"Gender Neutral" US Army training program halted because women can't keep up with the men. This is not about feminism, it is about biology.

Overmind One

GateFans Gatemaster
Staff member
This was interesting:

OF COURSE the women are going to be less physically capable than men in physical training. They would probably excel at other military duties requiring a different type of expertise, but the physical training is biased towards biological males. At some point, the hard truths of sex and gender become unavoidable.
 

YJ02

Well Known GateFan
This was interesting:

OF COURSE the women are going to be less physically capable than men in physical training. They would probably excel at other military duties requiring a different type of expertise, but the physical training is biased towards biological males. At some point, the hard truths of sex and gender become unavoidable.
thing is though.. this kind of test is EXACTLY THE THING that the feminists were barking for back i nthe 90's!!
 

YJ02

Well Known GateFan
and the term 'gender neutral' in this case is not a "woke" negative thing


since the late 80's, females were gradually phased into more and more MOS'/AFSC in all the services

the army was looking at opening up armor and artillery and combat aviation (As well as naval,marine and combat air pilots) long before Obama was president, in fact several artillery jobs- including mine, were opened to females in the the early 90's based on decisions made under pres bush the 1st

my job, even before i joined, had female soldiers in it for a short time when the army had pershing and nuke capable lance missile units--they required surveyors, and both of these units were so far behind lines that the job was opned to them. i had one female ait instructor who was in the process of changing her MOS

the current official army phys fit test (pushups, situp,2 mile run) is FAR from being adequate to assess one's physical capability in combat

a test based on phys capability centered around both mos and combat skills was long in the making. however, previous versions were turned down as being un realistic. 20 years of combat as given the military plenty of real world scenarios to draw from and from which, this new test is based on

carrying heavy ammo, 5 gal water or fuel cans, dragging a buddy while on the ground yourself/ "fireman
s carry" while standing and other skills were seen as being the most needed. to that were added strength tests built around the push up and dead lift of certain weight BASED ON MOS and NOT gender or age like the current APFT is

this is the best way to assess the strengths of persons, male or female, to see if they can perform both their mos and soldiers combat tasks

the only categories for performance outcomes are by one's MOS.. ex: an infantry soldier or a cannon crew member is in the heaviest category- meaning they have to perform to the minimum standard of the highest weight/rep or time. a admin soldier is in the lowest

this test is not yet being used to determine if one can or cannot be in any certain job or have to change jobs. it is still in its phase in time and the soldiers having the hardest time with it are, OF COURSE- Reservists and Guardsman

last i read, the army was considering using the test only for mos qualification and NOT for enlistment or retention purposes. so if you failed this test you can stay in so long as you pass the old pu/su/2 mile run apft

this test should only be used for assessments, not for promotions or re-enlistments, use the standard apft for that

IMO, the new test should only be used as an assessment tool to show leaders just where and how much more training is needed. the majority of both the male and female failures in the active army, is in the non combat/ less physically demanding MOS's.

But, to your point on gender, @Overmind One , many females HAVE passed both the army infantry trng-and every other MOS in the army- to the same standards that men are held to. they have also passed this new test as well. its the bureaucrats and politicians who are concerned with the numbers
 
Last edited:

Overmind One

GateFans Gatemaster
Staff member
and the term 'gender neutral' in this case is not a "woke" negative thing


since the late 80's, females were gradually phased into more and more MOS'/AFSC in all the services

the army was looking at opening up armor and artillery and combat aviation (As well as naval,marine and combat air pilots) long before Obama was president, in fact several artillery jobs- including mine, were opened to females in the the early 90's based on decisions made under pres bush the 1st

my job, even before i joined, had female soldiers in it for a short time when the army had pershing and nuke capable lance missile units--they required surveyors, and both of these units were so far behind lines that the job was opned to them. i had one female ait instructor who was in the process of changing her MOS

the current official army phys fit test (pushups, situp,2 mile run) is FAR from being adequate to assess one's physical capability in combat

a test based on phys capability centered around both mos and combat skills was long in the making. however, previous versions were turned down as being un realistic. 20 years of combat as given the military plenty of real world scenarios to draw from and from which, this new test is based on

carrying heavy ammo, 5 gal water or fuel cans, dragging a buddy while on the ground yourself/ "fireman
s carry" while standing and other skills were seen as being the most needed. to that were added strength tests built around the push up and dead lift of certain weight BASED ON MOS and NOT gender or age like the current APFT is

this is the best way to assess the strengths of persons, male or female, to see if they can perform both their mos and soldiers combat tasks

the only categories for performance outcomes are by one's MOS.. ex: an infantry soldier or a cannon crew member is in the heaviest category- meaning they have to perform to the minimum standard of the highest weight/rep or time. a admin soldier is in the lowest

this test is not yet being used to determine if one can or cannot be in any certain job or have to change jobs. it is still in its phase in time and the soldiers having the hardest time with it are, OF COURSE- Reservists and Guardsman

last i read, the army was considering using the test only for mos qualification and NOT for enlistment or retention purposes. so if you failed this test you can stay in so long as you pass the old pu/su/2 mile run apft

this test should only be used for assessments, not for promotions or re-enlistments, use the standard apft for that

IMO, the new test should only be used as an assessment tool to show leaders just where and how much more training is needed. the majority of both the male and female failures in the active army, is in the non combat/ less physically demanding MOS's.

But, to your point on gender, @Overmind One , many females HAVE passed both the army infantry trng-and every other MOS in the army- to the same standards that men are held to. they have also passed this new test as well. its the bureaucrats and politicians who are concerned with the numbers
Most average females cannot even lift even a 105mm shell for a howie, let alone stack them or load them into the gun. Even lifting the tow to hitch it to the truck would be a challenge. But they could do fine as Recon or snipers. Each sex has attributes that are useful, but at no time can the same standards be applied to females and they be expected to perform in the same capacity as men across the board. Marine standards are even higher than the Army. There are not just performance standards, but also weight standards. The Uniform Office will not make sizes to fit obese people nor will Command allow physically weak people to continue serving in combat or combat theater roles.
 

YJ02

Well Known GateFan
Most average females cannot even lift even a 105mm shell for a howie, let alone stack them or load them into the gun. Even lifting the tow to hitch it to the truck would be a challenge. But they could do fine as Recon or snipers. Each sex has attributes that are useful, but at no time can the same standards be applied to females and they be expected to perform in the same capacity as men across the board. Marine standards are even higher than the Army. There are not just performance standards, but also weight standards. The Uniform Office will not make sizes to fit obese people nor will Command allow physically weak people to continue serving in combat or combat theater roles.
there are plenty of females in both army and marine combat mos' ... by law and by reg there is nothing stopping any of them from attending selection for sf, delta force, ranger, seal, pararescue or raider. its a fast changing world. most of the western militaries as well as israel, have had females in combat jobs like armor (i think the IDF as all female tank units) for quite awhile

a few vids.. although, not sure what the female USMC tank cdr is going to do now that the usmc is getting rid of tanks

and all of the army females would have had to of passed the ACFT, previously known as the OPAT to both graduate trng and then once a yr after
usmc female tank cdr
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFoenvm_SNQ


army female tank crewmen
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcL540jw-_0


USMC CPL Lilly, first female arty section chief in usmc
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPBI2TuKJ_I


us army combat engineer
View: https://youtu.be/B2ptf29Uyd0?t=35


army and marine FETs (female engagement teams) volunteers from all MOS' who cross train as infantry as to accompany army and marine infantry, sf ,ranger and raider patrols in a-stan. they had to meet same standards so as to keep up with the men

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3JfGOhiWAk
 

Overmind One

GateFans Gatemaster
Staff member
there are plenty of females in both army and marine combat mos' ... by law and by reg there is nothing stopping any of them from attending selection for sf, delta force, ranger, seal, pararescue or raider. its a fast changing world. most of the western militaries as well as israel, have had females in combat jobs like armor (i think the IDF as all female tank units) for quite awhile

a few vids.. although, not sure what the female USMC tank cdr is going to do now that the usmc is getting rid of tanks

and all of the army females would have had to of passed the ACFT, previously known as the OPAT to both graduate trng and then once a yr after
usmc female tank cdr
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFoenvm_SNQ


army female tank crewmen
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcL540jw-_0


USMC CPL Lilly, first female arty section chief in usmc
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPBI2TuKJ_I


us army combat engineer
View: https://youtu.be/B2ptf29Uyd0?t=35


army and marine FETs (female engagement teams) volunteers from all MOS' who cross train as infantry as to accompany army and marine infantry, sf ,ranger and raider patrols in a-stan. they had to meet same standards so as to keep up with the men

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3JfGOhiWAk

That USMC female artillery chief...that job does not require lifting shells or moving the gun.
 

