View Full Version : 10 x Female Officers Graduate IOBC
KalashniKEV
10-27-16, 12:19
https://www.armytimes.com/articles/ten-women-graduate-from-the-armys-first-integrated-infantry-officer-course
Looks like 10 more ladies have followed CPT Geist and donned the blue cord.
"This makes us a better Army. The reason it makes us a better Army is this whole issue has driven us to ensure we had the right standards aligned to each occupational specialty in the Army. By defining that, what we’ve done is we’ve created a gender-neutral, standards-based training environment, so it no longer becomes a question of male or female."
(No comment, I just wanted to let you guys know...) ;)
http://taskandpurpose.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/2947143-840x420.jpg
Honestly this is equality. I say we mandate they register with selective service just like men have to.
Honestly this is equality. I say we mandate they register with selective service just like men have to.
I have been saying that for 50 years!
...which means that 10 more ladies will be attending Ranger School (a stay at Harmony Church is essentially required for IOBC graduates). Let's see how they fair compared to the last 3.
KalashniKEV
10-27-16, 15:16
...which means that 10 more ladies will be attending Ranger School (a stay at Harmony Church is essentially required for IOBC graduates). Let's see how they fare compared to the last 3.
The butthurt is going to be positively DELISH if one makes it through without recycling...
You know what....good for them.
If they are jacked, Demi Moore 20 years ago, ripped like Cammy from Street Fighter II valkyries of death....go for it.
brushy bill
10-27-16, 15:37
Hope this really means 'gender neutral' standards
Dist. Expert 26
10-27-16, 15:56
Yet IOC still has a 0% female graduation rate. Army needs to step it up.
The butthurt is going to be positively DELISH if one makes it through without recycling...
Honestly, if somebody wants it and they pass the same requirements, they deserve it. If somebody I care about is dented up I really don't care who covers their ass and drags them out of the line of fire, I only care that they are capable of doing so.
A female who wants to be a Ranger and satisfies all the requirements is in my mind "one more" and we don't have nearly enough of that breed. I honestly think this should have done back in March 22, 1972, it's long overdue.
Join up get a rifle, be an 11A. From there attend and qualify any schools you are capable of passing. If we had a "true equality" military for the last 40 years maybe we wouldn't be so quick to squander their lives in operations that aren't necessary to the security of the United States or burden them down with insanely restrictive ROE. Would the nation have been willing to do that with the lives of mothers and daughters?
Imagine if we "saddled up" once we took Saddam out of power and established his chemical weapons capability. How many lives would have been saved if we didn't waste time trying to establish an oasis of democracy? Iraq was already the closest thing that region had to a modern, secular state. Women had positions in the government, didn't have to dress like jawa's, etc. We should have simply found a new leader of the Ba'ath party, put him in charge and told him not to make us come back. Would have been a good opportunity to reestablish our alliance with Iraq that Reagan spend so much time to build.
KalashniKEV
10-27-16, 16:17
Yet IOC still has a 0% female graduation rate. Army needs to step it up.
As does 11B OSUT.
These are two different tests- the Marines let random regular enlistees try their hand if they so chose- the Army is still hand selecting females capable of meeting the standard and allowing them to give it their best shot. It's all very carefully curated- i.e. CPT Geist was approved a branch transfer to become the first ever female Infantry Officer and 1LT Haver was not (yet).
I believe we will eventually push too hard to integrate, identify the flaws in the thinking, and create separate female Infantry formations (which will make the race to top EIB metrics AWESOME as well as many other things).
Imagine if we "saddled up" once we took Saddam out of power and established his chemical weapons capability (Ha... HA-HA...). How many lives would have been saved if we didn't waste time trying to establish an oasis of democracy? Iraq was already the closest thing that region had to a modern, secular state.
Must... avoid... my favorite side track...
We are still fighting secular Ba'athism and parliamentary democracy in the Middle East.
WMDs were not the goal, and neither was stability (quite the opposite, in fact...)
Yet IOC still has a 0% female graduation rate. Army needs to step it up.
Oh, your beloved Corps won't dodge this horseshit. Count on it, it's a comin'!
As does 11B OSUT.
I thought I read somewhere that some had made it through OSUT at Benning (?). I know it is open to females now.
EDIT: I remember now......there were a few slated to start OSUT this fall and if they made it the Spring of 2017 would see the U.S. Army's first women Infantrypersons. (can't say infantrymen I guess)
I thought I read somewhere that some had made it through OSUT at Benning (?). I know it is open to females now.
EDIT: I remember now......there were a few slated to start OSUT this fall and if they made it the Spring of 2017 would see the U.S. Army's first women Infantrypersons. (can't say infantrymen I guess)
It's open. There were females at Benning BCT/OSUT during April of this year.
I think this is a good thing. Replacing the term "infantryman"
I have some ideas:
Agents of Murder
KillTroopers
Gunslingers
Deathbringers
RifleKillers
SoulStealers
Just some thoughts. Change is always an opportunity to feel better about things
SeriousStudent
10-27-16, 22:50
Can I call dibs on "Masters of Mordor"?
Death Blossoms
Chrysanthemum's of Chaos (121+ GT required for spelling if we use this)
KittyKitty BangBang
and the old standard
11 Bush
These are two different tests- the Marines let random regular enlistees try their hand if they so chose- the Army is still hand selecting females capable of meeting the standard and allowing them to give it their best shot. It's all very carefully curated- i.e. CPT Geist was approved a branch transfer to become the first ever female Infantry Officer and 1LT Haver was not (yet).
So you are saying the Army is gaming the system in order to make quota, but the Marines are keeping a neutral bar to all-comers?
I have no problem with women being Infantrymen. Go through all schools meeting the men's standards. No integrated/coed units. Should be no problems other than your typical grab a**sery (in theory).
Yet IOC still has a 0% female graduation rate. Army needs to step it up.
You may be familiar, but without getting into branch debates, they are very different programs. And the idea that IOC/Marines is tougher is not borne out by matching success rates in Ranger School. (Thought admittedly a smaller sample of Marines attempt RS)
- IBOLC is not really a weed out school (RS does that quite nicely). They would graduate 100% if they could. And non-grads are viewed as a process/training failure. Anyone not on track to graduate gets quite a bit of attention with the goal of getting them back on track.
- It's almost double the length of IOC (19 wks vs 10). Which means that anyone who enters at the fitness standard and takes it seriously has plenty of time to build up to the exit standard. Which by the way, is the entrance std for RS. And the curriculum is largely structured to teach future PL's what they need to know + make sure they are ready for RS.
The IBOLC curriculum, standards, and evaluation methods is published. Would be very hard to game or change without the entire class knowing. Not completing IBOLC largely is an automatic recycle. So there is not even that aspect, which does come into play in RS.
More importantly, the Army wants (good, bad or indifferent) to integrate females. Has made it a priority. And is trying to do so without breaking things or compromising the standard. Where the Marines seem to be fighting it to the very end. If the Army can be accused of fudging to try to game the outcome to ensure female grads, the Marines are being accused of subjectively doing the opposite. I don't think either are doing anything tangible, but subjective stuff does happen.
We knew going in this year group that there were females capable of completing IBOLC, as some had performed at that level at USMA. Most who were able to do so went Aviation or similar in past years as their ranking made it easy to get them. Now that essentially a command track has opened up as an option there were females who committed (hard) to IN a year before graduation.
My son recently went through IBOLC/RS. Had females in his RS class, though luckily not in his squad. Consensus in the class was the RI's did not compromise the RS standards, though females did get multiple shots that males would never have gotten. (So that is sort of a standard variation). Indications are now that some have made it through there will not be even that accommodation given.
Side note: I recently saw a pic of a female CPT over a IN line company in an Airborne unit. Could not tell if she had a tab or not. But it appears there have been more female IN CPT's placed. Yet we have not heard of more female RS grads. So either the Army is keeping it quiet, or they have relaxed the tab requirement for IN line leadership for females. I know in my son's unit a tabless IN LT will never get a platoon. Will be on staff forever. For the female's sake I hope they are not bending the rules.
I'm just happy that there are very few IN females (None?) in my son's year group. He will encounter them as CPT and above due to cross branching. Hopefully we will not see affirmative action bias applied in promotions, etc.
I have no problem with women being Infantrymen. Go through all schools meeting the men's standards. No integrated/coed units. Should be no problems other than your typical grab a**sery (in theory).
I know you know there will be integrated/coed IN units. Already are in other Army Branches.
And already evidence they will force integrate female CPT & MAJ's into line IN units to get them in the command pipeline.
BTW, I expect to see female CIB's in the next year or two.
I know you know there will be integrated/coed IN units. Already are in other Army Branches.
And already evidence they will force integrate female CPT & MAJ's into line IN units to get them in the command pipeline.
BTW, I expect to see female CIB's in the next year or two.
I don't think it is smart to integrate IN.
Are you expecting a war?
These are two different tests- the Marines let random regular enlistees try their hand if they so chose- the Army is still hand selecting females capable of meeting the standard and allowing them to give it their best shot. It's all very carefully curated- i.e. CPT Geist was approved a branch transfer to become the first ever female Infantry Officer and 1LT Haver was not (yet).
So you are saying the Army is gaming the system in order to make quota, but the Marines are keeping a neutral bar to all-comers?
Was true for initial female RS candidates. Special prep, top grading, etc. Any could apply, but you had to demonstrate you could had a chance to proceed to prep.
For 2016 year group officers, it was wide open. No restrictions. Still very few branched IN at USMA for 2016, 16 out of 200'ish females?
Also a big change, no press, no special attention from media encouraged or really allowed.
They probably did get special coaching/grooming/prep prior to IBOLC report. All to complete a program and perform at a standard that every male IN officer is expected to meet. So in that aspect it's still an Army special handling. I'd not call it curated, but close. And there are many command eyeballs watching the whole thing, from the sending units, the schools, etc.
I know the standard my son is expected (required) to uphold as an ABN IN officer. It's going to take some special females to be able to maintain that. I'm sure there are some out there, but it will take more than just cross branching them to do so. (Unless they relax that expectation, which culturally will be difficult to do from within)
I don't think it is smart to integrate IN.
No argument from me. But neither you or I are in charge. They are already integrating them. And to a large extent, already function as integrated BCT's/BN's.
I expect it will take a bit before we see enlisted females in line IN companies. But it will happen in the next year.
Are you expecting a war?
Define war... WW3, probably not. Combat- yes. Syria, Iraq, Africa, potentially Georgia type stuff in the Balkans? Absolutely, especially if HRC is elected.
Pretty sure OIR (Syria & Iraq) still qualify for CIB. And I expect future combat conflicts to qualify.
More importantly, the Army wants (good, bad or indifferent) to integrate females. Has made it a priority. And is trying to do so without breaking things or compromising the standard. Where the Marines seem to be fighting it to the very end. If the Army can be accused of fudging to try to game the outcome to ensure female grads, the Marines are being accused of subjectively doing the opposite. I don't think either are doing anything tangible, but subjective stuff does happen.
Aside from following it through the forums I don't know how the army is doing what it is doing. I can say on the Marine side, while you are right in that they are fighting it, they haven't made standards harder to exclude women. The standards now were the standards a couple years ago. Same for the enlisted SOI; and a few women have made it through there.
I say, if they meet the standard for IOC or RS, have at it. I don't 'like' it or 'agree' with it (with women in combat arms), but if they are going to do it, just do it right.
I probably know the answer to this, but I'll ask anyway: what will become of females, either enlisted or officer, who fail to keep standard? I can honestly say that I did harder stuff as permanent party than I did in Infantry OSUT.
I'll wager with officers it will be hushed up and they will close ranks to cover for it. Not only is that an officer thing anyway but there are plenty of field-grade and above officers who have a lot invested in this venture politically (being the political creatures that some of them become). As long as a left-leaning administration is in place they know to whom they will be accountable.
Enlisted female grunts? Again, too much invested to admit to failure so I predict you will see company/BN mail clerks, CO drivers, "assistants" of one sort or another occupied by females who ultimately cannot hang. They will displace the slug/profiled dudes who currently occupy those positions. And when it comes time for promotions you'd better bet they not be passed over for not meeting standard and holding a sham job; nope, they will be promoted whereas a guy in a similar slot wouldn't be (I predict you won't see "career" PFC's or SP4 women in the infantry).
There will never be an admission of "Maybe this wasn't such a good idea". That's not the military way. There will be brow-beating like never before. Can anyone else picture this happening:
"SSG Jones, why did you make PFC Sheila carry the 240?"
"Uh, 'cause she's my 240 gunner?"
"Not anymore she isn't. Give it to someone else."
KalashniKEV
10-28-16, 10:29
Was true for initial female RS candidates. Special prep, top grading, etc. Any could apply, but you had to demonstrate you could had a chance to proceed to prep.
I'm not sure what you mean by "top grading," but "special prep" for the original selectees meant Division Pre-Ranger at their home station, followed by Ranger Training Assessment Course at Benning, followed by school.
Only 36 soldiers out of 100 graduated RTAC in Ranger Haver's class.
https://www.army.mil/article/143371
Throw in the fact that Haver and Geist were offered Day-0 Recycle after double NO-GOs and they both took it, means that they were starving, sore, cold, wet, tired, dirty, and miserable for about a year of their lives before meeting the Ranger Standard and earning their tabs.
You are correct to be proud of your son's accomplishment, but you should talk to him sometime about his experience- especially now that he is out of the schoolhouse and in the real Army.
I personally am more concerned with the future generations of fellow tab-owners having gone through patrols using a DAGR to navigate than I am about them having to earn their tab next to a female... and if you've noticed thus far, the biggest noise is coming from folks who either never went to school or who went and failed to meet the same standard these ladies have achieved.
They get my respect (unless something comes to light that says otherwise but I doubt it).
I personally am more concerned with the future generations of fellow tab-owners having gone through patrols using a DAGR to navigate than I am about them having to earn their tab next to a female.
That is a legitimate concern for sure.
I probably know the answer to this, but I'll ask anyway: what will become of females, either enlisted or officer, who fail to keep standard? I can honestly say that I did harder stuff as permanent party than I did in Infantry OSUT.
I'll wager with officers it will be hushed up and they will close ranks to cover for it.
Can't hide not having a tab. And the current batch will recycle IBOLC until they complete it successfully, just like the guys.
The real question is will the IN units put non-tabbed officers in command roles of line Platoons/Companies.
I'm not sure what you mean by "top grading," but "special prep" for the original selectees meant Division Pre-Ranger at their home station, followed by Ranger Training Assessment Course at Benning, followed by school.
Top grading= asking for volunteers (or encouraging strong performers), making it their full time job to get ready, dieticians and trainers, etc.
As opposed to "all male IN 2LT's must report & complete". Including the borderline overweight ROTC grads who are only Infantry because they did not get their 5 other prefered branches. And it was better than Chem or Transport.
Only 36 soldiers out of 100 graduated RTAC in Ranger Haver's class.
If you look at the total RTAC stats for the females in that period it was very telling. And it was not an average mix of female officers.
That said, there are some indications that RTAC is not as good of a prep as IBOLC. Just more time in IBOLC doing SL/PL stuff, longer ramp up physically.
RTAC grads also exit a little out of condition, where IBOLC has a bit more recovery time from when they do their RPFT & similar exit tests.
My son and buds believe the female IBOLC grads will see higher pass rates in RS accordingly.
Throw in the fact that Haver and Geist were offered Day-0 Recycle after double NO-GOs and they both took it, means that they were starving, sore, cold, wet, tired, dirty, and miserable for about a year of their lives before meeting the Ranger Standard and earning their tabs.
Full respect for their tabbing, especially as a non-mil outsider.
That said, the very things you mentioned would never have been offered to male candidates. Not only were they double NO-GO's, they failed the same thing twice. (actually, a couple of times) That's automatically a ticket home normally. Likewise, they totally dodged being peered apparently. (IE: they could not be NO-GO'd due to peers)
Consensus is you won't see many males take more than 6 contiguous mths because of that fact. I'm sure exceptions exist, but this is something that even the RI's in my son's class acknowledged was a variance.
Likewise, they started in optimal weather (Not summer, not winter).
I've seen field grade officers (Non-tabbed, Non-RTB, but heavily vested in the female exercise) challenge the points above, but the class composition, recycles, etc are known and visible to participants. It's very clear what the "standard" behavior is, and that it was varied.
Again, no dis to the fem grads intended. But had they been male they would have been sent home.
You are correct to be proud of your son's accomplishment, but you should talk to him sometime about his experience- especially now that he is out of the schoolhouse and in the real Army.
