Should women be given special treatment in order to become Rangers?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@SamuelA

Here’s a couple of videos of actual modern combat. I’m linking these because I’m hoping to inject some new information into this debate that is a bit more convincing that “a Pentagon study showed…”

WARNING : This is actual combat. People are trying to kill each other, though no one is seen to die on camera :

For those who didn’t watch part 1 and 2, here’s what you might notice in this video :

a. In this video, combat is like playing Battleship, except the other side doesn’t say “hit” when someone is shot. It’s a lot of flinging thousands of rounds downrange blind. Also sprinting while carrying that ammo.

Men - large men, even - do much better at carrying large amounts of ammo and sprinting while carrying heavy loads. This is one reason infantry has a minimum height requirement.

b. Specifically, you might notice that the man with the camera in this video is running low on ammo. What if the squadmate he has as an ammo carrier couldn’t quite carry as much ammo or water? You might also notice they toss some grenades at one point.

I think the guy in the video is using a SAW.

M249 light machine gun

At 1:19 you see the belt being replaced. It fires a 200 round belt of regular NATO 5.56 ammo. These belts weigh about 5 pounds each. A squad is given 5 of these belts for a total of 25 pounds almost all carried by the guy with the SAW. Another member of the squad carry an extra barrel which allows the gunner to fire pretty much everything he’s got. These things are generally not carried by the officer (the guy with the Ranger Tab).

The officer usually carries the lightest weapon. Officers carry M-4s while the riflemen carry heavier M-16s.

This combat video is from a different unit in a different situation : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xdj0lBklvM

But it’s the same physical requirement - carrying full load, which includes ammo, water, and body armor and is going to be at least 80 lbs, or ~60% of the body weight of a fit woman or just 30%-40% of the body weight of a large, fit man for miles. It then involves needing to sprint for cover or else you are shot, and then lots more playing Battleship blind with the enemy.

A lot of that 80 pounds is in the rucksack. You don’t sprint around a firefight with your ruck on , you drop your ruck during a firefight because you aren’t going to need your tent, food, water, change of clothes, etc.

Here’s another one : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwDxpST8EU8

As a side note, the Rangers are essentially tier 2 special forces. Delta Force is the Army’s version of tier 1.

As a side note the Ranger Tab is not the same thing as Ranger Battalion. I don’t know why they use the same term in different contexts. Probably because ranger sounds cool.

This guys seems to be using larger gun, the bullets look much bigger (maybe .308/7.62 or maybe even .338; or the dude has really really small hands). BTW, I haven’t really seen much sprinting around so far in these videos, not saying it doesn’t happen but just not seeing a bunch of guys with their ruck sprinting around.

Also you might notice, again, in modern combat it’s about firing semi-blind as much ordnance as possible.

Did you notice how they aren’t firing as much out of their rifles as they were out of their SAWs?

In this one they unload M203 grenades and an AT4. Those are both extremely heavy (a large quantity of grenades is). Explosives and rocket propellant are heavy because this is the best chemistry can do. (if you made them lighter either they will be less effective or more likely to explode spontaneously)

Conclusion : Real combat is not a place you want a weak link. And it involves a number of tasks that the optimal person able to do them needs both physical endurance and also high peak strength, simultaneously. For women to reach this level of strength, they’d generally need to be given growth hormone all through puberty (to enlarge their skeleton) and then do a lot of steroids. Neither of which are currently legal and both carry serious medical consequences.

You realize that the typical infantryman is about as strong as the typical 20 year old. Women in top physical shape are in much better shape and have more strength than the average infantryman. With that said, the typical woman is probably a liability in that sort of environment both for physical and temperamental reasons but some of them are going to be awesome. Lets let in the awesome ones.

[aldiboronti]

@Banquet_Bear

…neither of those cites show that Rangers were pressured by top brass to pass at least one woman. Are you sure you linked to the correct cites?

From the first link:

Hathaway went on address specific accusations that had been made about the women receiving special treatment such as extra sleep and less physical training, saying such rumors were absolutely false and that the female Ranger School students were held to the exact same standards as the men.

He said rumors that instructors were told to pass the two women before their training started in Florida because President Obama would be present at the graduation ceremony, were “ridiculous” and “absolutely false.”

Who could tell the instructors to pass the women but their superior officers? Whether they were ‘top brass’ is beside the point. The People article specified a general but the rank is immaterial to this debate.

Are you sure you read the articles with enough care?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Marcus_Flavius

My point was not that men lose their minds around women. My point was that placing females into all-male groups will degrade overall morale, as well as any sense of brotherhood that drives men to risk their lives for each other.

I think you underestimate the psychological bonds that can form between men and women even without sexual involvement. I think that I could have developed the same exact same bond with women that white men could form with black men during the Korean War and that we might see with gay service members today.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Marcus_Flavius

Not to mention that women will bring with them their political correctness and wagging fingers that prevent men from being men, and will demand that policies be put into place that protect them and make them feel “safe.”

Well, there are women in the military now and they aren’t doing this in their current MOS, are they? Some of those MOS are combat MOS, just not infantry.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Icerigger

NVA soldiers did not carry 100 lbs of gear yet they were effective soldiers, yes? I am so sick of this argument, look up the female partisans in Yugoslavia in WW2.

Our army is different. one of the reasons we have the best soldiers in the world is because we have so much goddam stuff. Their body armor can take a 7.62 round, they can live out of their ruck almost forever, they carry enough weapons and ammo to defeat Caesar. So yes being able to carry all that stuff is pretty important. But the fact of the matter is that there are plenty of women doing that part right now. Just without ranger tabs.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Shodan

You get further with a kind word and a gun than with a kind word alone.
I don’t think any lack of success by the US is because the Rangers failed to negotiate their way into a mountain stronghold.

As you say, the Rangers are an elite combat unit, not a group of negotiators.

Regards,
Shodan

There seems to be some confusion about ranger school. Its not the admission process for ranger battalion. Its to get a ranger tab.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Sure, absolutely. The way you do it is you talk to the people in town, using kind words. Show them your gun also, tell them you’re looking for ISIS, you understand they’ve got agents in town. Use the intel you gather to find the agents and take them out.

What’s going on here? Is “hearts and minds” something y’all have never heard of, or are you just arguing with me out of reflex?

IIRC Ranger school is about combat leadership not how to fight ISIS.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@slash2k

Did we ever clarify that “graduates of Ranger School” (which is the group under discussion) are actually likely to be on “ranger missions”?

Ranger School gets you the ranger tab and that makes you a more credible small unit combat leader in the infantry.

From discussions upthread, it seems members of the 75th Rangers, which is the group that actually performs “ranger missions,” usually but not necessarily graduated Ranger School, and lots of people who never serve as rangers DO graduate that school. What are the relative proportions of these two groups among the graduates?

Ranger battalion has their own training program. And it has nothing to do with ranger school.

Are we sure and positive that the school’s actual role (not its stated purpose, but the role it actually serves in the modern army) is to prepare people for “ranger missions”?

Determining what the school’s graduates actually do, what their missions actually are, would seem to be a necessary first step in deciding what kinds of characteristics are required to perform those missions.

They are supposed to lead small unit combat missions.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@CarnalK

You seriously think Ranger training focuses around upper body strength? The course outline is available if you want to go from just asking questions to specific arguments.

And when you say “are these missions the best we can do” are you saying maybe they shouldn’t be a commando unit? I don’t see how you have any justification for hand waving away their traditional function. That’s why they were created. It’s not like they are the only unit in the military. Other groups can perform the functions that you are idly wondering that maybe the Rangers could do.

Most guys that wash out, wash out in the first week because they can’t do the push-ups.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Banquet_Bear

…firstly: I have my doubts over the veracity of the cite used in the OP. The claim is made that ““multiple sites” claim that the Rangers were pressured by top brass to pass at least one woman”: I’d like to see some of those “multiple sites” (that weren’t sourced from this People article.)

Secondly: this subject was discussed at length over on the International Skeptics forum (Formerly the Randi forums.) The point repeatedly made by those who have either served or are currently serving was:

The testing tests fitness. “Fitness” is scaled based on age and gender. People that score the same score are equally fit: even if they do more or less push-ups to get that score. A link to the discussion for those that are interested.

So I’m not seeing the special treatment based on this article alone. But the OP claims alternative citations exist: so please, by all means, cite away.

For the purposes of ranger school everyone is scored as if they were 17-21 years old regardless of their true age. Should they similarly all be tested as if they were men regardless of sex?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@CarnalK

Because it’s ass backwards. It enhances your career because it is a crazy balls to the wall course. There’s other courses to take if you just want a focus on leadership and strategy.

IIRC it is the primary school for infantry leadership.

[CarnalK]

@Damuri_Ajashi

IIRC it is the primary school for infantry leadership.

Quite honestly, I seriously doubt that.

[slash2k]

@CarnalK

Because it’s ass backwards. It enhances your career because it is a crazy balls to the wall course. There’s other courses to take if you just want a focus on leadership and strategy.

