USMC Study: All-Male Squads Outperformed Mixed Squads

[AniThyng]

I would have thought in WW1 you wouldn't need your backpack to actually assault. As opposed to being on a internal march from point a to b.

[Lagmonster]

Here's something you should not do: You should not use data from the analysis of Olympic athletes when you compare averages.

Okay, how about we compare grown ass women with an extra decade of training to teenage boys, many of whom due to skill, physical deficiencies, lack of drive, or any other reason won't make it to even the least of the men's professional leagues. These top female Olympians women are still, at best, on par with these boys.

What I'm saying is that we probably shouldn't use any professional athletes at all when searching for an analysis of the average human. Professional athletes are outliers, skilled at specific physical routines. Comparing pro athletes of any kind against each other as a means of determining if the average healthy young woman can perform soldiering duties, is probably a mistake. Like using a thoroughbred race horse's track performance to determine how good your average farm horse will be at pulling plows.

[Civil War Man]

What I'm saying is that we probably shouldn't use any professional athletes at all when searching for an analysis of the average human. Professional athletes are outliers, skilled at specific physical routines. Comparing pro athletes of any kind against each other as a means of determining if the average healthy young woman can perform soldiering duties, is probably a mistake. Like using a thoroughbred race horse's track performance to determine how good your average farm horse will be at pulling plows.

It's not even that. People arguing against opening up these combat roles to women are saying the thoroughbred shouldn't be allowed to race because the average farm horse isn't good at racing.

How about we stop worrying about whether a Marine has a penis or not, and accept applicants based on whether they are capable of doing the job?

Of course, I wouldn't be at all surprised if a lot of the people arguing against allowing women in combat roles, even if it would result in the position being taken by a less qualified man, simultaneously rail against Affirmative Action because they believe it results in companies hiring based on race or gender instead of who is the most qualified, and not see the irony in that at all.

[Elheru Aran]

I would have thought in WW1 you wouldn't need your backpack to actually assault. As opposed to being on a internal march from point a to b.

WWI was also an extremely different situation. If you assaulted, you either died, or you lost and came back to the trenches, or you won and were able to come back for your stuff. It's not one that's likely to repeat itself anytime soon in modern warfare.

On topic: Marines are not considered the slightly mentally retarded branch by the other branches for no reason (besides just the traditional inter-service rivalry). The idea that the infantry might be 'encouraged' to hump ridiculous loads all day and to 'man up' through minor injuries makes complete sense to me when it's the Corps. Under those circumstances, it's no wonder women would suffer compared to men. With more reasonable loading and attitudes, I'd expect to see more equivalent performance.

[Tribble]

So, what exactly is this post about? Is it that women cannot and should not be in any combat role, or the US Marine Corps in particular?

[Me2005]

Here's something you should not do: You should not use data from the analysis of Olympic athletes when you compare averages.

Okay, how about we compare grown ass women with an extra decade of training to teenage boys, many of whom due to skill, physical deficiencies, lack of drive, or any other reason won't make it to even the least of the men's professional leagues. These top female Olympians women are still, at best, on par with these boys.

What I'm saying is that we probably shouldn't use any professional athletes at all when searching for an analysis of the average human. Professional athletes are outliers, skilled at specific physical routines. Comparing pro athletes of any kind against each other as a means of determining if the average healthy young woman can perform soldiering duties, is probably a mistake. Like using a thoroughbred race horse's track performance to determine how good your average farm horse will be at pulling plows.

It's not even that. People arguing against opening up these combat roles to women are saying the thoroughbred shouldn't be allowed to race because the average farm horse isn't good at racing.

He's comparing the top professional female athletes to amateur male athletes. The top <1% of females to some 50% of males. It's saying that even the thoroughbred isn't fast enough to win any races despite crippling the opponent, so of course the farm horse isn't going to be any good.

How about we stop worrying about whether a Marine has a penis or not, and accept applicants based on whether they are capable of doing the job?

Jub and I (and the study) are saying that women aren't physically capable of doing the (combat) job. Or rather, not as capable of doing it as men are. So yes, we could spend money accepting them and training them to let them wash out.

If you'd like to advocate that we expect less from our soldiers as a whole so that women can get into the military just as easily as men and we can have a 'fair' gender distribution, go ahead.

Now, there are plenty of non-combat jobs that women can (and do) preform adequately. No one is saying they should be barred from those positions or kept out of the military machine.

So, what exactly is this post about? Is it that women cannot and should not be in any combat role, or the US Marine Corps in particular?

The study was for the Marines, and they're a peculiar bunch. It's possible the numbers wouldn't be quite as bad in the Army, but they'd probably still show similar reduced effectiveness for female vs. male recruits in combat units. I don't know what the numbers would be if women were flying in combat or driving tanks, you need some strength and endurance to do some of that stuff but not in the same way. I suspect they'd be fine on a modern warship, as many of the 'combat' roles there aren't physical at all.

Something I will grant is that it looked like the female study sample was small. A larger sample might turn up more higher-performing females and tighten the gap. But the physiological differences are what they are - comparing Olympic (Apologies to the above complaints; but really, how else are we supposed to support comparisons in physical differences?) and world track & field records, the only one women are better than men at is discus, and they throw a 1kg disc, while men throw a 2kg disc. The women's world record shot-put is also better than the men's Olympic record, but suffers the same issue as discus - the women's shot is lighter.

[Civil War Man]

Jub and I (and the study) are saying that women aren't physically capable of doing the (combat) job. Or rather, not as capable of doing it as men are. So yes, we could spend money accepting them and training them to let them wash out.

Congratulations. You are wrong. Because they are already serving in combat, and they've been doing just fine. They just aren't being allowed to go into combat as infantry, but have to use bullshit loopholes to get around the restriction like, for example, being an MP who just happens to be deployed in the area with combat.

From the second article I posted in this thread:

“Our female Marines very likely have more actual combat experience than any servicewomen in the world,” the report says, pointing to the 422 combat action ribbons they earned for service in Iraq and Afghanistan since the award was established.

If you'd like to advocate that we expect less from our soldiers as a whole so that women can get into the military just as easily as men and we can have a 'fair' gender distribution, go ahead.

Fuck off with your strawman. I'm advocating exactly what Secretary Mabus did in the first article I posted.

“My belief is you set gender-neutral standards related to the job Marines have to do, and you adhere to them,” he said. “It doesn’t matter whether the Marines who meet those standards are male or female.”

By arguing against opening those combat roles to women, you are arguing that the Marines should be forced to reject someone because they lack a penis, even if they meet all other standards.

[Block]

So from a pure resource standpoint, wasting ITB slots on a group that would have at best a 30% lower success rate makes sense? I don't disagree that some women could make it through and be average skilled infantrymen, but if it's true that the best you can do is graduate 60% and the vast majority of those are AT BEST below average to average... Why bother?

[Civil War Man]

So from a pure resource standpoint, wasting ITB slots on a group that would have at best a 30% lower success rate makes sense? I don't disagree that some women could make it through and be average skilled infantrymen, but if it's true that the best you can do is graduate 60% and the vast majority of those are AT BEST below average to average... Why bother?

Because those infantry roles still have to be filled, and if you arbitrarily exclude qualified people because they are women, you have to instead fill those positions with the lowest performing men. Women who graduate ITB are not going to be replacing the top-ranked men. They'll be taking the positions that would otherwise be taken by the below average men.

It really isn't a difficult concept. You require that all applicants be able to score X in the shooting test, be able to carry Y pounds of gear, be able to run at Z speed, and so on down the line, and then you accept people who can pass those tests without worrying about whether or not they have a penis.

[Block]

So from a pure resource standpoint, wasting ITB slots on a group that would have at best a 30% lower success rate makes sense? I don't disagree that some women could make it through and be average skilled infantrymen, but if it's true that the best you can do is graduate 60% and the vast majority of those are AT BEST below average to average... Why bother?

Because those infantry roles still have to be filled, and if you arbitrarily exclude qualified people because they are women, you have to instead fill those positions with the lowest performing men. Women who graduate ITB are not going to be replacing the top-ranked men. They'll be taking the positions that would otherwise be taken by the below average men.

It really isn't a difficult concept. You require that all applicants be able to score X in the shooting test, be able to carry Y pounds of gear, be able to run at Z speed, and so on down the line, and then you accept people who can pass those tests without worrying about whether or not they have a penis.

