Women in Combat Arms/ SOF Discussion

1. Spend 3 months to build a fort with your buddies.

2. Once completed, slap a "No girls allowed" sign on it.

3. Within 3 minutes, Gloria Allred, NOW and the ACLU will show up at the door.......:rolleyes:

Me, succumbing to the media pressure: "Okay, only if we get to attend all their slumber parties from now on. :D
 
Hollis, I was going to reply to your post but decided to send some hate your way instead. If you don't know why it may be required to carry some weight, then I don't know what to do for you.
 
As there are no women currently doing "combat," than I'm questioning why the push to go through this school. Seems to come down to just getting a tab, which makes me a bit sick of our badge/tab chasing community.
If career combat specific MOSs and the Combat Branches (specifically Infantry Branch) is to be opened to women by 1 January 2016, then career means NCOs and Company Grade officers which is the chain of command leading small unit combat capability. It then follows regardless of gender the leadership development must be equally available to service members of both genders as the quality of leading is part of units having combat effectiveness.



The Ranger Course was conceived during the Korean War and was known as the Ranger Training Command. The Ranger Training Command was inactivated and became the Ranger Department, a branch of the Infantry School at Fort Benning, Ga., October 10, 1951.

The first Ranger Class for individual candidates graduated on 1 March 1952.

Its purpose as identified in Army Regulation 611–1, Enlisted Assignments and Utilization Management, pare 5.2 objectives, “The objective of the Ranger Program is to maintain Army readiness through ranger-qualified Soldiers (SQI “G” and “V”)”, has changed little since its inception.

In an effort to better achieve this goal, in 1954, the Army required all combat arms officers to become Ranger/Airborne qualified. Unfortunately the additional Army goal to have one Ranger qualified non-commissioned officer per infantry platoon and one officer per company was seldom achieved during the period from 1954 to the early 1970s.

In February 2005 the Army implemented policy changes to Ranger School attendance policy that disconnected requirement combat support and combat service support soldiers no longer needed to be assigned against a Ranger authorization to gain eligibility to attend Ranger training.

As the Army has no Ranger Branch or Ranger MOS the Ranger School is actually small tactical leader development utilizing situational field training scenarios to exposing students to must lead situations rather than being a commando, ranger, raider, Guerrillafighter, or marauder. However as the MOS and Branch eligibility expanded to integrate service members holding combat support and combat service support MOSs, the frequency of students arriving lacking skill and knowledge competencies in basic infantry skills and lacking adequate physical fitness began increasing. This resulted in 1979 of the formation of pre-ranger courses which have become a prerequisite to getting placement in a Ranger School class training slot.

Regardless the purpose of the Ranger School is to develop combat skills of selected officers and enlisted men. This requires them to perform effectively as small-unit leaders in a realistic, tactical environment, and under mental and physical stress; approaches that are found in actual combat. Emphasis is placed on the development of individual combat skills and abilities through the application of the principles of leadership, while further developing military skills in the planning and conduct of dismounted infantry, airborne, airmobile, amphibious independent squad, and platoon-size operations. Graduates return to their units to pass on these skills.

WWII historical perspectives:

When developing and deciding if U.S. Army should have commando type units and forces, Major General Dwight D. Eisenhower (who was in 1942 Chief of the Operations Division, War Department General Staff) told Colonel Lucian K. Truscott, Jr., such units and forces should be named something other than “commandos” because that name was so strongly identified with the British. Truscott chose “Rangers” a name that had been carried by a number of American units before, during, and after the War of Independence. The new unit was thus designated the 1st Ranger Battalion.

The 1st Ranger Battalion was officially activated on 19 June 1942. Subsequently the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Ranger Battalions were formed. All were the Ranger Battalions were deactivated at the end of WWII.

Korean War influences:

Throughout the period of their existence the Ranger Companies during the Korean War these forces were mostly employed as general infantry rather than as a raiding or marauding force as initially envisioned by Army Chief of Staff, General J. Lawton Collins who ordered the creation of the Ranger Companies of the Korean conflict.

