t about a percentage of women who will never get pregnant (and thank you for your service, by the way)
The issue is more related to that graph I posted. That is something women cannot overcome without injections of testosterone, or by a small percentage of women who train like Navy Seals and have a robust physical makeup to begin with, but as the linked article states, as soon as those women stop training non-stop, they begin to regress back to the more natural physical state for them.
All one has to do is look at Women’s world records in track and field or the NFL and ask the simple question.
How did these 3 women Rangers become better than all other women in the entire world?
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.
