the new enemy

[Stuart Galbraith]

Yep, soldiering is hard work.

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/soviet-women-tankers.html

 

Edited June 1, 2021 by Stuart Galbraith

[Ssnake]

If Soviet war practices are your yardstick, bring back human wave attacks.

[bojan]

Ugh, both your and Stuart's arguments are a nonsense.

[Ssnake]

Let's hear yours, then.

[bojan]

Stuart's argument - Soviets used females in combat reluctantly*, and decided after war not to allow women to enlist in combat roles. There was a reason for that beyond "patriarchal" thinking, and it was one that is repeated here that he keeps ignoring - strength and endurance.

Locally, when in the 1950s universal conscription was considered (like the original Israeli model) there was a study that had a list of roles where women were considered "inadequate" - some of them combat, some rear area ones. It was not considered that women are suitable for the artillery, armored units and certain rear area roles. Line infantry was OKed through... in the end universal conscription was not introduced due the "patriarchal" reasons (there were enough grumbling from some parts of country for allowing females to vote, get divorce and have their own bank accounts...), not due the total female unsuitability for being soldiers...

Your argument - it is basic reductio ad absurdum - Going by that thinking there was nothing to learn from German ww2 experience (lost the war after all), or from US one, or from... anyone's else. Because everyone did "stupid" thing.

 

My conclusion - establish realistic universal tests (running w/o load is not realistic) and let those that can pass them enlist. Say what are risks of the certain profession and don't be a facebook mom, worrying about other people's health more than they do. If the politicians misuse those things... fight the politicians. Otherwise you are no different from "state knows what is best for you" types.

Edited June 2, 2021 by bojan

[Ssnake]

2 minutes ago, bojan said:

My conclusion - establish realistic universal tests (running w/o load is not realistic) and let those that can pass them enlist. Say what are risks of the certain profession and don't be a facebook mom, worrying about other people's health more than they do. If the politicians misuse those things... fight the politicians. Otherwise you are no different from "state knows what is best for you" types.

I can get behind all these suggestions. My main concern is however that "universal tests" will be universal, if at all, only for a limited time before activists of various kinds make the military profession their poster child for equality, and the metric they always apply is equal outcomes (50% are women; if there aren't exactly 50% women in a given work force it's proof of discrimination, and needs more regulation).

 

This may not apply to all societies at all times. Lucky you if it's not a problem in your neck of the woods.

[glenn239]

57 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

I can get behind all these suggestions. My main concern is however that "universal tests" will be universal, if at all, only for a limited time before activists of various kinds make the military profession their poster child for equality, and the metric they always apply is equal outcomes (50% are women; if there aren't exactly 50% women in a given work force it's proof of discrimination, and needs more regulation).

Right, the problem is that universal standards are the wedge issue, and that quotas follow along after some interval.

[seahawk]

You simply need to move away from universal standards. You need specific standards for specific jobs, but that means you have to define them and then show the necessity.

[Adam Peter]

5 minutes ago, seahawk said:

You simply need to move away from universal standards. You need specific standards for specific jobs, but that means you have to define them and then show the necessity.

Coming from engineering, defining the minimum is much harder than define something "sure" works. This would multiply the pain.

[bojan]

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

...My main concern is however that "universal tests" will be universal, if at all, only for a limited time before activists of various kinds make the military profession their poster child for equality, and the metric they always apply is equal outcomes (50% are women; if there aren't exactly 50% women in a given work force it's proof of discrimination, and needs more regulation)...

It is the ultimate consequence of the western style liberalism. You have option to fight them through education, to explain why equal opportunities is better than equal outcome, or you might try to hang to "no females allowed", which will become position that can not be defended (and already it is as solid as Dien Bien Phu in early March 1954) and then you will have no control over what happens next.

IOW, only solutions are that you either destroy what makes "west" good in order to keep "good old times" or you fight for what is best aligned with  the principles of the liberal democracy. You don't get to pick and choose.

 

Quote

This may not apply to all societies at all times. Lucky you if it's not a problem in your neck of the woods.

(Un)luckily for us we have far bigger and far more real problems to deal with than "equality quotas". OTOH, none here  can deny that females can fight when there is a real war of the national survival, as there are numerous examples dating as far back as Austrian-Turkish wars of 1600s.  What is discussed is whatever they should enlist when there is not such thing going on, but that one is based on classic patriarchal upbringing, not on the "real world" problems.

 

[bojan]

10 minutes ago, seahawk said:

You simply need to move away from universal standards. You need specific standards for specific jobs, but that means you have to define them and then show the necessity.

When I said "universal" I have meant "unisex". Each branch should have own specialized fitness tests, not current crap. What use is your ability to run fast in sneakers and t-shirt w/o any load?

[bojan]

8 minutes ago, Adam Peter said:

Coming from engineering, defining the minimum is much harder than define something "sure" works. This would multiply the pain.

Tests should never be "minimal standard" as long as you have decent enough pool of candidates.

[Ssnake]

21 minutes ago, bojan said:

It is the ultimate consequence of the western style liberalism. You have option to fight them through education, to explain why equal opportunities is better than equal outcome

Again, we're in agreement.

