Military.com just posted an item in the Army news section that highlights the results of Natick’s forward operational assessment of the Large Capacity Ammunition Carriage System, also known as “Ironman.”
The article states that Ironman began during a discussion between members of the 1st Battalion, 133rd Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 34th Infantry Division, about how three-man, crew-served weapons teams struggled to stay together during engagements with the enemy while negotiating difficult terrain. Wouldn’t it be nice, someone said, if they had a one-man weapon system like the one actor Jesse Venture had brandished in the movie “Predator”?
The Guardsmen built their own prototype using discarded ammo cans welded together and strapped to an old ALICE frame. They handed over the prototype to Natick’s Quick Reaction Cell.
To date, approximately 100 of the Ironman prototypes have been sent to Afghanistan for use with the M240B machine gun.
The system has been around for awhile; in fact, DT’s sister site Kit Up! covered some of the early controversy around it a couple of years ago. (That post can be seen here.)
Just goes to show that everything’s relative in the world of military acquisitions, including the meaning of the word “rapid.”
{ 82 comments… read them below or add one }
I do like it. Awesome backpack/ammo carrier. But way things are going solder will have to buy them themselves.
give me a break. the us military has been lighting cigars with $100 dollar bills since 2001.
They have more bat man kit than they know what to do with.
All other things being equal, the side with the simplest uniforms wins.
"DT’s sister site Kit Up! covered some of the early controversy around it a couple of years ago."
Sounds about right for DT standards only afew years behind
So, Ironman + body armor + M240 + other assorted gear will weigh a grand total of, what, 90+ pounds? Hell, make it a nice round 100 pounds. Is weighing down the guys in the field even more than they already are really the smart thing to do? And where is that guy's rucksack? Someone else going to carry his pack?
But don't worry, we're bringing women into the infantry. They can carry the M240 and 500 rounds of 7.62, since they're so gung-ho to go out there and embrace the suck. Idiots….
Some of the women I've met so far are stronger and more talented than many of men I've served with.
why aren't those "strong and talented" women humping these Ironman packs + M240 + personal gear then???
And they are in a minority; for every story I hear about women outdoing men I hear two more about women in the military missing the bar and forcing men to pick up the slack.
War is not a bench press competition. There is more to than the ability to carry stuff. Back to topic. Neat idea, but the mini gun was cooler to chop down jungle with.
"War is not a bench press competition. There is more to than the ability to carry stuff." True to a point, not for the grunt that requires strength and intelligence. You must not have too much experience with medium machine guns and the Infantry. There’s only two in a platoon and you don’t select a dumb jock to operate one. They are considered the most important weapon in a light infantry platoon. Usually a very dependable, responsible, strong and intelligent soldier is selected. The M240 is more complicated than the M4 and has a key role most engagements. Have you ever been an M240 gunner?
BTW, the topic IS an ammo carrying system for the M240 that happens to weigh 40lbs w/500 rounds on top of the 28lb M240.
That off topic minigun? It weighs 37lbs without the car battery to run the motor or the ammo.
James – Were you an Infantryman?
Really? The SAW is a third of the weight of an M240.
What was that about not knowing what I'm talking about?
BTW, there's a difference between sitting in a vehicle and hauling a SAW on a dismounted patrol. Done both.
How are their Knees ? It seems the Achilles Heel for the ladies is up their leg to their knees.
I got to agree with you in what you said because so have I but the average female is far weaker then the average guy and that is what is most important in this case and in survival in general.
I don't see how your personal sexism is related to your genuinely good point on overloading soldiers…
Then your not thinking. Women have less bone and muscle density than men. They also have a slew of other problems which have lead to to alot of problems and making them-for some jobs- entirely unsuited and a problem in their own right.
This ignores the problems that are so obvious like infertility or problems with infections in places we dont talk about…….never mind we talk about womens privates contantly on TV now.
But then i wonder if women are told of that????
They weren't told of the likelyhood of rape by their officers either.
Bit of a shame he didn't say "load reduction is all the more pressing due to the introduction of female soldiers, who have, on average, less bone and muscle density and will be all the more vulnerable to (e.g.) stress injuries." Treating female soldiers like soldiers, rather than a reply that seemed more like he was making fun of them for wanting to defend their country. Could just be me.
So with women in combat arms, who is going to hump this thing when they are on rear detachment for 9 months of a pregnancy and 3 months of maternity leave? And 50% will get knocked up hanging out with Infantry men, 95% if they get put with Cav Scouts. And you wont be able to hold them back on order of merit lists for schools or promotions with Feinstein, Boxer, Hagel and Obama on the case.
There was these 3 women in the FOB I was at that were so fired to show the guys in their unit just how they could "hack it"….we had to build the perimeter, for the first 3 days they did well, after that they got slower and slower and after awhile all they did was bitch and finally were only standing in the shade and on the 6th day,,,totally quit, even the weakest guys (and there were many) never quit…..no effing way women will never "hack it" over the length of a tour….NO WAY!!….
And we send these Neanderthals to fight an insurgency – no wonder we always lose.
The person who sends a women in to do a man's job is truely a neanderthal. Women need to be sent to jobs in the military where the average female will do as well as the average male in which there are many.
The average guy is going to have a hard time carrying all that ammo that is in the Ironman pack.
You'd think that they would employ one those exo-skeletons which designed help soldiers lug something this heavy.
Batteries are hard to charge in the bush…
35lbs of ammo.
Can't they just strap on the Hulc system, and have that on the back?
Ironman + Exoskeleton?? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdK2y3lphmE
The concept is in the works, I assure you.
It has the potential to change the paradigm.
There are still technical issues to be sorted, but very smart people are figuring this one out. It is only a matter of time.
Wow. Saw this same concept illustrated in the 50s. For some reason I think it was in association with the development of the AR/M16 rifle…
So when do we get a man portable nuclear RPG like in Starship Troopers? I want to kill some bugs for the Federation……….
Well, we have something pretty darn close.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nucle…
im a civi , never served. so im go out on a limb here and say… any man who's been shot at more then twice on patrol will be leaving this thing at the FOB.
to be pigeon holed as the "fire power" man sounds like too much running and oh by the way, who's carrying the rest of his stuff…?
it just looks like the elimination of versatility (options).
again, im just a schmuck.
On the other hand, it beat changing mags on a BAR every 20 rounds. Try doing the same job in Korea in 1950?
Or playing with teaser clips and M60s in Vietnam.
Let the troops decide. Then again, how easy is it to reload a box when you drain it? Is it faster to just pick up a new backpack and swap out an empty?
what year is this again…?
again im just a schmuch but, im not gonna be the guy carrying the "other stuff" of a dude who wants to rock and roll for 10 minutes ( without a barrel change…?) in a 40 minute fire fight, watch him become a rifleman with a clip and a half left and then keep carrying his stuff because there's nowhere to put it.
I AINT CARRYING HIS SHIT. dats all im saying.
I would carry HIM if he could lay down enough firepower to keep the enemy from shooting me back.
The concept is to pin down the enemy by unloading 35lbs of 7.62mm at them while your more unencumbered colleagues outflank them and tag them.
Seriously, 35lbs is 500 rounds of uninterupted (without jamming) machine-gun fire. It would make for a serious argument against breaking cover.
And we all know the type of military men whom would wear the burden, they're more than capable of doing it. We also know that the entire reason behind squad-based combat is to share the load of equipment across the squad to perform multiple tasks and enable these types of weapon systems to become a force multiplyer.
Good idea, good system.
It seems logical to put the weapon and ammo on one gunner and have someone else carry his/her ruck, as opposed to having the gunner carry an unloaded weapon with ammo carried by someone else. To improve reaction time at contact, if nothing else.
FYI a very common SOP is for the gunner to haul the M240 and 500 rounds. His asistant has 800-1000 rounds, the tripod and a spare barrel.
Not mentioned in the article. Loaded with 500rnds the pack weighs 40lbs. Add body armor and the 28lb M240. Not for the weak hearted!!!
Get that Soldier's Platoon Sgt, Platoon Leader, 1sgt, and Co right away. I wanna know why he doesn't have a High-Visibility, Blaze Orange reflextive vest on right now? It dangerous out there!
I'm not a fan of trying to maximize the weight a soldier can carry. Better to continue the development of carrier systems.
Until women can be drafted just like men they have no right to be in front line combat. Giving 99% of females a get out of combat free card is just plain stupid! If you want women in combat Obama then go all in! None of the special treatment BS.
Btw, the Israelis found out the hard way in one of their wars in the late 60s that it was a terrible idea to have females in front line combat. They don't allow females in front line combat anymore. Guess America will have to learn this lesson the hard way as usual.
It was the '48 war.
Ironically the main reason the Israeli's keep the female units as support is because the MEN couldn't get their shit together.
Guys were taking stupid risks every time there were female casualties which ended up causing even more casualties
What you are describing is men's wiring and better half kicking in. The last thing you want are men that can treat women like they do other men……
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracal_Battalion
Apparently they have a small test unit. That said,
"women [...] have no right to be in front line combat. Giving 99% of females a get out of combat free card is just plain stupid!"
Huh? Sentence one suggests women have no right to be in combat. Sentence two suggests giving women a "get out of combat free card" is stupid. You don't get a get-out-of-combat card, the enemy finds you and shoots you and you shoot back.
The whole phraseology "X in combat" is no longer clear. In the age of The-Enemy-is-Everywhere, everyone will have to fight and shoot. More accurately, it will be difficult to find women in the more physically demanding MOS'; independent of "combat" or "non-combat" status. It's one thing to be an MP guarding a convoy, and another to be an infantryman. Both will get shot at or die.
Imagine if this had gone through the entire acquisitions process, including bids and awards and the whole nine yards. It would have taken years to build and would have been over-engineered (but not necessarily well-engineered) and extremely expensive.
Some grunt some where is going to put that on his back and say: "Ain't got time to bleed."
How dare the Army design something themselves instead of hiring a contractor to do it. Somewhere there is a defense contractor's CEO that won't make over $10 million dollars this year because he didn't have that contract to milk for hundreds of millions of dollars per year, dragging it out for at least a decade before deciding that it couldn't be done in a cost effective manner.
And, it should be noted that the weapon building corporation, Tyr Tactical, also did an excellent job in turning out their own version of this product in a short period of time. It is amazing how well capitalism works when the incentive is in the right place. Obviously Tyr Tactical was not getting a $1.10 for every dollar they spent developing this weapon and therefore they did not have any incentive to drag out its development forever. They saw a need and did their best to fill it just like a free market company should. They also did not trash their customer when given the chance because they want to make some money and don't have a huge bureaucracy behind them making sure they get their money and good press without regard to how well they perform.
Don't you love it when government and free market capitalists do what they are supposed to instead of f'ing us over all the time? Good story DT, even if you did miss some of the finer points.
Be interested in the possibility of a M249 with 5.56MM ammo.
The ammo weighs 1/3 that of the 7.62.
Be nice to have 1000 rounds to support your friends.
Caseless ammo FTW!
YES!! Hell why not? This can and will work.
The natural course of action will be:
A) Test it with units whom think it's a great idea
B) See that it doesn't fit the mission (aka budget)
C) So Try To Turn The Idea Into A Robot
D) Scrap it
E) Return to A
Clone Jesse Ventura and assign them the Ironman? Apparently he can handle it better than the average soldier as I'm reading through.
Someone already mentioned 5.56, and thats a great idea for this kind of thing, but 7.62x.39 might be perfect for dropping weight a bit and still having some range, especially for suppression.
Also, maybe a top loading bull pup machine gun could employ an irom man type system, I think that would be much less cumbersome, although that might impede vision too much on the periphery.
Has anyone mentioned with this kit about finally deploying those exoskeletons
Here image of one http://www.coolthings.com/wp-content/uploads/2010…
That pack is filled with the battery it takes to run the thing for a couple of hours.
Bullpup and belt fed or high cap never really work the magazine would be under your arm prevening you from moving it in any other position. As for Comments about not wanting too lug the other guys pack with this thing the Gunner is carriering the ammo of what two guys and that three assistents so why not just have the two assistents split his persinal gear well he moves up as the gunner. they can pack a few traditonal ammo belts well he moves up with the large cap.
Still Would not Work. the belt would block sighting the weapon in the prone. the in the case of A Ironman The belt would also be beating you upside the head in the case of a weapon mounted carrier the ammo box you would ether be eating the Ammo carrier or the carrier would be blocking your vision. Ammo box would prevent movement, Not too mention the weight would be beyond back heavy. Only way I could figure it working would be a Chest mounted ammo box feeding over the top and ambi side feed feeding and either ejecting across or downward but issues of movement would still be there with but that would still have lots of issues To be frank the problems out weight the benefits. The Closest a belt fed MG could ever be too a bullpup would be the M60 series. Where in the Ammo feed is over the trigger and pistol grip. every other Attempt too make a bull MG has ended on a Infantry Auto Rifle that is used for a time then the maker either licences or designs there own belt feed MG.
My, how life immitates art.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H6SG34EOqk
HOW LONG HAVE YOU GUYS BEEN A COUPLE?
Hmm, looks like the ammo feed for a Games Workshop ™ Space Marine ™ with a Heavy Bolter ™.
Hope they don't sue the Yanks for stealing their idea.
Also, why not put it on a lightweight drag trolley (Like the suitcases you see being towed through airports etc.) The wheels could be made to work on sand etc, and the operator could tow it along until it is likely to be needed, then put on his back?
You know, the original films for the AR10 showed a system similar to this…with a much lighter rifle in the same caliber using the same linked system, and the capability of using magazines once the belt feed mech was removed. Just sayin…
Its on Youtube. Just look up AR10 Promotional Material or something like that.
My experience is naval. Sorry, for the cheap shot but there seems to be a attitude that even among the rest of the Army that somehow the other branches don't matter. That all that matters is your Infantry branch. Yes, I know about the mini gun & the weight issues on the M240.
I didn't see a comment dinging other branches or claiming the superiority of the Infantry but one chiding the wisdom of allowing women hauling an M240 and gear.
Frankly I'm tired of those that have NEVER humped a 90lb ruck along with weapon and personal kit a dozen miles let alone lived in the field for weeks doing it tell me how "some" women can do it.
Mine is not the US experience, however, I'm one that has done those things, in training and in combat.
I've done them as part of line and reconnaissance forces. I've done them alongside some remarkable women who kicked the ass off of men who couldn't keep up. In fact, there are a couple female medics in my company that shamed 80% of the men on an exercise two weeks ago. They were carrying the same thing everyone else was, in addition to their medic packs and hauling toboggans up some crazy hills in 5 feet of powdery snow.
I have served alongside remarkable women in combat, ones who were just as fierce as the men under fire. Some were in fact way more aggressive then the men ever were. One of my mentors as an infantry officer, a soldier who is widely respected as one of the finest officers we have in our infantry corps, is a woman. Indeed, she has even advised the US military on the issue of women in combat. Russian women in WWII also demonstrated they could be ferocious fighters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko)
We can't let historic social practices blind us to the value that potentially half the population can bring to a fight when it comes down to winning a war. Yes, there are the same tired arguments about males setting aside the mission to protect a female counterpart being a problem. I suspect this is selective hearing on behalf of military statisticians. In other situations (e.g. male risking everything to protect a wounded male comrade, such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_A._Obregon, there are plenty of others, I assure you.) , medals of honor/bravery/valor are awarded. Not definitive, but this certainly suggests we can be a little choosy about when/where/by whom such actions are appropriate.
The real issue is about setting a single standard, regardless of gender, for combat trades. If you are going to be in a fight, the badguy, and his bullets/bombs/whatever don't care whether you're a man or a woman. The injured comrade that needs to be pulled out of a burning turret doesn't either.
I weigh 215lbs. A little flabbier than I was a few years ago, but not by much. Kitted out in battle rattle and hurt, few male soldiers are able to budge me on their own, let alone haul me several hundred meters to a casualty collection point. If a woman can't do the job, she should not get in. Then again, neither should a man.
You'll never get high numbers of women who want to make it into the combat arms. Hell, it's not like most men want to make it into the combat arms (witness the existence of support trades, the Air Force, and Navy: most of them think that humping a heavy pack over miles of crappy terrain so they can stick a bayonet into somebody sucks, too) so it's not like this issue should be a monumental one. The transition will always be hard. If it can be made with a minimum of fanfare, and they can be given a fair chance without getting into public affairs stunts, then you may actually be surprised at what they can do.
Appreciate you chiming in. You bring much to the debate. Unfortunately since you don't understand how we do business it doesn't help and in fact has done us a dis service.
"The real issue is about setting a single standard, regardless of gender, for combat trades."
Let me tell you about the American experience.
We have NEVER had the same standards for women though we talk a good talk. Besides the different PT standards we have a history of adjusting standards when women are allowed in a course for instance when the Airborne Course was opened women had a lower number of repetitions of pull ups. BTW pullups simulate pulling on the straps of chute to steer the chute to avoid other jumpers and hazards. Do women have a need to steer less? Since then pullups have been eliminated from the course. The requirement to steer is still there but graduating numbers is even a higher precedence.
I can also share the experience of an indoor obstacle course at the Academy. When women entered they were given a much higher time to complete like the enemy doesn’t shoot slower female smaller soldiers. That “tweak” was found to not be enough. Since then a whole obstacle is authorized to be “skipped” (an elevated shelf requiring upper body strength to negotiate) by female cadets again in an effort to level the playing field.
Right now there is an ongoing discussion at Ranger school of eliminating pull ups again to allow women to succeed. Of course the discussion is camouflaged with are pullups really necessary for the leadership course.
Plainly put our approach to the integration of women into the military is to establish different standards, lower standards for all and finally eliminate tasks to achieve the goal. We are also 10 times the size of the Canadian military which serves to reinforce the problem as our bureaucracy has embraced this approach because the greater size allows for men to pick up the slack in those organizations that have had women integrated in them. I’d also point to our equal opportunity and sexual harassment issues that have further eroded leaders to question decisions because they will suffer complaints of sexual harassment.
Your numbers are small. Ours are not and while a limited number of women enter Canadian infantry units who must accomplish the same standard that is not how we will achieve “equality”. We will lower the standard across the board as our repeated history has demonstrated and so ALL will suffer lowered standards and the problem will never be reported. I point to the fact that when the army is asked how many women are returned from theatre due to pregnancy our Army says with a straight face “we don’t keep those statistics”. When Gen Cucculo of the 3rd ID said women who get pregnant in theatre and their fathers will be punished because it’s against the reg and hurts combat strength had to rescind the policy within a week as “too stringent”.
So let me tell you as a former US Infantryman, “Thanks for nothing”. Your comments will be latched on by those with an agenda to say it can be done ignoring your same standards fine print and our bureaucracy will ensure it happens with lower standards and at whatever cost. I hope we can return the favor sometime.
BTW, if your recon wasn't done dismounted your whole argument and experience is moot to the discussion.
My recon was dismounted over several years, and in some pretty nasty terrain on occasion.
Your arguments are solid, but they don't remove the essence of what I have said. If people with an agenda want to pick and chose bits from my text to support their argument, they are free to. However, they are ignoring my key caveat: A single standard is needed. They are equally selective in their hearing. I do not endorse their arguments any more than I do those who would argue otherwise without having the entire picture.
Get rid of the PR BS associated with the issue of gender integration and talk about soldiers, not men/women. If one, regardless of gender, cannot make the cut, then too bad. Get rid of them. Not personal, not discrimination, just focusing on a very deadly mission. It won't stop them from contributing positively in a trade that requires less physical robustness for which they may be ideally suited. One also must avoid the allocation of arbitrary ratios of gender integration within a force, as these ultimately lead back to weakening of standards due to the intrinsic associated need to meet targets to satisfy measures of effectiveness.
This approach would also strengthen a force in general. I have to deal with a surprising number of male soldiers which I would not entrust the GPMG to since they are not as fit as they should be. A single hard standard would allow me to turf those individuals as well.
I understand that the US military is an enormous organization. I've had to work alongside and with it on a few occasions, and can appreciate the issues that arise from the bureaucracy. It's made my life complicated on more than one occasion. I also know of the efforts to tweak the performance standards. We go through the same thing from time to time. I am not saying we don't have challenges, either. What I am saying is that although it isn't easy, it can be done with likely less than catastrophic results than may be imagined, and perhaps even with success.
I'm a former Infantry officer with over 20 years of service. I was all for one standard as a TAC at West Point. When I applied one standard in appearance and performance I was falsely charged with sexual harassment allegations that I successfully defended. Long story short (because the guy is always assumed guilty in my Army). The female alleged I intimidated her during her PT test (I wasn't even present) and she had never been counseled for PT performance (she had been counseled 16 times in writing over 4 years, 8 by her peers, another 4 times by other officers and 4 by me in one year). This was not her first false allegation. My commander said to me privately. You're doing the right thing but if they throw enough mud something will stick.
I believe in the same standard for all. I'm smart enough and remember enough to understand my organization and how we execute integration.
You can continue to stand on the idealism of one standard after being told we are incapable of doing this when it comes to male/female performance with multiple examples. You’ll be popular with those with an agenda and most women while those that have to execute this insane agenda will be kneecapped with having sub performing soldiers and still have to execute the mission. Again, thanks for nothing. I hope we can return the favor.
I'm a former Infantry officer with over 20 years of service. I was all for one standard as a TAC at West Point. When I applied one standard in appearance and performance I was falsely charged with sexual harassment allegations that I successfully defended. Long story short (because the guy is always assumed guilty in my Army). The female alleged I intimidated her during her PT test (I wasn't even present) and she had never been counseled for PT performance (she had been counseled 16 times in writing over 4 years, 8 by her peers, another 4 times by other officers and 4 by me in one year). This was not her first false allegation. My commander said to me privately. You're doing the right thing but if they throw enough mud something will stick.
