Random Thoughts - Part Deux [NO POLITICS]

[humfrz]

Originally Posted by Ashikabi

But if you can't carry your share of gear or a wounded comrade, you can't do the job. I had an AK and a 12ga. There isn't a reason a woman couldn't be effective with either. But carrying 400 pounds of gear and casualty isn't something a 120lb woman can do affectively. Additionally, in hand to hand combat(which I realize is very rare), a woman will be easily outpaced by a man. Yes yes I know men have balls she can kick but that's not an affective "works every time" strategy... If they block it, have gear in the way or otherwise that woman would now be fucked. If she can pass the exact same tests as a man, then she is in. If she can't... gtfo

@Ashikabi, would you like to share your military background and experience?



humfrz

[Ashikabi]

Originally Posted by humfrz

@Ashikabi, would you like to share your military background and experience?



humfrz

I have none. Does that make my point any less valid? Does that make you feel superior?>>> If one, male or female, cannot meet strict physical requirements they should not be in the service. If you are on a combat zone and cannot carry a fallen team mate, with or without gear, you should not be in the service. These requirements should be the same for both sexes. What's so fucking hard to accept about this?

[jawn]

Outside of Special Forces, the amount of upper body and core strength required to pass PFT is not actually that high for men *or* women. You can pass Army PFT, under the male standards, and still not be able to fireman's carry another man with all of their gear for any appreciable distance. If you can knock out 40 pushups, 50 situps, and run 2 miles at a moderate pace, you can pass Army PFT as a man. You, by no means, have to be a #1 alpha pipehitting badass to pass APFT.

I've had a few friends who were in MARSOC, and that's a different animal. If you're kicking in doors all of the time, you need the guy next to you to be in peak shape, but by and large, for the rank-and-file, you're not engaging in firefights every day. You're patrolling or doing support work on base. Some folks in the armed services are frankly not suited for a combat MOS, but this doesn't mean they're not suited for the military. Same applies to women. If they can be in the 1% of peak physical conditioning, they can do combat. These women exist.

By the way, the Army's rolling out the OPAT which addresses a lot of these concerns, re: combat fitness. It's a gender neutral fitness test. They're using the new test to determine suitability for combat jobs, and this does include strength testing like dead lifts and power throws. They'll still keep the APFT (with its tiered age/gender requirements) as a test of general fitness, but it's not going to play as big of a role in determining MOS.

[MrFisty]

Originally Posted by Ashikabi

If you are on a combat zone and cannot carry a fallen team mate, with or without gear, you should not be in the service. These requirements should be the same for both sexes. What's so fucking hard to accept about this?

Originally Posted by Tectoniic

I have to think that a lot of the "Last guy in the squad carrying all of his hurt buddies" isn't happening nearly as much as hollywood wants you to believe.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
@Ashikabi, do you understand how severely you would limit out military with that? The majority of our military do not see direct ground combat. You would greatly reduce the military's...."productivity" ( lol)

But seriously. Stop and think about how many freaking jobs there are in the military. Take all those people and make them carry a person plus all the combat gear, and you would reduce our military personnel by a ridiculous amount.

War isn't mostly bombs and bullets anymore.

[Cole]

I am by no means in great shape. Especially not since I took a job on the road where I'm lucky to have 2 or 3 hours to myself in a day before I go to sleep. I can still efficiently carry out all of my tasks when it comes training time with the military. I can carry the 105mm projectiles (33 pounds each) I can load them into the gun, I can move the gun around, I can carry a machine gun for days on end (but I don't anymore, because, well, rank has its privileges). I look at my subordinates by their job effectiveness. If they can carry out their duties on a howitzer, then all is well. If someone is bad at something, guess what I make them do? I put them in a position that they're weak at, until they get better. Carrying your section mate who got shot in the **** is less than 1% of your job. You're definitely not carrying that guy to the medics as soon as he is shot. You have a fucking firefight to win before you worry about that.

In entirely different news, I applied for a new job last night, and was called less than 10 hours later to arrange for an interview. Somewhat of a lateral move. I'll still be in the field, but I'll be doing more of the administrative side, instead of doing the grunt work. I'm not even sure I'll take it, unless they can match some very specific requests I have. More just looking to see what's out there, really. The thing that makes me not want to really consider this new job seriously is that the grass is always greener. I have decent job security, and, talking to my boss during my performance review last month, I'm a leading candidate for a promotion next year which would be the same position I've applied for at this other place.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Tectoniic

No one is trying to specifically argue your point.

