First four female Cav Scouts
The Columbus, Georgia Ledger-Enquirer reports that four women graduated from the 17-week training so that they can be 19-Delta Cavalry Scouts.
The soldiers of the 5th Squadron, 15th Cavalry Regiment completed the 17-week training and earned the Military Occupational Specialty of 19D, Cavalry Scout during a ceremony at Freedom Hall. As part of gender integration, the four women will continue their jobs at the 1st Cavalry Division at Fort Hood, Texas, and the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, N.C., said Nate Snook, a public affairs spokesman at Fort Benning.
[…]
Each soldier was held to one standard throughout the training, said Col. John Cushing, commander of the 194th Armored Brigade. “We spent a great deal of time making sure that we were ready to accept females into our formation,” he said. “Female drill sergeants were on board for about 18 months prior to the execution, which prepared us for the integrated training.”
Congratulations, ladies.
Chief Tango sent us the link and he noticed that the Ledger-Enquirer committed a Freudian slip when they categorized the article to appear in their “Crime” section.
Category: Army News
Yay Vaginas!
First comment I read today and I already need a new monitor…..thanks.
Do you realize how much bourbon burns in the sinuses????
And before any of you think that I’m drinking way too early in the morning, just remember that it’s 5 o’clock in other parts of the world.
Yes, 5 o’clock PM. Sigh
Chief you should know well enough by now that drinking fine liquor while reading this is a potential for wasted fine liquor.
So will they actually perform in their MOS or will they be ones who skate by doing things like saying “I think I’m pregnant” to get out of FTX’s? Will they be required to carry the same load that Male Troops do on road marches and Spur Rides?…
yeah, cuz God knows no male troops have ever, ever skated.
I’ve seen plenty of skaters, shammers, and “Sick Call Rangers ” of both sexes, but I’ve also had to listen to females brag about how they use their gender to get out of Field Training.
Gee, its weird, the female 68W’s in these CAV units seems to have no problem doing the road matches or even the goofy Spur Rides.
“Crime” Section? Heeheehee! Oh, priceless error!
Well, my congrats to these ladies who are now certified warriors, have passed muster, and didn’t get much notice while they were in training. Fine by me. This is as it should be. You either make it through, or you don’t.
I can imagine that being married to one of them during their “time of the month” is NOT going to be a lot of fun from this point on…
ALLrighty, then. I’ll make up a big batch of popcorn while you find the YouTube video of “All female Scout squad told they have to break track during first motor stables in new unit.”
Unit armorer to the newly minted 19Ds:”Here’s your M2 50 Cal Browning girls, the motor pool is 3/4 of a mile that way”.
The Army will just put wheels on the M2, like duffle bags and tool boxes. Who needs upper body strength anyhow.
In the new PRT all you need to do is be good at yoga. If you can do Yoga and take naps, you’ll be fine.
My wife the MP was a 19D on paper at camp Shelby during mobe in 05. Does that make her first?
So no more “Sandcocking” after promotions or for unit initiation…
One standard, huh? Did they have to perform like the men for the APFT? Or is that still not to be discussed?
Precisely what I was thinking as well.
Seriously, grow up, willya?
They passed. That’s the long and short of it. Just grow up.
Why can’t we talk about the APFT?
Let’s take a look at the minimum scores.
sex pushups situps run
M 42. 53. 15:58
F. 19. 53. 18:54
While there is no difference in sit ups, the other 2 events are scored radically different.
Just saying.
Okay, here’s a question. There’s a vehicle commonly used by the 19D, it’s the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. Inside that vehicle, is the M242 cannon. It breaks down into 3 subsections, each weighing more than 60 pounds. Evaluation for a Cavalry Scout during Gunnery is to remove, without damage to self or equipment, from the turret of the vehicle, the M242 within 10 minutes.
I know dudes who regularly got 300 on their APFT who would get broken off on this exercise. The feeder assembly has to be lifted up and off of the receiver, in a space roughly the size of a phone booth and it weighs more than 60 pounds while having the dimensions of a typical day pack. Then it has to be placed (not dropped) on the floor of the turret, and the soldier has to remove it from the turret.
Without assistance.
Then comes the ‘light’ weapons of a Scout platoon, the M2 .50 cal MG and Mk 19 GLMG. Or how about vehicle maintenance? It’s a solid two man iteration to replace hull batteries in an M2/M3 BFV. Or even just basic safety, like evacuating the driver in combat conditions.
These were all normal, daily tasks.
I was no PT Stud during my AD days as a Bridge Crewmen, nor was I a PT flunkie. That said there were PT studs that I left eating my dust when it came to doing heavy work like Panel Bridge Assembly!
No, actually it isn’t. Grunt school for the Marines isn’t all that difficult either, but once you start doing it for real, it gets tough as a muthafucka. Once again Big Army sucks the cock of multicurtalism. Hope no one dies because of it.
Steve,
Spot on. The guys who squeak through recruit training and SOI generally get broken within a year of being in the fleet.
Some of that is literally being broken physically. Because they are weak they end up hurting knees, ankles, backs or shoulders.
Others who are both physically and mentally weak end up buckling under peer pressure because they aren’t pulling their weight and become disciplinary problems.
That being said there are a great number who due to having good leadership, dig down and get stronger and while they still are sub-par, at least stick it out.
Look at the skinny little tweet! How is she going to hold up against a big assed hairy muslim? I don’t think so! Low life politicians did all this FOR VOTE! They don’t give a rats ass whether anyone gets hurt or not!! Run ALL politicians through ALL boot camps and programs before they take office….see how they like it, see how THEY want to be treated!! imo
“once you start doing it for real”
Day in day out in every clime and place…that’s the reality and that reality is hard. Never had a job with such a love/hate relationship.
“Never had a job with such a love/hate relationship.”
Ain’t that the truth. Reminds me of that R.E. Lee quote;
“It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow to love it too much”.
Congratulations to them and every other soldier who graduated that day.
I will continue to withhold judgement on this experiment until females have spent 3-4 years in Infantry Units and are still performing.
As a woman who would not be interested in this type of work in the first place, I note that several days ago, the lady from Canada who joined the Kurds to fight against ISIS was widely applauded here. What is the difference between her and these women graduates?
“What is the difference between her and these women graduates?”
None, I hit these too.
Seems like a worthwhile idea to me.
There is no difference, bg2. The sniping comes from little kids on the playground.
I find it impossible to believe that in the rough arena of combat, anyone thinks these women would not extend a hand to someone who needed it, or get a helping hand themselves.
They passed the course. End of discussion.
Ex-PH2, The problem, and you are well aware of it, is the explicit double standard, where the ladies do not have to meet the same performance standards as the gents. And, the pure-fantasy belief that ladies and men in close proximity in military situations do not have negative social consequences, directly proportional to the adversity of the conditions.
+1
Not arguing the ‘standards’ point, 11B, but the sniping at these women when, as bg2 has pointed out, the Canadian woman voluntarily joined the Peshmerga women is quite hypocritical, in my view.
Since the ‘standards’ were not released to the public, it is disingenuous and mean-spirited for anyone to make such remarks.
Earlier you said “they passed, end of discussion” yet you admit the standards were not released to the public.
So it is not the end of the discussion.
Did they, or did they not, pass THE standards? Or did they have another set of standards?
Discussion continued.
Since the Army has not discarded the double-standard APFT scores, it is reasonable to assume the graduates were graded per Army regulations. Thus differently.
I have -no- doubt they passed per the specifications of Army regulations. I assume that there was no cheating of the rules as written. All stipulated.
My point, which you seem to want to evade, is that the -standards- to which the ladies are held are a) an explicit double-standard, fair to -no one- and b) so low as to be a serious threat to unit mission.
