Sensitivity Training for Marines

[Hotdogs]

Does the boat HAVE to be dragged 3-4mi? Does the insert HAVE to be by CRRC? Maybe we've always done it this way because muscling through it was easier than thinking about it.

So you're insinuating our infantry officers don't think or plan through this stuff. Nice.

Do you HAVE to hit TOTs?
Do you HAVE to maintain airspeed/altitude?
Do we HAVE to do every item on our checklists?

That mentality makes me sick in the stomach. Justifying every fucking little thing to appease some sense of entitlement to service.

 

[HueyCobra8151]

Does the boat HAVE to be dragged 3-4mi? Does the insert HAVE to be by CRRC? Maybe we've always done it this way because muscling through it was easier than thinking about it. Could you make a lighter boat?

The Sailors that worked the hardest and hustled the most when I was a Mini were the 4' 11" women. Despite their small size they routinely outperformed the men.

I'm not saying that women aren't hard workers or lack hustle. I'm saying that when you are 4'11" the rigors of combat arms are physically going to break you/make everyone around you carry extra weight.

The boat example isn't even a far fetched one. That is literally 1/3 of the grunts in an infantry Bn.

So, imagine we say screw it, the mission of sneaking in in the middle of the night on low radar cross section boats and destroying enemy whatever (usually ADA to start creating that foothold) and sneaking out before dawn is a stupid one. Let's get rid of it.

What do we replace those Marines with? Well, another 1/3 of an infantry Bn is helo company - so maybe we just double down on that or something (poof more helos [ok Ospreys: vertical lift, you happy?]). Usually we have to land to the offset, so you are looking at a 1km foot movement right off the bat coming off the bird. Figure 80-100 lbs pack, +Flak, water, ammunition, a few extra mortar or rocket rounds, maybe a can of 7.62, or a PRC-117, etc...you get the picture. Or maybe we just get rid of the offset and make every landing to the X, less than 300m from the objective. Progress.

So I guess we could put everyone in amtraks, so they don't have to carry a pack or anything - and then the 4'11" Marine can get a taller Marine to throw her pack up on the rails on the side. Progress I guess? (Except we got rid of boat company, so without anyone to sneak in and set the conditions, now the traks have to go in Tarawa style...which will facilitate drafting a lot more female Marines in short order).

I default to: What are we gaining and what are we losing? I don't see a lot of gaining to be honest.

 

[HueyCobra8151]

Oh yeah, for the high-boat carrying a CRRC 3-4 miles. If the waves are no-go on extract you need to be able to find a place where they are go, probably after things have gone kinetic and you are trying to get the hell outta dodge. So if you have to - you will REALLY have to.

 

[Pags]

I'm not a manpower guy and therefore have no real insight in to USMC recruitment goal attainment but is part of this effort to increase the pool of applicants? Are there shortages of people available so opening the grunts to women is one way to pull from a deeper pool?

Are physical attributes the only thing that grunts require for success? Are there other attributes that are useful? Would you rather have a woman who is more highly qualified in the other areas or a man whose only qualification is big muscles?

My point about "does it have to be done this way" is equally applicable to women in the combat arms as it is a new weapon system. The new system is not always a carbon copy of the old one, it may have better capabilities in some areas and reduced capabilities in others. TTPs will have to be changed to accommodate this new system. For instance, the MH-60S had less gas then did the 60F/H it replaced on CVs. This impacted the way that the helo squadrons and CVs had conducted SAR helo ops for at least a generation. The TTPs were modified for the new system, people whined about how great the old helo was but the mission was still accomplished. Is the USMC, a service whose motto way as well be "Semper Gumby" and who prides themselves on mission accomplishment, unable to figure out how to modify TTPs for the new system that is the female grunt?

 

[Pags]

So you're insinuating our infantry officers don't think or plan through this stuff. Nice.

Do you HAVE to hit TOTs?
Do you HAVE to maintain airspeed/altitude?
Do we HAVE to do every item on our checklists?

That mentality makes me sick in the stomach. Justifying every fucking little thing to appease some sense of entitlement to service.

Not in the least. I'm saying there might be other ways to accomplish those goals.

 

[DocT]

Pags, combat isn't hard because it hasn't been thought about hard enough to make it easy. The argument you made isn't a slippery slope, it's a cliff.

 

[Recovering LSO]

I'm saying there might be other ways to accomplish those goals.

They cynic in me tells me that what is being discussed here isn't about accomplishing goals, at least not as they pertain to operational mission accomplishment. There may be very different goals that are in play here though.

 

[HueyCobra8151]

Carrying heavy weights from point A to point B isn't a TTP, it's a way to get to the place where you can use your TTPs.

And if there is a manning issue we could start by not booting every motivator who gets a sleeve tattoo on boot leave...

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Carrying heavy weights from point A to point B isn't a TTP, it's a way to get to the place where you can use your TTPs.

And if there is a manning issue we could start by not booting every motivator who gets a sleeve tattoo on boot leave...

Exactly. Physical strength and endurance isn't just one attribute to screen for. If you don't have it then it doesn't matter what your other "skills" are.

Finding ways to do things "differently" because your people lack strength and endurance is a fancy way of saying you will do less and accept more risk.

 

[Flash]

...Are physical attributes the only thing that grunts require for success? Are there other attributes that are useful? Would you rather have a woman who is more highly qualified in the other areas or a man whose only qualification is big muscles?

My point about "does it have to be done this way" is equally applicable to women in the combat arms as it is a new weapon system...

Note, I am not a Marine, never been an infantryman or any type of grunt or have ever done anything remotely similar to what grunts do unless you count 3 weeks playing soldier with the Army. I am a big history buff though and that is replete with countless examples of grunts having to literally go the extra mile in order to accomplish a mission. There are countless examples but a pair of more recent ones come to mind:

- After landing on the west coast of East Falklands Island Royal Marines and paratroopers had to march approximately 56 miles across the island in 3 days with loads of 80 pounds or more. Why did they march? Because the cargo ship with most of the transport helicopters that were supposed to fly them across the island was sunk before it could offload all but a few helos.

- In the Battle of Mogadishu some soldiers had to march/run roughly a mile to an extraction point, after fighting a pitched battle for over 12 hours, since there weren't enough vehicles to carry everyone.

Even with the best planning and all resources we have Murphy is always going to intrude when the shooting starts, and it is then that all that training and preparation pay off and the mission still gets done. The leadership pushing hard for this won't have to worry about that day since they will likely be long gone, ensconced in a nice corporate or academic gig, but the grunts will and they will be the ones that pay for it.

 

[Pags]

So how do you solve the height problem if you have some short dudes? If the female candidates meet the physical requirements is there a problem?

I hear and understand the concerns this raises but Flash hit the bottom line: this is going to happen. No one will have the horsepower or desire to be able undo this. No amount of gnashing of teeth, wailing, or whining will change this. That effort is better spent trying to figure out how to make it work. Thinking about this will help to reduce the risk. Thinking about the difficulties of combat is why we have all our cool high tech capabilities that enable us to pop bad guys in a Stan with Hellfires launched via a button pushed at Creech. Thinking about combat is why we have things like the V-22 instead of wagons.

<snark>Maybe if the potential female grunts were VSTOL capable the Marines would be all in </snark>

 

[DocT]

I don't see anybody arguing that this isn't going to happen. Higher has dictated that it's going to happen. Fine. We will execute. However your statements implied a changing/lowering of the standards. That absolutely can't be allowed to happen under any circumstances.

 

[jmcquate]

I don't see anybody arguing that this isn't going to happen. Higher has dictated that it's going to happen. Fine. We will execute. However your statements implied a changing/lowering of the standards. That absolutely can't be allowed to happen under any circumstances.

Changing/lowering the standards will have to happen for "this" to happen. Biology is a bitch.

 

[Pags]

I don't see anybody arguing that this isn't going to happen. Higher has dictated that it's going to happen. Fine. We will execute. However your statements implied a changing/lowering of the standards. That absolutely can't be allowed to happen under any circumstances.

Upon reviewing my earlier post I can see how it sounds that way but that's not what I intended to say. I should have specified that the hypothetical females met the minimum requirements.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

So how do you solve the height problem if you have some short dudes? If the female candidates meet the physical requirements is there a problem?

I hear and understand the concerns this raises but Flash hit the bottom line: this is going to happen. No one will have the horsepower or desire to be able undo this. No amount of gnashing of teeth, wailing, or whining will change this. That effort is better spent trying to figure out how to make it work. Thinking about this will help to reduce the risk. Thinking about the difficulties of combat is why we have all our cool high tech capabilities that enable us to pop bad guys in a Stan with Hellfires launched via a button pushed at Creech. Thinking about combat is why we have things like the V-22 instead of wagons.

<snark>Maybe if the potential female grunts were VSTOL capable the Marines would be all in </snark>

First of all, it's a fucking stupid idea even if the standards aren't lowered. Appeasing the feelings of a vocal minority isn't worth the cost to the military dealing with the broken females that will wash out of the various training programs they aren't suited for.

However, we all know that the standards will be lowered. Judging by how this administration wiped their ass with the data the Marine Corps took the time to gather, I don't think anyone doubts that "fairness" is more important than combat readiness. Hell, why would females suddenly have to meet the same requirements in certain units but not service wide? Once it gets started, they will ensure that enough females make it.

Also, just because it's happening doesn't mean that it isn't fucking stupid. Calling a stupid idea fucking stupid isn't whining or gnashing of teeth. It's seeing reality. Pretending that it's a good idea and that we just need to think about how female perspectives will help us kill people is what yes-men are for.