Julie

Yes, and that be in the middle of the Pentagon, and the male soldiers.

ENLISTED WOMEN OPPOSED TO COMBAT ASSIGNMENTS
9/3/2003 6:27:00 PM

Opinion surveys done by the Army indicate that the majority of military women are strongly opposed to combat assignments—especially if it means being forced into combat on an “equal” basis with men.

http://cmrlink.org/WomenInCombat.asp?docID=204

America is defended not by ships, planes, and high-tech weapons on land, but by young men and women who volunteer to serve their country. Their views should be respected and not ignored. Even if polls and surveys among military personnel showed overwhelming majorities in support of women in combat, President George W. Bush must direct the Pentagon to implement sound priorities that put the interests of national security first.

Officer of Engineers

Julie, my apologies for delayed reply.

This is not a gender issue. It's a leadership issue. The women are placed exactly in positions as they should be because they're qualified. No more, no less. There's only one set of men that any woman in the military should be concerned about or anyone else for that matter, those directly under her or directly working with her. In other words, her immediate subordinates and superiors as well as her peers. Anybody else has no direct effect on her.

The women are being sent as part of the unit to which they were originally assigned. That means that they have worked with the men in that unit and know each other and any problems should have been solved by the leadership long before leaving for Iraq.

In Iraq and with those men already in theatre and who have a problem with women, the leadership is responsible for keeping everyone focus. Sticks and stones and all that. I know from my experience that some women could not tolerate too much name calling. Some strike back. Some sulk. And some lost focus. The focus is that some people are throwing bullets, not sticks and stones. Old wardogs, however, can and should throw their weight around to keep everyone in line and that includes telling some to grow a thicker skin.

The problem, however, for many units, the leadership is lacking, especially for some reserved and NG cbt spt units. PFC Jessica Lynch's own 507th Maintenance Company and the 800th MP Brigade's disgrace at Abu Ghraib. Since the 3ID is a regforce unit, its FSBs and by extension, the FSCs should not have this problem. I would dare say that your relative is in some fine company.

__________________
Chimo

lemontree

If ammo becomes lighter, the poor soldier will only end up carrying more ammo. The weight carried by him remains the same. eg. 5.56mm rifle (3.2 kg) and ammo is lighter, than the SLR (4.5 kg). Earlier the 100 rounds of pouch ammo, now it is 120-130 rounds per man.
Only smart ammo can reduce that, not svl.
Grenades exist. However, to shoot round corners the Germans had toyed with a curved barrel MP38/40 in WW2. Can't find a picture.
This can only be used in plains, not in mountains. The four legged mule is only one that will carry my water, ammo etc. A robotic platform is better used as a recce & svl vehicle than for mundane jobs like carrying ammo/water/stores from Coy HQ to Plt HQ. The men will get lethargic and weak without any manual labour. It sounds retrograde, but it is true.
-----------------------
The US army infantry man fights the same way as any infantry soldier. He luckier to have a better firepower/comn backup than ours, besides he has better toys than our boys. The US infanteer also hauls all his ammo rockets, mortars the same way as our infanteer. There is no difference.

__________________

Cheers!...on the rocks!!

lemontree

Julie,
By that they mean more combat troops. The present force levels in Iraq do not permit deployment in a COIN condusive grid. Current force levels stretches the troops operational tasks, leaving many grey areas. It is these grey areas that cause problems for the supporting/logistical service units that have female personnel, leaving these units open to guerilla sneek attacks.

Anoop C

Captain,

Thank you for the clarifications.

lemontree

Anytime..you are most welcome.

Julie

Very correct, and yes she is.

Very good post, and everything you said is very correct. However, as the Pentagon is broadening the scope to involve women in the military, the men ARE making it a gender issue, based upon the reasons Snipe outlined. The women just want to do there job, no more, no less, and the men should allow their leadership (Pentagon) to discuss the problems concerning these issues and solve them. It very much lowers the morale of these women soldiers when the male soldiers harangue them about these issues during duty, and it compromises the positions of both women and men soldiers.

I posted those memos and letters to show these matters are being addressed within the leadership in an attempt to solve these differences. The polls by women in the military reflect that they are also in agreement that they should not be assigned to certain duties.

I can not go into specifics, but a point I would like to make on behalf of my relative in Iraq, which she stresses quite often, is that the citizens in Iraq, are more warming, and more apt to offer more information to women soldiers, (less intimidation) than the men, which she considers vitally important in her efforts. The psychological warfare in Iraq is very important at this present time, and that is where she feels she is making the most positive headway, and she says IT IS WORKING.

Shek

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anoop C
1. Materials of construction of rilfes and ammo get lighter with advances in technology. The lethality of the ammo becomes more dependent more on velocity and 'tumbling' than on mass.

I agree with Lemontree that the soldier's load won't decrease. One of the quotes that I remember as a LT at my basic course was that "it doesn't matter how much lighter equipment becomes, because the infantryman will just end up carrying 100lbs of 'lightweight' gear" (so his load won't decrease). For example, the M4 Carbine is lighter than the M16A2, so it gives you the ability to mount a day optical scope, an IR laser, and an undergun light for room clearing. Net weight reduction - none to 0.5lbs additional weight. Fighting in the urban environment requires additional tools (sledge hammer, hooligan tool, battering ram, bolt cutters) for mechanical breaching, demo for dynamic breaching into buildings. Lighter ceramic armor plates makes it possible to wear body armor that is "light" enough to warrant the extra 16lbs that gives you 7.62mm ballistic protection for your vital organs. Future technological advances will all the soldier to wear an array of sensors that will monitor vital signs, broadcast his location, and provide imagery feeds from UAVs and other collection assets.

Officer of Engineers

Maybe you're not expressing yourself right or I'm not reading you right but all this again are leadership issues.

GI - Hey, witch, what the hell are you doing over here?

CO - Doing her job.

GI - Great, another skirt to protect!

CO - Did I say your job is to protect her?

GI - No, sir.

CO - Then, shut the hell up and get on with your job. And just what is your job? Standing around here yapping while the bad guy is taking a shot at you?

Anon

JULIE: "Very good post, and everything you said is very correct. However, as the Pentagon is broadening the scope to involve women in the military, the men ARE making it a gender issue, based upon the reasons Snipe outlined."

Based on the survey of female troops you posted, i'd say it's the women that are finally making a stand to halt the possible integration of women into the combat arms.

Which is good, because it shows that at least they have the common good sense to realize that they're being used as a tool of the feminist movement to advance an agenda.

They're also being used by the military to cover up years of bad retention and personnel decisions.

An even bigger problem is the integration of civilian contractors, who can at any time just take their ball and go home, leaving the Army totally F'ed as a result.

Julie

I agree with the leadership issue. You are absolutely correct. I just pointed out how it is also an issue that is being discussed at the higher leadership level as well.

Sniper - excellent post....and my sentiments exactly. By George, I think you've got it.

Officer of Engineers

One thing I like about this forum's participants. We may not agree and at times, the debate will get heated but all of us are determined in trying to understand the other person.

Anon

Thanx.

To me, the civilian contract issue is the biggest concern in the military today.

During the Battle of the Bulge, it was US rear echelon units that blunted the initial Nazi assault.

Today, those positions are almost invariably filled by civilian contractors.

Can we rely on them to stand and fight like soldiers would?

I'm thinking....no.

Julie

Yes! And it is so great.....however, I must admit I was really beginning to sweat on this one, and was almost at the stage of surrender.

lemontree

It all depends on the resources of the PMC. Blackwater guys did a decent job in repulsing an attack on their HQ in Falluja (I think), their choppers were ferrying ammo/wounded.
With the kind of money these PMCs are getting, they are better equiped that units of many third world nations. It all boils down to leadership in any case.