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 fireman’s 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 isn’t 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.
An important distinction here...are we saying "training IN combat", as in conducting training while in the face of the enemy, or are we saying "training in COMBAT", as in conducting non-aggressive training in a controlled environment in order to become more efficient in combat?
I know it sounds argumentative, but there is a difference.
It has been my professional experience that the female gender will do well in a training environment, but fall flat in actual execution of combat tactics and actions.
I suspect it has to do with the fact they know that training isn't playing "for keeps", so to speak.
There is also the "big brother" aspect which occurs in dangerous, stressful and REAL situations wherein the male will assume a protective posture with the female...which of course degrades his individual performance and does little to nothing for hers.
It is a undeniable, biological fact that the genders are different and it is beyond me as to why a woman would seek to compete on a male level, as opposed to competing as a female on a female level.
Again, I experienced it on a personal professional level...invariably the females would seek to outdo the male, as opposed to competing with her peers.
Segregated, those females would dominate their peers and provide exceptional leadership...but integrated, they were quite simply a pain in the ass.
Israel is the only modern army to have employed mixed and all female infantry units in combat during the 2006 Lebanon War. It’s also the only war where Israel was defeated on the ground. So either Israel suddenly sucks at war or female combat units don’t work.
Read a book by a Afghanistan veteran
He said GI Jane wouldn’t last 2 minutes with the enemy
Surely our Marine Corps know that. I hope that will be one of the comparisons they do. Thanks for bringing it up.
Who goes into combat at the peak of their physical fitness? Perhaps you have been on ship for months waiting, or, as in Desert Storm, months waiting for forces to mass and politics to work eating MREs for months before crossing the LOD. It is rare circumstances indeed that send troops at their absolute peak of fitness.
Yeah, latest example is "Atomic Blonde," but I also saw a made for TV movie where this blonde was, for some reason, a professional body guard. She was like a toothpick. Within the first 10 minutes of the movie, she's easily overpowering men 3x her size. I laughed hilariously, but it was a chick flick (romance movie) and you have to let the women have their delusions.
Here in Clown World we spend money to study the obvious, then act surprised at the results.
Where are the test results of the all so called “transgender” unit competing against the so called “cisgender” unit?
Well said!
The also excelled at cooking and cleaning :).
The woman would probably turn out to be a transgendered male :)
And they do it in slow motion in skin tight leather pants!
In order for them to accomplish that task, modifying the test to fit the circumstances, they would have to have a unit of 100% gay males vs a unit of mixed females and gay males......................
“They will likely repeat this process, again...and again...and again, modifying each time, until they get the results they want.”
Yep: “why does the wall have to be 8 ft tall? It too hard to throw a pack that high. I mean, there are plenty of 5 ft walls in the world. can’t we run sims using 5 ft walls?”
/whining
Ugh...I’ll pick on the word “hopefully”. Women ARE a strength for the military, just in different roles. I do not “hope” to be able to put women on the front line. It is not a role for which they are designed. It’s like “hoping” more women are put in prison to better align with the numbers of men in prison.
I have become convinced that evidence & facts don’t matter anymore. Someone will always blame sexism and the journalists & judges will always back them up. It will not change until Society crumbles.
Yep. Lives sacrificed on the altar of political correctness.
If the mission requirement testing includes embarking a batallion and relocating it, then the all female group will of necessity perform worse than the mixed group.
Oh don’t confuse the SJW with the facts
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.