5 Female soldiers pass Ranger Assessment Course
The Washington Times reports that 5 female soldiers passed out of the two-week Army National Guard Ranger Training and Assessment Course.
Out of 122 soldiers to start the course, 48 percent passed. There were 43 male dropouts in addition to the 21 women, Army Times reported Wednesday.
[…]
“This first iteration of an integrated RTAC has provided significant lessons learned as we conduct a deliberate and professional way forward to the integrated assessment in April,” Maj. Gen. Scott Miller, commanding general of the Maneuver Center of Excellence, Fort Benning, said in a statement, Army Times reported.
In my mind, the idea that the standards are realistic is solidified, at this point. Of course, the social engineers won’t see it that way.
From The Army Times;
The five women are all officers.
The Army announced in January that it plans to conduct a one-time, integrated assessment at Ranger School in April.
I’m sure the social engineers will se this as a failure of the system, rather than a failure of the individuals who couldn’t meet the standards for whatever reason. But the success of even one woman would prove that the standard isn’t impossible.
But, of course, the social engineers aren’t the people who will have to deal with the consequences of lowered standards, nor will they feel even a twinge of guilt when the body bags start filling up.
Category: Military issues
Good for them. They met current standards and succeeded. 5 out of 26 is 20%.
Actually they met the adjusted standards. Instead of the 12 mile ruck march, it was a 6 mile ruck march.
Amusing how the only percentage in the article is the combined rate for men AND women. Breaking out the numbers and you will find that 55.21% of the males pass compared to 19.23% of the females. Just saying…
Also of interest is the quote “The army hopes that 40 women will pass the preparatory course between now and April” To get 40 women to pass, given the current rate of attritition, you would need 208 women to start the course. Where are they going to find that many? And in this day and age, can the Army really afford to throw away their training dollars just to prove a point?
Yes, yes – we know. Women are naturally physically weaker than men. This is not a surprise, so I don’t know why it’s an issue. If these women pass by the same standards as men, more power to them. As long as the standards don’t change, I don’t care how much extra work it takes for them.
So how much of the taxpayer’s money do you propose to spend achieve your goals? Using the percentages from the article, you would need 72 men to get 40 graduates. To get 40 women, you would need 208. How can you justify allocating 136 additional training billets? Those are not free. Those extra billets alone would almost get you double the number of male graduates (75).
Let me just ask you, Arby, if you would prefer to see women defending themselves skilfully against an enemy, whether here or overseas, or just herded into groups and slaughtered wholesale?
That is what happened to women in villages overrun by IS jihadists. Do you want that to happen?
Pinto Nag is correct when she says this is no time for women to be weak sisters, unable to take care of themselves and their families, whimpering and begging ‘don’t hurt me’ while they watch their own children being slaughtered.
If you think it won’t happen here, you are not paying attention.
Ex-PH2:
Red herring.
ALL military personnel, regardless of station or job should receive comprehensive combat training.
Such should be part and parcel of wearing a military uniform.
But, this ain’t at all about that.
This is the end game of a destructionist program that started under the Clinton regime.
The program has lots of slogans attached to it, but it has always been about nothing more than appeasing the harpies on the left while simultaneously reducing our nation’s military combat capability with a final aim of ending it all together.
Don’t let yourself get bent over the bench by slogans.
1) you don’t need to be a Ranger to protect yourself
2) I don’t recall too many posts being overrun by jihadi’s and all of the woman killed.
I, personaly, would not want a female Ranger running around just so everyone can feel good about themselves.
First of all, they’re not MY goals.
Second of all, a lot of people flunk out. More women than men will – if not all – who knows? And yet, it’s not a waste of time to vet men, but a waste of time to vet women, because they’re generally weaker?
If these women meet or exceed the standards and do the same work men do, there’s no reason to exclude them. You seem to be making the case that somehow they should bar women from working to achieve those standards, because it’s somehow not worth it.
Wrong.
As a service wife I prefer my husband come home alive. If a woman wants to go to combat, sure in an all female unit. I have enough to worry about without thinking some chick that needs to prove she has a penis screws up and gets my hubby and the other men killed.
And yes I think women are equal intellectually to men but physically most women are genetically not going to be. We require a higher percentage of body fat and have less muscle mass. This isn’t a bad thing it’s just how we are created.
Exactly right, no matter what the outcome for an individual as long as you have women passing at a lower rate than men (certainly this is guaranteed) it is a waste of time and resources.
This is the wrong world for women to be weak. It’s time for woemn to be trained to be strong, physically and mentally. Even if the attrition rates are high — as long as the standards don’t change — women should be allowed to test.
And Jonn, I’m going to take exception to your “body bag” comment. No woman’s life is worth more than a man’s. Our young men are not worth less than our young women — all of their lives are equally of value. What is the difference between young women having acid thrown in their faces, or being beheaded, and dying in combat? It has been said time and again here that the war will follow our soldiers home. The jihadist horror IS going to come here. If that happens, women are going to die anyway. Better they die fighting, than cowering inside a burka.
Yep.
I disagree with the value of life being equal from a simple evolutionary biology standpoint, women can make more people….men cannot.
Women are more valuable because each one can only make so many more humans while a single male could produce thousands….thus men are far more expendable than women from a species standpoint.
A human tribal group could lose 90% of its males and still be able to reproduce enough infants to rebuild, losing 90% of the females would doom that tribal group to extinction plain and simple.
Societal distinction, not evolution has brought us to a different point in consideration of the value of life where we deny biology and claim all lives are equal. They should be equal under the law certainly, but they are not from a preservation of the species standpoint.
That said it will be interesting to see, when infantry units are filled with women who are joining the ranks of the dead and seriously wounded, how our society reacts to troops being deployed into harm’s way moving forward.
How many women were killed in Vietnam, in all the services?
And what was the public reaction to it?
It didn’t even reach the evening news, and they weren’t all nurses.
And what about those women who can’t have children? Are they just worthless in your eyes, because it sounds that way to me.
Worthless lives? You know me better than that…I was thinking I wasn’t as eloquent as I could have been in making that point.
I think all women’s lives contain more value than men when thinking in terms of biology and evolution only.
You’ll note I stated quite clearly we should all be equal under the law.
The Vietnam Women’s Memorial indicates that 8 women died in Vietnam and their names are on the wall. 21 more died as civilians including one who was captured and burned to death and I think it 65 who died during operation babylift. All told that leave 58,000 men to less than a 100 women…I am certain that’s why it’s not much talked about or was not much talked about.
Had there been 29,000 dead women along with 29,000 dead men I suspect there would be more discussion. That was my point.
The public reacted pretty negatively to the nightly images of hundreds of dead, I wonder had those dead regularly included women if that would have escalated the protestations of the public sooner.
I believe I am uncomfortable with placing women in harm’s way not because I don’t believe that some are capable but I don’t know that I see the benefit to mission in getting more women killed alongside men.
That said I also pointed out I will get used to it and it will become normal as it did for the IDF. But that doesn’t mean normal equates to necessary.
The eight killed were all nurses!
I would agree on a purely biological scale, if we were dealing with a virus or a natural disaster of some type — but we’re not. We are dealing specifically with a human violence that TARGETS females. The jihadists have, without exception, bred docile, tremorous women that are illiterate, blindly obedient, frightened breeding stock. THAT is what we are fighting, and to combat that, you have to include women in the mix. You educate them, you train them, you EXPOSE them. Weak women do not breed strong societies, weak women do not breed strong MEN.
I understand the esoteric intellectual points, and I believe we will just become accustomed to female infantry troops at some point regardless of our initial concerns because it’s clear there is a desire to get women into combat arms.
I will respect the efforts of those women as I do all women who currently serve and who have previously served our great nation.
I did not mean to infer I had no respect and I apologize to you and PH-2 for thinking I might be that guy.
Strong women and strong men aren’t built by combat alone and I doubt you or PH are weak women and I have never suggested that.
I just have a hard time accepting that we as a society find it necessary to get our daughters killed in equal numbers as our sons to achieve equality under the law and build strong women.
I accept what you’re saying, except that this: ‘accepting that we as a society find it necessary to get our daughters killed in equal numbers’ seems to me to imply that it is necessary when it isn’t. With proper training, it should not happen, but the odds of getting killed in combat are higher than NOT getting killed, for ALL persons involved, including non-combatants like combat photographers.
We live in a time when anyone who is not trained to be self-sufficient and able to self-defend is at risk. That has as much to do with everyday life as it does with combat.
And in this day and age, can the Army really afford to throw away their training dollars just to prove a point?
Apparently the answer is yes.
I wonder how many Rangers who didn’t have the chance at an “Assessment Course” ahead of the real thing are saying, “damn this shit” in their heads.
Sparks the Army has had a pre-Ranger course for years that was mandatory for men going to Ranger School. From what I can tell this Assessment Course is the same thing with just a new name.
Barry Simpson…Thank you for clearing me up Barry. I didn’t know.
So the slots for Ranger training are filled by the graduates of this program?
Pardon my ignorance of Army training pipelines; I’m a retired Coastie, not a soldier.
Most units have a pre-Ranger program before sending someone on the Ranger school.
The Benning pre-Ranger is actually run by the National Guard detachment (you might remember their former commander was ID’d as wearing an un-authorized Ranger tab a few months ago)at Benning as individual Guard units don’t have the resources to run their own.
That being said, some of the women were able to go to both a unit run pre-Ranger program and the Benning pre-Ranger so I can see Sparks point on this.
I wish the Army wouldn’t confuse people by calling the April Ranger class and “assessment course”. Its an “assessment” of the course for having women in the future, and the assessment encompassess much more than just the men and women attempting the training. Even if some women successfully complete training there are many question to ask concerning opening in the school up to more women. (For instance, do you open all classes or just a few per year to obtain a critical mass of female students?)
Congrats to the Fab 5, I eagerly await the calendar!
Get some. If they made it as Rangers, I have no doubt they can kick enough ass to keep up.
They ain’t “made it as Rangers”, yet.
They passed the entry screening for Ranger School.
There’s also no way in hell to know if these five weren’t carried through the entry screening either. The Army “leadership” has committed to bending over the bench and allowing itself to be punked into putting females in its infantry because they’re (the Army “leadership”) are too fucking weak and too fucking corrupt to keep from getting in its hands and knees before a very small but very loud cluster fuck of intellectually inbred, thumb sucking degenerate PC drones.
So, congrats ladies. Most folk who are paying any attention to events are automatically gonna assume you’re quota hires. I know I sure as hell do.
I don’t think 5 out of 26 is a quota hire, Grimmy.
If it were an actual quota hire, it would closer to 20 out of 26 passing the prep course.
Uh, no. It wouldn’t.
The effort has to maintain at least an appearance of propriety.
My brother is currently in pre ranger at a southern base. He told me that they started out with 3 females. These females volunteered and for the last 8 months their solo job was to prepare for ranger school. They only show up to do different events such as the pt test or land nav course and then leave. They do not get smoked with the rest of the guys until midnight or beyond. When they did the ruck march at the end of the first week, my brother helped grab bags out of the truck and he said the females rucks were about 1/4 the weight of the guys rucks and they were allowed to carry food/ snacks along with them on the march. 1 female did not pass the ruck march. More to follow.
Oh what the hell, I was under the impression they were doing the same course as the men at the same time. That just lowered my faith hardcore.
You were surprised?
I dunno. Was kind of hoping that it’d been a clean pass, to be honest. Trying that whole “optimism” thing for a spin.
FTF:
Really? At what time, in the last decade or so, has the leadership of the US Army acted with anything even vaguely resembling honor, integrity or moral courage?
The females are also not sleep deprived or food deprived as the males are. Males get 2 mre’s a day and only have a few minutes to consume them, they also get dropped from the course if they are caught with additional food. I can only hope this preferential treatment doesnt follow them into the actual ranger school. The army is doing them a disservice by not making them keep pace with the men.
I’m not calling BS, but I have a couple of questions for you.
You said ‘base.’ Did you mean ‘post’?
The training cycles are set up in platoons and squads. People don’t just pop in and out, they’re either there, or they’re not — and once they’re ‘not,’ they rarely are ‘there’ again, except for minor injuries. Or am I mistaken?
When you ruck-march, you’re told what to pack in your ruck, and everybody is supposed to be the same. The NCOICs check that. If you’re caught ‘light,’ you’re out. So you’re saying everbody is in on the conspiracy, right? All the trainees, all the Rangers doing the training, everybody? I’m not even going to address the fact that you are accusing the women of cheating, but that is basically what you’re saying, isn’t it? That NOT ONE of these female soldiers don’t have the moral fiber to be honest in their attempt to pass this training?
the females didnt do any layouts for the marches. and the females do pop in and pop out. they do not stay where the males do. they go home or do whatever when they are done with their events. I am not accusing the women of cheating i am saying they are not held to the same standards.
You gotta love the you have three minutes to eat the main meal of your MRE. Start stop done continue mission.
You gotta love the you have three minutes to eat …
That was in City Week … the only cutlery available was the shovel-spoon. Hmmmm …. reminds me of a song:
Up in the morning ‘fore the break o’ day
I don’t like it, no way
Eat my breakfast with a spoon
Hungry as Hell be–fore noon
Went to the mess hall on my knees
I said Mess Sergeant, Mess Sergeant feed me please!
Mess Sergeant said with a big ol’grin:
If you wanna be a Ranger you gotta be thin.
Airborne all the way;
We run every day!
Then there are two standards, just as all of us warned there would be. Color me shocked.
Read “Regular Guy”s post, below. We have two different points of view from men who say they know, RG and dan.
Will do. Thanks.
I do not know about the if their was a difference in the pt test. the females did do the 5 mile run. my brother did not count how many sit ups and push ups they did. he was a little busy himself. But after the pt test they went home and everybody else got smoked until midnight.
If those 3 went home and the men stayed behind, I would hazard a guess that the trainers were trying to avoid any possible complaints re: SHARP, or anything else like it. Just guessing, that’s all.
Possibly true, Ex-PH2. And absolutely irrelevant.
The allegation is that at least some female trainees were allowed to go home and do whatever they wanted while the male trainees were held in place doing “additional training” and or otherwise getting messed with until midnight before they were allowed to sleep. If that is true, then the training conditions and standards for male and female trainees were obviously NOT identical.
If in fact that happened, the female trainees received a gender-specific “break” that the male trainees did not. The reason for the difference being ostensibly a “good” one does not alter the fact that there was a marked difference in training conditions and standards based on the gender of the trainee.
I do not know if this actually happened or not. But if it did, then it appears to me that someone is trying to skew the results in a particular direction vice conduct an honest assessment.
This came up while I was speaking with a Ranger Instructor with 4th RTB. They had a separate assessment last year, he said they would come in the morning and do the daily event and then be done. They would eat well, and they would not face sleep deprivation.
During the conversation he talked about other complications, like women going down in the heat during the 12 mile and what the procedure would be. He also said the first women would be observers, and that they would travel with the classes during the phase and prepare an AAR on how to make it more woman friendly.
Not to mention the fact that a lot of them have had months of train up. Their place of duty and sole purpose in life has been to do nothing but train for this event. Give the same opportunity to any motivated soldier and the success rates would skyrocket
I keep telling myself I give a shit but I don’t believe me. Hey I have a question. Will it be sexual harassment or otherwise illegal when the first transgender in military service is told, “Hey, troop, GFY!”
2/17 Air Cav…”Will it be sexual harassment or otherwise illegal when the first transgender in military service is told, “Hey, troop, GFY!”
Excellent question! I mean a lot of ugly pictures just went through my head on the ways that GFY could happen. In fact I think I need brain bleach. 😀
I will only tell you, AirCav, that I DO NOT want them in MY bathroom. Period.
And I do not give a crap if that’s non-PC.
yeah, but they may be the first to successfully carry out that order
I’m not a misogynist or chauvinist. Not by any means. I believe women should be given every equal opportunity…in the private sector as well as, every part of the military…except combat. The record of success as it stands is undisputed. I do not believe in messing with success when lives are at stake, male or female. I know I am asking for a lot of heat from some of you but this is just my humble opinion.
This female veteran agrees with you, Sparky!
I’m going to disagree, Sparks. The record of success will be a lot lower for a long time. But if they are able and willing, I believe in giving them the chance to prove it. Without special dispensation. Without coddling. Without different standards. If they can, great. If not, well, they’ll go do what any other washout does.
Besides, we can be much more vicious. Ever see a bitch PMSing? 😉
I am not certain what to think now that we have decided as a society that our daughters will now be as expendable as our sons in times of conflict.
Having said that, there will be an acclimation period and I suspect that eventually women will be successfully integrated into the combat arms. Success of troops in the IDF indicates that female combat units can operate successfully, change is painful initially and feared as well but eventually it just becomes what is normal after that.
Equal numbers of dead and wounded women and men may yet prove to be an appropriate path to take. I’m not yet convinced that’s truly an advancement in our evolution but perhaps it is in some way not yet obvious to me.
I’ll repeat what I said, VOV, that women who are not prepared for the possibility of facing someone who wants to kill them will die, and it doesn’t have to be in combat.
It can simply mean that your village or town has been overrun by an enemy.
I just think it is better to raise your girl children to be self-sufficient and competent in self-defense than to tell them ‘let some guy do it for you’. What if he’s already dead?
This is what happened in Iraq, in villages that were overrun by IS jihadists. It also happened in the Baltics, when Milosevic engaged in his ethnic cleansing rampage.
Do you want that to happen anywhere else? I don’t.
I agree with you on your basic point, Ex-PH2. unfortunately, this is an oranges event to your apple concern.
What this is about is “proving” that women can be infantrymen and forcing mixed gender direct combat force structure upon the US military.
No lies will be spared. No levels of dishonor will be avoided. We will have mixed gender combat units.
And lots of unnecessary dieing will occur. And everyone that forced this idiocy onto the military will then turn around and blame the military for letting it happen.
The need for *all* military personnel, regardless of gender, duty station, or job to be competent in a combat situation is, imo, just basic competence.
But, I say again. This is all about forcing mixed gender combat units.
Nothing more.
The greater bulk of females and remf males will receive no more combat training than they already do. This thing that’s happening now does abso-fucking-lootly nothing to address that problem.
That is not lost on me, Grimmy, and for that reason, the training for women in basic should focus on that possibility.
I know that in combat, you have to be prepared mentally to kill someone who is trying to kill you. But having been faced with a couple of thieves with a gun (just one) trying to rob me at gunpoint, you still have to have the mindset that it’s you or them, and too many women never get exposure to that thinking.
And FWIW, I do not think all women are remotely suited to be part of combat infantry.
“And FWIW, I do not think all women are remotely suited to be part of combat infantry.”
But that’s what this is about and that’s all it is about.
The actual issue that should be addressed, which you’ve outlined fair well, will never be addressed because this issue of “women in the infantry” will always be in the way.
Now ask yourself this, please…
Once the system is perverted to the point that women are joining the infantry:
1. Do you believe it possible to gender mix combat units without establishing quotas? Remember, garrison quarters and facilities will have to be set aside and those bunks will have to remain filled.
2. Once the quota begins, do you honestly believe there will be any consideration to actual functional capability? Or will it be a fill the numbers?
3. Dealing with the age groups mandated by gender mixing combat units, do you believe it possible that the situation won’t devolve into the same undisciplined mess that is normal for gender mixed housing on college campuses?
4. Seeing as how our military is now designed, at the combat unit level, to often work in in isolated sub units of platoon, and sometimes even squad level. How do you think it’s gonna play out?
It will be interesting to see how many women have to put up with the typical BS that Ranger school is known for, like the arbitrary failures in patrolling techniques and the push-ups that were perfect but suddenly stop counting after 10. One of my friends went to Benning phase with a bunch of SEALs who somehow failed the Combat Water Survival Test and recycled. I’m guessing that, no matter how much the RIs would like to treat the women as same as the men, the word from on high will be to treat them with kid gloves.
I have no doubt that there are some women who could make it through Ranger school. When I was right out of the Infantry Officer Basic Course and trying to get a slot at Ranger school, I was dating a West Point cadet who was on the power lifting team and who ended up branching Engineer. Even then, in my prime and ready for Ranger school, she could PT me into the dirt. The real question isn’t if, but why.
