First female 11X has been accepted

[Uxupox]

Never made much sense to put a knife six inches long on a carbine thirty inches long.

Because its value lies beyond the killing power of the combination.

Pretty sure I heard stories of US Army soldiers on prisoner detail who happily worked out the W1200 shared the same bayonet lugs as the M1897.
So they fit M1897 sword bayonets to them.

Only recently did I found out that the M4 had a lower railing that was designed explicitly for the mounting of the M7 bayonet.

[Kubra]

It's not pointless, it's just highly situational.

In the kind of conflicts the US has found itself in since a bit before 2010, that situation has not particularly presented itself, so it's not surprising they dropped it.

Never made much sense to put a knife six inches long on a carbine thirty inches long.

Maybe not if you're defending against cavalry, but that's not really the main threat these days. Bayonets against infantry were less about them being particularly useful for killing (they're not) but in being scary. It's easier to stand and get shot by musketballs than to stare down a mass of charging frenchmen. That's why the last few bayonet charges over the years to make the papers succeeded. If I'm gonna jump a guard, I'm def not going to jump the one with a short sword attached to a shotgun. Fuck that, that's scary.
But this is all a bit if digression, isn't it?

[Zarkanians]

Could you provide proof that the numbers used for the male requirements are more valid than the numbers used for the female requirements, remembering that the military is not a sports team, and that soldiers will generally not be rewarded for being able to carry a heavy bag for a few minutes longer than their compatriots?

Read AR I provided a page ago.

The last link you provided was on page 20, 7 pages ago, and as far as I can tell, it doesn't go any farther to explain why the specific numbers used for male recruits are any less arbitrary than those used for female recruits. Not really interested in backlog diving, right now, so can you tell me which page it's on, or provide a second link?

[Kubra]

What was your role, exactly?

A Forward Observer, my job was to call in Artillery, Air strikes and helicopter strikes. Not talk to locals.

Alright. And what are casualties usually from for forward observers?

[Imperial City-States]

A Forward Observer, my job was to call in Artillery, Air strikes and helicopter strikes. Not talk to locals.

Alright. And what are casualties usually from for forward observers?

As in casualties inflicted to us,
Or casualties that we inflict on the enemy?

[Kubra]

Alright. And what are casualties usually from for forward observers?

As in casualties inflicted to us,
Or casualties that we inflict on the enemy?

On you.

[Imperial City-States]

As in casualties inflicted to us,
Or casualties that we inflict on the enemy?

On you.

Primarily sniper fire If were talking general small arms. A guy with three radio antenna hanging off him makes a tempting target.

Other than that IEDs.

Keep in mind we didn't take casualties all that often.

[Kubra]

On you.

Primarily sniper fire If were talking general small arms. A guy with three radio antenna hanging off him makes a tempting target.

Other than that IEDs.

Keep in mind we didn't take casualties all that often.

Well, no one does, really. Dying is mostly the purview of the insurgents, innit?
But you folks did have problems with IED's, the same as others in combat roles, yeah?

[Kuruinulah]

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.

[Kubra]

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.

o u

[Imperial City-States]

Primarily sniper fire If were talking general small arms. A guy with three radio antenna hanging off him makes a tempting target.

Other than that IEDs.

Keep in mind we didn't take casualties all that often.

Well, no one does, really. Dying is mostly the purview of the insurgents, innit?
But you folks did have problems with IED's, the same as others in combat roles, yeah?

And the point to this is?

[Wallenburg]

You know which one.

No, I don't. Earlier on the last page, somebody claimed that men only received passing grades if they achieved higher results than women. So when Wallenburg stated that they had to meet the physical requirements, I wanted to know which one he thought they should meet.

Personally, I agree that the difference doesn't really matter that much; I'm just of the onion that if we're okay with women achieving a lower standard, the standard for men should be lowered, too. If it we don't need female soldiers to be able to run at that speed, or do that many push-ups, why do we need male soldiers to achieve same?

Or, y'know, they could raise the requirements for women, but I don't see the point of that.

I was making an innuendo.

[Zarkanians]

No, I don't. Earlier on the last page, somebody claimed that men only received passing grades if they achieved higher results than women. So when Wallenburg stated that they had to meet the physical requirements, I wanted to know which one he thought they should meet.

Personally, I agree that the difference doesn't really matter that much; I'm just of the onion that if we're okay with women achieving a lower standard, the standard for men should be lowered, too. If it we don't need female soldiers to be able to run at that speed, or do that many push-ups, why do we need male soldiers to achieve same?

Or, y'know, they could raise the requirements for women, but I don't see the point of that.

I was making an innuendo.

Ah. Sorry about that. Let's pretend I responded to the other guy who quoted my post, I guess?

[Wallenburg]

I was making an innuendo.

Ah. Sorry about that. Let's pretend I responded to the other guy who quoted my post, I guess?

K.

[Kubra]

Well, no one does, really. Dying is mostly the purview of the insurgents, innit?
But you folks did have problems with IED's, the same as others in combat roles, yeah?

And the point to this is?

The major use of pashto fluency and local translators has been less soft-intelligence and more asking-where-bombs-are. Having someone around who can speak pashto increases everyones chances of going home, while having actual servicemen who can speak pashto reduces reliance on local translators, a nice bunch of folks but not necessarily one that one wants to lug around on patrol if one can get their actual servicemen to do the job. If the ground exploding under you is a concern of yours, pashto is a skill that can be useful. More so than the ability to move weight from two particular points within a particular range of minutes, I'd wager.
And, well, there's also soft-intelligence, something far more valuable to have than bullets in low-intensity warfare.

[Imperial City-States]

And the point to this is?

The major use of pashto fluency and local translators has been less soft-intelligence and more asking-where-bombs-are. Having someone around who can speak pashto increases everyones chances of going home, while having actual servicemen who can speak pashto reduces reliance on local translators, a nice bunch of folks but not necessarily one that one wants to lug around on patrol if one can get their actual servicemen to do the job. If the ground exploding under you is a concern of yours, pashto is a skill that can be useful. More so than the ability to move weight from two particular points within a particular range of minutes, I'd wager.
And, well, there's also soft-intelligence, something far more valuable to have than bullets in low-intensity warfare.

I'd say you're very much correct. The need for intelligent and capable individuals is comparable to that of the need for strong individuals. Many of the infantryman in the platoon I was attached too took it upon themselves to learn passible Pashto. But one can not sacrifice strength or intelligence, for sacrificing either one can be disasterous.

I tremendously disagree with your last point.
I've run out of ammunition once, that was the most terrifying instance of my entire life. Never again. "Low intensity " or not, ask any Combat Veteran, Ammuniton is the absolute last thing I want to run out of. And had you ever been in that position I'd wager that you'd agree with me.

Ammunition, water, batteries (Radio).

Three most important items imo.

[Kubra]

The major use of pashto fluency and local translators has been less soft-intelligence and more asking-where-bombs-are. Having someone around who can speak pashto increases everyones chances of going home, while having actual servicemen who can speak pashto reduces reliance on local translators, a nice bunch of folks but not necessarily one that one wants to lug around on patrol if one can get their actual servicemen to do the job. If the ground exploding under you is a concern of yours, pashto is a skill that can be useful. More so than the ability to move weight from two particular points within a particular range of minutes, I'd wager.
And, well, there's also soft-intelligence, something far more valuable to have than bullets in low-intensity warfare.

I'd say you're very much correct. The need for intelligent and capable individuals is comparable to that of the need for strong individuals. Many of the infantryman in the platoon I was attached too took it upon themselves to learn passible Pashto. But one can not sacrifice strength or intelligence, for sacrificing either one can be disasterous.

I tremendously disagree with your last point.
I've run out of ammunition once, that was the most terrifying instance of my entire life. Never again. "Low intensity " or not, ask any Combat Veteran, Ammuniton is the absolute last thing I want to run out of. And had you ever been in that position I'd wager that you'd agree with me.

Ammunition, water, batteries (Radio).

Three most important items imo.

as to the first point, it's a matter of trade-offs. If a lowering of physical standards for females (even males, depending on a nations level of desperation) allows access to a greater amount of manpower or available skills and this is judged to be of greater value than any physical capabilities lost, then it follows that one ought to go with the lowering of physical standards. As has been said, the roles and tactics where physical strength are most required are diminishing, while such requiring specialized training or a particular level of education are increasing. Raw male physical ability is gonna remain, yes, I honestly cannot imagine women fielded as parachutists or any form of light infantry as the US army uses it, but these are exceptional roles requiring exceptional sorts.