Not something he wants to talk about. (RS and fems) He will and has if I ask him, but making it through that period was made more difficult by the presence of the females. It was a distraction, a nuisance. Only a couple in his class made it out of RAP week, and none out of Darby. (Winter Ranger took it's toll). So they were gone by the time it got really tough. (not that RAP & Darby are not tough)
No drama otherwise. It's just a fact, it's happening, it will impact promotion decisions, etc. Just deal with it seems to be his attitude. Not that different from Affirmative Action stuff I lived through in the early 80's. Does not mean there are not deserving candidates. Just that you recognize and to a certain extent, have your nose rubbed in the fact that it's not going to be fair and objective.
As to life in the real Army, don't hear much due to current deployment. And when we do there is zero desire to talk about mil stuff.
I personally am more concerned with the future generations of fellow tab-owners having gone through patrols using a DAGR to navigate than I am about them having to earn their tab next to a female...
Funny, never asked about DAGR usage in patrols. Had always assumed it was map & compass given the emphasis on the old ways in land nav.
I know in RSLC they were able to use private GPS units for some exercises as cross checks in addition to DAGR & compass. (Obviously, not land nav) But you better know how to use map & compass, or you will fail.
and if you've noticed thus far, the biggest noise is coming from folks who either never went to school or who went and failed to meet the same standard these ladies have achieved.
They get my respect (unless something comes to light that says otherwise but I doubt it).
That's my view, they did something harder than the majority of servicemen ever do. Especially the older mom who tabbed. By all accounts exceptional individuals.
And all of you do more than most of us private citizens. (Especially old ones like me with bad knees and 25lbs too heavy)
As opposed to "all male IN 2LT's must report & complete". Including the borderline overweight ROTC grads who are only Infantry because they did not get their 5 other prefered branches. And it was better than Chem or Transport.
I thought infantry was the most selective and therefore the hardest in which to get a slot? Again, my observation was on the Marine side where you get graded during TBS and only the top whatever-percent make the cut for infantry; everyone else gets everything else.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
10-28-16, 14:47
Lol Army, you need to chill.
KalashniKEV
10-28-16, 14:53
Can't hide not having a tab.
That's true- and there are two kinds, those with tabs and those with excuses... but you're off with a lot of your stuff.
For one thing, there was no immunity from peers, special female diet, extra showers, or any of the falsehoods that were circulating when Rangers Geist and Haver tabbed.
Also, there are lots of PLs without tabs- just go to a Mech Unit or better yet, your local National Guard unit. It's true that post-IOBC it's either "accept a Ranger slot or schedule a counseling so we can tell you you're a shitbag." A lot of dudes scheduled that counseling.
I thought infantry was the most selective and therefore the hardest in which to get a slot?
Not really.
Combat Arms branches need more junior officers and less senior officers (just think of the way a BCT is organized). Other branches need fewer junior officers and more senior officers to fill out the staff roles in addition to the primary leadership positions (think of a Distro PL in an FSC who has a Company Commander, a SPO planning BDE support, a SPO-Trans supporting movement, a SPO-S&S supporting supply, etc. Those aren't other Lieutenants.) This is why they Branch Detail Lieutenants from their Control Branch to Combat Arms.
Also, there are plenty of fat people and even a good number of old people who show up at IOBC. My class had more than one former 1SG.
Combat Arms branches need more junior officers and less senior officers (just think of the way a BCT is organized). Other branches need fewer junior officers and more senior officers to fill out the staff roles in addition to the primary leadership positions (think of a Distro PL in an FSC who has a Company Commander, a SPO planning BDE support, a SPO-Trans supporting movement, a SPO-S&S supporting supply, etc. Those aren't other Lieutenants.) This is why they Branch Detail Lieutenants from their Control Branch to Combat Arms.
Also, there are plenty of fat people and even a good number of old people who show up at IOBC. My class had more than one former 1SG.
Ah. Did not know how that worked in the Army. Thanks for the lesson.
but you're off with a lot of your stuff.
For one thing, there was no immunity from peers
OK, I won't debate the point. Just recognize that particular item was communicated early on. Then some leaders backed off, dismissed it.
Maybe you were involved and know. I was not and do not. I'll defer to your experience
special female diet, extra showers, or any of the falsehoods that were circulating when Rangers Geist and Haver tabbed.
Those items I never stated. There were however dieticians involved during RTAC as fact, which is what I stated. And in many cases coaches assigned prior, etc. I know this as fact for two. It also appears that many were given light duties to allow time to prepare.
Special showers and extra food in RS would be too blatant. I don't know of anyone close to the process who believes that, much less has evidence.
Also, there are lots of PLs without tabs- just go to a Mech Unit or better yet, your local National Guard unit. It's true that post-IOBC it's either "accept a Ranger slot or schedule a counseling so we can tell you you're a shitbag." A lot of dudes scheduled that counseling.
Fair enough, NG is a different beast. Mainstream IN, the PL aspect must vary depending on if the Army is drawdown or not. Either that or it's 4-11 ghost stories.
But it's pretty much accepted as fact currently that you won't get a platoon in an ABN unit without a tab, and absolutely is true in my son's unit. Maybe it's an unwritten thing.
I'll defer to your experiences, all I can reference is ground truth my son is living.
Combat Arms branches need more junior officers and less senior officers (just think of the way a BCT is organized). Other branches need fewer junior officers and more senior officers to fill out the staff roles in addition to the primary leadership positions
IN is also the largest branch. At USMA it starts going out pretty high. ( Often #2, #3, etc.) But there are often more IN slots than all the other branches combined once you include branch detailed slots. It it varies by year, Armor and Aviation have had some big years lately. A bunch get forced branched as they want aviation, etc.
ROTC branches differently, uses tiers to spread order of merit. So more forced branching.
Also, there are plenty of fat people and even a good number of old people who show up at IOBC. My class had more than one former 1SG.
:) Were they enforcing passing APFT and taping then? That is an admittedly low bar even now.
Son's class had a mid to late 30s OCS grad. Put the youngsters to shame as he was a longtime batt boy NCO. The boot LTs had major respect for that guy. He was that good, and was a super nice guy as well.
KalashniKEV
10-28-16, 18:17
:) Were they enforcing passing APFT and taping then? That is an admittedly low bar even now.
Yes, and there were dudes who busted tape and there were dudes who got low scores.
Pretty normal stuff.
All you need to graduate IBOLC is 60 points in each APFT event for your age group, and to not bust tape at the final APFT (flex neck, suck gut, observe signature, go to Cracker Barrel).
All you need to graduate IBOLC is 60 points in each APFT event for your age group, and to not bust tape at the final APFT (flex neck, suck gut, observe signature, go to Cracker Barrel).
Hey, that's pretty easy! :)
What a bunch of drama queens worrying about scored events like land nav, rpft, 5 mi run, 12 mi ruck, etc to the RS std. Most of which is scored by RIs. Never mind the peers, briefings, leadership assessment (heavily impacted by peers) and academic stuff.
And the minimum score for graduation requirements must be out of date, better tell 2-11.
http://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/199th/ibolc/content/pdf/IBOLC%20Graduation%20Requirements.pdf
It's not RS, though several of the exit criteria are essentially the same as the rap week counterparts.
:) I'm guessing you're trolling me. That or came through when the Army had throttled up, was in growth mode. (Crank out some LTs, pronto.)
They are recycling now for standards. Or if the soldier/unit insists, they can send them to their gaining unit with a very bad AER. Multiple recycled in my son's IBOLC course. A couple for stupid stuff, others for standards. Some foreign students sent home for standards.
One of my son's roommates peered badly and barely graduated. Was sweating scores.
Liberal progressive feel good bullshit, military style. Same for the last 8 years.
"Men and women are EQUAL" while they have vastly UNEQUAL PT standards.
Ok.
As borderline sexist as I can be, I think chicks could make a hell of Tunnel Rats. American Men are getting bigger, taller, and fatter. Most fit women look like 14 year old boys physically.
Not Military (sorry bout that) but my adult life was LE and not always in some pleasant areas. Most chick cops get a second look from me, but once in a while you get someone who can be a total hellcat. Like knife in her boot, run an SMG like playing Johnny B Goode, and can hang. Again, not the average, oh god no, but if some chick wants to squat piss in the woods for 3 months or better, starve, and so on and is serious about upholding the standards then have at it.
I DO think if they play the "woopsie, got pregnant. Can't play army no more" there should be hell to pay though. But JMHO
I have no problem with this at all. What I do have a problem with is the female APFT standard. Eliminate that and make them perform to the current male standard, or go join the navy.
I guess my question is what do we sacrifice by being the only military on Earth to have women in frontline infantry units? Don't mention the IDF because while the calendars are great :cool: they are in fact not in the IDF infantry platoons as riflemen. I'm also not talking about Soviet women being effective snipers in WWII. I'm talking populating your sharp edge of the spear (and the tip too one of these days) with females. Either the rest of the world is ignorant and we're onto something or we're the weird old uncle who spouts nonsense at family gatherings while everyone else looks at us like "Riiiiight".
I also look at conditions encountered in combat, both current, past, and future. It's one thing doing the "Road Warrior" thing in Iraq where there is a large component of mounted movement and (comparatively) limited foot work. It's another thing altogether to hump mountains in the Hindu Kush at 8,000 feet carrying 100+lbs of gear. Or humping that same load up and down mountains in a tropical jungle (like II Corps in the Central Highlands of Vietnam). For a year at a time. It's one thing to endure and make the cut to be there in the first place, but what happens in the long, grueling, sucky haul? I suspect that's where we'll see the basic biological physical sturdiness of men > women.
I personally don't think women should be combat arms infantry.
However, if they can pass all the tests, just the same as anyone else, have at it and good job. Make us proud.
As long as the standards aren't watered down. They exist for a reason. If nothing else, for tradition.
Also, there are lots of PLs without tabs- just go to a Mech Unit
Every PL we had was tabbed as well as our CO's. Any LT's that were not, were put in staff roles.
I DO think if they play the "woopsie, got pregnant. Can't play army no more" there should be hell to pay though. But JMHO
Women the Navy started assigning women to sea duty all it did was get them a med board if they wanted out. There no teeth in policy enforcement.
KalashniKEV
10-31-16, 15:25
Every PL we had was tabbed as well as our CO's. Any LT's that were not, were put in staff roles.
They do exist.
They do exist.
I never saw a Captain or higher (Infantry) without a tab in the 82nd. I did see 2 PLs without one towards the end of my time though. I suspect it was due to the mid-2000s attrition and they had to cram a few people through fast.
crusader377
11-03-16, 09:23
When I was in 1999-2003 (101st ABN), If I had to guess probably 85% of the Platoon Leaders in the Infantry were tabbed and the remaining 15% had some sort of plan to get their tabs. I spent a fair about of time on the infantry side of the house (Fire Support), and I honesty don't remember any Infantry Captain who went to the advance course that was non-tabbed.
KalashniKEV
11-03-16, 09:56
I never saw a Captain or higher (Infantry) without a tab in the 82nd.
You definitely need a tab to get a Company Command, pretty much anywhere (I think- probably there are exceptions here too... mech world? National Guard?).
There are just too many fully qualified people competing for a limited number of slots.
crusader377
11-03-16, 10:24
You definitely need a tab to get a Company Command, pretty much anywhere (I think- probably there are exceptions here too... mech world? National Guard?).
There are just too many fully qualified people competing for a limited number of slots.
82nd and 101st definitely. Most likely the same standards with 25th and probably 10th Mountain. Mech world probably not but your long term career prospects as a non-tabbed infantry officer is very limited. For example, I don't recall ever seeing a non-tabbed Infantry Battalion commander in active duty during the time period that I was in.
A thought: How many women do you think would really, actually want to be in the Infantry?
Toting beltfeds for miles, stinking to high heaven, and knowing capture would mean something other than torture or death?
In 20 years I'd like to know if they would still make up even a percentage.
Just curious. Not an Army guy but like 99% of female police I know tend to self assign and self promote as far away from patrolwork as possible or at least vie for more decent, less activity areas.
KalashniKEV
11-03-16, 10:31
For example, I don't recall ever seeing a non-tabbed Infantry Battalion commander in active duty during the time period that I was in.
That's something that probably hasn't happened in decades for the same reason as above- lots of fully qualified officers, not a lot of slots.
82nd and 101st definitely. Most likely the same standards with 25th and probably 10th Mountain. Mech world probably not but your long term career prospects as a non-tabbed infantry officer is very limited. For example, I don't recall ever seeing a non-tabbed Infantry Battalion commander in active duty during the time period that I was in.
I can't recall the last time I saw an infantry PL without a tab in the 10th Mtn. I doubt that happens. Even the NG PL's had tabs in a NC unit that I drilled with from 2007-2011. There was (still is?) a "pre-RS" course for NG soldiers at Benning which supposedly increased the pass rate in the NG world. There are other "pre" courses at places like Ft. Sill for non-infantry types trying to get a tab.
KalashniKEV
11-03-16, 10:49
A thought: How many women do you think would really, actually want to be in the Infantry?
There are lots.
And they know a good bit about what that really means too.
Consider that a shiny young PL like Pinzer Jr. will be in the back 40 soon delivering an OPORD to the same high standard he learned in... whatever the unit that runs the schoolhouse is called, I was in it and I don't even remember... and will be delivered a stack of mermites and snack cakes by a female who ALSO knows how to deliver complete and thorough briefs- because she led a few dozen Combat Logistics Patrols on her last deployment, after sitting through hundreds on her first deployment, where maybe she manned a gun and discovered a few IEDs and maybe let the lead fly a time or two.
Ranger School isn't really much of a school, it's more like Ranger Test. Although instruction takes place, you better know everything you need to know before you get there.
It's one of the toughest tests that TRADOC has. It's also not the only test.
Now, delivering supplies is not the same as doing raids and ambushes, but there are ladies who will step right up and give it their best and beyond. I'm actually only really against integrating the units, not opening up the job. As I think I've said before- it will be DELISH to see who can ruck the same packing list 12 miles quicker... or shoot better... or turn out higher numbers on PT (I am in favor of eliminating all age and gender scoring and creating a single standard scoring table).
Kev, Thanks again for your input.
Military and LE are worlds apart but a good soldier is a good soldier. I mean, Maj. Sam Carter kicked oodles of ass.
I'm from a vantage where a majority of females make it a goal to escape patrol.
That said I have known a hellcat or two who could run fast and dynamic like ringing a bell. I honestly thought she was a dyke. I was pleasantly surprised to find she most certainly was not. A total Malibu Barbie 10-7 who just well...we wont go there but an Amazon Warrior Bitch Goddess she was until she met a guy with money.
Like she kept a boot knife. 5'8". Sturdy.
But all them other womens just were space-takers and slot-fillers.
So if it works, it works.
Spider-monkey with an MP5, just say'n.
Dist. Expert 26
11-03-16, 12:35
As an infantry guy I'll add this-
Trying to get an infantry platoon to actually follow a female is extremely unlikely, bordering on impossible. The E-3's (or E-4's in the Army) are either going to view her as an annoying girl or someone they want to have sex with. Maybe both.
Unless said LT has already BTDT she would be mocked by everyone up to the platoon Sgt, even worse than a male LT.
I personally laughed in the face of female officers and SNCOs as a Lcpl. Most of the time it was justified, but sometimes it wasn't. Point being the infantry is a man's world, and it needs to remain that way.
Don't disagree with most of KKev's comments, but I do have some observations as an outsider. It's a topic of interest as I personally know a bunch of officers, candidates, and serving officers in the middle of that maelstrom or who are choosing to enter it. Unlike myself, they have a very strong vested interest in the situation.
There are lots.
No data on enlisted, or on current serving officers who want to cross-branch.
But at USMA, about 5-10% of female officer candidates actively pursuing it based on 2 years of stats (YG 2015 & 2016. 2017 will branch shortly). YG 2015 allowed for IN female volunteers, in case it opened up early. With probably more having a strong desire but did not move forward due to physical realities. Many of the ones who would have the best chance of succeeding do not pursue it as they have better options. Or do not like the IN lifestyle.
I expect it will grow some short term, then level off. I also expect it to be a bit broader in the OCS ranks.
And they know a good bit about what that really means too.
Consider that a shiny young PL like Pinzer Jr. will be in the back 40 soon delivering an OPORD to the same high standard he learned in... whatever the unit that runs the schoolhouse is called, I was in it and I don't even remember... and will be delivered a stack of mermites and snack cakes by a female who ALSO knows how to deliver complete and thorough briefs- because she led a few dozen Combat Logistics Patrols on her last deployment, after sitting through hundreds on her first deployment, where maybe she manned a gun and discovered a few IEDs and maybe let the lead fly a time or two.