Yeah, you didn't answer my question. If you have enough money and training facilities for 5000 slots in a year to fill all your replacement needs for infantry MOSs, would you want to take all 5000 from the group that has a 90+ % success rate and turns out everyone from below average to stellar combat troops, or would you reduce that number to include a group that has at best a 60% success rate that isn't going to turn out anything better than average as a general rule.

[Block]

Also, there are combat specialties where women do tend to do better than men due to biomechanical differences. Snipers and pilots are good examples, smaller frames, different blood flow, etc. Wouldn't it make more sense resource wise to have them do that and to further study what areas they excel in? I just don't get the desire to force square pegs into round holes.

[Me2005]

Jub and I (and the study) are saying that women aren't physically capable of doing the (combat) job. Or rather, not as capable of doing it as men are. So yes, we could spend money accepting them and training them to let them wash out.

Congratulations. You are wrong. Because they are already serving in combat, and they've been doing just fine. They just aren't being allowed to go into combat as infantry, but have to use bullshit loopholes to get around the restriction like, for example, being an MP who just happens to be deployed in the area with combat.

From the second article I posted in this thread:

“Our female Marines very likely have more actual combat experience than any servicewomen in the world,” the report says, pointing to the 422 combat action ribbons they earned for service in Iraq and Afghanistan since the award was established.

Serving in combat =/= serving in combat-specific roles (infantry). An MP or convoy driver who is on a base or driving a truck that gets attacked is not going through the same experience as grunts who trudge 50 miles and then get attacked (or launch an attack). I'm not saying women shouldn't be allowed to be MPs and truck drivers, and the study isn't saying that either. On the contrary, the study shows that the Marines are accepting women to do 93.47% of jobs they offer. It's also saying that they under-preform as infantry.

So from a pure resource standpoint, wasting ITB slots on a group that would have at best a 30% lower success rate makes sense? I don't disagree that some women could make it through and be average skilled infantrymen, but if it's true that the best you can do is graduate 60% and the vast majority of those are AT BEST below average to average... Why bother?

Because those infantry roles still have to be filled...

I don't think we're at that much of a deficit at this time. If we're at total-war, yes, we may need to conscript women, but then we're also conscripting all men and not just the small percentage who apply as-is, so the more able-bodied men will likely fill the empty infantry gaps before the top preforming women get to them.

... and if you arbitrarily exclude qualified people because they are women, you have to instead fill those positions with the lowest performing men. Women who graduate ITB are not going to be replacing the top-ranked men. They'll be taking the positions that would otherwise be taken by the below average men.

It really isn't a difficult concept. You require that all applicants be able to score X in the shooting test, be able to carry Y pounds of gear, be able to run at Z speed, and so on down the line, and then you accept people who can pass those tests without worrying about whether or not they have a penis.

They are keeping them out of combat specific roles (infantry) because their study showed that they performed worse on 69% of the trials, no worse and no better on 29% of the trials, and better on 2 of the trials (<2%). They found them all to be slower, less accurate even with better training than male counterparts (infantry trained females vs. generic males), and that they required assistance from the male marines overcoming obstacles the males had no trouble doing solo. One challenge the integrated teams did ok in was evacuation; but only because the male marine evacuated the 'casualty' female marine. I guess they just hope it doesn't go the other way in actual combat. Then on top of that, they were found to be 6x more likely to be injured doing the tasks than their male counterparts. So even if a handful of women were better at some of the trials than a handful of the men, the women are still 6x more likely to be injured.

To quote the study's opening in Research & Planning:

"A military unit at maximum combat effectiveness is a military unit least likely to suffer casualties. Winning in war is often only a matter of inches, and unnecessary distraction or any dilution of the combat effectiveness puts the mission and lives in jeopardy. Risking the lives of a military unit in combat to provide career opportunities or accommodate the personal desires or interests of an individual, or group of individuals, is more than bad military judgment. It is morally wrong.”

[Simon_Jester]

I would have thought in WW1 you wouldn't need your backpack to actually assault. As opposed to being on a internal march from point a to b.

There were a number of occasions where soldiers assaulted in full kit, as I recollect.

So from a pure resource standpoint, wasting ITB slots on a group that would have at best a 30% lower success rate makes sense? I don't disagree that some women could make it through and be average skilled infantrymen, but if it's true that the best you can do is graduate 60% and the vast majority of those are AT BEST below average to average... Why bother?