You’re making my argument for me: passing this particular course gets you a gold checkmark on your resume just because you passed this course, not because of any skills you did or did not gain from this course.

What again was the justification for setting the standards such that men’s physiology makes it easier for them to pass, and hence gain that gold checkmark?

[DinoR]

@slash2k

Are we sure and positive that the school’s actual role (not its stated purpose, but the role it actually serves in the modern army) is to prepare people for “ranger missions”?

Determining what the school’s graduates actually do, what their missions actually are, would seem to be a necessary first step in deciding what kinds of characteristics are required to perform those missions.

The school’s POI (Program of Instruction) is primarily focused on training leaders to conduct small unit patrolling in extremely demanding conditions. It’s not directly anything all that special as a task set. As one of my friends from ROTC who I ran into after he’d completed it a a Guard Infantry officer, he didn’t learn anything at Ranger school that he hadn’t already received training on during ROTC…he just got a lot better at all of it and proved to himself that he can do it for extended periods without enough food and sleep.

A look at the criteria for those attending voluntarily is here (pdf). For enlisted you are generally looking at E4 and above although waivers are possible for E3s (Private First Class) who have leadership experience. Officers who meet the other requirements are eligible to volunteer. Ranger School, like I said, trains leaders on dismounted patrolling (which includes the type of patrol known as the raid.) It’s a useful baseline for those heading to the 75th where they can then learn the rest of their jobs.

It’s uses are far outside just training members for the 75th. Conventional Infantry and Cavalry units conduct those kind of missions. During my second Company Command in the Guard my Tank Company was going through a reorganization to become a Dismounted Reconnaissance Troop in a RSTA (Reconnaisance, Surveillance, and Target Acquisition) Squadron. Every 11B (Infantry) non-commissioned officer slot that Troop was designated as a Ranger slot. Most wouldn’t actually attend, but in the limited schools budget environment of the Guard, that coding was a prerequisite to even have a chance of getting a school slot. IIRC all the 19D (Cavalryman) NCO Slots in the mounted troops was also identified as Ranger slots. ISTR the 19D and 11B enlisted slots in the headquarters were not all Rangers (although the 11A and 19A Infantry and Armor/Cavalry officer slots were.)

“Non-voluntary” attendance on the enlisted side is those who sign contracts to go (when they voluntarily enlist and choose that ). Those are the folks that serve as junior enlisted in the 75th. On the officer side, every single active duty Infantry officer is scheduled and attends. The expectation is that those officers will pass… or it’s time for them to start looking for another career plan that doesn’t include being an Infantry Officer. On the Reserve Component side, even for Infantry, it’s uncommon but having the Ranger tab is seen as a definite plus for promotion boards.

Ranger School isn’t even the way the 75th selects it’s leaders. They come from around the force, based on MOS, and undergo a shorter evaluation process. From [URL=“https://www.armytimes.com/articles/this-woman-will-be-the-first-to-join-the-armys-elite-75th-ranger-regiment”]this story about the first female Soldier assigned to the 75th the minimum standards are

The bare minimum requirements for E6 and above include:

A score of 240 on the Army Physical Fitness Test, with 6 chin-ups completed.
A five-mile run in 40 minutes or less.
A 12-mile ruck march in three hours or less with a 35-pound pack.
Completion of the Ranger Swim Ability Evaluation.
A full psychological screening.
A Commander's Board screening.

Usually they then go onto Ranger School as part of their training. I say usually because you can still occasionally find “in the wild” someone who completed the assessment and was assigned but because of a busy deployment schedule (when Iraq and Afghanistan were larger demands) had that requirement waived. I knew one before I retired. He legitimately wore the scroll of one of the 75th’s battalions as his combat patch, he served as a squad leader in his time there, but he never completed Ranger School.

Another quote from that last link, with my underline added:

Becoming a Ranger is different than completing Ranger School, which has seen three female officers graduate. That distinction allows the women to wear the Ranger tab on their uniforms, but they initially returned to jobs in the conventional Army, as do the vast majority of soldiers who complete the course.

Just to tack one last thought on about the career enhancing aspect. It’s career enhancing because it demonstrates the ability to lead small unit actions under extreme physical duress. It’s a very ground combat centric focus of what’s career enhancing that doesn’t have a direct parallel in the civilian world. They test people’s ability to plan and lead when under conditions marked by limited food, sleep deprivation, harsh weather, and physical endurance testing. That applies whether they are actually leading a dismounted patrol or performing other leader tasks that aren’t Infantry related.

[CarnalK]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Most guys that wash out, wash out in the first week because they can’t do the push-ups.

That link in the bit you quoted includes a break down for wash outs. A little over half get booted for failing RAP week. I honestly doubt all of them failed the push up portion.

[Banquet_Bear]

@aldiboronti

From the first link:

Who could tell the instructors to pass the women but their superior officers? Whether they were ‘top brass’ is beside the point. The People article specified a general but the rank is immaterial to this debate.

Are you sure you read the articles with enough care?

…ignoring the fact that you’ve cited the Moonie Times for a minute: you’ve just cited a Major who has stated for the record that the various rumours were “ridiculous” and “absolutely false." So if we are to believe this person you cited: then there is no debate. Your OP holds no water.

So yeah: I’ve read your cites. And neither of them show that Rangers were pressured by top brass to pass at least one woman.

[Banquet_Bear]

@Damuri_Ajashi

For the purposes of ranger school everyone is scored as if they were 17-21 years old regardless of their true age. Should they similarly all be tested as if they were men regardless of sex?

::shrugs::

…what do you think?

[I_Love_Me_Vol.I]

@HurricaneDitka

I think it would be nice if we let the Rangers, with their expertise in the area of what-it-takes-to-be-a-good-Ranger, decide the appropriate requirements. Is that too wild of an idea?

FWIW, I’d be shocked if they prioritized able-to-survive-4-weeks-on-1,000-calories over able-to-ruck-15-miles-with-200-pounds-of-equipment. I suspect they have to do stuff along the lines of the latter far more frequently than the former.

Also, if one has no choice, one can survive on 1000 calories a day for 4 weeks–male or female. They won’t be at their very best mentally or physically, but they can survive.

But there are some things that some people won’t ever be able to do–even if you put a gun to their head. Like certain feats of physical strength. But one question is–are we being fair in our assessment of the amount of physical strength needed to be a Ranger? I think we are more or less. It can take a lot of brute strength to kill a powerful person with your bare hands–it’s not for everyone, that’s for sure.

I don’t think the Army ever artificially raised their physical conditioning standards for Rangers just so they could unfairly ban women from the job. Until very recently they never even had to think about such a thing. I DO think there are higher-ups in the Army that WOULD have done such a sexist thing… but they never needed to.

[aldiboronti]

@Banquet_Bear

…ignoring the fact that you’ve cited the Moonie Times for a minute: you’ve just cited a Major who has stated for the record that the various rumours were “ridiculous” and “absolutely false." So if we are to believe this person you cited: then there is no debate. Your OP holds no water.

So yeah: I’ve read your cites. And neither of them show that Rangers were pressured by top brass to pass at least one woman.

You do realize that you asked for alternative cites unconnected to the People article that addressed the rumor that instructors were pressured to pass women? Of course I realize that one of the cites denied that it happened (I even quoted from it) but in doing so it established that the rumors were there.

You know that you could simply have admitted that you were wrong in your suspicions rather than trying to deny the reality using quibbles. But whatever.

And BTW what on earth does the fact that one of the sources was the Moonie Times have to do with anything? I didn’t say the sources were reliable just that they were there. More obfuscation on your part.

[Banquet_Bear]

@aldiboronti

You do realize that you asked for alternative cites unconnected to the People article that addressed the rumor that instructors were pressured to pass women?

…no: that wasn’t what I asked for. I said:

" The claim is made that ““multiple sites” claim that the Rangers were pressured by top brass to pass at least one woman”: I’d like to see some of those “multiple sites” (that weren’t sourced from this People article.)

-snip-

:But the OP claims alternative citations exist: so please, by all means, cite away."

Based on that: did you really think I wanted a citation about “rumours that instructors were pressured to pass women?” Rumours don’t back up your OP. Rumours are the only thing that exist. Your citations are two years old. If there were any truth to the rumours you would have cited those.

Of course I realize that one of the cites denied that it happened (I even quoted from it) but in doing so it established that the rumors were there.

I never disputed the existence of rumours. But rumours are just rumours. They aren’t facts. Can you actually make a case for your OP with anything that has been substantiated?

You know that you could simply have admitted that you were wrong in your suspicions rather than trying to deny the reality using quibbles. But whatever.

Why would I admit to being wrong when I’m not actually wrong?

And BTW what on earth does the fact that one of the sources was the Moonie Times have to do with anything? I didn’t say the sources were reliable just that they were there. More obfuscation on your part.

We are in Great Debates. Your response indicates you are well aware that the Washington Times is not a “reliable source” yet you chose to cite it anyway. Why did you choose to do that? Is using unreliable citations a thing you tend to do when you debate?