We -might- be able to field all-girl teams of the 5% that can cut the mustard to ordinary standards. Why? How does this extra effort make us a better Army? (Better at killing people and breaking things to achieve victory)
I cannot speak for the others, Ex-PH2, but from me at least no sniping is intended.
Forgive us if some of us are a bit cynical due to past events. If there has been no double standard applied while evaluating these ladies’ performances, more power to them.
If they can break track and do all the physical labor just like their brothers, good.
If not, it is a social experiment, and not much more. Asking for evidence that it is more than a social experiment is not necessarily a snipe at the ladies.
The other concern is not directed at these ladies explicitly. We had last week an account of a couple of officers who couldn’t stay out of each others’ pants. How can one expect different among the Troops, regardless of the number of Power Point Rangers deployed to talk them out of it?
Failing to address these concerns in advance will lead to failures in the future.
I think, Graybeard, that the inappropriate behavior by others has more to do with a lack of common sense and propriety than anything else. I said I expect better behavior from people at those levels. I also acknowledge that it is not something new, that it has been going on since time began, and the more strict the rules are, the more useless they become. It is simpler to separate those people from each other.
In regard to these young women, my response is ‘give them a chance to do the work’.
The crap I had to put up with during and after “A” school was an eye-opener and it ALL came from the sailors, not from me. Made it very difficult to focus on work. The Marines never acted like pigs around me.
Understand. My wife & I spent 16 years running a Explorer Post -> Venturing Crew (coed part of BSA). I was disappointed to see some of the crap Scouters (and some Scouts) gave my ladies.
That was one reason that in the adult trainings we ran I made sure to highlight the ladies who had the skills to run circles around the guys.
Put a cute little thing in charge of the climbing/rappelling tower, and therefore doing the demonstrations, and guys who would not rappel in any other circumstances would “have to” man up.
I know that the demands of the military are orders of magnitude greater, but in our Crew the backpacking, mountain climbing, and canoeing were done equally well by the young men and the young women.
Plus we never came back with more children than we left with – if you catch my drift.
Why not give them the chance to pass the APFT with the other new cav scouts in the class?
Noone is questioning how these women would be in combat either. But we are talking about passing the standards to be a cav scout.
What about the 11B women when it comes time for EIB testing? Will they have the same standards? Or will we start putting balls on the EIBs for the men and tits on the EIBs for the women?
The article that had folks all atwitter pointed out that she joined a -female- Kurdish unit, where presumably she is not subject to any double standards or coddling.
If I am not mistaken, she is also significantly -larger- than her Kurdish peers.
Again, 11B, there is nothing anywhere that indicates the women Ranger students were coddled in any way.
The issue since the start of opening these slots has been finding women tough enough to pass through the various phases successfully. Unless otherwise informed, I see nothing that says they did not do so.
In regard to the Canadian woman, yes, she is considerably taller than her Kurdish associates, but she’s taller than I am, too. And since I know that the women over there do get training before they deploy, as do the Yazidi which she said she plans to join next, it is incorrect to say that she did not.
Speculating about what she got in the way of training is based on lack of information.
We are talking Cav Scout, not Ranger; big difference.
Just clarifying.
Also, the story is that the ranger class containing females had records purged, which forever leaves a cloud over “no coddling”.
It was wrong to do that to -them-.
Fish or cut bait ladies. Either object to the lesser standards, or -own- them.
Yeah, I know. Brain cramp, my bad. I did mean Cav Scouts.
“The issue since the start of opening these slots has been finding women tough enough to pass through the various phases successfully”
That’s only one of the issues. The other, bigger, issue is the effect their presence has on the unit. That will take a number of years to determine. So far, there are only a small number of examples. I am curious, for example, about whether the male/female ratio makes a difference.
I think the whole idea is a mistake and I will be quite happy to be able to say “I told you so” in another 5 or 10 years. I will also be willing, if not quite so happy, to admit error.
Sorry, but it is not quite time to end the discussion.
