Marines Delay Female Fitness Plan After Half Fail

[happyslug]

50. I have heard that story so often it is getting me sick and I am male.

In almost every situation when it came time to pull another soldier out of combat, it took two to do it, thus requiring women to carry themselves makes no sense (and when one person hauls someone else, that person is generally DRAGGED for everyone is staying LOW to avoid being hit themselves).

Now, we have to remember women and men are different. I once saw two people, one male one female, climb a cliff side. Both made it to the top about the same time, but each used different methods. The male used his superior upper body strength, the women used her smaller fingers and lower center of gravity.

This is one of the problem with such tests, women and men will do activities differently, based on HOW their bodies are built. One observers of the sexes pointed out that if you had three groups of people on an island, two males, two females and a male and a female, which team would do the best at surviving on the island? The Answer was the male and the female team. Each Compliments the other, he has superior upper body strength, she has smaller fingers and thus able to grasp things he can not. He can use his superior strength to knock things down, she can use her lower center of gravity to go places where he can NOT.

Now, historically when women were used in combat it was in a support role OR a combat role where their lighter weight and lower center of gravity made them better. The Ancient Sarmatians of the Ancient World is an example of this, of them the Ancient Greeks said, no maiden could marry, till she killed three foes in battle. The Sarmatians (not to confused with the Samaritans who lived in Ancient Israel) had the best horses in the Ancient World. Women would go into combat riding their horses and shooting arrows into enemy formations and then riding away. Their lighter weight meant they horses could carry them faster and further then any group of men chasing them. Worse, the Sarmatians men stood nearby, often under cover, waiting for that situation so they could pounce on the horsemen chasing the women. No grave of a Female Sarmatians has ever been found with a Sword, but all had bows and arrows. Male graves have swords and lances.

More on the Sarmatians who lived North of the Black Seas, it is believed they called themselves Alans at the time of the fall of the Roman Empire, but with the spread of the Slavs were reduced to the Ossetians in the Caucasus mountains

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ossetes

Please do not confuse them with the Samaritians (the difference in spelling is only one letter the Alans/Osserte/ Sarmatian vs the Samaritians but the Samaritians were NEVER considered great horse people, unlike the Samaritians/Alans/Ossertes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritians


Now, in modern Combat, the case of a soldier having to carry out his comrade by himself is often brought up and that women will have a harder time during this then a man would. The problem is it almost never happens. In most situation two people pull out the wounded soldiers, for one is almost never enough, or you leave the wounded soldier where he is till the battle is over (and if you have to leave him, you leave him). In many ways during a Fire Fight you can NOT afford to have two of your Soldiers tied up helping that wounded soldier, all they will do is get themselves wounded or killed and thus unable to add to the fire power of the unit in that combat situation. If you can advance, you advance and leave the support elements save that wounded soldier, if you have to retreat, all that soldier represents is tying up two more soldiers from the fire fight, and if you are in retreat you need every soldier firing his weapon or all of the members of that retreating force will be joining that wounded soldier as another wounded soldier. You try to recover the wounded soldier but the mission must come first.

Now that we have arrived at the point the mission is the job of the Soldier, sooner or later Combat comes down to muscle in actual combat. After WWII they was a movement to eliminate the bayonet for it was NOT used extensively in Combat in Western Europe. When actual review of injuries in combat was done, bayonet wounds were rare, but did occur. The Japanese were excellent in the use of the bayonet (in fact old WWI foot long bayonets had to to issued to some marine units do to the experience of engaging Japanese soldiers armed with bayonets and the fight turning into a bayonet duel). The Russians also appear to have used the Bayonet to good effect. The North Koreans and Red Chinese used it to good effect in Korea. The Russians even report when digging up bodies during the 1950s in Stalingrad they came across two soldiers, who had bayoneted each other, one Russian, one German and then their bodies had been covered by debris from artillery.

The Bayonet is a muscle dependent weapon. This is the area of Combat Women tend to be weak in, because they are weaker in the upper body strength. On the other hand women (if given the same training as a man) has better endurance and better pain endurance (that once a month pain training Women go through is the main factor in woman being able to take pain better then men) and able to do a lot of small things men just can not do (and if they can, they do poorly).

Thus Women can do some things better then men. Manning a Machine gun on a tripod is one. Dropping rounds down a mortar tube is another. Neither are actually "Front line", but more supportive of soldiers in the front line. Women working a Machine gun with a bi-pod only, due to their greater endurance operate that machine gun and move it as needed. Women's greater endurance can make them better at going back for more ammunition and other supplies to keep the Machine Gun firing.

On the other hand, one on one unarmed combat, women should avoid. I am sorry, but when such one on one combat possible, men should be in front to handle it and women in the rear to provide machine gun and mortar support. As you get away from the front lines, the advantages of men tend to disappear. The 105 and 155 mm howitzer rounds were designed for men to manhandle (and thus something women should avoid, unless automated using an automatic loader).

Some women could handle those artillery rounds (The US Army has withdrawn anything bigger then the 155 howitzers), most women can not. Now once loaded women can aim and fire the weapon as well as a man. Working with heavy equipment, such as a track on a Tank, women would need different tools (mostly larger tools for greater leverage) but women can do the job. The further you get from the front lines, the more jobs women can do (in fact other then actual combat infantry, or Artillery loader, I can NOT think of any job women can not do based on a lack of upper body strength (One except could be military police, when it comes to watching prisoners, at times you want that strength, but most times no, thus may be better to integrate women into the MPs, I know they have long been, but train them to put men in position when strength may be needed, and women elsewhere.

My point is look at ACTUAL situations, NOT some theoretical situation that almost NEVER comes up. Hauling someone by yourself in a combat situation is rare, extremely rare. Generally it takes at least two in combat situations to haul out another. Furthermore in combat you want to stay low, thus you will almost never pick someone up. On the other hand if no combat is occurring, why move him? Treat the wounds and wait for the Medics. If one person HAS to move someone, that person drags the other person, thus most of the weight in on the ground NOT held up by the person dragging the wounded soldier.

Maybe the reason I am objecting to your hypothetical is that it has been used by POLICE DEPARTMENTS in the US to NOT hire women police officers. When ASKED why they have such strength tests, the Police Department said because such situation MAY come up, but when asked when had it, none of the Police Forces could come up with an Actual situation as oppose to a Theoretical situation.

On the other hand one on one combat is known, it was done in WWII, Korea, Vietnam and in Afghanistan and Iraq. We try our best NOT to put our soldiers into such situations, but some times the other side are playing by different rules. Tests should reflect ACTUAL COMBAT experience not untested theoretical situations that sound good but have no basis in reality.