I believe in the same standard for all. I'm smart enough and remember enough to understand my organization and how we execute integration.
You can continue to stand on the idealism of "one standard" after being told we've NEVER done it and have consistently avoided doing this when it comes to male/female performance with multiple examples. You’ll be popular with those with an agenda and most women while those that have to execute this insane agenda will be kneecapped with having sub performing soldiers and still have to execute the mission. Again, thanks for nothing. I hope we can return the favor.
Were your dismounted ops across hellacious terrain conducted with women carrying the SAME kit?
No. My recce organization did not have women in it. Not because of rules, but none were present at the time. That was a few years back. The areas were I did fight alongside women were in better terrain (grapefields of the Zhari/Panjwai), though by far are no walks in the park. In those cases, they had the same gear as everyone else.
In recent experience, I've met a female soldier that beat the stuffing out of a male soldier in hand to hand combat training, and we had another that the other troops affectionately referred to as the 'linebacker' or 'breacher' because she was bigger and stronger than many of the men. To those who want to cry foul over this for PC reasons: she was quite proud of the titles. As for our recent winter escapade, the female medics were carrying more kit than the men were. We sustained over 20% training losses due to exhaustion, dehydration, exposure, yet none of our female medics fell out, despite some looking like they could have fit inside the rucksacks they were carrying with room to spare.
I can appreciate the harassment issue. We have to deal with that here. Sexual harassment accusations (rightful and wrongful) were much more prevalent a decade or so ago. Things have calmed down (I feel, no data to back it up) as we've had time to nestle into the dynamic. To note, again in my subjective and somewhat limited perspective, the worst case of harassment (in this case, it was determined a wrongful accusation, not of sexual nature) I am aware of is between two male soldiers. So the issue is not going to be restricted to cross-gender relations. To get dragged through that does make one's life Hell. You have my respect for getting through it.
Canada has not had an easy time of it either. We have gone through our troubled waters and growing pains as well. Some instances are not two decades old: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1997-04-13/fea…
Other barriers and issues still flare up from time to time, so I can understand what you say about the challenges this represents for such a large organization as the US military.
The key take away is that it did not open the flood gates. It hasn't led to masses of women who aren't able to do the job flowing into the infantry, engineers, or others. There are some that are less good than others, and there are some that are far better. In general, though they tend to reside in the center of the bell curve. We can lose some to maternity issues, but I lose far more male soldiers to administrative issues and boneheaded decisions that get them tossed in jail. They therefore become part of the organizational noise and end up performing like everyone else, which is really the ultimate goal. To my knowledge, no mission has been compromised, and no lives risked or lost because of the gender issue in the combat arms.
As far as I can tell, most of the women in the combat arms self-select for armour and artillery trades because of the same considerations most bring up here. They are technical trades that focus for the most part more on brain over brawn. We do have a cohort of up and coming female combat engineers which also seem to be doing a great job of hauling bridge along with the men. Again, those few who decide to come down this route are aware of the challenges and are seeking them when they sign up.
I’m confused. Understand women were not with you in that hellacious terrain you mentioned. Why did you mention it? Then, are you currently in a mounted or dismounted recce unit?
Second, you miss my point. It’s not the floodgates that are an issue. It’s the fact we don’t do same standards. We never have. We have over sixty years of examples. When we integrate, we lower or remove standards for the WHOLE organization.
Then we NEVER admit mistakes have been made and actually cover them up or say ridiculous things like we don’t keep track of how many women get pregnant in theatre. I’m not exaggerating. The Cucculo directive and the fact we don’t keep pregnancy stats is open record.
Large organizations can do this because they are large enough to keep incidents contained from the rest of the organization and the public. They also are large enough to devote resources from within or from other units to make up shortages especially when not involved in high OPTEMP conflicts.
Well i think the military have some troop support vehicles that should be able to carry everyones gear in the near future. Why the troops cant just hide behind a wall and send up a UAV to map out the area in real time and then send mini eplosive UAV's to airburst above the enemy and wipe them out for not much more than a grenade costs, i dont know.
Cost. Because grenades are dirt cheap and UAV's aren't. And a UAV with the explosive power of a grenade is probably a little more expensive than the cheapest UAV.
What you are saying does not line up with anything else I am seeing coming from our soldiers, our military, and even reports I see coming from your military. I still can't believe it.
Sure, there are a few Amazonian Lumberjack Women here and there, but by and large, women are smaller in frame, weaker, averse to physical activity and conflict.