Damn straight!

lol crunchy's

I find it interesting that you're a DAT and you go by the screen name of "Dog6;" one of the nicknames of a 11B is "line doggie." You may be an infantryman at heart!

Dog 6 was my tanks call sign

I know that when I was in (early 90's), Infantry had the most METL (I think I have that acronym right - Mission Essential Task List) of any MOS in the Army. Cavalry Scouts (19D, that was me) weren't too far behind.

Lots of stuff to know as an infantryman, and even more as technology starts getting pushed down to the individual troop level.

Paul, I would never imply, much less say out loud, that you are of low intelligence, low motivation, or low accomplishment. I do respect your GPA and educational accomplishments, but I don’t need to know either fact to know that you are an articulate and thoughtful man whose ideas must be taken seriously.

Believe it or not, Paul, I think we are arguing the same thing. I think, though, I need to do some major clarifying before I earn myself the title of guy who looks down his nose at his own beloved infantry.

As I mean it, the term “doofus” is not interchangeable with “stupid person” or “moron”. By doofus, I mean person of questionable judgment, commitment, or conduct without adequate counterbalancing strengths. A doofus can be stupid, but he can also be very well-educated.

Grae, I couldn’t agree with you more. The infantry are special. We shouldn’t just let in anyone who can pass the PT test and manages to hit 23 (or is it 24?) targets on the qualification range. Getting in the door should be harder, and staying should be harder.

Getting back to doofus—who do I mean? I mean the kid who came to my unit and couldn’t follow any instructions. He was bounced from squad to squad because no one could get him to do what he needed to do without having a hand on the back of his shirt. I got him for a little while. In order to get him to drive the Hum-Vee, I had to verbally walk him through every step he was taking. “Now put it in reverse. Yes, reverse. Yes, now. Right now, private. Put your hand on the lever…good. Now put it in reverse. Good. Now back up. Yes, now…” I’m not kidding. He was a sweet kid, but he had no business being in the infantry. Luckily for us, he was sent to the headquarters company before his first opportunity for a firefight.

By doofus I mean the guy in my squad who left his sensitive items hanging off the end of his bunk but who had a five-pound bag of rice under lock and key in his footlocker. I corrected the individual behavior, but he had many more like it. He just didn’t get it.

By doofus I mean the guy in our platoon who was narcoleptic and couldn’t accept that he had a problem. We couldn’t fix the problem, and we couldn’t get rid of him. Eventually, he fell asleep standing up while on guard duty and was brought up on charges. We got lucky that hajji wasn’t on the move that night.

By doofus I mean both the driver of a Bradley and the TC who allowed the driver to deliberately run over the cars of Iraqi civilians because they were both mad about being in Iraq doing peacekeeping instead of killing people.

By doofus, I mean the guy who has to be roused from his bunk for everything. He drags his fourth point of contact for everything but the run to the snack truck. His team leader needs to police him up like a truculent child. Instead of being a team asset, this guy is a drain on the team because his team leader is hauling him around by the collar. When the team leader tries to get creative about motivating him, he threatens to file an EO complaint.

By doofus, I mean the guys who work to get a perfect 180 on their PT tests—not a point more, thank you. I would find that attitude suspect in any soldier, but in the infantry it should be unacceptable. Raising the bar by ten or twenty points doesn’t change the fact that the soldiers rising to that standard and no more are minimum-hunters. PT is not a matter of skill. It’s a matter of commitment and effort. Something as important as physical fitness is to a rifleman deserves more than the minimum.

I could go on and on about doofuses, but I’m sure everyone knows who I’m talking about now. I’m not talking about you, Paul, or any of the soldiers you hold in high esteem. If you introduced me to a colleague and told me he was a good troop, I’d take you at your word without further question. That much said, you know who I mean. If you haven’t served with some of them, I’d say you’re the luckiest rifleman on the planet. Even the Rangers and Special Forces have served with this guys, which is part of the reason some of the operators seek out the special units. They want something better, and they’re dissatisfied with the standard of the line infantry.

The guys I’m talking about are the bottom twenty percent. Call it the bottom ten percent, if you’ve served in a good unit. I’m talking about having enough guys wanting to get into the infantry so that maintaining headcount isn’t a factor in deciding whether or not to keep a doofus.

Paul, I couldn’t agree with you more that being in the modern infantry takes some intelligence. When I say that being a rifleman isn’t rocket science, I mean that you don’t have to be brilliant to be a serviceable rifleman. I’m very impressed that Grae’s group had lots of well-educated men. This is a favorable reflection on those men, not the standards of the Army. I’m sure there were some GEDs in that group, too—and I’ll bet many of them were just as good as the college boys. A rifleman doesn’t need brilliance, although if he does have an IQ of 145 it’s a promising sign—he needs good judgment. Intelligence and judgment are not the same. There are plenty of people who are great in the lab or executing calculations who don’t have that special sense for the work of the infantry and never will. Some soldiers test for moderate intelligence and yet have that certain special something for warfare. Ideally, the infantry would get plenty of people with a high degree of intelligence and good judgment. If I had to choose between the two qualities, I’d choose good judgment. Good judgment can be learned, to some degree. Some people just will never get it. I’d like to see them sent to another MOS post-haste and have them replaced by soldiers who can be enticed into the special world of the rifles with tangible compensation for putting up with the conditions of service endured by the infantry. (Once they have their boots on the ground, they would hopefully see what so many others have mentioned—that the world of the rifles is special above and beyond pay and privileges.) I want to attract many more candidates and give the infantry the luxury of keeping a higher caliber of soldier.

Does this mean I think the infantry is no good as it is? No. This is not a black-and-white issue where bad ‘ol Webstral thinks everyone ought to rise to his lofty standards or be labeled as s***bags. This is about improving the force we have today. Our enemies include some highly motivated people. I want our successes to be even more overwhelming. I want our guys to triumph in any setting with any level of fire support. I want our line infantry to be so superior to anything that has gone before that they redefine the paradigm of what the infantry can accomplish. Equipment can help, but it’s the people who do the do. I want that bottom twenty percent to be median of the combat support and combat service support people so that every infantry formation can shine.

Other than that, though, I don’t care very much about the infantry or hold them in very high esteem.


Webstral

Infantry vs cav vs arty
 

I read Grae s post about the US army in the draft days and found it interesting . We have a draft army ( still) and I have worked with a few "cycles" or platoons if you will.

The funny thing about intelligence is that it seems to be many things .Some guys come in with a Ph.D in classical languages,a penchance for sci fi space battle board games,and a chess kit in their suitcase -others come in in a beer stained Iron Maiden shirt and answer most questions with a "huh?"

Still these two can vary hughely in who adapts better ,learns the new skills faster and handles themselves well.So called intelligence in one field does not translate easily into another .

We say the biggest difference is between practitioners and theoreticians.

As for slamming the arty guys -infantry,navy or whatever that sort of abuse is all in good spirit and for the fun of it .part of it shows that the instructors got through to you when they trained you and tried to slip some pride over your unit into you by dissing the other guys and praising your own.

All in my humble opinion of course - and written as plainly as I could so you infantry types would have a chance to follow ;)

1 woman on a german sub
 

The actual german submarine U-32 has a woman onboard. She is a sonar operator and the only woman among 27 men.

I figured it might interest you to know about her treatment. She is simply considered as every other sailors. She shares her sleeping quarter with one of the men. While leaving harbor she is also the one taking care of dismounting what has to be taken out on the outer hull.

Thought it could interest you.

Yeah , but is she hot or does she look like the Frankenstein montser? I bet if she had a big old rack, round ass, and sexy face she wouldn't be one of the guys.;)

Regular.;) If you have to compare her with the prostitute I can see around my place, she looks much better. Of course, subsailors I must more mentaly advanced than truckers and infantrymen.;):D

As a former fast attack submariner I can tell to that fitting women on board is going to present some serious logistic issues.

1. the sleeping arrangements are going to make life hell for some women, hot bunking sucks as is for guys, for those who do not uunderstand a Los Angeles fast attack has only 85 bunks on it we have a crew of 110 to 120 depnding on varius things . so about 45 of us are double up on rack space and have to share with the guy on the opisate duty shift that you are on (pray you never get a guy who likes old spice aftershave that stuff smell sticks to every thing in a rack space.

2. then their is the absolute lack of privacy that you have on board (though for women they will hopefully give them one of the outer rack halls and curten it off,

3. the minimal head (bathroom) space, for enlisted we had 5 heads and 5 urnals for our usage which unless they rip the heads apart and design them it will real intresting for them.


4. add the fact that for a 4 month deployment alone each women is going to take up 4 to 5 extra cubic feet of space than a man does (sanitary supplies) now you may not think that is a lot but for 10 women that's a 2 to 3 days worth of rations for the whole crew that cuts back on deployment times.

please don't get me wrong i believe that any women who wants to join the sub community should be able to it just that they should be well aware of the draw backs of it. but also I believe that manitory long term contraceptives should be used (ie the 4+ month shot). getting out of deployment tours by pregnancy should be a disciplinary action. for a man any thing short of full medical will result in a court marshal. so why should some one volunteered for sub duty not be willing to make sure they are deployment ready. as for those who say the military cant force them to take it remember that while you are in the military the military really does own your ass . ask the guys who got court marshaled over tattoos for defacing government property.

If contraceptives were mandatory (particularly the injection) then you don't have to worry about sanitary supplies as women using the injected contraceptive (and some oral contraceptives) don't menstruate.

Edit: In response to a very reasonable observation about my above comment I feel I need to make it clear that in no way do I condone mandatory contraception. I wrote this post in response to the section of Drashal's post that I quoted, not because I in any way support forced interference in anybody's reproductive systems.

Why should this be a problem? A woman being a full member of the crew, she must be treated as everyone else.

That would be perfectly inacceptable. If things go that way, I would advise every sailors in the US submarine force to refuse orders.

For my part I spend 45 min in my bath every morning while my wife is ready in less than 5 minutes.:D

That will take 1 cubic foot (at most). We are talking of submarine sailor, not of the local bimbo.

So does the men, I never wanted to get on subs exactly for the reasons you give. I managed to avoid tanks not to become the most obvious target on the battlefield.

Out of this entire exchange, the only point I can see against women in subs (or elsewhere) is men and men alone.

Just a point, military personnels are wearing uniforms. Just think of the meaning of this word: everyone the same. Things are as simple as that.

The first problem is that men lack the guts (as always I would say).

The second problem is that it has become a political issue: women must be accepted when they can do the job and accept the living conditions. No special arrangement have to be made for them. If they can't bear the smell they get on land and raise babies.

About the sex issue, it won't be an issue. I don't know much on life in sub but I don't expect that after your turn of duty you think about anything but rest. Moreover, If you have no privacy you have no way to get laid.

The German sub sailors (the woman) was saying something simple and I found it very true: to get into this kind of engagement, you must be somewhat crazy. I agreed with her.

Yes us men are the probelm. If you like TNA(women's that is) you are no different. Sure if you are not attracted to a woman that is one thing, but when we are, we always act different weither it is being nicer or being more antisocial to hide our desire for them. That's just real life. Think of school the military is just like a extension of school in a lot of ways.
I like the idea of women being in there own units, but that is unrealistic too.
Maybe I'm just a sexual pervert, but hey that's just me.:D

Reminds me of the soldiers (male and female in each unit) in The Forever War -- one of the first things they did at the reception station was to take a sperm sample and then gives the males a vasectomy, and take eggs from the females and then tie their tubes.

That, I think, would be perfect, even in normal life, if both the man and woman were taking contraceptives. And come to think of it, just the other day on the news, I did see a story about a male contraceptive pill being developed...

You are not a pervert at all ;). Many men will act like you. However, as much as I love women, I've never found any problem to act as if they were not women. When a job has to be done, it has to be done that's it. In that case they are just another human being. If you really want to protect them/her, there is only one way to act: do your job and let them do theirs. Watch their back and let them watch yours :).

I try to have both of my brains working together (the bottom and the top one, I mean:D). Do the job! When it's done, do as you please.

You're also in your '40s, right?

Can you honestly say that you weren't distracted at 18/19/20. That's the average age of these kids. The leaders are more mature, yes, but some of these guys are just out of high school. And if you can honestly say that, I commend you, but you're the exception, not the norm. At least in our culture.

And you're right, Germany has integrated all of their professions, not just subs or military work. Unfortunately, that wasn't a choice they wanted, it was forced on them by their membership in the EU according to a German Army Captain in my class. The majority of German military personnel aren't too pleased with it either.

women in the forces
 

Got it up here too - we are not Union , but we have always had strong women up here that do as they please .All branches are integrated.

I think you get used to whatever your situation is . Working alongside women will be ok as soon as you get some experience with it .

have had women both over and under me :D in the service - cant say that either caused a problem based on their sex alone.( rank people - think rank ).

Now- we werent exactly manouvering a nuclear submarine with warheads and the whole kablammo onboard - more like a SISU xa 185 APC ( has propellers, can ford rivers etc ) but not navy per se ;)

Anyways .We have had women on subs for many years .First female Submarine captain in 1995 .Enlisted and other ranks ,have been many over the years .Typical Norge crew is diesel electric ,app 25 person crew and probably no months on end long cruises .Works in our navy .maybe not in others. Just saying -the examples are there .

Was very bashful at 19 - might have been distracting yeah .

Military personnel have never been pleased with changes any way. Not so long ago, they were not even willing to accept submarines in our various navies. Took, multiple defeats to accept tanks, not to talk of aircrafts. Military personnel always had more in common with old widows than with anything else.:D

That's a very broad statement and largely unfounded. We're always looking for ways to better our organizations and make our jobs safer.

What we dislike and resist is an outside source, the majority of which hasn't been in our organization or a similar one, dictating our policies and procedures to us.

What, you're kidding, right? What's the first thing that happens in any unit of any size when a new officer or senior NCO takes over? He changes as much as possible, trying to leave his mark on the unit -- for good or bad. When I was in the Army, we used to say we would always know when a new TRADOC commanding general was appointed -- all the manuals would change. The changes that officers and senior NCOs are so resistant to are the ones that aren't their ideas.

Of course I am!!! Damn it, there are still people to take me seriously on these kind of statements. You are getting too serious people sometimes. :wall: :hanged: :behead: