Posted on 08/08/2017 5:17:25 AM PDT by Altura Ct.
In 2013, the US military lifted its ban on women serving in combat. Shortly after, the Marine Corps began what it calls an unprecedented research effort to understand the impact of gender integration on its combat forces.
That took the form of a year-long experiment called the Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force, in which 400 Marines 100 of them female trained for combat together and then undertook a simulated deployment, with every aspect of their experience measured and scrutinized.
All branches of the military faced a January 1, 2016 deadline to open all combat roles to women, and the Marine Corps used this experiment to decide whether to request exceptions to that mandate. The Corps summary of the experiment concludes that combat teams were less effective when they included women.
Overall, the report says, all-male teams and crews outperformed mixed-gender ones on 69% of tasks evaluated (93 out of 134). All-male teams were universally faster in each tactical movement. On lethality, the report says:
All-male 0311 (rifleman) infantry squads had better accuracy compared to gender-integrated squads. There was a notable difference between genders for every individual weapons system (i.e. M4, M27, and M203) within the 0311 squads, except for the probability of hit & near miss with the M4.
All-male infantry crew-served weapons teams engaged targets quicker and registered more hits on target as compared to gender-integrated infantry crew-served weapons teams, with the exception of M2 accuracy.
All-male squads, teams and crews and gender-integrated squads, teams, and crews had a noticeable difference in their performance of the basic combat tasks of negotiating obstacles and evacuating casualties. For example, when negotiating the wall obstacle, male Marines threw their packs to the top of the wall, whereas female Marines required regular assistance in getting their packs to the top. During casualty evacuation assessments, there were notable differences in execution times between all-male and gender-integrated groups, except in the case where teams conducted a casualty evacuation as a one-Marine firemans carry of another (in which case it was most often a male Marine who evacuated the casualty)
The report also says that female Marines had higher rates of injury throughout the experiment.
While the conclusions make it look like having women in combat isnt a good idea, one important caveat of the tests is that many of of the male study participants had previously served in combat units, whereas female participants, by necessity, came directly from infantry schools or from noncombat jobs.
Hopefully, with more training in combat, women will be a strength for the military, but the most important thing to remember is that risking the lives of a military unit in combat to provide career opportunities or accommodate the personal desires of an individual is not only bad, but very dangerous military judgment.
Q: How would "having previously served in combat units" help the women get over the wall?
But, but, but....WONDER WOMAN!!!
In other news: Water is wet.
This only proves what everyone knew from the beginning, that it’s an idiotic and dangerous policy.
But like police and firemen tests, this military test will be called discriminatory and will no longer be allowed.
Reality will eventually dismantle their delusions and at a very heavy price, unfortunately for us.
Women in combat units is the equivalent of paying extra for a weapons system that’s less combat-effective. Even ignoring the damage it does to the cause of national security, it makes no fiscal sense.
Not quite accurate.
I know several Marines who volunteered to be in that study. It was not a cohesive single unit as it was a unit made up of both volunteers and voluntolds, a good portion of them were reservists (remember that most reservists have been over in the Sandbox). From what I gathered none of the males were fresh out of Boot. They all had been in the USMC at least for a little while.
The test was developed to make it as real as any training situation can get.
Not a Ripley in the bunch?
I disagree with letting them in if they can perform the PT, simply because changing logistics, support, supply chain, and procedures to allow that small number of women isn’t worth the effort, and that is assuming they don’t even introduce the issues of unit cohesion or capability.
I am against having women on combat capable Navy ships for the same reasons.
Yeah, but who posted quickest to FussBook and sang the Internationale Red anthem best?
Hope is not a method- I dont think we should have to tell dead Marines and soldiers families hopefully anything.
If a factor in your calculations include hope, there is more room than not for utter failure.
I wonder which of these teams will be given ‘extra’ support and not be penalized for it.
JoMa
Don’t tell Google.....
This chart I produced, using medically accepted assumptions (detailed at the top of the graph) tells the tale:
They really needed a test to figure this out?
In essence, I agree, but having a wife who served and who was very HUA, I will counter that very, very few can actually pass the 18-20 year old PT test, and it is politically and culturally appeasing to at least provide the opportunity.
And as I have said many times; if the men cannot pass the test, they shouldn’t be in there also. And if I cannot pass it, I do not need to be doing the job.
Sometimes, when one knows a given outcome is virtually certain to be unfavorable to one’s preconceived notions, poisoning the well by creating the appearance of a stacked deck can salvage those preconceived notions to live and fight another day.
I understand your clarification, and I appreciate it, but I think I need to clarify my original post.
I meant that the co-ed team also had combat veterans within their ranks. This is just like regular units in the Fleet. Every Battalion, Company, Platoon, and Squad is made up of revolving members, be they boots from school or experienced veterans from other units completing a base transfer.
Lastly, the entire Marine Corps is made up of volunteers and voluntolds - I know many people within my combat unit that did NOT want to be in the First Gulf War. But, they were voluntold to go when our unit got our orders.
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.