General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: On the Reality of Combat [View all]SQUEE
(1,315 posts)The Firefighter cop argument is not really an equal assessment, the extended periods of action and often degraded PT necessary in a combat area degrades physical fitness, again bringing people closer to the median than they would be doing constant PT back in CONUS.
You have to realize, in most infantry line units, being a minimum on the PT standard is considered a massive failure, my last battalion had a 275 minimum PT standard before you were put in remedial PT. We had to pass the minimum PT in M17 gas mask, and a medium ruck sack. And that was just standard, we spent 2-3 hours doing PT, the rest was all the other dreary stuff a grunt gets to do while in cantonment. There was no room or time for an extreme diet, or intensive physical training. I bring this up, because yes there are female athletes out on the edges of the bell curve that could earn their way in to a unit based on initial physical ability. I have a doubt many of them could maintain that standard through the first 3 months of a deployment.
I believe females should be allowed in combat and combat support roles, I have stated earlier, or in another thread I have seen exceptional female soldiers, MPs, mechanics, and even truck drivers. all of them face the possibility of enemy action, the MP and Drivers even more so in certain areas of our current conflict. But engaging in combat and being rewarded and recognized for it, is not the same as being in combat arms.
I actually support breaking the stranglehold the 3 combat arms and thier fascination with MOS have on military thought and procedure.
Edit history
![](du4img/smicon-reply-new.gif)