Female soldiers OKed for Ranger School in April

2015-01-16T09:42:57-05:00

From: Army Times

Female soldiers will be allowed to attend Ranger School in April as part of a one-time, integrated assessment, the Army announced Thursday.

The assessment is part of a wider effort to determine whether and how to open combat arms jobs to women. This assessment will be a first for the storied Ranger School, which until now has been open only to men.

"Secretary of the Army John McHugh approved the participation of both men and women in the spring 2015 Ranger course assessment," said Lt. Col. Ben Garrett, an Army spokesman, in a statement. "The assessment will be conducted during Ranger Course 06-15, which is scheduled to begin on April 20, 2015. The course has approximately 60 women scheduled to participate. Those who meet the standards and graduate from the course will receive a certificate and be awarded the Ranger tab."

Army leaders will closely monitor the pilot program, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno said Jan. 6 during a virtual town hall meeting with soldiers.

"We're just going to let the statistics speak for themselves as we go through this," he said, in response to a question from a soldier. "The main thing I'm focused on is the standards remain the same. In order to earn that tab, you have to do all the things necessary to earn that tab. We want to try a pilot to let women have the opportunity to do that."

The Army has not defined what a successful pilot should look like, Odierno said.

"We don't know if it's five people graduate, or 100 people graduate, or no one graduates," he said. "This is just a pilot to gain information for us to understand where we are, and then we'll take that data and make a determination on how we want to move forward."

Last fall, the Army issued two All-Army Activities messages calling for female soldiers interested in attending Ranger School as students or as observer/advisors. Thirty-one women – 11 officers and 20 noncommissioned officers – out of 46 applicants were selected to be observer/advisors after a weeklong assessment in November.

The response from female soldiers wanting to attend Ranger School as students was so high that the service asked its commands and units to whittle down the list to 160 candidates.

The Army then allocated 160 seats at the two-week Army National Guard Ranger Training and Assessment Course, said Col. David Fivecoat, commander of the Airborne and Ranger Training Brigade at Fort Benning, Georgia.

The Army is requiring all female soldiers who want to attend the two-month Ranger School to complete the pre-Ranger course, which takes place at Fort Benning.

There will be 40 seats for female candidates in each iteration of the Ranger Training and Assessment Course between January and April, Fivecoat said.

Each major command, service component command or direct reporting unit, such as Forces Command, the Army Guard, Training and Doctrine Command, Medical Command, Army Europe, and Army South, will be given a set number of seats for each month's cycle of the pre-Ranger course, Fivecoat said.

"It's up to the units to figure out how they want to build their order of merit list to come to RTAC," he said during an interview in December.

Officials arrived at a total of 160 candidates based on the interest level and the capacity at the pre-Ranger course, which will still need to be able to accommodate male candidates as well, he said.

However, not all of the 160 will end up attending Ranger School.

For Ranger School, which runs 11 times a year, the training brigade can accommodate up to 400 students. Typical classes number in the 300s, Fivecoat said.

"We typically will not accept more than 400 folks because I have 400 beds to put people in," he said.

On average, about 45 percent of Ranger School students will graduate, Fivecoat said. As many as 60 percent of all Ranger School failures will occur in the first four days. Many get disqualified during the physical fitness test on the first day, Fivecoat said. The test gives candidates two minutes to do 49 push-ups and two minutes to do 59 sit-ups, and they also must run five miles in 40 minutes and do six chin-ups.

In fiscal 2014, PT test failures made up the largest number of Ranger School failures, Fivecoat said.

As for the 31 soldiers selected to be observer/advisors, they are returning to Fort Benning in January, Fivecoat said.

They will receive some training, including orientation to the training brigade, combat lifesaver certification and a tactics certification course, before they're sent to their specific assignments, Fivecoat said.

The observer/advisors assigned to the battalion and brigade levels will boost the brigade's ability to accommodate the influx of students.

"We're a pretty lean organization, so they're going to help us with the normal stuff that a unit has to do, between Power Point and building orders," Fivecoat said.

The 18 observer/advisors selected to work at the company level will begin working alongside the all-male Ranger Instructor cadre at Fort Benning, Dahlonega, Georgia, and Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. They will get to observe two all-male Ranger School classes, Fivecoat said.

"They'll get an appreciation for what an all-male class looks like during the run-up to the chief's decision on if we're going to actually execute this," he said.

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/careers/2015/01/15/women-ranger-school-assessment/21708147/

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 16 at 2015 9:45 AM

2015-01-16T09:45:13-05:00

I can see how this can become an issue similar to women on submarines: much less privacy

Response by SGT Timothy Byrd made Jan 16 at 2015 9:49 AM

2015-01-16T09:49:03-05:00

I just hope the same thing that is being discussed in the Marine Corp doesn't happen here. Woman can't perform and succeed on the same level as males so they are discussing lowering standards for females.

Response by CPT Zachary Brooks made Jan 16 at 2015 9:54 AM

2015-01-16T09:54:55-05:00

Same standard, Same standard, Same standard.

Stop the PC crap and keep it at a level that people need to be at.

Response by CPT David Bernheim made Jan 16 at 2015 10:04 AM

2015-01-16T10:04:34-05:00

Are these soldiers going to have the same opportunity as their male Ranger buddies for recycle attempts?

The following quote is from the Ranger Training Brigade's website: "Finally, do not attend Ranger School on a timeline. Your attitude should be: I’m here until the mission is complete and the only mission is the RANGER TAB." ~ Curtis Arnold, CSM, ARTB. Currently, according to RTB, approximately 1 in 3 will recycle at least one phase.

The Army Times article states the attendance is "part of a one-time, integrated assessment." I applaud the assessment. I pray the yardstick is of fixed and equal length. All options as part of the current POI should be available, to include recycle, or the assessment will be a waste of time and prove little of the mettle of these soldiers.

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made Jan 16 at 2015 10:18 AM

2015-01-16T10:18:55-05:00

I wonder how these Ladies will fair, especially considering their Marine counterparts having issues with completely Marine Infantry Officer School.

Response by SFC Mark Bailey made Jan 16 at 2015 12:06 PM

2015-01-16T12:06:36-05:00

If the job requires a certain physical and mental level then the job requires it; and anyone who can pass that level should be allowed to do the job.

I've had the opportunity to serve with soldiers of both genders that I KNEW could do the job, and others that I KNEW I could never trust them.

Anyone that can go for days and days on little or no sleep ...carrying an M-60 and extra ammo for the 60mm.... on less than a full meal a day...is someone I KNOW can get the job done.

You don't reduce the requirements to get more soldiers qualified
You look harder for more who CAN pass the requirements
...and you make it worth their while to remain in that job...

I wish these brave ladies,
....and the men they are going to go to school with
...all the luck in the world

Response by SFC Michael Jackson, MBA made Jan 16 at 2015 12:17 PM

2015-01-16T12:17:51-05:00

About time,
if they can do the work, meet the standards, and have the desire. Go for it!

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 16 at 2015 12:21 PM

2015-01-16T12:21:23-05:00

This is great for PR.

Response by SSG Christopher Parrish made Jan 16 at 2015 12:24 PM

2015-01-16T12:24:56-05:00

Not that I think they would, but I hope the instructors give them a fair shake and not try to push them out. On the flip side, the better not slip on the standards.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 16 at 2015 12:25 PM

2015-01-16T12:25:27-05:00

If they can compete and complete the course without any special treatment or degradation to the Standards, I say "HOOAH!" We just have to be careful we don't fool ourselves into believing that there are more than a very very select few out there that can compete on that level without PED's.

Response by SSG Lloyd Becker BSBA-HCM, MBA made Jan 16 at 2015 1:05 PM

2015-01-16T13:05:49-05:00

Well, we have women on ships, we have women who have passed the Marine Infantry Officer's Course. And, that's fine. Women need to see if they can do these things and I do not mind that, because there are women out there that has the same limitations as men and some do not. This is where the rubber meets the road. I would like to see women in the Field Artillery (cannon).

Why the Field Artillery? It will show to the women if they have the strength and endurance of throwing 100 pound rounds. Some women do not even weigh that much, but, strength training over time will produce good Artillerywomen.

I hope this Ranger course is a success for those who will enter the course. This will put every sinew to the test.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 16 at 2015 1:12 PM

2015-01-16T13:12:11-05:00

I have always and still want to go to Ranger School, I wish them well.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 16 at 2015 2:12 PM

2015-01-16T14:12:08-05:00

I know several Cadre at ARTB and I know that most will treat the women just as they would any other Ranger candidate/student. I bet SSG Private RallyPoint Member could provide some first hand insight as to how the school is preparing for this new challenge.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 16 at 2015 4:22 PM

2015-01-16T16:22:33-05:00

All the photos I have seen attached to stories about Female soldiers and Ranger School show teams of Females working together to complete some physical task (obstacle course, buddy carry, and so forth).

Is the Ranger School going to conduct separate training for the Females, or will they be fully integrated with the males. I am all for anyone, regardless of sex, being able to try for the tab. I hope if the standards are equivalent, then the soldiers will train together. I don't see the point of bringing in females into these disciplines otherwise.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2015 1:29 AM

2015-01-17T01:29:31-05:00

Like I have said before, if the standards don't change then I am all for it. However, the Army has a history of pushing people through courses just so they don't look bad and can get numbers. I guess we will see what happens in April.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2015 10:19 AM

2015-01-17T10:19:14-05:00

I spent 124 days total at Ranger school, and it took me over a year to recover from that afterwards. There is no doubt in my mind that many females can pass the admittedly average physical requirements during RAP week, they are similar to EIB and Air Assault requirements that many women excel at now. What I wonder is the 10 straight day FTX in the swamps of Florida, many men have problems with keeping their hygiene in check, their feet squared away, and keeping themselves hydrated, I can't imagine they are going to keep that 10 straight days without having issues. I also fear that they will be targeted for peers, as a weak male or an international student who leads with broken English, and will be "graded on a peer curve." As the CSA said,"The main thing I'm focused on is the standards remain the same. In order to earn that tab, you have to do all the things necessary to earn that tab..." Don't compromise whatsoever the standards that are in place now, or else that tab will mean very little to them.

Response by SPC Stewart Smith made Jan 17 at 2015 11:19 AM

2015-01-17T11:19:48-05:00

I don't really know what to think. If the standards are not lowered then it's hard to see a problem with it. But what about personal hygiene? Men can have piss poor hygiene and have a lot less to worry about than women. I am not trying to attack any woman, I just simply do not know enough about ranger training or missions to give an educated opinion.

Response by COL Ted Mc made Jan 17 at 2015 1:02 PM

2015-01-17T13:02:12-05:00

From this thread, I seem to see a (roughly) threefold division of opinion:

[1] "They are ghurrllssss and shouldn't be doing !G!U!Y! STUFF.";

[2] "Most of 'them' cant do what some of 'us' can do so don't let any of them try."; and

[3] "As long as they can meet the same standards as everyone else can, who cares?".

Now you tell me which is the more adult one.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2015 2:38 PM

2015-01-17T14:38:49-05:00

"Go get em troops".

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2015 8:24 PM

2015-01-17T20:24:14-05:00

Silence

Response by SMSgt Ottis West made Jan 17 at 2015 8:26 PM

2015-01-17T20:26:57-05:00

I have no problem with this provided the standards are the same. As many of you have said the standard that exist was established in order to weed out those that could not mentally or physically measure up. If a female can make the grade then she deserves the tab. But if the standards are changed you will have undermined her achievement from the start. We owe it to her and all those who have come before her to maintain the standard so that when she adorns the Tab it will be met with the respect it deserves Hooah!

Response by SFC Nikhil Kumra made Jan 17 at 2015 9:13 PM

2015-01-17T21:13:03-05:00

Definitely not a good idea the way they're going about it... If it was done correctly, it would make sense - but for that reason, the intent seems to be nothing but a feminist agenda being pushed.

If the leadership really cared about advancing women into combat arms, they'd first change the culture within the military across the board - raise standards equivalent to males, and start holding them to it. Sure, many will get kicked out, but in the long run, as women adapt to the higher physical standards, they'll be more equipped to be successful in combat arms....

Hygiene? - meh... Not worried about that - guys are disgusting, girls are disgusting. So what... They all smell bad after a while. (I wouldn't want to be that doc who has to deal w/yeast infections though...)

There is way to much evidence out there showing that women can get REALLY strong, have great endurance and work through stress. Science has long told us that women are "the weaker sex" - but I wonder really how much of that is just society allowing women to believe that...

... And also, I wonder how many women want to continue to ride the "lower standards" wave and just sand bag.... .......... Going to go drink some tea now, ehm...

Response by John Russell made Jan 17 at 2015 9:55 PM

2015-01-17T21:55:14-05:00

I have nothing against women going to the school. Afterall its a leadership course taken by almost everyone. When I used to train at a strongman gym I had seen a couple of women who could out do my lifts by a small percentage.Though it took them a couple of extra years, they were able to lift about as much as I could. I didnt have any prior experience..just a small gym set at home. My whole point is...what us men can do..takes alot longer for women to achieve. Takes them longer to recover and are more injury prone than men. You will find a very high washout rate at ranger school for women. Theres a reason why men have 40-60% more tesosterone than women. If you get the low testosterone guys failing ranger school..how can we expect women to meet the male standards? Somebody is gonna be bending the rules ...somewhere.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Jan 17 at 2015 11:57 PM

2015-01-17T23:57:41-05:00

I have no issue with women attending anything, so long as it is the same as the there male counterparts. I am a Ranger, and spent my career in a branch that fully integrated women (minus a few years as a tanker LT).

They are saying the standards are the same, but they are not. They have created a fabricated pilot, complete with many observers to ensure all is square. If we really wanted to allow women to attend in order to see if they have what it takes, then why not do it in a regular class, as a regular candidate? Allowing all 60 female candidates to attend one class a one time pilot, will ensure some will make it thru statistically, Then, they will have data that says women can make it thru Ranger School. OK... so what? The Army has created a fabricated test, which serves no purpose, and which is sure to be a media circus. Two final points to my rant:

1. If we really want to answer that question (which is not the real question), then let them attend as regular Ranger Candidate in a regular class. That would answer that question for real.