The Kurds do not operate or maintain Bradley AFV, as far as I know. Judging from the pictures and videos I have seen, they also do not carry the weapons and equipment that US troops do. I also doubt they perform the same tasks that US troops are called upon to do.
Think you are hitting the nail on the head here – the Peshmerga are if anything light infantry, and I suspect the majority of folks here have no experience as Peshmerga light infantry: but have extensive experience with American mech and armor units, know some of the specialized demands, and are happy to point out the probable pitfalls and challenges they personally know.
While I admire the shit out of the Kurds for how they take on the threats that oppose them, they are in desperate straits.
Every single nation that has ever used females in combat roles did so because they had a shortage of manpower.
The Kurds are very limited in what they can do. As much as I admire them they would stand a snowballs chance in hell in a head on fight with a competent Infantry Unit with Armor, Artillery and air support.
Standards. Meet them or fail them.
Soooo. . . Here’s my thought. The fact is that WHENEVER females in combat gets brought up, there is a discussion regarding their ability to “keep up with the men”. I think this is a valid conversation because the differences in the sexes in codified in the various branches PFTs (as has been mentioned already). [e.g. In the USMC, for the males 26-30 age group, to get 100 pts one must do 23 pull-ups. For the same age group females they need do only 10.]
This is for the same reason there aren’t females in men’s sports (don’t think that hasn’t been tried or at least approached) or why the fastest female marathon winner is equal to the 27th fastest male runner.
It isn’t sexist or anything, it is just genetic truth. Even Time magazine realized this blinding flash of the obvious in the early 90s (http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19920120,00.html)
So back to the discussion – you know what isn’t going to garner any debate as far as performance goes? Keeping it all men. Why do something that MAY work out (implying there is a valid question) vice staying the course with something that is KNOWN to not degrade performance and less than what has been the standard in the past?
What, did we just run out of men or something?
Congrats to the women who have completed the challenging course. They have made the cut as it is set forth in current army regs – good on them. The question is what is to be gained by the military taking on something that begs questions.
And as for the anti-ISIS woman – I bet she (and her compatriot females) were not used in the same capacity as men. For what she is doing (in whatever capacity, since I don’t actually know) she has gone over to take the fight to some evil sons a bitches at great risk so – absolutely – she has my respect.
“KNOWN to not degrade performance and less than what has been the standard in the past?”
Should read
KNOWN to not degrade performance to less than what has been the standard in the past?
“What, did we just run out of men or something?”
Given the increasing effort, including large cash bonuses, needed to obtain and retain personnel, the answer seems to be “yes”.
Maybe that’s true. Maybe real men are getting hard to find now a days.
Perhaps in 2017 boys and girls are closer than ever before as far as “vive la différence” is concerned. (See a recent photo of Bradley Manning for reference. Yes, I said Bradley.)
Thanks for that lib takeover of the culture. Thanks a lot.
yeah, but judging by all the “pride” nonsense over the weekend, the closer than before seems to be a wholesale feminization of the men. We can only hope that if push came to shove they’d remember their supposed testicles instead of their crayons and safe spaces.
I doubt it David, at best, i think they’d be bullet sponges to be used as cover and concealment by the true sheepdogs
Barracks pornstars
ROFL… and please don’t tell me you’d hit it….
Too late…already done did.
“Maybe real men are getting hard to find now a days.”
The Feminazis have been working hard for decades to emasculate two generations of boys and men in our culture, with plenty of help from estrogen-laden soy baby formula and other soy-laced products.
Curious…isn’t there a difference between conventional and un-conventional warfare with respect to, for example, physical strength? How “strong” was the lithe-framed TE Lawrence, for example (whom many consider the father of modern guerilla warfare)? Is it always the standards of pull-ups that matter, or does efficacy turn on the type of fighting at hand? Conventional vs. unconventional, for example? Js’ asking.
It’s mostly the number of pushups times the square root of the hair gel coefficient.
Then I guess I’d lose, then 🙁
Well to that I would say what is the defining characteristics of the average US Special Forces serviceman? Right – they’re friggin’ studs. That’s because they have to be able to carry large loads going to places with little support and do manly stuff. Not sure, but I guess you lose a lot of weight (not fat) on long, strenuous missions. If you don’t have a lot to begin with, that would be a severe detriment.
As for T. E. Lawrence, he probably wasn’t much larger or smaller than your average chap who fought in the British army in WWI. I’ve read the Seven Pillars of Wisdom and I would say the word that describes he an all his companions is “Hardy”. For the style of warfare he describes, yes, you wouldn’t need that strength of your average Navy SEAL, Green Beret or MARSOC dude. The point as it relates to the question at hand is, if you have the guys to fill the ranks, why add a question mark to the platoon by adding a female? What is gained? Is there some insight that would be gained by having a female on hand? Probably not enough to justify the change.
And if you don’t think the addition of a female would require change (not for the better), you are just dead wrong – sorry.
I was a Cavalry Scout way back when the MOS code was 11D, not 19D, and I earned my MOS through on-the-job training in a mechanized infantry unit at Fort Hood, Texas. We used gun jeeps, two in a team, each jeep equipped with a pedestal mounted M-60 machine gun, and each jeep crewed by three men, i.e., a driver, an observer, and a gunner. Later, we switched to using M-113 armored personnel carriers, armed with Browning M-2 machine guns. Being an Infantry unit, we also did forced marches with full packs, and learned to sneak around on foot, in addition to being mounted. Back then, we didn’t wear camouflage, but wore olive drab fatigues, with black berets, a black leather garrison belt with a brass “US” cavalry buckle, and spurs. I was only a Cavalry Scout at Fort Hood, Texas, and never when I was in the old Republic of Viet Nam, where I was a Field Radio Relay and Carrier Equipment Repairman (MOS 31L20) in Signal Corps units. Back in those days, there were no females in Airborne, Infantry, Cavalry, or Signal Corps units. Frankly, being a guy, that’s how I liked it, being “a man, with other men, doing manly stuff, in a manly way.” (That’s a quote from an Infantry company commander published in “SOLDIERS” magazine, the official publication of the United States Army.) I don’t know anything about Bradley Fighting Vehicles, for we didn’t have them. When the Women’s Army Corps was dissolved, and females began being assigned to Signal Corps units, there were complaints of guys having to do all the heavy lifting that females couldn’t do, complaints which were ignored because of unspoken pressures on commanders. What am I trying to say? I don’t know if I can find the right words, but I think the bottom line is, I’m against the idea of females in the Combat Arms, or even in Combat Support units, such as the Signal Corps. Why? Gosh, gee whillikers, isn’t there ANY place left on Earth or in military service that is strictly for guys? I say this… Read more »
Back in those days, there was no “Spur Ride” requirement.
We were simply told to go to the PX and buy a pair of Cavalry dress spurs.
Also, I wasn’t trained in the Cavalry Scout course at the Armor School in Fort Knox, Kentucky.
Being in the Cavalry, my Specialist Five, E-5, rank was changed to Sergeant, E-5 (until I got busted to Corporal, E-4, for insubordination).
“Cavalry Scout” was actually listed as MOS 11D20, Armored Reconnaissance (Cavalry Scout).
I was given my Combat Spurs for supporting 3-4 Cav in Afghanistan and that was fairly awesome to me.
I had a good team and we kept up with them anywhere and everywhere. Granted, they didn’t have Bradley’s to operate, they had MRAPs. Would’ve been kinda crowded for me at 6’3″ in the back of a Bradley.
I didn’t even expect it when I got it, either. We received our certificates and it was a damn fun thing and I was glad to work with them.
So, when you were in the Cav, had they switched to the long saber yet? Or were they still using the spear? (Badum-tish!)
Former 19K (Tanker).