There is probably a broader discussion to be had about relevancy of RS to the broader Army with it's focus on VN era Infantry patrolling, etc. And whether we are talking about average garrison life VS deployment VS combat as we've seen the last 10 years VS potential combat we may see
But if all a grad leaves with is how to brief an OpOrd the RI way, then many (most?) would say they missed the point.
Likewise, there are far easier methods to teach patrolling.
Ranger School isn't really much of a school, it's more like Ranger Test. Although instruction takes place, you better know everything you need to know before you get there.
It's one of the toughest tests that TRADOC has. It's also not the only test.
No argument there. Current leadership would say the Infantry squad level patrolling in RS is just a framework combined with major stressors (food, exhaustion, sleep) to determine who can & will get the job done in spite of conditions. And how to drive performance past "hard" conditions and approach "Fatal" effort. (They actually have a slide with that). As for officers the academic mil art part is something they should have learned in IBOLC/RTAC or earlier.
Ex: Every USMA grad learned and practiced IN skills taught in IBOLC during mil art classes and summer exercises cadre'd by 10th Mtn and SF cadre running opfor. ROTC apparently does similar. It exposes all to IN "stuff" and weeds out many from considering the branch. IE: If you hated field work at USMA or ROTC camps, you'll really hate IBOLC, much less RS. Not to imply that's anything like RS, much less real IN ops. Just that if you don't like the intro, you won't like the real deal.
But the difference is in the depth of the stressors in the training & exercises, not so much the subject matter & expectations.
Most serving officers I've heard/read indicate RS Patrolling is not out of alignment with IN skills and potential conditions, but does not define it. Nor is it the point of RS. Likewise, patrolling & briefing skills are not why many serving officers still do a "tab check" if it's relevant to the task at hand.
Now, delivering supplies is not the same as doing raids and ambushes, but there are ladies who will step right up and give it their best and beyond.
That's what gets lost in the noise... Females already serve in very valuable ways, no one I know questions that. And in many cases can do the job as well as males. Maybe better in some cases. (Pilots?) And in some cases, not as good with regard to critical job skills. Is it OK for an officer to ask enlisted to do something they are not themselves capable of? That is a big culture thing in some units.
Or more broadly, is it acceptable to have a female in a combat role who cannot do basic job tasks required of male counterparts in the same job/grade/training?
I'm actually only really against integrating the units, not opening up the job. As I think I've said before- it will be DELISH to see who can ruck the same packing list 12 miles quicker... or shoot better... or turn out higher numbers on PT (I am in favor of eliminating all age and gender scoring and creating a single standard scoring table).
Well, you know they will be integrated, so that's a pipe dream.
Same for standardizing the APFT across genders. Results would lead to declaration it's an invalid test. (With some validity, it's probably already an invalid test). You guys would know better than I, but most of the serving folks I know think it tests/incents the wrong things.
MOS/branch/role specific tests have been explored and rejected even though they would be much more relevant than the APFT. Yet the standards exist in the form of critical combat skills (http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/WISR_Implementation_Plan_Army.pdf) that are a defacto expectations of current soldiers and company grade officers:
http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/WISR_Implementation_Plan_Army.pdf
See table A in Appendix C. I won't repeat them here, but suffice it to say they'd challenge many on this forum. Yet every enlisted in that MOS and new officers all must be able to perform at that level.
The new test (OPAT) for enlisted is probably better than nothing, but it just will weed out those who would clearly be unlikely to meet expectations. But relative to average population performance it's pretty lame. And is nowhere near the critical skills listed in the document above.
But does not not make sense, that if branching Armor, you can do the tasks required of all Armor? Same for FA, Mech Infantry (Bradley Leaders Course has some examples), etc? And like it or not, for IN, Rucking with 100 lbs and waddling/jumping with 175lbs of gear is part of what they do.
Granted, most do not do those things more than 1-2% of the time in service, but when they do need to do it, it's critical. Whether lifting the feed mech of a bradley gun , changing a road wheel, Shell crate, mortar plate, tow missile etc. It's unacceptable if anyone in the squad/platoon cannot do it.
And a big concern that the Army might end up like FD & PD's do with double standards across genders, and ultimately LEO & Firepersons that cannot perform core job skills.
And that risk has very little to do with individual female officers passing RS or their capabilities. It's more of a risk in how the Army addresses gender integration/equalization. Equal opportunity does not pose a risk, if it can be maintained as objective. But there is a tendency to mandate equal outcomes, which may not be realistic given physiological differences.
I know from observation that parts of the Army is fighting hard to avoid blatant double standards. And other parts are looking for equal outcomes.
As of yesterday I don't believe we issued powered armored suits with exoskeletons. So for now the physical stuff still matters in some roles. How much, and where, I'll leave to the experts.
Again, just an interesting discussion about a situation in which I'm an 3rd party observer. And would be the worst example to try to do myself! (Age + wear & tear)
. As I think I've said before- it will be DELISH to see who can ruck the same packing list 12 miles quicker... or shoot better... or turn out higher numbers on PT (I am in favor of eliminating all age and gender scoring and creating a single standard scoring table).
Day after day at a school, Sure. Maybe. Six months, nine months into deployment? I think I know the percentage of women who would come to me on sick call with extraordinary muscoskeletal injury.
I just don't think that many women want to be in infantry. Well, maybe they do in the Army. It seems like the Army is making it easier for them (than their counterparts in the Marines).
I just don't think that many women want to be in infantry. Well, maybe they do in the Army. It seems like the Army is making it easier for them (than their counterparts in the Marines).