Overmind One

GateFans Gatemaster
Staff member
there are plenty of females in both army and marine combat mos' ... by law and by reg there is nothing stopping any of them from attending selection for sf, delta force, ranger, seal, pararescue or raider. its a fast changing world. most of the western militaries as well as israel, have had females in combat jobs like armor (i think the IDF as all female tank units) for quite awhile

a few vids.. although, not sure what the female USMC tank cdr is going to do now that the usmc is getting rid of tanks

and all of the army females would have had to of passed the ACFT, previously known as the OPAT to both graduate trng and then once a yr after
usmc female tank cdr
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFoenvm_SNQ


army female tank crewmen
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcL540jw-_0


USMC CPL Lilly, first female arty section chief in usmc
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPBI2TuKJ_I


us army combat engineer
View: https://youtu.be/B2ptf29Uyd0?t=35


army and marine FETs (female engagement teams) volunteers from all MOS' who cross train as infantry as to accompany army and marine infantry, sf ,ranger and raider patrols in a-stan. they had to meet same standards so as to keep up with the men

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3JfGOhiWAk

I applaud these women. But looking further into each of those jobs, you do not see men competing for them. The boot training would have been different as well, even though all personnel end up in the same fleet forces. I doubt any woman could go through men's boot camp in the USMC. Not even those who are in the WWE today.
 

Joelist

What ship is this?
Staff member
I actually disagree with the USMC phasing out the tanks. Like it or not they will need real armor and cannot always expect the Army to be able to supply it. Also by having the tanks organic to the USMC their supply chain is likewise organic. This sounds like a decision make by theoreticians.
 

Overmind One

GateFans Gatemaster
Staff member
I actually disagree with the USMC phasing out the tanks. Like it or not they will need real armor and cannot always expect the Army to be able to supply it. Also by having the tanks organic to the USMC their supply chain is likewise organic. This sounds like a decision make by theoreticians.
Actually, new tech has made them obsolete. Please watch the projectile as it approaches this tank. Note that it never actually hits the tank, it explodes in a directed fashion BELOW itself. The reason for this is because the armor is thinnest on the top, and the charge is shaped. The sight for the missile, launched from the back of a Jeep, calculates the distance to target, it's elevation AND the model of the tank. It plots the firing solution in seconds, before the missile is fired. But the weapon can destroy tanks with less armor than US and Russian tanks:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1VWPOpYbQI


The only reason to buy tanks is to keep the tank manufacturing companies in the business. Same with 105 and 155mm howitzers (artillery) which require a team to operate, fire and move, as well as at least a half-ton truck. The military wants to remove troops from the battlefiels and drone-ify everything.
 

Joelist

What ship is this?
Staff member
TOW is not new. The US created it in the 70s. ATGMs have been around for a while and the M1 handles them just fine because of its Chobham armor (same stuff the Challenger uses and in Iraq the Challengers defeated ATGMs regularly with ease) as well as the Reactive Armor blocks they put on thinner surfaces like tops (reactive armor specifically defeats shaped charge weapons). And then there is the Trophy program currently underway for the M1s using the Trophy defense system we acquired from Israel.

I agree they are falling in love with drones - too much for my taste. Over time people will devise ways to interfere with drone signals and corrupt the electronics, which makes drones little more than missiles.
 

YJ02

Well Known GateFan
I applaud these women. But looking further into each of those jobs, you do not see men competing for them. The boot training would have been different as well, even though all personnel end up in the same fleet forces. I doubt any woman could go through men's boot camp in the USMC. Not even those who are in the WWE today.
My man, you REALLY need to catch up with the changes :)

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bhwI_sXK18
 

YJ02

Well Known GateFan
Actually, new tech has made them obsolete. Please watch the projectile as it approaches this tank. Note that it never actually hits the tank, it explodes in a directed fashion BELOW itself. The reason for this is because the armor is thinnest on the top, and the charge is shaped. The sight for the missile, launched from the back of a Jeep, calculates the distance to target, it's elevation AND the model of the tank. It plots the firing solution in seconds, before the missile is fired. But the weapon can destroy tanks with less armor than US and Russian tanks:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1VWPOpYbQI