Envisioned by General Collins to be "Marauder" units to operate behind enemy lines, attacking their tank parks and assembly areas, this utilization never happened. The Ranger Companies were generally utilized in Korean conflict as just another infantry company rather than for conducting special missions as raider, marauders or commandos. By June 1951 the Department of the Army decided to inactivate these units and accomplished this by 1 August 1951. Although the Army Staff and major commands saw no need for Ranger units, they did see a need for ranger trained personnel. This resulted in the formation of the Ranger School concurrently with the inactivation of the Ranger Companies.

Generally personnel reports exposed several difficulties pertinent to combat units, in general, having difficulties in maintaining combat effectiveness pertinent to having competent leaders (trained and or experienced) and having leaders willing to lead others in combat. Put differently, those put into positions involving tactical leading were inadequately prepared to deal with the quickly changing tactical situations encountered on the Korean battlefields.

  • officers continued to arrive with combat MOS's who were physically incapable of handling the jobs indicated by the MOS, it was necessary for FEC replacement installations to screen officers for age and physical condition as well as for experience and training in verifying their MOS's.

  • Eighth Amy complained that a number of officers were reluctant to command troops in action and asked that remedial or punitive steps be taken, but in February there was still evidence that proper disposition was not being made of substandard officers. As late as June 1951, commanders were encouraged to make use of their powers under AR 605-200, 615-369, and 615-368 to eliminate ineffective or undesirable personnel.
 
Hollis, I was going to reply to your post but decided to send some hate your way instead. If you don't know why it may be required to carry some weight, then I don't know what to do for you.


When I was med-evaced my pack weighted 110 pounds, that is not counting my flak jacket, helmet, rifle, 35 (2o rds) mags, 5 frags boots, clothing. My weight was 125, I was 6 ft @ 165 when I arrived in country. We had some pretty small Marines in my company too. We did not have guys who where all buffed out, we were a team not a individual. We humped everything we needed. It sucked when we worked with 81s, more weight. We needed more people, to pull triggers and to carry the load. A friend felt we just need more trigger pullers more than any other aspect.

Now our enemy, where generally smaller than us and humped a lot of stuff. I don't think they worried to much about the gender issue.

I did not advocate any person for the job based on their reproductive system, but on qualifications. For special teams, I can see special qualifications. IMHO, that is the team or team leader decision. Not mine. The battlescape has changed and as it changes we need to reflect that in our training and assignment of people. The best person for the job is the best person. If a person can not pass the qualifications needed, then they are a no-go. Fortunately for those serving, my opinion is just that. I am not going to influence those who make that decision.

To restate my opinion, Qualifications needs to accurately reflect the needs of the job. If a person can not fulfill the qualifications, they are a no-go.

The other aspect, special teams should decide who goes and who does not go based on team needs.

Again a good read, Marines of Autumn. I am glad I was not there.
 
We humped everything we needed. It sucked when we worked with 81s, more weight. We needed more people, to pull triggers and to carry the load. A friend felt we just need more trigger pullers more than any other aspect.

Now our enemy, where generally smaller than us and humped a lot of stuff. I don't think they worried to much about the gender issue.

I did not advocate any person for the job based on their reproductive system, but on qualifications.

Hollis, I'm having trouble following your logic. So, you said that you had to hump everything and carried a lot of weight? Wouldn't that be a qualification for the "job" you were doing?

Gender aside, wouldn't being able to carry your own weight, the equipment, ruck, and possibly your buddy, be a important factor and prerequisite in the completion of your job?
 
Worldweaver, We had the CMC PRT (Commandant of the Marine Corps Physical Readiness Test) We did not have a weight criteria that I knew of. Maybe when I was in, the main criteria was a warm body. The CMC PRT was based on the lessons of the previous war fought. One requirement was the ability to run 3 miles under a certain in full gear and carry on a fight. Full gear was maybe 40 pounds max?

If the weight requirement reflects the needs of the job, I have no issue with that, or failing people who can not meet that qualification. We expected people to put in 100% effort.

We worked as a team, expecting the same weight loads for everyone is probably not realistic. A 6'2" 250 pound person is one thing, a guy who is 5'5" 125 is another. Small teams are another issue and the team or team leader should make qualifications based on mission specific needs, would be my guess.

I forgot who said this; "It is not how big the dog is in the fight, it is how big the fight is in the dog."

I would prefer tenacity over the ability to hump a of weight.
 
If the weight requirement reflects the needs of the job, I have no issue with that, or failing people who can not meet that qualification. We expected people to put in 100% effort.

