Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
48 minutes ago, rmgill said:

What is being lauded however isn't fitness, but diversity. Ability and merit aren't what is desired from the left. 
 

Do you want little brown skinned dudes in your military such that anyone is taken as a recruit? Or do you want little Brown Skinned Nepalese highlanders who have physical fitness and aptitude to make bloody excellent soldiers? 
 

Superficially they may appear the same, but random small dudes from east asia aren't the same as Nepalese highlanders with the Gurun last name (for example) AND who exceed requirements. 

The last article posted here was noting that people, mostly women, who had passed the previous APFT and were presumably dong their jobs were failing the new ACPFT, resulting in a number of valuable, trained people leaving. As for "random small dudes from east asia"  I note they gave big White guys a great deal of trouble in the Philippines, Malaya, Burma, New Guinea, Korea, and Indochina.  I'm not convinced only NFL linemen can be infantry soldiers.

  • Replies 164
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
12 hours ago, R011 said:

  I note they gave big White guys a great deal of trouble in the Philippines, Malaya, Burma, New Guinea, Korea, and Indochina.  

If you don't care long term about the survival of the little brown guy's survival he makes a great bit of cannon fodder. But if you care about survival and getting to the next mission, there are certain things you want infantry to be able to do. Sure you can go with smaller more frail folks, but it's not optimal. But if you plan on disposing of them with less concern than was held with Kitchener's Mob...sure. 

I expected a more precise and insightful analysis of such things on that from you honestly. 

Have you read the USMC report on Mixed vs all male infantry units? Did you note the issues of injuries that caused casualties just on the approach march doing carrying of loads and weapons? 

 

Quote

 

 Combat Effectiveness
o Overall: All-male squads, teams and crews demonstrated higher performance levels on 69% of tasks evaluated (93 of 134) as compared to gender-integrated squads, teams and crews. Gender-integrated teams performed better than their all-male counterparts on (2) events. 

o Speed: All-male squads, regardless of infantry MOS, were faster than the gender-integrated squads in each tactical movement. The differences were more pronounced in infantry crew- served weapons specialties that carried the assault load plus the additional weight of crew- served weapons and ammunition.

o Lethality: 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.

o Male provisional infantry (those with no formal 03xx school training) had higher hit percentages than the 0311 (school trained) females: M4: 44% vs 28%, M27: 38% vs 25%, M16A4w/M203: 26% vs 15%.

o 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.

o 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).

 

o Body composition: Males averaged 178 lbs, with 20% body fat: females averaged 142 lbs, with 24% body fat

o Anaerobic Power: Females possessed 15% less power than males; the female top 25th percentile overlaps with the bottom 25th percentile for males

o Anaerobic Capacity: Females possessed 15% less capacity; the female top 10th percentile overlaps with the bottom 50th percentile of males

o Aerobic Capacity (VO2Max): Females had 10% lower capacity; the female top 10th percentile overlaps with bottom 50th percentile of males

o Within the research at the Infantry Training Battalion, females undergoing that entry-level training were injured at more than six-times the rate of their male counterparts

 27% of female injuries were attributed to the task of movement under load, compared to 13% for their male counterparts, carrying a similar load.

o During the GCEITF assessment, musculoskeletal injury rates were 40.5% for females, compared to 18.8% for males

 Of the 21 time-loss injuries incurred by female Marines, 19 were lower extremity injuries and 16 occurred during a movement under load task

 

 



https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/09/10/439190586/marine-corps-study-finds-all-male-combat-units-faster-than-mixed-units

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2394531-marine-corps-force-integration-plan-summary.html

Posted
12 minutes ago, Simon Tan said:

Wyminz are not pack animals. 

Tell that to one, specific Singaporean conscript!

Posted (edited)

We are not talking battle maids here.

CZ_Delta.png

Edited by sunday
Posted
14 hours ago, sunday said:

Tell that to one, specific Singaporean conscript!

I am missing a bit of intel. What? 

Posted

So that's her rice bowl? 

/SandPebbles

Posted

The  myth of National Service as the great leveller is just that of course. Worse, it actually becomes a plaything of the ruling party's obsession with playing God.

Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Simon Tan said:

The  myth of National Service as the great leveller is just that of course. Worse, it actually becomes a plaything of the ruling party's obsession with playing God.

The greatest "National Service" of any nation is found in Matthew 28:16-20, often referred to as the Great Commission.  It is best to read this whole chapter of Matthew to obtain the full understanding of this geyser of truth.

Edited by Rick
Posted

https://freebeacon.com/national-security/vets-battle-critical-race-theory-invasion-of-military/


 

Quote

 

Troubled by an influx of critical race theory into the military, a coalition of veterans and congressional Republicans are demanding the Pentagon stop placating left-wing activists and focus on national defense.

A July 2020 film by the United States Air Force Academy football team endorsing Black Lives Matter and "antiracism" education prompted retired Lt. Gen. Rod Bishop to speak out against the school’s administrators. Military academies, the 34-year Air Force veteran said, should remain politically neutral, particularly at a time when Black Lives Matter protests have led to riots and violence throughout major cities across the country.

"Rather than e pluribus unum, rather than teamwork, rather than cohesion, we're being taught an ideology which seeks to divide us based on the color of our skin," Bishop told the Washington Free Beacon. "I've flown into combat zones. It didn’t matter if my copilot was black or not. How are we better for teaching all the elements of critical race theory?"

 

 

Posted (edited)
On 5/20/2021 at 8:33 PM, rmgill said:

And? Does it mean she's as strong and as fit as a man doing the same job? Just because she's trying doesn't mean she can. Granted some smaller folks in the mix will make it more adept when it comes to getting someone into say a confined space to do a critical task. But how many of that range is useful? 

And again, as has been noted, if the standards are lowered to make it possible for more 1/2 sized folks to enlist, what does that do to the overall capabilities? 

 

If you looked on Twitter at the moment, the Royal Navy has a feature of a Royal Navy F35 Engineer, also a woman. In fact, the Royal Navy just introduced their first Female Admiral.You have had female pilots in the USN since the mid 90's, and you dont get much more strenuous a job than a fighter pilot.

Can you just wake up and face the 21st Century?

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Posted
48 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

If you looked on Twitter at the moment, the Royal Navy has a feature of a Royal Navy F35 Engineer, also a woman. In fact, the Royal Navy just introduced their first Female Admiral.You have had female pilots in the USN since the mid 90's, and you dont get much more strenuous a job than a fighter pilot.

Can you just wake up and face the 21st Century?

Yes you do. As stated in multiple past posts there are many combat tasks that women cannot do near as well as men and there are many support tasks women can do as well as men.

Take said female pilot and her male counterpart, place in said airplane -- without the G-suit -- and see who stands up better to the physical strain better.

If women can truly do the same physical tasks as men, then let's merge men and women sports teams;)

Men and women are designed by God to be complimentary and not adversarial as per leftists. It is a failing of the civility of society when there is war and even worse when leftist insist on the weaker sex being pawns in their power hungry games. 

Posted (edited)

Rick, go and watch any video of a fighter pilot, and they will tell you its strenuous. Very strenuous. If F1 racing drivers have to do exercises all day to keep their neck muscles in trim to keep their head rolling all round the shop when they go around a corner, imagine how much stronger a Fighter pilot has to be with all they do. Then go and imagine spending hours in a cockpit maxing out your endurance, and then short periods when you are pulling something like 7 to 9 times your own body weight, the stress of plugging into a Tanker, and then more hours flying, then planting it on a carrier deck.

No, there simply isnt any job more taxing than that. No, all women can do that, not all men could do that either. But there are plenty of both that have.

IMHO, If God didnt want men and women to be as equal as possible, he wouldnt have given them a mouth and a temper.

 

 

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Posted
1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

you dont get much more strenuous a job than a fighter pilot.

Sorry Stuart, Rick has basically said it all. Your oversimplification applies to "frictionless spherical humans in a vacuum". There's tasks that women can do with only negligibly lower or better performance. Women are better at some tasks than men. And then there are also tasks for which they simply aren't made.

Just because being a fighter pilot is "strenuous" in one particular way doesn't mean that there aren't other fields that can be more strenuous in other ways. That simply is fallacious thinking. A top level weight lifter is just as much an athlete as a 50km walking champion, but both will suck terribly if they had to compete in the other's field.

I have no doubt that 25 year-old female fighter pilots can beat my 50 year-old sorry male ass in an uncomfortably large number of fields. But I'd always prefer to get my ass whooped by such a fighter pilot than a 25 year-old man from the mechanized infantry.

This question transcends women's rights questions because it would do nobody a service to be pressed into jobs with high physical demands for which that person isn't fit. So can we please stop sacrificing young women on the altar of misinterpreted gender equality?

 

When it comes to genderism and biology, Monty Python as said everything these is to say in Life of Brian, "Call me Loretta". It's not oppression of anyone to acknowledge that there are physiological limits. I can't compete in ski jumping. I don't demand admission despite my physiological limitations. Above all, I don't demand an equal share of paraplegics in the starter field to be tossed down the ramp in the name of "equality".

Posted (edited)

Im pretty sure I said not ALL women are physically capable of being a naval aviator. Most PEOPLE are not capable of doing that job either. Im merely keen to counter to the narrative Ive been hearing here for the past 20 years that NO women are capable of these jobs when, quite clearly, there is rather a lot of evidence more than a few of them are. Large numbers in fact. Indeed one has to bury ones head in the sand to quite a depth to pretend otherwise, which many seem to find far easier to do than I do.

My opinion is not about genderism. Its purely about whats fair, whether its reasonable a military should try to be as much representive as possible of the society that forms it, and whether ultimately we can afford anymore to turn away people with the wrong gender arrangements when recruitment in most of our societies is on the decline. Lets not pretend a large dollop of politics is not involved in this too, particularly on the back of the US military turning away recruits for the fairly trivial sin of being transexuals. Maybe if they had their trigger finger removed I could understand it.

I stand by my point, find me a job that is more taxing than being sat in a cockpit for hours on a time, either physically or mentally. Then go and wind that up to a week, a month, 6 months of operations. Yes, I can see a light infantryman, special forces certainly, for a short period of time, more physically taxed. But he is usually not as mentally taxed, and he is rarely in the field for 4-6 months at a time. And these days with Afghanistan as a guide, he usually has a helicopter or a supacat to get him where he is going anyway.

We are imprinting values of how things used to be in WW2. Militaries have changed. Our societies have changed, and one must move with it or find you dont have any recruits at all.

 

 

 

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Posted

Small point, and a question.  Can a female's internal organs deal with an ejection in the same way as a male's external (and internal) organs?

Posted

It's pretty effing simple Stuart.

Women and Men are on two separate bell curves for physical strength/stamina. The difference is two standard deviations, that means the average man is 66% stronger than the average woman. What this means in practice is that a woman in the army who's maxed out her PT score, generally is the SAME as a man who's barely scraping by on his PT score. This means all the world for where folks are in the Physical fitness arena and capabilities. 

Pointing to the women who are on the extreme right of the bell curve as representative is fallactious. 

Here's what a friend who was a DI in the US Army had to say about this just the other day on social media. 

 

Quote
Money quote [and my answer to her question]:
"'Why is the ACFT so difficult for women to pass?' Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., asked Grinston. 'Does this new test find that nearly half of women aren't fit to serve?'"
Answer: The reason the test is so difficult for women to pass is called *biology*. It's the same reason almost all top level sports have separate male and female categories. There is a *reason* the previous test (the APFT) had raw score cut offs where a raw score that yielded 60 points ("barely passing" ...which was not considered "adequate" for any combat arms unit, even though it met the written standards) for males was generally about the same as would result in 100 points ("max score") for a female of the same age group. Yes, that female with the "Physical Fitness Excellence" PT badge (which required getting 90 points in each if the three events of the APFT) didn't even have to perform at a *passing* level as a male of her age to earn it.
It doesn't mean that "nearly half of women aren't fit to serve" - but it does illustrate that, in general, males tend to be stronger than females of similar conditioning and overall health. Sure, you can compare a female on the right edge of the bell curve to a male on the left edge (or even the center), but when comparing apples to apples, that's how it rolls.
If they revert back to gendered standards, they're simply lowering the standards for females for political reasons. (Again, "making the minimum", especially when considering candidates for high threshold things like Special Operations, is not acceptable.) So saying, "Well, they'll still have to make the minimum passing score regardless," doesn't change that fact, unless that minimum score is set at the *actual* level of performance expected of troops in that job, not the "I just passed well enough not to be thrown out of the Army."
The enemy doesn't give a shit about how inclusive or woke you are. The track on that Abrams doesn't magically get lighter because you're female. If you cannot meet the average of at least your teammates, that means they HAVE to carry your share of the work in addition to their own, or the unit suffers. And no amount of pandering to extremists who ignore reality will change that - now or ever.


 

Quote

 

"The original concept was fantastic, and the only *credible* way to achieve the idea of gender neutral MOS eligibility across the board.

The problem is that activists will not accept reality - while even your average male 19 year old video game nerd can achieve the fitness necessary to make a good infantryman or artilleryman in a few weeks in Basic, it is only going to be a small sliver of exceptionally fit females (who will pretty much have to already be within grasp of that level of.physocal performance before the enter Basic, again, due to biology - there's a reason testosterone in considered a "performance enhancing drug" in athletics) who will qualify.
 
I'll readily admit there are (and I have met some of them) females who could out run, out lift, and generally kick my ass *at my peak*. If they want to go be hard core knuckledraggers and do All The Things, fine."

 


And in reference to a Female Marine writing about how women do NOT belong in the infantry...

 
Quote

"She was a Marine engineer, and she had been a marathon runner. She also described the breakdowns occurring with *all* of her female Marines, no matter how fit, while her male.Marines pretty much just popped back up every day (grumbling about aches in some cases, but not actually *injured*) ready to do it all again.

Her unit was also only doing LOC local patrols on flat terrain, usually with roads to walk on, and usually only daily- not extended patrols through the hills (and carrying supplies for the entire patrol, including double or more basic ammo loads.).
 
In six months, she went from being someone who generally smoked the males at PT (in raw performance, not gender curved), to having trouble meeting the minimums, even after she rotated back Stateside and wasn't doing those daily patrols.
 
Testosterone (among others) is a *miracle drug* for athletic performance and recovery... and critical for the natural and quite significant difference in bone density and muscle mass between males and females of similar size and activity levels. Simply put, the physical advantages males receive *even before puberty* from testosterone develops a baseline bone density and muscle mass, and continued exposure to post-pubescent levels of testosterone result in a physiology that is simply more inclined to build (or repair) muscle and bone at a faster rate than normal female physiology.
 
Of course, it has a down side as well, resulting in it probably being the single highest factor in the shorter life span and overall rate of accidents and injuries in males. But evolution doesn't give a shit what happens to an organism after it leaves prime breeding age (which, for pre-modern humans would be "15-30 or so for males")."

 

 

Posted
59 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Im pretty sure I said not ALL women are physically capable of being a naval aviator. Most PEOPLE are not capable of doing that job either. Im merely keen to counter to the narrative Ive been hearing here for the past 20 years that NO women are capable of these jobs when, quite clearly, there is rather a lot of evidence more than a few of them are. Large numbers in fact. Indeed one has to bury ones head in the sand to quite a depth to pretend otherwise, which many seem to find far easier to do than I do.

My opinion is not about genderism. Its purely about whats fair, whether its reasonable a military should try to be as much representive as possible of the society that forms it, and whether ultimately we can afford anymore to turn away people with the wrong gender arrangements when recruitment in most of our societies is on the decline.
 

The job of the military is not to be FAIR. The job of the military is to undertake combat missions to effect the violent end of the foreign policy challenge set. 

PERIOD. 

Making it FAIR, will in fact make it unable to do it's job. 

Would it be effective to have a tanker unit composed of a precise cross section of citizens from all walks with all levels of disability? How's that paraplegic tanker going to work out? 

Look at it differently, would you find it useful to have a life guard who was hired out of fairness when he can't get into the water without assistance of a crane and 1-2 other people? 
 

59 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

Lets not pretend a large dollop of politics is not involved in this too, particularly on the back of the US military turning away recruits for the fairly trivial sin of being transexuals. Maybe if they had their trigger finger removed I could understand it.

fairly trivial sin? 

Nonsense. The military isn't in the business of bringing people in who are depenedent upon medication. It makes you non-deployable. IF you're on hormones for daily functions, that's a problem. Most transgender surgical regimes also have a year or two process time, or longer. And they have complications. 

Asthma isn't a sin. Can you join or stay in if you develop asthma? No. You can't. 

It's about having a deployable force that can do the job. It's not about fairness. 

59 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I stand by my point, find me a job that is more taxing than being sat in a cockpit for hours on a time, either physically or mentally.

You need to talk to people who have had their reproductive organs removed and look at the complicating factors that brings to the table. Talk to some women who are postmenopausal, due to cancer surgery. 

59 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Then go and wind that up to a week, a month, 6 months of operations. Yes, I can see a light infantryman, special forces certainly, for a short period of time, more physically taxed. But he is usually not as mentally taxed, and he is rarely in the field for 4-6 months at a time.

There's nothing light about light infantrymen. They have to carry EVERYTHING. Dragoons have lighter kit if it's vehicle mounted. Unless they have to do things like shift the mortar off the truck and into a remote firing location. Then it's down to muscle. 

How long does it take to develop a vaginal yeast infection Stuart? For guys that's jock itch and it's a pain but it's not life threatening. Same freind above, he noted that he had women who became medical casualties requiring medivac with life threatening yeast infections on TRAINING exercises (2 week FTXs). 

59 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

And these days with Afghanistan as a guide, he usually has a helicopter or a supacat to get him where he is going anyway.

If everything works out great. But if it doesn't....what then? 

I look forwards to the UK's first wheelchair bound Infantry Company. 
 

59 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

We are imprinting values of how things used to be in WW2. Militaries have changed. Our societies have changed, and one must move with it or find you dont have any recruits at all.

What happens when you come across an opponent that doesn't care about "fairness" when it comes to infantry selection. You know China is starting to practice eugenics now right?  And I'm not talking about the tail end of their sterilization of Uighurs. They're selecting better specimens of people and doing tweaks on them genetically. the PRC has ZERO qualms about medical ethics. Their organ harvesting should illustrate that. 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...