Do you think women should be able to join the Infantry? (enlistment, deployed)

[Baldrick]

Originally Posted by elamigo

For example, in the "Road Marches" FM it does give some good advice on how to be more effective while going on road marches. Have you read it in its entirety? If not, I suggest you do if you have not. It does mention how at times during a road march member can alternate keeping the back packs on a vehicle to save energy and go longer distances. Did you do that when you go on road marches or does your unit have this "whoa" macho mentality instead of using effective techniques that help them be more physically able to do their tasks?

Concentrating on the 3 items i've put into bold type:

1. Never heard of it so Googled it. I assume that 071-326-3013 (SL3) - Conduct a Tactical Road March (ArmyStudyGuide.com) is what you were referring to.

2. It makes no comment on whether or not this exercise is to take place over roads, flat, forest, desert, alpine or mountainous terrain. I have been dropped off 50 miles from my objective in the Afghan Highlands and had a 2 day march with a 3 day OP and 2 day return. I don't really see the information in the aforementioned article being of that much use in that situation and that i have to say is not that uncommon a situation where i was last deployed, or i have to admit the time before that..

3. Any valid remarks you have made are somewhat nullified by your inference that professional soldiers would jeopardise their lives and operational integrity by behaving in this manner.

With regards to your post timed @ 11:10pm (made whilst i was writing this) I have no problem with women being infantryman as long, as i have previously stated, they can complete the same training as everyone else in the unit. Link to training:

P company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Poncho_NM]

"Road Marches" FM FM would mean "Field Manual" I did not find one with that title, I found FM 21-18 "Foot Marches" in PDF format here: http://www.25idl.army.mil/PT/fm21_18.pdf


Rich

[Baldrick]

[quote=elamigo;24095044]

Originally Posted by Poncho_NM

"Road Marches" FM FM would mean "Field Manual" I did not find one with that title, I found FM 21-18 "Foot Marches" in PDF format here: http://www.25idl.army.mil/PT/fm21_18.pdf


Rich

I just read through that link, interesting stuff, thank you for finding that.

5-2. EXPEDIENTS FOR EXTRA TRANSPORTATION
If extra transportation resources are not given to battalions,
greater reliance must be placed on–
a. Extensive use of helicopters to free unit HMMWVs for use
as CLOHE and SLOHE. This might entail allocating one
dedicated helicopter to each infantry brigade for logistical
support to release three HMMWVs and trailers required for
each company for load handling.
b. Deployment of corps plug transportation assets. Corps
assets could be placed under the operational control of
battalions for use as load-handling equipment. Forward
deployment of corps transportation assets in the division can
release existing HMMWVs and can improve the soldier
load-carrying capacity of units, as will direct resupply of forward
units by airdrop or steerable parachutes.
c. Host nation support. Units should be prepared to use local
resources to include conventional vehicles, agricultural tractors,
beasts of burden and their handlers, and human porters, which
are obtained through host nation support, renting, and capture.
Leaders must know the legal parameters of commandeering
equipment and animals. The required funding must be provided
for renting equipment. Possible host nation resources should be
identified in contingency plans. At least one man in each platoon
should be designated as a general-purpose driver.
Section II
FACTORS AFFECTING THE SOLDIER’S LOAD
Commanders at all levels must understand the factors affecting
the soldier’s load and the subsequent capabilities or limitations
produced in the unit. The physical limitations of individual
soldiers, stress, and the weight of equipment and munitions all
affect the soldier’s ability to carry his required load. These factors
must be carefully analyzed by the commander or leader in the
load determination process.
5-3

Seemed most pertinent along with:

The fighting load for a conditioned soldier should not exceed 48
pounds and the approach march load should not exceed 72
pounds. These load weights include all clothing and equipment
that are worn and carried.
a. A soldier’s ability to react to the enemy is reduced by the
burden of his load. Load carrying causes fatigue and lack of
agility, placing soldiers at a disadvantage when rapid reaction to
the enemy is required. For example, the time a soldier needs to
complete an obstacle course is increased from 10 to 15 percent,
depending on the configuration of the load, for every 10 pounds
of equipment carried. It is likely that a soldier’s agility in the
assault will be degraded similarly.
b. Speed of movement is as important a factor in causing
exhaustion as the weight of the load carried. The chart at Figure
5-1 shows the length of time that work rates can be sustained
before soldiers become exhausted and energy expenditure rates
for march speeds and loads. A burst rate of energy expenditure
of 900 to 1,000 calories per hour can only be sustained for 6 to
10 minutes. Fighting loads must be light so that the bursts of
energy available to a soldier are used to move and to fight, rather
than to carry more than the minimum fighting equipment.
c. When carrying loads during approach marches, a soldier’s
speed can cause a rate-of-energy expenditure of over 300
calories per hour and can erode the reserves of energy needed
upon enemy contact. March speeds must be reduced when loads
are heavier to stay within reasonable energy expenditure rates.
Carrying awkward loads and heavy handheld items causes
further degradation of march speed and agility. The distance
marched in six hours decreases by about 2 km for every 10 pounds
carried over 40 pounds. Figure 5-2 shows speeds that are
sustainable with given loads, which results in an energy
expenditure of 300 calories per hour.
5-4

A good read with some excellent points and recommendations with regards to troop movements. If only that level of organisation was generally available at company or even battalion level, when it's mostly done with a few APCs and a Land Rover or two. The days of massive funding for frontline transportation are just a memory, at least in my army.

[elamigo]

Originally Posted by Baldrick

Concentrating on the 3 items i've put into bold type:
Thanks for the reply.

1. Never heard of it so Googled it. I assume that 071-326-3013 (SL3) - Conduct a Tactical Road March (ArmyStudyGuide.com) is what you were referring to.
Perhaps I did not accurately remember the title, actually what you may cite is a newer version. Actually, I am thinking that the FM title was Tactical Road Marches. I may still be wrong in the correct title. I would have to go to some boxes to find it. I still have it somewhere. Perhaps they newer version did not include my comment but to me it makes sense.

2. It makes no comment on whether or not this exercise is to take place over roads, flat, forest, desert, alpine or mountainous terrain. I have been dropped off 50 miles from my objective in the Afghan Highlands and had a 2 day march with a 3 day OP and 2 day return. I don't really see the information in the aforementioned article being of that much use in that situation and that i have to say is not that uncommon a situation where i was last deployed, or i have to admit the time before that..
The point is that commanders can make the decision to select the right personnel for a mission. If some of the women can perform the tasks after they show they qualify for it, have it is. Does it make sense that a little men be assigned a tasks when he cannot physically do it? Of course not. However, does it make sense that a woman can do the job be sent to do the job? Yes it does in my opinion.
3. Any valid remarks you have made are somewhat nullified by your inference that professional soldiers would jeopardise their lives and operational integrity by behaving in this manner.
I did not infer a thing. That mentality does exist out there. All over? No, of course not. There are enlisted Soldiers, NCOs, and officer that do have a fair mentality but other do not. I am not say which is the majority or the minority. I simply say it exists and some have expressed it. I spent 32 years in the Army and have had interaction with those type just as with the ones that are more open minded. When I attended the U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy course we discussed the very same subject and both mentailities do exist. No inference, a reality.

With regards to your post timed @ 11:10pm (made whilst i was writing this) I have no problem with women being infantryman as long, as i have previously stated, they can complete the same training as everyone else in the unit. Link to training:

P company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I agree with you. Men and women that can meet the requirements for the jobs should be fairle treated. That is my point. Take care.

[Minethatbird]

Originally Posted by HowardRoarke

Nice blatant grammatical and spelling errors.

So, how do you explain 50% of female Marines pregnant at any one time, the vast majority as out-of-wedlock pregnancies?


-

Where is the source for this statistic?

[Minethatbird]

Originally Posted by HowardRoarke

Typically, a WM would show up from their MOS school, maybe actually work outside for month, you know, doing what they were trained to do in MOS school, then would end up behind a desk. The SNCO's and boot officers appeared to not have a problem with this, in fact they encouraged it.

-

I was in a unit like this one. They didn't want women actually working MOS's like automotive maintenance, so they found ways of putting them there. Those that resisted ...... well, I could tell you some stories. I find it interesting that you blame the WMs, yet said nothing about the SNCO's and boot officers who encouraged it.

[MB8abovetherim]

Originally Posted by elamigo

In the overall picture women may not be able comply with the physical demands you describe. I agree with that. However, the question is, ALL the women cannot comply with the requirements? In my opinion it is NO. There are women that can and as such they should have the same opportunity to do the job in defending their country if they want just as you do.
For example, in the "Road Marches" FM it does give some good advice on how to be more effective while going on road marches. Have you read it in its entirety? If not, I suggest you do if you have not. It does mention how at times during a road march member can alternate keeping the back packs on a vehicle to save energy and go longer distances. Did you do that when you go on road marches or does your unit have this "whoa" macho mentality instead of using effective techniques that help them be more physically able to do their tasks?
Also, in today's tactics Soldiers do not go into battle as it was years ago. The services have included numerous pieces of equipment to make it easier for Soldiers to be more effective with the physical demands besides personal gear that has also improved.
However, to the first point. I agree with you that most women may not be able to do the job physically but those that can should be allowed.
Lastly, women have improved physically also. In the last few years have improved physically due to the fact that many are involved in sports and many of the feats that were not expected of them two generations ago they have surparsed. Actually, in some cases they have achieve athletic feats that only men were able to do two generations ago. Take care.

In Iraq mounted patrols where you kept your stuff on the vehicle or didn't bring it at all were mostly the norm. Yes, there were exceptions. In Afghanistan however, the terrain dictated that almost every movement we did had to be done on foot. A lot of times we'd ride (sometimes fly) to a point then dismount and move into the mountains, onto the ridges etc. The Mobility that we had in Iraq was almost non existant in the rural mountainous parts of Afghanistan. Things moved slower and a patrol would sometimes take days. MY UNIT mandated that most of the time we carried everything we needed if the duration of our operation was to extend longer than a specified timeframe. Occasionally we could get resupplied with water, MREs and rounds via an airdrop. But those weren't always available or reliable thus we usually humped everything.

[elamigo]

Originally Posted by MB8abovetherim

In Iraq mounted patrols where you kept your stuff on the vehicle or didn't bring it at all were mostly the norm. Yes, there were exceptions. In Afghanistan however, the terrain dictated that almost every movement we did had to be done on foot. A lot of times we'd ride (sometimes fly) to a point then dismount and move into the mountains, onto the ridges etc. The Mobility that we had in Iraq was almost non existant in the rural mountainous parts of Afghanistan. Things moved slower and a patrol would sometimes take days. MY UNIT mandated that most of the time we carried everything we needed if the duration of our operation was to extend longer than a specified timeframe. Occasionally we could get resupplied with water, MREs and rounds via an airdrop. But those weren't always available or reliable thus we usually humped everything.

Thanks for the reply. I am aware that the theater of operations can vary.
However, I go back to my point: If there are women that can do the job, they should be allowed to do so.

Not all men do qualify to be in the infantry, special forces, green berets, etc. The ones that meet the requirements can join. All the Soldiers must meet a minimum requirements. From there different fields have their requirements.
Example: I was in an MOS that required higher than average ASVAB test results. Only those that pass the Math and Science proficiency tests were accepted in my MOS.
The same should apply in the infantry regardless of gender, race, etc. Just test those that want to be in the infantry and go from there.
There are many that tell all the stories how they had to do this or that and how tough being an infantry Soldier is as a reason why women should not be in it. The majority of women may not make it but those that can make it and want it, let them. To me the greatest obstacle is in the mind of mostley men. Take care.

[Baldrick]

I saw this and thought i'd post it in this thread as it's somewhat related.

BBC News - US forces women 'allowed near combat'

[MB8abovetherim]

Originally Posted by Baldrick

I saw this and thought i'd post it in this thread as it's somewhat related.

BBC News - US forces women 'allowed near combat'

They have been around combat. Women are MPs, truck drivers, wheeled mechanics, medics. In those fields you see plenty of combat. It's not like females aren't being shunned in the corner back in the rear. I just don't think women should be in the infantry. Imagine the EO complaints! or the simple fact that females in the Army have it way easier then any male does, females can sham out of anything ....IT'S TRUE. How is that gonna apply in the Infantry when life sucks for EVERYBODY? And lets face it, grunts aren't the smartest dudes around, issues like sexual assault, favoritism...etc will be a problem. To me it's just a lot of problems for just a little pride. Infantry sucks, most grunts hate it. And besides, women in the fields I've mentioned above get almost as much action as combat arms do anyway.