Dguidry stated "I think Mudweiser and RangerPP are saying that women don't shit well in the mountains and the woods. I personally wouldn't know what it's like not to take a shower for more than three or four days (duck hunting season). Are these "female" issues a real lag on combat effectiveness? Educate me."


For starters, I will tell you that overall, Ranger School is not so physical that it would be impossible for a female to pass. I found it to be more of a mental gut check. There was no one event in Ranger school that every came close to comparing to the physical crushers I did in the actual Ranger Regiment (the school vs the unit is very different). In the unit, we did things like a 26 mile road march with full combat gear , and that was after a week in the field. the thing with Ranger school is that it compounds over time. When you factor in the statistics, only about half of men pass. With well under a quarter of females even passing the pre-ranger test, is it worth the cost to send them, when there is no real need for ranger qualified females? It is a school for combat units.

By the time I got to Florida Phase (I went to Ranger school in the 1980s) I was down to 135 pounds. The food and sleep deprivation wears you down. Little cuts on your hands get where they will not heal, things like bug bites and poison ivy begin to get infected (thus the puss and ooze). In Florida, we went 12 days in the woods with no shower. In the Army, you generally want to get females back to a shower about every 72 hours. the lack of hygiene is a little tougher on females, and I think I can leave it there and not get graphic. Factor in that she could be going through her cycle during that 12 days in the woods makes things a bit more difficult.

In Ranger School, there was no latrine to use. You do your planning and prep in a patrol base (just a triangle shaped defensive perimeter in the woods). You dig a little slit trench in the middle to crap in. There is no privacy. When you are not in the patrol base planning the next mission, you have that ruck sack on your back, humping through the bush all night, on the way to your next raid, recon, or ambush. it is a continues cycle for weeks, where you do mission after mission in some of the nastier terrain east of the Mississippi. It is not just the continuous missions where you may go days with only an hour or two of sleep, and one MRE (meal) per day, you get selected to be squad leader, platoon sergeant, or platoon leader, and you get graded on your performance. Fail to pass, and you fail that phase. At the end of the phase, you also do peer reports and grade your fellow ranger student, where folks who get peered at the bottom get the boot, or recycled.


Hope that clears it up a bit

Dguidry, you are educated already. You know everything and I won't try to change your mind. If you want to be educated, the look up the Ranger creed. Recite it daily, and live your life to the Ranger creed. To be straight and to the point. If you've never lived the life of a Ranger, then you just won't get it.

RANGER CREED

Recognizing that I volunteered as a ranger, fully knowing the hazards of my chosen profession, I will always endeavor to uphold the prestige, honor, and high esprit de corps of my ranger regiment.

Acknowledging the fact that a ranger is a more elite soldier, who arrives at the cutting edge of battle by land, sea, or air, I accept the fact that as a ranger, my country expects me to move further, faster, and fight harder than any other soldier.

Never shall I fail my comrades. I will always keep myself mentally alert, physically strong, and morally straight, and I will shoulder more than my share of the task, whatever it may be, one hundred percent and then some.

Gallantly will I show the world that I am a specially selected and well trained soldier. My courtesy to superior officers, neatness of dress, and care of equipment shall set the example for others to follow.

Energetically will I meet the enemies of my country. I shall defeat them on the field of battle for I am better trained and will fight with all my might. Surrender is not a ranger word. I will never leave a fallen comrade to fall into the hands of the enemy and under no circumstances will I ever embarrass my country.

Readily will I display the intestinal fortitude required to fight on to the ranger objective and complete the mission, though I be the lone survivor.

RANGERS LEAD THE WAY!

When the Chief of Staff of the Army GEN Creighton Abrams ordered the formation of the Ranger Battalions in 1974, he directed that they would be the elite, setting the standards for the Army. Maintaining a code of ethics, a Ranger philosophy to live by, the Ranger Creed written by CSM Neal R. Gentry would encompass this philosophy and would be the hallmark of the spirit, discipline, and duty of all Rangers in peace and war. CSM Gentry was handpicked to serve as the first CSM for the 1st Ranger Battalion. Still today, the Ranger Creed is a way of life; a guide for how Rangers conduct themselves. It is the source that binds through loyalty the individual to his Ranger buddies and to his unit.

Thanks for the information. Ya'll filled in the details on what I knew was a rigorous process. I understand your reluctance to accommodate women in the process. But in a major conflict like US vs China or The Russian Federation, would it not be advantageous to have superior numbers by supplementing our regular and elite forces with all the women we can muster? Instead of a 1 million man military force have a 2 million man/women military force. I think shear mass would overcome any small disparity in physicality. I'm sure this is studied in military colleges. As we move forward with technology the difference between men and women's effectiveness in combat diminishes.

A major conflict with China or Russian Federation would include strategic nuclear missiles anyway so none of this will matter (my Cold War psychi kicking in here).

Anyway, keep on kicking asses.

I don't think anyone advocating no women in the military. But I think that we have proven time and again that quality over quantity truly does matter in any conflict. What we are talking about is women in the Infantry and special forces. If required to fight another war of that size and it comes to that, we will not have a shortage of men to mobilize and fill the ranks of the infantry. It requires a longer time to develop those capable of serving in SF etc.

With the current administration, we'd never fight against China or Russia. Only wars against Christians, conservatives and heterosexuals.

Just saw a report on TV called Ashley's war about a female special forces soldier killed along with 2 rangers but I didnt catch the theater. Described was how essential all special forces women were to operations, especially when it came to dealing with female civilians. I did notice they only interviewed female soldiers. By their accounts she was a tough soldier. Apparently, not too many females are inserted in special forces operations. She was one of only a few. She was killed by an IED.

".....called Ashley's war about a female special forces soldier"


There is no such thing. There is not one female in our Army that has gone through the Special Forces Selection, and completed the Special Forces course (Q course).

She was a solider that worked with a special forces unit. There is a huge difference. If I am a dentist, and go with a special forces A-team to a remote village to do dental work on villagers, that would not make me a Special Forces soldier.

"1st Lt. Ashley White, who would become the first Cultural Support Team member killed in action and the first CST remembered on the Army Special Operations Memorial Wall of Honor alongside the Army Rangers with whom she served."

I don't know if she went through special ops or ranger training but from what I heard said about her by her peers, she was one tough soldier. They went through some kind of special training that involved heavy backpacks, endurance and mental fortitude testing under stress that sounded similar to what Rangers do. She was not a Ranger or Special Forces but was inserted to support them and obviously a brave soldier exposed to the same dangers.

I have gone into the rabbit hole of special forces and ranger internet information. While informative, I have neglected my work and blame RangerPP and MudSchlitz for this.

CLEAR YOUR BACKBLAST AREA FIRST!!!!

Perhaps female rangers is not so bad, considering men are being ordered to dress in drag.

From this article, it appears marching in red high heels was not an option.

I am getting old, and my memory is not always sharp, but I never remember wearing high heels back when Reagan was president. I do not believe I am going to start now.

here is the link - http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ar-high-h/

We agree, this went a bit too far.

DoD is desperate to reduce the numbers of sexual assaults, has been for some time. They need to be seen in the public’s eye as being proactive in preventing sexual assaults and not reacting to sexual assaults, hence unfortunately, you’re going to see more “events” such as this as Commanders are pressured for results.

As UCMJ still carries a death sentence, it did last time I researched, I think by hanging for a rape conviction they need to convict and sentence a few guys to hang. Now they don’t really need to hang them or do they? But it would send a stronger message while maintaining military decorum.

Now ask the MP, CID or SJA folks on here how hard it is to get a conviction or even get enough evidence for an arrest or charges. Mix this with a propensity for female Soldiers to file false accusations, especially after dysfunctional relationships go south – making it only harder for investigators to do their jobs.

More fuel for your case perhaps, but it is what it is.

My crusty CSM is about to have a heart attack!! I just showed him that picture. He just had a WTF moment!

I can say as well, it is amazing what they hold against you!

