Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Women in combat

Women in Combat Military Women

  • Please log in to reply
87 replies to this topic

#61 Enmar

Enmar

    a Sabra

  • Islander
  • 2,021 posts

Posted 18 May 2003 - 01:48 AM

Quote

CJ: You still have to get the shells from where they are stored into artillery piece. That consists of a large amount of manual labor by moving around very large shells by hand. As noted above the infantry is counting with their lives on having a certain number of shells coming in when they call in a fire mission.

OKÖ I might be wrong but letís separate it to two different places:
1. Where the canons are, you have the canon and you have another vehicle that carries the shells. You have to take the shells off the ďtruckĒ and load them one by one to the canon. Most of this process is nowadays done with levers, isnít it? So you donít really carry them around. And it isnít that fast anyway, because you have to acquire targets and corrections from the infantry out there, you have to prepare the right amount of explosives ect. And thatís a team work, itís not all about carrying the shells.
2. Where the ďtrucksĒ are loaded, way back from the front or even artillery lines. I doubt it itís done manually, especially since they have to load packs of them.



Training programs

They shouldnít be separate, of course, boot camp is the place where people learn to work together, itís the most intense experience and they have to go through it together if they are to trust each other. But the training programs were designed for men and that should change to something in the middle that will not discriminate any gender.

IJay

Thanks, for all of them, filed ;)

Iíve got a few non American, Iíll try and find the time later to post about them (it requires translation :wacko:)

Quote

[Delvo:On that last point without a number: Well, in the armed forces, good=men. Yes, that's how it is. Military activity is a manly thing, so men are better at it, and being better at it is being more manly. Don't pretend that's a prejudice, though; it's just an acknowledgement of the fact that we're talking about a particular context here, not life in general, and any particular contex can turn out to be something that some people are better suited to than others.

I had a conversation with a teenager that joined a pre-military training group. She wanted to be ready because she wanted to be a pilot and these training groups help you be more prepared to the tests you have to go through to be accepted to the course. More than 90% of the teenagers there were men and the guide kept yelling stuff like ďare you females? ď and calling exercises names like ďthe little whore". That is not the best environment for her to do her best. And that is direct result of men=good and that is prejudice, actually a very harmful one that stands in womenís way.
Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings.

#62 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 18 May 2003 - 06:24 AM

Delvo, on May 15 2003, 09:28 AM, said:

Rhea, on May 13 2003, 04:47 PM, said:

women didn't always sit by the fire and nurse babies... I'll give you a cogent example: the Celts. Under Brehon law women... fought in battle alongside the men... Typical male and female roles vary widely from culture to culture, never mind era to era.
There's a difference between what people can be pressed into doing and what is best and the "natural" or "default" behavior. I recall one guy at another forum who  claimed that it's healthy to fast/starve and gorge, instead of eating what most people think of as normal amounts of food every day. He claimed that it's our natural condition because for most of our pre-history, food wasn't available very consistently. But he was fogetting to distinguish between what's BEST and what's TOLERABLE when circumstances require it.

Another example: Very seldom do humans eat a meat-eating animal. They can and will do it, if protein is very scarce in their area, but most of the time, they have options, and when there's an option they go for plant-eaters. Why? There's a slight difference in the nutrients you get, but primarily it's a matter of efficiency; you're nutritionally better off eating 20 sheep yourself than feeding a dog 20 sheep and only getting to eat 1 dog for yourself out of the deal.

This is another such case. You might notice that, while most cultures assign men to the hunting and fighting, and some include the women, there are none that assign it only to women. So clearly the two are not interchangible here; a closer look is warranted at why they might make the decisions they did, when nature itself clearly tends to steer the outcome in a certain direction. Given that men are ALWAYS included and women sometimes aren't, it makes sense that women are included when they have to be, and aren't when there's a choice. The Celts' military habits, for example, are known from their encounters with Rome, which was so vastly surperior to them that the Celts were driven to desperation in the face of being helplessly mowed down. They needed to field as many combatants as they could possibly get. It would be an interesting study for someone to examine what other factors go into it, what things the various examples like this might have in common. But the fact can't be escaped, that men and women generally tend to divide labor in ways that are natural and determined by our inherently different natures. Different cultures just tweek the details.
You apparently aren't listening to me. Under Brehon law, women were equal to men. They owned property, served in any capacity they were qualified for, fought and ruled.

There are a number of women famous in Celtic history for being warriors - Maeve, for one. I'll let you have the fun of looking her up.

One of the most famous pirates of all time was an Irishwoman leading a band of men - her name was Grania (she was a thorn in the side of Queen Elizabeth I).

No one in their minds would claim that men and women possess exactly the same skills. Yes, men have more upper body strength than women. Yes, there are some things men are better at - carrying heavy equipment, for instance.

But I simply don't buy that women can't perform in combat. Sorry.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#63 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 18 May 2003 - 10:02 AM

Quote

Enmar:1. Where the canons are, you have the canon and you have another vehicle that carries the shells. You have to take the shells off the ďtruckĒ and load them one by one to the canon.

You have that basically correct.  Some self-propelled artillery does carry a limited amount of their own ammunition onboard with them.    

Quote

Enmar: Most of this process is nowadays done with levers, isnít it? So you donít really carry them around.

Actually the majority of the task is still manual grunt work and moving them through muscle power. Why add complex machinery that is prone to breaking and often slower when good old strong back and grunt power can do the same job better.  That is part of the reason why the M1A2 Abrams tank carries a loader rather than an automated loading system.  

Demo picture: M109 155mm SP Howitzer

Quote

Enmar And it isnít that fast anyway,
The ROF (rate of fire) for a 155mm M109A6 Paladin Self-Propelled Howitzer is 4 rounds per minute.  The lowest ROF for some towed artillery in that 155mm range is a minimum of 2 rounds per minute.  Now the 155mm Advanced Gun System that will be fitted to the DD-21 can obtain a ROF of 12 shells per minute.  You can only do that with a lot of complex very automated heavy technology that isnít very applicable to being used on the modern battlefield on a tracked or wheeled system.  In addition the environment inside a destroyer isnít anywhere near as hostile to delicate equipment as what ground forces would encounter in the field.      
So what Iím saying is the use of more automated equipment would slow the ROF, introduce more equipment failures, and further increase the weight of equipment.  So you would be lowering the combat capability of your forces just to play some PC games and on top of that would be further endangering the lives of your soldiers with that new equipment.  If women can, by meeting the same basic standards as men who do that job, fill a role without compromising the integrity and combat readiness of a particular element of the military then let them in.  The idea  of building special equipment that is inferior to the older more manually operated equipment is just wrong, misguided, and dangerous to the welfare of the nation and troops.    

Quote

Enmar:  because you have to acquire targets and corrections from the infantry out there, you have to prepare the right amount of explosives ect. And thatís a teamwork, itís not all about carrying the shells.

Targeting with the complex calculations that go with it is now all largely handled by computers in a fraction of the time.  In this area automation is an aid rather than a hindrance.  Corrections are also far easier and faster now with modern communications and the advent of UAVs to act as artillery spotters.  Indeed often rather than firing one shell, waiting for it to land, witnessing the effect, and then firing again you would be firing entire barrages.  In this case it comes down to just how many shells you can get in that gun and fired off downrange in a given amount of time.  The lives of the soldiers are then depending on the number of shells that can arrive downrange in a certain amount of time.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#64 Laoise

Laoise

    I am bounce around so well

  • Islander
  • 714 posts

Posted 18 May 2003 - 10:10 AM

Talkie Toaster, on May 17 2003, 12:36 AM, said:

But in this case, 99% of female inductees will not make the grade when they have finished training.
What about the other 1%?  And you can't expect me to believe that 100% of the men make the grade after training.  Let them do the training, and the ones determined enough will be able to find a way.

There must be a test or proof of some sort that they all have to pass to serve in the front lines.  (At least, I would think so, as you wouldn't want a man who couldn't do the job fighting on the front lines anymore than you'd want a woman doing it!)  Let the people who can prove they can do the job do the job.  Don't let the people who can't do the job do it.  I don't understand why we have to make gender the distinction between who can and can't do it.
Being Liberal means never having to say you're Tory.

#65 Talkie Toaster

Talkie Toaster

    There's no Shepard without Vakarian

  • Islander
  • 1,136 posts

Posted 18 May 2003 - 11:13 AM

Laoise, on May 17 2003, 11:17 PM, said:

What about the other 1%?  And you can't expect me to believe that 100% of the men make the grade after training.  Let them do the training, and the ones determined enough will be able to find a way.
The other 1% will meet the requirments. I dont know about you, but, personally, I think a 99% drop out rate might be a bit high.

I dont have any percise figures, but I have been told the male drop out rate for line infantry (not prestige units) is 11%.

Quote

There must be a test or proof of some sort that they all have to pass to serve in the front lines.  (At least, I would think so, as you wouldn't want a man who couldn't do the job fighting on the front lines anymore than you'd want a woman doing it!)  Let the people who can prove they can do the job do the job.  Don't let the people who can't do the job do it.  I don't understand why we have to make gender the distinction between who can and can't do it.

Fair enough, but in this case it should be realise that the overwhelming majority of personal in the combat arms will be male.
Blessed is the mind too small for doubt.

#66 Laoise

Laoise

    I am bounce around so well

  • Islander
  • 714 posts

Posted 18 May 2003 - 11:33 AM

Talkie Toaster, on May 17 2003, 06:20 PM, said:

The other 1% will meet the requirments. I dont know about you, but, personally, I think a 99% drop out rate might be a bit high.
I have trouble believing the actually drop out rate would be 99%, though.  I work in a feild where the ability to lift a bare minimum of 40 pounds of dead weight is a requirement, and about 90% of the people in the feild are woman.  (Many of us can lift weights well above that though.)  I've never had a female co-worker who has trained to be able to lift that weight either, beyond safe ways to hold it.  (Dropping your human clients isn't looked upon too well ;))  I imagine that, with actual military training, a good number of woman could get the upper body strength needed.  Certainly a higher number than the 'none' if they're prohibited from trying. :)

Also, I think that the most the people who enter training are on the higher end of the physically fit scale to begin with.  Frail, sickly people (like me!) don't exactly flock towards jobs like the military! :)

Quote

Fair enough, but in this case it should be realise that the overwhelming majority of personal in the combat arms will be male.

Well, yeah.  Aren't the majority of people in the military already male?  You would expect the percentage to jump up greatly in the most physically demanding jobs.
Being Liberal means never having to say you're Tory.

#67 Talkie Toaster

Talkie Toaster

    There's no Shepard without Vakarian

  • Islander
  • 1,136 posts

Posted 18 May 2003 - 11:57 AM

Laoise, on May 18 2003, 12:40 AM, said:

Quote

I have trouble believing the actually drop out rate would be 99%, though.

The MOD report on the subject states that, in a review of the PSS® grades of 2,367 female recruits attempting to join the Army in a 12 month period only 0.1% met A grade for infantry service, had they been eligable and wanted to serve. After training, this figure rose to 1%.

Quote

I work in a feild where the ability to lift a bare minimum of 40 pounds of dead weight is a requirement, and about 90% of the people in the feild are woman.  (Many of us can lift weights well above that though.)  I've never had a female co-worker who has trained to be able to lift that weight either, beyond safe ways to hold it.  (Dropping your human clients isn't looked upon too well ;))  I imagine that, with actual military training, a good number of woman could get the upper body strength needed.  Certainly a higher number than the 'none' if they're prohibited from trying. :)

If you're just lifting it, 40 pounds isnt a crushing amount- I can lift more than 5 times that; and I aint exactally the height of fitness. ;)
Blessed is the mind too small for doubt.

