|
|
|
OIF Veteran
 
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: 6/27/2008 8:01 PM
Posts: 3,582,
Visits: 24,536
|
|
sf11b_p (9/12/2006)
An 8 year old kid can pull a trigger in battle, a 12-14 year old kid can understand tactics security and movement. Very very few of them can carry their buddy away from the battle or carry the equipment needed to support themselves and that weapon in a sustained battle or movement to battle.
The military won't always have the vehicles to carry the loads of gear ammo food and water. Be PC all you want wars and battle sooner or later demand a physical strength and endurance that dictates only exceptional women can be equal with average men.
The new military someday will be getting a very hard lesson.Very true!
|
|
|
|
|
Regular Joe
Group: Community Supporter
Last Login: 6/24/2008 5:29 PM
Posts: 72,
Visits: 891
|
|
| All above about the FSCs is correct. One difference is that they said E/503, which means it is actually an organic part of the BN it supports. Our FSC for 2-9 IN is essentially F/2-9, but it is actually E/302 BSB. Our Echo company is our organic combat engineer company, a branch which also has female soldiers.
|
|
|
|
|
Hard Charger
Group: Community Supporter
Last Login: 4/8/2008 3:12 AM
Posts: 1,611,
Visits: 973
|
|
An 8 year old kid can pull a trigger in battle, a 12-14 year old kid can understand tactics security and movement. Very very few of them can carry their buddy away from the battle or carry the equipment needed to support themselves and that weapon in a sustained battle or movement to battle.
The military won't always have the vehicles to carry the loads of gear ammo food and water. Be PC all you want wars and battle sooner or later demand a physical strength and endurance that dictates only exceptional women can be equal with average men.
Women may never be able to effectively function as an 11 or 18 series because of the strength required, but anyone who's fought against them in a guerilla capacity knows that they can kill you as effectively as any man. Women fought very well in the Soviet forces of WWII. (Yeah, I know, those Russian farm women were built like wrestlers and ugly enough to clear a minefield with a long stare, but they were still technically human females. )
 "Veritas Omnia Vincula Vincit"......."Send Me"......"Sua Sponte" When life sucks....make it swallow! "Modify the wedge! First squad! Bound!....."
|
|
|
|
|
Masters of Hard Knocks from the University of Gravity
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: Today @ 7:15 PM
Posts: 2,342,
Visits: 2,494
|
|
I'm glad I'm out. I knew this day would come. I also believe that she is probably fully capable if not more so to do the job. But if the company is actually organic to an infantry battalion then she doesn't belong. PERIOD.
I've had plenty of instances where I had female soldiers on the front lines with my unit. PsyOps, CA, and various other support units. On two cases even had to take them behind lines. But this is just plain political BS.
"Si Vis Pacum Para Bellum"
If you want peace prepare for war!
|
|
|
|
|
OIF Veteran
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: 6/27/2008 8:01 PM
Posts: 3,582,
Visits: 24,536
|
|
| The question is not wheter 5 to 10% of females that enter 11 or 18 series training would make it. Some will make it under current standards. The question becomes is it time and cost effective for the army to do that? Also, would over time the HQDA start playing some bs PC game to please some liberals out there who have no idea on what our military is all about? Standards have already been lowered in CS and CSS units to benefit females since the end of the Vietnam war. Just look at the APFT. Then you also have the all too important issue of unit cohesion in combat. The army could start an experiment. It could put together an all female airborne infantry company composed of females who made it through the training under current standards. Then send them to the current counter insurgency [CI] environments of OEF and OIF to see how they perform. Then again the liberals out there would call an experiment like that a 'segregated' unit. Some commaders would also be reluctant to use that type of unit in their AOs...it could also affect the type of OPORDs they would get which could also void the experiment since it would not be a true measure of what the unit could or could not do.
|
|
|
|
|
Hard Charger
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: 6/12/2008 3:51 AM
Posts: 1,993,
Visits: 2,044
|
|
| The whole concept of assigning a FSC to a maneuver unit has never made sense to me. I understand the working relationship, but you lose alot of the leadership needed to mentor the younger officers and even the Commanders, they will be missing out on the support exeperince they would be getting in a support BN, Of course they will be getting a whole new kind of leadership style. You have to wonder if they are concerned about their careers as well since they will be rated in an Infantry or FA Bn. I remember when signal companies excluded females if they were the forward company, it was the way it was. It seems kind of obvious that they are making a point since she is the only female 1SG in the BDE, they could have assigned her to one of the companies that is with the support BN. Someone may be thinking that in this type of conflict it would not make much difference, but this will be used as a precedent in the future and it is not the best of ideas.
|
|
|
|
|
JR's Chick
Group: Community Supporter
Last Login: 6/7/2008 3:52 PM
Posts: 1,551,
Visits: 2,656
|
|
| This task org of the 173rd that finds a female 1SG is not really all that new (or surprising). The FSC concept is a variant of other support elements that have been tied to combat battalions: in the ACR, the MST (Maint Spt Team) peels off from the Support Squadron and ties in directly in with their supported line Squadron. I did that job, and went to NTC with the line guys. If that unit had deployed, the MST would have gone with them. Not the same in terms of ownership, but location is. I was also deployed with another line squadron to Bosnia as the PL of a FAST (Forward Area Spt Team) a pre-cursor to the FSC. Still rated by my support squadron chain of command, but we were on the line squadron's base camp and held accountable by the base camp commander. Yeah, I was not assigned to a combat BN, but that seems to me to be splitting hairs: my duties physically put me with them. So I disagree that the Army has done some 'slicky boy' PC move to put her there. Actually, we're talking about a company 1SG, so who really assigned her there? Her branch manager? Seems unlikely to me that 'big Army' had a hand in it. As far as the mentorship and rating scheme goes for an FSC, I remember there was concern that the FSC commander/1SG would be at a disadvantage, but again, I'm not sure that is true. I think a real leader will identify the strengths, weaknesses, performance and potential of all their subordinates. I think the place to be as a logistician is as close to the combat arms as possible. Working in some ordnance battalion of a COSCOM or Theater Support Command has zero appeal to me, although they are needed. I hope the new 1SG does a great job.
Blacksmith Six
"I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman!" -Homer Simpson
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |