Marine study finds women suffer more injuries, shoot less accurately than men

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Source: Washington Post

Checkpoint

By Dan Lamothe September 10 at 12:22 PM



Marine Sgt. Emma A. Bringas and Lance Cpl. Terrence A. Lay fire the MK153 shoulder-launched multipurpose assault weapon (SMAW) during a pilot test of the integrated the enemy counter attack portion of a pilot test of the Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force, a unit created by the Marine Corps to see how women could better be included in combat units. (Photo by Sgt. Alicia R. Leaders/ Marine Corps)

Women in a new Marine Corps unit created to assess how female service members perform in combat were injured twice as often as men, less accurate with infantry weapons and not as good at removing wounded troops from the battlefield, according to the results of a long-awaited study produced by the service.

The research was carried out by the service in a nine-month long experiment at both Camp Lejeune, N.C., and Twentynine Palms, Calif. About 400 Marines, including 100 women, volunteered to join the Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force, the unit the Marine Corps created to compare how men and women do in a combat environment.

“This is unprecedented research across the services,” said Marine Col. Anne Weinberg, the deputy director of the Marine Corps Force Innovation Office. “What we tried to get to is what is that individual’s contribution to the collective unit. We all fight as units… We’re more interested in how the Marine Corps fights as units and how that combat effectiveness is either advanced or degraded.”

The study, an executive summary of which was released Thursday, was carried out as all the services prepare to submit recommendations to Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter this fall on whether any jobs should be kept closed to women. In a landmark decision in January 2013, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta rescinded a decades-old ban on women serving in combat jobs like infantry, but gave the services until this fall to research how they wanted to better integrate women and if any jobs should be kept closed.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/09/10/marine-experiment-finds-women-get-injured-more-frequently-shoot-less-accurately-than-men/

[Android3.14]

1. Averages and minimum acceptable levels

There are some women who would be better than the average guy in these tests, just not as many.

Women should be welcome, but the standards are the standards, and if you cannot meet those standards then you cannot be in combat, regardless of gender.

[passiveporcupine]

6. I agree. Not all women are physically strong enough.

I worked with a woman who could not do any kind of exercise at all. She was very skinny and just had no muscle mass. She hated gym class in high school. I doubt women like her would be applying for service, but there will still be some who are just not strong enough. But the same is true of men. Some are just not strong enough.

[madville]

34. We aren't just talking about the average guy here

This is matching them up against the average male Marine which is going to be a tall order for most female Marines.

What I would question in the study is prior training though. The males have been in that field infantry combat mode their entire careers while the female Marines that were inserted in the units from non-combat specialties so there are behind the curve training wise.

[Yo_Mama]

53. It looks like physical differences predominated.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/280017557/Marine-Corps-gender-integration-research-executive-summary

Body composition: Males averaged 178 lbs, with 20% body fat: females averaged 142 lbs, with 24% body fat

Anaerobic Power: Females possessed 15% less power than males; the female top 25th percentile overlaps with the bottom 25th
percentile for males

Anaerobic Capacity: Females possessed 15% less capacity; the female top 10th percentile overlaps with the bottom 50th percentile of males

Aerobic Capacity (VO2Max): Females had 10% lower capacity; the female top 10th percentile overlaps with bottom 50th
percentile of males

Within the research at the Infantry Training Battalion, females undergoing that entry-level training were injured at more than six-times the rate of their male counterparts

27% of female injuries were attributed to the task of movement under load, compared to 13% for their male counterparts, carrying a similar load.

During the GCEITF assessment, musculoskeletal injury rates were 40.5% for females, compared to 18.8% for males

Of the 21 time-loss injuries incurred by female Marines, 19 were lower extremity injuries and 16 occurred during a movement under load task

Nor were the differences in targeting (hugely germane) at all attributable to training levels:

Male provisional infantry (those with no formal 03xx school training) had higher hit percentages than the 0311 (school trained) females: M4: 44% vs 28%, M27: 38% vs 25%, M16A4w/M203: 26% vs 15%

Graduation rates for infantry training were abysmal:

Infantry Training Battalion graduation rates between Sep 13
–
Jun 15: 144 of 401 female volunteers (36%) as compared to 5448 of 5503 males (99%)

The cost of doing this alone is hard to justify; higher injury rates and lower effectiveness in action make it seem like a terrible idea. Fatigue due to physical differences probably accounts for the poorer hit rates.

[angryvet]

2. yes

one reason is they are wearing boots and equipment designed for men. The design of the boot causes women to have stress fractures and knee injuries. The lbe is bound to cause back and shoulder problems. I don't know about shooting cause I'm a dead shot....or I was.

[yeoman6987]

29. They have woman's boots and clothes now

20 years ago a good argument, not today.

[beergood]

3. bullshit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko

http://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2015/01/american_sniper_chris_kyle_cou.html

she is one of the best snipers in history

[DavidDvorkin]

4. That doesn't contradict the study

They're looking at overall numbers, not exceptional individuals.

[beergood]

24. my bad

response to title

been reading some of the responses, and finally read the study.

will be more cautious in future.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

5. Canada is north of the United States.

Generally speaking, that is true. The following statements are also true:

1) Some places in Canada are farther south than some places in the United States.

2) Some places in the United States are farther north than some places in Canada.

The study is looking at things in the aggregate. The existence of individual exceptions does nothing to negate the study's conclusions.

I readily stipulate that any member of a combat unit is fitter than I am for that duty.

Thanks for writing.

[beergood]

25. in other words

shes the exception, not the rule.

[treestar]

28. the study is not really needed though

the women who can qualify should be able to, exceptional or not.

the average women in aggregate doing less should have no effect of stopping her.

that's likely what they want to use this study to prove.

[HassleCat]

7. How surprising!

Men are larger and stronger than women, particularly in terms of upper body strength. But these are just averages. There are women who can do just as well as most of the men. It's not a question of how to integrate women into combat positions, but a question of how to integrate certain women into combat positions. Not all men qualify for combat infantry type assignments, and not all women will, either.

[happyslug]

8. Some comments

1. The report pointed out the size and strength differences between men and women but then avoid the following:

A. Most equipment used in the Military is design around men. Even the M-16 was designed around men. The round it fires was assumed to be fired by a man. Given men average 173 pounds and women 145 pounds, women had less mass to absorb recoil then a man. Thus a weapon designed for a man, has to much recoil for women. In most cases the solution is a HEAVIER weapon for the woman, so it can absorb more of the recoil and improve her accuracy.

B. Women, growing up, tend NOT to play in an many "Team Sports" as men, thus are less able to adjust to working as a member of a team. We can debate this as a cultural problem or innate problem, but either way it is a well known problem. Go to any playground and you will see the boys playing some team sport, basketball, baseball, football, Soccer etc and you will see most of the girls playing individual sports, hopscotch, tennis, etc. Now more girls are playing in team sports then they did 40 years ago (Little league acceptance of girls is a big factor in this regard) but the tendency is still boys play team sports and girls play individual sports Thus girls get less training in grade and high school to work as a member of a team as compared to boys. Thus the report that men only groups work better then a mix group when it comes to crew served weapons, such weapons require operators to work as a member of a team, and women have less training in that regard when growing up.

C. When I was in the Army in the early 1980s, the US Army provided inserts for women so they could use men's combat boots. The people supplying those inserts considered them a poor substitute for a boot made for women, but the budget did NOT provide for boots made for women. I do not KNOW if this has changed (and I suspect it has NOT). this can explain the increase knee and hip problems women have in the report over men. i.e forcing women, with a much lower center of gravity to wear boots design for a men's much higher center of gravity.

D. The pack and equipment of a Soldier assumes a center of gravity in the middle of the chest. That is the norm for men, but women's center of gravity is much lower. Thus a woman wants to carry more in front of her to offset what she has on her back so she can balanced the two over her center of gravity. The packs of the US are designed for men, so they can bend forward and the pact can be as close to a man's center of gravity. Yes, women are designed to carry more weight on their bodies then men but the packs of the US are designed for men to keep those weights close to a man's center of gravity

E. Equipment is designed for man's larger hands. In most cases women can still use the equipment but every so often the difference in size does come into play. You do not hear of this to often, for it is generally involved equipment designed for women that men find they can not use (Yes it is a two way street).

Yes, if it sounds like men and women should be equipped differently, your are correct, that is how most societies have done when men and women are during heavy labor. Now, this also lead to "Woman's Work" and "Men's work" depending on the tools being used, and segregation along those lines.

I did notice that operating planes, tanks or other powered equipment was a concerned. The concerns were operating as a member of a team, injuries, use of weapons and equipment. These are mostly concerns for infantry as oppose to armor or even artillery (through team work is important in both types of units).

I can make the statement that the real concern is given the pool of recruits the Military is looking at for enlisted ranks, lower class men and women, is the lack of team work "training" when growing up. I do not mean membership in organized sports, but pick up games and the tendency of boys to play team sports and girls to play individual sports.

Please note, I know many women who played team sports, my point it NOT that women can not play such sports, but most women played less of them in their school years then did men. Thus women tend to have less experience as working as a team member then do men.

Besides the reduce exposure to team work, women have to use equipment designed for men. Such equipment may be smaller for women then men, but the basic design is still one of being designed for women. My sister found this out in the 1970s when she was in the Navy. Most of the men she was working with first choice of tools were 3/8th rackets, it was the best fit to their hands. Due to her smaller hands she preferred the 1/4 (When it came to the need to use force, she and her male co-workers both opt for the 1/2 inch for it provided the power and strength needed). Another problem she ran across was she would hold heavy parts CLOSER to her then her male co-workers. Why, she ended up balancing the weight OVER her center of gravity, unlike her male co workers who wanted to offset their center of balance with the heavy item being carried (This difference meant her working uniform was always had more grease on it then the men's she was working with).

Sorry, I see the Infantry staying off limits for enlisted personnel. Officers are another issue for most do NOT work with others in the unit, but "lead" them, thus the other members of the team the officer is part of will work around the officer, more then the officer will work around them. Thus officers are NOT a concern, it is the interaction of enlisted personnel working together as a team.

Most of the objections to restrictions on membership in the infantry will disappear if you treat officers and enlisted ranks differently. Many female officers fell discriminated against because they can NOT get time serving in a Combat unit. The more time in a combat unit, the better chances of being promoted, thus female officers want to be able to serve in the combat arms (Artillery, Infantry and Armor) and appears to be the chief push to open up those arms to women. The problems I mentioned above, less team work while in grade school, less weight, uniforms not designed for women, are very minor problems for female OFFICERS. That is NOT true of enlisted ranks, thus treating enlisted and officers as different when it comes to the Combat Arms would end most of the push to get women into the Infantry.

This is conformed to a degree in the attacks on the reports saying they should be looking at individuals not averages. It quickly becomes clear the concern is officer promotion points, an individual concern, NOT women working as a member of an infantry unit, where you are more concern about the unit as a whole and how to integrate the average enlisted soldier into that unit.

The attacks are by OFFICERS who see promotion points slipping away from them because they are female, not by the women or men who will have to work as enlisted personnel in those combat units. Thus this is an officer promotion point issue not an enlisted personnel issue and the sooner the military accept that fact the sooner female officers will be assigned to Combat Units solving the problem of officer promotion points for females.

[Big_Mike]

16. HS, I beg to differ

Going point by point, based upon being a retired Infantry and Combat Engineer enlisted man:

1a: The M16 is a gas operated weapon. We haven't had recoil operated weapon since the 1903 Springfield Rifle (Long ago - 60 - 70 years) and the M1911 Pistol (the venerable .45 of the John Wayne movies) and currently uses the M92 9mm from Beretta.

The recoil of the M16 is so minimal, that Drill Sergeants, when introducing recruits to the M16 on the firing range, place the butt of the weapon against their chins and fire, and others place the weapons fully against their "package" and fire, to no ill effect. Kinda takes the wind out of your sails on that one.

1b: Every single thing about the military is teamwork. One mechanic helping another, the dental techs helping each other in setting up field dental services, cooks working together to feed 600-1500 people 3 meals daily, and the combat arms types doing their thing together. Even snipers are part of a two person sniper team. So the lack of females playing team sports coming up is immaterial: everything done in the service is part of a team effort.

1c: Whole heartedly and unabashedly agree. The gear we give women sucks horribly. It is still better than that provided by anyone else, but it is still not correct.

1d: While true of the packs issued prior to about 1985 or so, the packs since then have had belts that would transfer most of the weight from the shoulders to the hips. The shoulder straps are used just to keep the weight tight to the body, about 80 - 90 % of the weight is down at the hips. The problem comes back to 1c above on the boots, helmets, and other parts of the gear.

1e: This is possible, I suppose, but unlikely to be more than an annoyance. In my career, with over 5 years training and leading women, I never came across this one. Lack of strength and endurance. sure. But never any problem with gear that someone can overcome.

Regarding tools and such: Most military combat equipment uses nuts and bolts over 7/8" (around a 22mm). About the only things that use smaller are generators and very light wheeled vehicles. Tanks, APCs, just about anything up on the front lines has heavy bolts and nuts. The cover over the radiator on a APC has bolts 1 1/8" (28mm). There is not any 1/4" drive that can handle the kind of torque applied to those fasteners.

I am not a fan of placing women in all military jobs. Looking at the recent graduates of Ranger School, 10 women out of 400 attempting got into Ranger school. 2 women out of 10 attempting made the grade to pass the course (I stand in awe of them. They were there for over 5 months. You cannot comprehend just how difficult 3 months are. These two have my most profound respect. The problem is the other 8. Males graduate at a statistical rate of about 48% (as of 2014, the last year I can find data). That is out of a class size of 366, so about 176 made it through. The two female graduates recycled and restarted, and completed the training. But does such a low graduation rate justify spending the hundreds of thousands of dollars to find the ones willing to try out and then attend the pre-training and then Ranger School? I have grave and serious doubts. CPT Griest and 1LT Haver have my utmost respect, but in order to get bodies to fill the slots for Ranger School, they took one of Inactive Reserve Status and the other is an Aviator, who was away from flying so long that she must undergo retraining and certification before she can fly again. I think women can do many of the jobs in the military, just not all jobs.

Regarding the Officer/Enlisted breakdown: The officer MUST be able to every single task that the soldier does if that officer is to effectively LEAD. They could manage their subordinates without being able to do everything, but not lead. The NCO trains the soldiers to perform, so that in field conditions the officer has a trained, willing force to lead. They remain aloof in garrison, seen daily but not often interacted with until the enlisted reach NCO ranks and have the experience and maturity to help train the leader. The further up the rank structure, the less interaction the officer has with the soldier; however, they retain what was learned as a young officer backed up by increasing years of experience and command.

[happyslug]

19. First Officer do NOT have to known the job of the enlisted men their lead

Last edited Tue Sep 15, 2015, 11:24 PM - Edit history (1)

Fallacy of leaders must know what the people below them do

It is a fallacy that a leader has to be able to do every job of the people under them. It is well liked but has been a fallacy forever. In the days of old, you had Secretaries who knew how to type working for men who did not. In the early days of Computers, most of the input into the early computers were done by women, a job most of the men above them did not even know how to do.

When it comes to modern computers, what the nerds know about a computer it would take years for an officer to learn, thus you have situations where the officer providing the leadership has no idea of HOW to get the job done EXCEPT to provide the time, tools and training to those below him that are needed by them.

In today's military units we have something call "Medics" who help the injured and have been trained to do very extensive medical procedures (Which in prior centuries would have been the work of Doctors). These personnel are under the Command of the Officers of those units, Officer who have NOT been trained to use that medical equipment and thus NOT able to use them.

We go higher in the command structure, we have infantry generals telling Air Force pilots where to fly, the generals themselves unable to fly themselves.

When it comes to repairs of vehicles, I have seen good officers who I would NOT trust with a
wrench have command over mechanics who can get things working if the officers stay away.

My point is it a fallacy that an officer MUST know how to do the jobs of the people under them. An Officer must know that the job has to be done, but the officer does NOT need to know how to do it. Some basic functions like operating a M16 or a Machine Gun or even a Mortar should be a requirement, but the Commanding Officer need to know how to cook a meal?

Leadership is NOT doing. You do NOT need to know how to program a computer to use one. Leadership is making sure the job gets done NOT being able to do the job yourself

SECOND: RECOIL AND THE M16

When I use the term recoil I meant the recoil of firing the weapon NOT the use of the recoil to operate the mechanism of the weapon. Even the bolt action 1903 Springfield had recoil and it was a MANUALLY OPERATED WEAPON.

Even in light recoil weapon, the recoil does affect how one uses the weapon. A person's weight is a factor in how a person absorbs that recoil. The Lighter the shooter is, the more that person will feel and react to the recoil. The M16 was designed to be fired by men over 150 pounds. The 173 weight of the average male shooter and the 145 pound weight of the average female shooter shows that over 1/2 of all female shooters are lighter then the person the m16 was designed to be fired by. That by itself would explain the poorer shooting performance by women in the report. No one is saying that women could NOT shoot the M16, but that their performance was poorer. Women's lighter weight could be the reason for that difference.

I have fired the M16 in the Service and saw the demo about how little recoil it had. That is true, the M16 is a light recoil weapon, but it still has recoil. Light is NOT the same as non existent.

Team Work

My comment on team work is based on studies that show that women do more poorly when it comes to team work then do men. The classic case is asking a woman what did the 3rd basemen do when the pitcher threw the ball, the batter hit the ball to the short stop who caught the ball, threw it to the second basemen who in turn threw it to the first basemen for a double play. Women tend to report the third basemen did nothing, men say he covered the third base line. Other studies have shown this difference in perception, men see themselves as part of a team, even if they are like the third basemen not involved the the actual job done, while women tend to see themselves NOT as a member of that job for they had no direct participation in it.

This is NOT as bad as it was 40 years ago, but it still exists. It shows up in weird ways and places, often so weird that people seeing it in play often do not recognize it.

OFFICERS

I have read several papers commenting that women see the inability to serve in Combat Units as the biggest implement in their promotion within the Army. It is hard for women to get promoted in the officer ranks, when they can not get the promotion points for serving in a combat unit. This seems to be driving the desire to have women in combat units more then any desire by enlisted women to serve in such units. As I said above, being able to do what the people below you can do is NOT needed for effective leadership. Providing them the support the people below you need and knowing what they need is leadership. Knowing how to do what the people below them can do is not.

We defer to experts all the time. Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers etc. These people have the training to do their jobs, the officers over them do NOT need that training, all the training they need is to make sure the jobs are done. The the ability of a female commanding officer to lift and drop a 120mm mortar round is unimportant, as long as she makes sure the round is lifted and "dropped" by the people operating that mortar.

Pack and Equipment

When I carry extremely heavy loads, I want it on my shoulders not by back or hips. When I mean ON my shoulders I mean ON my shoulders. NOT hanging from my shoulders but ON my Shoulders. That is the most comfortable way for me to carry heavy items. Thus shifting the weight from the Shoulders to the hip does NOT provide that must help when carrying heavy loads. Thus the shift to the hips may help with loads up to 50 pounds, it is if no help on heavier loads.

As to combat loads, which ideally should be 50 pounds or less, the present pack system is superior to the earlier ALICE system. The web gear is clearly superior to the ALICE system.

On the other hand the actual packs, the improvement is marginal. The packs being issued today are technically better than the old ALICE pack but if you look at what a soldier can carry, the improvement is marginal.

Side note: The Alice Pack was a later addition to the M1956 Pack System (and stayed with the ALICE system when the M1967 system was adopted, the big change between the two was the switch from Cotton duck to Nylon and the replacement of the M1951 Entrenching tool with the M1967 Tri Fold Entrenching tool. The ALice Pack was adopted in 1959, more as a replacement for Army Mules (phased out in 1956) then anything else.

While the US army used trucks instead of mules in Europe and Korea, doctrine as late as the mid 1950s said each infantry squad should be assigned one mule to haul squad level equipment AND extra ammo. When this was no longer viewed as disable, the ALICE Pack was born, so that extra ammo, not only for the Squad's ammo but for Platoon and Company ammo (i.e. each infantryman had to carry not only is own gear and ammo, but at least one round of 81 mm Mortar rounds, up to three 60 mm mortar rounds and a can of Machine gun Ammunition for platoon and company level weapons. During WWII, except in Italy and Burma, this had been carried by trucks. In Italy, ex-italian mule skinners were hired to haul these extras (In Burma, the US actually shipped in Mules for the same purpose for they were none locally available).

Thus the ALICE Pack was more designed to replace the MULE then anything else. My Father during WWII carried his tenting and sleeping equipment is a blanket role over his left shoulder (The right Shoulder was kept in reserved for firing his rifle). The Blanket roll is an effective way to carry clothing, blankets and tentage for they all fold. You can NOT carry to much extra ammo in a blanket roll, thus the ALICE PACK was invented for that purpose more then anything else.

Women traveled with troops till 1889 using blanket rolls themselves. In 1889 Congress outlawed washer women in both a cost cutting effort and to improve rations for the troops (Congress in 1889 was willing to send men to learn to cook to a cooking schools but not women). Since Roman Times till the late 1800s, every platoon of 20 men were entitled to have one "Washer woman". Technically she was to wash the men's clothes only. The Men were to feed themselves in group of fours, but it was common practice for the washer women to be paid by the men to also cook the platoon's food (This was often done at the company level with 4 or 5 washer women working together). While it was NOT a requirement, the Platoon's Sergeant tended to be the Washer Woman's husband (I mention this for Washer Women are often confused with the term "Camp Followers", Washer Women were NOT "Camp Followers" for they lived INSIDE the camp and subject to the orders of the Commander of the Camp. The Camp Followers were OUTSIDE the Camp and outside the orders of the Commander of the Camp, an important distinction when reading about such Washer Women).

I bring up Washer Women before 1889 women did march with men and rode with men in horse mounted units. They were often segregated away from the men, but only when in came to combat (and even in such situation they were close, during the revolution you have the story of a Washer Woman hauling water to the gun crew her husband was a member of, when her husband was knocked out, she took his place loading the cannon, received a medal from George Washington for it).

More on Molly Pitcher (Please note the Wikipedia cite repeats the error of calling her a "Camp Follower&quot :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molly_Pitcher

Thus Women in Combat units are possible, but lets remember both the strengths and weakness of BOTH sexes when deciding on who can serve in what unit.

[treestar]

27. Yes very good

The military wants these results,and they make sure they get them. By this century, there should be boots, etc., designed for women so they can do their best.

[happyslug]

33. Boots are the most important factor

The South American Guerrilla leader Ernesto "Che" Guevara once said the single most important piece of Guerrilla equipment was a good pair of boots. When I went through basic it was known that men's boots were NOT idea for women (thus the inserts) and the drill sergeants all wanted boots made for women, but all they ended up with were the inserts.

American combat boots are NOT the "best" book one can buy, it is just the best compromise between price, endurance, and ease of walking one can get. Thus the failure to design a women's combat boot has had huge effect on the "goodness" of women's outdoor footwear (i.e. on a one to one basis, men's boots tend to be better then women's boots, while dress shoes and "Tennis Shoes"/"Athletic Shoes" tend to be about the same).

On the other hand HOW the test was done sounded like the Marines wanted to see what the problems would be in such integrated units. These were NOT Male Marines who had previous combat training mixed with females with behind the line Military training, but both males and females were picked for their lack of previous combat training. It was a serious effort to see how such integration would work (and the problems such integration will create). The results reflect what I would expect, women had less opportunity to play as a member of a team (Thus needing and taking more time to learn to act as a member of a team), the boots they are wearing are for men not women (Thus creating increase injuries to women) and since most women weigh less then the 150 pounds the M16 was designed for, while most men were over that weight, women did poorer shooting.

The test did NOT reflect the three strong points of women over men, 1. Smaller fingers and hands and thus able to do tighter threads and other fine work, 2. Women have higher endurance rates, women, give the same training as a man, will easily out walk men, 3, Women's higher pain level, due to the once every 28 day pain training period.

The problem is these three strengths are not a major factor when it comes to combat roles. Support roles, but not combat roles. On the other hand I am for training units for fighting with a lot less fuel then we are using today, which would require something called marching into combat, something women can do better then men,

Side note: Desert Storm is the first War where one side did not march any troops into combat. All of the allied forced RODE into combat. Even in Vietnam, US units MARCHED into combat. The Russians marched men into Combat in Afghanistan. Today a US Army Division of around 15,000 men use as much fuel as a WWII Army Corp of 100,000 men. In a major war the US may NOT be able to get that fuel and out military should be trained in such a situation. During WWII after the defeat of the German Russian Offensive of 1941, the German Army told its Infantry Division they had to use only 10% of pre war usage of fuel (Not 10% of what they used to take Poland in 1939, France in 1940 or even the Russian offensive of 1941, 10% of pre war training usage). Thus you saw the increase use of Mules, Horses and bicycles in combat units (and increase dependence on rail transportation). In addition German troops were expected to MARCH into combat. This was to save fuel for the U-boats, Air Force and Armor forces, forces that had no other alternative then oil. In such situations women's greater endurance comes into play, but that strength in minimized in units designed to be carried into combat in armored vehicles. Just a comment about fuel, women and non- armor combat.

[madokie]

9. Once when I was young

visiting my Grand mother and my brother and I were out playing in the snow and seen a rabbit in her yard and so we go in and tell Gramma that there's a rabbit out back. She told us to stay behind her as she picked up her 22 single shot riffle and when she stepped around the corner of the house she hit that rabbit right in the head, From the hip. My brother and I were amazed at the accuracy that Gramma possessed. She said she wanted fried rabbit for supper and by golly she had fried rabbit for supper. After that we would challenge her with our bb guns and from the hip she was spot on where my brother and I would sometimes miss the whole damn target.
You see back when I was a kid, early '50s, rabbits were a delicacy. By the time I was in 1st grade I could skin a rabbit and have it ready for the frying pan before you could count to 20. Squirrels too. I eat neither anymore and haven't in a long long time. Squirrels up to mating season in the fall and rabbits after the first hard freeze in the winter.

[gregcrawford]

10. How large was the test group?

Was this assessment arrived at through stringent testing standards, or is it just anecdotal?

I know my way around firearms, and I've known more than a few Annie Oakleys who could snap-shoot the seeds out of a grape off-hand. Shoulder-fired grenade and missile launchers are usually assigned to troops big enough to handle their considerable recoil. Not to do so is asinine, and a waste of ordnance. My stepson was a Marine (Opening Day in the Iraq War was his birthday, and the first casualty was his CO) and he had a hard time with those suckers. He's a muscular 5' 7".

[Xithras]

12. 300 men, 100 women.

The problem with this discussion is that the Marines aren't talking about sharpshooters or Annie Oakleys. In our all volunteer military, the physical fitness of the average recruit is the same as the physical fitness of the average citizen in that age group. The Marines aren't saying that women CANNOT match the performance of men, but that the performance and strength of the AVERAGE female soldier is lower than that of the AVERAGE male soldier.

[Yo_Mama]

54. Way lower. It's not subtle.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/280017557/Marine-Corps-gender-integration-research-executive-summary

In actual combat, the performance over time of females would be much worse than this.

[happyslug]

56. Over time the performance of women could also improve

One of the "Strengths" of women is a higher level of endurance. i.e. given the same level of training, most women can out walk most men (On a personal note, I had a Sister, who as a Navy WAVE, ended up out walking a Marine who decided to go with her to town and the only way to get to the local town was by walking about 10 to 15 miles).

Thus given training I can see women improving in many aspects, through giving women boots designed for women as oppose to an insert into a boot made for men would help a lot.

[Yo_Mama]

57. Women are customized for endurance, not power.

The higher physical stress levels of the women who graduated the infantry training seem to have accounted for the lower hit rates; the women would accumulate stress and injuries over time in action, relative to males.

A 40% injury rate is bad news.

One third of the women who entered the infantry training course graduated, as opposed to 99% of males. This was a remarkably fit group of females, too.

Boots won't beat physiology.

[1939]

26. We always had the joke

That the smallest man in the squad always got to carry the BAR.

The M1903 Springfield had the worst kick.

The M1 Garand and the M14 had a part of their recoil force taken up by the gas operation.

When we went to the KD range (100, 200, 300, and 500 yards) to fire the M1, we always tucked our towel under our fatigue jackets to cushion the recoil force and to prevent bruising.

With the old M1 carbine, there was little if any recoil force and it was a joy to shoot on the range.

[happyslug]

35. My Father always talked about firing M1 30'06 rounds....

The M1 ROUND (as opposed to the M1 Rifle) was developed in 1924 so that Machine Guns could have an effective range of 6000 yards. The previous M1906 round (where the term 30'06 comes from), fired a 150 grain bullet, but its effective machine gun range was only 3000 yards.

My father always talked about the M1 rounds he fired in his issued 1903 Springfield and how much recoil it had. The recoil of the M1 Round was so bad, the M1 Rifle could NOT handle it, thus for use in the M1 Rifle, the M2 round was invented. The M2 round was the M1906 round reinvented. The recoil in the Springfield was noticeably less (and the range in Machine guns were less, i.e back to the 3000 yards range of the M1906 round). Only once all of the old M1 Rounds were gone were his unit issued M1 Rifles and sent them off to England...

The M1 round fired a boat tailed 174 grain bullet. The M2 round fired a 150 grain bullet.

While adopted in 1936, actual production did not start till 1940 and then only replaced Springfields in the REGULAR Army IN THE US by the end of 1941 (Some M1 Rifles made it to the Philippines when the Japanese invaded in December 1941, but most troops in the Philippines still had only M1903 Springfields NOT the newer M1 Rifle). As National Guard and other units were mobilized in 1941 and 1942, only on mobilization were they given M1 Rifles (There is an unconfirmed story that a mid-western National Guard Unit still had single shot 1873 Springfields in 1941),

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Garand#Development

From what my Father, who was a National Guardsmen called up for duty in 1941, told me, the M1 rounds had to be used up before the M1 Rifle was issued. Thus he went to the range and fired a lot of M1 Rounds in his Springfield before all of M1 rounds were used up and he was given M2 Rounds to fire in his Springfield till the M1 Rifle was issued to him.

Side note: The M 1903 .30 caliber round: The 1903 Springfield was originally designed to fire the M1903 round, but that round was replaced in 1906 when the US discovered that the Germans had developed a "Spitzer" bullet that retained my energy down range then did the M1903 round. The M1903 Round was a round nose 220 grain bullet. It is noted for not surviving long in US Army use, replaced within three years.

WWII doctrine said each squad was to have 10 M1 rifles, one Springfield and one BAR. The Springfield was kept for it was easier to fire a rifle grenade in the Springfield then the M1 rifle. In Korea, this was changed to Two BARs in each squad (which many units had done on their own toward the end of WWII). Springfields, technically, stayed part of the Infantry Squad till the M1 was replaced by the M14, but from what I have read, while that was doctrine, most units did not have any Springfields after WWII (Springfields were kept as sniper rifles, with some sniper versions surviving into Vietnam).

Just a comment on the Springfield and the recoil it produced. Remember the 1903 Springfield had a nominal weight of 8.7 pounds, The M1 weight 9.5 pounds and most of the difference in felt recoil is due to the extra weight of the M1 over the Springfield.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Garand#Development

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1903_Springfield

[oneshooter]

36. Many prefered using the M2AP round, because it was more accurate, and penetrated trees better. n/t

[happyslug]

37. That round is why the US decided NOT to attack the Red Army in 1945

There was a push within the officer ranks of the US Army to attack the Red Army in 1945. Patton was the lead man, but there were others. The problem was supply. A typical rifle barrel lasts about 20,000 rounds. Combat load of a WWII soldier was 13 eight (8) round clips (104 rounds). If he fired that amount of ammunition starting on June 6, 1944, he would need a new barrel in 192 days. Now most soldiers did not fire their M1 rifles every day, but when they did they often fired more then 104 rounds. From June 6 to May 7, 1945 it is one month less then a year. i.e 365 less 31 days or 331 days. While troops did land on D-day, most troops came later, and those troops that did hit the beaches and fought in Normandy, tended to be withdrawn from heavy fighting as time went on (due to how the US replaced troops in WWII, unit cohesion slowly declined as you get more and more squads made up of people who had never trained together, thus the German reports that US divisions were all declining in fighting ability as time went on, more so then British, Russian and German Divisions).

Anyway, but the time VE day hit, the US Army had been giving its troops AP (Armor piecing) rounds instill of ball ammunition. AP rounds had one huge downside, they wear out barrels FASTER then other types of ammo. Between the level of Combat and the use of AP ammo by May 1945 almost all of the M1s in the European Theater of Operations needed to be rebarreled (Some cooks MAY have had an M1 Rifle that did not need a new barrel, but most cooks were given M1 Carbines instead, we barely had enough M1 rifle for the Infantry).

The Russians had opt to stay with their bolt action rifle, do to the need to rebarrel them every 20,000 rounds or so (Prior to the War Russia had decided to adopt a semi-automatic rifle, but then due to the pressure of the war decided to abandoned them and stay with they existing bolt action rifles and sub machine guns). Please note, that while not done as often as it had been done in WWI, it was a Russian Practice of sending in units without arms, they were to pick up arms from fallen comrades and use them. Used extensively during WWI by the Czar, Stalin did the same in WWII.

The Russians also embraced the use of sub machine guns, and made them by the millions. Up to 1/3 of all weapons in use by the Soviet Red Army in 1945 were sub machine guns (Rifles were still used for targets over 100 meters, but the Soviet Sub machine, firing 7.62x25 ammo had longer range then the 9mm and 45 ACP submachines used by the Western Allies, effective to about 150 yards as oppose to the Sten, M3 Grease gun and Thompson's range of about 100 yards). Russia had better armor and had support from local communists in Italy, France and even Germany.

Russian Artillery was geared for the flat terrain of Poland and the Steppes of Russia, more direct fire then indirect fire. US and British Artillery were geared to the Western Front of WWI, mostly indirect fire. Thus US and British Artillery were better when it came to Germany and France, the Russian Artillery Tactics were better in the flat terrain of Poland and Russia. Thus both side Artillery declined in effectiveness as you cross into and out of Eastern Germany.

Now, the US had overwhelming air and naval superiority (Thus Stalin told the communists in Yugoslavia and Bulgaria to stop supporting the Communists in Greece in 1945, Paraphrase Stalin "To take Greece, you need a Fleet, and we do not have one".) but had a much weaker land army and destroy port/supply system (The US ended up starving to death 2000 German POWS during the winter of 1945 to 1946, for we did NOT have enough food to feed them, that is how tight the supply lines were by 1945, producing food and shipping food to Europe was NOT the problem, getting it off the ships on docks that needed to be rebuilt and onto the trains that needed to be rebuilt and into the trucks that were few and far between was the problem). Thus the need to take all of the M1s Rifles and have them re-barreled due to the troops firing AP rounds along with the above supply problems meant we had to accept what Russia had.

The Russians made extensive use of Horse drawn wagons during WWII, as did the Germans. Due to the German use of horses, many had been killed during the war (not for food, but do to being over used to haul supplies). Mules were even more needed. The US had NOT exported any Mules to Europe during WWII, buying them or just confiscating them when needed (Mules were used extensively in Italy for example) but this lead to a shortage of horses and mules, the leading alternative to trucks in the immediate post war era. In the post war era and part of the Marshall Plan, extensive exports of Mules to Italy, Greece and Turkey was part of the effort to defeat the Communists in those areas.

The US supply problem included fuel into Europe, thus most planes still flew out of England to the US and from England could reach Russian Lines in East Germany but except for the B-29 (which were in the Pacific) could not even reach Poland. Furthermore Russia had something the German Air Force of the later years of WWII did not have, fuel. Thus you would have seen massive air attacks on the B-17s and B-24s if they had to cover US forces in Germany in a Russian attack.

In simple terms, between the need to rearm the US Army infantry forces, the limitations on supply to that army (and to the Air Force that supported that Army) meant the US Army could not drive into Eastern Europe. The Need to replace most of the M1 rifles was an additional problem.

On the other hand, if Russia had moved into Western Europe, then the Air Power in England and the Naval Power usable on the North Sea would have been factors the Red Army could not defeat. Thus any Soviet movement beyond East Germany was also doomed to defeat.

The one question was that through the lack of effective weapons by US infantrymen, i.e. the need to have their M1 rifles Re-Barrelled may have made the US Troops something easy for the Russians to attack Remember the German reports on how fast US Divisions fighting capacity was declining in 1945 has to be remembered and the growing supply problems by 1945. It would have been a gamble on the part of Stalin (and he rarely gambled) but given the supply situation and the need for new weapons, due to US troops shooting out their M1 rifles using AP ammo, made such a defeat possible, much more possible then a successful US attack on Russia (That the Russians had spies in the highest parts of British intelligence, thus the Russians knew before many Americans Commanders knew of the plans made by the US and British forces in case of a war with Russia).

Replacement on the line was considered bad in WWII, but the US did it again in Korea and Vietnam. Many of the problems the US had in Vietnam was tied in with replacements on the line and how that killed unit cohesion and lead to a rapid decline in US Troops fighting ability after 1970 but that is getting away from the M1 Rifle and M1 round.

Now, by 1948 the supply problems had been addressed, the ports rebuilt, the railroads rebuilt and the roads rebuilt but the US Army of WWII had mostly gone home (as had most of the Soviet Army, both sides could only maintain such large armies for a limited time period). Thus the Cold War set in and froze along the Iron Curtain till the early 1990s. Patton was also dead and the situation in Europe had changed, the US no longer had the ability to even think it could push the Russians out of Germany and Poland (Nuke Russia, but not drive them out of Germany or Poland).

Just a comment that the M2 AP round may have been the reason peace broke out in May 1945. There were enough people in the right places to start another war. Patton would have dismissed the problems of supply (he had that tendency) but NOT the need to have new rifles. Thus that issue would have convinced him that going to war with Stalin was a bad idea in May 1945, and that is because of the extensive use of M2 AP rounds in the months after January 1945 as Germany fell.

[oneshooter]

41. Don't overlook the continuing war in the Pacific.

By may of 1945 troops were already being moved from Europe back to the states to be retrained for the Pacific War and the Invasion of Japan.
Russia was also moving troops to the Asiatic theater in preparation foe war with Japan.

[happyslug]

43. And the Japanese were counting on the Russians

By January 1945 it was clear Japan had lost the war, with Germany out Japan would be next. Japan had started to pull its better troops out of Manchuria and back to the mainland in anticipation of this. Japan's plan was simple, when Stalin issued an ultimatum to turn Manchuria over to him, Japan would agree and ask Stalin to ask the US NOT to invade the Home Islands. That was the Japanese plan.

Now, the Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima was a shock, but one the Japanese quickly recovered from for they had been hit by massive bombing ny B-29s since 1944. The bigger shock was when Stalin gave the Japanese a declaration of war, no ultimatum, Stalin just sent in troops. The Japanese were NOT prepared for that, it upset they plans for 1945. Thus it was a bigger shock then the Atomic Bombings. The Speed of the Invasion also shocked them, The Russians were taking more territory in their invasion of Manchuria then the Russia army had ever tried against the Germans. All of Manchuria would be in Russia hands by the end of August 1945, and the Russians were also geared to take Korea in early September. The Japanese knew within days they had no way to stop the Russians. In fact US troops did they first landing in Inchon in Korea in the end of August 1945 (Even before US Forces moved into Japan for the Occupation of Japan) so US Forces could take Seoul before the Russian could, and thus divide Korea between US and Russian forces. That is how fast the Russians were moving in August 1945.

It has been taught in the US and Japan that the reason Japan surrendered was the Atomic bombings. Historians who have looked at the Writing done at the time shows that the invasion by the Russians were the bigger factor. The Atomic Bombing helped explained why five Japanese Cities had NOT been touched by B-29 bombings prior to August 1945, two of those cities had been nuked, thus it was easy to conclude what these cities were being "reserved" for. Thus the leadership did adjust for more Atomic bombs but had a greater fear of the Russians then the Atomic Bombing.

Those papers indicate that the US mining of harbours and food shortages in Japan was setting Japan up for a Communist revolt. The Japanese Communist party had been the largest party NOT destroyed by (or part of the) the right wing rulers of Japan in the 1930s. Thus Russian forces in Korea meant the possibility of a Russian invasion supported by a Communist revolution in Japan. The Japanese knew how the Communists had helped the Americans in Italy from 1943 to 1945, thus the rulers thought the Communists will do the same for any American Invasion force, in addition to support for any Russian Invasion.

Yes, Japan was looking at full blown revolution, a revolution the ruling class of Japan did not what but given the losses in the war, no longer had the means to suppress such a revolution (The Japanese army had something like 60 rounds of ammunition for each of its soldiers in the Summer of 1945, remember the basic load of an American soldier was 104 rounds and each US soldier was supported by thousands of other rounds, thus those 60 rounds per soldier tells you how bad Japan was in 1945). Thus the Russian intervention and the success of the Russian invasion was what forced Japan to Surrender on August 15, 1945.

Side note: While the records show the Bombing of Hiroshima was a shock, the Bombing of Nagasaki was not. The Japanese leadership had recovered from Hiroshima and had to deal with the Russian Invasion, thus dismissed Nagasaki as a typical B-29 bombing. i.e. that second bombing had no affect on the Japanese plans.

Please not, since WWII, many of the leaders of Japan cited the Atomic Bombing as the reason for the surrender, but that position is NOT supported by documents of the time period. i.e. the leaders LIED after the war for the Atomic Bombing had to be the sole reason for the Surrender of Japan. That position also satisfied American Politicians for they wanted to minimized the role of Russia in the defeat of Japan and Germany (and the Japanese Politicians wanted to appease the Americans, so that became the unofficial dogma in both countries).

Japan would have a serious problems with its Communists till the Nissan Steel Strike of 1954. That strike by a communist supported, but independent union was used by Nissan to destroy that union and the whole concept of independent unions in Japan. Japan is known to have company unions, unions whose leadership think nothing of switching between the union and management as they go up the corporate ladder. Such unions are illegal in the US, so Japanese Companies in the US just makes sure they plants in the US have no union. I mention the Nissan Steel Strike for it was the last hope of independent unions in Japan but also so how strong such unions and the Communist allies were in the 1940s and 1950s.


You will find little on the net about the Nissan Steel Strike, for it destroyed independent unions in Japan, something Japanese leaders like, but keep quite about:

http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1983/10/nissan.html

https://books.google.com/books?id=TDZM4Xp9JN8C&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=1954+Nissan+Steel+Strike&source=bl&ots=gq5y-iMFlu&sig=hkxjoMRjhuEGZKgXVGVs-4z2z2g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAWoVChMI0JaRzpX5xwIVB_I-Ch1csw-F#v=onepage&q=1954%20Nissan%20Steel%20Strike&f=false

Thus the Japanese leadership had FEARS in August 1945 that they were looking at full scale revolution, thus they quick surrender.

[oneshooter]

44. Even at that time the military did not want the surrender.

Thus was the attempt to hide the Emperor and continue the war.

[happyslug]

47. Thus the fear of a Communist Revolution was the driving force behind the surrender

Thus my comment about the Nissan Steel Strike of 1954, it was an attack on the left wing independent unions of Japan under the disguise of fighting communism.

In the Summer of 1945 Japan was in a tough situation. Surrender to the US or leave the Russians take Japan. The Japanese leadership was hoping for a US-USSR war in Europe so they could get the three things they needed to defend Japan, 1 Modern planes, the Russian Yaks were as good as anything the West had, 2, Pilots, Russian Pilots were as good as any in the world at that time period, 3. Fuel for those planes, something Russia had and Japan did not.

As I said the US-USSR was more a hope by the Japanese leadership then an actual plan. The actual plan was an ultimatum from Stalin, then a surrender to Manchuria to Russia, maybe even Korea and Stalin convincing the US NOT to go invade the Japanese Home Islands. Neither option was realistic but it is typical of right wing fanatics and that is who was ruling Japan in 1945.

Since the end of the Cold War, the Russian have released some of their plans for WWII, including their plan invasion of the Northern Most Japanese main island set for November 1, 1945, the same date as the US invasion of the Southern Most Main island. Given Russia had regains all of Sakhalin island, it would have been a simple trip and that most northern most island was badly defended in 1945 (Most Japanese forces were on the Southern Islands to defend against a US attack). US plans included an invasion of the Main Island south of Tokyo on March 1, 1946. Thus the Russians could have invaded the Main Island first for Japan was looking at US invasion forces not Russian Invasion Forces.

Such an invasion was what Japan feared the most and given the situation, Japan could not expect to defeat the Russians even if the Russians landed troops BEFORE the Americans did. Thus the fear of a Russian Invasion supported by a Communist revolt (which had happened in Romania in August 1944, Stalin said it saved six months off the war).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_occupation_of_Romania

Thus Japan was looking into ways to avoid being Romania, and they had an option Romansia did not have, the US Fleet, thus they surrendered.

[1939]

46. Springfields in WWII

Many service and engineer units trained with Springfields and were issued and qualified with M1 just before going overseas. The marines had quite a few Springfields on Guadalcanal. The Springfield stayed in the rifle squad until a rifle grenade launcher adapter was developed for the M1. After that, the Springfield stayed in the rifle platoon in its sniper version until the M1C sniper rifle was fielded.

When I went in the army in 1961, the rifle squad had eleven men with two BAR. The BAR (and the M1) were phased out as the M14 came in. Twice i got caught in a transition. In 1963, our Ordnance battalion had just finished annual qualification with our M1 carbines when we were told to turn them in and draw M14. Back out to the PRI circle and the whole rigamarole for annual qualification. In 1967, I was in an Engineer battalion completely qualified for shipment to Vietnam. One month before we went, we turned in our M14 and drew M16 with the entire qualification process to be done in a short period of time.

[oneshooter]

49. Untill 1943 the Marines drew their arms from US Army Depots

The Army fought issuing Garands to the Marines as long as they could. When the Army finally made it to the 'Canal in late 43 they had to keep their Garands under full time security. If you left leaning against a tree and got chow, there was a 1903 there when you returned.

[1939]

51. The Army was very short of M1 into 1943.

In December 1943, Camp Sibert, AR had 40 M1 to familiarize 70+ companies on post. The companies trained with M1903 and then had to do a quick re-qualification at the port of embarkation with newly issued M1 carbines and M1 rifles.

First Army unit to reach Guadalcanal was in late 42, not late 43. 164th Infantry Regiment (North Dakota National Guard) landed on Guadalcanal on 13 Oct 1942 and went into action immediately. 182nd Infantry Regiment (Massachusetts National Guard) landed on 12 Nov 42. 132nd Infantry Regiment (Illinois National Guard) and Americal Div HQ landed on 8 Dec 42. 25th Infantry Division (from Hawaii) landed on Guadalcanal 23 Dec 42. By late 1943, the US already had troops on Bougainville, Arawe, Saidor, and Cape Gloucester. The last live Japs were off of Guadalcanal by Feb 43.

[happyslug]

52. The line I read was the Marines had REJECTED the M1 as not reliable enough.

You must remember, no semi-automatic or automatic rifle is as reliable as a bolt action rifle. Thus in any test of reliability the bolt action will win hands down. This is why the French adopted a new bolt action rifle in 1936, the same year the US adopted the M1.

The French Bolt action of 1936 is considered one of the best bolt action rifles ever designed, it was a Model 1898 Mauser Action but designed to lock in the rear of the bolt like the British SMLE. Thus you had a bolt action that could take any round up to 50 caliber machine gun rounds (the 1898 Mauser Action), but with the speed of the SMLE (Which locked to the bolt's rear NOT to the bolt's front which is where the 1898 Mauser locked).

The British SMLE had its locking point at the rear of the bolt. An operator of the bolt only had to clear the round in the magazine NOT the Round and the Bolt head as in German made Model 1898 Mausers. Thus the British SMLE action and the French MAS 1936 could, in theory, fire 20 rounds per minute, while the Mauser 98 and 1903 Springfield could only fire 14 rounds per minute (The M1 could, in theory do 30, the M16 and AK-47 are claimed to be able to do 40 in the semi-automatic mode).

Thus, from what I have read the Marines refused to adopt the M1 NOT because the Army told them the Marines could not have them, but the Marines did not considered them reliable enough in combat (Something shared with the British and French Armies of WWII and to a degree the German Army of WWII).

To the Marines the Two and Half increase in firepower of the M1 over the Model 1903 did not compensate for the loss of reliability. The British rejected the M1 for the same reason in the early days of WWII and had to change their weapons testing procedure (to permit more misfires and misloads) in the 1960s so that they could adopt the FAL to replace the No 4 rifle (As the SMLE was called post 1930s in the UK).

The Marines, till Guadalcanal dismissed the M1 as to unreliable. When it was clear that the increased firepower of the M1 over the M1903 more than compensated for any lack in reliability, then and only then did the Marines embrace the M1 (And the Marines embraced the M1 big time afterward).

Side note: The only time where I read that the M1 was out matched in combat was during the Korean War during night time attacks by the Chinese Liberation Army (PLA) equipped with ex Soviet PPShs. In the night time attacks favored by the PLA in Korea, the PPSh showed what it could do:

while lacking the accuracy of the U.S. M1 Garand and M1 carbine, it provided more firepower at short distances. As infantry Captain (later General) Hal Moore, stated: "on full automatic it sprayed a lot of bullets and most of the killing in Korea was done at very close ranges and it was done quickly – a matter of who responded faster. In situations like that it outclassed and outgunned what we had. A close-in patrol fight was over very quickly and usually we lost because of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PPSh-41

Please note, in other combat in Korea the M1 showed it was still the best all around rifle but like any all around rifle, in some battle situation it is inferior to other weapons (and the Chinese People's Liberation Army knew the Strengths and weaknesses of the M1 and the Strength and weaknesses of he PPSh and choose combat that favored the PPSh, thus a lot of night attacks.

In Vietnam the M1 was used by the South Vietnamese Troops in the late 1950s and into the 1960s. The South Vietnamese Army reported that the Soviet SKS, then coming into the hands of the Viet Cong by 1959, had equaled if not surpassed the M1 (A smaller round made it possible for the smaller soldiers of the Viet Cong to shoot more then ARVN troops armed with M1 Rifles) . Thus in 1959 the US shipped the first batch of AR-15s to Vietnam to give the South Vietnamese Troops increase fire power over the SKS and later AK-47s. Thus by the 1960s the M1 rifle was seeing its last days as the best rifle in the world. In the US it was replaced by the M14 in 1957 and the M16 in 1964 (both just the start date of the replacement of the M1, in 1970 the National Guard troops at Kent State still had only M1 Rifles).

Just a comment on the M1 and why the Marines were late to adopt it.

[oneshooter]

58. Marines did love their Springfields.

The battles on Guadalcanal, with the mass attacks on small area of the MLD by the Japanese did a lot to convince
the Marines to adopt the M1.
The close quarters of these attacks, at night, went a long way toward making the M1 the rifle it became.

Early M1's did have a reliability problem, as does any new weapons system.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

11. I would be really ticked if my son was in the military

with women who couldn't carry him across the field if injured.

My neighbor's helicopter pilot son says a significant percentage of women couldn't even load their gears onto the helicopter. Thankfully, they weren't in direct combat units.

More power to the women who can do the job, but let's face it - the elite of the elite women are not going to be comparable to the elite of the elite men, but there are still plenty of places where women can excel in the armed forces.

[happyslug]

38. I have heard that attack on women when it comes to Police work

i.e. they can NOT carry a comrade out of danger if needed.

First, if someone is hit, it generally takes two people to pull him or her out of the situation. IT is hard for a man, in a combat situation, to haul such a person. More possible for a man then a woman but still rare. Remember the person during the hauling has to make sure he or she is also not hit. You just can not stand up and use all of your strength to pull someone out of the situation. You stand up, you get hit (the enemy is not going to leave such a target un-hit). thus you have to crawl to the person and drag him or her and that is generally a two person job.

If someone is hit and you are the only person who can pull him or her out of the way, the better option to is cover the person with firepower from your rifle till the other side leaves or you have to leave. Given most US fighting today is a 20 minute wait for the Attack planes to show up, it will be the enemy that leaves.

In police work, in a firefight, you have a similar scenario in place, it is better to provide cover fire till the "bad guys" leave and they will want to, for they know more police are coming (There are exceptions, but you do NOT make plans on exceptions but on what is the norm in such situations).

As to gear into the Helicopter, what is being taken? Most women in the Services today are doing support work, thus their gear is NOT their gear but includes things she needs to do her job, which can be anything from mechanical tools to nursing equipment to a computer. Depending on the equipment she is hauling, a man may need help putting it on the helicopter. Thus unless we knows what jobs she was doing, the fact she needed help with her gear means nothing. It may be assigned to her, and thus goes with her, but it is be the benefit of the larger unit. I can see a woman doing a support role having to haul 50 pounds of extra equipment so she can do her job, 50 pounds of equipment a man may have had to have help to load on a helicopter.

Given she was with a support Unit, the extra weight may just be that extra equipment to do her job in support of the combat units. I do not think your son looked into each pack being carried to see what was in them, thus we do not know why those women could not load their equipment, but having to much because it is tied with her job in the Military may be the reason.

[caraher]

13. Also noteworthy - they did not come to the exercise with equal levels of training

It was a poor experiment as all the women were coming to it from non-combat jobs, while many (most?) of the men had substantial prior experience in combat roles. They did not control for a very important variable!

[ripcord]

14. I don't know why they had to spend money on a study, I found out men had better aim years ago

I played darts semi professionally years ago and we had a number of conversations about this and came to the conclusion that in general men have better aim probably because nature gifted them with that ability to help with their hunting mammoths. But of course there are exceptions and even the women who weren't exceptional were more than simply competent with practice.

[Lychee2]

23. I wonder why this is.

Women are generally better than men at high-dexterity tasks, which would seem to help in squeezing the trigger. Their eye-hand coordination is also better, which would seem to help with aiming. What else is missing?

[ProfessorGAC]

31. Women Are Awfully Good A Pool

That's strictly hand-eye coordination. There is no difference in strength that matters, except MAYBE on the break where a stronger person could get more velocity. Everything else is seeing angles, position and touch.

So, i find it odd too that women aren't as good as men in something like darts.

[happyslug]

39. I would have agreed with you in the 1970s, but now I am less sure

The main reason for the change was a set of autopsy on London Cabbies done about 20 years ago. The Cabbies all agreed to be autopsy before they died of natural causes. One of the results of those Autopsy was that the cabbies had an extra large size part of their brain that is believe to be tied in with direction. This supports the observation that your BRAIN will develop in ways that benefit you. If you need a better sense of direction, your brain will put more brain cells in that part of your brain for you are using it more. If you do not need a sense of direction, then that part of the brain is NOT developed.

This would explain men's superiority in direction. Men are NOT naturally superior in a sense of direction, but given women tend to follow our leads (look at most couples when they are in a car, it is the MAN that is driving), women do not develop that part of their brain that involved direction. As young girls they follow their parents or brothers, as young women they tend to leave their dates, and later their mates to drive and decide where to go.

Thus men playing better darts then women may go back to playing baseball as a child. Boys tend to play more baseball or simple throwing the ball at each other then do girls. Thus boys developed that part of the brain tied in with throwing and catching accurately, while girls do not for they play less such games. Thus men may be better at darts for the simple reason they developed the part of the brain that goes to accurate throwing when they were boys, while women did other activity as a young girl.

Hand and eye coordination is different. It is the use of a tool to do something. That could be using a paddle to make cake, or a bat to hit a ball. Either effort would improve that part of the brain tied in with hand and eye coordination. Chasing younger siblings could also be part of that brain development (i.e. figuring out where the kid will be not where the kid is right now when you are chasing him or her). Just a comment that hand and eye coordination would be some other part of the brain being developed as a young child, and playing at cooking thus playing at using a tool, would help someone's ability to use any tool, even a pool que.

Just a comment that it may be "Training" as a young child that is the key and the resulting change in the brain that may explain the differences more then the ancient need to hunt.

[Demonaut]

15. so the study found men are,in general,heavier and stronger than women and in combat thats a big deal

And to allow women to serve equally as men degrades the combat effectiveness of that unit.

one poster said that the women did not have the training as their male peers but the study looked at men who also did not receive
combat training and they still out performed the women...

" The research also found that male Marines who have not received infantry training were still more accurate using firearms than women who have. And in removing wounded troops from the battlefield, there “were notable differences in execution times between all-male and gender-integrated groups,” with the exception being when a single person—”most often a male Marine” — carried someone away, the study found."

one also noted that it was brought up that women need a heavier weapon to achieve accuracy but who's going to have to carry that heavier weapon in combat..all day?
weight loads are a big issue for infantry.

[GOLGO 13]

18. Combat is a long, grueling, miserable occupation & that's just the physical aspect.

If you can't even swing your own pack properly, how are you going to help your fellow Marines when they really need help?

Unfortunately, we are going to have to see real live "consequences" of mixed units in actual combat to finally put an end to this insistence once & for all. There's a place for them in combat but other than the front.

*** I certainly think women should be trained/ready to fight in units for when the war comes to them or SHTF scenarios. It's always a good thing to know how to fire a SMAW or load/fire artillery. May not be economically feasible though.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

20. Navy secretary criticizes controversial Marine Corps gender integration study

Navy secretary criticizes controversial Marine Corps gender integration study

Checkpoint

By Dan Lamothe September 11 at 12:27 PM

The Navy secretary took issue with the Marine Corps’ controversial gender integration study released Thursday, saying that he questioned some of its findings and still believes the military would be best with all jobs open to women.

In an interview with NPR, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus commented on the study, which found that combat units integrated with female Marines typically did not move as quickly or shoot as accurately, and that women were more than twice as likely to suffer injuries.

{Marine experiment finds women get injured more frequently, shoot less accurately than men}

The study tracked about 300 male Marines and 100 female Marines through nine months of rigorous combat activities at Twentynine Palm, Calif., and Camp Lejeune, N.C., including long marches carrying heavy loads and live-fire exercises with a variety of weapons. Women were inserted into some squads of Marines for 24 to 36 hours, with the units all compared.

Mabus, who oversees both the Navy and the Marine Corps, seemed to take issue with the study’s focus on the average female Marine, rather than high performers who may be able to stand up to the rigors of life in the infantry or another combat unit. That point also has been made by others advocating full integration of the military.

[hack89]

21. If you have to handpick "high performers" to be able compete with average male Marines

then it begs the question just how big a pool of such women exists and how many of them want to be Marine infantry men.

[XemaSab]

22. There are a thousand military jobs that women can do

and a few they can't.

That's how life works sometimes.

[4139]

30. Women, injuries and Q-angle....

Women are more prone to several sports injuries than men based simply on biomechanical differences. One such difference is a wider pelvis in women then men. Many sports medicine experts have linked a wider pelvis to a larger "Q" (Quadriceps ) Angle - the angle at which the femur (upper leg bone) meets the tibia (lower leg bone).
It is measured by creating two intersecting lines: one from the center of the patella to the anterior-superior iliac spine of the pelvis; the other from the patellar to the tibial tubercle.

On average this angle is degrees greater in women than in men. It is thought that this increased angle places more stress on the knee joint, as well as leading to increased foot pronation in women. While there may be other factors that lead to increase risk of injury in women athletes (strength, skill, hormones, etc..), an increased Q-angle has been linked to:

Patellofemoral pain syndrome
A high Q-angle causes the quadriceps to pull on the patella and leads to poor patellar tracking. Over time, this may cause knee pain, muscle imbalance


Chondromalacia of the Knee
This wearing down of the cartilage on the underside of the patella leads to degeneration of the articular surfaces of the knee.

ACL injuries
Women have considerably higher rates of ACL injuries men. An increased Q-angle appears to be one factor that causes the knee to be less stable and under more stress.
http://sportsmedicine.about.com/od/women/a/Q_angle.htm

Alway be impressed with female athletes... They have a bigger risk than guys

[madville]

32. I remember a study from when I was active duty

They were trying to develop a gender neutral PT test, the same standards across the board for males and females but adjusted for age.

The final report determined it was not feasible to implement a standard that was challenging enough for males that at the same time allowed an acceptable number of females to pass.

They had several test groups with different standards and tests, the one I was in, males had a passing rate of around 95% while females had a passing rate less than 10%. What did them in were the dead hang pull ups and push ups.

[GOLGO 13]

60. The pull-ups & push-ups is the dirty little secret they don't like to talk about

Male Marines had a minimum standard in the pull/push ups to pass the PT test. Female Marines don't do pull/push ups. They do a modified "hang" and they keep their knees on the floor during push-ups.

Why is this allowed?

Seems like an inability to support their own body weight during simple exercise. Yet, they insisist on putting them into real-live, full blown combat?

Glad I'm not in the Corps anymore.

[Kennah]

40. Does this mean Dick Cheney is a woman? n/t

[AngryAmish]

42. Maybe dosing women with testosterone would work if they want to be in infantry

Plus weight training.

[Panich52]

45. Not all agree women aren't suited to Marines

Not all agree women aren't suited to Marines:

DiscoveryNews:
Can Women Hack the Marines?
Despite new findings that cast doubt on women soldiers, some military experts say women are better suited to the increasingly high-tech nature of war.

READ MORE
http://news.discovery.com/human/life/can-women-hack-the-marines-150914.htm?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dnewsnewsletter


BTW... I out-shot a number of good ole boys one afternoon shoot-em-up.They weren't happy at all that I did better w/ rifles (3 different ones), the they beat me w/ pistols.

[rockfordfile]

48. BS

I call bs on this "study". History have proven women can shoot just as well as men. The problem would be the training.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

50. Welcome to DU. You can't go wrong saying

that Canada is north of the United States. On the other hand, it is also true that:

1) Some places in Canada are farther south than some places in the United States.

2) Some places in the United States are farther north than some places in Canada.

The study is looking at things in the aggregate. The existence of individual exceptions does nothing to negate the study's conclusions.

I readily stipulate that any member of a combat unit is fitter than I am for that duty.

Thank you for writing. Again, welcome to DU.

[rockfordfile]

59. Like it or not

This is essentially a hit piece on women.

[happyslug]

55. Read my comments above, I think it is training BEFORE one enters the service.

As to shooting I think the main reason is the M16 was designed for a 150 pound male. The average weight of a women in the test was 145 pounds, the males 173 pounds. Thus over half of the females are less then the ideal weight for the M16, while over half of the men are in excess of that weight. That by itself could explain the difference in marksmanship. The other differences I addressed above and will not repeat here.