2. Allowing women to attend Ranger School does not answer the question of whether or not women should be in direct combat roles. Even allowing them to attend Infantry OST or BOLC doesn't answer that.

This is certainly not an easy question, with no easy answers.

https://warfighterfoundation.wordpress.com/2015/01/12/seven-myths-about-wome

Seven Myths About “Women in Combat"

Written byG.S. Newbold, Lieutenant General, USMC (Ret.) Myth #1 – “It’s about women in combat.” No, it’s not. Women are already in combat, and are serving well and professionally. The issue should...

Response by LtCol Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 18 at 2015 12:28 AM

2015-01-18T00:28:11-05:00

Fine as long as the standards are not changed.

Response by 1SG Eric Rice made Jan 18 at 2015 5:13 AM

2015-01-18T05:13:05-05:00

Any individual whether man or woman who is able to complete Ranger school deserves to wear the tab. As long as the standards are upheld then this is a non-issue. I say good luck to any who choose to go.

Response by SFC Lamont Womack made Jan 18 at 2015 6:29 AM

2015-01-18T06:29:09-05:00

I think this is cool. I have the utmost respect for anyone who can complete Ranger School. I do have a problem with all this "as long as they can meet the standard or don't lower the standard" crap. Meeting the standard is an implied task. I know a lot of males who didn't meet the standard in Ranger school (some more than once). Nobody ever told those males "you can go to Ranger school as long as you meet the standard." Nobody says that to just about anybody going to a military course. Of course you have to meet the standard!

I personally think it bothers some people that someone they think shouldn't be able to meet a standard actually CAN meet it. "As long as they don't lower the standard" in my opinion is an ego defense mechanism to make a person feel good if the "other" person meets the standard. It couldn't possibly be they could do it on their own merit; the standard had to be lowered (sarcasm).

Like I said earlier I have the utmost respect for ANYONE who can complete Ranger School regardless of who they are.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 18 at 2015 7:17 AM

2015-01-18T07:17:04-05:00

I have been to Ranger school and let me tell you it sucks...big time! Other than combat it's probably the best/worst thing that's ever happened to me. The majority of these Soldiers aren't going in "cold" the units they are coming from are giving them the opportunity to go through pre-Ranger training, teaching them the tactical skills that they may not know because Infantry is not their branch. Patrolling, weapons, and the individual skills that are mandatory before attending Ranger school. They will meet the pre-requisites just like every male Soldier. I had a Female Engagement Team Company in my battalion when we deployed to Afghanistan and I will tell you that the majority of those females performed extremely well during dismounted patrols with their Infantry companies.

I break Ranger school down like this; 80% is mental, 10% is physical, and 10% is luck. The 80% is the will to keep going and not quit, your body will take an extreme amount of punishment before it stops working unfortunately your brain will try to protect the body long before it needs to. The 10% physical is the first week, APFT/CWST, Worm pit, Darby Queen, Land Nav, Footmarch to Camp Darby. After the first week you just put one foot in front of the other. The 10% luck is how your graded patrols fall, your peer reports, and not getting injured.

ANY Soldier that completes Ranger School will be a great asset to their unit and the Army. You learn so much about yourself, your fellow Soldiers, and it gives you a great insight on how to motivate people to accomplish the mission under extreme duress. I am excited for these Soldiers and I wish them the very best! EMBRACE THE SUCK!

Response by CSM Richard Montcalm made Jan 18 at 2015 7:25 AM

2015-01-18T07:25:58-05:00

First, I would like to know how many of you that think this is a good idea have been to Ranger School and have some inkling of what it entails? Do you not understand that the graduation rate is 49% for the Army as a whole, and Special Operations personnel graduate around 94%? Do any of you have any idea what the lack of sleep, inadequate nutrition, and long movements with heavy loads do to a person's body?

Let me clue you in- I went to Ranger School in April of 1979 Class 7-79; 2/3 of my class recycled before graduating. I lost 35 pounds in 58 days- I weighed 181 when started and 146 when I graduated. My wife burst into tears when she saw me at graduation and asked what had they done to me. My first question was whether she brought any food for me...

I had immersion foot from being cold and wet- mainly we-t all the way through the course. No one carried your ruck for you if you didn't feel well or you were tired- you had to suck it and EVERYONE was expected to pull their weight- if you didn't then you were 'peered' out. This is an evaluation made by your peers at the end of each Phase- some folks were dropped from the course and as a minimum they were recycled to another class for 'failing' the 'peers'.

One wonders what will happen when a prospective female student can't/won't carry her ruck, the M240B with 600 rounds of equipment, and other assigned gear? Will her squad have to carry the load so they won't fail, because it IS a 'cooperate and graduate' school.

Will peer reports have the same weight? Will the Ranger Instructors be able to give a female a Special Observation Report that shows she is not capable of completing the task at hand and should be dropped from the course?

What about medical issues? Not only are you dirty, grimy, and sweaty non stop, there are no showers to be had unless you are back in Camp Merrill or Camp Rudder. This could and probably will lead to a host of infections that will be uncomfortable at best and debilitating at worst. Add this to the additional consideration of menses, and it adds up to a nightmare for the Ranger Instructors, the Ranger Students, and the additional medical support required to support the female students.

Now let's suppose that a female candidate does pass the course; now she is eligible for assignments coded 'G' (leg Ranger) or 'V' (Airborne Ranger); will they have to complete Infantry OSUT or Infantry BOLC before this assignment, because there just aren't many 'G' or 'V' Quartermaster assignments outside of the Ranger Regiment...

Food for thought for all of you that are just raring to see a female attempt something you don't have the stones to try yourself before passing judgment.

Will having less than 1% of females in the Army Ranger Qualified make us better prepared to fight the next war? That is what the purpose of Ranger School is- to prepare Combat Leaders to lead troops in combat- not to enhance someone career.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 18 at 2015 8:41 AM

2015-01-18T08:41:39-05:00

Good luck to the females that go through this. I cannot imagine going through this grueling experience with everyone waiting to see how you do, with most expecting failure.
Good luck in general to everyone soldier going through with the first females because I'm sure that will add a new element of stress to an already intense school.

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 18 at 2015 10:49 AM

2015-01-18T10:49:00-05:00

I feel that if the applicants can meet the requirements and make it through the program successfully, then they should be awarded the Ranger Tab.
The minimum standards should not be lowered for women, they should recieve no special help or perks. Everything must be the same for men and women.

Response by LTC Stephen C. made Jan 18 at 2015 12:12 PM

2015-01-18T12:12:51-05:00

This article appeared in the Chattanooga Times Free Press on 16JAN15. 1LT Patricia Smith, age 40, will be in the first class!

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2015/jan/16/ranger-strong-chattanoogawomam-tries-blaze-trail/282988/

Ranger strong?: Chattanooga woman tries to blaze a trail toward elite combat unit

This is the part she was dreading.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 18 at 2015 12:28 PM

2015-01-18T12:28:37-05:00

I just hope this doesn't go the way the Marine Corps program went. I'm referring to when the Marines had women take the PT test to the male standard and the whole thing got scrubbed because not enough women passed to satisfy the Affirmative Action types.