You are right... the single largest risk repeatedly identified in the Army gender integration plan (see above pdf) is: "Insufficient propensity for women to serve as Infantry and Armor leaders to support the Leaders First policy."
KalashniKEV
11-03-16, 13:27
The Allegory of Plato's Cave seems appropriate...
Day after day at a school, Sure. Maybe. Six months, nine months into deployment? I think I know the percentage of women who would come to me on sick call with extraordinary muscoskeletal injury.
Actually, the schoolhouse will produce non-combat injuries in greater number severity than deployment. Maybe like 3x more.
It's a grind. They designed it that way.
Now, as for the gender aspect of that? Look at the one-year of misery Rangers Haver and Geist endured.
I've not seen any racial data, but there are slighter students who break and go home.
So the interesting thing is there are some fairly objective job task tests for various MOS/Branches. It's not rocket science, nor new. Here's a few of them below. Maybe they are not relevant, but most appear to be routine activities for our solders now. These are straight out of the pdf on the Army Gender Integration plan mentioned above
Conduct Tactical Movement (Foot March) Walks over varying terrain and altitude changes for a distance of 24 kilometers during a 24 hour period while carrying 103 pounds evenly distributed over the entire body, after which Soldier must retain the ability to perform all other physical requirements.
Complete in not less than 22 or more than 24 hours; the entire distance should not be completed in one segment.
Prepare a Fighting Position (Emplace Sandbags): Lifts, carries for up to 10 meters, and emplaces 30 -40 pounds sandbags at waist to shoulder height while wearing an 80 pound fighting load.
Standard: Hasty fighting position (without overhead cover) built in 26 minutes, 10 meters from original position of sandbags.
Mount M2 .50 Cal Machine Gun Receiver on M1 Abrams Tank Lifts 56 pounds and carries a vertical distance of 2.4 meters while wearing a 40 pound fighting load. M2.
50 caliber machine gun is properly mounted.
Maintain 25mm Gun on a BFV (Install the Barrel) Lifts 107 pounds and carries 25 meters as a member of a 2 Soldier team (prorated to 53.5 pounds) while wearing an 80 pound fighting load
Barrel is carried 25 meters and lifted onto BFV hull.
Load the TOW Missile Launcher on BFV (Load TOW) Lifts 65 pounds and carries 2 meters at shoulder height while wearing an 80 pound fighting load.
2 TOW missiles properly loaded.
Move Over, Through, or Around Obstacles (Negotiate Obstacles) Scales 2 meter vertical obstacles with assistance while wearing an 80 pound fighting load.
Obstacle successfully negotiated, with assistance from other squad members (if needed). Last Soldier must be pulled up, not pushed over
Engage Targets with a Caliber .50 M2 Machine Gun (emplace M2) Lifts 153 pounds (prorated to 76.5 pounds) and carries 10 meters at shoulder height while wearing an 80 pound fighting load.
M2 HB machine gun with tripod is successfully lifted and moved from a primary position to an alternate position 10 meters away, as part of a two member team.
Lay a 120mm Mortar (Emplace Base Plate) Lifts 136 pounds (prorated to 68 pounds) and carries 25 meters at waist height while wearing an 80 pound fighting load.
Base plate is properly emplaced 25 meters away, as part of a two member team.
Lay a 120mm Mortar for Deflection and Elevation (Traverse Mortar Assembly) Lifts 183 pounds (prorated to 91.5 pounds) and carries 1 meter while wearing an 80 pound fighting load.
Deflection (greater than 200 mils) properly changed, as part of a two member team.
(Prorated means the amount carried by an individual soldier as part of a team)
I don't know about you all, but I know I would be challenged by many of these. Especially if done day in/day out.
Compare these to the OPAT screening now being used for enlisted recruitment.
The Allegory of Plato's Cave seems appropriate...
Whoa... mind-blower... Are you a shadow in my reality? Or plato telling the tale and asking the questions?
I'll be the first to admit I'm just seeing shadows. :-)
Certain things are subjective, and only by going through them can be understood.
Other things are more objective and you don't have to be a participant to have visibility, opinion, or even in some cases, authority. NFL referees rarely played college or pro football.
I'm more like the guy in the nosebleed seats far removed from the actual game. But as I have a kid and friends playing, I try to understand the rules and keep up with the scores, etc. Plus, it's an active topic of conversation with my friends, many of which are field grade coaches. So the shadows in the cave analogy probably does apply some.
I never saw a Captain or higher (Infantry) without a tab in the 82nd. I did see 2 PLs without one towards the end of my time though. I suspect it was due to the mid-2000s attrition and they had to cram a few people through fast.
When I was in 1999-2003 (101st ABN), If I had to guess probably 85% of the Platoon Leaders in the Infantry were tabbed and the remaining 15% had some sort of plan to get their tabs.
Shrinking Army now. Yet USMA and ROTC still cranking out about the same # of 2LTs every year. I'm guessing they throttled down OCS, as they did not the other commissioning sources.
I know through recent grads in the last 12-18 mths that for the 82nd and 173rd IN LTs they will tell you not to bother showing up without a tab. Exception being med drop needing healing, in which you do staff gig, get well, and go back. Perception in the 2-11 LT crowd that is true for nearly all light units.
Boot LT No-go? Most cases do any remaining training (ABN, etc), snowbird, then hit RS again. I know one 2015 yg friend of my son's who did exactly that.
By all accounts competitive/desirable units are over strength on LTs, waits for PL slots are up. For sure in the ABN unit's based on my son and his bud's units. Conjecture is same will be occurring for CPTs. Longer & harder accessions.
It will be interesting to see if that changes with the new batch of 2016 yg female IN LTs. Many of which had the USMA order of merit rank to post to competitive units.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.