Meet the Women Who Survived Army’s Ranger School (Navy SEALs Are Next) - Page 2

MaDef · 08-26-15, 10:00 AM

As long as the military doesn't lower their training standards just to accommodate women or to be seen as being politically correct, I have no problem with women serving in combat (or the special forces).

having said that, I think the Pentagon needs to get ahead of the curve and address issues specific to having integrated units to avoid degrading moral and discipline in the units. For example: the sexual harassment case on the U.S.S. Wyoming (SSBN 742).

ETR3(SS) · 08-27-15, 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDef

As long as the military doesn't lower their training standards just to accommodate women or to be seen as being politically correct, I have no problem with women serving in combat (or the special forces).

Too late, they already have. Years ago. There's been a push for a single standard, what would be the current male standard.

Onkel Neal · 08-30-15, 08:18 PM

I still say the answer to women on submarines is to let them man a sub with all women.

Aktungbby · 04-19-16, 02:02 AM

zuliaera!

NorseViking · 04-19-16, 05:10 AM

I don't know about the Army but most civilians think that Marine Corps boot camp is as seen on TV. It is not. It is ruthless. When I went through in 2002 it was. It could be different now. This is a social experiment and they did lower the standards. The Marines had a combat officer training coarse opened to women due to the bureaucrats in Washington and they picked all the top women who wanted to try. Not one passed. This wasn't special forces or recon.

Army ranger school is supposed to be more difficult than the standard combat officer training and the men involved said that the standards were lowered and that it was done as a political move. In reality 99.9% of women can't even pass a male Marine's basic PFT, let alone a recon indoc. Knowing what it takes to pass Marine Corp boot camp for males, I would have to say that I have only met one Marine woman that could possibly have passed our boot camp. She was much stronger than any of these women rangers look. All of the vets I know and what I have seen from the consequences of this meddling from bureaucrats shows that standards across the board are being lowered under the label of gender equality. When someone deploys to a warzone with Marines it becomes very obvious the difference between the capabilities of men and women. In war there is no time outs or safe zones unless you stand guard and make it safe. There is little time for hygiene and no time to call time out for any of the problems that women have come accustomed to feeling entitled to. When the smallest Marine in the unit has to be able to fireman carry the biggest Marine in the unit for long distances, it becomes extremely apparent that women are not cut out for it. Every study that has ever been done trying to integrate women into combat roles has shown a dramatic drop in the units effectiveness and ability. Anyone who thinks that it is not dangerous to have women in combat and get them there by lowering the standards has never felt the weight of 100 plus pounds of gear and a weapon while you have to carry your squad mate through a war zone or be carried yourself. A 180lb Marine weighs in at over 300lbs with all his gear and even if you strip him of most of his stuff. The flak gear, Kevlar, weapon and digis+boots+gas mask still puts him over 250lbs and closer to 300lbs. This nonsense only seems logical to those who have never been there or done that. For those who know. It is nothing but legislating weakness into our military under the guise of being politically correct.

Jimbuna · 04-19-16, 05:34 AM

Welcome to SubSim zuliaera

NorseViking · 04-19-16, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Welcome to SubSim zuliaera

Thanks!

08-30-15, 08:18 PM	#18
Onkel Neal Born to Run Silent Join Date: Jan 1997 Location: Cougar Trap, Texas Posts: 21,289 Downloads: 534 Uploads: 224	I still say the answer to women on submarines is to let them man a sub with all women. __________________ SUBSIM - 26 Years on the Web

04-19-16, 02:02 AM	#19
Aktungbby Gefallen Engel U-666 Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: On a tilted, overheated, overpopulated spinning mudball on Collision course with Andromeda Galaxy Posts: 27,875 Downloads: 22 Uploads: 0	Welcome aboard! zuliaera! __________________ "Only two things are infinite; The Universe and human squirrelyness; and I'm not too sure about the Universe"

04-19-16, 05:10 AM	#20
NorseViking Nub Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 3 Downloads: 19 Uploads: 0	From a Marine. I don't know about the Army but most civilians think that Marine Corps boot camp is as seen on TV. It is not. It is ruthless. When I went through in 2002 it was. It could be different now. This is a social experiment and they did lower the standards. The Marines had a combat officer training coarse opened to women due to the bureaucrats in Washington and they picked all the top women who wanted to try. Not one passed. This wasn't special forces or recon. Army ranger school is supposed to be more difficult than the standard combat officer training and the men involved said that the standards were lowered and that it was done as a political move. In reality 99.9% of women can't even pass a male Marine's basic PFT, let alone a recon indoc. Knowing what it takes to pass Marine Corp boot camp for males, I would have to say that I have only met one Marine woman that could possibly have passed our boot camp. She was much stronger than any of these women rangers look. All of the vets I know and what I have seen from the consequences of this meddling from bureaucrats shows that standards across the board are being lowered under the label of gender equality. When someone deploys to a warzone with Marines it becomes very obvious the difference between the capabilities of men and women. In war there is no time outs or safe zones unless you stand guard and make it safe. There is little time for hygiene and no time to call time out for any of the problems that women have come accustomed to feeling entitled to. When the smallest Marine in the unit has to be able to fireman carry the biggest Marine in the unit for long distances, it becomes extremely apparent that women are not cut out for it. Every study that has ever been done trying to integrate women into combat roles has shown a dramatic drop in the units effectiveness and ability. Anyone who thinks that it is not dangerous to have women in combat and get them there by lowering the standards has never felt the weight of 100 plus pounds of gear and a weapon while you have to carry your squad mate through a war zone or be carried yourself. A 180lb Marine weighs in at over 300lbs with all his gear and even if you strip him of most of his stuff. The flak gear, Kevlar, weapon and digis+boots+gas mask still puts him over 250lbs and closer to 300lbs. This nonsense only seems logical to those who have never been there or done that. For those who know. It is nothing but legislating weakness into our military under the guise of being politically correct. Last edited by NorseViking; 04-19-16 at 05:30 AM.

04-19-16, 05:34 AM	#21
Jimbuna Chief of the Boat Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: 250 metres below the surface Posts: 181,305 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 13	Welcome to SubSim zuliaera __________________ Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Oh my God, not again!! GWX3.0 Download Page - Donation/instant access to GWX (Help SubSim)

08-26-15, 10:00 AM	#16
MaDef Ace of the Deep Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,046 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	As long as the military doesn't lower their training standards just to accommodate women or to be seen as being politically correct, I have no problem with women serving in combat (or the special forces). having said that, I think the Pentagon needs to get ahead of the curve and address issues specific to having integrated units to avoid degrading moral and discipline in the units. For example: the sexual harassment case on the U.S.S. Wyoming (SSBN 742).