USMC prove the point about women in GCC units.

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
'this 19YO girl had the photo taken on SAT morning, on the SUN in full blown shin splints and unable to walk . She was only able to return to UNI some two weeks later using Canadian Club crutches"
That's a major difference in the sexes right there.

Canadian Club tends to inhibit my walking.
 
The bit you are missing is that the USMC get far more 2LTs applying for Infantry than they have slots for. IOC is a selection/rejection process as much as it is a training course.
How am I "missing" it?

It's completely irrelevant to whether the CET as it stood between 2012 and 2017* was a suitable test for selection/rejection on day one, and if anything it's all the more reason why selection/rejection should be based on a far more in depth assessment than whether or not potential USMC infantry officers can do something they're never likely to be called on to do when in a USMC inf unit (namely carrying more than double the weight carried by the soldiers they're going to command) and whether or not they're naturally capable of being the squad pack mule without training.

*: probably not even until 2017 as it's clear from a number of articles that in 2016 and '17 the policy had changed unofficially so that students were allowed multiple attempts at the CET during the course rather than being rejected on day one for failing it, which explains the apparent anomaly highlighted in the article that while the rejection rate for men failing the CET on day one had been 30% in 2012 -14 it dropped to 12% in 2015 and to 1 - 3% in 2016-17. The official policy, however, appears to have still been applied to women, who were allegedly only allowed the one pass/fail attempt before being rejected immediately if they failed.

If that's the case the change is simply formalising a change which had already taken place in practice, ensuring it's applied equally, fairly, and without favour.
 
The IDF is held up as the shining light when talking about women in the GCC units ...
Only by the uninformed. The IDF makes no secret of the physiological issues and consequent limitations.
... clearly their experiencing what many of us here have been saying during this debate.
"us" ? "US" ???

It's certainly what I've been saying, and a few others, but unfortunately it's all too often been hidden in a deluge of undiluted nonsense from others about conscription, cohesion, equality of haircuts, strength, stamina, all female ships and fighter sqns and misinterpretations of missions to Mars, or conversely having women in a TA Home Defence bn in the 80's or hitting the target on the range, none of which have any basis in reality or rational analysis and all of which have been extensively disproven by the British military's own experience over the last couple of decades or more.

If the caps fit ...
 
Last edited:
What concerns me in this game of total stupidity is the fact that the Government which as the employer has a duty of car, it is totally forgotten that the female skeletal and muscular frame is not designed for load carrying. ...

...Then we have such as Shin Splints, the UK military is very coy about this problem in females ...
While I agree 100% with your sentiments, neither of those is true.

The 2014 Review into Women in GCC Roles had it as one of the major issues needing further study, and the 2016 Review had it as the ongoing major issue given the results of that further study - that women would be injured in training and on ops at a far higher rate than men and many of those injuries would be permanent, and that there was no known way of testing individuals for a propensity to injury without testing to destruction in every case.

The 2016 review even made it very clear (page 35) that even if you changed basic trg to minimise the injuries that you couldn't avoid them being markedly higher in unit and course trg and on ops.

... and the UK military's studies of stress and repetition injuries are actually detailed, extensive, and well documented, just not readily available directly. The UK's studies were quoted at length by US Senate Defence Select Committees and I've quoted from and linked to them*.

The problem, as with the debate here, is that the rational, reasoned, objective, and quantifiably valid arguments have been buried by the deluge of detritus by the bigots on both sides - as conveniently evidenced by the video of the Knesset above, where the female bigots ignore what the ex-IDF female injured and MD'd is saying and opt to rant instead, and the male bigot doing the voice-over talks over the facts being presented and resorts to calling the female bigots "bitches".

(*: sorry, but I can't face looking through hundreds of pages to find the links, but if I find them I'll post them)
 
Last edited:
And from the Canadian side.

Very fair points, rationally put, although I disagree with her about women lacking courage - I'd say, not un-like men, some do and some don't.

The only point of fact I'd disagree strongly with is her highlighting the USMC study that pitted a squad of USMC male inf marines against a mixed squad of USMC male inf marines plus a number of female (non-inf) soldiers, doing USMC inf tasks, as it's hardly surprising that the former did better than the latter. That's like pitting a squad of RM against a squad of RM plus some women (or men!) from the RLC over the Endurance and Tarzan courses and Bottom Field and expecting it to be a fair contest.

A Sch Inf study instead pitted a squad of non-inf men against one of non-inf women doing inf tasks. I can recall it being referred to here, but can't recall the results. Sorry.
 
Only by the uninformed. The IDF makes no secret of the physiological issues and consequent limitations.
"us" ? "US" ???

It's certainly what I've been saying, and a few others, but unfortunately it's all too often been hidden in a deluge of undiluted nonsense from others about conscription, cohesion, equality of haircuts, strength, stamina, all female ships and fighter sqns and misinterpretations of missions to Mars, none of which have any basis in reality or rational analysis and all of which have been extensively disproven by the British military's own experience over the last couple of decades or more.

If the cap fits ...
Stacker. They are very much a 2018 issue and a every year issue. Pirbright ATR is discharging (after long and ineffective treatment) some fifty females per year from the training system, so how many millions of pounds is that urinated up against the wall each year ?????

Mental health issues are in the main with the current " professional " health care providers incorrectly diagnosed, many in fact being persons with personality disorders who should have not been enlisted in the first case (being both officers and ORs).
Shin splints injuries are caused by too much too soon. The run entry level time for females is pretty low and you would not have to train too hard to achieve it. But increasing distance and speed should be 10 per cent a week, and weighting up should be much more gradual. I think the injury rates reflect this.
 
Only by the uninformed. The IDF makes no secret of the physiological issues and consequent limitations.
"us" ? "US" ???

It's certainly what I've been saying, and a few others, but unfortunately it's all too often been hidden in a deluge of undiluted nonsense from others about conscription, cohesion, equality of haircuts, strength, stamina, all female ships and fighter sqns and misinterpretations of missions to Mars, or conversely having women in a TA Home Defence bn in the 80's or hitting the target on the range, none of which have any basis in reality or rational analysis and all of which have been extensively disproven by the British military's own experience over the last couple of decades or more.

If the caps fit ...
I hope you don't mind if i take the time to rebuttal your insistence that anything other than your opinion on this subject is worthless. The vast majority of points raised in this thread are worth talking about as they all relate to the overall feasibility & reality of women in the GCC units & it's knock on effects for women in society in general in the future.

1. Conscription is an issue that has not been discussed in the public arena, & the force's driving the right for women to fight in the GCC units need to be clear on where the UK female population stand on this matter.

2. Cohesion whether you like it or not is an issue, not a day goes by when we are not subjected to claims of sexual abuse by men on women. From Hollywood to our politicians including our own defense minister are a fact of life (sadly) & it will continue to be a problem when introducing women into the GCC units, so yes there is an issue of cohesion.

3. Haircuts & standards, a minor point i will agree but highlights the psychological differences between the sex's, men & women are treated exactly the same but totally different in this one case.

4. Strength, the average women is not as strong as the average man it's a proven fact.

5. Stamina as above

6. The idea to showcase women in a standalone situation within the contexts of HMF is a way of proving women can do it on their own. An idea the feminists would be very happy to see happen i'm sure, there are enough women serving in both the RN & the RAF to see this idea followed up. Following the resent army adverts calling for more women to take on the challenge i see this idea full of recruiting potential, the knock on effect getting women to look at the GCC's units.

7. The men or women only report on the mar's mission was just another thought provoking addition to the thread, it was never intended to be anything else.

8. The idea to start off by getting women into the TA/reserve GCC units is worthwhile if that's what you are talking about ?