POSTED FROM A DOD COMPUTER AND NETWORK
Oh, you’ve gone and done it now.
But to the earlier poster, women can probably handle combat on a mental or even psychological level. It’s the physical level where things get dicey.
Also consider, how does America react when those GIs being tortured, set afire, or what have you, are female versus male? And was Brian Williams there when it happened, or did he show up a few hours later?
Well, frankly, Bobo, I agree with you. I personally don’t see this success by these 5 women as anything but a success.
On the other hand, since only 20% of the women succeeded, whereas Arby pointed out 55% of the men succeeded, and this was only a prepper course, it is not going to meet the PC requirements of the social engineering crowd.
That’s what worries me. “Oh, only 20 percent succeeded? Nope. Unacceptable. Let’s lower standards.” Instead of seeing it as a success for 20 percent, they’re going to push for a higher percent rate. Not thrilled with that concept.
Bingo. And although I pray I’m wrong, I’ll guess the odds are quite good exactly that will end up happening.
That is my concern as well.
[…] Priorities? Cut Childrens’ Education And Treatment For Veterans This Ain’t Hell: Five Female Soldiers Pass Ranger Assessment Course Weasel Zippers: Air Force Allows National Flag Desecrated With LGBT Rainbow To Be Flown On Arizona […]
Birdbath literally cut and pasted an entire Marine Corps Times article on his last FB comment to suggest it is a warning (and did so without giving credit to the source).
Hmm. Wonder if the legal staff at Marine Corps Times cares about copyright infringement?
They’re owned by Gannett. They don’t take too kindly to even linking or fair-use quotes, much less wholesale copy/paste.
I was in the Pre-Ranger course mentioned, and I don’t know about any other courses going on to prep females for ranger school so I can’t speak to that. BUT I can honestly say that the women who passed ,and even those who did not (several women we’re extremely close on the pt test and only failed the one event ie failing push-ups by 3 or 5 mile by less than 10 seconds), changed my outlook on women in the infantry absolutely. I could do a full write up but I’m on my phone.
Were they using the male or female standards for them in the PT test? And, more importantly, are you going right to the RTB or are they sending you home to wait for a school date?
POSTED FROM A DOD COMPUTER AND NETWORK
Thanks for your observations. Proof will be in how many actually qualify to start Ranger school and how many complete and earn their tab.
I was a little underwhelmed by the number of volunteers given the number of possible candidates. Which I think represents the upper end of interest from a shear numbers perspective.
Well, If these women are hardcore, time will really tell. I would like to believe they are treated the same as their counterparts, but…well, since everything seems to be wussified these days, I don’t hold out much hope…
As the passed this assessment…Hooah!
“The Washington Times reports that 5 female soldiers passed out – – – “
JON P wrote:
“I got money that says as many of the these 5 woman will pass out – – – “
Get the smelling salts!
If they maintain the standards in Ranger School…all the females will ultimately fail. Square peg in a round hole…then they will try a round peg in a square hole. The big question is if and when. Stamina, strength and heart…biology has a factor as well.
If I recall correctly, this was started because female officers complained that they weren’t getting the fast-track advancement that they saw afforded to male officers who had been in Infantry Combat.
Since I know that there have been plenty of women who have had long, distinguished careers in the military without ever actually being in combat, it has never seemed like anything but the spoiled brat privilege to me.
There is a reason for setting standards for this kind of training, and if the standards are not observed, then more people will die unnecessarily.
How much of this training includes what to do if a small child appears out of nowhere, and is found to be wearing an explosive vest that is literally glued to his skin?
How many of these trainees are being mentally prepared to face 10-year-old girls who have been forced into marriages by IS jihadists and are pregnant?
How many are willing to shoot someone in a burqa running at them full tilt with a weapon?
The Viet Cong used children as weapons and as far as I can tell, the IS is doing the same thing.
These are things that are NOT being addressed and must be, because THAT is some of what these women and men will face.
Instruction in the rules of engagement is mandatory, and in the unit I was in carrying the ROE card was mandatory.
Has anyone here read a book “The Amazon Legion” by Tom Kratman?