I wonder how a tank crew of all females would fair on the maintenance end of things. There are some tasks that just require brute strength. Those tasks don’t care what your PT score is or whether you met standards.
I would also say, only because someone is a male doesn’t mean they can do those tasks. There were always men I served with who were 100 pounds soaking wet, did great on PT tests, and were useless for breaking track or other heavy work. They still worked, worked hard, had a role, and were useful for many tasks where having small hands or frames would be helpful.
I think its unfair to deny women the chance to prove themselves as capable.
The proof is in the pudenda.
A cute female scout.
I’m super interested into seeing how bad-ass these female Scouts are. We “used” female Supply soldiers in order to help with missions where we needed to search the female population. Sometimes we just needed extra bodies to fill up a Bradley because we were low on Scouts. One of them humped an M249 like a beast; but more importantly, she laid down fire just as well as the rest of us. She knew our weapon systems inside and out.
Pure baddassery.
She was also part of our “SKT’s” – Small Kill Teams (ambush). She contributed extremely efficiently to FROG-MDM. Aside from the Supply MOS she had, she was a Scout like the rest of us.
Copenhagen grin and a foul mouth – she fit right in.
While I don’t agree with females in combat roles – for a number a reasons – I’d be motivated to have a few females in my section – again, for a number of reasons. I was with First Cav (6/9 Cav, specifically), so I hope that the First Team is acquiring some trigger-pulling killers.
If anything, they’ll make PT smell a bit better if you’re downwind from ’em.
Good for them.
A lot of our CA teams in Iraq had females as gunners in our gun trucks. They always did an awesome job at that, even when guns were all upgraded to M240s from the SAW.
We did have a couple females who slacked and played the “but I’m just a girlllll” card at times, but we also had guys who were pussies that didn’t want to do their jobs.
Being in Civil Affairs I’ve had plenty of experience with both males and females. It definitely is worthwhile for us to have them, especially in populations where we really shouldn’t talk to females. But, we also kept in mind where they would best function. We had places in Afghanistan where having females there was going to be useless and a hindrance so we sent the former infantry studs who had extreme capabilities.
Oh yeah – 5/15 Cav’s drill sergeants are none to be fooled with. It’s a tough unit. I PERSONALLY know this from both sides – first as a OSUT recruit in 2005, and again as an E5 instructor from 2008 to 2010 at Fort Knox.
5/15 Cav produces some of the finest soldiers the Army has to offer. I am confidant that all Cav Scout standards were met. ISIS will have some vicious girls who are not to be trifled with on their ass pretty soon.
The Democrat plan is to get women some combat jobs so later on when they plan the communist revolution they will have plenty of women to lead the women’s battalions like they did in Commie China.
Good for them, I hope they have a positive experience in their units and the units are better for their assignments.
Does lowering physical standards and modifying physical standards mean the same thing??
Can anyone actually CONFIRM that standards – any of them – have been lowered or modified? As in, are there any drill sergeants or 46th AG cadre that can say “yes,” or “no, the standards remain the same.”?
There seems to be a lot of speculation and commenting on the internets and webs that females’ PT and other training standards are lowered or overlooked.
As stated before, I have my own personal opinions on females and their physical/decision making abilities relative to men, especially while “soldiering.” I generally keep them to myself as to not “offend” anyone or sound “sexist.” But I’d like to give them the benefit of the doubt that they are meeting the same requirements that males are.
Unless any “changes” related to this conversation are incorporated into the updated 350-6 (from Dec 2015) or the new Army APFT, all the standards seem to be the same, and not lowered or altered in order to accommodate females.
The question is: “Are the PT standards the same for men and women” not “are the gender-specific standards the same as before”.
In other words, do both the ladies and gents have to do Z pushups to pass, run two miles in time T, or is it X for one and Y for the others? (And X always less than Y)
As long as the standards are based on the job, not the plumbing, then things are sane. The “social interaction” stuff is for another argument, once we have the basics of “who gets to play” sorted out.