In short all of the above have an element of merit & should not be ruled out of the conversation, we all have our own opinions & experiences on the subject. I come at it from a very different place than you do, nether of us are 100% right or wrong we are just expressing opinions that grouped together balance out the possibility of it working or not.
 
Shin splints injuries are caused by too much too soon.
Very generally, yes, but not always - that suggests, although you may not have meant to, that as long as it's gradual you can keep on stepping things up, within reason, without shin splints - that isn't the case however gradual you make it.

More importantly, I think the concentration on 'shin splints' rather than the broader 'stress injuries' is also misplaced here (not that you started it!), particularly bearing in mind that we're talking women and the infantry.

It's very difficult for those who aren't familiar with inf training to appreciate just how many more recruits are injured during inf training than in non-inf training, with every study showing that because of the unavoidable nature of inf training those factors are going to be exponentially higher for women because of the physiology. The following are from a study of injuries in British Army training I gave earlier in the thread, showing how much higher the chances are of a male recruit being injured in inf training than a male recruit in non-inf training, which may be a bit of an eye-opener:

Injuries / Fractures:
Stress fractures: 7.12 x
Hip / pelvis fractures: 7.56 x
Musculo-skeletal injuries: 5.63 x
Trauma injury: 1.37 x

Medical Discharges:
Lower limb injuries: 5.58 x
Upper limb injuries: 4.57 x
Hip injuries: 16.24 x

What may be most surprising is that 'trauma injuries' (falling off a rope on an assault course, injuries doing fire and manoeuvre, etc) are only minimally higher (1.37 times) in inf training, while all other injuries are markedly higher.

You can find a more detailed breakdown, including women, at Annex A to the Interim Report on the Health Risks to Women in Ground Close Roles 2016 - well worth reading as it presents the real issues based on facts rather than bigotry and machismo.

The run entry level time for females is pretty low and you would not have to train too hard to achieve it.
That doesn't and can't apply to the infantry / GCC roles - they MUST have the same entry standard (run, lift, carry, whatever they happen to be) as men. MUST - it goes with the job. The problem then is that they would have to train quite hard to achieve it - far harder than men, as while 95% of male recruits pass at inf recruit standard less than 5% of female recruits do; that, inevitably, means that females will not only be closer to their limits than men but they will also be closer to the point where they are likely to be injured.

As was discussed earlier in the thread, a lot of those injuries can be minimised by more gradual training, possibly along the lines of Junior training, but only in basic training and as the 2016 report spelt out very clearly (page 35) that isn't possible afterwards when training can no longer be as progressive or done at a slower tempo: Although these adapted interventions appear to have clear benefits for women in initial training, the utility of these interventions for women in GCC roles who will operate alongside men on training exercises, on promotional courses, and on operations may be more limited.

If you wade through the two 2016 reports this is the only major sticking point which couldn't be addressed or resolved in any way - unfortunately in the deluge of detritus from the likes of Richard Kemp and Tim Collins who made it all about machismo and male superiority as 'warriors' it was reduced to being just another point with no more validity or import, and so as the other points were shown to be little more than the rumblings of dinosaurs it ended up being treated in the same way.
I think the injury rates reflect this.
Arguably (and I'd agree with you) they do for men - the common sense approach now must be to apply a Junior-type training syllabus to all, young and old, male and female. That doesn't apply to women in the infantry after training, though: while physiologically women can be just as good, strength and stamina permitting, as men at flying planes, steering ships, stacking blankets, building bridges, driving trucks, bashing tracks, and even dragging heavy weights long distances to the Poles, the one thing they can't be as good at is carrying heavy weights for long distances - their physiology / anatomy simply doesn't permit it without a far greater propensity to injury, regardless of their individual strength, stamina and fitness.
 