#68 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 18 May 2003 - 12:21 PM

Quote

Laoise: I have trouble believing the actually drop out rate would be 99%, though. I work in a feild where the ability to lift a bare minimum of 40 pounds of dead weight is a requirement, and about 90% of the people in the feild are woman.

As noted by Talkie Toaster that amount of weight (40lbs) and indeed a lot more than that really isnít a killer when you are just picking it up.  I grew up doing haying and regularly threw around 50+lb bales of hay all day.  Iíll tell you there is a huge difference between maybe picking up a bale every 30 minutes and carrying the things around all day.  

Except once you get into the weapons, full kit, and ammunition your standard infantry soldier armed with a rifle is carrying around far more than that.  Iíd figure at least double that if they were really packed to bear.  Then you want to strap that 80lbs pack onto to your back and march (through who knows what type of conditions) for several hours to reach the battle.  Then to top it off you have to be ready to go right into combat once arriving there.      

For comparison I'll relate back to my artillery example these shells are going to go easily a 100 lbs and heavier when you get into the 155 mm shells.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#69 bandit

bandit

    Bond, Fuzzy Bond

  • Islander
  • 1,026 posts

Posted 18 May 2003 - 12:30 PM

the question is not just stamina, i know many women who can lift 40 pounds, but what about 80 or 90, once a minute for the 5 hours straight? and that would be slow.
if they can pass the training, great. if not, i dont see that we need complex machines and lower standards just to "make things fair" and this is not to slam anyone, or start a fight, but if you cannot meet the physical requirements, dont ask us to lower them. if you cant cut it, you cant cut it, just like if a man cant do it.

#70 ph3n1ks

ph3n1ks

    u$oft detractor

  • Islander
  • 126 posts

Posted 19 May 2003 - 05:39 PM

Essentially, this whole discussion is simply intellectual, or really even philosophical. Until a nation is willing to commit female soldiers, marines, and/or sailors to complete front line deployment in harms way, we argue for naught. Interestingly, a study was carried out on soldiers and marines in WWII. This study was about combat effectiveness of units. The findings were startling. Of those observed in combat, only 40 - 50% were actually firing their weapons. Of those, less than a third were actually firing at the enemy. The rest were firing wildly or in the air. From these results, the basic training regimens were re-formulated. It was believed that combat effectiveness was a psychological phenomenon more than a physical one. Thus, during the Vietnam conflict, we tested the new theories of combat effectiveness and found some really surprising things out. The entire thing is one huge mind game. The combat effectiveness of any unit has less to do with physical capabilities than mental programming.

Any member of the military, since the Vietnam era, can attest to the fact that basic training or boot camp is one long mind game. The physical stuff is used as a tool to affect mental change. The more weak minded you are the better. The more exhausted physically one is, the more affected by suggestion one can be. All the training is about is making new reflexes available.

Now, let's move to military tactics and strategy. If you have attended the War College at the Point or at Annapolis, you can back me up on this. The base unit in infantry combat is not the number of dead enemy. Rather, it has to do with the ratio of your forces to theirs. Basically, how many of your people are you willing to allow the enemy to kill off to prove a point versus how many s/he is willing to allow you to kill off to prove his/her point. Simply put, it's all about the number of pawns you can put on the field to occupy dirt. If you want to successfully prosecute a war, pile on the bodies. Gender never comes into the equation, end of story.

Finally, I have known personally, many male combat veterans. A large percentage of them are broken physically. Men really seem no better equipped to carry out these stressful, dangerous jobs. For all we know, women might handle them better. But we have no data on that.

So really, the question is, after we remove the homosexual issue and the gender issue, what will be next?

Edited by ph3n1ks, 19 May 2003 - 05:41 PM.

Support Evolution! Electrify the gene pool's fence!

Pray for the peace of Jerusalem, or just pray for peace!

#71 StarDust

StarDust
  • Islander
  • 1,155 posts

Posted 20 May 2003 - 07:36 AM

Agreed.

