OT: Women on subs

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Webstral

Fortunately for me, I don't flirt well, and I know it. I kept female soldiers at arm's length because I don't dance well enough to manage anything else. Webstral

I struggled with that one my whole life. After my nervous breakdown, I just gave up on the whole idea, and pretty much now, I'm too old to even give the idea of romance a thought any more. (Except when I watch romantic movies -- my guilty pleasure.) Romances have always been tough for me to start, impossible to maintain, and usually started almost by accident.

My best friend, however, is female; her name's Gladys. We met in college and have known each other since. We've nursed each other through tough classes, bad family lives, busted romances, and worse -- and better (I was there through her first pregnancy, after her husband left her when he found out she was pregnant. If you ever get a chance to be in the delivery room, take it). We never thought of each other romantically in the least -- it's almost like we were long lost brother and sister. So it doesn't always have to be either romantic or platonic.

[Mohoender]

A few tricks

1) Need to be polite (not servile). Keep learning: you'll never stop. Here are basic rules.
- If you wear a hat, always take it off when speaking to a woman.
- Always let them go first when you go through a door in a place you know. However, in a place you don't know (restaurants for exemple), you enter first. Most people have forgotten about that rule but the explanation is simple. You don't know who might be behind the door and you have to protect her. You might have to explain it to her but trust she will appreciate.
- When climbing a stair you let her go first. You are polite and get the best view.
- When going down a stair (especially dangerous ones), you always go first (so you can catch her if she goes down). After all you are her charming prince. (again you might have to explain it)
- Hold the door of your car (increasingly hard with remotes) and be careful not to close the door on her leg.
- Listen to what she says and I mean listen.
- If you cross another woman and look at her (you look at the gorgeous and hideous ones not matter how much you try it), don't deny it. Of course when you look at that woman, just don't do it too obviously (except if she is of hideous type). Anyway, your girl friend look at other man going by (You like nice boops, they love nice asses). Then, if you are caught, tell your mate than that woman passing by was nice looking but that she is ten times more gorgeous.
- Help her sit down (it's tricky) when going to a restaurant (and why not at home)
- Don't sit down at a dining table unless they are seated. If you are seated don't forget to stand up.
- If you are invited and the hot meal is already in your plate, don't wait to eat (that's an insult to the cook). Widely forgotten, therefore, make sure it doesn't hurt anyones feeling.
- To salute her leave the initiative. Some will shake your hand as a man others wont.
- Handkiss is still working but do it in a less formal way (with some sense of humor)
- If you offer her red roses, it has to be an uneaven number unless married (1-3-5-7-9...). Heaven numbers brutally means you want to fuck her. Usually she does too but better to be less aggressive.
(I'm sure I'm forgetting a lot of rules). Rules of politeness works especially well with American women.
2) Don't ever share the bill, always propose to pay but don't forget to let her do it from time to time.
3) Don't offer them gifts and flowers all the time (needless) but don't forget to do it from time to time. For my part, I often forget my wife's birthday (oops).
4) If you know how to cook, you have done half the road. On that matter women and men are the same.
5) Anyway, unlike what most men think, men don't hunt women, it's the other way around. However, don't ever let them know you understood it (unless you are married and your wife has a well developped sense of humor). There is no need to flirt at all, in fact. Just be present and kind, they will hunt you if you please them. That also explains the trick with the red roses.
6) Compliment them and I mean compliment them. Don't even hesitate to overdo. She'll know you are facking it but it works nonetheless. If she resist and tells you you are an hypocrit, push it forward.
7) From time to time, go shopping with her or you'll never be able to surprise her. I know its painful but there is no need to do it each time and you can put some limits.

And to those who think this is OT, it is not. We are talking military matters all day and women are exactly like the stronghold you want to take. That's why military strategist and politicians have often been successful with women.

I'm married, never cheated on my wife, but I can't help it. I still find women (most of them) to be the most beautiful thing in life. As an Iranian friend told me once as he was looking at a girl with beautiful legs and short skirts: That girls is gorgeous, praise god that she is willing to share it with us.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

My best friend, however, is female; her name's Gladys. We met in college and have known each other since. We've nursed each other through tough classes, bad family lives, busted romances, and worse -- and better (I was there through her first pregnancy, after her husband left her when he found out she was pregnant. If you ever get a chance to be in the delivery room, take it). We never thought of each other romantically in the least -- it's almost like we were long lost brother and sister. So it doesn't always have to be either romantic or platonic.

I'm almost 40, I have been married with my wife for 5 years now and we have dated for 7 years. The tricky part is that we have known each other for 35 years. Took us almost 30 years to move forward. There still is hope for you, then.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

Originally Posted by Graebarde

1. IF the female can pass the qualifications I agree it should be open to them if they choose. There needs to be ONE standard of performance however, not one for men and one for women. Make it or fail.. one and all. I know many female 'warriors' that would put the average male 'warrior' to shame in 90% of the task. (I was married to one for 17 years)

2. IF a female gets pregnant, she is non-deployable. SOME get that way so they don't have to 'perform their duties'. I'm old and crass.. if they are non-deployable and have a good service record, it's one thing.. medical reassignment. IF on the other hand they are bricks before, then seperation from service. How many do not have someone to take care of the child? Same story.. Yeah like I said, I'm a old crass fart.

3. Male chauvanism gets in the way of 'prgress'. It also makes for dangerous situations in combat. There is a ingrained thought I think that males will tend to be protective of the female at their own risk. And there are females that take advantage of that same thinking. I served with females... some great 'warriors' many fell into the latter... The bottom line is WHY people join the armed forces.. usually for the WRONG reasons... 'gee I didn't join to go to war, I joined for college, or the paycheck, or what ever lame reason'

I shall now step off the soap box.. and thank the makers that I am not in the service now... and hope the MEN can handle it.

I do agree with you where there should be one standard. I'm squeamish about women serving aboard subs in a coed manner. Webstral has a point too where Sting of the Police (at that time) pointed out about the problems of human nature. If I may bring about another musical group example, I would use the song from The Partridge Family where "I am willing to meet you halfway." Maybe we need to test a sub or two with all female crews and see how they perform and take it from there. I'm normally against experimentation in the military but I think we can spare a boat or two and just see what happens.

Chuck

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Nowhere Man 1966

I do agree with you where there should be one standard. I'm squeamish about women serving aboard subs in a coed manner. Webstral has a point too where Sting of the Police (at that time) pointed out about the problems of human nature. If I may bring about another musical group example, I would use the song from The Partridge Family where "I am willing to meet you halfway." Maybe we need to test a sub or two with all female crews and see how they perform and take it from there. I'm normally against experimentation in the military but I think we can spare a boat or two and just see what happens.

Chuck

I agree with you that there should be one standard, but I also think that coed units are a place where men and women, especially young men and women, need to grow up about their professional relationships with each other. That kind of immature attitude can happen in coed units. To a large extent, curbing this attitude is also a leadership problem. Men and women can work together professionally --I've seen it happen.

[waiting4something]

Originally Posted by Webstral

It's a thorny issue. Mixing men and women causes problems wherever you do it. Sting said it best: "There is no political solution/for our troubled evolution." ("Spirits in the Material World") Substitute policy or administrative for political, and you have something to apply to the military. Men and women can have fraternal relationships, but men and women in their breeding prime (especially men) want love and sex--not necessarily in that order of priority. Ignoring this unavoidable fact is just immature. Given our oddly puritanical attitudes towards sex, it's not surprising that the US military is struggling with integrating men and women in a fashion that is fair, impartial, and workable.

I'll be honest: I struggled with the mixing when I was MI. The combat engineers and the infantry are just easier in that way. Fortunately for me, I don't flirt well, and I know it. I kept female soldiers at arm's length because I don't dance well enough to manage anything else. While I daresay that many male soldiers have my attitude, at least as many are eager to find themselves in the company of female soldiers for all the wrong reasons. I won't repeat the things I heard at an EO seminar; young soldiers are looking to get some.

It's not all one-sided, either. In my various XO positions for MI AIT companies at Huachuca, I was constantly in the company of young female soldiers. The command team (the commander, the first sergeant, and I) had a runner assigned to us whenever snowbirds, blackbirds, or light duty types were available. The runner occupied a desk in my office, which was between the CO's and 1SG's offices. Many's the day I walked into my office and got a "Hi, sir..." greeting that told me I needed to be out and about all day.

After PT one day, I discovered that I didn't have enough time to drive home and shower before an early appointment. I kept a spare set of BDUs in my trunk for just such an occasion. I showered in the seldom-used VIP shower in the barracks. The private assigned to clean that area came in and struck up a conversation with me through the shower door. She was one of the "Hi, sir..." types. She ignored hints that I was just about done with my shower. She did not leave when I shut off the shower and dried off. I told her I was going to have to get out of the shower and get dressed now. She said, "That's okay, sir."

I solved the problem by telling her to find the senior drill sergeant right away. There was a pause, then she left. When the senior drill sergeant arrived, I told him that under no [expletive deleted] circumstances were any of the trainees to enter the VIP shower while anyone was in there. He gave me a three-bags-full. I think he understood.

While it may be true that fraternization represents a lack of discipline, asking for monastic discipline on top of combat discipline may be more than one can ask. We don't want choir boys in the Army, and we don't recruit monks. We want killers. For better for for worse, the kinds of men who sign up to kill people against whom they have no particular gripe want to [expletive deleted] women. If government-sponsored brothels were available, then I'd say the Army would have a case against fraternizing in the field. In lieu of providing authorized outlets, the Army needs to grow up and accept that its killers never signed on for celibacy. Men and women under stress are going to have sex just as surely as a bullet fired in the air will come down someplace.

If I were in charge, I'd set up brothels that were under strict military control and issue ration cards or some other rationing system for access. Then we'd have an argument that male and female soldiers should not be finding solace in each others' arms.

Webstral

Now this is the kind of guy we need in charge! But, he has common sense, so he could never become a General. Really you hit the nail on the head.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Webstral

...We want killers...

Webstral

I probably just misunderstood your phrasing here, but I didn't and don't want someone next to me who wants to kill. I made a pointed effort to get two such people out of my squad, people I believe actually wanted to go to war and kill someone. I want someone who is capable of killing, but still has his essential humanity intact. People who actually want to kill shouldn't be allowed to even touch a weapon.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I probably just misunderstood your phrasing here, but I didn't and don't want someone next to me who wants to kill. I made a pointed effort to get two such people out of my squad, people I believe actually wanted to go to war and kill someone. I want someone who is capable of killing, but still has his essential humanity intact. People who actually want to kill shouldn't be allowed to even touch a weapon.

I agree that in an ideal world the military would be full of folks who would feel suitably reluctant to press the [metaphorical] trigger and suitably remorseful afterwards. The combat arms in particular present us with rather a Catch-22. Rifleman, tankers, cannon crew, etc. have to be willing to kill and highly motivated to train to that end without falling victim to the not-always-covertly bloodthirsty combat arms subculture. It's a tightrope act that not everyone can manage. If a rifleman must fall off the rope, we'd rather he fall on the side with too much aggression than the side with too little. Beggars can't be choosers; an Army staffed by volunteers and which offers no real incentives to be in the infantry other than membership in the brotherhood of killers is going to find itself with a fair number of men looking to take lives. As for the rest of us, if we were really opposed to taking life, we'd be able to find ourselves positions in the AG or JAG.

Rene Belloq (Raiders of the Lost Ark) tells Dr. Jones: "[We] are not so different as you pretend. I am but a shadowy reflection of you. It would only take a nudge to push you out of the light."

Webstral

[perardua]

I was always a fan of what my instructors used to tell us they were trying to do, which is to give people the ability to 'flip a switch' in their heads and go from being the bloke in the pub to being able to kill, and back again. The whole 'warrior culture' thing has always vaguely unsettled me when I've encountered it, though it seems to be quite a big part of the US military (at least in my experience). But then, real and perceived differences in military culture between nations could probably be a whole other (quite interesting) thread.

Anyway, back to the topic in hand: Whilst fraternising within a unit is frowned on, and rightfully so, I think there has to continue to be an acceptance that inter-unit relationships, short and long term, will happen, and that trying to stop them is a bad idea. This is especially true on large bases which are effectively towns in their own right, and where, especially for the younger troops, their main social life is with each other.

[Webstral]

A splendid book called The Kinder, Gentler Military by Stephanie Gutmann explores the idea of a gender-neutral (female friendly) military and asks whether such a military can be as effective as the military it replaces. The author admits that she started the project with the intent of exposing the military as just another boys' club that needed to be forced to mend its degenerate ways. Partway through her research, she became convinced that the military is a separate subculture that needs to be preserved so it can do its job and so the civilian population can remain blissfully unexposed to the brutality of war. Women who want to join the world of the military, Gutmann insists, need to adapt to the military way of business rather than demanding that the military adapt to the woman's way of doing things. She also acknowledges that the majority of women she interviewed believed this, and that the real problem comes from female members of Congress who haven't served but think they know best.

Gutmann recommends exactly what so many have said in this thread already: a single performance standard needs be set for an MOS. Meet the standard, male or female, and you're in. Fail to meet the standard, male or female, and you must find a different MOS. While I'm still not thrilled about the idea of women in the infantry, I'd trade an objective standard for having a few women around.

Of course, making it tougher to be in the combat arms (with objective, gender-neutral standards) isn't going to increase the ranks of the combat arms any more than making it tougher to be a teacher is going to bring more teachers into the profession. The infantry in particular need incentives built in. New recruits should be competing for a available infantry slots, and the infantry should have the option of refusing entry to at least a third of the recruits who meet the general standards to be soldiers. There are two routes to increasing incentives, and both should be tried. The first is to offer more pay and better housing for the infantry. There should be an infantry bonus amounting to at least 20% of base pay for anyone in the 11 series. I'd be open to arguments that the light infantry should receive an even greater bonus than the mech guys. I'd also be open to arguments that the infantry should receive more than 20%. Housing for the infantry should be conspicuously superior, such that junior enlisted soldiers in the CS and CSS should ask themselves how badly they want to be in the rear with the gear. The other advantage should be conspicuiously superior privileges and official respect. The infantry go to the head of the line. The infantry get more days off, and so forth. With a greater pool of applicants, the infantry can afford to get rid of the pogues, train harder (you don't like the pace? There's a slot in the quartermaster unit with your name on it!), and hold itself to even higher standards. THEN we could bring in women, because for every chucklehead unable to control his male impulses in the field, there'd be a line of eager replacements.

As for the other combat arms, I'm on the fence about a modest bonus. In the current climate, the tankers and cannon cockers aren't fighting the same war as the riflemen. However, if HIC breaks out someplace, the gun and fighting vehicle crews will fnd their lives in much greater peril. Since you go to war with the Army you've been training for the past five years, I suppose some sort of accomodation for the other combat arms is in order. Again, if one has objective standards and many more applicants than openings, it becomes more feasible to bring in the women and demand celibacy from everyone.

(I'm still in favor of government-run brothels. My wife assures me that the women would need to frequent them, too.)

Webstral

[perardua]

While I am all for the infantry having more official recognition, I am not sure measures quite as drastic as those you propose would work. The first thing that springs to mind is that in modern operations, everyone is a target. When you have supply convoys getting hit frequently, and when you're sending non-infantry personnel (medics, interpreters, etc) on the same patrols as their infantry counterparts, but without the benefits, then the idea of incentivising people to join the infantry loses some of its legitimacy.

Furthermore, deliberately creating second class citizens within the military just seems like a bad idea. I know the infantry are what wins wars, but so do suppliers, engineers, mechanics, medics and all the other personnel that enable them to do their jobs. You make it sound like people in those trades have less value than infantrymen, and that is simply not true.

As an aside, does the US Army have different fitness standards for combat arms as compared to CSS types? I know the British Army Combat Fitness Test has different weight and distance standards for different arms, and the RAF Regiment has the Regiment Operational Fitness Assessment to help set it apart from the rest of the RAF.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by perardua

As an aside, does the US Army have different fitness standards for combat arms as compared to CSS types? I know the British Army Combat Fitness Test has different weight and distance standards for different arms, and the RAF Regiment has the Regiment Operational Fitness Assessment to help set it apart from the rest of the RAF.

Technically no, but everyone in the Army (when I was in) knew that in Combat Arms units, you were going to be graded on each pushup and situp repetition was going to be graded more harshly. (The 2-mile run time doesn't allow for harder grading -- the time is the time.) However, standards go down as you get older, and women have lower standards for PT then men.

When I went to the 82nd Airborne, we were expected to score 20% higher than the book standards, plus there was a pullup event added to the PT test.

[Eddie]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Technically no, but everyone in the Army (when I was in) knew that in Combat Arms units, you were going to be graded on each pushup and situp repetition was going to be graded more harshly. (The 2-mile run time doesn't allow for harder grading -- the time is the time.) However, standards go down as you get older, and women have lower standards for PT then men.

When I went to the 82nd Airborne, we were expected to score 20% higher than the book standards, plus there was a pullup event added to the PT test.

That comes from the 82nd's Ranger Envy. Ranger Standards used to be 80% in each event in the 17-21 year old age range plus 6 pull ups. Then that changed when the age standards got revamped in '99-'00. Now it's your age group.

The Army Standard is 60% per category. Infantry standard is 70%. Nothing really happens to you if you don't make it except maybe a flag for no favorable action and getting put on remedial PT.

About three years ago RTB changed their PT standards and renamed the APFT the Ranger Phsycial Fitness Test. Now the RPFT is 80% for push-ups and sit-ups in the 17-21 year category, a 5 mile run in 40 minutes substituted for the 2-mile, and the pull-ups. The rest of the Army still does the APFT.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by perardua

Furthermore, deliberately creating second class citizens within the military just seems like a bad idea.

A dual-class system already exists in the military—any military. The officers are the first class citizens, and the enlisted troops are the second class citizens. Pay and privileges are allocated accordingly. Soldiers (and seamen, airmen, and Marines) are accustomed to living and operating in a system in which service members are not all peers and in which some receive much better treatment than others for the execution of certain duties. There also exists a multiple-standard system in which SO operates under substantially different rules than the line units. The US Army already recognizes the differences between troops when offering re-enlistment bonuses; Special Forces gets $150,000. The truckers and MI and heavy engineers aren’t getting this money.

Everyone may be a target, but it's still the infantry who are doing more than their share of the dying. The combat support guys may be exposed to combat, but the combat arms guys are the ones who are assigned to prosecute it. Truckers on the highways are exposed to ambushes and IEDs. Riflemen purposefully engaged in urban combat are exposed to an entirely different order of threat.

I take your point about having medics and interpreters on patrols, but I'm not convinced the solution is to avoid giving incentives altogether. A case can be made for recognizing that the rifle platoon medic deserves the same incentives as the riflemen under his care. I'm not going to address incentives for interpreters, very few of whom in Iraq are American servicemen.

As for second class, there's a difference between second class by inherent quality and second class by choice. The infantry ain't rocket science. Those who succeed and those who don't principally are divided by motivation, not by native intelligence. Traditionally, the infantry makes due with the folks who are left over after the more technical services take their pick. I wouldn't say that the US infantry is filled with rocks, but too many are doofuses who should be doing something else. By the same token, MI is full of folks who would be good infantry except for the fact that they can't imagine why they'd put up with that [expletive deleted] for the exact same pay and privileges. Who can blame them?

Originally Posted by perardua

I know the infantry are what wins wars, but so do suppliers, engineers, mechanics, medics and all the other personnel that enable them to do their jobs. You make it sound like people in those trades have less value than infantrymen, and that is simply not true.

All jobs may contribute to victory, but not all jobs are equal just because they contribute. As an analogy, I'll point to civil service. A municipality (with minimal corruption) does not create jobs that do nothing. Every paid position contributes to keeping the municipality running. Not every position merits equal pay. Try paying the cops the same as you pay a file clerk for a given level of experience, and you will find yourself with a very poor pool of candidates for the police department. All jobs may contribute, but not every job is equally critical. Not all jobs pose equal risk to life and limb.


Webstral

[Eddie]

Originally Posted by Webstral

Everyone may be a target, but it's still the infantry who are doing more than their share of the dying.

This is the only part I'll nitpick on. In Iraq and until recently, Afghanistan, the majority of engagements have been on non-Combat Arms MOSs because they present the softer target. Running a historical tally, you're correct though.

We've had our differences in the past Webstral, but as an Infantryman...when are you running for Congress? You got my wife's vote when you said more than 20%.

[perardua]

Good points. I don't really have a problem with retention/recruitment bonuses for specific trades (the RAF Regiment, my own branch of service, has been throwing them out pretty frequently, with the result that it was, last time I checked, I overmanned. Which is nice), but what I disagree with is the concept of infantry (or whatever trade takes your fancy) getting more privileges, better housing, more time off, etc than any other enlisted personnel. For officers, that's the way it's always been, and there is a general acceptance that that's how things work. I just think that a lot of skilled non-combat arms tradesmen will not take kindly to that suddenly becoming applied to their own place in the military, as compared to infantry, and may even start wondering if the civilian world is a better place to find employment.

For myself, and most of my colleagues, we would have welcomed more pay and better housing. However, we didn't need it to make us stay in, or to attract the best recruits. We already felt we were better than those around us who hadn't been through the same training that we had, and who worked 9-5 jobs for the most part. I think that a lot of units create their own sense of elitism, and that it does work as a means of attracting and retaining the right kind of recruits.

Of course, the caveat to all of this is that I have no indepth knowledge of how the US Army works, or what it's culture is like. I'm coming at this from the standpoint of not having seen a lack of quality amongst infantry, certainly not to the extent you suggest. But then, my experience is different to yours.

As an aside, the British Army uses a personal fitness test similar to that of the US Army (press-ups, sit-ups and a 1.5 mile run in PT kit) plus a Combat Fitness Test which is 6-8 miles as a squad with CEMO, the exact time, distance and weights carried varying with arm. It's always been my experience that regardless of what your fitness test standard actually is, only doing the minimum gets you in lots of trouble.

The RAF Regiment uses the biannual RAF Fitness Test, which is press-ups, sit-ups and a bleep test. They also add the annual ROFA, a 2 day event which consists of a CEMO march similar to the Army Infantry CFT, a speed march in CEFO, a dummy drag, a sprint carrying two jerry cans, and a bergen lift onto the back of a vehicle. They've been experimenting with modifying it, and we recently trialled the addition of another bleep test (higher standard required than the normal RAF one and no reductions for age), a swim test, pull-ups, and a fire and movement lane consisting of alternate sprinting and crawling for a set distance. The next year we went back to the old one, though I hear the improved version is still being worked on. Regardless, I always used to like the CEMO march. 8 miles was almost the exact distance from the Squadron buildings to the CS chamber, and thus it was always used as an opportunity to get our annual NBC testing in after the march....

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Webstral

As for second class, there's a difference between second class by inherent quality and second class by choice. The infantry ain't rocket science. Those who succeed and those who don't principally are divided by motivation, not by native intelligence. Traditionally, the infantry makes due with the folks who are left over after the more technical services take their pick. I wouldn't say that the US infantry is filled with rocks, but too many are doofuses who should be doing something else.

Webstral

Web, really, the days when infantrymen were a bunch of soldiers without the talent to do anything else were already gone by the time I enlisted -- as an infantryman in the National Guard -- in 1983. Using tactics takes brains, using modern infantry equipment takes brains, keeping a platoon or even a squad in working order logistically takes brains, knowing the weak points on enemy armor takes brains, etc, etc, etc. Being infantry requires just as much head work as any other MOS -- but not everyone can do it. I don't consider myself a doofus -- I have a BA in History with a respectable 3.07 GPA at graduation and an IQ of 145 plus or minus 5. I didn't know any stupid fellow infantrymen -- foolish maybe, but not flat out stupid. The idea of the "dumb grunt" is a misconception that in reality went away a long time ago.

[Adm.Lee]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Web, really, the days when infantrymen were a bunch of soldiers without the talent to do anything else were already gone by the time I enlisted -- as an infantryman in the National Guard -- in 1983. ... The idea of the "dumb grunt" is a misconception that in reality went away a long time ago.

I've read of studies dating back to WW2 that said that lower IQ infantrymen tended to become casualties much more quickly than smarter ones, and that smarter infantrymen were much more combat-effective. The army adjusted several policies after that.

[Webstral]

Paul, I want to give you the proper, well-considered response that you deserve. However, I have class tonight (or at least I'll be in the classroom), so last night and today are shot for anything but schoolwork. Yes, like so many others I find myself finishing my work at the eleventh hour. I don't want you to think I'm ignoring you.

Webstral

P.S. The Eleventh Hour would be a good name for a pub or a tax services business, don't you think? Or perhaps for putting together last-minute weddings with expanded-middle wedding gowns?

[Graebarde]

Cira 1973, Ft Eustis (Even Uncle Sam Thinks It Sucks) VA.
I was an instructor at the Transportation School. I taught a 24-hour block of instruction to Movement Specialist and the SAME block to Stevedores. I had been at the school for about a year, having been medically reclassified from the Infantry where I had served for the better part of five years, with two tours under my belt. Any ways, this block was a MUST PASS to continue the course, or you were recycled back. I had this kid come in one class and failed the test. This was NOT all that uncommon, perhaps 2-3 per class did. So he's back in about two weeks again. He failed the SECOND time.. same OPEN BOOK test (it was documentation BTW). So the reclassified him to Stevedores. (About the only MOS below them was Laborer IMNSHO) Long story short... he failed test three AND four.. so they are going to reclassify him AGAIN.. to the INFANTRY. I went to the NCOIC of the section, wearing my CIB and ribbons. I told the Master Sergeant to NOT reclassify the kid to the Infantry. He asked me WHY NOT? I flat told him it took BRAINS to stay alive and not get others killed... He just looked at me for a while and said.. "good point".. the kid was released as untrainable. I still feel that way..

Intelligence and common sense go a LONG way in the Infantry, even back in the day. I was in during the draft era and Volar.. In my platoon in AIT we had a PhD, and two with Masters degrees, as well as several Bachelors.. Our platoon was KICK ASS AND TAKE NAMES LATER if I do say so myself. We were tasked by the Battalion Commander as a TEST platoon.. while everyone carried a rifle and butt pack, our platoon carried TOE rucks, radios, M60s, LAWS, Grenades, and 700 rounds of ammo (inert, but weighs the same), as well as two canteens, and three days c-rats, extra socks, bedroll (blanket and shelterhalf in poncho).. we doubletimed everywhere we went. There were no slackers in the platoon.. we were different and our attitude showed it... we trained when everyone else was in the beer garden... They called us names, and we laughed at them.. HARD CORE!!!! We had people from all walks of life.. in all sorts of shape at first, even after they had been in basic (we filled from three BCT stations that I know of), but EVERYONE was in top shape by end of cycle.. We did our six mile road march in 45 minutes over the ridges.. NOBODY in the platoon dropped out while other platoons were falling like flies... and we had 80+ pounds MORE than they did to carry.. If someone was having troubles with a concept.. they were helped by their peers..

Now this is NOT to say all were happy campers, far from it, but we were the only platoon that had NO AWOLs that cycle, everyone was 80% plus on the PT test (which at the time was FIVE events culminating in a mile run... IN COMBAT BOOTS.. PT gear was T-shit, fatigue pants and combat boots, no running shoes and sweats need apply thank you very much.. You train how your going to fight... and I dont see anyone in tennies and shorts (except that kid in 'Stan in his pink boxers and flipflops LOL)

I know, times have changed, but I think we were taught and tested on more stuff in that time than they do now... ie. First Aid was almost to Life Saver standards today and that was EVERYONE. I was involved in a first aid class in the late 70's and appalled they didn't even address a sucking chest wound. Comms were simpler, but more indepth.. we had demolitions, live fire of LAWS, a week on the '60, fired MaDuce and bloopers, as well as the .45 and the 'trusty' M-16 which was just coming on line (took BCT with the M14).. intensive land navigation, yada yada yada.. and it was ALL tested.. you fail you recycle... And testing was in week SIX and you recycled back to week ONE.. something NOBODY wanted... Everyone in my platoon graduated.. Six of the platoon went on to OCS.. and some payed the ultimate price in the shithole called Nam.

Guess I got carried away.. sorry.. but I was an 11B and proud of it. And I was a volunteer RA, not a draftee. (Why would someone do that you ask.. hey, the INFANTRY to me is the ARMY.. the rest just support us.)

Grae

(getting extinguishers ready for the flames )

IT takes more than a warm body to make an Infantryman.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Graebarde

Guess I got carried away.. sorry.. but I was an 11B and proud of it. And I was a volunteer RA, not a draftee. (Why would someone do that you ask.. hey, the INFANTRY to me is the ARMY.. the rest just support us.)

Grae

(getting extinguishers ready for the flames )

IT takes more than a warm body to make an Infantryman.

Damn straight!

[Dog 6]

lol crunchy's

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Dog 6

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]

Dog 6 was my tanks call sign

[cavtroop]

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.

[Webstral]

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.

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Web, really, the days when infantrymen were a bunch of soldiers without the talent to do anything else were already gone by the time I enlisted -- as an infantryman in the National Guard -- in 1983. Using tactics takes brains, using modern infantry equipment takes brains, keeping a platoon or even a squad in working order logistically takes brains, knowing the weak points on enemy armor takes brains, etc, etc, etc. Being infantry requires just as much head work as any other MOS -- but not everyone can do it. I don't consider myself a doofus -- I have a BA in History with a respectable 3.07 GPA at graduation and an IQ of 145 plus or minus 5. I didn't know any stupid fellow infantrymen -- foolish maybe, but not flat out stupid. The idea of the "dumb grunt" is a misconception that in reality went away a long time ago.

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

[headquarters]

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

[Mohoender]

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.

[waiting4something]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

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.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by waiting4something

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.