It is a novel in his “A Desert called Peace” (ADCP AKA Carrera) series. The story in AL is wrapped around a very thoughtful “how to integrate women into the Infantry”, the cost of doing so, and why it might be useful for a desperate country. Training, such as Ranger school, is covered.
LTC (ret) Kratman is the real deal. He was my CO many years ago.
Attention lefties: Your heads will likely explode. You cannot un-read this stuff.
Righties? Yeah, you will get zings as needed, too.
Yup. Just a story. But very thought provoking. As is the whole good series. Showing some signs of becoming a never-ending gravy train. (Here, sir, have more gravy.) But educational and entertaining. (Sir, you seem to be away from your keyboard. Back you go. Good officer! How is that next book coming along?)
Tom Kratman has commented here in the past. You can use the search function to find his comments. I like him just because he doesn’t play nice with Bateman. I’ll have to check out his books.
Tom has made it clear that he doesn’t believe that women should be incorporated into combat units. Amazon Legion was written, if I understand him correctly, to show how it could be done if it absolutely had to be done because more bodies were needed than could be filled with males.
Concur. I beleive Kratman was was saying, if needs must, here is how one might try. He does not make it seem to be a good idea as a general practice. More like a ruthlessly necessary evil. (Trying not to spoil the story for readers.)
The ‘Carrera series’ is an awesome set of books. I’ve read through the available titles twice now and just can’t get enough of it.
I too can’t recommend the series enough to anyone who loves them some ‘war porn’.
War fought the way it should be, with the gloves OFF.
Kratman is a friggin genius and I envy you your experience of having had him for a CO. 🙂
I wish I’d seen this before now. Drop me a line. And thanks for remembering.
Standards for men/women should never remain the same, if anything they need to go up but never down!
Look at the Corp before my day.
Troubled youths were given an option of jail or Marine Corp boot camp…
I should have chosen jail!
Semper Fi!
There’s a reason why the jail/military option went away many years ago, and a good thing it did.
I think the women in Ranger School will do as well as all the women in the NFL.
Nice.+50
You land lubber types keep yapping your flaps!
I will need to know who the first 12 female, smokin’ hottest, snake eating, gun shooting, terrorist eliminating and bikini wearing fully qualified RANGERS are … I have money to invest in a calender series!
Sexist pig.
Theresa,
You have lost my point.
There will be 12!
They will be the poster women for getting it done.
And I am all in for supporting them providing they do it via standards.
And the first 12 better be smokin’ hot from a marketting point of view.
So, Theresa your assignment of sexist pig holds no water here and perhaps you should have a cup of tea!
Hope you are well!
Master Chief, if they are smokin’ hot and calendar-worthy, they will only recruit men.
Women will look at the calendar and decide to avoid being compared to pin-up girls.
In addition, the complaints from the LGBT corner will be loud and much more obscene than my ‘sexist pig’ observation.
I disagree.
Hope you are well.
Boil water, pour water and have a cup of tea!
I am in favor of only the best and hottest females making it. If they are ugly, that is fine. But again (listen closely) from a marketing point of view … HOT and fully qualled female RANGERS is much better for business!
Christ, I am a guy! And the whole LBGHTZ thing … I don’t know about that stuff!
You boys are such VISUAL creatures… 😉
Master Chief,
I am told that those who endure the full Ranger course to completion lose upwards of 25% of their body weight. The starvation diet causes all sorts of complications, from lack of would healing to raging funky skin issues. Scars from rucksacks on said damaged bodies…
Me, I will shake their hands and buy them beer. I suspect that they are screwed. No matter what they put into achieving this, they will never, ever be given credit for it. They will always be considered to have received a girled-down cakewalk.
Just imagine if you were part of a cadre of newly minted Chiefs that had persistent rumors of “cakewalk for connections”. Forevermore, you did not really earn that ‘crow’.
Screwed.
And some of them will be genuine “I just want the same chance as the rest of you” types.
Screwed.
Bullshit. ALL females get the easy road in the military. From the haircuts to the PT standards.
Found any reports on the haircuts or PT standards these soldiers were held to?
Bullshit, yourself. I never got the easy road. I know plenty of women who did not get the easy road.
Did you pass PT tests to the male 17-21 year old standards?