We worked as a team, expecting the same weight loads for everyone is probably not realistic. A 6'2" 250 pound person is one thing, a guy who is 5'5" 125 is another. Small teams are another issue and the team or team leader should make qualifications based on mission specific needs, would be my guess.

I would prefer tenacity over the ability to hump a of weight.

I completely disagree with the bold portion, too much anecdotal evidence to the contrary. However, I do agree that people who cannot meet the qualifications should fail. When they figure out how to make 1,000 rds of 7.62 x 51 weigh less, or how to lighten up a 27.6 lb weapon, then maybe requirements will change.

I prefer the ability to hump tenaciously :thumbsup:
 
,

To restate my opinion, Qualifications needs to accurately reflect the needs of the job. If a person can not fulfill the qualifications, they are a no-go.
The M242 Bushmaster weighs 262lbs, IOT be a Bradley Crewman you have to uninstall it in 10 minutes, you can then take a break if you want after you've completed that task. Then you have to reinstall it in 10 minutes. I know some guys who can do it in five minutes, I got it in about 9:30...shit is rough. The LAV-25 also has an M242 but I don't know the Marine Corps standards.
 
The M242 Bushmaster weighs 262lbs, IOT be a Bradley Crewman you have to uninstall it in 10 minutes, you can then take a break if you want after you've completed that task. Then you have to reinstall it in 10 minutes. I know some guys who can do it in five minutes, I got it in about 9:30...shit is rough. The LAV-25 also has an M242 but I don't know the Marine Corps standards.

Congratulations.

Is anyone humping the 242? I didn't think so.

So, with that, what exactly does this have to do with the current topic?
 
Hollis was talking about standards, that is a standard in the Mech Infantry and and Armored Reconnaissance Squadrons. So it has everything to do with this topic.
 
j8wxT-1.gif
 
I love the back and forth in this thread. It hasn't changed my opinion but has pushed me to use critical thinking.
 
Congratulations.

Is anyone humping the 242? I didn't think so.

So, with that, what exactly does this have to do with the current topic?

Nah, we only have to fix emplacements for the Ma Deuce... not hump the beast, well, not usually.... when we do, it SUCKS. Bob you get the barrel, Joe you get the receiver, Tom you get the tripod/T&E, everybody else... grab a can or two of ammo....
 
Colonel Haring is an idiot.

That pretty much covers it.

Oh she sounds like a barrel of laughs -
http://scar.gmu.edu/people/ellen-haring

As I recall from "forever" ago, this debate has more to do with women in the military feeling left out of promotion opportunities than it does them wanting to be door kickers.

I thought it was Col. Haring who I saw on 60 Minutes or 20/20 some time ago come right out and state that. For me that negates a lot of the conversation, but maybe that is why the promotional opportunities argument seems to have disappeared all together. Later tonight I am going to practice my Google-Fu and find that interview.
 
Y'know, if the Army wanted to do this right, they would have opened up the combat arms MOSs to women, put a two-three year waiting period on Ranger school to see how they perform in combat arms duties, and THEN sent them to Ranger school. I conjecture they would have had a higher success rate than they do now.

My point? No one just walks into Ranger School cold or solely focused on PT and expects to graduate. It is focused on small unit tactics and I doubt support battalions and brigades have a prevalence of that going on. Most of the students when I went through were combat arms and at the very least had combat arms OSUT, pre-ranger, IOBC, RASP, or something else combat arms related as a foundation before making the attempt.

It seems the cart was put before the horse on this one. It takes more than heart. It takes *gasp* actual tactical knowledge and competence in SUT.
 
My point? No one just walks into Ranger School cold or solely focused on PT and expects to graduate. It is focused on small unit tactics and I doubt support battalions and brigades have a prevalence of that going on. Most of the students when I went through were combat arms and at the very least had combat arms OSUT, pre-ranger, IOBC, RASP, or something else combat arms related as a foundation before making the attempt.

I'd imagine that these women got more special training specific for passing the course than any of their male counterparts.
 
I'd imagine that these women got more special training specific for passing the course than any of their male counterparts.

You would imagine? But have no basis for it?
How about all the infantry officer LT's who just had an entire IBOLC before showing, or the 82nd dudes with Bragg pre-Ranger? These females did plenty of PT, but not a whole lot of platoon leadership.
 
Back
Top