I think what they are trying to say is that not a lot of situations in the military are actually calling for physical strength all the time and plenty of other qualities are just as important. Again I've never served but I have to think that a lot of the "Last guy in the squad carrying all of his hurt buddies" isn't happening nearly as much as hollywood wants you to believe.

Hollywood and video games can distort reality to unbelievable levels.

Ground troops rarely have a full kit pack in a combat scenario. If they do then it means somebody screwed up bad and they are not where they should be.

If I am caught in a fire fight with my pack because Major Mistake told us to march into the middle of the enemy with full kit and then have to carry a buddy then you can believe the fucking pack is staying behind.

If under fire and trying to carry somebody it is going to be for feet or yards to cover. Nobody can or should try to haul an injured person for miles. Lt Dan would have died.

This "no man left behind" thing that movies love so much is a great sentiment and rally cry but the reality of training and combat is that you save yourself first and THEN save the injured. The dead can wait to be picked up later. A pile of dead heros that all went back into danger to get the pieces of Joe makes a horrible fighting force.

In a high stress situation that 120 woman may drag your ass out faster and better than two "strong" men.

[Phijkchu]

Originally Posted by jawn

As someone who used to work at a gun shop, I can assure you that you get used to being swept every day. The part of your brain that tells you to panic dies a little bit every time.

Well, I can refute that at gun shops the guns are typically unloaded and you are aware of that. Gun ranges on the other hand have idiots with Schrodinger's guns ready to fire pointed at your face.

[jawn]

Originally Posted by Phijkchu

Well, I can refute that at gun shops the guns are typically unloaded and you are aware of that. Gun ranges on the other hand have idiots with Schrodinger's guns ready to fire pointed at your face.

You'd be surprised how many loaded guns come in.

[Phijkchu]

Originally Posted by jawn

You'd be surprised how many loaded guns come in.

Oh, I see, I was assuming that you were referring to off the shelf guns and not customers' guns. Thank you for the clarification.

[Ashikabi]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Hollywood and video games can distort reality to unbelievable levels.

Ground troops rarely have a full kit pack in a combat scenario. If they do then it means somebody screwed up bad and they are not where they should be.

If I am caught in a fire fight with my pack because Major Mistake told us to march into the middle of the enemy with full kit and then have to carry a buddy then you can believe the fucking pack is staying behind.

If under fire and trying to carry somebody it is going to be for feet or yards to cover. Nobody can or should try to haul an injured person for miles. Lt Dan would have died.

This "no man left behind" thing that movies love so much is a great sentiment and rally cry but the reality of training and combat is that you save yourself first and THEN save the injured. The dead can wait to be picked up later. A pile of dead heros that all went back into danger to get the pieces of Joe makes a horrible fighting force.

In a high stress situation that 120 woman may drag your ass out faster and better than two "strong" men.

Ok so my romantic vision of an army made up of capable soldiers instead of pussies and weaklings is silly and inaccurate. I was wrong. You guys fucking happy now? My bad for assuming soldiers weren't a bunch of pampered bitches sitting on a **** all fucking day

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Ashikabi

Ok so my romantic vision of an army made up of capable soldiers instead of pussies and weaklings is silly and inaccurate. I was wrong. You guys fucking happy now? My bad for assuming soldiers weren't a bunch of pampered bitches sitting on a **** all fucking day

That is our point Ashi. There is indeed a romantic picture of all these supermen soldiers running around. The reality is that 95% of them are the same crowd you would run into at a car meet. And I mean right down to that skinny assed nerdy looking guy that there always is. That skinny assed nerd or the well trained and conditioned woman would take you out is a heartbeat in a fight.
To call them "pussies and weaklings" because they are not all Brad Pitts or Rambos is the most disrespectful thing I have ever heard.

Take a look at this pic of your real Army. No fucking Captain Americas to be seen. Just young well trained NORMAL people!

[Teseo]

And which is "better soldier"? Seal or Spetsnaz
No teamwork, just a 1 on 1 battle

[p1l0t]

The military isn't about 1 on 1 though. It's all a numbers game.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Teseo

And which is "better soldier"? Seal or Spetsnaz
No teamwork, just a 1 on 1 battle

What year?
How old?
How long trained?
What combat experience?
Where?
What is the scenario?

There is no way to say which is "better".
Life isn't a video game where stats are assigned and the higher the stats the better you are.