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

To: centurion316

Not infantry but nonetheless she was wearing body armor. That it was not even a front line location emphasizes the point rather than refutes it. And she has serious weight-stress related injuries recognized by the VA.

Wiki says....... U.S. troops routinely burdened with upwards of 100 lbs. of weapons, ammunition, armor, food, water, and other assorted equipment.

Why would you want to quibble about the obvious physical impact of putting women in roles for which their physiognomy is not designed?


63 posted on 10/05/2012 8:16:42 PM PDT by sgtyork (The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage. Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]


To: sgtyork

I don’t doubt that she was wearing body armor, but it doesn’t weigh 70 lbs. The basic interceptor body armor with two SAPI plates weighs about 12 pounds. With side plates, deltoid covers, and other accessories, it comes in at about 33 pounds. Not 70 pounds. Infantry soldiers add to that load 300 rounds of 5.56, 100 rounds of 7.62, hand grenades, claymores, batteries, NODs, chow, water, radios, etc., etc.

She may have had an injury carrying something that weighed 70lbs, it just wasn’t body armor and typical green zone battle rattle. You need to use another example to better make your quite valid point that 99% of females cannot carry and infantry load over a sustained period of time.


66 posted on 10/05/2012 8:47:30 PM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies ]

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