Without a single source detailing anything you said.
Advertisement
by Falkenheim (Ancient) » Sun Apr 10, 2016 4:54 pm
by Doperland » Sun Apr 10, 2016 4:55 pm
USS Monitor wrote:I personally can't carry 80lb of equipment, but how should I know about these women they've recruited? I don't know them. I don't know how big they are or how much they can carry.
Yedmnrutika Gavr wrote:da dopeste fiend
by Islamic Emirate » Sun Apr 10, 2016 4:55 pm
USS Monitor wrote:Uxupox wrote:
An insert from here.
I'm an infantry man specifically an 11C in the US army. Currently I serve as an instructor in mortar related training and frankly my opinion is very low of this maneuver made by high command. I think this is just a disaster waiting to happen because up to this day they still haven't said which standards are females going to adhere to (Which in my opinion should the be normalized ones to graduate) but knowing TRADOC and their bullshit of magnanimous proportions they are gonna fuck it up as always. While I do know that there are woman who exist who can pass the physical requirements to do the job they are far and few in between which makes it economically un viable for the army as they are investing in a soldier and they expect a return investment from that.
Frankly I don't see the normal female to be able to carry this type of equipment through the day. Which could be upwards of 15 miles or 20 miles depending on when their next objective is. The total weight of his equipment should be upwards to around 80 to 90 lbs. Do you expect somebody who is around 140lb to carry 90lbs of equipment for hours on end?
Care to share your thoughts?
I personally can't carry 80lb of equipment, but how should I know about these women they've recruited? I don't know them. I don't know how big they are or how much they can carry.
by Godular » Sun Apr 10, 2016 4:56 pm
by Islamic Emirate » Sun Apr 10, 2016 4:56 pm
by Luminesa » Sun Apr 10, 2016 4:57 pm
Kautharr wrote:Woman shouldn't be able to serve anyway. If they die overseas it leaves a child without a mother, and a child will not grow to their full potential without a mother.
by Soldati Senza Confini » Sun Apr 10, 2016 4:57 pm
Falkenheim wrote:Soldati senza confini wrote:
Good thing I never said that then, didn't I?
Well you definitely implied it. If both Byzantium and the Third Reich both fell not because of their powerful enemies, but because of some random internal thing (which wasn't even major in the case of the Reich), then that's definitely the message you're sending.
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by Uxupox » Sun Apr 10, 2016 4:57 pm
Islamic Emirate wrote:USS Monitor wrote:
I personally can't carry 80lb of equipment, but how should I know about these women they've recruited? I don't know them. I don't know how big they are or how much they can carry.
Truthfully, you rarely have to carry that much. The only time I remember that was like Honor Hill and some FTXs. Usually in OSUT though its like 45lbs so its not that bad. If you can ruck a four miles carrying 45lbs in one hour, you're fine to be an 11B, more or less.
by The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp » Sun Apr 10, 2016 4:58 pm
by Islamic Emirate » Sun Apr 10, 2016 4:59 pm
Uxupox wrote:Islamic Emirate wrote:
Truthfully, you rarely have to carry that much. The only time I remember that was like Honor Hill and some FTXs. Usually in OSUT though its like 45lbs so its not that bad. If you can ruck a four miles carrying 45lbs in one hour, you're fine to be an 11B, more or less.
I had to march everywhere when I was in sand hill. Fucking everywhere. Including those goddamn weapon qual ranges. Fuck that.
by Falkenheim (Ancient) » Sun Apr 10, 2016 5:00 pm
Soldati senza confini wrote:Falkenheim wrote:Well you definitely implied it. If both Byzantium and the Third Reich both fell not because of their powerful enemies, but because of some random internal thing (which wasn't even major in the case of the Reich), then that's definitely the message you're sending.
I also never said that Byzantium fell because of a "random internal thing", did I? I said, specifically, that Byzantium was not as powerful as it was pre-Constantinople's fall, so it was a crippled empire by the time the Turks invaded it, who had, in fact, a more powerful army than Byzantium could field as a crippled empire.
What I am saying is this: Byzantium fell to her enemies, sure, but European Christian rulers who were opportunistic dicks gave the crippling blow to the empire that would allow for these things to happen. Try to keep up.
by -The West Coast- » Sun Apr 10, 2016 5:02 pm
by Grenartia » Sun Apr 10, 2016 5:02 pm
by Soldati Senza Confini » Sun Apr 10, 2016 5:02 pm
Falkenheim wrote:Soldati senza confini wrote:
I also never said that Byzantium fell because of a "random internal thing", did I? I said, specifically, that Byzantium was not as powerful as it was pre-Constantinople's fall, so it was a crippled empire by the time the Turks invaded it, who had, in fact, a more powerful army than Byzantium could field as a crippled empire.
What I am saying is this: Byzantium fell to her enemies, sure, but European Christian rulers who were opportunistic dicks gave the crippling blow to the empire that would allow for these things to happen. Try to keep up.
"Try to keep up", eh? Funny how you only addressed one of my responses. Sorry if this triggers you, but that's what you get for being passive-aggressive.
Anyway, there are so many empires that fell because a population of foreigners entirely migrated into their country. The Byzantines wouldn't have survived regardless.
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by Luminesa » Sun Apr 10, 2016 5:04 pm
Falkenheim wrote:Soldati senza confini wrote:
I also never said that Byzantium fell because of a "random internal thing", did I? I said, specifically, that Byzantium was not as powerful as it was pre-Constantinople's fall, so it was a crippled empire by the time the Turks invaded it, who had, in fact, a more powerful army than Byzantium could field as a crippled empire.
What I am saying is this: Byzantium fell to her enemies, sure, but European Christian rulers who were opportunistic dicks gave the crippling blow to the empire that would allow for these things to happen. Try to keep up.
"Try to keep up", eh? Funny how you only addressed one of my responses. Sorry if this triggers you, but that's what you get for being passive-aggressive.
Anyway, there are so many empires that fell because a population of foreigners entirely migrated into their country. The Byzantines wouldn't have survived regardless.
by Falkenheim (Ancient) » Sun Apr 10, 2016 5:05 pm
Soldati senza confini wrote:Falkenheim wrote:"Try to keep up", eh? Funny how you only addressed one of my responses. Sorry if this triggers you, but that's what you get for being passive-aggressive.
Anyway, there are so many empires that fell because a population of foreigners entirely migrated into their country. The Byzantines wouldn't have survived regardless.
I'm not the one bringing up Nazi Germany into this. So I don't have to answer to your irrelevant shit.
And that wasn't my point. You keep trying to bring immigration and conquest while disregarding the sack of Constantinople as an actual thing that crippled Byzantium.
by Uxupox » Sun Apr 10, 2016 5:07 pm
Grenartia wrote:Napkiraly wrote:It's not sexist to question the viability of having women in combat roles, or at the least, mixed combat units.
Though I personally disagree, it's not sexist.
The OP thinks the only way women could make it on the battlefield is if training standards are lowered. I find that to be an inherently sexist assumption.
by Napkiraly » Sun Apr 10, 2016 5:07 pm
Grenartia wrote:Napkiraly wrote:It's not sexist to question the viability of having women in combat roles, or at the least, mixed combat units.
Though I personally disagree, it's not sexist.
The OP thinks the only way women could make it on the battlefield is if training standards are lowered. I find that to be an inherently sexist assumption.
by Luminesa » Sun Apr 10, 2016 5:08 pm
Grenartia wrote:Napkiraly wrote:It's not sexist to question the viability of having women in combat roles, or at the least, mixed combat units.
Though I personally disagree, it's not sexist.
The OP thinks the only way women could make it on the battlefield is if training standards are lowered. I find that to be an inherently sexist assumption.
by USS Monitor » Sun Apr 10, 2016 5:08 pm
by Uxupox » Sun Apr 10, 2016 5:08 pm
Napkiraly wrote:Grenartia wrote:
The OP thinks the only way women could make it on the battlefield is if training standards are lowered. I find that to be an inherently sexist assumption.
OP said that he recognizes that there are women that can meet the physical standards set for men, just that most cannot.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aadhirisian Puppet Nation, Ardany, Dazchan, Diarcesia, Google [Bot], Minoa, Skiva, So uh lab here, Statesburg, The Jamesian Republic, ThE VoOrIaPeN DiScOrD
Advertisement