The argument presented is that we need to improve screening for women, perhaps screen differently and concentrate on different things. Since the Marines have only been recruiting women for a relatively short time, it is no surprise that their "are you likely to become a Marine?" testing regimen is poorly calibrated, and as a result many of their recruits are washouts.

Yeah, you didn't answer my question. If you have enough money and training facilities for 5000 slots in a year to fill all your replacement needs for infantry MOSs, would you want to take all 5000 from the group that has a 90+ % success rate and turns out everyone from below average to stellar combat troops, or would you reduce that number to include a group that has at best a 60% success rate that isn't going to turn out anything better than average as a general rule.

I would tighten up the entry requirements for the group with the 60% pass rate, so that I am only admitting the top 65% or so of that group- which would then pass at a rate closely comparable to the recruits from the other group.

Also, there are combat specialties where women do tend to do better than men due to biomechanical differences. Snipers and pilots are good examples, smaller frames, different blood flow, etc. Wouldn't it make more sense resource wise to have them do that and to further study what areas they excel in? I just don't get the desire to force square pegs into round holes.

No one is being "forced" anywhere. Indeed, that's the point- no one is forced to do anything, everyone is allowed to train for the specialization they choose, if they can meet the entry requirements. Rather than us condescendingly saying "Women make better snipers than they do infantrymen, so they have to be snipers, oh and Filipinos make better cooks, so they have to be cooks."

[The Filipino cook is a stereotype- but that's the point; it is too easy to wind up stereotyping. It is too easy to conclude that Group X is best suited for Role Y for irrational reasons, at which point you really are putting a round peg into a square hole.]

[Block]

How is it condescending to say "You're better at this combat specialty on average, so we're willing to allocate the resources to train you for these jobs"? Same thing for men in my eyes, if women are better pilots, why waste money training men? Doesn't the government basically have an obligation to spend taxpayer money that way? Stereotypes based on real data aren't discriminatory, they're just facts.

[Zwinmar]

All this said, it is usually the staff NCO's and officers who require all the additional gear

I don't quite get this, could you restate it using more words?


If you insist: One Staff Sargent required his platoon to pack two 60mm mortar ammo tube (the cardboard tubes the rounds come in) with sand and carry them in their pack, which promptly got soaked the first time out. Additionally, the same man insisted the platoon run eleven miles every morning.

To a large degree the officers and NCO's have their own little fiefdom in which such ridiculous activities that are guaranteed to harm their men physically are routinely performed. From full combat load three mile runs (completed in 32 minutes) to the all but required stimulant abuse. You try to stay awake for a week plus on minimal sleep without some sort of stimulant.

Yes, once you get to the staging area you might be able to drop your pack, but until then, well, you may have to fast rope out of the back of a helo with said gear, then hump it however long they decide. And let me tell you, no one can land on their feet at the end of that particular rope.

[Simon_Jester]

OK, yeah. In that case there's a fundamental problem with officer and NCO training where they're not taking seriously the responsibility to see to the health of their men.

How is it condescending to say "You're better at this combat specialty on average, so we're willing to allocate the resources to train you for these jobs"? Same thing for men in my eyes, if women are better pilots, why waste money training men? Doesn't the government basically have an obligation to spend taxpayer money that way? Stereotypes based on real data aren't discriminatory, they're just facts.

1) History indicates that people are really bad at telling the difference between "stereotypes based on real data" and "stereotypes based on bullshit."

2) Once your institution has decided (using a stereotype) how things are going to work, it is very easy to construct studies 'proving' that things work that way, regardless of what the stereotype is.

3) It's not about recruiting the group which is stereotypically 'best' at a particular activity. It's about recruiting the best individuals. So barring Group A from signing up on the grounds that on average Group A is inferior to Group B in this activity is stupid.

4) Diversity turns out to have advantages that are not just random touchy-feely stuff. Recruiting people from different backgrounds and mindsets can actually pay off, often in unpredictable ways from the point of view of an institution that lacks this diversity.

It might well turn out that female soldiers are an asset in ways or in situations that cannot easily be foreseen by the guys (invariably guys) who imagine that all war is an exercise in HOOAH MANLY PHYSICAL FITNESS CONTEST. It may well turn out that even if female pilots nominally have better reflexes and G-tolerance, male pilots have other virtues that make it desirable to keep them around.

Diversity counts. And if you blindly refuse to consider anything other than your chosen metric for justifying nailing the "no girls allowed" sign on your clubhouse, then you lose the things it counts for.

[Balrog]

So from a pure resource standpoint, wasting ITB slots on a group that would have at best a 30% lower success rate makes sense? I don't disagree that some women could make it through and be average skilled infantrymen, but if it's true that the best you can do is graduate 60% and the vast majority of those are AT BEST below average to average... Why bother?

Because those infantry roles still have to be filled, and if you arbitrarily exclude qualified people because they are women, you have to instead fill those positions with the lowest performing men. Women who graduate ITB are not going to be replacing the top-ranked men. They'll be taking the positions that would otherwise be taken by the below average men.

It really isn't a difficult concept. You require that all applicants be able to score X in the shooting test, be able to carry Y pounds of gear, be able to run at Z speed, and so on down the line, and then you accept people who can pass those tests without worrying about whether or not they have a penis.

Except currently the US military is having no problem filling those infantry roles with adequate enough men, and even for the very few women who can "score x in the shooting test, be able to carry y pounds of gear, be able to run at Z speed", they are still suffering injury at a far greater rate than their male counterparts. Assuming you even had enough top-performing female soldiers to replace enough of the below average male soldiers to actually make an effective difference instead of it simply being a feel-good move, you'll be going through them at a much higher attrition rate, and there isn't a very large pool to draw from in the first place. But as long as they don't have a penis, it's all good eh?

Diversity counts.

Up to a point. If someone is unqualified for a job, do you put them in that position regardless because whichever group they identify with happens to be underrepresented in that field? There's a lot less riding on the line playing social engineer with university applications than on the battlefield. This website liked to pride itself on using science and evidence to debate issues. Well, based on the science and evidence we have, women in general just aren't suited to this particular combat role. You can dismiss it as "hur dur manly lifting" shit if you want, but if you physically aren't capable of carrying a wounded soldier to safety or if lugging around a squad support weapon tires you out quicker than a comparable male soldier and makes you less capable in combat, that's a serious problem. If there was countervailing evidence supporting the idea that the positives they'd bring to the role outweighed the negative, that'd be one thing. But to just throw them into the mix for the sake of diversity and hope that idea turns out to be true is stupid.

[Zwinmar]

Mission accomplishment then troop welfare, in that order, is the official Marine stance. It was rare for an NCO to even care about troop welfare in the first place, though the good ones did. The check of a Corpsman was usual nonexistent as there was around one per company rather than the one per platoon that was T.O.

As for women in the infantry; the way I see it, if they can pull their own weight I don't see a problem. I knew plenty of guys who were short and skinny but still infantry, though many of them did injure themselves. My only stipulation is that the regulations are the same for both sexes. There were plenty of guys of failed boot camp and S.O.I. as it was so, if a female can pass, fine by me. The unfortunate thing is that there will be great reluctance and a lot of hazing, but then there is for every boot until they prove themselves. If leadership requires special anything for the female that does get into an infantry unit, I think it will end badly as anyone who gets special treatment is automatically singled out.

As another anecdote: Take a look at the movie "Jarhead," the main protagonist was considered a pussy by the guys in the company he was in. He couldn't hack the 'gentle' hazing that was going on. That is one thing the movie portrayed well. The infantry is a society that values hyper-machismo and a female coming in would be seen as an invader. I think that it would take a great deal to change that view.

[Patroklos]

A point: The study recognized that there was an experience difference and thus for the individual metrics (all the VO2 max and related stuff) they had enough men with the same level of experience (probably by design) to do a comparison there. The findings were roughly the same.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

The shooting discrepancy is especially suspect, as it's a well-known occurrence on the gun range that when a man drags his wife to the range and she is taught proper shooting techniques, she'll usually outshoot him. All this study proves are its own biases. There was no attempt to control for variables that could easily overwhelm the one being tested, nor to account for conditions where you could safely assume that women would outperform men. Everyone knows that men have more physical strength and endurance, ceteris perebis, but what about womens' higher pain tolerance and resistance to PTSD and other emotional symptoms? What about needing fewer rations, or being less likely to choose the most aggressive course of action in a given situation over a potentially better one? The excessive amount of gear carried is a fair point, but 100+ lbs is also well past the injury point for male troops, and females are less likely to load up with shit they don't need because SPARTA!

[Patroklos]

Once again someone harping on "carrying shit they don't need" without telling us what exactly that shit is. Also, that 130 pounds is the official gear load so while you may be right (but probably not) that male Marines carry significantly more stuff in addition that they don't need to for whatever imagined reason you wish to justify you baseless assumption, it has zero relevance to the 130lb load which is what is causing a good deal of the 6x (27% of their total, 13% for men) higher female injury rate. Of course women would not carry any extra shit for either the same reasons you speculate or completely different ones, no sir, but we will ignore that logic hole for now.

To help you guys to stop talking out of your ass:

A study on Army combat loads (actual observed battlefield loads):
http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/mode ... Report.pdf

And the standard Marine Corps combat load:
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0SO8zVU ... 4cwubCAck-

Existence Load

Clothing Worn & Packed
100 Weight Fleece Jacket 00.661 1 0.661
300 Weight Fleece Jacket 01.322 1 1.322
Gortex Top 02.200 1 2.200
Gortex Bottoms 02.200 1 2.200
Polypropylene Top 00.440 1 0.440
Polypropylene Bottom 00.462 1 0.462
Cold Weather Gloves & Mittens 01.325 1 1.325
Total 8.610
Sustainment and Other Equipment
Watch, Cap 00.550 1 0.550
Insect Repellant 00.750 1 0.750
Sewing Kit 00.100 1 0.100
Mat, Isopor 01.500 1 1.500
Bivy Sack 02.200 1 2.200
Modular Sleeping Bag 04.500 1 4.500
Two Man Tent 08.500 1 8.500
Shaving Gear, Towel, Facecloth 02.000 1 2.000
J-List Suit (MOPP Suit) Complete with boots and gloves 10.000 1 10.000
Batteries, AA (4) 00.375 2 0.750
Total 30.850
Chow and Water
Canteen, 2 Quart (Filled) w/MOLLE Compatible 04.600 1 4.600
Total 4.600
EXISTENCE LOAD ITEMS weight 44.060
+Assault Load 47.871
+Approach March Load 23.225
+Sustained March Load 22.840
Total Existence Load WT 137.996
Objective WT (Combat Load Report) 126.800

Existence Load - defined as that load taken from the point of origin into the assembly area. The existence load, for planning purposes, will be intended to support the individual from their pack when immediate re-supply is impossible. Due to the heavier loads carried, enemy contact should be avoided. From the perspective of human factors, the maximum weight of the existence load will be such that the average infantry Marine will be able to conduct limited movement within the confines of Naval shipping, embark and debark aircraft or amphibious craft, and limited marching from the landing zone into a secured area.

This is 2003 but I bet little has changed. That's the list of the additional items that an existence load adds on that brings it to 137lbs from the sustained load of 101lbs. You can find the detailed list of the other loads that combined make up the total existence load in the link. So, start chopping arm chair warriors!

[Simon_Jester]

Mission accomplishment then troop welfare, in that order, is the official Marine stance. It was rare for an NCO to even care about troop welfare in the first place, though the good ones did. The check of a Corpsman was usual nonexistent as there was around one per company rather than the one per platoon that was T.O.

Thing is, having people randomly carrying a pile of rocks in their backpack or whatever isn't even mission accomplishment. It's just a random way to damage troop welfare so they are made unable to accomplish the mission.

Because quite frankly, it doesn't sound like the Marines are in more danger of being unable to accomplish a mission due to insufficient physical fitness than they are from having their actual Marines made unable to accomplish a mission due to excessive sports injuries.

Once again someone harping on "carrying shit they don't need" without telling us what exactly that shit is. Also, that 130 pounds is the official gear load so while you may be right (but probably not) that male Marines carry significantly more stuff in addition that they don't need to for whatever imagined reason you wish to justify you baseless assumption, it has zero relevance to the 130lb load which is what is causing a good deal of the 6x (27% of their total, 13% for men) higher female injury rate...

How do you get 27% being six times bigger than 13%? 27 is very close to two times thirteen.

