How It Really Went Down in the First Class to Graduate Female Rangers

SOFREP ^ | 8/21/2015 | Rudy Mac

[T-Bird45]

The following was written by Rudy Mac, a Ranger-qualified, company-grade infantry officer serving on active duty in a light unit in the U.S. Army.

By the time most of you read this story, 96 newly tabbed Rangers and their friends and families will be celebrating the completion of one of the most arduous and demanding courses that the Army has to offer. For them, this coming weekend will undoubtedly involve hours of some of the most satisfying sleep of their lives, interspersed with exorbitant feasts of all of the foods that they have been dreaming about, talking about, and listing in their Rite In The Rain notebooks for weeks and weeks.

They will return to their units with a few new skills and a better understanding of small-unit tactics, but more importantly with a new confidence in themselves and their fellow tabbed Rangers. They will be marked for the rest of their careers with a $1.80 strip of cloth that tells whomever they meet that when tested with adversity, pain, and discomfort, they can be trusted to find a way to get the job done and complete the mission. For the first time in history, two women will pin on this badge of survival and perseverance, and you know what? They f*****g earned it. Every last thread of it.

I started and finished Ranger School this year with Class 06-15, although since I neither recycled nor had to endure a winter phase of the course, my tab should probably be just a little bit smaller than the tabs that many of my peers wear. We were the first gender-integrated Ranger School class, starting on April 19th, with 19 female and 381 male students.

Since my graduation, I have followed the progress of these remaining female Rangers with interest. Although virtually all of the discussion I have heard surrounding their advancement through the course has been pretty positive up to this week, since the Washington Post broke the story of Ranger Griest and Ranger Haver getting their go’s in Florida, I have read and heard an increasing amount of bad-mouthing from a plethora of haters, dismissing their accomplishment as the product of slipping standards or some ultra-liberal, feminist plot by the government and Army leadership. I am speaking out to tell you that these insinuations could not be further from the truth. Ranger School is still hard, and these women earned their tabs.

Before I discuss my own subjective opinions, let’s talk about the numbers, starting with my class (Class 06-15). In 06-15, we started 400 Ranger students in April and graduated fewer than 100 in June. Twenty-eight of us (that’s seven percent), went straight through the course without recycling. In Darby Phase, our recycle rate was almost 75 percent—the highest for the phase in over five years. In my squad of 17 Ranger students, only four of us went forward to Mountain Phase. Another squad in my company (Alpha Company) sent only two of 17 forward. In Mountain and again in Florida, we only had enough students for one platoon in my company. I believe the same was true of Bravo and Charlie.

For those who have claimed that the packing list was reduced for this year to make patrols easier: We weighed our rucks before the Mountains FTX and the Florida FTX. My ruck was 85 pounds at the start of Mountains as a team leader and over 100 pounds at the start of Florida as a SAW gunner. For the past three classes of the course (06-15, 07-15, and 08-15), the course graduation rate has been about 30 percent, much lower than the average for FY10-FY14 of 42 percent, and significantly lower than the historical average of nearly 50 percent. If you believe that the standards at Ranger School have been lowered for recent classes in order to pass the women who attended, you are simply wrong. The numbers reflect what the Ranger Training Brigade officers and NCOs have been saying for months now: The standards at Ranger School are as high or higher right now than they have been in many, many years.

Now, let’s discuss the process that the Infantry School went through to select and prepare female soldiers to attend the course. After the Army sent out the ALARACT message looking for female Ranger School volunteers, they had nearly 400 female soldiers express a desire to attend the course. One hundred and nine of those female soldiers eventually attended the RTAC, the ARNG Warrior Training Center’s two week Pre-Ranger Course, which is second only to the 75th Ranger Regiment’s SURT (Small Unit Ranger Tactics) Pre-Ranger Course in terms of success rate at Ranger School. Several of the women who failed RTAC went back and tried again, for a total of 138 attempts by female students.

Twenty female Ranger Students eventually passed RTAC, and 19 of those 20 started Ranger School with Class 06-15 on April 19th. From this point on, anyone who has followed the story probably knows what transpired. Eight of those 19 female students passed RAP (Ranger Assessment Phase) Week at Camp Rogers, where about 60 percent of Ranger School failures historically occur. All eight went to Camp Darby with Class 06-15 and were either recycled into Class 07-15 or dropped from training. After another Darby Phase with Class 07-15, again, none of the female students received their go’s, and three remained in the course to start over as day one recycles with class 08-15. As an aside, during RAP week with class 08-15, Ranger Kristen Griest finished second out of the entire class on the 12 mile ruck—an astounding achievement, especially considering that she had just gone through RAP week, two Darby phases, and another RAP week, all back-to-back. CPT Griest and 1LT Haver went straight through the rest of the course with class 08-15, finally earning their Ranger Tabs today after 124 days in Ranger School.

Lastly, for what it’s worth, I would like to offer my own impressions of what our class was like with female students in RAP week and at Darby. Unlike many, I didn’t doubt that some female soldiers in our Army would at least have a decent shot at getting their tabs. There are a whole lot of female collegiate, professional, and Olympic athletes who can PT a whole lot better than me, so why shouldn’t they be able to at least come close to passing a course like Ranger School? Like many, however, I was somewhat skeptical that the cadre at RTB could successfully administer a course with extremely close living quarters and significant field time like Ranger School without compromising the integrity of the training.

