Marines Delay Female Fitness Plan After Half Fail

[Purveyor]

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) -- More than half of female Marines in boot camp can't do three pullups, the minimum standard that was supposed to take effect with the new year, prompting the Marine Corps to delay the requirement, part of the process of equalizing physical standards to integrate women into combat jobs.

The delay rekindled sharp debate in the military on the question of whether women have the physical strength for some military jobs, as service branches move toward opening thousands of combat roles to them in 2016.

Although no new timetable has been set on the delayed physical requirement, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos wants training officials to "continue to gather data and ensure that female Marines are provided with the best opportunity to succeed," Capt. Maureen Krebs, a Marine spokeswoman, said Thursday.

Starting with the new year, all female Marines were supposed to be able to do at least three pullups on their annual physical fitness test and eight for a perfect score. The requirement was tested in 2013 on female recruits at Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, S.C., but only 45 percent of women met the minimum, Krebs said.

Read more: http://www.standard-journal.com/news/news_ap/article_dc0ed90b-3e12-5f74-aa97-adba1c66b969.html

[philosslayer]

1. A good move

Clearly the standard is unreasonable. Glad to see the Marines are using some common sense here.

[dbackjon]

2. Doing three pull-ups is unreasonable?

The standards should be the same for women and men.

[philosslayer]

3. Women obviously don't have the upper body strength of men

And if 55% can't meet the standard, then yes, I would say its unreasonable. And the Marines clearly agree.

[dbackjon]

4. Bullcrap. I know many women that can do three pullups

Then get rid of the standard altogether. If it is not needed for women to do it, it shouldn't be needed for a man to do it.

[philosslayer]

9. I think you and I are on the same side here....

It sounds like it was a stupid requirement. Therefore, get rid of it altogether.

[former9thward]

12. Need upper body strength in Combat.

There should be standards for an increasingly unfit generation.

[treestar]

15. That's the question

How much upper body strength is really needed for 21st century combat? That's the question to be asked.

[hack89]

18. A lot

Infantry are hauling heavy loads on their backs. Artillery shells have not gotten lighter. There are still obstacles to haul yourself over. There are still wounded soldiers to pick up and carry to safety.

[treestar]

34. Women were good haulers

Pullups wouldn't measure that ability.

Why all the hauling? There should be a better way on that. Same with ways of getting people off the field. Even an all male military should have better help than that at this point. We spend so much on the military, why are they dragging things around like in the Napoleanic Wars?

[hack89]

37. You have to go where the enemy is

If that means rugged roadless Afgan mountains then you walk a lot as you patrol. First world infrastructure is rare in a combat zone.

Pullups are an excellent indicator of total upper body strength because they require every major muscle group.

[treestar]

57. And yet there are complaints about drones!

Which avoid that need.

Women are known for being able to do the long haul sort of thing even better than men.

Again, with all we spend, they don't have some better way of moving all the heavy stuff they supposedly need once they encounter these enemies! I would think in those conditions, they would want to keep it light.

[LanternWaste]

60. One wonders if the tens of thousands of Soviet women pressed into successful combat service during W

One wonders if the tens of thousands of Soviet women pressed into successful combat service during WW2 were only effective due to infrastructure-- even the partisans, who had no benefit at all from any infrastructure not destroyed by the Wermacht.

[Exultant Democracy]

68. Bet you most of those Russina women would have had no trouble with 3 little pull ups.

[Jesus Malverde]

91. It's interesting people don't recognize how unhealthy the american population is...

I'm shocked at the obesity epidemic, we all should be...

[warrant46]

64. Enough to click the mouse to drop the bomb from the drone

And wipe out the Muslin wedding celebration.

That's all

Nothing more needed (Nothing to see either)

[jmowreader]

23. Number of pull-ups needed to pass the Army PT test: 0

The Marines don't want to admit it, but the Army contains fit, proficient Infantrymen.

[former9thward]

27. The Army does not have the standards of the Marines.

The Marines have a different combat function than the Army and have different standards. (I was in the Air Force so I have no dog in the fight). The AF has no pull up standards either but it has a different mission.

[Duckhunter935]

30. Army standards

http://usarmybasic.com/army-physical-fitness/apft-standards#.UsX5K7QhzWg

Only situp is equal, all others male has to do more.

Marines do not do pushups from what I see. The PFT has three events, pull-ups (Flexed-Arm Hang for females), abdominal crunches, and a 3-mile run.

[jmowreader]

56. The Marines don't have a pushup event on their PFT

I like this new Canadian PT test:

http://www.cg.cfpsa.ca/cg-pc/Ottawa/EN/FitnessandSports/MilitaryFitness/CFexprestesting/Pages/NewCanadianArmedForcesminimumphysicalfitnessstandard.aspx

Plenty of lifting and short sprints.

Oh, about the Army's sit-up test: Until 1986 the standard for sit-ups was higher for males than females. Then someone noticed that all female soldiers maxed the sit-up test, and they looked into it, and they found out women can do more sit-ups than men because their abdominal muscles are stronger.

[civillawyer]

40. Not all Army folks

If memory serves...I keed.

[tabasco]

32. Sure. Then, when they have to pull another Marine out of danger,

or climb themselves out of danger, they won't be able to do it.

There's a reason we have stringent physical standards in the military. SAVING LIVES.

[happyslug]

50. I have heard that story so often it is getting me sick and I am male.

In almost every situation when it came time to pull another soldier out of combat, it took two to do it, thus requiring women to carry themselves makes no sense (and when one person hauls someone else, that person is generally DRAGGED for everyone is staying LOW to avoid being hit themselves).

Now, we have to remember women and men are different. I once saw two people, one male one female, climb a cliff side. Both made it to the top about the same time, but each used different methods. The male used his superior upper body strength, the women used her smaller fingers and lower center of gravity.

This is one of the problem with such tests, women and men will do activities differently, based on HOW their bodies are built. One observers of the sexes pointed out that if you had three groups of people on an island, two males, two females and a male and a female, which team would do the best at surviving on the island? The Answer was the male and the female team. Each Compliments the other, he has superior upper body strength, she has smaller fingers and thus able to grasp things he can not. He can use his superior strength to knock things down, she can use her lower center of gravity to go places where he can NOT.

Now, historically when women were used in combat it was in a support role OR a combat role where their lighter weight and lower center of gravity made them better. The Ancient Sarmatians of the Ancient World is an example of this, of them the Ancient Greeks said, no maiden could marry, till she killed three foes in battle. The Sarmatians (not to confused with the Samaritans who lived in Ancient Israel) had the best horses in the Ancient World. Women would go into combat riding their horses and shooting arrows into enemy formations and then riding away. Their lighter weight meant they horses could carry them faster and further then any group of men chasing them. Worse, the Sarmatians men stood nearby, often under cover, waiting for that situation so they could pounce on the horsemen chasing the women. No grave of a Female Sarmatians has ever been found with a Sword, but all had bows and arrows. Male graves have swords and lances.

More on the Sarmatians who lived North of the Black Seas, it is believed they called themselves Alans at the time of the fall of the Roman Empire, but with the spread of the Slavs were reduced to the Ossetians in the Caucasus mountains

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ossetes

Please do not confuse them with the Samaritians (the difference in spelling is only one letter the Alans/Osserte/ Sarmatian vs the Samaritians but the Samaritians were NEVER considered great horse people, unlike the Samaritians/Alans/Ossertes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritians


Now, in modern Combat, the case of a soldier having to carry out his comrade by himself is often brought up and that women will have a harder time during this then a man would. The problem is it almost never happens. In most situation two people pull out the wounded soldiers, for one is almost never enough, or you leave the wounded soldier where he is till the battle is over (and if you have to leave him, you leave him). In many ways during a Fire Fight you can NOT afford to have two of your Soldiers tied up helping that wounded soldier, all they will do is get themselves wounded or killed and thus unable to add to the fire power of the unit in that combat situation. If you can advance, you advance and leave the support elements save that wounded soldier, if you have to retreat, all that soldier represents is tying up two more soldiers from the fire fight, and if you are in retreat you need every soldier firing his weapon or all of the members of that retreating force will be joining that wounded soldier as another wounded soldier. You try to recover the wounded soldier but the mission must come first.

Now that we have arrived at the point the mission is the job of the Soldier, sooner or later Combat comes down to muscle in actual combat. After WWII they was a movement to eliminate the bayonet for it was NOT used extensively in Combat in Western Europe. When actual review of injuries in combat was done, bayonet wounds were rare, but did occur. The Japanese were excellent in the use of the bayonet (in fact old WWI foot long bayonets had to to issued to some marine units do to the experience of engaging Japanese soldiers armed with bayonets and the fight turning into a bayonet duel). The Russians also appear to have used the Bayonet to good effect. The North Koreans and Red Chinese used it to good effect in Korea. The Russians even report when digging up bodies during the 1950s in Stalingrad they came across two soldiers, who had bayoneted each other, one Russian, one German and then their bodies had been covered by debris from artillery.

The Bayonet is a muscle dependent weapon. This is the area of Combat Women tend to be weak in, because they are weaker in the upper body strength. On the other hand women (if given the same training as a man) has better endurance and better pain endurance (that once a month pain training Women go through is the main factor in woman being able to take pain better then men) and able to do a lot of small things men just can not do (and if they can, they do poorly).

Thus Women can do some things better then men. Manning a Machine gun on a tripod is one. Dropping rounds down a mortar tube is another. Neither are actually "Front line", but more supportive of soldiers in the front line. Women working a Machine gun with a bi-pod only, due to their greater endurance operate that machine gun and move it as needed. Women's greater endurance can make them better at going back for more ammunition and other supplies to keep the Machine Gun firing.

On the other hand, one on one unarmed combat, women should avoid. I am sorry, but when such one on one combat possible, men should be in front to handle it and women in the rear to provide machine gun and mortar support. As you get away from the front lines, the advantages of men tend to disappear. The 105 and 155 mm howitzer rounds were designed for men to manhandle (and thus something women should avoid, unless automated using an automatic loader).

Some women could handle those artillery rounds (The US Army has withdrawn anything bigger then the 155 howitzers), most women can not. Now once loaded women can aim and fire the weapon as well as a man. Working with heavy equipment, such as a track on a Tank, women would need different tools (mostly larger tools for greater leverage) but women can do the job. The further you get from the front lines, the more jobs women can do (in fact other then actual combat infantry, or Artillery loader, I can NOT think of any job women can not do based on a lack of upper body strength (One except could be military police, when it comes to watching prisoners, at times you want that strength, but most times no, thus may be better to integrate women into the MPs, I know they have long been, but train them to put men in position when strength may be needed, and women elsewhere.

My point is look at ACTUAL situations, NOT some theoretical situation that almost NEVER comes up. Hauling someone by yourself in a combat situation is rare, extremely rare. Generally it takes at least two in combat situations to haul out another. Furthermore in combat you want to stay low, thus you will almost never pick someone up. On the other hand if no combat is occurring, why move him? Treat the wounds and wait for the Medics. If one person HAS to move someone, that person drags the other person, thus most of the weight in on the ground NOT held up by the person dragging the wounded soldier.

Maybe the reason I am objecting to your hypothetical is that it has been used by POLICE DEPARTMENTS in the US to NOT hire women police officers. When ASKED why they have such strength tests, the Police Department said because such situation MAY come up, but when asked when had it, none of the Police Forces could come up with an Actual situation as oppose to a Theoretical situation.

On the other hand one on one combat is known, it was done in WWII, Korea, Vietnam and in Afghanistan and Iraq. We try our best NOT to put our soldiers into such situations, but some times the other side are playing by different rules. Tests should reflect ACTUAL COMBAT experience not untested theoretical situations that sound good but have no basis in reality.

[treestar]

78. It amazes me how suddenly when this subject of women comes up

The MOST IMPORTANT part of fighting is pulling your fellow soldiers off the field! The enemy is somehow admitted to be going to mow down your fellows and you have to clear them off the field, not go after the enemy.

The enemy can have women shooting at you and hurting your biggest men, but doggone it, get him off the field before fighting the enemy!

I wonder how much the enemy worries about that!

[happyslug]

85. My Father, a Normandy Combat vet, told me what he had to do with a wounded soldier

My father only told the story when he was drunk (the Flash backs were to hard for him to handle). but he told me he remember hearing someone he had trained with for two years, calling out for him to help him, and all he could do was leave him behind and continue the attack.

That is typical in combat, You have to take care of your wounded, but only when combat has moved elsewhere. Your job as an infantryman is to advance, defend or retreat, as a member of a UNIT, not as individuals (Thus I hate the present US Army ad of being an "Army of One". in ANY military operation, it is the mission that must be the first concern, Now, you have to have the personnel to do the mission, thus the people who will do the mission is your # 2 concern, follower by equipment and support issues.

Thus the times when you have to haul a fellow soldier back home is rare. You haul troops back to maintain morale for you can NOT do the mission if your troops morale is shot. Thus there are extensive medical support elements to any army, and the units in actual combat are train to rely on these units.

My comment was NOT the care of the wounded, you MUST take care of your wounded, if you do not, the morale of your troops will die and thus end any possibility of completing the mission. Thus troops are trained to give each other first aid and get each other to the medics. Troops are also trained to get each other to medical care BUT ONLY WHEN IT IS POSSIBLE and that is NEVER when you are in actual combat.

This is the policy of every Army, even the Samaritans I mentioned above, made sure their wounded received medical care. We know Native American Horsemen, who used tactics very similar to the Samaritans would pick up their wounded, but again two horsemen to pick up one wounded soldier, but only when it could be done WITHOUT risk to the two horsemen picking up the wounded. In situation when that could not be done, the wounded were dragged to a place of safety or left, depending on the overall combat situation. Most soldiers who are taken prisoner, for example, tend to be wounded soldiers left behind. The Winning force takes them prisoner, not only because it is required under the Geneva Convention, but they can be asked questions about the enemy.

Thus in actual combat the only issue as to strength is in the combat situation, i.e. when it comes down to bayonets.

Now, I believe women, like all non-infantrymen, should be trained as infantry, for at times they will be used as infantry. On the other hand, women should NOT be in actual infantry units, except in roles women exceed in. For example, women have smaller bodies, fingers and a lower center of gravity then men, and thus better Tank-men and APC and crewmen in MICV (The M2 Bradley is a MICV). Thus I can see a M2 Bradley have as its crew three women, the Driver, the Commander of the M2 and the gunner. The nine infantrymen riding in the M2 should be all male, for they are the people called on to exit the M2 and fight as Infantry. Now M2 can break down and be knocked out and the crew forced to fight as infantry, thus they should be trained as infantry (And I can see a Combat situations when the M2 Bradley are left behind and the women who man those M2s sent to fight as infantry). The best situation is the M2 Bradley crew members stay with their M2 and help in getting them back in fighting order (or making sure they are NOT usable in any form if they have to be abandoned). The same with the M1 Tanks, modern tanks are so huge and heavy that they have power assist in everything. The Smaller bodies of women, means more room for the women to work in, if inside the tank. If the tank is out of commission, the tank crew has to stay with the tank to help on the repairs OR if it can NOT be repaired, destroyed. This reduces the crew to the role of Infantry and thus should received such training, but keeping them as infantry is a waste for by then they would be a well trained tank-crew and should be issued a new tank,.

The Field Artillery is a question mark for me, but not in the towed capacity. In recent decades the move has been to auto firing of cannons, in such situation the additional strength of men is on little importance. On the other hand on wheeled Artillery, strength is still a factor, for these are manually dismounted from the Trucks hauling them and manually loaded. The Rounds are quite heavy, but are light enough for women to be able to load at least a few of them into the Cannon. The real issue can women do it for any length of time? Men have problem keeping the guns firing over a length of time, I suspect the situation will be worse for women. The same for the 120mm Mortars.

A 120mm Mortar Round is 30 pounds:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m933.htm

105mm Howitzer fires a 16-20 KG Projectile, or 35-44 pounds:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M101_howitzer

155 MM Ammunition weigh just under 100 pounds (44 Kg):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M107_projectile

M1 Tank Ammunition weight 46 pounds:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M829#M829A2

Now, the US Army M109 155mm Howitzer is still manually loaded, it uses GPS and sophisticated electronic controls that made the laying of Artillery, that I learned in the 1980s, obsolete. Now all is needed is a location of the target and the cannon can fire on that target, all it has to be is loaded. This was thought capable as early as the 1960s, thus many NATO nations have, since the 1970s, converted from the M109 to even larger and heavier 155 mm self propelled howitzers that include automatic loading of ammunition (the rounds are pre-loaded ready to fire). The M109 has to be manually loaded, in a cradle carried by two to fur men.

Notice the 120mm Mortar and 105mm Howitzers ends up firing 30-44 pounds rounds, often over and over again AND these weapons call for ONE person to load the round. i.e. the loader gets to push the whole 30-44 pounds. Can women do that on a CONSTANT basis? Men have problems doing it.

As to the M1 tanks and its 46 pound projectile, it only carried 42 rounds and the cannon only survives less then 2000 rounds before it needs to be replaced. Thus you do NOT use M1 tanks as artillery pieces. On the other hand, unlike some of our allies AND the Russians themselves, the M1 tank is dependent on MANUAL feeding of the Cannon. Can women manhandle 42 rounds of 46 pounds in weight? These will be is bursts, not one after another like the Mortars and Field Artillery above. I think the answer is YES, while I think the ability to fire round after round of Mortars and Field Artillery is no.

Side note: do to Radar and its ability to detect incoming mortar and field Artillery rounds since the 1960s, the general role of Artillery since the 1970s has been three rounds and a quick move. By the time Radar had detected the incoming rounds, the people who fired those rounds are long gone. On the other hand, long time fire may be needed in some combat situation, thus the need for people to man handle rounds of 30-45 pounds over a period of several hours will NOT be as needed as it was during WWI and WWII. If Tanks are called in to provide such artillery fire, the Tanks are supplied by the Field Artillery not the Tank units. Given that the guns wear out so fast, I suspect the US Army had dropped the idea of using tanks as artillery. It was taught in the 1980s as a POSSIBILITY to the Artillery, but the last time I heard it was done was in Vietnam and then with 90mm guns on M48s tanks (The Ideal Tank to provide Artillery fire was the 75mm M4 Sherman, for the 75mm Guns on the Sherman Started life in 1897 as the French Artillery 75mm M1897 "quick fire" gun and as such the last true Artillery gun in any front line tank. Even on the Sherman, the 75mm gun was being replaced by a prue Anti-Armor gun of 76mm by 1944, through most Shermans as late as the summer of 1945 still had the 75mm Cannon not the 76mm gun.

Just a comment on the real issue of upper body strength in the "Combat Arms" branches of the US Army. Any physical test should reflect these combat situation. i.e. the ability to manhandle a 45 pound round. The Ability to drive a bayonet through a sand bag and some training in hand to hand combat but in close quarters with fellow soldiers. There are NO magic tests for these requirements so the Military has to come up with their own, it might be better to have a 25 or 50 pound lift test instead of a pull up for example and a requirements of 50 in a one hour period (most cannons are reduced down to one to two rounds a minutes due to crew getting tired after just a few minutes of a call for fire, thus 50 lifts of 25 pounds in a 30 minute period, so that the tested person could maintain fire in a Mortar for 30 minutes. If you want to go to 50 pounds, fine (Through the heavier rounds for Mortars and Field Artillery tend to be smoke rounds, and thus not fired more then half a dozen at a time, the actual explosive rounds are closer to 30 pounds each).

The 155mm is just to heavy for one person to man handle more then once or twice, you need a crew to load that round and the four man cradle reduced that weight to 25 to 30 pounds per man on the cradle and another person pushing the 100 pound round into the Cannon. Thus the above 25 or 50 pound test would be sufficient for even women trying out for the 155 mm Howitzer position.

My problem is can women do such work for hours at a time? In many cases men can NOT, thus the real issue is will women keep up with the men, in this role designed for men? In a tank crew, I think the answer is yes, the smaller size of women compensate for the greater problem women will have with the heavy round of the 120mm M1 Cannon, but given the limited number of rounds (42) and the limited time such cannons are fired, fully within the capacity of women (i.e. it is NOT a woman manhandling a 46 pound round for 42 minutes at a time, tanks are NOT used that way).

As to the 155mm, that requires team work to load, but can a woman handle the 100 pound round when it has to be manhandled by one person (Which happens occasionally, but well trained crew tries to avoid those situations)?

[treestar]

90. By now there should be a specialized group with the job of

picking up wounded only.

Still exaggerated. Are you going to pick up wounded or shoot at the enemy? Are you sure you trust the enemy to prioritize picking up their wounded? Sounds like a recipe for defeat.

Take the women along, have someone else carry their gear, so that they are fresh and not tired out from all that hauling and can engage the enemy while the big guys pull the wounded off the field.

The upper body strength argument is failing here. Thinking it through, it would be far better to have someone else carry all the gear. Women who are good shooters should have carriers for their gear, men too. How many sharpshooters who would do a better job mowing down the enemy have been left behind due to needing soldiers to double as beasts of burden?

[wercal]

106. I take it you have never been in the military

Some of the assumptions you are making are just not even close to reality. No, the military will never have a separate group of 'gear haulers'...because those people would have to carry around their own damn gear. Trust me, what you are proposing makes absolutely no sense to anybody who has been in the military.

But back to the upper body strength argument. I was on the M1A1 tank....our fireproof suites had Velcro compartments in the back...open them up and you can pull out these straps. You see, if the tank gets hit, and people are slumped over unconscious in a burning tank (or just about any other military vehicle that has hatches on the top instead of doors on the side), the straps allow you to lift them out of the tank. That's just one of many very simple examples of why being a soldier or marine is incredibly physically demanding. The needs for physical strength in some jobs in the military are absolutely not exaggerated and certainly will not go away, no matter how advanced the world becomes.

[treestar]

110. Women could be trained to do it all

If the military really wanted to. The I'm in the Military card is not much good as there are many other people in the military, too. I'd like to hear from the women in the military as to their opinions of all this.

And as a citizen who is allegedly having her freedom protected by these people, I would like to know why the military, with all the money it has, does not find a better way than bogging down soldiers with 60 pounds.

Funny thing is that mostly it's going to be programming drones. Which is starting to make more sense.

And you can bet Al Qaeda are not bogged down with all that gear. How do they manage?

[wercal]

114. Your fixation with the weight of the gear is strange and misguided

Rifles and ammunition are not weightless. Nor is your chemical protection gear...or your flak vest...or the food and water you carry...or the clean socks....or night vision equipment...the list is endless.

An average backpacker carries around 40 lbs, just in necessary personal gear. It is not outlandish to think that somebody in the military would carry 20 lb more. You really are just coming across as silly.

[happyslug]

141. Backpacker carry 40 pounds???

A good backpacker can reduce that down to 20 pound easy, two blanket and and a poncho or Shelter half (which I what my father used in the Normandy Campaign during WWII). Now, the "Combat load" is about 20 pounds, that includes rifle and ammunitions and the means to carry that ammunition. Chemical protective gear has some weight, but all you need is the mask itself in most situations (Tests have shown that when a unit just have masks, and know how to use them, the enemy will produce most casualties by dropping conventional rounds on them then chemical rounds, chemical rounds, even modern Nerve Gas, is most effective against soldiers or Civilians without ANY protections as oppose to soldiers with just masks).

When the present load bearing equipment AND back packs was tested, if was shown you could NOT fight effectively while wearing it (which has been true of all field equipment, which is why its is taken off BEFORE you enter combat as oppose to wearing it in combat).

Now, one of the problem with these numbers is what is being measured. Do you include boots in your 40 pounds? The Army does and together they weigh about 8 pounds. Your uniform weights another 4 pounds and your helmet about six. Thus a "Combat load" of 20 pounds is roughly about 40 pounds of total weight (Rifle, Ammunition water, mask, AND boots, clothing and helmet). You start to get over 40 pounds, your combat effectiveness starts to decline.

In the days before gunpowder, pre 1400s, it was common for men to wear an additional 40 pounds of armor. If they were involved in a Cavalry charge that charge lasted less then 10 minutes then they withdrew. If they were infantry, the soldiers marched into combat in dense formations as much as 10 deep. Infantry was expected to fight only about 10 minutes, then withdraw and replaced by the man behind him. Thus the extra weigh was NOT a problem for actual combat war rarely over 10 minutes.

This all changed with gunpowder. Gunpowder biggest contribution to change was that Gun powder could be used in Cannon and by the 1400s, cannon already had an effective range of 1500 yards. This was a huge change over the previous combat range of Archers which was 250 yards. This forced units to adapt and the main way their adapted was by making the formation smaller by the 1600s formations were only 4 deep by the early 1800s two deep. Thus no one behind the front men to relieve them after 10 minutes of combat. Worse given the longer range of cannon, rapid movement over 1000 to 2000 yards became the norm (and in formation, which require more then 10 minutes to do).

Thus it was in response to Cannon and its range that lead to amour disappearing from the battlefield from 1500 onward. The excess weight of Armor would slow down a soldier and make him less effective given the distances and the time needed to move in the battlefield environment dominated by Cannon. Un-armored troops could move faster then troops in armor AND be more effective after moving 2000 yards on foot to be at the point of decision in the battle.

The US only embraced Armor as the US became more and more an army that operated from Armored Personal Carriers (APCs) or Mechanized Infantry Combat vehicle (MICV) or helicopters. Armor was tested and used in combat as early as WWII, but the excess weight kept making soldiers using Armor less effective then unarmored troops EXCEPT when the troops are transported by APC, MICV, truck or helicopter right to the combat area. Such troops can rest in their vehicles till they are within 200-400 feet of the enemy and then dismount and engage the enemy. Here Armor is less of a hindrance for the distances and the time to cross the distances is much shorter.

Just a comment is 20 pounds is the max most people can handle in combat, 40 pounds if you are counting boots, clothing and helmet in addition to Rifle, Ammunition Load Bearing Equipment, entrenching tool, canteens and protective masks.

[wercal]

143. Well you have obviously done alot of research and scoured wiki articles for information

But you still have no concept of how much crap a soldier carries around.

First of all your assumption that troops will be delivered to the battlefield by truck like a high school basketball team getting off the bus, to compete in a prescheduled competition is deeply flawed. For many reasons. But I'll just leave you with one - psst, there are places where there aren't roads.

Moving on - here is an actual study of what loads were carried in recent combat operations (2003):

http://thedonovan.com/archives/modernwarriorload/ModernWarriorsCombatLoadReport.pdf

Some highlights:

Rifle Squad Leader - 62 lb fighting load, 95 lb approach march load.

Grenadier - 71 lb fighting load, 14 lb approach march load

Squad Automatic Rifleman - 79 lb fighting load, 111 lb approach load

M240 Machine gunner - 81 lb fighting load, 113 lb approach load

60 mm mortar Squad Leader - 61 lb fighting load, 127 lb march load

Note that I have not even showed the far right column of these loads, which includes their rucksack, which adds another 30-40 lbs to these numbers, since they don't go on patrol with that....but they do have to carry it great distances sometimes.

But the most telling part of this study, and I really hope you can understand this - is why they did it. They did it to try and figure out how to lighten the load...because the gear is heavy...extremely heavy. The authors of this report most certainly don't have a fantasy that soldiers go into combat weighted down with only 20 lbs of gear. That simply does not happen.

[happyslug]

148. Those numbers are ridiculous and NOT supportable for any length of time

Worse the report CONFIRMS the amount is ridiculous and NOT supportable for any length of time.

First, remember the report you are reading is a study on how much is REQUIRED to be carried as oppose to what is actually carried and a report on how to get that down to what soldiers can ACTUALLY HAUL.

Let me first quote from page 89 of the report you cite:

When one closely examines the Infantryman’s combat equipment, they note that much of his mission essential gear has not changed considerably over the past few decades and continues to be both heavy and bulky. Today’s Soldier carries more than is forefathers. As S.L.A. Marshall wrote in The Soldier’s Load and the Mobility of a Nation, “Armies through the past 3,000 years have issued equipment to the soldier averaging between fifty-five and sixty pounds.”

On page 92 the report states the max weight the Army is looking at for soldiers to carry is 50 pounds.

The report then goes on a state the above weights MUST be reduced and one way is to use vehicle as substitutes mules (age 93):

In the near term, unit commanders could consider utilizing their organic or borrowed LMTV trucks and HMMWVs to support their units as surrogate mules.

This references to Mules is important, each decurion of Roman Soldiers (10 men) were assigned one mule to haul their equipment. The German Army of WWII retained this system (and by the end was using Russian ex-pows to handle the mules, for the Russians tended to have experience with horses and mules while most Germans did not). In Korea, whenever an American Unit captured any mules, they were suppose to turn them over to headquarters for use where they could do the most good, but most units kept them for their own use, knowing they would never get them back and found them to be very useful.

The report also report that units had reduced what troops could carry by removing many of the items they are suppose to carry to other means of transport (i.e, less ammo, less food, less water, less equipment).

The report states that the weigh used include over 16 pounds of water, and that water should be carried elsewhere for the men on the march. When I was in basic, water was carried on a water buffalo being pulled by the truck supporting my Training Platoon. A two quart Canteen only carries two pounds of water.

As to Combat loads, the numbers cites are the max numbers possible as it was done in training, in actual combat the numbers will be less (Page 7 of the report):

8.2 Fighting Load
The Fighting Load includes bayonet, weapon, clothing, helmet, Load Bearing Equipment (LBE), and a reduced amount of ammunition. (FM 21-18) ‰ For hand-to-hand combat and operations requiring stealth, carrying any load is a disadvantage. Soldiers designated for any mission should carry no more than the weapons and ammunition required to achieve their task; loads carried by assaulting troops should
be the minimum.

Thus, as a whole, it was found 50 pounds was the ideal limit as to weight but to achieve that means leaving some equipment behind. 72 Pounds was the max soldier could carry, and it should be avoided except under emergency conditions.

Furthermore the 16 pounds of water Soldier carry should be carried elsewhere and the 30 pounds of the most recent Armor Vest id yo heavy (I notice the option of NOT wearing armor was NOT mentioned in the report, but NO armor was the norm till recently).

I also notice the 50 pounds cited included sleeping and tenting equipment, which even in ancient times was at times carried other then on the soldier's back (But often included in the 55-60 pounds of equipment men carried when they went off to war).

Side-note: Body Armor was first reintroduced in WWI along with the Steel Helmet. Efforts to adopt more was made during WWII, but mobility was preferred to protection. Korea saw some of the first Nylon body amour (Later used during the Riots of the 1960s). Some body armor was used in Vietnam, mostly by point men who would be relieved after a short period due to the heat such armor retain when on long patrols ON FOOT, which were more the norm in Vietnam then it was in Afghanistan and Iraq).

[wercal]

150. You continue to exhibit an extreme lack of comprehension skills

These numbers aren't 'ridiculous'. If you read the introduction, these weights are the results of actual field weights, measured in the field with a digital scale. These weights are not some projection - they represent the data results from a real world study. This is what soldiers are carrying.

It can't be any more clear.

Nobody cares when body armor first came into use, nobody cares about the history of mule use, nobody cares if the equipment is old and outdated. None of that matters.

I showed you a report that lists field measured actual combat load weights, measured to the nearest tenth of a lb for crying out loud, done in meticulous detail....and to you, its 'ridiculous'.

I can't help you.

I will note, however, that I started out at 60lb....which you dismissed and claimed 20 lb was the norm....and now your latest screed pegs it between 50-72 pounds desirable...which perfectly brackets my 60 lb claim. So...um....you're agreeing with me, right?

Never mind, please don't answer that.

[happyslug]

142. Actually not quite true

Porters was the name given to such gear haulers and the US even used them in Korea. As a rule these are civilians who are recruited to do such duties. Sometimes for Cash, other times for food and protection and sometimes because they do not want to be shot.

Porters are considered unreliable but at times necessary. Armies prefer wagons before 1900 and Trucks since WWI but the US has used porters. In East Africa during WWI Lettow Vorbeck used four porters to each one of his African Soldiers for he had no other transport available. The Red Chinese had depended on porters in their invasion of Korea, but the US forces quickly learned about this and adopted a policy of forcing all civilians to move south with the US forces as the Red Chinese marched south.

[wercal]

145. You're kidding right

You are seriously suggesting that soldiers on patrol go into the bush, with a civilian hired to carry his canteen?

Will not happen.

Did not happen.

You are reading about the use of humans to move the combat trains, and completely misinterpreting it.

[happyslug]

147. You should read ACTUAL ARMY REPORTS, they do REPORT use of such people in such roles:

"It is rather astonishing the load the average Korean can carry on his back using what is known as an 'A" frame. The Chinese had counted on this in their logistical planning, but the removal of thousands of refugees denied the use of native carriers and badly upset their supply system.

U.N. Forces formed Koreans into labor companies and used them in lieu of pack troops. It is a fallacy to accept this practice as a criterion for future operations for two reasons. First, all foreign countries do not have natives capable of carrying abnormal loads on their backs and, second, conditions will not exist where, of their own volition, they will not 'bug out', leaving the organization they are serving without means of transport. Mules are not addicted to this."

http://www.qmfound.com/horse.htm#Current Use of Horses and Mules by the Army

Just a comment, pack troops have been used in the past, and maybe in future. The old Alice Pack Frame was designed that it could be converted for use to pack boxes by such porter/pack troops just like how we used civilians in that role in Korea.

As to the Second sentence, I included to show the problems of using such porters, but also to point out such problems were present in Korea and "Worked Around".

[wercal]

149. You still are not understanding

Yes, throughout the history of warfare, there have been what is called 'combat trains'. An army has a lot of material that has to move with it....and over the centuries it has been moved using all sorts of methods, from slaves on foot to helicopters.

But this has absolutely nothing to do with what a soldier has to carry on his back, just in personal gear.

Trust me, you really lack a fundamental understanding of what you are reading.

[happyslug]

140. We have had them since WWI, they are known as "Medics" in the Army

The Marines have Navy personal (Corpsmen) assigned to their units for the same role. It is great, you see a unit of Marines, all wearing Marine ranks insignia, then you see one with a Navy insignia on the same non-full dress uniform, for he is the Navy Corpsmen assigned to that Marine Unit,

[wercal]

105. Some men had trouble with the tank rounds

"As to the M1 tanks and its 46 pound projectile, it only carried 42 rounds and the cannon only survives less then 2000 rounds before it needs to be replaced. Thus you do NOT use M1 tanks as artillery pieces. On the other hand, unlike some of our allies AND the Russians themselves, the M1 tank is dependent on MANUAL feeding of the Cannon. Can women manhandle 42 rounds of 46 pounds in weight? These will be is bursts, not one after another like the Mortars and Field Artillery above. I think the answer is YES, while I think the ability to fire round after round of Mortars and Field Artillery is no."

I was an M1A1 tank platoon leader. Plain and simple, many of the tasks were challenging to the men, and there are very few women who could consistently perform the tasks associated with the M1. Since you brought up the ammunition, I will concentrate on that.

A standard measure of a tank crew's effectiveness is a Table VIII Gunnery. There are 5 engagements, and 10 targets IIRC...and it takes around 15 minutes to make a run down range. Some of there engagements involve multiple targets, requiring rapid reloading. At least one requires rapid reloading of a heavier HEAT round (the SABOT weights the 46 lbs you listed and the HEAT weighed 53 lbs). These rounds have to be loaded very quickly - the standard is 5 seconds. That's 5 seconds to press a switch that slams open the blast door, slide the round out of its rack, pull it out, flip it, slam in breech, pull arming lever, get out of the way, and yell 'up'.

I was in the unique position of being a cadet at West Point...and there were women cadets. So, we did training together, and part of our second summer was a week at Ft Knox, for Armor familiarization. The women cadets at West Point are incredibly physically fit, some of the toughest and fittest women in the army. Not one of them came even close to being able to handle loading a dummy round, within the time limit. Not one. Some of these women could do more situps than me. Many of them could run the 2 mile run faster than me. Most of these women could do more pushups than the average soldier in the army (West Point has accelerated PT tables for men and women). Yet none of them could hoss around those rounds.

An Armor battle is all about speed. Everything we did, concerning gunnery, was meant to increase our speed. A modern Armor battle (if one were ever to occur again) is projected to take just a few minutes, with every tank frantically expending all the ammo in its ready rack as fast as possible. I guarantee you that the vast majority of women would not be physically suited for loading ammunition on an M1 tank. But that's ok. There are lots of jobs in the military that women are very good at. Being on a tank crew isn't one of them.

[happyslug]

111. I was in the Field Artillery

Being in the National Guard When I Moved I had to find a new unit to be a member of and ended up a member of a 4.2 inch Mortar crew. Handling those rounds was rough after firing several rounds. I am NOT familiar with the operation of the inside of a tank, but I have dealt with women who could handle 50 pounds at a time, but how often was questionable. i.e. once or twice but not round after round for a long period of time. Your report shows the limits most women have when it comes to repeat use of upper body strength, that the women do not have.

Thus the French, Russians and other users of high weight rounds in tanks have converted to auto loaders. From what I have read, the auto loaders are SLOWER then manual loading for the first few rounds, but then come into their own after the first few rounds.

My comment as to the 42 rounds, is given that is all the rounds in the Tank, that is all that can be fired at one time. Once fired the rounds have to be replaced (or fired from the tank but loaded by hand via the hatch, rarely done since the M4 Sherman was replaced but possible.

My problem can women manhandle these rounds? Rounds designed to be manhandled by men and their superior upper body strength? I had doubts, but women can handle 50 pounds, just like men can handle 75 to 100 pounds, once in a while when called for but not round after round.

Power steering and auto loaders removed much of the weight requirements of modern combat, but in many roles the need to manhandle heavy weight remain. That was the point I was trying to make, certain roles women can do but men can do better (and the reverse is also true, women can do certain roles, that men can do, women do it better, the classic example is endurance, women with a full pack can go further then men, given the same level of training for example).

Thus my point was to show some jobs require weights to be lifted in certain combat situation that exceed what most women can do on a constant basis. That is all, but I also wanted to point out and your comment as to M1 Tank Ammunition handle the one area I admit was I weak on. Short term. women can handle the weight mentioned for M1 Ammunition, but how long is a different question, and you answered it.

[wercal]

116. By a strange twist of fate, after my time as a tanker, I was a 4.2 In Mortar Platoon Leader

There are a few more aspects of being in a mortar platoon that require strength, other than loading ammo, aren't there?

Carrying the baseplate when dismounted...mounting the 108 lb .50 on top...even opening the top up took quite a bit of strength really. With the exception of a few first class women athletes, I just couldn't imagine a woman in a 4.2" mortar platoon.

Now I really don't know where you got the idea that women loaded down with a full pack could go further than men. As I stated before, I was a cadet at West Point, and we would train together with women - infantry style training, road marches, etc. Without exception, in my observation, the women had a difficult time keeping up with the men. Part of this has to do with height - over long distances, shorter people tire out because they are taking more strides.

On to the regular Army. I went to Air Assault school, which features a 12 mile EIB road march. Air Assault school is open to women, so it was another unique situation where women were participating in an event usually reserved for men. Again, without exception, every single woman there struggled mightily during this road march - many not completing it on time.

One of the longest road marches we did at West Point was 17 miles, and it involved going from the lowlands of the river, up to the highlands....so it was quite an uphill climb. There was one particular hill (we called it a mountain) that really gave a lot of people trouble. I was the tallest in my squad, so I was in the back (the advantage to being tall is recognized by the army and tall people typically start out in the back). The shortest person was a woman, so she went in the very front. For hours, she gradually fell back in position with our 10 person squad. The cadre in charge of us would implore each person to 'not let her get behind you'...so guys would push her (actually push her) until they tired out, and finally the cadre would let them go ahead, and she would drop back a slot. Well she ended up in the slot right in front of me, right as we started up the big hill. I was told that under no circumstance was I to go past her...so I pushed her up the mountain...but she was too tired, so I had to carry her rifle...but she kept tiring out so the cadre member took her ruck...so here I am loaded with my ruck and two M14's pushing her up the mountain, her with no gear. Eventually we made it to the top. For the rest of the march. we kept the gear off of her, and she was able to make it. She was one of the only women who did make it though. At the very back end of our group of 1,400 cadets was a small fleet of deuce and a halfs. They picked up the stragglers...and the vast majority of the women ended up in those trucks.

This should not come as a surprise - men generally hold the records in long distance running competitions, and for whatever reason have more endurance. You add weight of gear...men outperform women even more, because they are generally larger. And men are generally taller, which is another great advantage.

[happyslug]

130. One of the problem with women is they are NOT men, and most women do NOT have the training of men

I had two sisters in the Navy, after their basic they went to their advanced training. At the advance training there was two towns in the area, one about a mile from the Training Camp, the other about 10 miles away. The 10 mile away was larger, so after a few weeks that is where they ended up going.

Now, they had NO access to any automobile, thus had to walk. My family has a long history of walking long distances (and I mean miles not feet) even as toddlers. Thus walking ten miles to town was no big deal to anyone in my family, we always did it. My sisters always joked about the Marine who decided to go with them one day, and their proceeded to out walk him, because they had always done it, and he only had done long walks in basic. My sisters reputation for those long walks were so bad, that by the time of the end of their training the gate guards had standing orders that no WAVE was to exit the gate and turn in the direction of the larger town. My sister out walked the Marine not only because they were WOMEN, but because they had done long walks, measured in miles, all of their lives.

Prior to the passage of Title IX of the Civil Rights Act, most collages and High Schools barely had sports for women. With Title IX, school had to spend as much on male sports as on female sports (Through "Revenue" sports, Football and Basketball tend to be exempted, through only partially). This has helped a lot of women, who previously could NOT get training in High School, to get that training. This corresponded with the movement of women into collages and the reversal of the 1890-1960 decline in the age when one first married (Men returned to the age they first married in 1896 about 1982, women about 1995, we had no data for years before 1896).

Thus starting in the 1960s, women had at least a chance of equal support as men in sports in their High School and Collages. This permitted more and more women to go into sports, including running and other endurance sports. Furthermore, given the prejudice against such sports in a lot of high schools, a lot of collages make a real effort to get the better female athletes, thus the Academies and enlisting in the enlisted ranks are NOT as appealing to women with athletic backgrounds as it is to men with athletic backgrounds (i.e. the women the most physically fit have better and more options then the military).

Thus women in sports to the extent men have been in sports since the late 1800s is restricted to the post 1960s period. Yes, you had women athletes prior to 1960, but you also had male athletes prior to 1860, but no one really cared about them except for local events (and thus the records were spotty and low in numbers until you had people competing against people with similar abilities, but that require a pool of people to pull from and that did not occur with men till after the Railroad became common, i.e, the 1860s, and for women the 1960s).

Since the 1960s, women have constantly improved athletically, and reduced the difference between themselves and men in the endurance sports. In the 1990s it was predicted that women would surpass men in the marathon sometime in the 21st century. More recent reports state women had "peaked" but then point out men have NOT, but the differences in times is still getting smaller:

http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/women-faster.htm
http://www.active.com/swimming/articles/men-vs-women-in-endurance-sports
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420999/Women-day-faster-long-distance-running-men-predict-experts.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marathon_world_record_progression

In 2003 there was a movement to remove a woman's marathon record, for she ran a marathon where men and women ran together and the international society governing marathons said that "artificially" increased women's time by the fact they try to beat out the men instead of just the women:

http://jezebel.com/5846525/women-who-marathon-alongside-men-no-longer-allowed-to-set-world-records

There is a debate on why women appear to do better in marathons then men. Woman's higher fat content is given as the main reason (but one study said that was NOT the case), another said women being smaller had greater surface area so they could get rid of heat better then men in long distance situations:

http://www.nyrr.org/newsroom/nyrr-today-blog/women-are-better-marathon-pacers-than-men-study-suggests-1

I suspect it is fat. Men burn calories and then get a "Second wind" when their bodies switch to burning fat. Women do NOT get a second wind, for they are burning fat from the moment they start to run. Thus a female marathoner at the end of the race, can talk to other people and have a rapid drop off in performance. Men, on the other hand, need to walk off the long distance run. They have to switch back from burning fat. Now, some people have said women have hit a "Wall" as to their times, but if that is true, why have men not improved as much?

http://www.netplaces.com/running/girls-women-just-want-to-have-fun/comparing-men-and-women-runners.htm
http://www.coloradoan.com/article/20131011/SPORTS10/310110032/Are-women-closing-marathon-gap-

Now, as to woman generally, there should be trained differently then men, because they are different from men. Women should be trained less on issue of physical strength and more on endurance.

Thus, in long endurance races (more then a Marathon), women tend to win nowadays, but Marathon times for men are still faster then for women. This came up recently when a woman beat two men to the South Pole by Bicycle. Now she used a Tricycle recumbent, but left after the two men on a different route (but she went a longer distance):

http://www.icetrikes.co/community/ice-blog

As to 4.2 inch mortars, 105mm and 155 mm rounds. I have my problem with women manhandling them. When I was with the Field Artillery I was in the Service Battery, who had to get the rounds and disburse them to the firing batteries. It was a pain to move those boxes. The 105mm rounds came two to a box, while the 155 came in one to a box (thus about the same weight). 100 pounds is about the limit men can man handle on a constant basis, thus my original objections to women in the Field Artillery. The 4.2 round also came two to a box. If you looked at the 4.2 and the 105mm round, they were the same EXCEPT for the base. The 4.2 had a stem to hold the "cheeses" while the 105 was flat to load into the brass or aluminum case it came with. Both, as individual rounds, are at the limit men can load for any length of time. I doubt women can do so. On the other hand, if you are looking at pre loaded rounds in a self loading cannon, not a problem for men or women. It may take women longer to load the magazine but that is a minor concern for you will have people doing other duties while any self loading cannon is in use (and why the US Army has failed to replace the M109 Howitzer, the French 155 howitzer weigh 60% MORE then the M109. The M109 is in many ways TO LARGE, the French 155 is even larger.

[treestar]

71. This argument brings up two things

1. Isn't there some better way? If a marine is down, the others can't go on fighting but have to stop to pull the injured one off the field? Shouldn't there be a division of labor - some group whose job it is to get the injured off the field.

2. Men come in all different sizes - what if the larger marine is injured and a smaller one can't move him?

[canuckledragger]

6. pretty misogynist remark there.

Enjoy your short stay on DU.

[philosslayer]

8. I'm sorry?

Whats misogynistic about it? Enlighten me. Do you think women DO have the upper body strength of men (on average)?

[Duckhunter935]

10. that is why males still have to do more

It would still not be equal even under this

Female run times are longer also

[dbackjon]

13. Shouldn't it be the same for both?

If the job NEEDS you to carry an 80-pound pack, then that is the standard, regardless of gender.


If the job NEEDS you to run a 10 minute mile, then both genders should meet that standard.

[Duckhunter935]

19. no argument here

I could never run fast but could long distance back in the day. Always barely passed my AFPT. Saw some very unfit females that got an extra 5-6 minutes just on gender. There were many females that could outrun my slow ass. Same thing with pushups, males have to do many more to pass.

[thesquanderer]

29. i think there is also a question of the purpose of the standard.

If the purpose of the standard is to assure that the person can do certain tasks that may be required on the field, then the test should be the same for people who may need to perform that task, regardless of gender (whether you raise the bar for woen or lower the bar for men).

But if their goal is to cull "the best of the best" so to speak... i.e. they want a force that consists of people who are simply in the top x percentile of physical capabilities, then different standards for both genders might make sense, assuming you see value in specifically including some balance of gender.

I was going to say then you could grade women on a curve, but grading women on curves is a whole other problem!

[treestar]

35. The job needs you to do pull-ups

We should just have pull-up contests rather than all the shooting and killing.

[PasadenaTrudy]

45. Lol! n/t

[Scairp]

98. I cry bullshit also

My daughter, who is in the third grade, can do 5 chin ups AND pull-ups, so it is bullshit. She has been taking gymnastics for less than two years and can already do that many. My guess is in 2 more years she will be able to do twice that number. While it is true that women don't possess the natural upper body strength that men do, this is empirical evidence that it should be more emphasized when GIRLS are participating in athletics while in elementary and high school, before they are grown women. I'm sure these women felt that since they were in great condition overall, could run marathons, whatever, they could easily do at least 3 pull-ups. I'm betting they were shocked when they couldn't. My daughter will be able to kick some guy's ass, if need be, one day, but I sure as shit don't want her joining the fucking Marine corp. She's going to be president instead.

[1000words]

5. If I recall correctly, the Presidential Physical Fitness Award requires the same.

And that was in elementary school!

[thesquanderer]

28. I couldn't do the three in elementary school (and I'm male)

and I was never overweight, either...

just not Marines material.

[AtheistCrusader]

7. I can do three pull ups.

I'm almost 80lbs overweight, and completely unfit for combat. As a single measure of fitness, pull-ups don't mean shit.

[Duckhunter935]

11. only one of the standards

[AtheistCrusader]

16. So, skip it, or do a weighted average between multiple measures or something.

This is a super-easy to resolve issue...

[Duckhunter935]

20. easy?

most of the tests require little or no equipment. They already have different standards for age and gender. How many more variables do you want to add to a physical fitness test.

[AtheistCrusader]

22. If there's anything the miltiary loves, it's graphs, tables, curves and shit.

But in all seriousness, I just don't see how a pull-up translates directly into combat effectiveness.

[MADem]

52. I can't wait to see men in childbirth!

[Mysterysouppe]

44. All they need to be able to do is pull a trigger.

[hack89]

51. And carry very heavy loads ..... Nt

[leftyohiolib]

152. they did that in our school system. too many kids failing tests so they dumbed down

the tests now we have stupid people like teatards and people in unions voting republican.

[treestar]

14. Half of them could do it

And it's a new requirement. Had not realized that.

[A Little Weird]

17. Here's a link to an earlier discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4235491

[Drew2510]

21. No one

woman or men should evet be in a combat arms branch of any service if they cannot meet this rather simple an easy standard, period!

I speak from over 25 years of experiene (3 in combat) in a combat arm of the Army.

[Deny and Shred]

24. Funny, a female soldier was truly called upon as a necessity ...

... during WWII by the Soviets. They were incredibly effective snipers. Women were quite effective fighters versus US GIs in Vietnam as well.

Perhaps the measure of an effective soldier is defective, pullups in this case. Some men who are capable of 20 pullups can and do crack under the strain of combat.

[Drew2510]

31. Yes and a few women crack up

under far less strain than that. I spent two lovely years in Vietnam, I Corps. Never saw a women humping ammo down the Ho Chi Minh trail, saw a few on bikes with light loads like med supplys True they did marginally well in ambushes, not humping.

You been in combat?

[Deny and Shred]

36. Ok, but acknowledge many women HAVE put up with the strain ...

… more than marginally well. Men have cracked up under 'less strain' as well. It is not about gender - especially true as technology transforms combat necessity in the 21st C.

Are you really saying women didn't face physical strain keeping the HCMT functioning? Killing Nazis in Stalingrad? Building tank ditches in front of Moscow in the Fall of 1941? Simply because you didn't see it?

I was medically denied, despite trying.

Welcome to DU. Quality banter.

Edit: I do appreciate your service to this great nation. Upon re-reading, that may not be clear. Many thanks.

[Drew2510]

38. Oh yes, without question. I have had the honor

of knowing many women in the service that werer parrticurly hard and strong. Not surprisingly, a lot of them were also very much ladies.

Regardind the Soviet weomen of the 40's. I would bet they could kick the s..it out of miost of us today and do 20 pullups, but I surmising

You must understand that we are talking about the lives of our young mem and women here., not some abstract concept. So PC must end at this point!!!!

Sorry about the spelling, but doing this on a phone with old, tired eyes.

[Rozlee]

54. Actually, also in three wars.

I'm five foot nothing and weigh one hundred pounds. Thankfully, I was a nurse, but still, in Iraq, the battle lines were blurred. Almost half the casualties were non-combat specialties and support personnel, i.e., supply clerks, drivers, mechanics, medics, cooks, etc. We had scores of civilian contractors killed and injured. And for a small woman, I actually can drag a heavy man to safety. It's called body mechanics. Using my leg and shoulder muscles that are stronger instead of my weaker arm and chest muscles, I can align myself to haul a casualty to safety, even as tiny as I am.

[Drew2510]

58. I'm impressed. But,

if you told me you could hump a S.A.W (M249) with basic load or a M252 Mortar and/or base plate up over a 6' wall I would be even more impressed.

BTW I do realize that in the recent and current conflicts there are a lot of support troop casualtiy.

My sincere thanks for your service!!!!!!

[pinboy3niner]

134. Three wars? You have my utmost respect and gratitude!

A nurse literally saved my life in Vietnam.

Thankyou for your service. I never got a chance to thank that angel in Vietnam....

[Rozlee]

137. Thank you for YOUR service.

Maybe someday, this country will be ruled by honorable leaders that honor their service persons by making sure that when they raise their hands to be sworn in, they will only fight against legitimate threats to the nation and not to further the cause of the rich and powerful.

[madville]

25. The dead hang pull up has always been a problem for many females

I witnessed a couple of study groups over the years in the military with the goal of developing one standard. The task almost all females had a major problem with was the pull up. 1 or 2 for a female was considered exceptional since most were unable to do any. Keep in mind that was will little training or preparation for task.

As time goes on and more females train before boot camp and they emphasize it more while there the numbers should improve. Right now females are not used to it. It's impressive that 45% can already pass.

It's simply not possible to have one set of standards that are equally difficult for males and females alike. It's either too easy for the males or too difficult for the females, there really is no middle ground. You'll never have say a 95% pass rate or something for both groups at the same standard unless it's low enough for the group

[Drew2510]

33. I concur sir. Meanwhile,there

are other combat support MOS' they can serve in that will allow them to kill. eg aviation fire direction, arty observer etc

[4bucksagallon]

39. They don't do dead hang pull ups, the females do flex arm pull ups.

Not the same.

[Drew2510]

41. Hummmm. Been out of touch for a while, but

what are the men required to do? A hundred years ago it was dead hang.

[4bucksagallon]

43. Check this if you want to know the difference.

[1000words]

42. Huge difference

I can do a bunch of flex arms. Dead hang ... I'd pass, but it'd be a struggle.

[madville]

55. Do some research, they changed the standards

That's what this is all about. Females are now supposed to be required to do regular pull ups just like the males. They delayed it because half were failing the requirement to complete three reps.

With the delay they still have the option to do the flexed-arm hang or the 3 pull ups, the 01JAN2014 requirement was that females will do three pull ups, the flexed-arm hang was not going to be an option anymore.

[alarimer]

26. Did they propose the new plan in order that women would fail?

The timing seems suspicious to me.

[Drew2510]

46. Ah, excuse me but many women are failing now so what is your point, schh.

[Mysterysouppe]

47. Plato approved equal opportunity for women in the military.

He said that although women are naturally the weaker sex, some women are as strong as men, and the army would therefore do itself a disservice by discriminating against women. Thus, a high quality military is created and maintained by equal opportunity, but not by unequal opportunity.

[Drew2510]

48. Yeah, but Plato, to my knowledge

never served in the military, let alone in combat and while SOME women are as strong as men, most are not. Are you suggesting lives be put at risk for political correctness?

Lots of folks here with pc opinions who have never served in the military, let alone in combat. Have you?

[LanternWaste]

61. Many other folk ignoring the tens of thousands of women pressed into service by the Soviets

"Lots of folks here with pc opinions who have never served in the military, let alone in combat..."

While yet many other folk ignoring the tens of thousands of women pressed into service by the Soviets (due to prejudice or simply historical ignorance, who can say...?)-- tankers, riflemen, snipers, ace pilots, etc.

One wonders if those women were there simply to satisfy "PC opinions" or because they were well... effective and efficient, regardless of the amount of push-ups one guesses they could or could not do.

[Drew2510]

63. Like I said eariler,

I would wager that Soviet women of the 40's era could kick the sh..t out of many of today's men and there is no question that they served their country admirably and well. It would indeed be interesting to know what the average upper body strength of those women were.

However, here we are talking about American youth of the current era, not 1940's Eastern and predominantly rural Europe.

[Drew2510]

65. Lantern, I just thought of what might be a better comparison

to American young people today and that would be the IDF and how they have handled it over the years. Think I will do some reading about this.

[CFLDem]

49. On one hand I agree

that pull-ups shouldn't be a major indicator of combat fitness since a lot more is involved in being combat ready.

On the other hand it's just three pull-ups... It boggles my mind that someone can pass the other standards but not do three pull-ups.

[NoOneMan]

53. If someone who can't do 3 pullups wants to goto war, let em be fodder

[Drew2510]

59. Yeah but, they would probably put others at risk which is the point. n/t

[NoOneMan]

62. I know it it

Partial joke. Yeah, that is a major problem...the people next to someone who is not fit

[treestar]

77. This one is total baloney

You are at risk unless every other soldier is as big and strong as you are? So why aren't you on the same crusade to remove skinny little men from consideration, even if they can do pull-ups?

Geez, fighting in any war would mean you could never be sure if your fellows were good enough.

The answer is no more war, of course. For many reason, low on the list is that is gives sexists a good issue to hang onto.

[Drew2510]

66. Does anyone know how the IDF

has been handling this over the years? IIRC they require military service of all their young people.

[dookers]

80. The IDF has a coed battalion

Its called the Caracal battalion where men and women serve together in the infantry. The Filipino marines just started allowing woman into combat units. Maybe the our failure has more to do with the poor state of physical fitness than differences between the sexes.

[Drew2510]

92. Thanks for the info.

Unquestionably, today's American youth are in poor physical condition and heavy.

[Exultant Democracy]

67. Thats pathetic. My girlfriend isn't a health nut but she can do three

and she has never been to boot camp.

The fact that people who are being paid to do physical training can not meet this rather paltry requirement is absurd. My almost 60 year old mother can still do two, and all she does is yoga a few days a week.

[tableturner]

69. Why can't we accept that there GENERALLY are differences in male/female physical capabilities?

And why can't we accept that there is truly a need for a certain level of physical power in many combat situations? Thus, the military sets a standard to test that, a standard (3 pullups) that is not really that difficult, and which is not asking a lot of potential combat participants. In fact, I am shocked that the standard is so low!

I mean jeez......we are talking about protecting the lives of our soldiers, giving them a fair shot if hand to hand combat breaks out. You need reasonably powerful people for that purpose (and for other purposes, too), regardless of sex, and we should not lower the standards in an effort to include more women combatants if that puts other soldiers at risk. It is just simple common sense.

Don't forget that the person fighting along side a weaker comrade could be YOUR husband, son, brother, or friend, and if he dies due to being in an unfair fight, it will NOT make you feel better about it just to be able to say "Well......the person I loved died, but at least we have not discriminated against physically weaker recruits."

It's just plain old common sense. I would definitely not want to be placed in that situation. I'd want a partner who could duke it out and brawl with power if necessary, because I'd want to have a reasonable chance of surviving the situation. And that is NOT being prejudiced against women.

[Drew2510]

70. Thank you for so eloquently

stating what I have been trying to get accross.

I wish I could compose and write like you.

[treestar]

76. As time and technology go no, it matters less and less

In the 14th century physical strength meant everything. But the 18th hitting a target with a gun was more important. By now, I suspect it matters very little. And this is why they suddenly have to carry about 60 pounds of gear? Gee, even the Knights didn't have to do that. And there were some women even then who fought.

[leftyladyfrommo]

72. I've never been able to do pullups. Or climb ropes.

But I know women who can. I know women who are as strong as any man.

I'm just not one of them. But I never felt any great compulsion to join the Marines or the Army.

[treestar]

73. Compare to this, my family member wants to be a marine

Strapping 18 year old man, presumably can do the pull ups.

But, he may be rejected due to diagnosis of "mannerisms" and treatment for it when he was a little boy!

So if a woman without a childhood diagnosis of same can do 3 pull-ups she is a better choice to them?

I suppose it is a different issue in that the person with mannerisms could unpredictably lose control, and wouldn't that be worse than a woman who can only do 2 pull-ups? But then he had no problems with it for at least 10 years, and if treated, why do they have to consider it? It's under control. Seems he could clear the field of more fellow marines than any woman, even one who can do 3 pull-ups.

I suppose it's good they can afford to be so picky. In a real war they'd take anyone.

[rrneck]

74. After a quick Google search...

http://www.natick.army.mil/about/pao/2004/04-03.htm
A fighting load is everything worn or carried except a rucksack and should be held to less than 48 pounds, according to the field manual. The next level, approach march load, adds a light rucksack and should not exceed 72 pounds. In the worst-case scenario, emergency approach march loads require a larger rucksack, raising the total weight to 120-150 pounds.

Past research has provided more insight into combat loads. A British study from the 1920s concluded that the fighting load should not exceed 40-45 pounds, and S.L.A. Marshall, author of the 1950 book "The Soldier Load and the Mobility of a Nation," advised that the combat load should remain less than about 40 pounds.

Viewed another way, the load should not exceed 30 percent of a person's body weight when carrying an approach march load. Dean's team weighed and photographed troops at every level, from wearing only their basic uniforms and boots to what they carried for their emergency approach march loads for 29 different positions in rifle companies.

After reviewing the data, the average rifleman's fighting load was 63 pounds, which meant he was carrying on average 36 percent of his body weight before strapping on a rucksack. The average approach march load was 96 pounds or 55 percent of average rifleman's body weight, and the emergency approach march load average was 127 pounds or 71 percent of average rifleman's body weight.

If you want to see what it's like, just put fifty pounds on your back and run up a hill. See how far you get. Then imagine there's somebody at the top of that hill that's depending on you go get up there and help them fight to stay alive.

[treestar]

75. IMO the bigger problem here is the load

Why are they burdening any soldier down with that? Come up with a better way. Why have the soldiers trekking around all that crap? FCOL.

[rrneck]

79. Yeah, they're overloaded.

And we might be able to reduce it a little. But the truth is that's what it takes to fight a war.

In the end it's always about the ability to take and hold ground. And to do that it takes boots on the ground and soldiers with small arms to make it work.

[treestar]

81. what happened to a supply wagon?

I'm starting to think women and smaller men should be the shooters. The bigger men carry the loads and be first on the scene medics, thus bigger and sure to be able to carry injured female and small man soldiers.

How can they shoot at the enemy with 60 pounds on their backs? Inefficient methods going on here.

[rrneck]

82. Foot soldiers go where vehicles can't.

Bullets are heavy, and it takes a lot of them.

Supply logistics have been an issue since there have been armies. The more a soldier can carry, the less equipment it takes to keep him supplied. And each soldier has to be able to do a lot of different stuff. Tactical engagements demand versatility, so each soldier has to be sort of a self contained unit.

A soldier is basically a weapons platform that has to be easily deployed and maintained.

[treestar]

88. But that load tires them out

Even the biggest strapping guy. so my solution looks better. Your big guys do the hauling, women and smaller men do the shooting. That way they can concentrate on the enemy.

[rrneck]

93. It looks like that's just what it takes to get the job done.

Here's a study done on the combat loads of soldiers in Afghanistan (pdf).





It looks like a daily resupply still requires a seventy pound fighting load.

In the end you've just gotta pay Sir Issac. The soldiers under fire have to fight and defend themselves and the elements in the supply chain have to be defended as well. The equipment to do that is just plain heavy.

The realities of physics hold true everywhere. Firemen, construction workers, furniture movers, and anybody that has to engage with the world physically has to be fairly strong. I know this from experience. I used to move furniture for a living, and I'm not a large guy. But I'm bigger and stronger than most women.

[treestar]

94. all that trouble to try to claim women can't do it

It's really getting interesting, what with women as Senators or possibly President (commander in chief). All there is to hang onto is bigger muscles and the military. Then those damn women try to get into the military, so let's increase the strength it takes just to haul gear! Don't use technology or anything, as that undermines our argument.

Now you've burdened the guy down with so much other things fighting the enemy comes at least third. Uh oh, not going to work!

[rrneck]

95. Yep, it's all a conspiracy to keep women out of the army.

We used to fight with paper mache swords and armor.



Politicians don't need to carry a combat load to filibuster a bill. And internet posters don't need to actually do anything beyond touch a keyboard to disregard the laws of physics. So you had a notion about how to split the fighting load of a soldier to make the job easier and found out it was wrong. Sorry about that. But instead of simply realizing how little you know of the subject you give me a hard time for going to the trouble to educate both of us. If you had followed the link I was kind enough to find you would know exactly what each soldier carries into battle right down to his socks. It ain't much in the way of creature comforts I can tell you. You would also know a great deal of load sharing already occurs. All you had to do is briefly look at what I was kind enough to give you. You're welcome.

But you couldn't do any of that. Instead you whine about some conspiracy to create heavy things to keep women out of the military. Do you know what the heaviest piece of equipment a soldier has to take to battle? The knowledge that he or she will have to succeed or die trying no matter what. They know they can't simply disregard reality by typing some snark on a keyboard. They live in the real world.

Your reply is disgusting. If you knew anything about military history you'd know how many lives have been lost because soldiers were sent into battle even though they were unprepared and under equipped to fight. I hope whoever is CIC will have better sense to send troops into a meat grinder for some bullshit notion about gender roles that has no relationship to reality.

[treestar]

97. Women did fight in those days too

Joan of Arc, etc. They ought to be able to by now.

There ought to be a better way to transport the gear by now. We have robots doing operations on people - the military spends tons of money and leaves the actual soldier stuck hauling gear and getting the wounded, leaving the actual fighting third in priority?

Anything to keep those women out ! And what of the skinny men? Some of them might actually be able to shoot the enemy with accuracy! Without being exhausted from a 60 mile trek with 60 pounds of gear!

[rrneck]

100. Joan of Arc was an exception.

And there are no doubt exceptions today. That doesn't change the physics of combat.

Actually, you spend tons of money since I assume you pay taxes. And one of the heaviest pieces of gear is body armor which is also one of the easiest pieces of equipment to discard to lighten the load. Is that what you are suggesting?

You can claim there ought to be a better way, but if you want an intelligent discussion on the subject you need to produce something more than laughing smileys.

[happyslug]

146. Joan never carried a sword, JOAN lead attacks

And the men that followed her did the "hard work" of winning the battle. When Joan was captured, she, like normal, did not have a weapon on her (Through she was in armor), but her men had been driven away in a counter attack and as she tried to rally them she was captured.

That was also the last days of full Armor, Armor would last another 300 years, but will slowly disappear, as troops preferred the ability to move and fight for long periods of time as oppose to armor that protect them, but would wear them down after about 10 minutes of combat. This reduction is armor took 200 years to all bur disappear after the 30 years war of the 1600s (Through some Cavalry units keep breastplates till the Napoleonic Wars).

[happyslug]

87. The Army eliminated its last mules in 1956

Mules were liked for they could carry 400 pounds of supply and go any where a man can walk (i.e. it is only when men have to climb mountains that mules no longer followed armies). During WWII, the US Army used mules extensively in Italy, but these were Italian mules with Italian mule handlers (most had been trained by the Italian Army prior to WWII, and when Italy surrendered in 1943, defected to the Allied side).

In France, as the Allied force drove from the beachheads, it was hedgerow and hedgerow, once a hedgerow was taken additional ammunition could be brought in by truck, through some units found loose stock animals (that is what they claimed anyway) and used them to the same purpose. In may Father's unit the 81mm Section had mounted their 81mm mortars in some donkeys they had found,

The only place the US sent actual mules was Burma, for the simple reason British India did not have any. These mules were used to support General Sims Burma offensive. The troops were re supplied by the Air and Truck, but from the re supply point to the actual combat position, the supplies were hauled by mules. When a mules died, its cargo was divided among the men it was supporting.

Thus the US did not have to ship to many mules to Europe, till after WWII as part of the Marshall plan to rebuild Europe, then we shipped a LOT, more to replace the mules the Allies and the Axis powers had taken. Mules were so popular even after the war the when Mules were captured during the Korean War, units would NO turn them over to the General High Command, as they were ordered to do, but retained em for their own use. Trucks hauled those Mules to a lot of places in Korea (and had done the same in Italy and Burma).

After the mid 1950s the US decided that the US would abandoned the mule. There was opposition to this, but it was ignored. In 1956 the last 100 mule unit was replaced by a 10 helicopter unit and the Army said the Helicopter could haul more even to location mules could NOT reach at the cost of 2 million for each copter ($20 million for the 10 helicopters, PLUS about 10 million each year to keep them operating, as opposed to the 100 mules going for $4000 each, or $400,000 and good for 10-15 years.

The down side to getting away from mules was that, while the Helicopters could hall more supplies, they would drop off the supplies and go back to base. The Mules would have been with the unit the whole day. Some Commanders demanded Mules in Vietnam, for this reason, but they were over ruled.

The US Army plan to replace the mules, not only included Helicopters by the Adoption of the ALICE pack. During WWII, most soldiers went into combat with nothing more then a blanket role. A Shelter half (half of a tent), pegs and poles for the ten and two blankets. The infantry were trained to roll the two wool blankets inside the shelter half and that was how their slept at night. Next money they woke up, and depending on the expectations of Combat, either left their packs where they slept, of took them with them in a role from the left shoulder and tied to their right side (this left the right shoulder open to support the firing of their rifles). It appears the same blanket rolls were used in Korea (Through in the Winter of 1944-1945 the Troops were issued sleeping bags, and again during Korea's winter).

Now, much of the other equipment was carried on the truck that supported the platoon or Company and what ever other piece of transportation the solders were able to find and use.

AS I said above during the mobile parts of WWII and Korea the decision NOT to bring mules seems to be proven. The problem was when quick movement was NO longer possible and the US forces needed to protect their flanks away from the roads (One British Commander on seeing the US retreat after the Chinese intervention made the comment the US Army had forgotten how to fight away from roads and that is why the US was driven out of North Korea by the Chinese).

Thus by the mid 1950s it was clear the US needed to re-learn how to fight away from roads, the US Solution was Helicopters. The problem was how to survive from one Air drop to the next? THe Answer was they would divide up the ammunition required among each soldiers AND would issue each soldier an "ALICE" pack to carry those items, in additional to what the soldier needed, i.e. his shelter half and sleeping bag.

What was the soldier to carry in his ALICE pack AND on his person? His rifle, ammunition for his rifle, a spade, a Canteen, Chemical Warfare mask and a First Aid Kid. In his pack went his shelter half and his sleeping bag (The Sleeping bag was NOT issued in VIetnam, was not needed), went weather gear, Chemical Warfare uniform (Not issued in Vietnam and not issued in Iraq or Afghanistan) AND 1 BOX of 7.62mm Ammunition for the Companies machine guns, three rounds of 60mm Mortar Rounds for the Companies 60 mm Mortars, one 81 mm Mortar for the Battalion 81mm Mortar and a 50 caliber ammunition for the Battalions 50 caliber Machine gun. This would be needed if they went into combat. Notice no food, that was to come via the Helicopters OR trucks but when the unit was NOT in combat.

This tendency to have the troops haul what mules use to do pre 1956 is the primary reason the combat load to is so heavy.

Now, In Iraq and Afghanistan, they has been a rush to body armor that increases the weight a soldier has to carry. Our Soldiers are convinced this has saved lives, but that is ignoring the effect the armor has on performance i.e. it saved someone's life who if he did not have the armor would have MOVED faster through the danger zone. The high rates of wounded compared to dead seems to support the concept that the armor saved lives, but the bigger saver may be the new blood clotting material that makes would clot much faster the they did in previous wars. Deaths do to lost of blood is way down, and that is attributed to the clotting agents not the increase use of Armor. Thus, except for the helmet which has a solid record of saving lives, get rid of the Armor and see almost no change in combat losses. The armor is an additional 20-30 pounds. A good Argument can be made for the Body Armor, but I can also make a good argument to get rid of it for it is NOT as effective as saving lives as people think.

The electronic equipment is another area the troops should be stripped of. Platoons and Companies have Headquarters and anything electronics should be at that level only. Phones can be useful but they should be installed by the Headquarters NOT the squads.
"


What should an infantry man have on? The Following

1 Helmet
1 Protective mask
1 Rifle
1 Ammunition 300 round max (10 3 round magazine)'
1 spade, to dig improve combat positions
1 First aid Kit with tourniquet
1 Canteen


That is it. No body armor, to much weight, No night vision goggles, to much weight, no radio, to much weight. Now these should be available as needed, but keep at platoon or company level to be issued only as needed. 63 pounds is just to much for anyone to carry around. If you want infantrymen to carry such equipment, equip them with a mule or a bicycle to carry the excess weight.

Here is a story of one horse used like a Mule in Korea:
http://www.mca-marines.org/leatherneck/video/sgt-reckless-korean-war-horse-hero
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergeant_Reckless

Even today, some people advocate bring back the Mule. The last open talk was at the end of the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, they the US shipped mules to Pakistan so the Opposition to the then Communist Government of Afghanistan could sneak in man portable Ground to Air Missiles. At least on Congressman thought it was the US army buying mules, it turned out it was CIA. These mules seems to have stayed in Afghanistan to support the war against the Soviet backed Afghan government, till that Government collapsed.

[treestar]

89. Agreed, there must be some modern technological way to have a substitute

for mules. It's ridiculous. They have robots operating now. But with all they spend on the military, nothing like a tech mule?

It would tire the soldiers out, even the biggest ones. Waste of upper body strength which is all about carrying stuff and pulling injured off the field.

And that could disqualify a lot of very accurate shooters who are lighter people. Have the big guys do the hauling and let the women and lighter men do the actual fighting. That way they are fresh and can concentrate on the enemy.

You can bet the enemy doesn't haul 60 tons around. Sounds like a recipe for getting defeated.

[rrneck]

96. Here you go...

Of course there are problems. That thing has to be fueled and maintained because it doesn't run on good intentions. It's also fucking LOUD. That noise draws fire to a piece of equipment that doesn't have a gun. That means that some soldier, with a combat load, has to defend it from attack. You see, if you can disrupt a supply line, you can defeat an enemy just as surely as killing him. That's a concept that has been in existence for the last five thousand years or so.

[treestar]

99. Then the women who would be good sharpshooters should be at the front

And let the hauling be done by the mules, tech, real, or human.

[rrneck]

101. That's nonsense.

Do you have anything of substance to contribute? Maybe we should just mandate gender neutral warfare!

[treestar]

109. It is not; it makes perfect sense

The first consideration should be mowing down the enemy.

I am rather concerned that troops are bogged down with all that gear, even if they are all big men. That can only tire them out before engaging an enemy. And they are supposedly defending me and mine and our freedom and all that, so I don't like them being so bogged down. That should be corrected.

[rrneck]

112. Then why don't you figure out a way to make

guns and bullets lighter.

Your position is contemptible bullshit. Nobody joins an army and fights a war to be a fucking pack mule. Is this your idea of joining with feminists; so men can carry your water for you? Is that your idea of equality? I

I don't know how you could be more insulting to the men and women in the armed forces. Do you think a war is a fucking square dance? Do you think the women in the armed services want to be humiliated by having some guy do their job for them? It's just another fine example of infantilizing women as an ideological panacea.

I swear to fuck has anybody ever done an honest days work around here? The United States has one of the finest armed forces in the history of the human race. It is based on the concept of enfranchisment begun with Hoplite forces three thousand years ago. And you want to turn men into pack mules. Great. That'll really boost morale.

[rrneck]

102. You understand the solution, right?

Since we have an all volunteer army, just hire personnel able to haul the gear. The easiest, and cheapest, to control variable in the equation is who carries the equipment. Now if there is a conflict that requires a draft that might include people not ideally suited for the required equipment you'll have a lot more to worry about than gender politics.

[happyslug]

139. Actually it is called a "Mule" but sometimes a "Person"

Last edited Mon Jan 6, 2014, 05:39 PM - Edit history (1)

Just because it is old, does not mean it is ineffective. The US Army has had a long history of trying to replace the mule, and failing. In the 1930s the US Cavalry would beat out the armor forces time and time again, but going to area where the trucks those tanks needed to carry their fuel could not go. This frustrated the Armor and Infantry groups and put a damper on replacing the horse and the mule prior to WWII. When intervention in Europe became the main concern for the Military, the Army changed its tactics to reflect combat conditions in Western Europe, as oppose to Latin American and the Far East. Compared to Latin America, Europe had something that we could now call "Roads" as opposed to unpaved mule paths. Thus the ability of the Cavalry to operate far from roads became meaningless, for combat was to be in an area of the World with lots of paved roads.

When the US entered WWII, it first expanded its forces, including the Cavalry. The US Army determined it could field 267 division without hurting the country economically. The problem was the US Navy told the Army they only had enough transports (Both Navy and Civilian) to support 100 divisions overseas. The US Army ended up fielding 90 divisions and the US Marines 10 divisions.

For the Cavalry, when it was found that moving a Cavalry division with its horse, took up as much cargo space as an Armor Division, something had to give, and that ended up being the horses. By 1943 the US Army was selling its horses off, for they had to many (Most farmers were still using horses at that time so the Farmers purchased the horses for use on the farm).

Into this mix, came the first attempt to replace the mule, this time with the Jeep. This went as far as redesigning the 75mm Pack Howitzers from the eight piece cavalry model to a one piece gun with a shield. The 8 pieces were to be hauled by 4 mules when it could NOT be hauled on its wheel. During WWII the Solid Steel Wheels were replaced by Rubber tires and issued to the Airborne Troops. Marines and other troops also used them. The M1A1 75mm Pack Howitzer was the second most produced Howitzer in the US during WWII, Second only to the M1A1 105mm Howitzer (late designation M101A1) was produced in greater numbers.

Here is the M1 75mm Pack Howitzer Cavalry model, notice the large STEEL wheel (at least one made it to Vietnam in 1968, through that one was via the Nationalist Chinese, then Red China then the North Vietnam Army):

On the march in Burma 1945:

http://www.haupinmarsman.com/accounts-of-other-marsmen/captain-martin-ness.html

pre WWII manever:

http://www.ww2gyrene.org/weapons_pack_howitzer_75mm.htm


http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/136183

Here is the 75mm Pack captured by US Forces in Vietnam:


http://www.willpete.com/charles.htm


Here is the M1A1 (now M116) 75mm Pack Howitzer Airborne model the only difference is the switch to rubber wheels, this is still in use in the US Army as a Salute Gun, but Croatia used it effectively in the 1990s in the wars involving the Former Yugoslavia:


http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=109331&view=next


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M116_howitzer

Now the plan in 1941 was to move from the box tail carriages seen above, to a rubber wheel solid carriage to be hauled by a Jeep. This plan was adopted by the Cavalry switch to half tracks and larger 75 mm Gun (the M1897 French 75mm gun) on the half track. Only a few of these 75mm Howitzers were made, and most ended up being given to the Serbs during WWII (along with even more M1A1/ M116 above).

Here is the 75mm Pack Howizter on the M3 carraige (non-breakdownable).:


The reason for the failure was the Half track could go anywhere the Jeep could, but with a bigger gun. Where the Jeep could NOT go, neither could the half track and it Italy this is where the Mule came back into US Service but by hiring locals to provide the mules and mule handlers. The 75mm Pack Howitzer had a good reputation in both Yugoslavia and Italy during WWII.

A similar situation occurred during Korea, horses were purchased and trained to bring supplies to the troops.

In the late 1950s the US Army made another attempt to replace the mule, this time with a "Mechanical Mule"



It was a huge success, just like the Jeep, but again FAILED in its function to replace the Mule and for the same reason. The M274 Mechanical Mule looks like a modern off road vehicle, but like those vehicle has to remain in paths, which can be blocked. Mules are NOT so limited and can climb hillsides that would tip over an ATV. Plus mules are much quieter then ATVs.


http://mechanicalmulesofamerica.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Military_M274_Truck,_Platform,_Utility_1/2_Ton,_4X4

In 1997, the US Army again had to face the problem of what to replace the Mule with, and this time opt for the M-Gator, a variation of the John Deere Gator series of all terrain vehicle. It is as good as the M274 off road (Neither is considered road capable, unlike the Earlier Jeeps).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Deere_Gator


The M-Gator in recent years has been the base for a robotic replacement, using computers and GPS. It is still has the restriction of being wheel based AND subject to jamming (Especially if the other side decides to jam ALL channels, which was believed to be an option the Soviet Army had developed by the 1970s and not that hard to do, through modern digital transmissions are harder to jam then the Analog transmissions of the 1970s and 1980s).

The Army has avoided using what many consider the best replacement for the mule, the bicycle. With a two wheel bicycles, soldiers could carry up to 100 pounds of weight in addition to what the soldier carries on is body. In actual combat can be left behind, like packs are left behind today, Can be moved off trail, if pushed (which may be the preferred way to move them in many combat situations). Bicycles are the main reason the Japanese took Singapore during WWII. The down side is the unit must be all cycle, do not do what the British did during the Normandy Campaign issue one bike per infantry section. The infantry could not use them for it meant the use by only one member of the section at a time. The Japanese and the Germans during WWII, equipped whole battalions with Bicycles and used them as gap fillers and emergency reserves (i.e. to go where the enemy has broken through). The Swiss maintained Bicycle troops till recently for the same mission (The Swiss decided given that international tensions dropped with the end of the cold war, they no longer had to plan for immediate war, thus the Swiss train for war some time in the future when disposition of troops will be decided by the circumstances at that time and thus it is a waste of resources to train to fight a war today, when no war is even close to occurring).

Even in WWII, it was acknowledged that the reason the Japanese could take Singapore was their use of bicycles in the Jungle of Malaysia:

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/8235754
http://www.dutcheastindies.webs.com/why_won.html

Subsequent research has supported the above comments, the key to Japanese Victory in Singapore was the bicycle, followed by tanks and the use of Light Mortars (That the Japanese are air superior ty was also a factor). The Japanese ended up moving 70-100 miles a day, something the retreating British had a problem staying in front of, for the British had become dependent on trucks and trucks had to stay on the roads. Artillery was not used till Japanese forces had reached Singapore itself, and by then the battle had already been lost by the British.

http://irishbackwoods.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-bicycle-at-war.html

Early US tests on bicycles some how used African American troops, first the 10th Cavalry and then the 25th infantry Regiments):

1881 maneuver moving 800 miles in 21 days (this was by the 10th Cavalry Regiment)
http://www.historynet.com/the-buffalo-soldiers-who-rode-bikes.htm

1897 bicycle maneuver by the US Army, moving 1900 miles in 41 days (This was by the 25th infantry regiment).
http://bicyclecorps.blogspot.com/
http://tubulocity.com/?p=64

Here is a report on bicycle use in the Boar War of 1899-1902, with a quick comment on the first war time use of bicycles during the Spanish American war in 1898:
http://samilitaryhistory.org/vol041dm.html

2009 report on bicycle and warfare:
http://www.combatreform.org/atb.htm

The problem with replacing the mule has been how versatile the mule was. When Scott failed to make it back from the South Pole, a rescue team was sent. Unlike the Siberian ponies that Scott found could NOT take the Antarctic weather, the mules did fine. The US used mules in the jungle of Burma during WWII. The mules did as well as the men (the Burma Campaign was rough on anything sent there). One of those mules was later given to the Chinese at the end of WWII, and ended up be captured from Red Chinese Forces during the Koran War.

Report on horses and mules in the US Army in 1958:
http://www.qmfound.com/horse.htm

In it explains how the US Army worked around the mule shortage in Korea:

"It is rather astonishing the load the average Korean can carry on his back using what is known as an 'A" frame. The Chinese had counted on this in their logistical planning, but the removal of thousands of refugees denied the use of native carriers and badly upset their supply system.

U.N. Forces formed Koreans into labor companies and used them in lieu of pack troops. It is a fallacy to accept this practice as a criterion for future operations for two reasons. First, all foreign countries do not have natives capable of carrying abnormal loads on their backs and, second, conditions will not exist where, of their own volition, they will not 'bug out', leaving the organization they are serving without means of transport. Mules are not addicted to this."
http://www.qmfound.com/horse.htm#Deactivation of Last Two Animal Pack Units Ft. Carson Colorado

Yes the replacement was human beings forced to carry what mules had carried in the past.

As to actual replacement for the mule, the answer is a mule. Special Forces have been reported to have trained with mules, horses and even llamas as pack animals but these are unconfirmed for they are Special Forces.

Do mules and bicycles have down sides? Yes, both have to be transported to the modern battlefield by faster means of transportation, i.e. trucks, planes, helicopters and maybe even the M2 Bradley and M1 Tank. Mules and bicycles take up space that can be used to haul other items (remember the refusal to send a cavalry division to Europe during WWII on the grounds it took up as much space as an armor division, Please note today, such transportation would be by airplane, thus savings a huge amount of space in not have to feed the horse while being transported, nor have men clean out the stables while being transported. Horses can be transported by 12 hour plane ride not a three month sea voyage and thus only feed when they get off the plane).

On maneuvers where roads exists, bikes and horses are much slower then trucks. Off road, but in open country inferior to Tanks and M2 Bradeys. Thus we are talking of forests and mountains where you have something the Army calls "Concealment" i.e. something over your head that prevents the enemy from detecting you. The problem is such places of deep concealment is where most combat will be fought today. No one is going to stand in an open field and say "Bomb me", they are going some place where it will be hard to find them, unless they want to be found. That is where troops will clash and where the mules and bicycles will come into their own.

Worse, with over half the world's populations now living in cities, the bicycle may be the ideal weapon carrying device. It can go anywhere a man can go in a city and still stand up and haul up to 100 pounds of gear and operate quietly. It is NOT dependent on fossil fuel so if fuel is a factor, bicycle helps address that factor. Most modern cities have wide boulevards not the narrow streets of the Paris and the French Revolution (and because of the Revolution, such Boulevards were retrofitted to Paris so cannon could clear a while street, unlike the Paris of 1789 where the streets were narrow and easy to block with just a few people). Having wide streets makes then more usable for tanks and other large vehicles, but you can still block them if you have enough people to blockade the streets and if that is the case, it is the bicycle that is the best way around or over such obstacles.

Sorry, we have replacements for the Mule, it is the Mule and to a limited extent the Bicycle. The problem is both are CHEAP and thus no profit can be made providing them to the military. No profit to way to pay to lobby Congress for it and thus the military does without (To paraphrase LBJ "Nothing gets done in Washington unless someone is lobbying for it&quot . Thus no profit, no lobby, no mules or bicycles.

[CTyankee]

83. Isn't this like the third or fourth posting of this story here at DU? I am beginning to wonder

about the "agenda" some folks may have here. Hmm...

[rrneck]

103. No more than

the "if you think feminism" threads are.

[CTyankee]

104. No. One is a discussion of a philosophy embraced by Progressives.

The other is a minor news story.

[rrneck]

107. No.

One is ideology and the other is physics. Or are you not a member of the reality based community?

[CTyankee]

108. One is a philosophy that progressives embrace, no?

The other is a news story about one test of physical strength, no?

[rrneck]

113. No.

It's about the minimum physical standard of a solder to fight a modern war. Bullets and bombs and death are all real and and cannot be adjusted because some people are too small and weak to play.

[CTyankee]

115. Thanks for straightening all of us out. Silly us, we thought it was also about

bullets, bombs and death that requires us as a society to rely on our soldiers, male and female, to be excellent marksmen, have physical endurance, courage, smarts, working together...but then I guess you are right...there ARE some people too "small and weak" to, er, "play" (interesting word you use there, rr)...

[rrneck]

117. You're the one treating the issue like a semantic game.

And you're welcome.

[CTyankee]

119. Stop it. Really. Women are part of the military now. We must all live with it.

We are not the worse for it. We are the better for it. You cannot deny half of the population's strengths and gifts and say we are not.

To live in denial of this is to live in the past. We cannot as a society do that. We just can't.

Get on board! It ain't that bad!

[rrneck]

121. Are you sure you replied to the right post?

So why don't you solve the combat load problem? You might find it somewhat more difficult that accusing me of a position that I don't hold.

But that's always the way it works. There is a lot of ideological banter until somebody points out how it's bullshit, then they are misogynists or MRA's or socially retrograde or neanderthals or telling you to shut up or accusing you of being uppity or something.

I eagerly await more ideological hand flapping.

[CTyankee]

123. Not sure what your issue is. I thought we were discussing women's strengths in the military.

n/t

[rrneck]

124. Yes, we were.

Except you tried to find a conspiracy behind the number of threads that have been posted on the subject.

So how about it. Got that logistical solution yet?

[CTyankee]

125. My issue was dealing with feminism as if it si a subset of women in the military always,

not as viewing as a bringing to the table of women's attributes to the military. Why close off feminism from military preparedness? We need half of the population to help solve our problems in every area of our government! So this whole argument is a done deal, rrneck. It's over.

[rrneck]

126. It's far from over.

Just look upthread and see what another fellow feminist has cooked up as a solution.

We can certainly bring women's attributes to the military. Did you know that women have better fine motor control than men? It's a great benefit to marksmanship. But of course putting the woman in the right place to utilize those skills becomes problematic. So, lets put them in airplanes. I think there are any number of fine female aviators serving in the military.

The truth is that military service is a difficult and dangerous job without some fucker shooting at you, and most men and the vast majority of women aren't up to the task. No amount of ideological apologetics will change that.

I've actually got the first part of an OP already written on the subject and if I can decide which way I want the second part to go, I'll post it.

[pinboy3niner]

131. What "combat load problem"?

That's something you made up.

All the USMC has said is that women recruits have a problem with pullups. The Marines have not said anything about women having a problem humping a combat load.

[rrneck]

133. If they can carry it fine by me.

Men are having trouble with it, or so I have read (links above), so the available pool of people that can deal with it will be smaller. Women tend to be smaller than men (which is what the OP is about). I don't care one way or the other about what the Marines do, that's up to them. I am interested in the elevation of ideology over physics.

If a woman, or a small man, can do the job because they have the muscle or moxie or whatever, that's fine. But claims that women can do it because - women, just won't fly.

[Nine]

122. "We are the better for it." - that's it right there.

How people view this story depends on whether they see women as a valuable addition to the military or as nothing but a liability. Is this an issue that needs to be addressed so that the military can take advantage of all female recruits may have to offer? Or is allowing women to sign up for the military nothing but a favor to the women that the military grants just to be politically correct? If physical standards for men were changed and recruits had difficulty meeting the new standards, what would the response be? I can tell you what it wouldn't be - that men just can't do this, and we need to get men out of the military.

[pinboy3niner]

132. Nailed it!

[civillawyer]

84. I had female

drill sergeants, first sergeants, platoon leaders, and company commanders. They were all superior military personnel.

[Drew2510]

138. Which Branch, Inf, Arty, Armor, Cav, JAG, etc

[happyslug]

144. Do you have to ask that question?

The Army has MANY branches and the only branches CLOSED to Women are the Infantry, Armor and Artillery branches. Thus a Female JAG Drill Sargent is possible, so is a female Military Police Sargent, helicopter mechanic, general mechanic, heavy equipment mechanic, Medic, etc.

This cite says Artillery is open to women, but Armor and Infantry are not (please note this is for Officer positions only):

http://www.goarmy.com/careers-and-jobs/officer-careers-and-specialties.html

Cannon Crewmen, the enlisted position in the Field Artillery, is still closed to women:
http://www.goarmy.com/careers-and-jobs/officer-careers-and-specialties.html

The following are also closed to Women in the enlisted ranks: Cavalry Scout, Combat Engineer (Except for bridge units), Artillery (except for Radar operation tied in with Artillery), Infantry, Special Forces and Armor positions:

http://www.goarmy.com/careers-and-jobs/officer-careers-and-specialties.html

That still leave a lot of positions for women to move up within the Army.

[Nine]

118. This reminds me of the anti-ACA propaganda

The website had some glitches! Let's scrap the entire program!!!

One group of female recruits performed less well than hoped for on a single measure! Get all women out of the military!!!

Please. If the pullups requirement is a true measure of something marines need to be able to do their job, then the simple answer is to train the female recruits better on this task. If the requirement is, intentionally or unintentionally, simply a barrier preventing qualified females from the job, then change the requirement. I refuse to believe that pullups are critically important to being a marine AND that the requirement is something that women simply cannot achieve through training.

[CTyankee]

120. I know. Hard to get this through some folks heads, even at DU (wouldja believe?).

SAD.

[rrneck]

127. Not really.

At issue is the fact that the combat loadout is already pushing the envelope of a soldier's ability to carry it. That loadout is about about thirty percent of a 180 pound individual. And that's a combat load. Approach loads can be much greater. So anybody that weighs 110 pounds simply won't make it - male or female. There are a lot more 180 pound men in the United States than women.

I have butted heads with a couple of posters here not because I think women shouldn't be in the military, but because the ideological solutions offered disregarded the reality of physics. We can't very well redesign the way people fight modern wars to enforce some kind of ersatz gender equality.

[Nine]

128. You believe the Marines care more about "gender equality" than getting good people.

I don't believe that. I don't claim to know much about combat but I think the people running the Marines do. I think they want good people and they know that there are many different factors that go into that. The Marines aren't going to fall apart because the upgrade of a single physical metric is delayed for a bit.

And what if an all-male Marine Corps were facing this same problem? Suppose they increased the minimum number of sit-ups required and found that new recruits were not meeting this new standard. Do you think they would say, "Welp, we just can't let these people become Marines. Time to close up shop!" Of course not. They're going to delay implementation of the new standard, look at their training methods, look at how the new standard relates to actual combat needs, and take whatever other steps are needed until they resolve the issue. Closing up shop would not be an option. But when it comes to women in the military, you seem to believe just closing up shop IS an option. And that's because you can't envision that women could actually be assets in the Marines.

[rrneck]

129. Nope.

The Marines won't close up shop. What they will do is simply not use the wrong people for the job. What do you think will happen if they figure out a way to make body armor fifty percent lighter? They will take half that weight and hang something else on the best bodies they can find.

Ours is an all volunteer military. That means the armed services can hire anybody they want. So the Air Force won't hire near sighted pilots. The navy won't hire sailors that can't swim. And since every Marine is a rifleman, they won't use anybody that can't handle a combat load. It has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with the ability of the soldier to do the job.

http://www.marines.com/becoming-a-marine/how-to-prepare/cft#
The CFT is a 300-point test with an emphasis on functional fitness related to operational demands. Males and females perform the same exercises but are scored differently, and adjustments are also made for age. Passing the CFT is an annual requirement for all Marines. Performance on the test directly impacts every Marine's career, as CFT scores are used to tabulate Composite Scores used for promotions.

A timed, 880-yard course that tests each Marine's endurance.

The maximum score for males is 2:45
The maximum score for females is 3:23

Marines must lift a 30-pound ammo can overhead, until elbows lock out, as many times as possible.

The maximum score for males is 91 lifts
The maximum score for females is 61 lifts

A 300-yard shuttle run that incorporates a variety of combat-related tasks, including crawls, carries, ammunition resupply, grenade throwing and agility running.

The maximum score for males is 2:14
The maximum score for females is 3:01

There are short videos at the link. Feel free to try them for yourself. Those exercises were designed to test a soldier to see if he or she can handle the rigors of combat. They don't have the luxury of simply adjusting the standards to suit gender equality.

And if you were wondering, I have never been in the armed forces. But I have always had one sort of job or another that required physical labor. I spent the afternoon running a chainsaw with a three foot bar. I'm in better shape than the vast majority of office workers my age, and I would fail those tests miserably.

[Nine]

135. You sure have a lot invested in this for someone not in the armed forces.

This was the very first set of female recruits to take the new test. The whole transition is still in the study phase. Obviously some female recruits can and do reach a point where they can do a great number of pull-ups. Why didn't more female recruits succeed on this very first test? My guess would be problems with the training they received in boot camp. What will you say if the problem is fixed a year from now and the pass rate is much higher?

"The Marines won't close up shop. What they will do is simply not use the wrong people for the job."

If an all-male Marine Corps instituted a new standard that ended up shutting out a significant number of recruits, you think they would just "make do" with a smaller corps or a smaller number for some needed specialty? Ridiculous. They'd study the problem and figure out a resolution so that they could get the numbers they needed.

"What do you think will happen if they figure out a way to make body armor fifty percent lighter? They will take half that weight and hang something else on the best bodies they can find."

Why on earth would they do that when you're the one claiming combat load is already such a problem? Technological changes in any field change the skillsets needed by those working in that field. That's why computer skills have become more desired in the military and equestrianship less so.

"Those exercises were designed to test a soldier to see if he or she can handle the rigors of combat. They don't have the luxury of simply adjusting the standards to suit gender equality."

But according to you that is exactly what they will do. Do you trust those in command to handle this hiccup and ensure that Marines are able to do the jobs that need to be done? It seems like your paranoia that women are going to worm their way into positions they aren't qualified for overrides your faith in the Marine command to use their own expertise to address this appropriately.

[rrneck]

136. Yes, I have a lot invested.

I'm a tax paying citizen who thinks our military is entirely too big. If we are going to deleverage our empire we will have to contract our military.

Three pull ups do not a Marine make. My first post in this thread (#74) was about how hard it is to carry sixty pounds on your back. I had to Google that information although I recall a few years ago about the problems soldiers have had with combat loads reported in the news.

This thread seemed to have concerned itself overmuch with the "three pull ups" issue when I thought a larger context would help.

There are lots of things women can do in the military. I have already pointed out that there are female aviators. There have been female fighter pilots for years. And yes, the Marines have airplanes.

The human mind is a marvelously malleable thing. Even though evloution and epigenetic development makes some distinctions between genders, people can be trained to go far beyond the boundaries of their bodies, environment, and socialization. But our bodies are governed by the laws of physics, and there is no way in hell a 110 pound person can carry sixty five percent of his or her weight and be effective. There are simply some things some women won't be able to do because they aren't strong enough. If a man fails to make the cut, well, that's the breaks. The same should hold true for women.

[Myrina]

151. ... and I would also venture to guess that male Marines subjected to pain similar to childbirth

.... would crack under interrogation in a matter of minutes. So does that disqualify men?