Most women are as capable as most men. And war isn't about who is physically strongest. Besides most women are pretty close to most men in those areas also. It's not like the military only takes in the strongest of men!!! Not even close.

A lot of women's phyiscal 'inadequacies' have more to do with social conditioning than anything. And with female sports that is changing. I remember an article years ago about female cadets at West Point. They stated that at the beginning of their training, it would be different from men because of societal influences and the women would have to play catch up. They didn't have upper body strength mostly because they didn't grow doing things like playing baseball. They weren't as good at fighting because they weren't taught how to as kids like boys were. By the end though, they were required to do everything men did, not given any leeway, in order to graduate. And they did, they were more than capable.

A lot of this has to do with the benefits of a volunteer military. They get to be selective and get people who can do the job, and want to do the job. Many problems of a non-volunteer military is having people that are not up to the job, whether it be WWII or Vietnam or any similar situation. Men are just as likely to not be able to handle the situation. And frankly I think women can handle extreme emotional situations better. But that's a generalization, there are men and women that fall apart in these situations, just as there are men and women who are more than capable of rising to the situation and doing what needs to be done. Always been that way, always will be.

It should be the choice of the person as much as possible, unless it's proven they can't do the job. Proven, not assumed. If someone is willing to risk their life, who is someone else to say they can't? Especially based on some philosophical stance designed to protect that person's place in society!

As far as gays in the military, I think that's another silly situation. The only reason it's an issue is because some straight men can't handle having to deal with what women have to deal with every day.  

I've always found it interesting that men are so threatened by homosexual men, but seem to fantasize about lesbians :lol:  It seems to me that men are threatened because  of two things. They don't like being 'leered at', which women have had to put up with forever. Second, they know what men are capable of, which women have known and had to deal with forever, and men don't like possibly being put in the same position. Just some observations over the years based on things male friends have said whenever the subject of gays comes up, it can be quite funny from a female point of view. I usually feel like saying "welcome to my world".

But your sexual orientation hasn't anything to do with how good you are at your job, any job, or how able you will be at killing.

#72 EvilTree

EvilTree

    my silence is my pervading call

  • Islander
  • 623 posts

Posted 20 May 2003 - 01:24 PM

^Oh I don't know. I've seen female recruits break during course before. The weak ones who cannot ruck, falls back on runs, etc, certainly more than guys, percentage wise. There were 5 girls in my platoon. 4 of them were pretty weak and most of the time couldn't handle the physical stress part. That's 80% and the figure ran similar to other recruit platoons.

I found it true that it is 10% physical and 90% mental.
Being one of the smaller and only average fit compared to rest of my platoon, I've had my share of near breaking moments, that moment when you want to quit because you think you can't take it anymore. But I sucked up the pain and managed to pass.
Reflecting on that, there was enough mental stress to break people who can't take it. Add physical pain and the stress greater. More fit you were, better equipped you were to take the pain, because you'd be having an easier dealing with the physical demands.

Being more fit will get you through digging a trench on clay during a hot summer day and it's not just digging, you have to carry tools and other assortment of stores and sheets of metal, poles to make your trench. Then try to stay awake during stand tos because the enemy is lurking somewhere. You're lucky if you can snatch 2-3 hours of sleep because you're suppose to stay up and keep a lookout for enemy while your partner sleeps. Then when it's your turn to sleep, you'll have trouble sleeping because mosquitos are buzzing around, biting you and the bloody bug repellant isn't working and you forgot to bring your bugnet and you hope that there isn't a stand to during your sleep time. Did I forgot to mention that it rained during the night? You're huddling against the wall of the trench with raincoat and helmet on shivering trying to sleep?

You only been inside the trench two days and you think things can't get any worse. You're relieved and you go back to your bivouac area and finally have some time to brush your teeth and clean your face a bit and think you can finally get some sleep, after managing to snatch only four hours of sleep last two days. You get about three hours of heavenly sleep, leaning against the tree, but your rifle or machinegun near you, because you never know when the enemy will attack, even your biv area.
You're shaken up and be told that get ready to head out. You and your section practices section attacks, grueling battle maneuver during hot summer day for hours. You get to eat a little, then practice patrolling drills. During the night, you go on a patrol. You walk through thick woods, swamp, hills and other pleasant terrain to your objective during the middle of the night, biting off screams of pain as your ankle twists in odd manner or your knee hits a rock or something hard as you drop to the ground. When you come back to your biv area, you get maybe another two hours of sleep, plus you have to man a machinegun post in case the enemy attacks your biv area during the night for few hours.
The morning comes again and you go through patrol  drills again. You have a day time recce patrol to another objective. You can easily avoid the tank ruts and other unpleasant things better, but you're still very tired and weary from the physical exertion. You return from your patrol after few hours and you're allowed another two hours of rest. More section attack drills follows, then few hours of rest, except you're not sleeping because you're cleaning your weapon. A soldier with a not functioning weapon is useless. You clean your weapon whenever a break is given and then after your weapon is clean, you might sleep. You go on another night patrol and have another night of broken sleep with doing sentry duty on machinegun post and the morning comes.

You're suppose to return to the base today. You're glad. The transport arrives and you hop on. You return to base. You have cam paint all over your face and you haven't changed in 5 days. You stink like a goat but you're not allowed to take a shower until your equipment and stores are all clean. When you're finally allowed to rest, the night has fallen.
It was five days of heavy physical exertion and maybe four hours of sleep, if you're lucky.

Road marches are terrible.
It's a long march back to the base as you're carrying about 50-75 pounds of equipment, stores, plus your ruck and your personal kit. You're off lucky if you have a rifle. Heavens help you if you have a general purpose machinegun. (American M240) Satan must be laughing at you if you're the platoon Carl G man because you have to carry the Carl G (pretty heavy rocket launcher) plus your rifle). It's long march as you climb what seems to be a 70 degree uphill. You fall back slowly as your body begins to fail you. Your arms are tired from carrying your rifle. Your back feels like it's going to break going up that hill. Sweat dampens your cloths as the summer sun scorches you. You want a sip of water, but it's hard to reach for your canteen. You're about hundred metres behind the rest of the platoon now. A master corporal walks with you, ensuring that you don't fall and gravely injure yourself and trying to help you keep going.
Your mind is hazy as you can't focus clearly due to heat exhaustion but somehow your feet keeps moving. You are near the breaking point, the point where you just want to give up and go home.
Something your master corporal says gets to you. Why are you doing this? Do you want to be a quitter and go home as a failure? You start to pick up speed. You managed to get some water down into you. You begin to exert yourself more than you thought possible. You start running. Running with 50-75 pounds of stuff on your back is no fun. But you keep going with few times you slow down to catch your breath but run again.
You catch up to your platoon. They look a bit surprised, including the NCOs as they probably thought you weren't going to catch up. Your mates welcome you back. But you are not content with being in the rear of the platoon. You keep a faster pace than the rest of the platoon and you end up in the front of the platoon. You managed to march ten kilometers.
Despite having a flat feet and pains for next few days, it was worth not quitting.

Having 90% mental stress is bad enough. Adding another 10% physical stress will break most people. Since most girls are not as fit as guys, they'll have harder time.

I'm not saying I haven't seen girls who can't keep up, but the failure rate of girls are higher than boys.

Having said that, I have no problem working with girls. If they pass the same course, doing same amount of work as the guys, able to do same job as well as the guys, what's the problem? I don't see any.
Loyalty, Vigilance, Excellence
-Motto of Imperial Space Marines


"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Self control is chef element in self respect. Self respect is chief element in courage."
-Thucydides

#73 Enmar

Enmar

    a Sabra

  • Islander
  • 2,021 posts

Posted 20 May 2003 - 07:04 PM

CJ, I never said that this equipment should be developed to ďhelpĒ women. I think they should set the same standards to them and I mentioned artillery as an example that in modern battle field strength isnít as important as it used to be.


