USMC prove the point about women in GCC units.

Even if it's only for the fittest 5% of women in the Army (probably the same 5%, or just under, who could pass at inf standard as recruits) I think the results would still be very interesting.

On a separate note, I've got to say that those PES / RMTs for inf / GCC are the best I've ever seen anywhere and a massive step forward ... depending on the scores / times required, of course.

Can you give a link / source for the PES / RMTs?
Its in an email asking for females to attend the test. Everything in italics is word for word in the email.

RMTs look good and could reflect a similar situation in a combat environment if the minimum standard is high enough. The predictor test protocols look a bit ****.
 
Whilst having fewer Biffs per unit is a difficult aspect to quantify and measure, the overall effect seems to raise the level of Esprit de Corps.
Certainly works in my Troop.
 

Colonel Blimp

War Hero
This is an article from Military.com. Sorry to drag you all away from the Royal Marines and their proclivities, where, as an old RM friend of mine once said, "Women are all right, but it's nothing like the real thing."

WASHINGTON — The jury is still out on whether women can be successful in infantry jobs, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said Tuesday, while offering students at the Virginia Military Institute a dim view of female troops serving on the front line.​
Mattis, a retired Marine, said there are too few women in the infantry ranks to provide enough data to determine how they're doing. And he said he has asked Army and Marine leaders for information to determine if having women in a "close-quarters fight" is a strength or a weakness.​
"There are a few stalwart young ladies who are charging into this, but they are too few," Mattis said during a visit to VMI, which is in Lexington, Virginia. "Clearly the jury is out on it, but what we're trying to do is give it every opportunity to succeed if it can."​

He said he hopes to get data from the Army and Marine Corps soon. In early 2013, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta opened the door to women serving in combat jobs. The military services studied the issue, and in their final recommendations only the Marine Corp leaders argued for an exception so they could keep certain infantry and ground combat jobs open only to men. In December 2015, then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter rejected the Corps' request and ordered all combat posts be opened to women.​
Responding to a question from a male student, who described some of his female classmates as fierce, Mattis said the issue must be resolved by military officers who are objective and understand that the natural inclination is to have service open to all. But, he added, "we cannot do something that militarily doesn't make sense."​
Mattis likened the issue to having someone break into your house and having to decide "who grabs the baseball bat" to protect the children and "who reaches for the phone to call 911." He didn't offer suggestions on what the answer would be.​
The Army and Marine Corps have acknowledged that the number of women seeking infantry jobs will probably be small. And women have struggled to pass the demanding training courses.​
As of late August, there were just 26 female enlisted Marines in the infantry and one female officer, according to the Marine Corps. More broadly, however, the number of women in Marine combat units that were previously open only to men has grown steadily, from 254 last year to 382 this year — a 50 percent increase.​
This year, for the first time, female Marines were allowed to attend the previously male-only entry-level course at the Marine Combat Training Battalion at Camp Pendleton, California. Before that, women only attended combat training at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina.​
The Army has also seen an increase in the number of women in combat units, including in infantry jobs. So far, there are 51 female infantry officers and 253 women in the enlisted ranks of the infantry, according to the Army. Another 51 women are serving in the officer and enlisted ranks in the Army Reserve. In addition, 17 women have passed the Army's grueling two-month Ranger course.​
Because of the growth, Army leaders earlier this year decided to integrate female officers into infantry and armor brigades at three additional military bases: Fort Carson in Colorado, Fort Campbell in Kentucky, and Fort Bliss in Texas. The increase — from two bases now to five — means there will be women in infantry and armor units at 45 percent of the Army installations that have combat brigades. Until now, the integrated units were only at Fort Hood in Texas and Fort Bragg in North Carolina.​
This article was written by Lolita C. Baldor from The Associated Press and was legally licensed through the NewsCred publisher network. Please direct all licensing questions to legal@newscred.com.
 
Not exactly a ringing endorsement.
... nor quite what I would have hoped for from a VSO. "It's early days", which is what he tried to turn it to, would have been more appropriate.

Perhaps the new PT test will go some way in bringing "balance to the force... Luke..." Army secretary: New fitness test measures combat readiness.
It's similar in many ways to the new UK tests being trialled - surprising, in some ways, since the UK study by the OPRG at Chichester Uni isn't cited by the US DoD, nor US studies cited by the OPRG.

What I can't help noticing is that both are gender and age neutral, and while the former's unavoidable if men and women are to do the same job to the same standard, the latter (age) simply doesn't apply in the same way at all since, with very few exceptions, as you get older you either leave or get promoted away from direct field roles - particularly with 'up or out' policies, which the UK and US both have, to varying degrees.

Makes you wonder if 'age neutral' is just a convenient and acceptable excuse for lower standards as a result of the 'gender neutral' policy ...
 

Colonel Blimp

War Hero
... nor quite what I would have hoped for from a VSO. "It's early days", which is what he tried to turn it to, would have been more appropriate.

It's similar in many ways to the new UK tests being trialled - surprising, in some ways, since the UK study by the OPRG at Chichester Uni isn't cited by the US DoD, nor US studies cited by the OPRG.

What I can't help noticing is that both are gender and age neutral, and while the former's unavoidable if men and women are to do the same job to the same standard, the latter (age) simply doesn't apply in the same way at all since, with very few exceptions, as you get older you either leave or get promoted away from direct field roles - particularly with 'up or out' policies, which the UK and US both have, to varying degrees.

Makes you wonder if 'age neutral' is just a convenient and acceptable excuse for lower standards as a result of the 'gender neutral' policy ...
The sense I get is that the forces are saying, "okay, we'll take women and we're going to treat them just like the men." The feminists can hardly complain when the numbers in the infantry and armor remain low. I suspect that Secretary Mattis feels the same way and I picked up a sense of that in the first article when he said, "we cannot do something that militarily doesn't make sense."
 
I suspect that Secretary Mattis feels the same way and I picked up a sense of that in the first article when he said, "we cannot do something that militarily doesn't make sense."
What 'doesn't make sense militarily' is coincidentally changing old tests based on what a fit 30 year old man can do to new ones that an equally fit 50 year old woman can do.

Edit: I suppose it boils down to either having the wrong tests but the right standard or the right tests but the wrong standard.
 
Last edited:

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
It was only a matter of time:

Army Women Endured Polar Expedition Better Than Men, Study Finds

So now we have scientific proof that women deal with arduous conditions better than men, (plus the statutory titillation that the sensors were in their bras of course.)
Losing less body mass on a particular polar trek undertaken under a very specific set of circumstances in no way equates to being “better able to cope with arduous conditions”. That’s the sort of spin employed by politicians, evangelical preachers and used car salesmen.
 
Losing less body mass on a particular polar trek undertaken under a very specific set of circumstances in no way equates to being “better able to cope with arduous conditions”. That’s the sort of spin employed by politicians, evangelical preachers and used car salesmen.
That's where I was coming from. The MoD is kicking out a lot of pretty shoddy propaganda these days.
 
It was only a matter of time:

Army Women Endured Polar Expedition Better Than Men, Study Finds

So now we have scientific proof that women deal with arduous conditions better than men, (plus the statutory titillation that the sensors were in their bras of course.)
Except if you read the article you find ... shock ... horror ... that, despite the headline, that isn't what the study actually found at all!

What it found was that:

"Results from previous expeditions – mostly made up of men and civilian women – found participants had lost a considerable amount more body mass than the Ice Maidens."

As women have high consistently higher body fat (BMI) than men of a comparable fitness all it means is that they started out with higher body fat levels than men and since they had two re-supply points along the way they were able to maintain a consistently higher body fat level throughout.

In simple terms, women can pig-out more, which the Ice Maidens proved.

Had the expedition been unsupported (Pen Hadow / Ran Fiennes / Charlie Burton / Mike Stroud style) then the result would undoubtedly have been very different. That doesn't detract from their achievment, but it puts this sort of absurd spin in its correct perspective.

Edit: the problem with any 'supported' expedition, regardless of if it's polar or anywhere else, or whether someone else is carrying your kit for you or it's pre-positioned along the way, is that very few are identical so very few are comparable. The Ice Maidens had two 'full' re-supply points along the way (equipment as well as supplies) so their expedition can only really be compared with either identical expeds (very few, if any) or ones that only went one third of the way. It's still a great achievment, but it's not quite what it's being sold as (by the Army / MoD, to be fair, not the participants).
 
Last edited:
Except if you read the article you find ... shock ... horror ... that, despite the headline, that isn't what the study actually found at all!

What it found was that:

"Results from previous expeditions – mostly made up of men and civilian women – found participants had lost a considerable amount more body mass than the Ice Maidens."
Slightly underquoted John

Six female soldiers who skied across the Antarctica continent were better able to cope with the extreme conditions than those of men who also made the journey, scientists have found.

But I agree it is ridiculous spin which no doubt is there to support the gender free agenda
 
When it comes out it's due to the higher body fat levels there will be tears.
I attended a presentation delivered by one of the ice maidens, Royal sigs captain IIRC. I seem to recall her describing bulking up specially prior to the journey and sticking to a particular diet during, nuts being one of the foods used. I’ve also heard similar in a different presentation by another female polar trekker.
 
Slightly underquoted John

Six female soldiers who skied across the Antarctica continent were better able to cope with the extreme conditions than those of men who also made the journey, scientists have found.

But I agree it is ridiculous spin which no doubt is there to support the gender free agenda
Agreed, I didn't quote the whole article, but it' not comparing like for like.

I can't find any record of any "men who have also made the journey", at least recently and when BMI was measured, where they've had not one re-supply point (usually at the Pole) but two. That obviously makes a vast amount of difference not just to the sled weight but to the amount of food available to be eaten every day.

It's simply not a valid conclusion: pull lighter sleds and eat more food and it really shouldn't be a surprise that you've burnt less fat!

What I find particularly disappointing, bordering on unpleasant, is the suggestion in the part I quoted that "civilian women" on "previous expeditions" may not have done as well or been as fit as the 'Ice Maidens' when women have previously set 'gender free' polar records that have stood for years against male polar explorers.

That's not only disingenuous but to me it's disgraceful.
 
I attended a presentation delivered by one of the ice maidens, Royal sigs captain IIRC. I seem to recall her describing bulking up specially prior to the journey and sticking to a particular diet during, nuts being one of the foods used. I’ve also heard similar in a different presentation by another female polar trekker.
Pen Hadow, Ran Fiennes and Mike Stroud all describe doing the same, as do all polar explorers as far as I'm aware - it's no different to a pasta party before a marathon.

The crucial difference here was two re-supply points, not one, so lighter loads and more food.

That doesn't detract from their achievement in any way, but it negates the conclusions the MoD makes and is so obvious it makes the whole hypothesis and anyone making it rather absurd.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
R Weapons, Equipment & Rations 49
Drlligaf US 6
28th/LX1 US 2

Latest Threads

Top