Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This is from NPR, I truly am amazed they found the balls to report this.
Women are not physically equal in a direct combat environment...I heard about this earlier. This PC crap will get a lot of people killed.
And you think you are a direct match for a man???Like you ever took the oath......lolGet women out of the military except in support roles. Get the faggots out too. Restore the military to what it is supposed to be: a force to fight America's war abroad, not a playground for cultural fads.
Well...that's a blast from the past...........Doesn't matter.
Priorities are priorities.
.
Exactly. As long as combat units are integrated, winning is secondary.
I think they just need time to go through AIT in a combat MOS. I suspect those scores will improve.many of of the male study participants had previously served in combat units, whereas female participants, by necessity, came directly from infantry schools or from noncombat jobs.
Restore its appropriate name of War Department. Department of Defence is obviously a silly name for its intended purpose.Get women out of the military except in support roles. Get the faggots out too. Restore the military to what it is supposed to be: a force to fight America's war abroad, not a playground for cultural fads.
Someone decided that it would be nice to have both women and men in front-line combat roles in the military.
Does "nice" include more of them winding up dead, and more battles lost against the enemy? That's the result.
These experiments in using the armed forces as social engineering laboratories, will get more Americans killed. That's a high price to pay to satisfy some liberal's desire for "equality".
Do the liberals justify it by saying that the military deserves it, since they are basically evil?
What did one of them say recently, about the deaths of U.S. Border patrol agents shot with guns the leftists had provided to the Mexican drug cartels in Operation Fast and Furious?
"You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs."
Sounds like the same philosophy is at work on the personnel in our armed forces.
--------------------------------------------------
The US Marines tested all-male squads against mixed-gender ones, and the results were pretty bleak
The US Marines tested all-male squads against mixed-gender ones, and the results were pretty bleak
Written by
Svati Kirsten Narula
4 hours ago
In 2013, the US military lifted its ban on women serving in combat. Shortly after, the Marine Corps began what it calls an “unprecedented research effort” to understand the impact of gender integration on its combat forces. That took the form of a year-long experiment called the Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force, in which 400 Marines—100 of them female—trained for combat together and then undertook a simulated deployment, with every facet of their experience measured and scrutinized.
All branches of the military are facing a January 1, 2016, deadline to open all combat roles to women. The Marine Corps is using this experiment to decide whether to request exceptions to that mandate. The Corps’ summary of the experiment, posted online today by NPR, concludes that combat teams were less effective when they included women.
Overall, the report says, all-male teams and crews outperformed mixed-gender ones on 93 out of 134 tasks evaluated. All-male teams were universally faster “in each tactical movement.” On “lethality,” the report says:
All-male 0311 (rifleman) infantry squads had better accuracy compared to gender-integrated squads. There was a notable difference between genders for every individual weapons system (i.e. M4, M27, and M203) within the 0311 squads, except for the probability of hit & near miss with the M4.
And:
All-male infantry crew-served weapons teams engaged targets quicker and registered more hits on target as compared to gender-integrated infantry crew-served weapons teams, with the exception of M2 accuracy.
And:
All-male squads, teams and crews and gender-integrated squads, teams, and crews had a noticeable difference in their performance of the basic combat tasks of negotiating obstacles and evacuating casualties. For example, when negotiating the wall obstacle, male Marines threw their packs to the top of the wall, whereas female Marines required regular assistance in getting their packs to the top. During casualty evacuation assessments, there were notable differences in execution times between all-male and gender-integrated groups, except in the case where teams conducted a casualty evacuation as a one-Marine fireman’s carry of another (in which case it was most often a male Marine who “evacuated” the casualty)
The report also says that female Marines had higher rates of injury throughout the experiment.
Such conclusions may be disheartening to proponents of gender integration in combat, and certainly put a damper on the news that the Army’s ranger school recently graduated its first female soldiers. The tests come with at least one important caveat: As the Marine Corps Times notes, many of of the male study participants had previously served in combat units, whereas female participants, by necessity, came directly from infantry schools or from noncombat jobs.
The Marine Corps summary report does not indicate or suggest that the Marines will be asking for an exception to the military’s integration mandate. However, it does quote this somber section of a 1992 government study on gender integration in the armed forces:
A military unit at maximum combat effectiveness is a military unit least likely to suffer casualties. Winning in war is often only a matter of inches, and unnecessary distraction or any dilution of the combat effectiveness puts the mission and lives in jeopardy. Risking the lives of a military unit in combat to provide career opportunities or accommodate the personal desires or interests of an individual, or group of individuals, is more than bad military judgment. It is morally wrong.
Even if a certain female was strong enough to compare to the average male and do all the things asked, could she still whip out an appendage and pee standing up, on the go, like a man can? No, she can't. A female has to stop and completely disrobe below the waste and find somewhere to squat in private to pee, and that can hold people up when time can be very important to staying alive.I think if the woman is equal to the man in strength, shooting etc, and she wants to be on the front line she should be allowed, but IF she is not as strong, not as accurate with her shooting as all of her male counterparts then she should NOT be on the front line...
why does it half to be ALL or NOTHING?
This is from NPR, I truly am amazed they found the balls to report this.
NPR - that's unbiased for you.
Yeah.......right
Women have time and time again proven themselves in Combat. Just go to Ft.Bragg and ask the women whom are Airborne qualified in the 82nd Airborne Division.
Hundreds of women nationwide in Fire Departments and in Fire a Department leadership positions .
Is NPR trolling?
Shadow 355
What does that have to do with anything? Shut yer mouth.Like you ever took the oath......lolGet women out of the military except in support roles. Get the faggots out too. Restore the military to what it is supposed to be: a force to fight America's war abroad, not a playground for cultural fads.
