Fighting is for men

[HADES 1962]

Very interesting post.
Did I ever pick a one to respond to, as this is my first.
The lowering of standards yes it fact it had happened.
IMHO I feel that the issue started with the introduction to the human rights bandwagon that entered the forces in the 80's.
Then along came the SHARP awareness training.
I have been the forces now for a little over 21 years, served with 1 RCHA, 2 RCHA, 3 RCHA, AD Troop 2RCHA, and 119 AD BTY was field artillery and ad artillery before OT to CE trade.
In my experience with the artillery both mud gunners and bird gunners, I had females on my detachments, they were given separate tent age.
If mod tent age was used it was divided, out of sheer respect to each other.
On my deployments the females were given separate sleeping quarters, and shower/ washrooms.
I am a married man and no desire to gawk at another woman, if a female was prancing around me in the ala buff I would not appreciate it, but then that is my morals and mine alone.
Its like I told one of my detachment members while on ex the young female gunner
Was the same age as his daughter and would he appreciate his troops gawking at her?
His response was hell no I would kill em.
Basically all that I am saying is the male female idea comes down to a maturity moral ethics issue.
With the exception of the beginning of this thread which was the lowering of standards.
PS yes MR. Monkhouse we did serve in the same battery with Mooner and Sgt Weber.

 

[steve-o]

God forbid women get pregnant. I guess women *shouldn't* serve because the idea of a pregnant woman in a uniform is too ridiculous for you?

Other employers provide mat leave, why is this even an issue in the CF?

Is that what you infered from my post? My god, people really hear what they want to hear. I never said I thought it was rediculous for a pregnant woman to be in uniform, but combats? Do you really think a pregnant woman is capable of combat? Follow the thread and you would realise that I was agreeing that the standards were lowered and PCism was far too rampant in the forces. I hope you ar not in a decision making process in the forces, because you are not smart, plain and simple, midgetop!

 

[Expat]

Whole problem with the female in the Army is Canadian society. If you look at Europe the female body is not seen as a sexual object. Heck I know for a fact that they have coop bathrooms, showers and bath houses in lots of countries. I had a friend in a German high school and he said he took showers with other females after gym classes.

I am in the ROK at the moment and its the same way here, heck I personally think women here have more balls then men. Its not uncommon to share accommodations with women, and bathrooms, etc. The problem is North American society has turned everything Taboo, the female body is a sexual object where as a lot of different societies don't see it this way.

Lets face it when crap hits the fan, women, men and even children become front line soldiers. People are overly sensitized by society and the media. Lowering standards will really not solve any problems and they should really remedy this problem rather quickly.

 

[armyvern]

Whole problem with the female in the Army is Canadian North American society. If you look at Europe the female body is not seen as a sexual object.

I'm going to back you up on this. In my experience through postings in Europe, and many a 60s and leaves spent wallowing topless in the waters of Spain, Cyprus, Israel, Italy etc....the only ones who managed to break their necks snapping their heads around to take a look at the assets walking about (and taking lots of pics too) were the soldiers we were on leave with or the obviously 'North American' men spending their vacations in the same places.

Reminds me of the time we had just got posted back from Germany and the family went out to Grand Lake for a swim. My mother and I automatically removed our tops and started walking towards the water. People freaked. It was too funny!! By then it had become habit I guess. Please...post me back to Ontario!!

 

[KevinB]

I've been side by side in Mod tent - crew tents, and hooches with female soldiers.
Trust me after week two - neither of you are in any shape to 1) have energey for "extra curicular" activities 2) you both reek.

Sexuality is highly talked about but unrealistic issue.  Do your job - no problems.

I dont care if my buddy is black/white/yellow/blue - male-female -- they are all green  and as long as they do their job thats all I need to see.


That said we need to pick up the physical standards in the cbt arms -- a lot of men and women are not combat capable..

 

[paracowboy]

I've been side by side in Mod tent - crew tents, and hooches with female soldiers.
Trust me after week two - neither of you are in any shape to 1) have energey for "extra curicular" activities 2) you both reek.

Sexuality is highly talked about but unrealistic issue.   Do your job - no problems.

I dont care if my buddy is black/white/yellow/blue - male-female -- they are all green   and as long as they do their job thats all I need to see.


That said we need to pick up the physical standards in the cbt arms -- a lot of men and women are not combat capable..

there it is.

 

[ZipperHead]

That said we need to pick up the physical standards in the cbt arms -- a lot of men and women are not combat capable..

And that, folks, sums up 7 or 8 pages of posts. No gender bashing, just the cold hard truth. I don't care what ANYBODY says: the EXPRES test, the BFT/AFS test, nothing that we currently have as a standard, other than perhaps the JTF selection test (Cooper's test, if my feeble memory serves), determines if a person is physically ready for combat. I think that many people in positions of power realize this, but are afraid to impose a more difficult standard, because a HUGE percentage of the CF would not meet the standard. So the heads go into the sand, hoping that all the hard wars will pass us by..... maybe we can fight a war from our computer workstations, and order take-out after we win!!!! Extra gravy on the fries for me, please....

Al

 

[KevinB]

1 and 3 VP do the Coopers.

Failing making it Army wide - bring back the PT400 (basically Cooper minus the Benchpress).

 

[Armymedic]

The Coopers test isn't the test for it either. Its a good test to determine overall fitness but there is no 'standard of fitness' in it.

But its not the name or nature of the test that will determine its effectiveness, but the ENFORCED standard one should have to achieve. If we don't set a realistic standard, and strictly enforce it, then no standard will do. Too many times do people fail, yes fail, the BFT yet they still get to go overseas. Why?

 

[KevinB]

Enforce a requirement to get X points.

IIRC 031's used to have to get 325 on the PT 400 - and guys who got 400 got a day off.

I got 386 one year - but never maxed...
(I like Haugen Das Ice Cream too much to do 20 chins...  ;D )

 

[Unknown Factor]

I think that many people in positions of power realize this, but are afraid to impose a more difficult standard, because a HUGE percentage of the CF would not meet the standard.

The sad reality is that those that have been around long enough is that they couldn't meet the physical standard from when they got in, in the the first place.  There are allot of people talking about the fact that we should raise the standard but as you know they are not likely to pass it when it comes, leading me to belive that privately they are happy with the way things are so that they can maintain their current life style. To have and enforce a standard means that a member of the forces would have to be tested and pass it each year and if they don't achieve a pass, have 6 months to try a pass it before being released.

 

[Haggis]

To have and enforce a standard means that a member of the forces would have to be tested and pass it each year ...

What a novel idea!  ;D

I've said it before and I'll say it again:  Until we apply and enforce the existing standards, there's little sense in creating a new, even more unacheivable, standard.

There's nothing wrong with the EXPRES Test or BFT providing that everybody (and I mean EVERYBODY!!) is tested  on one or the other yearly and sees the consequences of failure in a tangible and, where warranted, career altering way.

 

[ZipperHead]

What a novel idea!  ;D

I've said it before and I'll say it again:  Until we apply and enforce the existing standards, there's little sense in creating a new, even more unacheivable, standard.

There's nothing wrong with the EXPRES Test or BFT providing that everybody (and I mean EVERYBODY!!) is tested  on one or the other yearly and sees the consequences of failure in a tangible and, where warranted, career altering way.

There is in fact something wrong with the EXPRES test and/or BFT: it isn't a realistic standard for a combat soldier. In that it is embarrasingly low. In that people strive to barely achieve it. If we wait until every last sad sack can reach the dizzingly low height that the bar is set at, any enemy we encounter will soundly trounce us, rape, loot and pillage (in that order) every small town in their path, and then laugh at us to top it all off.

I agree that the standards have to be enforced. But to hope that "they" (which is actually "we", but who's counting.....) will make everybody conform is ridiculous. That would be like saying "No pay raises for politicians until every one of them becomes ethical and accountable!!". As someobdy alluded to, there are too many people happy with the standard the way it is: easily attainable with a minimum of output.

I think that there needs to be a combat arms PT standard enforced. Screw waiting for every last CSS trade to get into shape. This purple trade structure we have will prevent us from this EVER happening. Billy or Suzy Bloggins who spends 15 years in a cushy static posting where the standard is most definitely a large double-double with 2 bear-claws, and then gets thrown into a combat arms unit is going to cry FOUL as soon as they are given 3 months to get into fighting shape. Hell, as soon as most combat arms guys come out of ERE or any other cushy go need a year to get into shape, so why should we expect any different from the purple trades.

IF somebody set a reasonably high standard (300+ in  PT400, or a minimum of level 2 across the board in the PT tests built into the new AFS manual) and enforced it (after a reasonable amount of "work up" time - let's say 3 months), I don't think that's asking too much. But somebody who failed it would invariably whine to a Human Rights tribunal that some navy buddy of theirs isn't expected to do the same, and waaaa waaaaa waaaaa all the way to the donut shop.

I have a saying that applies (somewhat) to this that I ripped off of a classic saying: "The fit get fitter, and the fat get fatter.....". Any time that you give people the time to get into shape, but don't hold them accountable for an end result, that is what happens.

And don't get me wrong: given the choice, I would gladly sit on my ass and do nothing (if I could remain fit), but that ain't reality. And that, and pride and shame, stop me from sitting around getting fat, and shirking my duty to remain fit to fight (after all, I only get ~$60000/yr for that ). But some people have neither shame nor pride, nor do they feel compelled to give the public what they are paying for.

Al
Al

 

[Michael Dorosh]

There is in fact something wrong with the EXPRES test and/or BFT: it isn't a realistic standard for a combat soldier. In that it is embarrasingly low. In that people strive to barely achieve it. If we wait until every last sad sack can reach the dizzingly low height that the bar is set at, any enemy we encounter will soundly trounce us, rape, loot and pillage (in that order) every small town in their path, and then laugh at us to top it all off.

US soldiers in the Bataan peninsula were undernourished but gave a good account of themselves tactically on occasion.   German soldiers in the Stalingrad pocket were also severely undernourished and probably not getting much exercise - but still fought well enough until forced to surrender due to lack of ammunition, food, medical supplies, and will.

I'm not recommending that we send unfit soldiers off to fight, and a fit soldier would be superior to an unfit soldier on the battlefield, but your doom and gloom description is a bit over the top.   There are plenty of occasions through history in which "unfit" soldiers fought well (not by design!) - fitness is only one component of military ability.   You could take 700 Olympic class athletes and give them rifles, and they will not be a battalion.   Nor would they likely outfight 300 donut-eaters with tactical training.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Nor would they likely outfight 300 donut-eaters with tactical training.

On top of everything else, I didn't know you were an expert on military police skill sets as well.  ;D

[sorry- had to get even for that little incident in Esquimalt with the boys (and one rather large girl) back in '88].

 

[Dissident]

On top of everything else, I didn't know you were an expert on military police skill sets as well.   ;D

[sorry- had to get even for that little incident in Esquimalt with the boys (and one rather large girl) back in '88].

Feel free to elaborate for the new generation...

 

[ZipperHead]

US soldiers in the Bataan peninsula were undernourished but gave a good account of themselves tactically on occasion.  German soldiers in the Stalingrad pocket were also severely undernourished and probably not getting much exercise - but still fought well enough until forced to surrender due to lack of ammunition, food, medical supplies, and will.

I'm not recommending that we send unfit soldiers off to fight, and a fit soldier would be superior to an unfit soldier on the battlefield, but your doom and gloom description is a bit over the top.  There are plenty of occasions through history in which "unfit" soldiers fought well (not by design!) - fitness is only one component of military ability.  You could take 700 Olympic class athletes and give them rifles, and they will not be a battalion.  Nor would they likely outfight 300 donut-eaters with tactical training.

I'm not sure that I follow you. I say make it so that soldiers are fit. Fit to fight. Very fit, if you would. And then you come up with emaciated soldiers. Hmmmmm. Would it perhaps stand to reason that these same soldiers were very fit. Extremely fit. Perhaps exceptionally fit before they were put on a punishing regime of next to no food, and extreme physical labour. No, I bet they were all fat, lazy sacks of goo prior to this, but heck they probably were super-duper smart and knew their jobs inside out ****Extreme sarcasm alert*******

Well, no sh!t I think that fitness is only one component of military ability. How do you test people on these other components? The ubiquitous multiple-guess tests that we conduct? "Here class, here's a 'review' *wink, wink* of what will be covered on the test tomorrow....". How about going to a conventional range and shooting? Let's see how many 7.62mm and 5.56mm pencils make an appearance to 'help' people meet the standard. You wouldn't believe how many people fail on the ATS ranges, only to be re-tested on a conventional range to 'miraculously' pass.

The only thing that is usually hard in the military is the PT, but now that is pathetic. It actually takes work. Work!!!!!! to get into shape, and to stay there. But what the hell, let's SAY we did the PT, sit on our fat keisters instead, wait the ministerial inquiries out into why people can't do their job, and see what happens when the smoke clears...... Hopefully the standard is even lower then.....

The types of people that say that fitness isn't that important to being a soldier, aren't fit themselves. There, I said it. Say that I am a muscle-headed lunk. I'm not. Say that I am stupid. I am not. Go ahead and defend your assertion that one doesn't need to be fit to be an excellent soldier. Not a good soldier. Not a pretty good soldier. An excellent soldier. I try my best to be an excellent soldier, and that includes physically, mentally, tactically, administratively, and any other 'ly' that I can think of. The taxpayers of Canada (our bosses) deserve no less.

And don't try to use historical accounts to back up your assertions, as the ones that you used actually go against what you were trying to prove. Fitness isn't measured in bulging biceps, or sub 3hr marathon timings. 'Fighting fit' means being physically and mentally prepared to fight, especially under adverse conditions. And someone who barely squeaks out a 2hr26min20sec 13km timing is no doubt going to fail abjectly when pushed to the wall..... But what do I know? Not much, apparently, as I don't read me my book learning history.....

Al

 

[paracowboy]

no no! Dorosh is right. PT is totally unnecessary. In fact, all manner of training is completely irrelevent. We don't need fit, disciplined, motivated, healthy soldiers anymore. What we need are more hugs, more doughnuts, and flashier uniforms.

 

[KevinB]

Sigh,

a Taxi or porter will carry my kit right?  :

 

[Infanteer]

There are plenty of occasions through history in which "unfit" soldiers fought well (not by design!)

Your use of the term "unfit" does not jive with who you applied it to.  The Marines on Guadalcanal or German soldiers on the Eastern Front were not unfit at all - malnourished at times, but malnourished doesn't mean unfit.  Robert Leckie's Helmet for a Pillow gives a good first-hand account of Marine physical training prior to Guadalcanal while there are plenty of good examples of German training - I think Meyer gives a few stories in his biography while Sajer's account is interesting, but may be lacking as an actual historical source.

Anyways, the point is that these soldiers went into these battles in incredibly good shape - forced marches, PT, team sports, and tough NCO's that hardened them, physically if required.  If they weren't this fit, they would have never have survived the malnourishment and been able to put up the fight that they did.  Physically demanding courses we see today are a testement to this - the Ranger course, focusing on leadership and patrolling tactics, purposefully underfeeds its candidates in order to provide additonal stressors for the soldiers as they attempt to complete their tasks.  Incredibly fit soldiers come out losing 20-30 pounds (I'm sure our Pathfinder Course is no different).  Again, the only way they could handle this and still still have the cojones to complete the course is due to physical (and mental) preparation prior to going into the course.