Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Balog on August 07, 2013, 01:40:24 PM
-
Ok, to be fair a lot of folks did see this coming and warned about it, but as I've been told repeatedly on this very board that's a hate-fact and pointing it out means I'm misogynistic. And really, only dumb grunts will die because of this. Based on every war/police action we've fought since Korea I'd say dying for no reason is about all we're fit for in the eyes of the brass anyway.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/5/pentagon-hints-at-changes-to-allow-more-women-in-g/
-
Other nations send women into combat, I fail to see your argument.
-
Other nations send women into combat, I fail to see your argument.
The physical standards for the combat arms are too high to allow any appreciable number of women. After opening the floodgates, the Pentagon has to ensure "enough" women are in combat units or they might look discriminatory (and God forbid that happens). So lowering physical standards for direct combat units was an inevitable result of allowing women in direct combat MOS's. And lowering standards will get people killed. But when that was pointed out during the debates over women in combat the point was derided as misogyny and "slippery slope" and etc.
-
Other nations send women into combat, I fail to see your argument.
Then try reading the article. "Other people do it" isn't much of an argument, either.
-
Then try reading the article. "Other people do it" isn't much of an argument, either.
I did..
In other words, some physical standards would be lowered for men and women on the argument that certain tasks are outdated or irrelevant.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/5/pentagon-hints-at-changes-to-allow-more-women-in-g/#ixzz2bJ5DiHmB
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
-
Really, I can't imagine how letting fatter, slower, weaker people into war zones where they will be required to strap on 80-100 lbs of gear and perform a wide range of physically gruelling tasks could in any way be a bad thing. And you're sexist for pointing that out.
And it's funny how those tasks only became outdated when women who couldn't do them needed to be inducted into those units. What a coincidence.
-
And it's funny how those tasks only became outdated when women who couldn't do them needed to be inducted into those units. What a coincidence.
I see no mention of what exact physical standards are going to be changed.
-
So some poor grunt is going to have to do -A-his job, and -B-someone elses job. Great.
Yes, no doubt there are exceptions.
I don't know , off the top, of any nation that has, and continues to use women in ground combat roles, that has not been compelled to do so by manpower shortages or other existential emergencies.
Hell, half of the guys I know and or read about who were grunts are partially disabled just from the stress of carrying 100 lb loads. Here , pack that baseplate and while you are at it, this ammo can. And jump out of that chopper.
-
I see no mention of what exact physical standards are going to be changed.
Well, I spent a bit of time looking for the last time that the army lowered standards.
It's funny, I can't find any mention of such a thing in the past 25 years. Guess this is just some WEIRD coincidence.
And, of course, I'm a misogynist for thinking it has any connection to the politically correct push to put women in combat.
-
I see no mention of what exact physical standards are going to be changed.
There aren't exactly that many of them. For Marines it was height/weight, run time, situps, and pullups. And of course the ability to complete whatever course of training was set.
Actually, I should say that was the standard for Marine men. If they held women to the same physical standards almost no women would qualify to be in the service (and the ones that did would never make a first class PFT and thus not get promoted and thus misogyny) so women don't do all the same things as men ("flex arm hangs" instead of pullups) and the 1st-2nd-3rd-fail points for the two shared exercises are much, much lower.
And then there are the physical demands of the training courses. Now that varies from training to training, but if you can tell me that reducing the standards will in some way be a good thing (and that it was motivated purely by "updating" the needs and not because women can't hack the same grunt work men can) then I have to wonder what planet you're living on.
A lot of things in the .mil that don't require very high levels of physical strength and endurance. Direct combat MOS's are not among them.
-
I called it
-
Charby,
The only times other countries have done it is when there were Nazi's or Arabs pouring over the borders and the very existence of the nation was at stake.
And the Army has never lowered its standards for women. It never set them as high as men's to begin with.
Here's the passing repetitions/times for 17-21 year old Men and Women.
Men Women
Push-ups 42 19
Sit-ups 53 53
2 Run 15:54 18:54
It's one thing to drive a truck, turn a wrench, type on a computer or pass out supplies. It's entirely another to hump a 100lbs of gear (to include your weapon and ammo) load a 103lb artillery projectile into the gun, bust track, haul tow cables, and/or ram home a Sabot round in an M1 Abrams. Those tasks require raw, pure physical strength.
Lowering the standards puts people lives at risk.
-
Lowering the standards puts people lives at risk.
Let the news come out what is exactly going to be lowered before the teeth mashing begins.
I do a agree many people regardless of gender are not physically capable of what an American Soldier or Marine needs to do in combat.
-
Let the news come out what is exactly going to be lowered before the teeth mashing begins.
I do a agree many people regardless of gender are not physically capable of what an American Soldier or Marine needs to do in combat.
Well, we've already had accounts of quotas being set at ranger school for their upcoming pilot program, and the establishment of a special Dept of the Army ombudsman for them.
The physical standards : only a matter of time.
-
And the Army has never lowered its standards for women. It never set them as high as men's to begin with.
Here's the passing repetitions/times for 17-21 year old Men and Women.
Men Women
Push-ups 42 19
Sit-ups 53 53
2 Run 15:54 18:54
Also, aren't push-ups for women done differently than for men? It was my understanding that women do push-ups with their knees on the ground, thereby reducing the proportion of total body mass the push-up has to push up.
-
Also, aren't push-ups for women done differently than for men? It was my understanding that women do push-ups with their knees on the ground, thereby reducing the proportion of total body mass the push-up has to push up.
Negative
Additionally, the 11b OSUT has some pretty hefty ruckmarches that I can't forsee almost any woman making it through.
"Since we don't march across long varied terrain anymore, those standards are outdated."
Just you watch
-
From my post in the other thread:
This is what irritates me about the argument. People say "well, SOME small percentage of women would be fine, so we should let them all try!"
And you know what, i'm on board with that, as long as the standards don't drop. I also have been a part of the US military for some time now, and I know, based on past experience, that this sort of social-engineering motivated stuff NEVER results in the same or higher standards, but lower ones.
When Fort sill's REGULAR basic training went gender integrated, standards went down. Drill sergeants were neutered, and we started getting UCMJ action for saying CUSS words. Drill sergeants were severely limited in the physical corrective training we could do. We were limited in how long we'd keep the privates out in the field. BCT went to *expletive deleted* there.
So, when people tell me in a condescending fashion that "other militaries have done this, and they're successful," I don't much give a *expletive deleted*. Because I know that those militaries are probably not led by social engineers with ulterior motives, and those countries aren't nearly as packed with self entitled blissninnies with no concept of what war requires. The percentage of females in the military who expect special accommodation and demand favorable treatment is sky high.
For every one SFC Camille Adams, a soldier I'd go into a firefight with any day of the goddamn week, there are 100 blithering little hooahchicks who think it's cool to wear camoflage, but start bitching and whining the moment things get tough. I've been out in the field with women who whine about the cold, about the heat, about the dirt... but they'll take all the puffing up they can get when they go overseas and spend 12 months on a FOB. Ask them to leave the wire, and a lot of em start singing a different tune. Some do OK. Some drop down from the gun turret and start crying in the back of the truck. Female fighter pilots, i think, are a different story, because the QUALITY of female officers is orders of magnitude higher than the quality of female enlisted troops.
-
Dont forget the women who get pregnant to avoid a deployment and leave their unit in a lurch...
-
Dont forget the women who get pregnant to avoid a deployment and leave their unit in a lurch...
That would never happen, why do you hate women?!?!?!
I mean, it would never happen again...
-
The way I see it is that this government goes full tilt at everything. We will see units with large groups of women. The next time we are in a conflict and see something along the lines of a Tet offensive and Heaven forbid we loose because they can't pull a man's weight. All this will change.
-
Let the news come out what is exactly going to be lowered before the teeth mashing begins.
I do a agree many people regardless of gender are not physically capable of what an American Soldier or Marine needs to do in combat.
The standards will be what the standards are for women. They already did it when they opened up Airborne and Air Assault schools for women back in the 70's. Most women couldn't meet the male standards then so they simply said they had to meet the female standards. Now falling out of an airplane or sliding down a rope doesn't require that much that much physical strength, and most of the physical part is simply to weed out the sick, lame and lazy (and give the cadre something to screw the troops with). Again, if your job is to pass out supplies or pound keys on a computer, being able to fall out of an airplane ain't that hard.
Actual combat is much more physically demanding, changing track and recovering a stuck vehicle while under fire is not for the weak or someone that can't carry the tow cables. Constantly loading 45lb shells into the main gun of a Abrams requires both strength and stamina. Humping 155 rounds and the cheese charges requires strength and stamina.
Now, you've had several people who have all served and have extensive experience telling you that this is a "Bad Thingtm", yet you say we don't know what we're talking about. ;/
-
Dont forget the women who get pregnant to avoid a deployment and leave their unit in a lurch...
Oh don't EVEN get me started on that!!!
The TR got female aircrew in '95 (leading to Captain's Masts EVERY WEEK for fraternization, and yes I agree that it takes two to tango; it was also widely known that there were a few of the more attractive female aircrew who... ended the Med cruise that summer with substantially more money than they came on board with, but I have no way to verify that personally). Ship's company female crew started showing up in a big block in early fall '96, with a Med deployment scheduled starting in November of that year. My division, Reactor Controls, had 4 women assigned pre-deployment. One decided she was claustrophobic upon setting foot on the ship - I never even laid eyes on her, she was off the ship after 3 days of medical watch. The last of our female RC-Divvers declared her pregnancy the weekend before we deployed. Naturally, we did not receive any extra manning to compensate for being down 4 people. :mad:
I forget how many women were assigned to the 5 divisions in Reactor Department, but IIRC only 4 made the Med deployment - 3 M-Divvers and 1 RM-Div (Mechanics and Reactor Mechanics), I think it was. Those who deployed had a no-nonsense attitude and a good work ethic, from my fairly-limited interactions with them and from talking with my friends who DID work with them. They were also a small percentage of the females assigned to the department prior to the deployment, under 10%, I believe.
-
have 2 grand daughters who are extremely fit. amazon class both marines and it was their opinion that even they would be a liability in combat. this was perhaps colored by the fact their brother was also a marine and to quote one of the girls." i don't want him dead cause someone can't carry the load".
-
Virtually every infantryman, Special Operations, etc guy I have ever met, especially the ones who have seen combat, are steadfastly against women in combat arms.
Given their background, I think they know what they are talking about and have real reasoning as to why they are of auch opinion, and its not a dislike of women...
-
The way I see it is that this government goes full tilt at everything. We will see units with large groups of women.
Rush Limbaugh predicted that about 20 years ago. ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahPwlOOKedg
-
Here's the passing repetitions/times for 17-21 year old Men and Women.
Men Women
Push-ups 42 19
Sit-ups 53 53
2 Run 15:54 18:54
Really??? That's it?
ohmuhgawd.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/army/l/blfitfem17to21.htm
I would easily meet the 40 year old standards, and I'm not exactly an olympic athlete. :P
There are women that are older (and much younger) than me that I work out with in the gym that would easily crush the the 17-21 year old standards- for men. That being said, the women's standards are way too easy.
-
There is a definitely a disrespect for womanhood among liberals who try to pretend women are men and men are women; of that I have no doubt. But another aspect of this at this point in time has to do, I think, with something as simple as staffing. The last thing that Bush or Obama want(ed) is to have to institute a draft to fight these wars. When the children of the rich and famous, Congress, other powerful politicians, and Hollywood have to go fight then things would turn ugly. There has been a strong fight through all of this to keep the military all-volunteer. Women fighting strengthens the volunteer nature of our military.
-
I find a staffing argument hard to swallow when the military is vastly over strength and looking to cut more
It's pure leftist social engineering
-
I find a staffing argument hard to swallow when the military is vastly over strength and looking to cut more
It's pure leftist social engineering
So all those who have their enlistments extended against their will is because they just like being overstaffed? Soldiers going on their 7th combat tour is because they're overstaffed? There are fields in the military that are overstrength. Infantry is not one of them.
-
So all those who have their enlistments extended against their will is because they just like being overstaffed? Soldiers going on their 7th combat tour is because they're overstaffed? There are fields in the military that are overstrength. Infantry is not one of them.
Yes, it is
I was one of the IRR recalls
Stop losses and IRR recalls have not happened in quite some time
The infantry is overstrength in fact. That's why promotion requirements are going up in all MOSs, DUIs and hot piss tests are bypassing ASAP straight to discharge, the Army is cutting entire BRIGADES
Soldiers are on their seventh tour because they have reenlisted
But bars to reenlistment are being handed out like candy now
-
As Fitz said we are currently over strength, and making drastic cuts. My little corner of the DOD (USAR Watercraft) is short some senior NCO rates, but vastly overstrength on e5 and down.And we can't get the lower enlisted promoted because they won't go to the required schools. We are actively kicking out soldiers who are unwilling or unable to meet the UASR's new strategic role. This is happening.
On women in Combat: Several of us that are in the Army called this when the decision was made. Heck never mind combat units, most female soldiers can't manage to do their jobs on my LCU's. It's harsh but I have to, regularly, rearrange battle rosters and crew assignments because of females not being physically able to do one or more of the tasks. It works fine as long as the whole crew is alive and whole, but when we start simulating casualties the drills go to hell because the females can't pick up the slack. So what happens is the females end up being the simulated casualty and we hope no one ever gets hurt in real life.
These are the realities of women in the Army in a background role. Combat is worse. More, harder tasks and less room for error in not being able to do your buddies job.
It's, at this point, unstoppable. But including females in more roles WILL lower the US armed Forces combat effectiveness, and people will die because of it.
-
Whats interesting is that you guys are talking about the most demanding combat jobs. This subject came up at our family reunion/dad's birthday party (70) over the weekend. The examples we talked about were regular jobs.
One army mechanic was talking about how the female truck drivers couldn't change a flat tire, the tires were too heavy. Despite being a responsibility of the driver when away from base, his mechanic crew was forced to make support trips. When he tried to give the same treatment to the male drivers, he got called to task for it.
My marine nephew was talking about how a radio operator got a commendation in Afghan. Except she didn't have the strength to carry the radio on patrol, the men of her unit were carrying it for her. So he's not sure how she operated the radio and got awarded the medal, being all that someone else was carrying and operating the radio for her.
Relevant...
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/07/10/feminist-territory-marking/ (http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/07/10/feminist-territory-marking/)
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/01/26/the-long-march-of-envy/ (http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/01/26/the-long-march-of-envy/)
-
Hell, just this past AT I had a female soldier (and a good soldier, in general) fall out of a very slow, very short roadmarch and end up on profile for several days. With few exceptions, the biology is just not supportive of the kind of things that are required of an infantry soldier
"But Fitz! We don't march 40 clicks to an objective anymore! We leave from the Fob on HMMWVs and escort convoys of licky-chewies"
This is why the idea is gaining traction. So many years of a counterinsurgency where we're not advancing and holding territory.
First WAR war we get into , the differing requirements will make themselves quickly apparent.
She gets a 284/300 on the APFT. So, according to the army, she's a PT stud.
-
One army mechanic was talking about how the female truck drivers couldn't change a flat tire, the tires were too heavy. Despite being a responsibility of the driver when away from base, his mechanic crew was forced to make support trips. When he tried to give the same treatment to the male drivers, he got called to task for it.
My marine nephew was talking about how a radio operator got a commendation in Afghan. Except she didn't have the strength to carry the radio on patrol, the men of her unit were carrying it for her. So he's not sure how she operated the radio and got awarded the medal, being all that someone else was carrying and operating the radio for her.
Colleague at work spent some time in the Navy on a submarined. (Missile sub - a "boomer").
He told me that after a patrol, the crew was usually released for leave before their next training cycle. HOWEVER, once the shore crew's ranks were filled out with WOMEN, the guys coming off patrol had their leave delayed or shortened - the shore women didn't have the strength to manhandle the equipment and supplies, so the men returning from patrol had to do it, with predictable effects on morale. The careerists in the officer cadre took the attitude that "the floggings will continue until morale improves" which of course only made things worse.
This was several decades ago.
-
Whats interesting is that you guys are talking about the most demanding combat jobs. This subject came up at our family reunion/dad's birthday party (70) over the weekend. The examples we talked about were regular jobs.
I'm not. My current MOS is the definition of POG. Combat Service Support. And I am directed by command to work around any females that "try hard and are motivated" but still fail. It'll just be worse with less room for work-arounds in combat.
-
I'm not. My current MOS is the definition of POG. Combat Service Support. And I am directed by command to work around any females that "try hard and are motivated" but still fail. It'll just be worse with less room for work-arounds in combat.
The ones who suck at their job, but are "motivated" are revered. Sometimes even promoted based on said motivation.
Seems the rule in the military is that if you suck, but scream HOOAH while sucking, you're a good soldier.
-
The ones who suck at their job, but are "motivated" are revered. Sometimes even promoted based on said motivation.
Seems the rule in the military is that if you suck, but scream HOOAH while sucking, you're a good soldier.
The power of GOOD INTENTIONSâ„¢!! This is the essence of liberalism, distilled. Who cares about results!? You just need to mean well.
And it's infected the military... We're lost. Not immediately, as it takes time to destroy any type of capital (as Europe has proved for the past 100 years).
-
The ones who suck at their job, but are "motivated" are revered. Sometimes even promoted based on said motivation.
Seems the rule in the military is that if you suck, but scream HOOAH while sucking, you're a good soldier.
QFT
True story:
My first EO complaint when I got out of the infantry and joined the reserves. I was made unit armorer/Weapons instructor/gun dude because I knew how to use a M2 headspace gauge without consulting a TM. OK cool I can do this while I reclass. I asked for the Master Weapons List and weapons cards so I can validate everyone's quals. (an LCU-2000 has two M2's on board) One of the M2 gunners on the roster was a female E5 that wasn't qualified on an M2. Not expired qual mind you, had never fired the weapon. OK, no prob. I train soldiers all the time and we aren't getting attacked in Tampa. I wait three months until we have a range scheduled, take her to the M2 range, giver her (and several others) PMI, set up a gun and proceed to start making noise. Until she gets up there.
Her to me: "SGT I need you to go ahead and load the gun for me."
Me to her: "Belt's right there, have at it."
Belt goes into feed pawls, then she stands up and looks at me.
Her: "OK SGT there you go"
Me:"......You gonna shoot?"
Her: (annoyed) "As soon as you charge the gun"
Me: "................Say what?"
Her: (still annoyed) " I cant pull that thing back. This happened last time I was at the range. You have to load it for me, then I'll shoot"
Me: (Last time? There was no record of a last time?) "Look fire the weapon or don't. I'm not loading it for you."
Pissed now, she stomps off. Whatever, more ammo for me.
When we get back to the unit I took her off the crew served and put her on a QRF team with an M16. *expletive deleted*it hits the Fan. I, her, My Plt SGT, My 1SG and my CO are at Bn the next month to answer for the it. She's been on an M2 for years and wants the bullet on her NCOER (yes, apparantly "runs big gun" is a bullet) I only took her off because I don't like girls. I explain that she failed to qual with the weapon. She said I failed to teach her. I say she told me she can't operate the gun. She said she doesn't have to load it to shoot it. I quit at "Sir, she can not, by her own admission phyiscally, operate the weapon to standard and is not qualified on it. She can't be assigned the weapon." I was ordered to put her back on the roster as the gunner, and train her A gunner to load and ready the weapon and clear any malfs she might have. I also had to attend extra training from the Bn EOR on not discriminating against female soldiers.
There will be quota's to meet and Cdr's will bend and break the rules to make sure whatever diversity metric they report up is met regardless of mission impact.
I saw weapons quals faked in 2003 on units being sent to Iraq because the unit needed to deploy and "they can't shoot" wasn't a valid reason to not deploy them. To WAR.
-
QFT
True story:
My first EO complaint when I got out of the infantry and joined the reserves. I was made unit armorer/Weapons instructor/gun dude because I knew how to use a M2 headspace gauge without consulting a TM. OK cool I can do this while I reclass. I asked for the Master Weapons List and weapons cards so I can validate everyone's quals. (an LCU-2000 has two M2's on board) One of the M2 gunners on the roster was a female E5 that wasn't qualified on an M2. Not expired qual mind you, had never fired the weapon. OK, no prob. I train soldiers all the time and we aren't getting attacked in Tampa. I wait three months until we have a range scheduled, take her to the M2 range, giver her (and several others) PMI, set up a gun and proceed to start making noise. Until she gets up there.
Her to me: "SGT I need you to go ahead and load the gun for me."
Me to her: "Belt's right there, have at it."
Belt goes into feed pawls, then she stands up and looks at me.
Her: "OK SGT there you go"
Me:"......You gonna shoot?"
Her: (annoyed) "As soon as you charge the gun"
Me: "................Say what?"
Her: (still annoyed) " I cant pull that thing back. This happened last time I was at the range. You have to load it for me, then I'll shoot"
Me: (Last time? There was no record of a last time?) "Look fire the weapon or don't. I'm not loading it for you."
Pissed now, she stomps off. Whatever, more ammo for me.
When we get back to the unit I took her off the crew served and put her on a QRF team with an M16. *expletive deleted* hits the Fan. I, her, My Plt SGT, My 1SG and my CO are at Bn the next month to answer for the it. She's been on an M2 for years and wants the bullet on her NCOER (yes, apparantly "runs big gun" is a bullet) I only took her off because I don't like girls. I explain that she failed to qual with the weapon. She said I failed to teach her. I say she told me she can't operate the gun. She said she doesn't have to load it to shoot it. I quit at "Sir, she can not, by her own admission phyiscally, operate the weapon to standard and is not qualified on it. She can't be assigned the weapon." I was ordered to put her back on the roster as the gunner, and train her A gunner to load and ready the weapon and clear any malfs she might have. I also had to attend extra training from the Bn EOR on not discriminating against female soldiers.
There will be quota's to meet and Cdr's will bend and break the rules to make sure whatever diversity metric they report up is met regardless of mission impact.
I saw weapons quals faked in 2003 on units being sent to Iraq because the unit needed to deploy and "they can't shoot" wasn't a valid reason to not deploy them. To WAR.
You're just lying. That would NEVER happen, especially in a military.
Besides, other countries have women in their military and they have no problems whatsoever!
(And just in case that isn't clear, that's sarcasm.)
-
I got one at WLC (the new PLDC)
I was student platoon sergeant the entire time just about. Had one E-5 (and I say e-5 because she was not a *expletive deleted*ing NCO) from the active side attending our course. This was when the active school was longer than the reserve school and as a result some of the active units were buying up reserve slots.
This "soldier" was the absolute worst. Not only was she bad at just about every general soldier/NCO task you could imagine, but she had attitude.
"I'm not tryna get lost in the woods. What's your points"
me: "you do realize that everyone's land nav course is different, right?"
"I'on even know what dat means"
When you'd correct her on something, you'd get resistance. Sometimes cussed out too. I took it, because dammit I didn't believe in cussing out females. My mistake.
Fast forward to the "field problem" (again, in quotes because it's hilarious). After getting chewed out because I said "Get that *expletive deleted*ing gun talking" to a saw gunner who was not firing while we were ambushing the opfor, I set em down for chow.
"I dont have any MREs."
me: "I gave everyone their MREs for the whole 2 days last night. Where did yours go"
Her:" I ate them"
Fitz explode mode. I *expletive deleted*ing lost it. Told her right there that she was a worthless piece of *expletive deleted*it, didn't know how to follow, didn't have a single leadership bone in her body, and that the only reason she was here is because someone wanted to promote her to look inclusive."
She started cussing me out, telling me all about how she was gonna have so-and-so beat my ass.
I threw my MREs at her, told her to stuff them in her rucksack instead of her fat *expletive deleted*ing face, and kept on with the day.
Fast forward again. Suddenly i'm in an office with a CSM and this chick, who now is no longer threatening me, but crying about how scared she was when SGT Fitzer screamed at her, how she felt threatened, how she was afraid I was going to assault her.
CSM: SGT Fitzer, why did you tell her she was a *looks at notes* 'Worthless piece of *expletive deleted*it'"
Me: Well, Sarn't Major, because she's a worthless piece of *expletive deleted*it.
I ended up getting "marginally achieved course standards" there, and had some manditory EO training when I returned to the unit.
-
Not a girl story, but funny and sad anyway related to an M2. My platoon was operating a grenade range, I was basically sitting on my butt waiting for the other platoons to finish. Part of the deal was they wanted each squad's track to follow them through the range. Except, in one of the squads needed to get everybody qualified.. nobody left to drive the track. I volunteered to run the track for them for something to do. I started out in that platoon and knew everybody so they let me do it. My "TC" was one guy in that squad on profile for a broken right arm and a couple of other minor injuries.
At the end, we had our AVLB bridges across a ditch to get to the finish line. The AVLB crew had borrowed a SAW and some blanks... no miles gear or anything, just making noise at us as we crossed. I yelled at the TC to fire back with the M2.. he got one round off and stopped. then couldn't charge it again. Because I wanted to make noise back at them I put the track in park, booted him out of the way and charged the weapon for him. He got one round off. F it.. driving on.
I ask that squad leader what was up with their M2 at the end.. if they had head spaced it properly. His answer: "Oh, that M2 has been screwed up for at least 2 years... it is impossible to get it head spaced." For 2 years??? How do you do ranges and qualify the gunners??? Why are you not raising holy hell with the armorer for repair or replacement (or probably training in reality)? No answer...
-
I got one at WLC (the new PLDC)
I was student platoon sergeant the entire time just about. Had one E-5 (and I say e-5 because she was not a *expletive deleted* NCO) from the active side attending our course. This was when the active school was longer than the reserve school and as a result some of the active units were buying up reserve slots.
This "soldier" was the absolute worst. Not only was she bad at just about every general soldier/NCO task you could imagine, but she had attitude.
"I'm not tryna get lost in the woods. What's your points"
me: "you do realize that everyone's land nav course is different, right?"
"I'on even know what dat means"
When you'd correct her on something, you'd get resistance. Sometimes cussed out too. I took it, because dammit I didn't believe in cussing out females. My mistake.
Fast forward to the "field problem" (again, in quotes because it's hilarious). After getting chewed out because I said "Get that *expletive deleted* gun talking" to a saw gunner who was not firing while we were ambushing the opfor, I set em down for chow.
"I dont have any MREs."
me: "I gave everyone their MREs for the whole 2 days last night. Where did yours go"
Her:" I ate them"
Fitz explode mode. I *expletive deleted* lost it. Told her right there that she was a worthless piece of *expletive deleted*, didn't know how to follow, didn't have a single leadership bone in her body, and that the only reason she was here is because someone wanted to promote her to look inclusive."
She started cussing me out, telling me all about how she was gonna have so-and-so beat my ass.
I threw my MREs at her, told her to stuff them in her rucksack instead of her fat *expletive deleted* face, and kept on with the day.
Fast forward again. Suddenly i'm in an office with a CSM and this chick, who now is no longer threatening me, but crying about how scared she was when SGT Fitzer screamed at her, how she felt threatened, how she was afraid I was going to assault her.
CSM: SGT Fitzer, why did you tell her she was a *looks at notes* 'Worthless piece of *expletive deleted*'"
Me: Well, Sarn't Major, because she's a worthless piece of *expletive deleted*.
I ended up getting "marginally achieved course standards" there, and had some manditory EO training when I returned to the unit.
damn that brought tears to my eyes!
done similar in civilian world. was definitely worth it. and it did serve to encourage the others
damn phone
-
I find a staffing argument hard to swallow when the military is vastly over strength and looking to cut more
It's pure leftist social engineering
When National Guard units are routinely called up and deployed to foreign stations, for long times and often multiple times with little stateside time in between deployments, the military is not "vastly over strength" -- it is under strength. The National Guard is not supposed to be regular army, or even army reserve -- the National Guard is supposed to be federalized only in times of actual war or real national emergency.
The military is also not vastly over strength when stop loss is invoked to prevent people who have fulfilled their contracts from departing and getting on with their lives.
-
One day, I fear, we are all going to suffer the consequences of this horribly misguided policy. People, good, brave people, are going to die because of our misguided commitment to this insanity. I wish it were not so.
-
I should have added that I personally know several younger guys, all former military, who went from active duty to Army Reserve or National Guard, and who then bailed just as soon as they could. The reason is that they have jobs, and families, and lives. After seeing how the Reserves and the NG are being (ab)used, they made a completely rational decision that ... it ain't worth it.
So there's a double down side to the current policies. Not only is the regular military under strength and not capable of fulfilling its mission, the fact that we are routinely calling up the NG to do what should be done by the active duty troops is preventing otherwise willing and very capable people from joining the NG.
It's a classic lose-lose situation.
-
When National Guard units are routinely called up and deployed to foreign stations, for long times and often multiple times with little stateside time in between deployments, the military is not "vastly over strength" -- it is under strength. The National Guard is not supposed to be regular army, or even army reserve -- the National Guard is supposed to be federalized only in times of actual war or real national emergency.
The military is also not vastly over strength when stop loss is invoked to prevent people who have fulfilled their contracts from departing and getting on with their lives.
You should read my next post regarding irr callups and stop loss
I agree about the role of the NG and reserves
-
When National Guard units are routinely called up and deployed to foreign stations, for long times and often multiple times with little stateside time in between deployments, the military is not "vastly over strength" -- it is under strength. The National Guard is not supposed to be regular army, or even army reserve -- the National Guard is supposed to be federalized only in times of actual war or real national emergency.
The military is also not vastly over strength when stop loss is invoked to prevent people who have fulfilled their contracts from departing and getting on with their lives.
Whether you like it or not, or agree with it or not, the Reserves and National Guard have been made a Strategic Force. Our war plans call for deploying a Reserve/NG unit every 4-5 years. It's been that way since about 2005, and DOD was up front about the change. If a reservist/guardsman doesn't know that by now they're not paying attention. Does that make the USAR/NG a less attractive option to some soldiers? Sure. and more attractive to others. But it's the fact of life in the Reserves for the foreseeable future. And not because we're "understrength", because our leadership made a considered decision to change our mission.
You best believe I'm not super excited about it, but I'm honest enough to admit the Army told me about the change and I've had plenty of time to get out if I didn't want to be in the Army.
We haven't used Stop-loss for years.
I'm sorry that it interferes with your world view, but it's not a secret. The military has been publishing for literally years now that we are overstrength and are starting a downsizing. We ARE above the strength, Active,Reserve and NG, that Congress has set for our forces. That's the definition overstrength. If you want a .mil that has more trigger pullers or can do more missions take it up with your congress critter. 'Till then we (.mil) are going to comply with the directives handed down from our elected leadership.
But do me a favor? Leave off the "understrength, there's too many deployments" crap. We are fulfilling EXACTLY the mission and plan that Americans were willing to pay for. We are also kicking people out of ALL branches of service to bring us DOWN to our dictated strength.
-
I have concern that we don't lump our good women into the crap pile in our opposition to this latest move. I think that standards should be based on specific community, not service-wide. No clue really why ASVAB, performance and other standards are absolute for many billets but we'll lower PT numbers. I hope we get some good women that perform superbly. I expect no decrease in the shitbirds of all gender and ethnicity.
-
I'm not against women in the military or in combat.
But, if you want to do the job then you have meet X standards. NOT up have to meet X Standard for Men and lesser Y standard for Women.
If you want to treated equal, then be equal and not complain that it's "Too hard, too far, too wide, too deep" and I'm special so I should have special (lower) standards to meet.
Combat doesn't give a *expletive deleted*it. The standards in combat are the same for everyone, and those who are not up to standard come home in body bags.