Furthermore, as weak as I am. There are not many females that are stronger than me, but for those that are there is no reason they should be denied an opportunity given to me.

Response by SGT Michael Glenn made Jan 18 at 2015 1:10 PM

2015-01-18T13:10:03-05:00

If standards are not dropped and they can compete , why not??? but as said do not lower any standards...I had a friend who could smoke most males (21 years old age group) on a pt test and she was 8 months pg.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 18 at 2015 2:13 PM

2015-01-18T14:13:08-05:00

To add another twist, it will be interesting to see how the peer evals will go.

BL: the standards cannot be compromised. They were established for a reason.

Response by PVT Dominique Stewart made Jan 18 at 2015 2:40 PM

2015-01-18T14:40:46-05:00

Its about time female soldiers are given a chance to fight too. This is awesome

Response by SGT Russell Curnow made Jan 18 at 2015 5:09 PM

2015-01-18T17:09:52-05:00

Shin Splints caused them to get put off the deployment list but not sure of lately. So what will they think of next. We had a woman Gunner in Iraq and we so much enjoyed her being there.
( Women There A Plus )

Response by PV2 Violet Case made Jan 18 at 2015 5:33 PM

2015-01-18T17:33:19-05:00

I commend any women that are able to succeed in this ranger school. However, what I have to say I hope will not offend any of you or upset you, but please take this into consideration with respect of my being one of the first groups of women to train and pass for fighting the front lines with men. I was one of the first women soldiers in 1978 who the legislature decided would be trained to fight the front lines with men. This was no easy task, they did not show any favorites , mens push ups, a full mens training and then some to test our ability. Some men did not want us in their army to begin with so we were not only trained like men but we had to put up with sexual gestures not wanting to cry out to make ourselves look like babies or taking a chance of being sent home. We sang cagences (?spelling) that were actually not fit for a woman's ears let alone to be singing them while we marched. But we stood strong if we wanted to finish basic training.
I feel anyone going into any field of military no matter what it is,needs to be trained for what they should be doing in that field to qualify without any favoritism going on. Because some jobs take the strength of a man plain and simple if you can't preform the strength the job requires then you should not be allowed to be in that field. So to all the strong women who are out there moving forward and are strong enough to do this or any training like this and pass just like a man would all power and prayers for you. For those of you who even try i commend you for the efforts, but accept it if you can not, do not whine and step back to a duty you can professionally handle. Bless you all out there and thank you for your service.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 18 at 2015 7:41 PM

2015-01-18T19:41:09-05:00

RTB has known about this for quite some time. I know they changed the land nav standards by adding an additional hour...

Response by Cpl Peter Martuneac made Jan 18 at 2015 8:50 PM

2015-01-18T20:50:34-05:00

I wish I could have attended Ranger School. That would have been some real outstanding training.

Response by MSgt Timothy Johnson made Jan 18 at 2015 9:09 PM

2015-01-18T21:09:23-05:00

All that matters is successfully completing the course. Sounds simple but the Ranger knows the blood and guts it takes!

Response by SFC Royce Williams made Jan 18 at 2015 9:41 PM

2015-01-18T21:41:01-05:00

If they can do it without the standards being compromised then let them do it. I'm sure it's some kind if political ploy but who's to say that some day there can't be a woman fighting in the foxhole next to you as an Infantryman/woman.

Response by SSG Michael Monfrooe made Jan 18 at 2015 9:45 PM

2015-01-18T21:45:09-05:00

When I returned from the Nam I was stationed at Ft. Benning. Foreign officers from all over were there to learn from the best to be the best. I was told several times to give a go to students that failed to meet the standards. The reason being, that failure, could in some situations could result in retaliation when they returned to the countries they represented. I served in "L" co. 75th with CSM Gentry. This was prior to his much deserved assignment to the 1st Ranger Bn.I asked him what I should do . He reminded me that one thing he stressed to all his men was integrity. I told my higher ups of my thoughts. This is the current policy of the U.S.Army to accept these students, Every instructor must decide his/her interpretation, I asked and received a transfer to IOBC Combined Arms team. RI's will have to be even harder than the norm to quiet any thoughts of favoritism. I'm not a school qual. Ranger but my heart is there. Sometimes being PC can bring about more problems than just being PC. Excuse my rambling. RLTW

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 19 at 2015 5:25 AM

2015-01-19T05:25:17-05:00

I think this is a big move for integrating females into the combat arms. I stand with many others in this thread, if a female can pass Ranger school standards then they get the tab. I know many females that out perform many men both physically and mentally and I think they would do well there even if they don't pass first the first time.

That said I am curious for the PT portion of RAP week of if the females will have to complete the test to male or female standard for push ups. Looking at the article, I am guessing they will do the same standard as it has been. I would also be cautious of anyone who gets through with no phase recycles. I have known some who have made it through Ranger school without recycling but they are the exception not the rule.

Another concern of mine is that they are designating a certain number of slots per class for females. What happens if, for whatever reason, the female "quota" doesn't get filled? Will they fill those slots with males or will the slots be lost?

I would be lying if I said I wasn't concerned with the integration of females. Anyone who says that they are not concerned are either lying or fools. The fools are the ones that say that everyone is professional and will make the transition seamless. I would love to think that everyone is professional enough to make this happen easily but I know better. It will take leaders at all levels to be engaged in order to prevent stupid crap. Some things will happen regardless how much attention the process gets. Leadership needs to be ready and take the appropriate actions when it does. Things change and we all have to move with it regardless of if we agree or not.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 19 at 2015 9:38 AM

2015-01-19T09:38:38-05:00

It's a trap! Seriously. Where does this actually stop? You really can't fight the big green machine, however there are way's to navigate through it without getting caught up in the gears that are alway's turning.

Keeping and maintaining the standards is key to any victory in the military. If you have those and not violate them you are safe.

Yes, I've already heard the "stories" about the test subjects that led up to this. They range from only 1 passed that standards to they had to pass all of them because the one made it.

I feel that if they are going to "Hand Jam" a group through then you are taking away from the spirit and tradition of those who have gone before.

Response by LTC Scott O'Neil made Jan 19 at 2015 11:31 AM

2015-01-19T11:31:17-05:00

I believe that there are women in the Armed Service that can pass schools like Ranger School , Basic Under Water Demolition SEAL Training etc... As long as the standards remain the same for both sexes. There can not be any special considerations, special assessments because they are women. In Russia during WWII there were all women combat battalions, units and crews. There were all women Tank units in combat in defense of Stalingrad and the offensive and push to Berlin. If they can do the job and maintain the standard and pass the courses. Tab Them...............

No Special Consideration, no degradation in standards, no hand Jamming because of pressure from higher or the media. If they earn it Tab them.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 19 at 2015 2:51 PM

2015-01-19T14:51:57-05:00

As long as they can pass the set standard, then all the more power to them. If they can do it, good for them.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 19 at 2015 7:00 PM

2015-01-19T19:00:43-05:00

If they can graduate while being held to the same standards I don't see a problem with this. Let them attend, if they pass they will be better for it.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 19 at 2015 9:17 PM

2015-01-19T21:17:54-05:00

If someone, regardless of gender or status can truly make the standard, then more power to them. Ensure that the standard is kept the standard, regardless of gender. If you meet the standard, great, if not, you fail.

Just for contrast, in the USMC, females are 0-26 for their Infantry Leadership course.

Response by SGT Bobby F. made Jan 19 at 2015 10:18 PM

2015-01-19T22:18:56-05:00

I think the two important take-aways from this article are:

"We're just going to let the statistics speak for themselves as we go through this," he (Gen. Odierno) said, in response to a question from a soldier. "The main thing I'm focused on is the standards remain the same. In order to earn that tab, you have to do all the things necessary to earn that tab. We want to try a pilot to let women have the opportunity to do that."

This first statement is hugely key. Rangers need to Ranger, so to speak, and I absolutely agree with higher that standards must remain across the board. Second:

" The Army has not defined what a successful pilot should look like, Odierno said.
'We don't know if it's five people graduate, or 100 people graduate, or no one graduates,' he said. 'This is just a pilot to gain information for us to understand where we are, and then we'll take that data and make a determination on how we want to move forward.'

This is outstanding. Defining a parameter for success for something that hasn't been measured before wouldn't make sense. I'm glad they're "experimenting" before laying out the black and white.

All that being said, I'm all for females being afforded the opportunity to attend the course. The more diverse our force is the stronger we'll be as a whole.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 19 at 2015 10:33 PM

2015-01-19T22:33:42-05:00

The deck will be stacked to get as many as possible to pass. For starters placing 60 in the April class. Spring has to be the most advantageous time of the year....not too hot or too cold. All we hear is give them a chance and that's a valid request. Just keep the standards and what the F are these observers for?

Story time- I saw a fellow student get tossed during the first day of shake down for having a pair of doc shoals inserts in his boots, that according to the RI's was trying to gain the unfair advantage. Now something as petty as that got a dude tossed so do all those who in the past who were hazed, starved or booted just because the RI was on the warpath get the word out to the public they were harassed, cheated or discriminated against? Point I'm trying to make will be this science project will be full of just that. Unhappy Rangerette filing the EO complaint for getting the boot. Poor RI's you'll be on egg shells bro!

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Jan 19 at 2015 10:35 PM

2015-01-19T22:35:56-05:00

Two thoughts after reading this article.

1) Why in the world do we need so many observer/advisors? What do they think they are going to be able to advise if they have not attended the course?

2) The Army has not defined what a successful pilot should look like? Seems like Ranger School has been around long enough to define what success looks like? What am I missing?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 19 at 2015 11:10 PM

2015-01-19T23:10:19-05:00

"We don't know if it's five people graduate, or 100 people graduate, or no one graduates," he said. "This is just a pilot to gain information for us to understand where we are, and then we'll take that data and make a determination on how we want to move forward."

Let's let the results speak for themselves. If they are being objective with this program, good enough. About 45% percent graduate in the first place, which means that the drop-out rate is fairly high. If every female graduates, we know that there is something wrong, not with the statistics, but with over-representation of female course graduates. And, that would make us wonder...why.
60 women are set to begin the course. With standards in place, we would expect around 27 to graduate on a gender-neutral scale. All standards being equal, it isn't going to happen. I would expect a graduation rate of about 10%. So, possibly 6 females...for the entire Ranger class, if any.
In other words, let's just watch the results and save our judgment for afterwards. If women make it, awesome. let's see what the Army does to accommodate. If none make it, oh well. Let's be grown-ups and let it be.

Response by SPC Joshua H. made Jan 20 at 2015 12:07 AM

2015-01-20T00:07:05-05:00

Good, 100% all for this. If they can do the job, they should be allowed to do the job, but it must be the SAME job.

No cutting standards, no cutting corners, no slacking off on the yelling and screaming. If women are going to make it, let them make it at the same level men have to make it at.

I am not going to say it is going to be easy, but there are women that will be able to make the cut.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 20 at 2015 1:54 AM

2015-01-20T01:54:00-05:00

Love it! get em ladies. here is something the boys are going to tell you. Don't genderize Ranger School. you need to do everything the boys are doing. Dont listen to it. Get out there and do what they tell you that you need to do to graduate. In time, you will learn the SUT that the bad ass rangers do. In time, you will be initiated and treated like the cherrry you are. in time, you will teach these high speed grunts that you have a worth on the team. you can contribute. it wasnt long ago that blacks fought against the south but still werent treated as good as the white yankees. it wasnt long ago that blacks flew aircraft in WWII and were told that they couldnt die for their country like wh8ite guys. it wasnt long ago that women were told that they couldnt join a man infested armed forces and contribute. it wasnt long ago that gays were told the same. you are shaping the future. you ladies are ready to contribute to the team. make us all proud... that being said... there is a part of me that is against all of this. the part called "anomie". it is a norm for men to feel like the guardians. the protectors. the martyrs. there will be a time, where one of america's daughters bodies will be drug through the streets of mogadishu after being ripped to pieces and clothes shredded off. an a piece of me will die. only becuase i still believe that i should go before any of you. but fear not. i am learning still. and i wish you the best of luck.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 21 at 2015 4:06 PM

2015-01-21T16:06:18-05:00

Not every woman is cut out for this type of duty. I am not saying they are weaker than men or substandard because not every man is cut out for this type of duty either. However if women are going to be allowed to enter a physically and mentally challanging school such as Ranger School they need to be held to the same standard as everyone else. If this is not the case and a seperate standard is set then you can not expect them to do the same tasks, if those same tasks cannot be complete you dont deserve to be considered a Ranger. But if standards are going to be lowered let me know because I would like to go.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 21 at 2015 4:12 PM

2015-01-21T16:12:32-05:00

Hopefully they don't change the standards and so far they haven't. Look at the Marines and how well females have done there. Ranger school is much harder and RASP is meant to weed out the weak
If they can meet the standard carry their own weight than all the power to them if not then your gone just like every person before them.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 21 at 2015 6:00 PM

2015-01-21T18:00:17-05:00

Personally, I would be fighting to get the first tabbed female into my unit just so I could pick her brains about the experience. I'm still puzzled on how they would overcome the logistics and privacy issues. From what I can remember 5 years ago, there was ZERO privacy during the entire course. It got so bad that one time I was listening to the PL brief on a terrain model kit and some guy was using the slit trench 5 feet to the right. Nobody batted an eye.

If anyone here is cadre at the RTB, I’d like to know the changes to facilities also. There wasn’t enough barracks space at Merrill or Rudder for a separate ‘female’ floor or shower. I’ll definitely give props to any female who can carry that 240 tripod and keep up.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 21 at 2015 7:50 PM

2015-01-21T19:50:40-05:00

As a female I am torn on this matter. One part of me is cheering for the chance to have a bit more "women can do anything" mentality, but at the same time, I just dont think this is safe.

I am quite sure there are females out there who can pass just as well, or even better then some men, but when it comes to a woman's body, thats where things really change.

If a female is sent on a mission with the rangers where they cannot be detected, and this female just happened to be on her 'time of the month', there is a risk for detection there. Not to mention, if something happens and they are pinned down, stuck somewhere and have to ruck miles to a pick up point, a woman's period can get nasty and cause infection if not taken care of.

Just seems dangerous to me, but I do know there are medications that prevent a women from having a 'time of the month'. This is just such a back and forth topic.

Response by MSG Beatrice Foster, PMP made Jan 21 at 2015 9:48 PM

2015-01-21T21:48:45-05:00

I wonder if a separate training with the same standard was considered. this would eliminate the housing issue but not the privacy issue nor the body mass difference issue. The separate training will allow the powers that be to study and prepare for the concept before integration. I think the policy change is a bad idea for the reason some have expressed body mass differences, privacy, standards, different needs each month, but no one mentioned sexual harassment either man on woman or woman on man.

Response by Sgt Packy Flickinger made Jan 21 at 2015 10:11 PM

2015-01-21T22:11:21-05:00

"Those who meet the standards". Time will tell where those standards are set. Let's hope they stay right where they are.

Response by 1SG Jimmy Owens made Jan 22 at 2015 12:47 AM

2015-01-22T00:47:36-05:00

I was a RANGER INSTRUCTOR for 10 plus years, serving at two Ranger Camps, and No one will "respect" their RANGER TAB knowing the standards were changed so they could not help but graduate, just a farce from the start, these poor woman will now be negatively branded / labeled their entire career as a result of this B. S.!!!!! 1SG OWENS

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 22 at 2015 1:18 AM

2015-01-22T01:18:39-05:00

*looks up comments made about integrating minorities in the armed forces from years past to see how relevant they are today* (sarcasm) Anyway, if someone wants to be the She-Hulk and go to Ranger school why are you worried about it? Please explain how this in any way affects YOUR career or retirement points. How does the extra training hurt anyone or do a disservice to anyone she's called to lead? Please explain.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 22 at 2015 5:39 AM

2015-01-22T05:39:29-05:00

Good luck

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 22 at 2015 8:48 AM

2015-01-22T08:48:50-05:00

I agree with this as an ASSESSMENT. So long as it is a 100% transparent, unfiltered, unabashed, honest, non-PC assessment. I want every single paramater of the training that is done and assessed to be studied and released. If standards are deviated from or skewed or "adjusted" to accommodate for females, then the assessment can be stopped right now. I can sit here and tell you that it will be detrimental in multiple areas if the standards in place now, on the current male PT scale, are not kept intact. Case closed.
What troubles me is that they have already undermined the integrity and trust placed in Ranger Instructors by instituting this "Observer/Advisor" bulls!t. In that regard alone, standards have been dropped and deviated from the norm.
Prediction: Bad news for everyone. Ridicule for any who may pass.

Response by MAJ Chris Ballard made Jan 22 at 2015 9:55 AM

2015-01-22T09:55:07-05:00

It's good that they at least have an adequate sample size. It's not a fair assessment if you send one female soldier through with 150 male soldiers. Ranger School typically has about a 70% attrition rate, so out of 60 there should be at least 5-10 who are able to complete the course. So long as it is a fair, unbiased approach with no special treatment (positive or negative), I am good with it. I won't say "no change in the standards," because standards often change over time. My class wore MILES and kevlars the whole time, but we also got 2 MREs a day and no desert phase. Things change.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 22 at 2015 10:17 AM

2015-01-22T10:17:47-05:00

These things tend to work themselves out on their own, in my experience. It always bothers me when I hear soldiers complain about women being allowed in combat arms MOS and schools. Just because it's allowed doesn't mean that suddenly every female soldier is going to become Airborne Infantry. The females who are likely to be interested in such a thing in the first place are probably already tough enough, or nearly so, to handle it and the ones who aren't tough enough to handle it probably aren't interested in it in the first place. The women should have the chance to prove they can do it.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 22 at 2015 11:48 AM

2015-01-22T11:48:08-05:00

So, if some of these initial 60 pass will they be able to then join the Ranger Regiment? I mean yeah most or all will go back to their units but will they then be eligible to be assigned to the 75th as a Ranger? Just curious, I don't have an opinion really.

Response by SPC Robert Dickey made Jan 22 at 2015 1:51 PM

2015-01-22T13:51:15-05:00

Im not going to say I agree or disagree with women in Ranger School. The fact is i was a medic when I got my slot and to this day still think the hardest part of the whole thing was convincing a 25yr + Infantry CSM that he should send a medic who had been in an Infantry Battalion for less than a year over his Infantry soldiers who had been infantry for anywhere from 12 months to 7 yrs.

None the less, I went, I graduated and went back tabbed. But if i hadn't I think of how hard it would have been for medics after me to get a slot.

I think the same will be the case for this. If they send 80 women and none pass, it will most likely lead to women not being allowed for another few years to a decade. It will also reflect poorly on the approving authorities who thought it OK to integrate them into the school. So one might start thinking there will be a shadow over the instructors to "ensure" a certain passing percentage for the woman candidates.

My main issue with the whole thing from the start was the fact female officers were complaining that the lack of the school as a credential on their resume would hinder there advancement next to a male officer with the school as a credential on his.

You don't attend the school with the thought of how nicely the bullet will look on your OER/NCOER and pave the path for your future. Thats not what Ranger School is for. Maybe think about how it will allow you to provide better leadership, knowledge, and advice for your subordinates, your unit and the Army.

Response by SFC Luther East made Jan 22 at 2015 2:50 PM

2015-01-22T14:50:28-05:00

Do I like the idea, Hell No. But I am an old dog and really don't like change. The key to this experiment is ensuring that the standards are not deviated from the current norm. This isn't about being a man or woman it is about meeting the "Ranger" standard. If you are worthy then earn it. But the second that a standard is changed, dropped, watered down due to gender than the entire project is a bust. The RI's will be fair and treat all candidates the same.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 23 at 2015 11:37 AM

2015-01-23T11:37:41-05:00

If the ladies can do it, I have no problem with it in thoery. Ranger School is in my view, the premier Small Unit Leadership course in the Army if not the military as a whole. A lot of people go and get tabbed that aren't in the Regiment or aren't Infantry.

As we move down this road though, I think there will be serious problems integrating women into combat roles. I started out as a PVT, I know how young johnnies think, regardless of whether they need to act professional or like adults or not. My first deployment there was a female medic attached to our Infantry unit. A lot of people didn't act like adults, to include the female SM to the unit leadership. NOT SAYING THAT INDICITIVE OF WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE- Its just my experiance. There's no doubt though that men and women are different.

Personally I don't think many women will enlist or be commissioned into the Infantry. Those that do will earn it, especially if the standards are the same, (there are a lot of men in the Infantry that don't belong there). Our thought processes were the same with the repeal of DADT. Nothing our of the ordinary happened. All I wanted as a PL was for my platoon to accoplish the mission everyday and shoot back when shot at. As long as they did that, I didn't care much what they did in the confines of their own homes.

Response by SFC Douglas Duckett made Jan 23 at 2015 2:24 PM

2015-01-23T14:24:09-05:00

Three years retired now from the infantry and the Army. Can you say "close call"?