Quote

ďThe Crusader self-propelled howitzer was being developed for the US Army as a replacement for the Paladin and the US Army requirement was expected to be for over 800 vehicles. In May 2002, the Crusader program was officially terminated by the Department of Defense because it was not considered sufficiently mobile or precise for the evolving security needs of the 21st century. In August 2002, United Defense received the formal termination which ends all further work on the program.Ē

Part of the project was

Quote

ďThe XM2002 ammunition re-supply vehicle, equipped with a fully automated ammunition handling system automatically transfers 48 rounds of ammunition and fuel to the howitzer in less than 12 minutes.Ē

I didn't know it was cancelled :ninja:

See more at http://www.army-tech...ader/index.html

Quote

CJ: ĒThe lives of the soldiers are then depending on the number of shells that can arrive downrange in a certain amount of time.Ē

Artillery is about keeping heads down at the target zone, not a speed contest. The numbers youíre using sound more like theoretical best possible performance in lab conditions than something needed.
Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings.

#74 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 20 May 2003 - 07:12 PM

ET,

My friend

that post of yours highlighted exactly why i don't want to be in the military

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#75 Enmar

Enmar

    a Sabra

  • Islander
  • 2,021 posts

Posted 20 May 2003 - 07:14 PM

ph3n1ks, on May 19 2003, 09:46 AM, said:

Essentially, this whole discussion is simply intellectual, or really even philosophical. Until a nation is willing to commit female soldiers, marines, and/or sailors to complete front line deployment in harms way, we argue for naught.
Well, the Iím not sure what ďthe nationĒ thinks, but Israeli law has been recently changed and theoretically, every single job in the IDF is open to women unless the IDF can prove that they canít do it. The process of actually doing it is suspiciously slow and makes you wonder what the generals in charge of it think about the issue.

Anyway, we already have infantry trained mixed gender units patrolling the peaceful borders between Israel and Egypt and Jordan. We have chem./bio weapons detecting combat units that are gender mixed, and some other women who serve in other places like anti-air units and artillery serve some of the time just like everyone else, in the occupied territories or on the ďhotĒ borders. The first woman infantry soldier was killed a few months ago and ďthe publicĒ accepted it quietly.
Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings.

#76 Enmar

Enmar

    a Sabra

  • Islander
  • 2,021 posts

Posted 20 May 2003 - 07:25 PM

EvilTree, on May 20 2003, 05:31 AM, said:

Having 90% mental stress is bad enough. Adding another 10% physical stress will break most people. Since most girls are not as fit as guys, they'll have harder time.

I'm not saying I haven't seen girls who can't keep up, but the failure rate of girls are higher than boys.

Having said that, I have no problem working with girls. If they pass the same course, doing same amount of work as the guys, able to do same job as well as the guys, what's the problem? I don't see any.
You're right but you're forgetting something:

Women suffer more mental stress than men. Because they're outnumbered and have to be all the time together (even if they don't like the others, it's not like you can spend less time with the men you don't like), they are torn between helping each other and mixing in the group (because they feel that if one them is not doing well it's "the women" but they want to be like everyone else) and the system isn't too friendly.

Women, as mentioned around here, aren't encouraged enough to do physical things at young age. BUT... when weíll have more role models that will change and some of these role models can come from the army.
Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings.

#77 Enmar

Enmar

    a Sabra

  • Islander
  • 2,021 posts

Posted 20 May 2003 - 07:33 PM

Last one, promise, Iím not spamming Iím discussing :p

RE: Drop out rate

A few years ago the Israeli security service that  trains VIPís body guards opened the job for women. This is considered a very tough course and job (You know Israeli prime ministers and other VIPís are in real danger this isnít a game). So after much consideration they decided to set higher standards to women that wanted to be accepted to the course. They said that since they canít improve in training as fast as men they have to come from a better starting point to get to the finish line at least as good as the men. In this course women had better success rates than men.

Thatís an interesting idea, donít you think?
Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings.

#78 EvilTree

EvilTree

    my silence is my pervading call

  • Islander
  • 623 posts

Posted 21 May 2003 - 04:30 AM

Quote

Women suffer more mental stress than men. Because they're outnumbered and have to be all the time together (even if they don't like the others, it's not like you can spend less time with the men you don't like), they are torn between helping each other and mixing in the group (because they feel that if one them is not doing well it's "the women" but they want to be like everyone else) and the system isn't too friendly.

Well, women just have to prove themselves, just like any new recruit.

PFC Lynch have done well in one combat engagement. But she's from a maintenance company, not an infantry unit. Doing infantry stuff 365 days a year than just one engagement where you have to prove that you're not weak is hard, though not hard as combat situation.

Women have harder time being accepted in combat units just because from what men saw, a lot of them are weak and will probably get them in killed in combat situations. More women proving that they belong in combat units will slowly gain confidence of guys in combat units.

BTW, artillery is not just lobbing shells at the enemy and riding trucks. Artillery's second role is to fight as infantry if necessary.
Loyalty, Vigilance, Excellence
-Motto of Imperial Space Marines


"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Self control is chef element in self respect. Self respect is chief element in courage."
-Thucydides

#79 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 21 May 2003 - 09:35 AM

Crusader returns once again to give me a severe headache.  Will that bugger never die.... :devil:  :p

Quote

Enmar:  I didn't know it was cancelled :ninja:
Crusader was cancelled because it showed the very problems of trying to mechanize artillery to that extent.  It was too heavy, expensive, and had serious questions whether it would be prone to frequent mechanical failure.  All together it was one program that did deserve to die in the hallways of the Pentagon.  

Quote

Enmar: Artillery is about keeping heads down at the target zone, not a speed contest. The numbers youíre using sound more like theoretical best possible performance in lab conditions than something needed.

Artillery is as mission specific as any other part of military operations.  You keep heads down in the target zone by putting as many rounds on target as quickly as possible.  I think our resident infantry expert Eviltree will attest to the fact that have 5 shells heading for you sucks but having 15 coming at you really sucks.  One of the most important aspects of military operations is firepower and in the case of the United States Military their focus is on putting overwhelming firepower on target.  With artillery you do that by putting more shells downrange in a smaller amount of time.  Anything that slows that rate of fire is a danger to the lives of the soldiers involved and should be forsaken as an idea.        
My numbers is the average ROF fore a Paladin Howitzer in a pinch with a real good crew they could probably put five or even six rounds downrange in a minute.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#80 ph3n1ks

ph3n1ks

    u$oft detractor

  • Islander
  • 126 posts

Posted 21 May 2003 - 01:00 PM

Well ladies and gentlemen, I am wrong and I am right.

Quote

Military mathematicians have studied the predictors of warfare to determine the relationship between armies and outcomes. Traditional wargames assume (wrongly!) that winning is dependent on army size (the biggest wins) but mathematical analysis reveals that it is attritrion Ė the rate at which a side loses troops Ė that is the main predictor!
Computer Applications, Dublin City University

Is it me or did they just say that size of military units actually does matter?  Attrition is the new mass of modern combat theory. Using probably simple differential calc (I never took calc of any ilk), modern combat statisticians can determine, with what accuracy I do not know, the outcome of combat. Given the amount of time, the combat units involved, formations, and a few other variables, these mathemeticians can predict attrition rates and therefore combat outcomes.

Therefore, if I put more troops and equipment on the field than you do and I can last longer than you, I will win the war. Amazingly, this has worked for many, many conflicts, wars, and skirmishes. Thus, the more potential corpses I can commit to a war, with equipment, the better chance I have of winning.

Edited by ph3n1ks, 21 May 2003 - 01:02 PM.

Support Evolution! Electrify the gene pool's fence!

Pray for the peace of Jerusalem, or just pray for peace!



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Women in Combat, Military, Women

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users