I hope you don't mind if i take the time to rebuttal your insistence that anything other than your opinion on this subject is worthless.
I don't mind in the slightest - and I'm not suggesting that "anything other than (my) opinion is worthless" but that some of the opinions here, echoing some of those made by those with rather more influence and publicity elsewhere, aren't just "worthless" but directly responsible for women going into GCC roles as they've reduced the only irrefutable and quantifiable argument to the same level as they're own.
we all have our own opinions
... and we're all fully entitled to them. What none of us are entitled to, though, are our own facts, plucked out of thin air to support a fatuous argument.

So ... let's get started ... gloves off time:
1. Conscription is an issue that has not been discussed in the public arena, & the force's driving the right for women to fight in the GCC units need to be clear on where the UK female population stand on this matter.
Absolute rubbish and totally untrue. While it admittedly hasn't had the same attention as Brexit, it HAS been "discussed in the public arena", extensive polls have been carried out including on the possibility of the conscription of women, and it's been very widely discussed across the media. Even ignoring that no reputable defence analysts see conscription in the UK as either likely or constructive, making the whole question rather pointless, you completely ignore that women have already been conscripted in the UK, without any issues, with a few exceptions on exactly the same terms as men; while you may argue that they weren't deployed in combat there is no more reason to deploy conscripted women in combat or combat units now than there was then, nor would it serve any more point or be any more likely.
2. Cohesion whether you like it or not is an issue, not a day goes by when we are not subjected to claims of sexual abuse by men on women. From Hollywood to our politicians including our own defense minister are a fact of life (sadly) & it will continue to be a problem when introducing women into the GCC units, so yes there is an issue of cohesion.
Odd that it hasn't been an issue elsewhere in the British military, except in isolated cases that don't compare to those of Hollywood and our politicians. ... odd, also, that despite having a considerable number of women in GCC units deployed in combat for the past two decades, from SF to RM to inf, in isolated bases and on patrols, it hasn't been an issue and they've been able to work perfectly well together militarily and individually. Somehow I can't see that simply changing their cap badge while remaining in exactly the same level of working and living proximity will make those women a more likely target for sexual abuse.
3. Haircuts & standards, a minor point i agree but highlights the psychological differences between the sex's, men & women are treated exactly the same but totally different in this one case.
If anything it only highlights the Army's conservatism and the failings of a minority of training staff who have to rely on some misplaced 'shock of capture' idea to make their job easier, and totally fails to highlight any supposed "psychological differences between the sex's (sic)" but does the complete opposite and highlights the similarity since a number of men would prefer to be allowed longer hair (or at least the routine option), just as a number of women would prefer to be allowed shorter hair (or at the routine option).
4. Strength, the average women is not as strong as the average man it's a proven fact.

5. Stamina as above
Yes, for once you've stated a "proven fact" but it's totally irrelevant unless the military aren't going to select and test individuals based on their individual merits and ability but are just going to base their selection on "the average". Let's apply that and see how well that would work:
  • No blacks - on "average" they're physiologically more susceptible to cold injuries, so they're all gone and we needn't bother recruiting any Fijians any more.
  • No-one with ginger hair - on "average" more susceptible to sunburn.
  • No officers from comprehensive schools as on "average" they're not going to be as well educated as those from public schools. ... unless they're Asian, of course, in which case they're likely to do better on "average" so they should be allowed but not whites.
  • etc, etc, etc, ...
Fortunately the Army doesn't recruit soldiers based on what the "average" person of their gender, ethnicity or background is like but based on each individual's strengths and weaknesses, and on that basis some women are going to be stronger and have more stamina than some men, and some are even going to be stronger and have more stamina than "the average man". That's a proven fact.
6. The idea to showcase women in a standalone situation within the contexts of HMF is a way of proving women can do it on their own. An idea the feminists would be very happy to see happen i'm sure, there are enough women serving in both the RN & the RAF to see this idea followed up. Following the resent army adverts calling for more women to take on the challenge i see this idea full of recruiting potential, the knock on effect getting women to look at the GCC's units.
Utterly absurd.

If "it" is Ground Close Combat, which after all is what the thread you started is all about, women are never going to have to "do it on their own" any more than men have "done it on their own" for several decades if not one hundred and fifty years or more without women on the ground to support them.

It may also somehow have escaped your attention that the 'G' in 'GCC' stands for 'Ground' and that's an area where the RN and RAF tend not to operate, and where sea and air are rather more relevant ... and that while you may have reservations about women's abilities the RN and RAF (or at least the rest of the RAF) don't share them, don't see that women need to "prove" anything, and that in a military and a society that's moving to be inclusive rather than divisive having a ship or sqn that was all female (or all gay, all muslim, all black, or all anything else) for no operational reason would be just bizarre.

If "it" is not about GCC but is just "to showcase women in a standalone situation within the contexts of HMF (as) a way of proving women can do it on their own" it's as utterly pointless in this context as it is unnecessary, since it proves nothing about their ability in a GCC role - and unless you think that when women join HMF they somehow become less capable than they were as civilians, or you've been living in a bubble in Crete, you should be well aware that there are countless women who, as individuals and as "standalone" teams, have "showcased" their ability to "do it on their own", from Hannah McKeand who set the then fastest record for anyone, male or female, skiing solo unsupported to the South Pole, to the recent Ice Maidens (all female, and all HMF).
7. The men or women only report on the mar's mission was just another thought provoking addition to the thread, it was never intended to be anything else.
Really? I must have misunderstood your meaning when you wrote "Even NASA admit mixing the sex's has problems" and followed it up with "Secret Nasa report 'recommended all-female Mars missions' after studying astronauts' sexual dynamics. Women-only crews would cooperate better than male ones" - except on reading the link it turned that the attention-grabbing headline, and your subsequent spin on it, had no connection with "reality" at all.
8. The idea to start off by getting women into the TA/reserve GCC units is worthwhile if that's what you are talking about ?
Absolutely no idea where you've plucked that idea from. What I said was that " ... or conversely having women in a TA Home Defence bn in the 80's or hitting the target on the range," and using that as justification for having women in a GCC role in the Regular Army had as much basis in reality as an opposing argument that it was all about conscription, cohesion, haircuts and women only ships, fighter sqns and missions to Mars, since the training regimens and operational requirements were totally different.
In short all of the above have an element of merit & should not be ruled out of the conversation, we all have our own opinions & experiences on the subject. I come at it from a very different place than you do, nether of us are 100% right or wrong we are just expressing opinions that grouped together balance out the possibility of it working or not.
@Talos, I'm all for different opinions and experiences, but what grates is when someone sells their opinion as fact at full volume, as Richard Kemp and Tim Collins do, when the facts show that their arguments are 100% wrong, particularly when that means that facts they've ignored or don't understand are then dismissed as being the same nonsense when those facts are 100% right.

As I said above, we're all entitled to our own opinions, just not to our own facts.
 
Last edited:
Very generally, yes, but not always - that suggests, although you may not have meant to, that as long as it's gradual you can keep on stepping things up, within reason, without shin splints - that isn't the case however gradual you make it.

More importantly, I think the concentration on 'shin splints' rather than the broader 'stress injuries' is also misplaced here (not that you started it!), particularly bearing in mind that we're talking women and the infantry.

It's very difficult for those who aren't familiar with inf training to appreciate just how many more recruits are injured during inf training than in non-inf training, with every study showing that because of the unavoidable nature of inf training those factors are going to be exponentially higher for women because of the physiology. The following are from a study of injuries in British Army training I gave earlier in the thread, showing how much higher the chances are of a male recruit being injured in inf training than a male recruit in non-inf training, which may be a bit of an eye-opener:

Injuries / Fractures:
Stress fractures: 7.12 x
Hip / pelvis fractures: 7.56 x
Musculo-skeletal injuries: 5.63 x
Trauma injury: 1.37 x

Medical Discharges:
Lower limb injuries: 5.58 x
Upper limb injuries: 4.57 x
Hip injuries: 16.24 x

What may be most surprising is that 'trauma injuries' (falling off a rope on an assault course, injuries doing fire and manoeuvre, etc) are only minimally higher (1.37 times) in inf training, while all other injuries are markedly higher.

You can find a more detailed breakdown, including women, at Annex A to the Interim Report on the Health Risks to Women in Ground Close Roles 2016 - well worth reading as it presents the real issues based on facts rather than bigotry and machismo.

That doesn't and can't apply to the infantry / GCC roles - they MUST have the same entry standard (run, lift, carry, whatever they happen to be) as men. MUST - it goes with the job. The problem then is that they would have to train quite hard to achieve it - far harder than men, as while 95% of male recruits pass at inf recruit standard less than 5% of female recruits do; that, inevitably, means that females will not only be closer to their limits than men but they will also be closer to the point where they are likely to be injured.

As was discussed earlier in the thread, a lot of those injuries can be minimised by more gradual training, possibly along the lines of Junior training, but only in basic training and as the 2016 report spelt out very clearly (page 35) that isn't possible afterwards when training can no longer be as progressive or done at a slower tempo: Although these adapted interventions appear to have clear benefits for women in initial training, the utility of these interventions for women in GCC roles who will operate alongside men on training exercises, on promotional courses, and on operations may be more limited.

If you wade through the two 2016 reports this is the only major sticking point which couldn't be addressed or resolved in any way - unfortunately in the deluge of detritus from the likes of Richard Kemp and Tim Collins who made it all about machismo and male superiority as 'warriors' it was reduced to being just another point with no more validity or import, and so as the other points were shown to be little more than the rumblings of dinosaurs it ended up being treated in the same way.
Arguably (and I'd agree with you) they do for men - the common sense approach now must be to apply a Junior-type training syllabus to all, young and old, male and female. That doesn't apply to women in the infantry after training, though: while physiologically women can be just as good, strength and stamina permitting, as men at flying planes, steering ships, stacking blankets, building bridges, driving trucks, bashing tracks, and even dragging heavy weights long distances to the Poles, the one thing they can't be as good at is carrying heavy weights for long distances - their physiology / anatomy simply doesn't permit it without a far greater propensity to injury, regardless of their individual strength, stamina and fitness.
Thanks for posting the links , I'd been trying to find the 2016 update for ages. I absolutely agree with your points and my post was not intended to make a case for women in ground combat roles. More for the existing female roles and fitness standards and ensuing injuries. Girls I know could easily make the entry standards, just with a general level of good fitness, and without much of a running programme, but that is very different from phase 1 training, where heavy weight is introduced too soon and the running is ramped up quicker than a ten per cent a week increase. And then there is surprise when women are more regularly injured. Or for example, in the RM band service , women enter with an entry standard some 2 minutes slower than the men, but then train in mixed sex troops, doing all the same Phys. It just isn't thought through, and not enough attention is paid to the vast amount of information on best methods of training. I guess the army and navy may be more enlightened as they train single sex, but from what I saw of their recruit programmes, they still introduced load carrying way too fast and soon, in my opinion. And I can therefore understand the reasoning of suggesting more circuit work and reducing the running a bit.
 
I guess the army and navy may be more enlightened as they train single sex, .....
I don't think that's correct, at least for the Army although I'm way out of date.

RMAS tried mixed pls briefly but it didn't work, but AFAIK the only differences in syllabus for everyone else are Adults and Juniors, not men and women.
And I can therefore understand the reasoning of suggesting more circuit work and reducing the running a bit
I think you'll find @Stacker was referring to unit trg, not recruit trg.
Girls I know could easily make the entry standards, just with a general level of good fitness, and without much of a running programme.
Well, as far as inf entry standards go, over 95% of female Army recruits can't!
 
I don't think that's correct, at least for the Army although I'm way out of date.

RMAS tried mixed pls briefly but it didn't work, but AFAIK the only differences in syllabus for everyone else are Adults and Juniors, not men and women. I think you'll find @Stacker was referring to unit trg, not recruit trg. Well, as far as inf entry standards go, over 95% of female Army recruits can't!
I'm not talking about inf standards, I'm talking about the typical entry for a female of about 13 mins mile and a half time.
 
Here is an article from the UPI that I stumbled across at zero-dark-thirty last night. This morning, actually... Once again, if you can't get through, let me know and I'll copy and past the whole thing. Pentagon's 'deploy-or-be-removed' policy takes effect There is a link to a pdf file that seems to contradict this paragraph, so if anyone can decipher it for me, I won't be offended.

The policy includes exemptions for pregnancy, postpartum depression and related conditions, but also allows the branches of the military to separate members who are expected to be non-deployable for 12 consecutive months before the passage of 12 months.​
 
Here is an article from the UPI that I stumbled across at zero-dark-thirty last night. This morning, actually... Once again, if you can't get through, let me know and I'll copy and past the whole thing. Pentagon's 'deploy-or-be-removed' policy takes effect There is a link to a pdf file that seems to contradict this paragraph, so if anyone can decipher it for me, I won't be offended.

The policy includes exemptions for pregnancy, postpartum depression and related conditions, but also allows the branches of the military to separate members who are expected to be non-deployable for 12 consecutive months before the passage of 12 months.​
Past time for the British to follow suit, with up to 20% not fully deployable.

I hope you don't mind, but I'm copying the link to another thread where this is also being discussed.

Not sure where you think the contradiction is, as it seems to confirm the exact same thing:

"Pregnant and post-partum Service members are the only group automaticallyvexempted from this policy."
 
Webpage "forgodandcountry" US army drops grenade throwing training as most recruits cant throw the required 25 yards.Excellent plan,drop anything recruits cant achieve,insted of binning recruits untill they attain a certain standard of fitness.
 
Webpage "forgodandcountry" US army drops grenade throwing training as most recruits cant throw the required 25 yards.Excellent plan,drop anything recruits cant achieve,insted of binning recruits untill they attain a certain standard of fitness.
Well worth reading some of the other reports on this as they paint a very different picture to that, both of the problems and the solution - US recruit fitness standards are actually being considerably increased, for example, from 50 points to 60, not dropped, plus increased loads and increased distances on the FTX.

... and they're not dropping grenade throwing from training, but dropping passing the test (accuracy as well as distance) as a mandatory pass/fail test for all recruits which was only a relatively recent requirement.

... and, @HSF, while you didn't blame women for the change (although at least one report does), posting it in this thread suggests it's the problem but apparently the spark for the grenade throwing issue was two men being binned from the Army for being unable to throw grenades 25m accurately by the end of basic training, having wasted a lot of Army time and money training them to do everything else.

Like the USMC CET, it makes 100% sense as long as you look at what's actually being done rather than the spin, and I'd suggest it's exactly what the British Army needs to emulate.
 
Last edited:
Webpage "forgodandcountry" US army drops grenade throwing training as most recruits cant throw the required 25 yards.Excellent plan,drop anything recruits cant achieve,insted of binning recruits untill they attain a certain standard of fitness.
What I'd actually be a lot more worried about is the decision to drop 'Land Nav', which is the ability to do and understand very basic map reading without the aid of GPS - literally which way's North, orientating a map, map symbols, etc.

If you haven't thrown a grenade since basic and you needed practice the chances are that a year or two later you may still need practice, but if you couldn't tell which way's North with a compass or do very basic map reading in basic the chances are you'll never be able to and that could be a serious problem for so many outside inf, male or female (Pte Jessica Lynch's convoy springs to mind).
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
dogmonkey Infantry 1
Gravelbelly Weapons, Equipment & Rations 4
ExPara The Intelligence Cell 12

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top