G&R Tactical
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: "The Ranger School Conspiracy"

  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    McKinney, Texas
    Posts
    458
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Moose-Knuckle View Post
    Identity politics are a thing, nothing would surprise me to the extent some would go to invent heroes for their culture war.
    Jessica Lynch.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,155
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    I'll start with the whole women in Ranger school and infantry / SOF is a giant distraction that will never yield enough results to give any benefit to the Army, and because of that is a net disadvantage to the Army.

    My son went through and graduated Ranger school after the first two females but before the mom. He had women in his various classes, but none made it to later phases. He might have had a couple that made it to the start of mountain phase but did not stick around long. None in swamp phase.

    So he and buds/classmates are living first-hand this grand experiment.

    most of this has been hashed out before but here's a few quick datapoints from them:

    1) the much alluded to records destruction is apparently SOP for Ranger school and has been. It was done for all soldiers, and the students themselves had to do the work detail. Per the RIs that's just the way it is done, and is for some very specific reasons that predate female Ranger students. The short version is that finishing is what counts. maybe the RIs lied to them, but my son does not think so.

    2) it should be no surprise that there are a few outlier females that can pass. Especially when they are given special training prep and support prior.

    The mom physically was a badass and joking aside could probably outperform 99% of people posting on this forum. Hardcore, excellent strength-to-weight and aerobic, but not the bulk muscle mass that works against you in Ranger School.

    3) the special training aspect is still a factor, but there are now female infantry officers coming through the pipeline through IBOLC which is a much more realistic scenario. The positive is they get a much better exposure to infantry tactics which hurt some of the women in Ranger school. If they take it seriously it's also good preparation.

    4) The women have a set of built-in excuses, which is really a disadvantage. It's the same with armor officers and some of the others that come through. Unless they're an infantry officer, they don't *have* to finish. Whereas my son and buddies knew that their unit would never get them a platoon, and most likely would just send them right back if they showed up without a tab. Or sit in crap staff jobs as a pariah.

    5) the short time my son was around female Ranger students he saw no special treatment, everyone suffered. The special treatment that did occur was in preparation, and we know with the first two that some unwritten rules about recycling phases were waived. While not publicized it is known to be fact based on the timelines and comments from the first two female graduates. Consensus seems to be that if there was special treatment it was around recycle rules and not during the actual phases themselves.

    This whole topic is a very sore subject for the LTs and Captains who are living with it. It's not something they want to discuss. It's a fact of life, it's a huge distraction, has very little impact on them currently, but there is a sense of bias and unequal opportunities headed their way.

    And when it's all said and done, 1% of the women who *want* to go Infantry may make it through RS. And significantly less than that of all the women in the army.

    This is being done solely to get some female Infantry officers in the pipeline for future command consideration. IE: it's purely political. That and the idea that RS is somehow the Army's premier leadership course. Which was never the intent.

    You can expect to see some of the well-known female names make the cut for Battalion command and probably even regiment at some point, though the first three are past the window to spend time in regiment as LTs or CPTs, normally a prerequisite. Odds are the 82nd will see one of them in command in a few years. 173rd less likely as their BN cmds are pretty much all ex-regiment.

    There is an expectation that there will be a similar push to get female officers into SOF, but not as many are interested as it's sort of a dead-end career for officers if you were looking for a command down the road.

    None of the above should be construed as negative to the females who toughed it out. Even with special prep they did extremely hard things.

    My awareness on the above is from multiple USMA grads going through the IBOLC/RS pipeline and currently serving officers.
    Last edited by pinzgauer; 09-12-18 at 12:53.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    780
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by ramairthree View Post
    It is not that no women at all exist that can pass Ranger school.

    it is that you have taken a school with about a 50% pass rate for young above average military males,
    And are jumping through hoops screening thousands of women to get a few hundred canidates, to end up with a few dozen to pass pre Ranger, all while getting months and months of special duty to train the males do not get, to end up with a handful of graduates with do over phases and retrys to an extreme that would be very unusual for a male.

    The goal is to get women graduates.
    The goal is to put women in combat arms and SOF slots.

    The goal to put women in slots at the expense of the effectiveness of units.
    If there is a woman out there than can score a 300 on the Men's APFT standards I've yet to see it.

    Situps? Sure.
    2 mile run? Sure. There are women marathoners out there, after all. Their times don't even come close to men though.
    Pushups? This is where I will need to see it to believe it.

    In my unit we didn't even send people to PRC if they couldn't make a 300.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    511
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)
    Maybe it’s part of a master plan to reduce “happy socks” creating fewer slip hazards in the barracks...

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in the Sierras
    Posts
    1,594
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Letís remember that Ms Lynch played an involuntary role in all of that.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,155
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Falar View Post
    If there is a woman out there than can score a 300 on the Men's APFT standards I've yet to see it.

    Situps? Sure.
    2 mile run? Sure. There are women marathoners out there, after all. Their times don't even come close to men though.
    Pushups? This is where I will need to see it to believe it.

    In my unit we didn't even send people to PRC if they couldn't make a 300.
    While in general I agree with your point, there are definitely women who can make 300 on the mens APFT. I guarantee you Major Lisa Jaster can and has. (Google her name and look at the pictures and you'll see what I'm talking about. (37 year old mom of 2 PT badass)

    your point is valid in general. West Point runs an extended APFT scale (375) and a big chunk of males routinely exceed 300, with many doing a supermax (375). 300 is a B- for males at USMA.

    then look at profile rates after field exercises, and relative female APFT performance. Huge difference.

    Not that APFT is a valid measure, but it's just a relative indicator. The Army has a multitude of MOS specific physical tests identifued that are perfectly valid. But will never be allowed because it would result in unequal gender outcomes.

    Example: armor MOS has to be able to set a Bradley trunnion into position. (55 lbs chest height), handle track links etc.

    Fires has to be able buddy carry ammo crates 50 yds.

    IN has to carry mortar plates, buddy carry 50 cal, etc.

    The upcoming MOS physical requirement changes are a step in the right direction but by most accounts are still not enough.

    For IN officer track IBOLC is already pretty good screening. Don't pass IBOLC you don't go to Ranger School, and they do multiple screenings (RPFT, ruck, etc.) for score on the actual Ranger School courses and lately often done by RIs.

    SAW gunner IBOLC loadout is close to 100 pounds and theoretically they rotated it around.

    My view as an informed outsider is if females make it through IBOLC without compromise of standards, then they deserve a shot at Ranger school. But there shouldn't be special prep or recycle rules allowed.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,732
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •