Military Watering Down Standards So Females Can Meet Them

[cpwill]

Tell that to Israel. Somehow or other they manage to defend themselves against overwhelming odds of the countries that want to wipe it off the face of the earth...with the help of women! I'm aghast.

Oh hey, the ole Israel line again. Tell me more about female infantry in Israel.


(Hint: The Israelis found out that gender-integrated heavy infantry units under-performed in combat, especially in assaults. They suffered higher casualties, and were less likely to accomplish their missions. So the Israelis segregated their females into specific units, and uses those units as basically a mounted police force near the Egyptian border, where they are unlikely to face combat).


It was True for Israel (and the Soviet Union) that when you are overwhelmed with casualties, that a woman (or a child) is better than nobody. The United States has about 112 million military age individuals. Given individual infirmities, injuries, other jobs, etc., if we needed to rapidly produce an infantry force of ~45 million grunts, we'd almost certainly end up having to recruit a bunch of females. And those units would underperform their all-male counterparts.

 

[Wayne Jr]

You think women would make up half of the infantry, or even the military?

No. Women make up half of the general population. Excluding half of the general population from even trying to join the military, over some BASIC physical standard, is folly.

 

[cpwill]

No. Women make up half of the population. Excluding half of the population from the military ranks over some BASIC standard is folly.

... if there was such a basic standard, its basic nature wouldn't detract from it's value, rather the opposite.

... However, you seem to be attempting to both goal shift and attack a strawman. If you are no longer trying to imply that half our military in general or infantry in particular is likely to be female, then we can say we are not excluding half our personnel. Furthermore, no one is arguing that women should be excluded from military ranks. We are pointing out that the watering down of standards that we predicted is occurring, and that this is a part of why gender-integrated infantry units are a bad idea when you have the ability to staff all-male infantry units instead.

 

[Wayne Jr]

If you are no longer trying to imply that half our military in general or infantry in particular is likely to be female,

That wasn't my claim in the first place. That the goal post isn't where you thought it was, doesn't mean it was moved. Looking back to my post, while I thought I was making a clear statement about the general population, I can see how it may be taken to refer specifically only to the military. I accept responsibility for this confusion and apologise.

 

[cpwill]

That wasn't my claim in the first place. That the goal post isn't where you thought it was, doesn't mean it was moved. Looking back to my post, while I thought I was making a clear statement about the general population, I can see how it may be taken to refer specifically only to the military. I accept responsibility for this confusion and apologise.

No worries then



In that case, since they are not "our personnel" (our personnel being military personnel in general, can and infantry personnel in particular), no, we aren't excluding half of our personnel.

 

[joko104]

I have always thought that physical fitness standards should be job specific rather than gender specific, with the combat MOSs obviously having the highest physical requirements. No, infantry shouldn’t just expect to be able to hand their ruck sack off to their buddy. Yeah, in an emergency, but not being strong enough to carry your own gear is a self inflicted emergency.

On the other hand, most jobs in the military aren’t combat positions. Doctors and nurses and IT experts and intel analysts and the like don’t need to be as strong and have as good cardio as combat troops. They bring different skill sets to the table.

Most combat positions in the military that actually kill the enemy and destroy targets don't carry 70 pound ruck sacks, and they aren't doctors, nurses, IT experts and intel analysts.

It is important that troops who are cannon folder and sniper bait really deserve their egos being fed and they do seem to need this continuously - even for the rest of their lives as we often see on forums. Forever, they MUST be told how absolutely nothing is more critical to military success that whose military can run by foot further and faster carrying more weight so they know just how valuable their few years at the bottom rungs in the military they were.

All that said, only idiots would make military tactics and policy around that perpetually feeding the frail male egos of low ranking enlisted, particularly ex-enlisted.

 

[joko104]

Oh hey, the ole Israel line again. Tell me more about female infantry in Israel.


(Hint: The Israelis found out that gender-integrated heavy infantry units under-performed in combat, especially in assaults. They suffered higher casualties, and were less likely to accomplish their missions. So the Israelis segregated their females into specific units, and uses those units as basically a mounted police force near the Egyptian border, where they are unlikely to face combat).


It was True for Israel (and the Soviet Union) that when you are overwhelmed with casualties, that a woman (or a child) is better than nobody. The United States has about 112 million military age individuals. Given individual infirmities, injuries, other jobs, etc., if we needed to rapidly produce an infantry force of ~45 million grunts, we'd almost certainly end up having to recruit a bunch of females. And those units would underperform their all-male counterparts.

I agree that generally combat units should be sex segregated. In WW2 it was learned in the Russian military that men are superior on offense and women are superior at defense. There are rather obviously evolved genetic reasons for this. Men hunt. Women defend the nest. Its deeply instinctive. But for women, Stalingrad would have fallen. But for men, Russia would not have gotten to Germany. ++++

 

[joko104]

When on of the USSR's top snipers, a woman, toured the USA she was asked what is it like to be a woman in combat with men? She replied that she was tired of men hiding behind her.

 

[joko104]

In a critical battle of Stalingrad, Every able Russian was required to fight, including women and women's units had been created. As the Germany miiitary was fighting block by block into the outskirts of Stalingrad, a main goal was to cut off the only supply route in and out of Russia across a frozen lake. Believing the German advance could not be halted, the order was given to fall back.

The USSR military was hording the last of the food and the Russian civilians were already starving. The 2 male groups retreated as ordered, but the women's group refused, knowing if that route was cut it would be a massive death sentence to civilians, including their own children and elderly. While the women's group was obliterated, it was not until they had inflicted such great casualties on the Germany troops and such enormous lose of German equipment, that the advance had been halted and allowed Russian men to rush back and hold the position. That battle probably saved Stalingrad, though so had many others of course. Yet that also was one of the reasons given for disbanding most female combat units after the war - they won't follow orders.

Overall, what was learned about women in combat if in a defensive role is that once they start killing or if their "nest" is under attack, they become killing machines almost impossible to turn off. They will fight to the death. In WW2, tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of male Russian troops surrender in mass numerous times. No female group ever did or would. The phase "hell hath of fury like a woman" applies to women in combat IF they are in defensive combat.

 

[joko104]

The dna ingrained nature of men to prefer offense and women to prefer defense is not difficult to grasp. Women prefer to hold a position. Why go out there? It's dangerous out there. Much easier to be in control of a situation on your home ground. Men get nervous in defensive positions under attack. They feel trapped, it's not their nature. The male nature is to hunt predators.

The basis for both is obvious and evolved across eons of time. To the most ancient of humanoids, the males ventured out, while the females had to defend the children, the old, themselves and their home. These ancient instincts evolved across countless generations equally applies in military combat. The difference is women don't have a problem acknowledging men are better at some types of combat. It is only men with frail egos who can't admit that women are better at some types of combat.

 

[joko104]

... if there was such a basic standard, its basic nature wouldn't detract from it's value, rather the opposite.

... However, you seem to be attempting to both goal shift and attack a strawman. If you are no longer trying to imply that half our military in general or infantry in particular is likely to be female, then we can say we are not excluding half our personnel. Furthermore, no one is arguing that women should be excluded from military ranks. We are pointing out that the watering down of standards that we predicted is occurring, and that this is a part of why gender-integrated infantry units are a bad idea when you have the ability to staff all-male infantry units instead.

I despise how people misuse the word "gender" to be PC correct. It is NOT "gender." It is "sex."

I personally generally favor sex segregated combat units and don't really care about "gender."

If a male in the military wants to put on a Dolly Parton wig, ruby red lipstick. falsies bra, high heel shoes and a pink dress when off duty, I'm fine with it. Just be back in uniform when going back on duty.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Sure seems like you are, though. You argue the unit got lost because they didn't have basic proficiency in land nav (I agree), and then you said they didn't have that basic proficiency because they were not a combat MOS. Meaning only combat MOSs have even a basic level of proficiency in land nav.

That is not it at all.

The difference is that when they got ambushed, the non "combat arms" unit basically fell apart. They were not trained and experienced in the use of their weapons, their weapons were often sadly lacking in basic maintenance, and they did not know how to behave as a "combat unit".

Other than Infantry and a few other MOS, no other MOS seriously trains in actual combat proficiencies. And yes, I have seen this first hand. I spent 10 years as a grunt, where we did that kind of thing every day. As a squad leader more than once I would take my squad out in garrison (especially if we got new members), and train and drill them in basic skills. Crossing danger zones, hand and arm signals (both common and squad-platoon specific), reaction to ambush, all of that stuff. We drilled and operated in many squad and team formations.

Our SOP in performing a Squad Wedge formation was to put Team 2 in a wedge, team 1 in an echelon left, and team 3 in an echelon right (I am aware most non-grunts will be lost at this - in essence it makes a huge wedge formation). The first time I tried that in the Army (non-combat MOS), the instructor asked me what in the hell I was doing. I explained what I was doing, and was told to do it the way they told us to do (each team in a team wedge formation - essentially 3 diamonds).

However, after the training was done he pulled me to the side and said that yes, that was how grunts would do it. But we were not being trained as grunts, so we did it different.

There is a reason that for most of the last 12 years, I was either in Force Protection, or in OPFOR. They recognized my background and mindset was much more oriented to those tasks than that of the rest of the "PATRIOT" people, or even today in the medical unit I serve in. I know how to use my weapons, not just the basics. I even remember instructing my unit armorers what a "scraper" was for an M249.

They all had seen these in the armory, but none of them actually knew what one was, or how it was used. I had to teach the Battery and Battalion armorers how to use a basic weapon cleaning tool that every E-2 learns in their MOS school. I knew how to keep my weapon clean at all times, and to do something as simple as a range card, or how to use a T&E. Most of those not in actual combat arms do not have a clue how to use them.

That is why the 507th Maintenance Company got slaughtered. Not just land nav, they had no idea what to do when they came into contact with the enemy. They did not know how to react, they did not know how to lay down an effective base of fire, they did not even know how to properly use their crew served weapons to protect themselves.

Talk to most who are like me, who go from grunts to another MOS and we are generally shocked. Things we take absolutely for granted they are absolutely clueless about. Even if a grunt unit had gotten lost and ambushed, they would not have had the same outcome as the 507th had. 11 KIA, 30+ WIA, 6 POW.

The company was hit with a hasty ambush, got divided into 3 segments, and the tail element was overwhelmed. A more "combat trained" unit would have realized that even after it started to take fire, they should move on and find another way to reconnect with the rest of the unit. In essence "punch through", get clear, and reassess the situation. Not return into an urban area where it had come under fire and try to retrace their steps.

As a grunt, I have been part of a unit that got lost many times. The doctrine is to move into a clear area without known enemies, recon the area (either map or visually), make contact with upper echelon, and plan a new route. Not go right back where you took fire already just because it was "on the route map" and try to link up again. You are bouncing back to the land nav, and completely missing all the other ways that they did the wrong thing.

 

[Wayne Jr]

That is not it at all.

The difference is that when they got ambushed, the non "combat arms" unit basically fell apart. They were not trained and experienced in the use of their weapons, their weapons were often sadly lacking in basic maintenance, and they did not know how to behave as a "combat unit".

Other than Infantry and a few other MOS, no other MOS seriously trains in actual combat proficiencies. And yes, I have seen this first hand. I spent 10 years as a grunt, where we did that kind of thing every day. As a squad leader more than once I would take my squad out in garrison (especially if we got new members), and train and drill them in basic skills. Crossing danger zones, hand and arm signals (both common and squad-platoon specific), reaction to ambush, all of that stuff. We drilled and operated in many squad and team formations.

Our SOP in performing a Squad Wedge formation was to put Team 2 in a wedge, team 1 in an echelon left, and team 3 in an echelon right (I am aware most non-grunts will be lost at this - in essence it makes a huge wedge formation). The first time I tried that in the Army (non-combat MOS), the instructor asked me what in the hell I was doing. I explained what I was doing, and was told to do it the way they told us to do (each team in a team wedge formation - essentially 3 diamonds).

However, after the training was done he pulled me to the side and said that yes, that was how grunts would do it. But we were not being trained as grunts, so we did it different.

There is a reason that for most of the last 12 years, I was either in Force Protection, or in OPFOR. They recognized my background and mindset was much more oriented to those tasks than that of the rest of the "PATRIOT" people, or even today in the medical unit I serve in. I know how to use my weapons, not just the basics. I even remember instructing my unit armorers what a "scraper" was for an M249.

They all had seen these in the armory, but none of them actually knew what one was, or how it was used. I had to teach the Battery and Battalion armorers how to use a basic weapon cleaning tool that every E-2 learns in their MOS school. I knew how to keep my weapon clean at all times, and to do something as simple as a range card, or how to use a T&E. Most of those not in actual combat arms do not have a clue how to use them.

That is why the 507th Maintenance Company got slaughtered. Not just land nav, they had no idea what to do when they came into contact with the enemy. They did not know how to react, they did not know how to lay down an effective base of fire, they did not even know how to properly use their crew served weapons to protect themselves.

Talk to most who are like me, who go from grunts to another MOS and we are generally shocked. Things we take absolutely for granted they are absolutely clueless about. Even if a grunt unit had gotten lost and ambushed, they would not have had the same outcome as the 507th had. 11 KIA, 30+ WIA, 6 POW.

The company was hit with a hasty ambush, got divided into 3 segments, and the tail element was overwhelmed. A more "combat trained" unit would have realized that even after it started to take fire, they should move on and find another way to reconnect with the rest of the unit. In essence "punch through", get clear, and reassess the situation. Not return into an urban area where it had come under fire and try to retrace their steps.

As a grunt, I have been part of a unit that got lost many times. The doctrine is to move into a clear area without known enemies, recon the area (either map or visually), make contact with upper echelon, and plan a new route. Not go right back where you took fire already just because it was "on the route map" and try to link up again. You are bouncing back to the land nav, and completely missing all the other ways that they did the wrong thing.

Well, the unit in question was in Iraq, in the 1990s, right? I didn't join until after that and my time in the sandbox was in Afghanistan. So I guess we're all compairing apples to oranges to some extent. Maybe the Army of the 1990s learned some lessons from Iraq and that's why the non-combat units I was apart of maintained proficiancy with land nav and weapons cleaning. You say that you had to tell your armorer what that cleaning tool was, and I have no reason to doubt you, but my armorer held the M249 class, and also taught MACP. Times change I guess.

Look I'm not a master of everything Army, I can be wrong. That's fine. My experience was just diferent from yours, is all.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Well, the unit in question was in Iraq, in the 1990s, right?

Not sure what you are talking about, but the 507th ambush was in 2003. Maybe you heard of one of their members, Jessica Lynch?

And I did not even join the Army until 2007, so it was well after the 1990's. Even today, I find most units are sadly lacking in even the basics in Combat skills.

You know, if you can not even take the time to do a little bit of even basic research, it becomes hard to take you even a bit seriously. And the research is not even that hard, there is even a Wikipedia page about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/507th_Maintenance_Company

And your armorer taught about the Married Army Couples Program? Not even sure how that applies, but whatever.

 

[Wayne Jr]

You know, if you can not even take the time to do a little bit of even basic research, it becomes hard to take you even a bit seriously.

Calm down cowboy I'm feeling my oats and about to head for bed, I have all the time in the world to look trivia up tomorrow after work, if it means so much to you.