Are women being injured due to all causes at a rate three times higher than men? That's the only explanation I can think of.

[snip characterization of the Marine combat load...]

Welp, we can drop the shaving kit from the lady Marine's equipment, that's two pounds right there... Could male Marines do without a shaving kit in the field? Maybe. It might cause problems with the MOPPS gear, mind... but honestly carrying the MOPPS gear should itself be a judgment call that depends on the situations.

And, hm, is every Marine carrying a two-man tent? That seems like about twice as much tentage as is necessary, creating an average increase in load of four pounds. Then again, I find it hard to believe the actual Marines in the field would do this rather than just doubling up and taking turns carrying a tent, which is at least better than nothing.

Plus, it sounds like two thirds of the weight is in the "Assault," "Approach March," and "Sustained March" loads. That should be looked at too.

Here's the thing, though. The massive amount of carried stuff is a problem regardless of whether all the individual items are arguably necessary. The problem is that if we gave soldiers every thing they theoretically might need, they'd be so burdened that they couldn't move, let alone fight... at some point you have to prioritize.

[Adam Reynolds]

The fundamental problem with women and extreme physical activities is that the female body is intended for two contradictory functions, childbirth and normal physical activities. The male body is specialized for physical movement. This can be seen quite obviously if one looks at the male versus the female pelvis. The female pelvis is wider and more oval shaped to allow a baby to pass through it. The downside of this is that it is more spread out and more likely to be injured by certain types of intense physical activity. This can be seen in the extremely high rate of physical injury among girls who play soccer. Far higher than that of equivalent boys. And this is in addition to other physiological effects.

Physical conditioning cannot make up for biological differences.

[Beowulf]

Given that there are no female infantrymen, it's logical to me that the female members of the provisional company made up the lower ranks. This is also where you'd find the members with less experience in any infantry company. Therefore, I don't think most arguments about the lack of experience really make sense.

Thing is, having people randomly carrying a pile of rocks in their backpack or whatever isn't even mission accomplishment. It's just a random way to damage troop welfare so they are made unable to accomplish the mission.

It's physical conditioning. One of the ways to make sure that your troops can hump the weight they need to in combat is to make them do it in peace time.

How do you get 27% being six times bigger than 13%? 27 is very close to two times thirteen.

Are women being injured due to all causes at a rate three times higher than men? That's the only explanation I can think of.

They're injured due to all causes at 6 times the rate. They're injured due to movement at over 12 times the rate of men.

[Patroklos]

Welp, we can drop the shaving kit from the lady Marine's equipment, that's two pounds right there... Could male Marines do without a shaving kit in the field? Maybe. It might cause problems with the MOPPS gear, mind... but honestly carrying the MOPPS gear should itself be a judgment call that depends on the situations.

And, hm, is every Marine carrying a two-man tent? That seems like about twice as much tentage as is necessary, creating an average increase in load of four pounds. Then again, I find it hard to believe the actual Marines in the field would do this rather than just doubling up and taking turns carrying a tent, which is at least better than nothing.

Plus, it sounds like two thirds of the weight is in the "Assault," "Approach March," and "Sustained March" loads. That should be looked at too.

Simon Jester. Continues to comment on Marine combat load when he obviously hasn't read anything about a Marine combat load.

Here's the thing, though. The massive amount of carried stuff is a problem regardless of whether all the individual items are arguably necessary. The problem is that if we gave soldiers every thing they theoretically might need, they'd be so burdened that they couldn't move, let alone fight... at some point you have to prioritize.

NO COMBAT LOAD AT ALL. Problem solved. Now we can solve the pressing social issue of little people and diabetics not being able to serve in the infantry. If you have an issue with the combat load SJ, how about you actually read what is actually included in it and tell us why in detail particular things are not needed. The shaving kit is indeed for MOPP, and sharing tents is nice if you know your going to be with the other half indefinitely. Its better to know you can carry the whole thing by yourself if you have to instead of discovering you can't when you have to. It is a heavy tent I will grant you, my current hiking tent is 1.5 pounds but its summer weight and built to last a weekend, not months in a combat zone. So there we have it, all that bitching about upwards of a hundred items and you came up with a valid critisism for a fraction of one. THROW THE STUDY OUT!