Posted on 07/11/2016 7:31:04 AM PDT by Perseverando
Marine Corps implements force integration plan, graduates first female artillery officers Second Lt. Virginia Brodie points out an enemy position to 2nd Lt. Katherine Boy at the Field Artillery Basic Officers Leadership Course at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, May 12, 2016. Brodie and Boy are the first two female Marine artillery officers to complete the course. Photo By: Lance Cpl. Julien Rodarte
The Marine Corps’ first female artillery officers graduated from the Field Artillery Basic Officers Leaders Course at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, recently.
In the joint Army and Marine course, the Corps’ newest artillery officers met operationally relevant, gender-neutral military occupational specialty standards in order to graduate. This approach matches qualified Marines with the most suitable occupations in an effort to enhance the combat readiness of the force.
“The officer’s course here is difficult,” said Col. Wayne Harrison, commanding officer, Marine Detachment Fort Sill. “It has a mix of technical and physical requirements that challenges the students.”
One of the female officers who passed the course was 2nd Lt. Virginia Brodie. She graduated number one of the 137 students in both the gunnery portion of the course and in overall score and was recognized as her class’ distinguished honor graduate.
“I really love this job and want to be a fire direction officer in a fire direction center, so that makes it easy to put in the extra time and effort,” Brodie said.
(Excerpt) Read more at quanticosentryonline.com ...
In a sane world, we'd not need to ask the question.
And "when" female U.S. military personnel are captured by ISIS, that's what they'll be asking themselves too?
The good news is muslims are extra gentle with female prisoners of war
Actually, I would think that’s not the only question that’s needs asking. Now I will admit I am not a veteran, so I have no military experience. But I’m entitled to my opinion nonetheless.
That being said, I would think the questions to be asked are, can a woman do the job as well a man? Can she do it as well as an older man, since physical fitness declines with age while soldiers, airmen, and Marines continue to serve as they get older. Can a woman perform the same under duress in combat, when the chips are down and you have to carry a sounded comrade to safety? What monetary cost will be required to accommodate females? What cost to unit cohesion and readiness? Will the double standard of drafting men while allowing females to only volunteer continue?
It seems to me there’s a whole lot if questions to be asked.
And they only answer is, on average, no they cannot. And even those at the highest end of the strength spectrum of females cannot do the job as well for as long, and once they get injured or stop extensive and unusual physical training, absolutely not.
Don’t see where that has anything at all to do with it.
More leftist insanity. I seriously doubt those women could hump big arty shells if the gun crew is killed off leaving her to do or die. I assume the male arty officers used to be required to do so, if necessary.
“Can she do it as well as an older man”
In her prime, she can’t hold a candle, physically, to a 50 year old man still in uniform.
QUESTION: Can Women do these jobs as effectively as men without impacting mission capability and mission readiness?
Answer: "This is a political question, and has nothing to do with the capability of women or unit preparedness of military units. Furthermore, the people who want females in all jobs do not care about capability or readiness. Regardless of the effects on capability or readiness, we are going to open up all MOS in the military for females. We are framing this as a civil rights and gender rights question, so the discussion is not even open for discussion."
This should help make women more combat effective - US Marines To Accept Chubbier Women
Yep. When I was researching this a while back, I came across vido from Iraq of men humping 155 mm shells from the back of a truck to a field piece about 20-30 yards away.
The men would grab them off of the back of a truck, and duck walk them to the destination, put them on the ground, and go back for another.
It looked like back breaking work.
Now, I am sure that one could find women who could carry a few. But I doubt the average female could carry even a single one. The military did studies on this with 105 mm ordinance, and found that women couldn’t do it effectively. And those are a lot lighter.
The military likes to think that future combat will not be as dependent on physical capability as it was in the past, and nothing could be further from the truth.
If a unit is at some artillery outpost manned by mixed gender units, and whatever automated loading or transporting equipment is either nonfunctional or damaged, there will be little choice but to manually carry those pieces of ordinance from point A to point B.
Any guesses on who is going to hump those shells, and who is going to pull the lanyard? And given that there are soldiers out there whose lives may depend on a fire mission, waiting to fix the equipment isn’t an option.
This is insanity.
>>Absolutely no way women could handle doing our job, not to mention humping 155mm or 8” rounds down on the big guns.
There is one of the big issues right there, just pure physical ability. Then there are the many other issues.
I am going to repost a post I made on the general subject of women in combat arms from another thread from Fall 2015:
Comments from my niece’s boyfriend on the women Rangers and the convenient loss of their training records a week or so ago. Applies here too.