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 23 at 2015 7:17 PM

2015-01-23T19:17:11-05:00

Welcome to the home of Airborne and Ranger Training Brigade
The Airborne & Ranger Training Brigade conducts the Ranger Course in order to produce Rangers to fill U(75th RGR RGT)/V (Airborne Ranger)/G (Non-Airborne Qualified Ranger) coded positions within the units whose primary mission is to close with and destroy the enemy in direct fire battle. Additionally, the ARTB conducts the Basic Airborne, Pathfinder, and Jumpmaster courses in order to SUPPORT U.S. Airborne Joint Forcible Entry capability.

Response by SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 23 at 2015 10:41 PM

2015-01-23T22:41:04-05:00

Posting here is a bad idea.

Response by 1SG Jimmy Owens made Jan 26 at 2015 11:28 AM

2015-01-26T11:28:37-05:00

Not sure if this is true or not but certainly gives you something the think about: Senior Leadership has eluded to the lack of Female Generals at Top echelons is partly due to Females not having "The Ranger Tab" and not being able to compete with their Male counterpart's who do have the certification; I certainly hope this is not the only reason Females are being pushed into Ranger School and the Ranger environment.

Why is it exactly that we need female Rangers in the first place -- can anyone answer that for me?

Or is it simply a long term plan to make to make Females eligible for the draft and make them eligible to serve in the Infantry?

I was a RANGER INSTRUCTOR for 10 plus years, serving at two Ranger Camps, and No one will "respect" their RANGER TAB knowing the standards were changed so they could not help but graduate, just a farce from the start, these poor woman will now be negatively branded / labeled their entire career as a result of this B. S.!!!!! 1SG OWENS

Response by LTC Gregory d'Arbonne made Jan 31 at 2015 9:25 PM

2015-01-31T21:25:34-05:00

Next, I want the LPGA to be eliminated and all professional golfers, regardless of sex, to compete from the same tees. Then, I want the Olympics to eliminate all women sports and all Olympians compete against each other regardless of sex (I think the equestrian events do that already so why not all the others). GEN (Ret) Kroesen wrote an excellent piece about this in the newest Army Magazine. Everyone should read this article written by one the few folks who fought in WW II, Korea and Vietnam and was attacked by terrorists when he was the USAREUR Commander, long before al Queda and the modern terrorists were even around.

If going to Ranger School was all about desire, there would be no issue. But going to Ranger School and being in the Infantry is more than just physical fitness. I say the politicians who dreamt up this silliness of allowing anyone to go into the Infantry regardless of gender, to paraphrase GEN Patton, don't know anymore about real battle than they do about fornicating.

When America goes to war I don't want a fair fight; I want us to use every available resource to punish the enemy who started the war and to scare the hell out of his frends as well so they won't want to fight us either. And it isn't just the Infantry that helps to do this so there are men and women doing this. Do we really think the Taliban or ISIS care that we are fair by allowing women into the Infantry and can attend Ranger School? Do they really care that we have a sense of fairness? Heck no; they only care if we die. So, they want to start something, I want to crush them with overwhelming combat power and to heck with fair.

Is the reason women need to go to Ranger School and be in the Infantry is because of promotion opportunities? If so, please see what branch over the past 30 years were the Chiefs of Satff of the Army. Look at how many were Infantry and tell me about promotion opporunities. If it is the fact that we have not yet had a women as Chief of Staff that we have to shove women into Ranger School and the Infantry? If so, please tell me the percentage of women servbing in the Army, divide that into the number of 4-Star Generals the Army has, and then tell me what the "fair" number of women 4-stars we should have. Then someone tell me what the definition of "fair" is; is it percentage or the best qualified or the person who got the best jobs because they knew the right people? A lot of our politicians scream about fairness in all kinds of things but I want to know who determines "fair?" paying my "fair" share; what does that mean? Does my "fair" share mean I have to pay more because I worked harder or is "fair" that everone goes to Ranger School and spends the taxpayers money only to have them not pass the requirments and the taxpayers are not reimbursed when they are dropped from the course (male and female)?

Do we think woman can do the physical taks of Ranger School? There may be a few but they will be few. Does that mean they have to serve in units where they will be the one woman in an Infantry Company and the unit will have to go to extreme measures to accomodate her and then when she PCS's and there is nto a woman to replace her do they have to spend the money to bring the barracks back to its original state. If we really want equal then why do we still have seperate standards for men and women? Before we send women to Ranger School, let's make the PT standards equal...and not specific to MOS. When Jessica Lynch was captured, did the enemy ask her what MOS she was and then treat here according to the PT standrads of that MOS?? The Marines say every Marine a Rifleman and that includes women. Shouldn't the Army think the same way or is the Army the place where everyone can join the military and get a trophy for showing up? The consequences of the Army failing in whatever mission they are given, whether battle or humanitarian asasistance, cannot and should not be tolerated. Our country may get a bad rap from a lot of people and places but when there is a disaster or a problem, who you going to call? Who else can make things right when many are in trouble?

Of course, I am old school so all you young folks who are more worldly and smarter than me because you were educated in the new enlightened age where everyone gets a trophy so as not to lower anyone's self esteem can go ahead and bash me for my views. I won't be responding to them but I will read them. BTW, I went and graduated from Ranger School and served in the Infantry my entire career. Obviously, I don't understand nor know what I am talking about so feel free to bad mouth me

Response by SPC Rick Simms made Feb 1 at 2015 10:38 AM

2015-02-01T10:38:30-05:00

Why do we have to attach women in Infantry roles to this? It's the best leadership school in the world and we need all the great leaders we can find. Do I think women should be in the Infantry? Hell no, not unless it's an all female unit. I don't need to be chasing after poon in the warzone, we need to just stay focused on keeping our brothers/ourselves alive and accomplishing the mission, but that said if they can meet the same requirements of the males without lowering the bar all the more power to them. I love strong women.

Response by 1SG Randall Lates made Feb 1 at 2015 11:50 AM

2015-02-01T11:50:06-05:00

As a retired Ranger and Ranger instructor, it's ok with me, just want to see the same standards upheld. But I know the DOD would never do that. To much PC!

Response by CPT David Bernheim made Feb 1 at 2015 4:18 PM

2015-02-01T16:18:16-05:00

First RTAC class @ Warrior Training Center wrapped up Thursday Jan 28. Approximately 28 females started the course. 14 finished and 5 of those passed with Go in all events using the one Ranger standard. I am proud of my daughter as she was one of those five. YMMV.

I have edited to correct the above information. 26 started, 16 finished and 5 of those females passed all events.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 2 at 2015 7:11 AM

2015-02-02T07:11:58-05:00

Just had a brief from a senior Army leader and he reiterated that the standards will remain where they are currently. 20% of the Females that started the assessment week made it through, with roughly 50% of Males making it through. There is no issue with this to the senior leaders, as it was the same when females were integrated into Sapper school.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 3 at 2015 11:28 AM

2015-02-03T11:28:17-05:00

While I personally have no desire to go through Ranger School, reclass to Infantry or any of the other "Combat" MOSs... However, I truly believe that any Male or Female who has the drive and ambition to accomplish any goal should have the upmost support from their leaders, command, service and especially their brothers and sisters in arms. Who are we to say that an individual CANNOT do anything?! What gives anyone such a sense of entitlement? Have we not learned anything from our history??