I quickly found, however, that the gender issue was a non-issue. The barracks at Camp Rogers are shaped like a ‘U’, with a latrine and shower facilities forming the center of the U, connecting two long bays of bunk beds and wall lockers, with doors at the end of the bays. The female students in our company slept towards one end of the bay, where an enclave of wall lockers formed an area for them to hurriedly change in when the need arose. In the latrines, during the absurdly short time hacks we were given to use the bathroom, the women simply walked past the men and used the stalls. After the first real smoke session of the week on day one, nobody cared much about using the same latrine. We were all just Ranger students.

During the few times we were able to take showers, the cadre dedicated the showers on one side of the bay to female students for one quarter of the shower period, and a Ranger instructor and female NCO stood in the center of the ‘U’ to avoid confusion. RAP week passed and we were on to Darby. In Darby, the female students in our company dispelled any doubts of their ability to hump weight on patrols during the first few days in the field. If I remember correctly, Ranger Griest carried the M240 for her squad on day one of patrols and another female in her squad carried the radio as the RTO. The next day of patrols, they switched, with Ranger Griest humping the radio and the other female student carrying the M240. Physically, they were studs. They carried their own weight and then some.

In the two months since I have graduated, I have spoken with countless fellow tabbed Rangers on the topic, both from my class and from previous classes. Every morning, my Facebook news feed is filled with statuses from my peers, with links to articles on the topic and discussions on the progress of the females left in the course. We are universally in awe of what these two female Rangers have accomplished. Everyone I have talked to is of one mind. They earned it. Without the same wide shoulders, large frames, and high testosterone levels of their brother Rangers, they earned it. Unfortunately, the naysayers will continue to talk trash and belittle CPT Griest and 1LT Haver’s historic accomplishment. In response, I would like to close with a recent quote from MAJ Jim Hathaway, the current RTB executive officer:

No matter what we at Ranger School say, the non-believers will still be non-believers. We could have invited each of you to guest walk the entire course, and you would still not believe, we could have video recorded every patrol and you would still say that we “gave” it away. Nothing we say will change your opinion. I and the rest of our cadre are proud of the conduct of our soldiers, NCOs, and officers; they took the mission assigned and performed to the Ranger standard. Rangers Lead the Way!

[pfflier]

My point too. It is a term so out of character with the image you would expect of a ranger. I would more expect to hear something like “f#^k ‘em”.

[dila813]

Having a female will be distracting and affect unit cohesion, doesn’t matter if they can do it.

I still believe that if females can do the job, then they should compete head to head with all male units.

This would solve the problem and finally illustrate if whether having female combat soldiers make sense

[T-Bird45]

Well-stated from an experienced perspective. It’s unfortunate your years of wisdom are being overlooked by those with a “fairness” agenda and they’re making it a career-ending choice to provide that kind of input.

[fr_freak]

..Rhonda Rousey could...take punches from any man.

No, she couldn't. Not even close.

[rlmorel]

As I said in a previous post, if physical capability is graphed on a curve, it will be some variant of a bell curve. I just created this graph below to illustrate the point, because I think it is easier to visualize rather than explain. I want to stress this is only one aspect of my objection, the simple, average physical capability disparity. I don't even mention the unit cohesion or logistical issues, which have been shown in fact to play out in the US Navy, which is "ahead" of the Army and USMC in this regrettable aspect.

If they are tested the same way as men, the curve will look different. Here is what I think it would look like (below) Note that there are assumptions I have made such as the placement of the graphs which I guessed at, but the following assumptions are codified by reputable, main stream medical studies that treatment and assessment can be based on (male vs female muscle mass (40%>torso, 33> greater lower extremities), male vs female bone structure (15%> in men, male vs female individual muscle strands (15% greater in men, and male vs female strength which is on average, 25-35% less for women when normalized for age and weight)

I just created this graph in Adobe Illustrator, and I readily admit I guessed at the placement of the curves, but in a population of normalized men and women where mens highest volume occurs at 50% on a uniform strength test between men and women, women are going to have their highest volume on the same strength test at 25% less than the men.

You will see that the women's curve stops at 75% of the max mens strength, which reality tells us is true. I don't care what physical specimen of a woman can be found somewhere, if you put her up against a prime athlete such as NFL players like JJ Watt or Rob Gronkowski, there will be no contest whatsoever. That is the reality.

So my objection to women in combat roles in the military is based on the red striping in the graph above. When the outcome of a battle or ultimately a war can come down to one person doing what is required, I believe we should ALWAYS be putting our armed forces into the absolute 100% best fact and statistically based advantage we can give them.

This has zero to do with respect or disrespect for women, and has everything to do with individual, unit, and overall capability of our armed forces.

[rlmorel]

See my post at 125.

This is one (the physical aspect) that I (and many others, both in and out of the military) base our opinions against this on. I am sure there are men who just “hate” women and believe they should be barefoot and in the kitchen, and even some of those on this thread.