He was a Marine 240 gunner, spent time in Afghanistan, this guy is serious business, we probably wish he’d gone to SEAL school, he’d have had a much better than average shot at it. Here’s his commentary on the Ranger school records debacle:
“Oh trust me, I’m aware. S*** makes my blood boil. I’m not even phased by the fact that they’re deliberately hiding the records of the females’ performance. I can only imagine how heavily that course was catered to the females, not to mention the fact that they probably outranked the entire instructor cadre.
We had a female interpreter in afghan, she was at the Company COP so I never saw her. She ended up having an affair with our Co 1st Sgt (surprise).
We also worked with the Brits for a while, since they had a patrol base not far from my squads pb. They also happened to bring in a female interpreter...pregnant in under 2 months, and sent home. Probably got an award for it.
Even if there were females that could meet the minimum physical requirements for the infantry, that s*** will never work. It’ll be detrimental to the combat effectiveness of whatever unit they end up in. Let’s not forget the American “victim” mentality as of late. I can’t even fathom how many sexual harassment cases that would be filed. Then the rape accusations, pregnancies, relationships affecting roles and promotions, oh and the fact that no woman on the planet could firemans carry my 240lb a** with 100+lbs of gear out of a kill zone.
Rant over.
< next email, a few minutes later>
Ok I lied, rant wasn’t finished.
At the schoolhouse I taught at, we brought in non infantry units (POGs) and put them through several infantry centric courses. We had a strict standard of training and had no issues failing females or Marines that outranked us as instructors. This brought us some attention from higher ups on one occasion. A female warrant officer brought pizza for all 50 of “her” marines in our course. During their final exercise. We stopped her and reminded her of the fact that no outside food was permitted in our course. She returned with, “The four females I have in the class are going to feel sexually harassed by you if you don’t let them eat this pizza”.
Yes.
And if you say the things that point out the COLD HARD REALITY of these things, and that COLD HARD REALITY is at odds with Hollywood’s version of a GI Jane who can go against 5 men at the same time and whip them all, then you are a sexist and a fossil.
So be it. People who have served know exactly what I mean, and am not saying this out of disrespect towards women. I have nothing but respect for hardworking women, and have given my best for those above me for years, because they are deserving of the effort.
But women in combat is a mistake.
Every combat veteran from any war I have ever had the opportunity to discuss this with, all have exactly the same opinion: No.
I recently had a lot of plane time on an overseas flight, and went to gutenberg.org for some reading material for my tablet. I found that a bunch of folio histories of major Marine actions in the 1941-1945 Pacific War were out there. They’re each around 100+/- pages, and I read them all on the trip.
Anyone who can read these histories, and think women have any place in serious ground combat, is a complete fool. I already knew this, but given all that has been going on, reading these really cemented it. Unfortunately, these decisions are being made by Leftist politicians with no serious knowledge of the military or military history.
Pacific Campaigns and Battles here:
http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/World_War_II_(Bookshelf)
>>>One of the female officers who passed the course was 2nd Lt. Virginia Brodie. She graduated number one of the 137 students in both the gunnery portion of the course and in overall score and was recognized as her class’ distinguished honor graduate<<<
Good for her. Sounds like she worked hard and succeeded.
Our Late Nephew was Marine Artillery. He did two Tours in Afghanistan.
This farce called "diversity makes us stronger" is having the opposite effect.
And it's all being done purposely to weaken our once, great country.
The enemy within.
Is that third pic, Boudicca the woman who led a revolt agaisnt the Romans in Britainna? Her and her army destroyed towns and the city of Londinium, trapping the civilians in some large building and slaughtering them all. She led a what would have been considered a terrorist revolt these days.
Although the story has it she was queen of the Icini, the dominant tribe in southern Britian, and some roman officers raped her daughters, and that’s why she started the rebellion.
Thanks for that link.
However, as I said in my post at #28 (and you, and many other Freepers surely agree) this has long since stopped being an honest discussion, and has become a fait accompli political decision devoid of “Facts and Logic” and full of “Emotions and Desire”.
The people responsible for this will likely be long gone when someone is called to account in the future over the disaster we are going to encounter.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Tacitus makes no mention of Boudicca actually engaging in physical combat during her revolt against the Romans. I mean, she can be pointed to as an example of a female leader in history who led her people against a foreign occupying power, but there is no reason to think she was cutting down Legionaries left and right in a show of physical prowess.
I imagine the recent History Channel documentary on Barbarians vs Rome showed her engaging in combat in some absurd display, but I didn’t watch that episode because the first one about Hannibal was laughable and mistake-ridden.
I don’t have cable and don’t watch television, but I always thought the History Channel was “The History Channel”, but as I recently found, they are far, FAR more interested in entertainment than facts.
My wife bought me the “Sons of Liberty” series,and I watched an episode and a half and was appalled. Someone on FR told me I should have known better, and they were right.
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.