As to the second, I have no doubt that it was terrifying. But was it "dangerous"? In a war between powers that would be the dumbest question possible, period. But in Afghanistan? Bullets and mortars are easy to use for anyone, in great quantities, but securing and maintaining a flow of supplies, ammunition included, can be fairly difficult for insurgents. You're out of ammo, does the enemy know that? How much has he got? Is he gonna bet on the most well supplied soldiers in the region being out of ammo? Probably not. But that, of course, does not change the fact that being out of ammunition is terrifying. Not being able to fight back is terrifying in itself. Therein lies the value of inflicting terror in war.

[Imperial City-States]

[ as to the first point, it's a matter of trade-offs. If a lowering of physical standards for females (even males, depending on a nations level of desperation) allows access to a greater amount of manpower or available skills and this is judged to be of greater value than any physical capabilities lost, then it follows that one ought to go with the lowering of physical standards. As has been said, the roles and tactics where physical strength are most required are diminishing, while such requiring specialized training or a particular level of education are increasing. Raw male physical ability is gonna remain, yes, I honestly cannot imagine women fielded as parachutists or any form of light infantry as the US army uses it, but these are exceptional roles requiring exceptional sorts.

As to the second, I have no doubt that it was terrifying. But was it "dangerous"? In a war between powers that would be the dumbest question possible, period. But in Afghanistan? Bullets and mortars are easy to use for anyone, in great quantities, but securing and maintaining a flow of supplies, ammunition included, can be fairly difficult for insurgents. You're out of ammo, does the enemy know that? How much has he got? Is he gonna bet on the most well supplied soldiers in the region being out of ammo? Probably not. But that, of course, does not change the fact that being out of ammunition is terrifying. Not being able to fight back is terrifying in itself. Therein lies the value of inflicting terror in war.

See that's the big catch though, the U.S is by no means desperate and is in-fact trying to down size.
In a theory, you'd be correct in that having females in a Combat Role in a 'Heavy' Infantry unit would not be entirely detrimental, however that is rarely the case. When i was in Afghanistan i was apart of a unit that was technically speaking, 'heavy'. I did not see a single Bradley the entire time i was there. Can you make minimal exceptions? yes. But to suggest that you can deteriorate the standard to the point where another soldier has to carry your load because you're physically incapable of doing so? Not acceptable at all.

In Afghanistan you can't view it like a 'Force on Force'. 99.9% of the time, we (America) don't get the opportunity to choose our battles. The insurgents however do. That being said, when they do pick a fight, they're for the most part, prepared for it. They don't engage Battalion sized elements if they can avoid it, they engage patrols, squads, maybe platoons if they're feeling particularly spry.

I don't give a flying fuck if my enemy shits his pants at the thought of me. I want him to be dead.

[Kubra]

[ as to the first point, it's a matter of trade-offs. If a lowering of physical standards for females (even males, depending on a nations level of desperation) allows access to a greater amount of manpower or available skills and this is judged to be of greater value than any physical capabilities lost, then it follows that one ought to go with the lowering of physical standards. As has been said, the roles and tactics where physical strength are most required are diminishing, while such requiring specialized training or a particular level of education are increasing. Raw male physical ability is gonna remain, yes, I honestly cannot imagine women fielded as parachutists or any form of light infantry as the US army uses it, but these are exceptional roles requiring exceptional sorts.

As to the second, I have no doubt that it was terrifying. But was it "dangerous"? In a war between powers that would be the dumbest question possible, period. But in Afghanistan? Bullets and mortars are easy to use for anyone, in great quantities, but securing and maintaining a flow of supplies, ammunition included, can be fairly difficult for insurgents. You're out of ammo, does the enemy know that? How much has he got? Is he gonna bet on the most well supplied soldiers in the region being out of ammo? Probably not. But that, of course, does not change the fact that being out of ammunition is terrifying. Not being able to fight back is terrifying in itself. Therein lies the value of inflicting terror in war.

See that's the big catch though, the U.S is by no means desperate and is in-fact trying to down size.
In a theory, you'd be correct in that having females in a Combat Role in a 'Heavy' Infantry unit would not be entirely detrimental, however that is rarely the case. When i was in Afghanistan i was apart of a unit that was technically speaking, 'heavy'. I did not see a single Bradley the entire time i was there. Can you make minimal exceptions? yes. But to suggest that you can deteriorate the standard to the point where another soldier has to carry your load because you're physically incapable of doing so? Not acceptable at all.

In Afghanistan you can't view it like a 'Force on Force'. 99.9% of the time, we (America) don't get the opportunity to choose our battles. The insurgents however do. That being said, when they do pick a fight, they're for the most part, prepared for it. They don't engage Battalion sized elements if they can avoid it, they engage patrols, squads, maybe platoons if they're feeling particularly spry.

I don't give a flying fuck if my enemy shits his pants at the thought of me. I want him to be dead.

The bit about desperation was an aside, hence the parentheses. I wouldn't use "desperate" in this instance, but filling more specialized roles has always been an expensive issue, since the US has to compete with the civilian market to obtain qualified individuals, or stake it out on subsidizing individuals who they hope will turn out ok for the roles they've been recruited for. Even if they can fill the roles, they're spending more than they'd probably like to in order to do so. Again, for a slight hit to physical effectiveness, the armed forces gain access to a greater amount of potential intelligent, educated individuals for use in roles where such is necessary. This is a form of downsizing, insofar as it reduces the costs per head that it takes to fill roles.
This isn't just for the sake of soldiers. Having soft-intelligence and linguistic skills within the army proper, with existing albeit reduced fitness standards means not having to repeat some of the disasters that have occurred when mixing egghead topics like soft-intelligence and language fluency with combat zones and sleazy civilian contracting (HTS, of course, being the big offender here). This keeps the US army from having to fill shortages of skills with less than savoury methods.

And they're making their attacks on various assumptions based on the intelligence available to them. They can count engagements, they can gauge their intensity, but through it all they cannot count your bullets. They can know that you've used em, perhaps heavily, but they can never quite know if you're dry unless they run up to you and try. If they're gonna hit you, doing so based on how they suppose your ammo is doing is risky, and there's a greater chance of them choosing their engagements based on other factors. This is one of their only chances, their supplies replenish at a slower rate than yours, they rack of casualties at a greater rate, they can't hit unless they're sure they've got a good chance. They are, after all, not just choosing any engagements.

In that case, you should want him shitting his pants. Folks shitting their pants aren't all there, they're gonna make decisions that might not be entirely informed. They'll lose opportunities, take ones that aren't there, advance when he should be holding and holding when he should be advancing. Maybe he'll run away, over open ground, with all his gear safely next to his ruined pants, easy pickings. Or maybe he won't, maybe he'll run away in a little more orderly a fashion, leaving you having taken the territory or removed the enemy from it. Assuming the stated objective is not "kill all guys with guns", everything has gone swimmingly. After all, before ones stated objectives the real main objective is to be about as alive as when you started, and this way is good way of remaining alive.

[Kubra]

See that's the big catch though, the U.S is by no means desperate and is in-fact trying to down size.
In a theory, you'd be correct in that having females in a Combat Role in a 'Heavy' Infantry unit would not be entirely detrimental, however that is rarely the case. When i was in Afghanistan i was apart of a unit that was technically speaking, 'heavy'. I did not see a single Bradley the entire time i was there. Can you make minimal exceptions? yes. But to suggest that you can deteriorate the standard to the point where another soldier has to carry your load because you're physically incapable of doing so? Not acceptable at all.

In Afghanistan you can't view it like a 'Force on Force'. 99.9% of the time, we (America) don't get the opportunity to choose our battles. The insurgents however do. That being said, when they do pick a fight, they're for the most part, prepared for it. They don't engage Battalion sized elements if they can avoid it, they engage patrols, squads, maybe platoons if they're feeling particularly spry.

I don't give a flying fuck if my enemy shits his pants at the thought of me. I want him to be dead.

The bit about desperation was an aside, hence the parentheses. I wouldn't use "desperate" in this instance, but filling more specialized roles has always been an expensive issue, since the US has to compete with the civilian market to obtain qualified individuals, or stake it out on subsidizing individuals who they hope will turn out ok for the roles they've been recruited for. Even if they can fill the roles, they're spending more than they'd probably like to in order to do so. Again, for a slight hit to physical effectiveness, the armed forces gain access to a greater amount of potential intelligent, educated individuals for use in roles where such is necessary. This is a form of downsizing, insofar as it reduces the costs per head that it takes to fill roles.
This isn't just for the sake of soldiers. Having soft-intelligence and linguistic skills within the army proper, with existing albeit reduced fitness standards means not having to repeat some of the disasters that have occurred when mixing egghead topics like soft-intelligence and language fluency with combat zones and sleazy civilian contracting (HTS, of course, being the big offender here). This keeps the US army from having to fill shortages of skills with less than savoury methods.
I am not suggesting that women take roles that involve more gear than they can demonstrably hold over a period of time. I'm merely suggesting that this is not the case for all combat roles, while it is the case that education is more than useful for all combat roles. If your load as a forward observer would be unmanageable for a women of average weight and considerable physical fitness then sure, keep women out of fire support teams. If they literally cannot do it then there's a problem. All folks have been suggesting is that there are roles that are not as physically demanding but from which women are nonetheless restricted.

And they're making their attacks on various assumptions based on the intelligence available to them. They can count engagements, they can gauge their intensity, but through it all they cannot count your bullets. They can know that you've used em, perhaps heavily, but they can never quite know if you're dry unless they run up to you and try. If they're gonna hit you, doing so based on how they suppose your ammo is doing is risky, and there's a greater chance of them choosing their engagements based on other factors. This is one of their only chances, their supplies replenish at a slower rate than yours, they rack of casualties at a greater rate, they can't squander an opportunity with such a difficult factor to predict. They are, after all, not just choosing any engagements.

In that case, you should want him shitting his pants. Folks shitting their pants aren't all there, they're gonna make decisions that might not be entirely informed. They'll lose opportunities, take ones that aren't there, advance when he should be holding and holding when he should be advancing. Maybe he'll run away, over open ground, with all his gear safely next to his ruined pants, easy pickings. Or maybe he won't, maybe he'll run away in a little more orderly a fashion, leaving you having taken the territory or removed the enemy from it. Assuming the stated objective is not "kill all guys with guns", everything has gone swimmingly. After all, before ones stated objectives the real main objective is to be about as alive as when you started, and this way is good way of remaining alive.[/quote]

[The Princes of the Universe]

The standards for women need to be exactly the same as those for men, but those women who meet them should be welcomed with open arms as complete equals.

[Ceterius]

More importantly, women wanting to make a profession out of the military have to show ambition.

It's not enough to just be a woman who has real muscle, since she is at a handicap because of the preconceived notions people have about women. It's like being a short guy in a team. I'm 5'6", against a bunch of 6'0" guys I gotta compensate with something, and my height is not it.

In the military, and especially the Combat Arms side of the house. Respect is not given (beyond rank) it's earned. For a woman to be respected she needs to earn it, and by that i mean she has to be on top of literally everything and be the best at everything, that is the only way she will gain respect.

Remember how I said that the military is evidently full of sexist fraggers?
You just gave me more ammunition.
Why does she have to be the best? Why can't she just be as good as everyone else, the answer is because sexist fraggers feel threatened.
Evidently they have very fragile masculinity, or maybe they're trying to compensate for something.

[Allanea]

Not to mention the conflation of respecting someone as an authority and respecting someone as in treating them as a person.

[Imperial City-States]

Ones masculinity, or if they're compensating for something. Is entirely illrelevent to if a female can preform the task at hand.
People such as yourself don't seem to understand the concept that females, generally, in this profession, will be significantly weaker than men.

If i am bleeding out on the ground in full gear, and a female soldier is unable to move me to a position where I can get proper care I die.
It's not about if people are sexist or not (not denying that some sexism does exsist ) it's about surviving.

I have no desire to have my Children grow up without a father because some politician wanted to put 'fairness' over effectiveness.

If she's a complete beast and as proven she is capable of adhering to the male standard.

War isn't about being 'fair' or 'equal', it's about how effective you can be at killing the enemy. Boo-fucking-hoo if someone's feelings get hurt. I have no desire to die because of someone's feelings, and I am by no means sexist.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Ones masculinity, or if they're compensating for something. Is entirely illrelevent to if a female can preform the task at hand.
People such as yourself don't seem to understand the concept that females, generally, in this profession, will be significantly weaker than men.

If i am bleeding out on the ground in full gear, and a female soldier is unable to move me to a position where I can get proper care I die.
It's not about if people are sexist or not (not denying that some sexism doesn't exsist ) it's about surviving.

I have no desire to have my Children grow up without a father because some politician wanted to put 'fairness' over effectiveness.

If she's a complete beast and as proven she is capable of adhering to the male standard.

War isn't about being 'fair' or 'equal', it's about how effective you can be at killing the enemy. Boo-fucking-hoo if someone's feelings get hurt. I have no desire to die because of someone's feelings, and I am by no means sexist.

You seem to believe that 'allowing women in the armed forces' means the same as 'allowing every woman to enter the armed forces willy-nilly'. Guess what, I am male, and I wouldn't be able to drag you to safety either. It has nothing to do with gender, and everything to do with training. Training everyone could potentially submit to.