The only reason to buy tanks is to keep the tank manufacturing companies in the business. Same with 105 and 155mm howitzers (artillery) which require a team to operate, fire and move, as well as at least a half-ton truck. The military wants to remove troops from the battlefiels and drone-ify everything.
you are partially correct

for ass poor nations like Armenia who just had their asses handed to them by Azerbaijan (supplied with Israeli attack drones) yes tanks with no active anti tank countermeasures or passive reactive armor plating- yes tanks are a terrible choice

but there have been massive changes-- the Russians have a countermeasure that uses radio waves to disrupt tracking on atgm's and is being used in combat against the Ukrainian army.. Armenias NEW tank force-supplied by Russia will sure to have these on them

also, many other nations, including the US already has and is developing improved APS anti-ATGM tech. It is active protection against all current atgm's and against many other types of ammunition as well

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l65-OWWHkI4
 

YJ02

Well Known GateFan
That USMC female artillery chief...that job does not require lifting shells or moving the gun.
no you are incorrect!! come on now.a little research before you try to take on the former artillery guy here :)

before you can be a gun chief you have to be a crewman. she is a cpl, the army uses SGT's as section (gun) chiefs. therefore all the round lifting and charge bag pushing.. splitting trails to emplace and hooking up (for towed systems) to a prime mover would all have been done by any soldier or marine before being promoted

so, while she may not lift any rounds now.. se most certainly did in the past

women in combat is here to stay, like it or not.

i don't get why some ppl praise foreign armies (israel, switzerland, norway,etc) for having females in combat, but reject it for our military

hard facts are that man many men cannot perform at these jobs physically either, so the yare retrained into another MOS or if they made it through AIT then at the unit they get reassigned in the unit for an 'extra duty' that takes up their time-- we called them unit mail clerks :)

i'd bet too, that like other nations who have females in combat for a long time now, the numbers of female failures and male failures (and re trained) will be proportionally the same this they will all go through the same basic trng with the same focus and the same physical training performed
 

Overmind One

GateFans Gatemaster
Staff member
no you are incorrect!! come on now.a little research before you try to take on the former artillery guy here :)

before you can be a gun chief you have to be a crewman. she is a cpl, the army uses SGT's as section (gun) chiefs. therefore all the round lifting and charge bag pushing.. splitting trails to emplace and hooking up (for towed systems) to a prime mover would all have been done by any soldier or marine before being promoted

so, while she may not lift any rounds now.. se most certainly did in the past

women in combat is here to stay, like it or not.

i don't get why some ppl praise foreign armies (israel, switzerland, norway,etc) for having females in combat, but reject it for our military

hard facts are that man many men cannot perform at these jobs physically either, so the yare retrained into another MOS or if they made it through AIT then at the unit they get reassigned in the unit for an 'extra duty' that takes up their time-- we called them unit mail clerks :)

i'd bet too, that like other nations who have females in combat for a long time now, the numbers of female failures and male failures (and re trained) will be proportionally the same this they will all go through the same basic trng with the same focus and the same physical training performed
I did my last year of duty on 105mm howitzers at Camp Pendleton in MOS 0811. :) I know about artillery. My fleet MOS was Avionics 0611 but then changed to FABM, MOS 0811 my last year.
 

Overmind One

GateFans Gatemaster
Staff member
you are partially correct

for ass poor nations like Armenia who just had their asses handed to them by Azerbaijan (supplied with Israeli attack drones) yes tanks with no active anti tank countermeasures or passive reactive armor plating- yes tanks are a terrible choice

but there have been massive changes-- the Russians have a countermeasure that uses radio waves to disrupt tracking on atgm's and is being used in combat against the Ukrainian army.. Armenias NEW tank force-supplied by Russia will sure to have these on them

also, many other nations, including the US already has and is developing improved APS anti-ATGM tech. It is active protection against all current atgm's and against many other types of ammunition as well

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l65-OWWHkI4
The three main disadvantages of tanks are:

Transporting them
Fueling them
Piloting them by humans

Even an electric tank needs to be recharged. A drone tank can be made almost disposable. A motorized gun would be relatively easy to retrofit into a remote. Manned tanks make no sense in this day and age. What can we not do with aerial drones?
 

Overmind One

GateFans Gatemaster
Staff member

YJ02

Well Known GateFan
What can we not do with aerial drones?
well for one thing, the intell that 'spots' for them is terrible UNLESS we have human forward observers/air controllers on the ground

without this we will continue to do things like blow up native weddings and funeral processions :(

against armored vehicles? can't defeat an armored vehicle with APS onboard and SHORAD air defense systems nearby is another thing
 
Top