I think you two are seeing different things.
I was Army in the 80s. The PT standards were explicitly different. Hair and grooming standards were different. Women could not be required to PT in just a T-shirt. Women could catcall males at PT, or just make “fat ass” comments, but Chaplain help the male who made any physical comments to ladies, con or pro. You could get butt-chewed or even written up if some female objected to how you -looked- at them, or even if you -just glanced- at them. “ogling” “staring” etc.
Poisonous bullshit.
I -presume- the other branches all have gender-different standards, if not outright “double standards”.
Am I wrong? If so, how? Would the differences matter to a reasonably disinterested neutral?
And for the record: -I- think the ladies get -robbed- by the differential. Robbed of that one coin we all know.
Respect fairly earned.
I want hard core females to do this.
I don’t want modified standards.
And if they are hot, that is good for marketting!
If there are 12 graduates will there be a calendar?
If they complete standard Ranger training, they will have lost all the fat on their bodies. Their boobs will be two flaps of skin lying flat against their very prominent rib cage.
I got money that says as many of the these 5 woman will pass out of Ranger School as made it through Marine Corp Infantry Officers School
Do most of the passing new Rangers become Bat-boys? Are these Ladies going straight to Bn. ? What can of changes in the barracks,latine will have to be made? Out in the boonies keeping their skills sharp? Married man sharing a fighting hole? Spouspal unit’s reaction to his female battle buddy? How long will the Ladies’s health last as infamy? The list could go on. Joe
It’s a leadership school. They would need to go to RASP and pass to go to the regiment. 11 series slots are not open to females at this time.
They said women would never fly into combat.
Who was of the first to die piloting in OP Desert Storm? A smokin’ hot US Army helo pilot!
Who was the female to conduct a carrier landing and go onto to an impressive air combat career? I know …she is still smokin’ hot and I am watching her right now on the Kelly Report (she is hot too).
See the pattern here! There is nothing wrong with being ugly, but being smokin’ hot and good at your job is better!
That is not being sexist.
That is being friggin’ smokin’ hot.
I misremembereded … McSally is on not my favorite US Navy pilot … But Kelly just referred to McSally as a bad ass!
Yes she is! A smokin’ hot bad ass!
OK.
I am OUT on this!
“Wedge” (her call sign) doesn’t suffer fools easily. She also believes that standards are there for a reason.
First female carrier pilot, Kara Hultgreen, killed herself trying to land in ’94. She had a very short undistinguished career. After her death there were many whispers that essentially many of her qualifications were pencil-whipped
Ah … She does not count. She should not have been flying and did not go on to have a success air combat career.
First female carrier pilot, Kara Hultgreen, killed herself trying to land in ’94. She had a very short undistinguished career. After her death there were many whispers that essentially many of her qualifications were pencil-whipped so the Clinton administration could get its EEO goal.
David,
Kara (who I had met a few times, so this sticks with me and strikes a nerve whenever some idiot spouts crap about her accident) was just an object lesson is how not to transition pilots between aircraft before they become proficient in the platform, it had nothing to do with her being female.
She was actually fully carrier qualified on EA-6’s (one of few women but no the first) prior to her selection for transitioning to the F-14. She was just inexperienced in the airframe got into a rapidly deteriorating situation that was un-recoverable.
The Navy ran her accident scenario in the simulator dozoens of times, and only one very experience pilot was able to save the aircraft.
As a result, the Navy changed the proceedures on when pilots could transisiton.
The Air Force, in their wisdom, made the decision not to transition female pilots from one airframe to another but to grow them from the bottom of the training pipeline, or transition them after a full tour of duty on their original aircraft.
Ok. They passed the course. That’s wonderful, hugs for all. Now it’s on to the real Ranger training. And if they pass, what next? They still can’t serve in a Ranger Battalion. Where’s the net gain in all this? How does this make the Rangers better at killing the enemy? Simple answer. Nothing is gained as far as mission success. Everybody feels good because the women passed. And I guess that’s enough.
This is what we’ve come to.
At this time, the individual does not serve the needs of the military. The military serves the whims, wants and desires of the individual.
Our military has devolved into just another dysfunctional and pointless federal jobs program.