MACP = Modern Army Combatives Program.
"The Modern Army Combatives Program (MACP) started in 1995 with the 2nd Ranger Battalion and has spread at the grass roots around the Army. It has been incorporated into the new TC 3-25.150 and Basic Combatives is one of the Forty Warrior Core Tasks of the Warrior Ethos initiative." You have to be at least level-3 to instruct MACP, meaning our armorer was at least level-3.

Was MACP level-1 certification not part of your BCT graduation requirements?

Looks like we both learned something new today.

 

[braindrain]

Most combat positions in the military that actually kill the enemy and destroy targets don't carry 70 pound ruck sacks, and they aren't doctors, nurses, IT experts and intel analysts.

It is important that troops who are cannon folder and sniper bait really deserve their egos being fed and they do seem to need this continuously - even for the rest of their lives as we often see on forums. Forever, they MUST be told how absolutely nothing is more critical to military success that whose military can run by foot further and faster carrying more weight so they know just how valuable their few years at the bottom rungs in the military they were.

All that said, only idiots would make military tactics and policy around that perpetually feeding the frail male egos of low ranking enlisted, particularly ex-enlisted.

OH look. It's joko back talking abiut things he is clueless on again. You must really enjoy being made to look foolish.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I ran logistics for the DOD, specifically ran their fuel for them in the sandbox. Basically a mercenary. I prefer privateer. In any case we were supposed to be behind the lines and unarmed. We were unarmed, mainly to keep us from shooting the idiots running the **** show, but we were also under fire quite a bit since there were no real lines of combat except when you exited a base. Having a separate non fighting logistics tail is not all its cracked up to be. Its basically a way to suck up more fighting power and men. Thats all. I should know I've been there and got the t-shirt a couple of times. Literally. If it was up to me all logistical tails would be self sufficient and capable of defending themselves and minimal. People shouldn't be subject to a greater potential to die on the way to a base PX with shipping container full of TV's and Xboxes because we are there so long.

That all used to be a job done by the military. You can thank president Clinton for contracting out the logistics jobs.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The military has allowed lesser standards for women even when I was in those years back,and it should never be that way.

 

[ThoughtEx.]

Why does the military lower standards for white men? Black men are stronger. The claim that white combat soldiers will perform as lethally as black combat soldiers over an extended deployment entails a denial of biological reality. One only has to look at professional contact sports such as football to recognize the physical inferiority of white men. Black women also are stronger than white women. How many more Americans in combat will lose their lives for the military downgrading standard for white people?

The average black American can bench press more than the average white American

Of course weight and strength are not the same thing. In order to compare the races in strength, I found a study of police officers which compared the bench pressing ability of black and white officers, both at the time they were recruited, and after years on the job. The study found that upon recruitment, the average white man could bench press 84.2 kg (standard deviation = 21.2), the average black could bench press 95.1 kg (SD = 24.6). In other words, black men are 0.51 SD stronger than white men. If we convert strength to farmilliar IQ scale, where the white mean is set at 100 and the white SD is set at 15, then white men have a (sex adjusted) SQ (Strength Quotient) of 100, and black men have an SQ of 108.

Both races improved after years of on the job training, but the gap remained. Black women could also bench press more than white women, both at recruitment, and especially after training in both groups.

Blacks dominate American body building

What happens when we move from the average and look at the extremes? Here’s a list of the top 15 body builders of all time. For apples to apples comparison, I excluded all the non-Americans, to make a list of the top AMERICAN body builder’s of all time:

1. Ronnie Coleman (Black)
2. Arnold Schwarzenegger (White)
3. Kai Greene (Black)
4. Phillip Health (Black)
5. Flex Wheeler (Black)
6. Johnnie O. Jackson (Black)
7. Lee Haney (Black)
8. Lou Ferrigno (White)
9. Kevin Levrone (Black)

So blacks are only 12.6% of America, but 78% of the top body builders in American history.

https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/08/08/which-race-is-physically-strongest/

I... that's a weird place to go to prove your argument. Just a weird state of mind to be in, that your immediate go to thought was, let's turn it on it's head. Let's talk it but from a racists perspective.

Last time I heard someone talk about this, it was my great uncle at a bbq, and he was talking about how the "insert racial slur" was bred for physical labor. Big arms, big chest, small brain. And they'd all laugh at some private joke only racists get.

That's what you sound like. That's the vibe you are putting out into the universe. Still the same idea, just packaged a little differently.

And let me learn ya a thing or too, body building isn't strength building. Those are vanity muscles. The strongest men in the world, has nothing to do with race. It's height, age, diet, mass. The taller you are, the more frame you have to build mass, the more mass you have the more muscle you can develop over time.

Strongman isn't for young guys. It's for guys that's built strength for years. It took Hafthor Bjornsson years of competing to finally win world's strongest man, he's current champion. And is 30. He's been trying since he was 25. Eddie Hall competed for years as well, just to win one time and retire. Arguably the strongest man to ever live, Brian Shaw won multiple years in a row, only to lose for the first time in 8 years to Eddie Hall.

A icelander, a british guy, and an American of probably mixed ancestry. Last three Strongest Men in the world. A competition anyone can enter. And for some reason body builders like Ronnie Coleman never did, even tho he could hack it in the Arnold strength comps. He didn't want to build the fat necessary to compete with the strong men.

And now he walks on two crutches, despite only being a few years older than a current world's strongest man front runner, Zydrunas Savickas. Or Big Z as people call him. Big Z has been dominating strong man since 2001. He ain't crippled from building vanity muscles to show off in a Mister America Pageant.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Calm down cowboy I'm feeling my oats and about to head for bed, I have all the time in the world to look trivia up tomorrow after work, if it means so much to you.

MACP = Modern Army Combatives Program.
"The Modern Army Combatives Program (MACP) started in 1995 with the 2nd Ranger Battalion and has spread at the grass roots around the Army. It has been incorporated into the new TC 3-25.150 and Basic Combatives is one of the Forty Warrior Core Tasks of the Warrior Ethos initiative." You have to be at least level-3 to instruct MACP, meaning our armorer was at least level-3.

Was MACP level-1 certification not part of your BCT graduation requirements?

Looks like we both learned something new today.

BCT graduation? Sorry I did not go through BCT. I never had to go through BCT.

I went through Boot Camp in 1983, graduated from MCRD San Diego.

Then on to Infantry Training School, Camp Pendleton where I graduated in January 1984. Then I attended many other schools. Jungle Warfare School in Panama, Amphibious Warfare School in Virginia, Advanced Urban Warfare at Camp Lejeune, and Fleet Security at Mare Island. And there were others, but those courses were primarily logistic and administrative in nature and not combat related (or on the job type training, like security and running military ranges).

Then came a transfer to Couch Regiment, 1st Civ Div. I did not enter the Army and attend Warrior Transition Course until 2007. WTC was essentially a 3 week "mini-bootcamp" for those either joining the Army from another branch of service, or who had been out of the Army for 5 years or longer. And the "combat" part of it, was all done in a few days in New Mexico. It was absolute bare-bones, and the "Combatives" portion was little more than 2 hours in the tire pit showing "This is what Combatives is like". The "combat" portion was literally 2 or 3 days (and the rest of the week was largely a crash course in Combat Lifesaver).

Most of the course was more dedicated to things like basic rifle marksmanship (most sailors and airmen who joined the Army had never fired rifles prior to that), familiarizing us with Army standards and traditions (like saluting inside), and things like that. Army D&C, Army ranks, learning the Soldiers Creed, and getting our uniforms and how to put them together. Think of the entire 6 week BCT (and including the time in-processing), crammed into 3 weeks. We arrived at Fort Sill on Wednesday, joined our training platoon on Thursday, finished all in-processing tasks by Saturday, and were on our way to New Mexico by Sunday. Monday morning initial APFT and training started. 3 weeks and 2 days after arriving at Sill we graduated and were sent immediately to our MOS schools (except for the small handful who were already MOSQ and were sent directly to units).

And even then, we were not treated like "recruits". the 3 of us from my WTC class that went to Fort Bliss for 14T school were not placed with those who finished BCT, we were billeted with the permanent party. No Drill Sergeants, no curfew, 2 single man suites with a kitchen, just like most other soldiers stationed at Fort Bliss. I know it took all 3 of us quite a while to adapt to "Army Life", and we often talked about it. I was from the Marines, 1 was from the Navy, the other was from the Air Force. And we often joked at how foreign the "Army way" was to us.

Oh, there was another 1 week "Combat training" segment at the end of MOS school. It was about as in-depth as that we had in WTC (in other words not at all), but as we and the 3 others in our class were reclassing we did not participate. They tagged us as "additional cadre" and largely observed.

 

[Wayne Jr]

BCT graduation? Sorry I did not go through BCT. I never had to go through BCT.

I went through Boot Camp in 1983, graduated from MCRD San Diego.

Then on to Infantry Training School, Camp Pendleton where I graduated in January 1984. Then I attended many other schools. Jungle Warfare School in Panama, Amphibious Warfare School in Virginia, Advanced Urban Warfare at Camp Lejeune, and Fleet Security at Mare Island. And there were others, but those courses were primarily logistic and administrative in nature and not combat related (or on the job type training, like security and running military ranges).

Then came a transfer to Couch Regiment, 1st Civ Div. I did not enter the Army and attend Warrior Transition Course until 2007. WTC was essentially a 3 week "mini-bootcamp" for those either joining the Army from another branch of service, or who had been out of the Army for 5 years or longer. And the "combat" part of it, was all done in a few days in New Mexico. It was absolute bare-bones, and the "Combatives" portion was little more than 2 hours in the tire pit showing "This is what Combatives is like". The "combat" portion was literally 2 or 3 days (and the rest of the week was largely a crash course in Combat Lifesaver).

Most of the course was more dedicated to things like basic rifle marksmanship (most sailors and airmen who joined the Army had never fired rifles prior to that), familiarizing us with Army standards and traditions (like saluting inside), and things like that. Army D&C, Army ranks, learning the Soldiers Creed, and getting our uniforms and how to put them together. Think of the entire 6 week BCT (and including the time in-processing), crammed into 3 weeks. We arrived at Fort Sill on Wednesday, joined our training platoon on Thursday, finished all in-processing tasks by Saturday, and were on our way to New Mexico by Sunday. Monday morning initial APFT and training started. 3 weeks and 2 days after arriving at Sill we graduated and were sent immediately to our MOS schools (except for the small handful who were already MOSQ and were sent directly to units).

And even then, we were not treated like "recruits". the 3 of us from my WTC class that went to Fort Bliss for 14T school were not placed with those who finished BCT, we were billeted with the permanent party. No Drill Sergeants, no curfew, 2 single man suites with a kitchen, just like most other soldiers stationed at Fort Bliss. I know it took all 3 of us quite a while to adapt to "Army Life", and we often talked about it. I was from the Marines, 1 was from the Navy, the other was from the Air Force. And we often joked at how foreign the "Army way" was to us.

Oh, there was another 1 week "Combat training" segment at the end of MOS school. It was about as in-depth as that we had in WTC (in other words not at all), but as we and the 3 others in our class were reclassing we did not participate. They tagged us as "additional cadre" and largely observed.

You're embarrassed you were incorrect about a military acronym (a silly thing to get worked up over) and are now trying to flex by vomiting your resume onto your keyboard. Just, stop.

You were saying how much your unit sucked, that you had to teach your armorer about the SAW cleaning tool. I was saying that my unit was squared away, that our armorer taught the M249 class and Combatives and sure didn't need some Private telling him about a cleaning tool.

This was all in reference to how the military has changed since a unit in Iraq got lost and ambushed.

 

[Oozlefinch]

You're embarrassed you were incorrect about a military acronym (a silly thing to get worked up over) and are now trying to flex by vomiting your resume onto your keyboard. Just, stop.

You were saying how much your unit sucked, that you had to teach your armorer about the SAW cleaning tool. I was saying that my unit was squared away, that our armorer taught the M249 class and Combatives and sure didn't need some Private telling him about a cleaning tool.

This was all in reference to how the military has changed since a unit in Iraq got lost and ambushed.

No, I simply tend to give the definition of an anacronym before I post it (hence, my referring to "Warrior Transition Course" before using the anacronym WTC) as a way to let everybody know what I am talking about. Yea, I can throw around TLAs and ETLAs like the best of them, but I am also aware that most in here would not know what I was talking about. We have members here from foreign military services, and from many branches (as well as civilians).

And I am not embarrassed about anything, I was correcting your apparent shock that I did not learn something in Basic Combat Training. Not everybody goes to BCT, not even everybody in the Army. And the fact is, you go to most non-combat units, you will find that at the absolute best, their level of "combat proficiency" is about on par with somebody who graduated BCT. And for me, that has been the case in every unit I have been in for the last 10 years. And while I thought PATRIOT units were bad, they are nothing compared to the Medical units I have been in.

Watching a medical unit (I am talking field hospital and not combat medics) do basic squad and team formations is like watching 8 year olds playing Soldier. I am only glad that if my last unit ever deploys again, it will be to a hospital way deep in the Green Zone, where they will likely never need to know anything other than when and how to jump into the nearest shelter. My current unit, I do not even want to think about. We are essentially the Headquarters Company of a Medical Brigade, and the O-4 through O-6 outnumber the E-1 through E-4 by about 3 to 1.

You know the old saying, YEMV (or YMMV)? That is the difference here between us apparently. Not sure what your MOS is, or what units you were in. It essentially does not matter. I have been in 4 different units in the last 12 years, and they have been very different from each other. But one constant is that none of them were actual "Combat MOS" units (although technically PATRIOT is, it is the one that is closest to "remaining in the rear with the gear" of all combat MOS). And in all 4 of them, basic combat skills were garbage. Sure, they could get their Launcher from Road March configuration to Emplaced and ready to fire in 20 minutes, but ask them to do a basic combat patrol and it was like walking a bunch of kids through a park.

Maybe things will help if you simply stop assuming that every unit was like that awesomely squared away unit you were in. Most of them are not like that at all, outside of actual combat units like grunts, Cav, and MPs. Give most Soldiers a tripod, T&E, and a machine gun and they would not have a clue how to put them together. Heck, toss the following to most and I bet they would not even know what it was, let alone how to use it.

 

[Wayne Jr]

Maybe things will help if you simply stop assuming that every unit was like that awesomely squared away unit you were in.

I think I was careful to express that not every unit is like mine:

Well, the unit in question was in Iraq, in the 1990s, right? I didn't join until after that and my time in the sandbox was in Afghanistan. So I guess we're all comparing apples to oranges to some extent. Maybe the Army of the 1990s learned some lessons from Iraq and that's why the non-combat units I was apart of maintained proficiancy with land nav and weapons cleaning. You say that you had to tell your armorer what that cleaning tool was, and I have no reason to doubt you, but my armorer held the M249 class, and also taught MACP. Times change I guess.

Look I'm not a master of everything Army, I can be wrong. That's fine. My experience was just different from yours, is all.

Look I get it, you got all puffed up in your post #114, then post #115 deflated you, and now you're scrambling to save face...when you didn't lose face to begin with.

It's no big deal. Can we get back tot he actual thread topic?