If they are going to put women into combat units, why not make them all female units with their own standards. Then if a woman dies because her battle buddies cannot physically pull those that go down, it is on the women. Not only that, men will not be affected by seeing women in trouble or blown to bits on the battle field. Build whole divisions around women if they want. But let them take on the whole thing without men being around.

Not sure if that would work, but I think keeping them segregated could be an answer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/chec ... oad-march/


Watch the video clip.

What a joke. The 12 mile march gets you to the fight. CPT Lipstick here has no fight left for the real fight. After throwing her weapon on the ground three times, it most likely has no fight left either.

The sick thing is the way people make her out as some sort of hero. If she were a dude, he would get his ass thrown on the fall out truck, and be doing the duffle bag drag out of the school.


Those on here that have served in military combat units know that a 12 mile march is but walk in the park when you are trained up. I have been in units where squads would race, and run the majority of a 12 miler under a 12 min per mile pace.

I am betting the North Koreans, Russians, and Iranians are having a good laugh.

I would front an argument in here but the CAF fitness requirements are embarrassingly easy..... lol

B. MacDonald

It doesn't work.
It has never worked.
It is not going to work now.
It is not going to work in the future.
Women don't belong in combat.
Being fashionable, politically correct, vogue, chic, and so on doesn't work in war.
Having never been to war I speak from no experience so anyone can call BS on me.

You may not speak from your own personal experience, but you still speak from a historical experience.

You are 100% correct

Mudweiser, what happened in the qualifier tests with the women?

I can tell you what happened with the qualifier tests.

they selected 138 women, and placed them on special duty orders at Fort Benning for one year, to prep them for Pre Ranger with the goal of putting 80 in the course.

No man ever gets that kind of preperation.

After all the money and time spent, the best they could get was 19, and in less than oneweek, they were down to 8.

Even if all eight graduate now, it still shows it to be a failure and waste of tax payer money

RangerP is like a nat; always buzzing around your head. You can swat all you want but he keeps buzzing. He can appear anywhere and anytime. Persistent MF and I don't say that about too many people. Consider it a compliment.

Having a baby has absolutely nothing to do with combat. Just quit. You aren't adding any valid argument with that.

Women go through some shit having children. Women can run marathons and more. Impressive. Cross fit women can be beasts. Elite women mma fighters can whip some ass.

Put the fastest women runners against the fastest men runners.
Best crossfit women against the best men.
The best women fighters against the best men.

Make up whatever comparison you want. Marksmanship is the only combat related task where the best women can effectively equal what the best men can accomplish.

Everything physical related shouldn't be compromised for EO. If they can meet the standards, and you don't have to make medical and hygienic concessions, then whatever. The moment you lower one standard, you've reduced combat effectiveness in that unit. Period. That's not an argument that can be won by the other side. Can you build a functional team that has women, yes. Can you do it for elite combat units without dropping standards? Can you for regular infantry without dropping standards, probably. But are you dealing with the same class of male soldier, without suffering psychological negatives of mixing genders in that kind of environment? Not in 14 weeks of training. The brainwashing isn't to that level. It isnt. Traditions of men taking care of women, being the "protector", don't change in 14 weeks. Instinct is just that.
The other military occupations have plenty of issues with the combined units and they accept women as equals in the job.

dguidry stated "Russ, it's pretty funny to me that if you were to insert African American in most every reference to women in your post you will have touched every argument for not permitting them in combat in WWII. Thing change and so it will be too with women in combat"


you are wrong again.


When one compares African American males to white males on physical attributes, there is no difference. Heck thy win marathons, and can do anything physical that a white male does in combat.


Also figure in that there were all black combat units that were highly decorated. There was an all black ranger unit that fought in the Korean war.

For blacks to serve in combat units, no standard had to be dropped.


There is no track record of highly decorated all women ground combat units in American history. Women can not compete equally as men on olympic or team sports events, nor can they on the battlefield.

The standard has to be dropped to allow women into combat units, and lower standards means less capable military.

Women kicking ass again

Newest fighter jet gets first female pilot
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/07/politics/ ... index.html

Article also reveals there was an all female group fighting in Afganistan. pilots, weapons and ground support all women.