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 hours ago, bojan said:

Stuart's argument - Soviets used females in combat reluctantly*, and decided after war not to allow women to enlist in combat roles. There was a reason for that beyond "patriarchal" thinking, and it was one that is repeated here that he keeps ignoring - strength and endurance.

Locally, when in the 1950s universal conscription was considered (like the original Israeli model) there was a study that had a list of roles where women were considered "inadequate" - some of them combat, some rear area ones. It was not considered that women are suitable for the artillery, armored units and certain rear area roles. Line infantry was OKed through... in the end universal conscription was not introduced due the "patriarchal" reasons (there were enough grumbling from some parts of country for allowing females to vote, get divorce and have their own bank accounts...), not due the total female unsuitability for being soldiers...

Your argument - it is basic reductio ad absurdum - Going by that thinking there was nothing to learn from German ww2 experience (lost the war after all), or from US one, or from... anyone's else. Because everyone did "stupid" thing.

 

My conclusion - establish realistic universal tests (running w/o load is not realistic) and let those that can pass them enlist. Say what are risks of the certain profession and don't be a facebook mom, worrying about other people's health more than they do. If the politicians misuse those things... fight the politicians. Otherwise you are no different from "state knows what is best for you" types.

And yet, they proved successful. Which suggests the issue was rather more that of their male comrades than the women themselves.

Yes, once again you are not hearing me. Im not saying ALL women are capable of doing ALL these roles. Im pointing to the self evident truth that not all women are alike. Not all PEOPLE are alike come to that.  If you are going to bar these roles to ALL women purely based on their gender and a presumption, rather than looking at what they are capable of as individuals, you are going to be missing potential recruits.

An old female friend many years ago went to agricultural college. She was training to reverse a tractor, which she bodged, and someone had a good laugh out of it because they thought it was funny. So she stormed out the cab, marched over to him, and knocked his block off. Knocked him flat out cold. logic dicates there are probably few women that are capable of things like that. OTOH, should we slam the door in the face of all of them because we assume that they are identical to the rest of their gender?

 

As for your last paragraph, yes, that is precisely what I HAVE been saying, several times. So once again I dont understand the need to disagree about something ive already clearly said!

 

Edited June 2, 2021 by Stuart Galbraith

[seahawk]

2 hours ago, Adam Peter said:

Coming from engineering, defining the minimum is much harder than define something "sure" works. This would multiply the pain.

It does not have to be a minimum, but you should be forced to define reasonable physical and mental capabilities required for the job. If you, for example, say, that a truck driver in a logistics unit should be able to change a tire without help, it does not mean that every male will be able to do that.

[Tim Sielbeck]

9 hours ago, bojan said:

Each branch should have own specialized fitness tests, not current crap. What use is your ability to run fast in sneakers and t-shirt w/o any load?

Agree with the first part.  As to the second part anytime a fast move to the rear, while close to the enemy, is required.  I know I wouldn't have done this unless my tank was put out of action.  All I would have taken with me were my CVC helmet, my gas mask, my side arm, and my ass.  As it was 40 or so years ago I did 90% of my PT test in combat boots.

[Ivanhoe]

12 hours ago, bojan said:

When I said "universal" I have meant "unisex". Each branch should have own specialized fitness tests, not current crap. What use is your ability to run fast in sneakers and t-shirt w/o any load?

A lot of that seems to be baked into Army culture. 2 mile run in gym clothes is easy, cheap, objective. All you need is a course and a stopwatch. A former coworker was all about the run, because of course he was good at it in his early career and wanted to feel superior. In his mind it was THE standard of performance of Army personnel. Like, if you can't run 2 miles in 13 minutes, you shouldn't be an officer or NCO.

 

[rmgill]

On 6/1/2021 at 5:53 PM, Ssnake said:

If Soviet war practices are your yardstick, bring back human wave attacks.

Or Meat based spaced armor. 
 

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, Ivanhoe said:

A lot of that seems to be baked into Army culture. 2 mile run in gym clothes is easy, cheap, objective. All you need is a course and a stopwatch. A former coworker was all about the run, because of course he was good at it in his early career and wanted to feel superior. In his mind it was THE standard of performance of Army personnel. Like, if you can't run 2 miles in 13 minutes, you shouldn't be an officer or NCO.

 

Well, it's a good benchmark test, if you can't do it quickly in light clothes, you're not going to be able to do it on the hustle with gear and a combat load let alone with any endurance. 

[bd1]

on the other side, my training company had monthly run-around-local-tallinn-airport in full gear, backpacks etc. (no weapons though), 10km. killed lots of knees probably, was discontinued for this around 2000.  

[seahawk]

Those are often remains of the conscription times, when you had plenty of young and able bodied males, that stayed for a short time. If you have soldiers staying on for years, you would learn that the knees won´t take it for years.

[bojan]

7 hours ago, rmgill said:

Or Meat based spaced armor. 
 

And that is why M1 manual has section on how infantry rides on tank.

[Simon Tan]

Are we back to the Soviets having no actual skills and just endless cannon fodder?

[Adam Peter]

2 hours ago, bojan said:

And that is why M1 manual has section on how infantry rides on tank.

There were no composite armor gap allowed in the original M1 timeline.

[bojan]

36 minutes ago, Simon Tan said:

Are we back to the Soviets having no actual skills and just endless cannon fodder?

Clueless people never stopped with that narrative.