This isn’t about respecting or disrespecting them. It is about seeing “A” and calling it “B”, knowing full well (or rationalizing to yourself) that it is NOT.

I wish we could stop with the idea of calling people “haters” and “unbelievers” as the author did, because they may (as I feel I do) have an opinion based on an understanding of biology, human behavior, and logistics.

I have said time and again that this battle is lost, because this foolishness is liberalism, which is a creeping cancer that is a one-way ratchet that never returns lost ground. If we don’t put an end to social experimentation and other foolishness in the combat units of our military, we are going to pay a price in blood, and that note will come due at the worst possible time.

[Eagles6]

I agree.

[Sequoyah101]

The retorts always come down to the pejorative.. racist, hating, sexist, homophobe whatever.

Fact is, I love women who want to be like women. Not bare foot and pregnant but Godly, strong and wise worthy of being placed on a pedestal in their rightful place.
Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.

THIS is Strength, Honor and Courage:

10 Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.

11 The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil.

12 She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.

13 She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands.

14 She is like the merchants’ ships; she bringeth her food from afar.

15 She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens.

16 She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.

17 She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms.

18 She perceiveth that her merchandise is good: her candle goeth not out by night.

19 She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff.

20 She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy.

21 She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet.

22 She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple.

23 Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land.

24 She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant.

25 Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come.

26 She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness.

27 She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness.

28 Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her.

29 Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all.

30 Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised.

31 Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates.

A man would.. Should.. Must be compelled to do anything for such a woman. She will make him far greater than he could be alone and he will protect her as long as they both shall live. Some people just don’t get this.

[PROCON]

Thanks and I agree; the bottom line is women, physically, are the weak link in the Military.

[T-Bird45]

No argument here - your graph captures the situation for any who are willing to live in the real world.

[PLMerite]

“But she says the real test is when you have to keep passing that test, day after day, for months and years. “

I don’t know the rules, but I don’t think you ever have to re-qualify, and if these women aren’t assigned to The Regiment, they most likely never will have to perform as Rangers, at least not to that degree.

[Mr Rogers]

They won't. But because they wear Ranger tabs, most folks will assume they could handle being assigned to a Ranger regiment.

My daughter, in the Marines, noticed there was a big difference even for guys between passing a school and serving for years. I agree with her.

BTW - my 5'2" daughter bulked up to 140 lbs of muscle when she entered the Marines. After she married, she dropped down to 110...something about not wanting to spend so many hours in the gym and live on protein shakes. Her husband, however, maintained the fitness he needed in the infantry without spending 2-4 hours a day in the gym. Hmmmm....

[ZULU]

Absolutely agree with you.

[ZULU]

Absolutely agree with you.

[donna]

Is this in the Rangers’ future:

Minimum Height Rule for LAPD Officers Eliminated
February 19, 1997

The Los Angeles Police Commission on Tuesday abolished a
requirement that officers stand at least 5 feet tall to join the LAPD.

[Psalm 144]

‘2.) Referring to the females as “studs”. I cannot imagine why a man would refer to a woman as a stud in any description, even colloquial usage. Again, just to show how “equal” males and females are.’

The article reads like it was written by a peevish queen. Note the name for down the road. I strongly suspect the author is a Theban Sacred Band type. The site it comes from has whiffs of it too.

[Chode]

the only thing a 60" nothing can do in a confrontation is pull it's gun since it can't stand toe to toe to do it's JOB... wonderful

and wait for the first criminal to laugh at them, they'll get shot for sure

[usconservative]

From the article: They f*****g earned it. Every last thread of it.

As long as they earned it and the standards weren't lowered for them (they were not ....) then I agree with you. They earned it!

Good on these two women and good on the military for standing it's ground re: standards.

[rlmorel]

I had to look it up...ugh. I confess my grasp of that segment of history is not as deep.

I went to the site and poked around. It seemed to be bending over backwards to justify this move, and there was a link that said something like "Apocalypse due to female rangers fails to materialize".

This is precisely what I have referred to in other posts, to wit: "...And in the next 5-10 years, you will see pieces in the media talking about how wrong the naysayers were (as footage of women humping gear and walking through tall grass with ready weapons is shown in the background) and that the force being shown is so much the better for having added women. And you won't hear otherwise, except the ripping sound of purging taking place for the people who didn't stick their fingers in the air, and didn't go with the flow..."

This is a typical liberal approach that website apparently takes. Throw up a straw man, to tear it down. No thinking person has, or will say the Rangers, or any other elite military unit is going to collapse within days of females gaining admittance. Hence, no "apocalypse". But this type of rhetoric is their MO. We who oppose this are concerned that this incremental and corrosive approach to military operations is going to jump up and bite us in a war that might happen in five years, or twenty. When the disaster does happen, the tools and dies once used to craft the superb military we once had will be long gone, and we will have to learn to to rebuild them from scratch after humiliating and bloody defeats.

[rlmorel]

Not in the least surprised at that. And yes, that is eventually where it will go. And everything will be fine until we have our future Edson’s Ridge or Chosin.