Looking back in just the last 50-70 years look at what has come to fruition. The changes in our society, the advances we've made as a country and still how far we need to go. I understand the pride that we have for our military and it's traditions however, change is inevitable. Good or bad.

I understand all the logistic dilemmas, the questions about standards, and the every other topic discussed in the forum. There are going to be agruments for and against every topic. I also realize that we are not all going to sit by the fire and sing Kumbaya but seriously... the world is not going to end!!

Response by PVT John Williams made Feb 5 at 2015 11:36 AM

2015-02-05T11:36:01-05:00

Hope they can do it. Power to them and good luck.

Response by MSG Floyd Williams made Feb 5 at 2015 11:40 AM

2015-02-05T11:40:22-05:00

I don't agree with it, but I wish them well!

Response by Sheryl Verhulst made Feb 5 at 2015 3:40 PM

2015-02-05T15:40:19-05:00

As a female, I do not think it's okay for women to be taking direct action in combat IF they are mixed in with male units for a variety of reasons. That being said, if a female has the physical capabilities of meeting the same rigorous standards as the males for requirements in special forces (it's not "watered down" to help compensate) and she would be placed in an all female unit, then go for it.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 5 at 2015 5:09 PM

2015-02-05T17:09:32-05:00

Being a female who has served in combat side by side with the men I say as long as they can meet the standard let them!!! Women have been serving in combat zones for years and have been doing the same job as their male counterparts for years... Women will never be treated equal until we are looked at as equals... And that will never happen with special treatment or separation... We aren't separated in combat and the enemy shoots at us all the same.... If they are high speed and can make it, let them serve... Otherwise it is a waste of government funding to send them through if it is only for political propaganda...

Response by SGT James Korman made Feb 5 at 2015 11:19 PM

2015-02-05T23:19:18-05:00

Not only NO! But Hell NO! It has been demonstrated from time out of mind that the presents of the female in hand to hand combat detracts dramatically from the effectiveness of that military Unit.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 6 at 2015 5:18 PM

2015-02-06T17:18:22-05:00

Most if not all of you advocates calling for females being aloud in Ranger School are missing the mark. Your basis for equality and allowed admittance “IF THE STANDARDS ARE NOT CHANGED”! Or I’ve seen males that can’t do certain physical activities……

Wake the F up!!! Standards are being changed; water downed and added procedures that give females an advantage over male candidates. Sending weak male or females Soldiers is a waste of time and money. Units should be held accountable for taking a slot in which the individual had no business attending ( male or female).

That’s why weak males don’t go to Ranger School and if some command team does allow them to go to school , the entrance process certainly brings the wanna be’s out quick. Look no farther than the recent RTAC results where female candidates were allowed to stick around to OBSERVE and males are sent packing when they fail. Don’t even get me started on the observers in which none are V or G qualified and from what experience do they speak of a process that has stood the test of time? So why add additional observers? Does the 101st get a special observer? The 82nd? The answer is no! Maybe we should toss in a special observer for every ethnicity, religion or hair color. Get my point!

The bad guys don’t give a flip who or what you are when they are trying to kill you. While women have been put in direct combat situations it was by chance and not taking the lead in deliberate, sustained or planned combat.

Why do other branches within the Army always say we train and perform just like the Infantry? Don’t flatter yourself PX Ranger you don’t come close! There is a big difference in being exposed to combat and knowing and executing combat operations as your core function and being damn good at it.

Response by 1SG David Little made Feb 6 at 2015 7:04 PM

2015-02-06T19:04:26-05:00

I just want to chime in with my 2 cents worth from actual experience. I was with the 82nd Airborne when we made the combat jump into Panama for Operation Just Cause. The entire purpose of an Airborne unit is to jump into combat. At that time, there were MANY females in jump slots getting jump pay and making their required jumps when needed and training as normal. HOWEVER.... when push came to shove, NONE (0-ZERO) women were allowed to go. Well, this caused an immediate shortage , so we jumped in understrength because women took away available slots to men that could jump into combat. They were airlanded later after everything was secured. Where is the sense in that? Just to be PC. Don't take this wrong, there are many women who are airborne qualified an I applaud them. BUT it is a waste of effort, time and taxpayer dollars when those same women collect jump pay to "train" to jump into combat, when they will not jump when the balloon goes up. With that being said, the same applies to Ranger school. WHY allow them to get the 'tab' when they will not get the special identifier and will not be assigned to a Ranger Bn? Sorry, but I call this PC Bullshit. I am so glad I am retired.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 7 at 2015 5:35 AM

2015-02-07T05:35:27-05:00

The Army’s first pilot program for women going to Ranger School suggests that there is an expectation that only one of the five candidates that recently passed pre-Ranger will likely graduate the course.

But, first, there seems to be some confusion about what Ranger School is or isn’t on these threads. Here’s a good, sort of detailed brief to help answer some of these questions: http://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/rtb/content/PDF/Ranger%20School%20web11.pdf. Ranger School is hard--really hard. Most candidates fail. Many candidates try and try and try again and fail.

Second, we should have fully gender integrated units across the military. We’ll be a stronger military, as long as the same standards apply to all. Solid, sensible, equal, and enforced standards make a better Army.

Third, statistics. The Army’s first pilot program for women going to Ranger School suggests that there is an expectation that only one of these five candidates will likely graduate the course.

For the pre-Ranger course that just finished, of the 30 women candidates, 16 finished, and 5 will be going to the Ranger School that starts in April. 5/30 = 16.6%. The statistic for men passing this same pre-Ranger was 55%. (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2015/0205/In-a-historic-first-five-women-qualify-for-Army-Ranger-School)

For stats on Ranger School overall, go to http://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/rtb/. The graduation rate from FY06-FY11 was 50.16%. The graduation rate from FY2000-FY2012 was 48.99% (http://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/rtb/content/PDF/Ranger%20School%20web11.pdf. ). 57% of total failures occur during RAP week.

Basic assumptions: The same percentage of women will graduate from Ranger School as men. Given the available data, and some rounding, 50% of women who go to Ranger School should be expected to graduate from Ranger School. Five women are going to Ranger School in April. 50% of 5 is 2.5, so using the basic assumption and rounding, 3 of these 5 should graduate Ranger School.

But we have additional data to evaluate. First, the 30 women who attended this pre-Ranger course were selected from the best candidates from across the Army. The typical Ranger course has 366 candidates on Day 0, about a third of which are 2LTs. I focus on this group because it is the largest by rank, and because, from my experience and understanding, almost all infantry 2LTs “volunteer” for Ranger School, but far from “almost all” infantry 2LTs actually want to go to Ranger School. Many quit the first day, or “purposefully” fail RAP events, or refuse recycle when it is offered to them. I don’t have the data, but it is likely a safe assumption that many of those who fail RAP week didn’t “really” want to be at Ranger School in the first place. And remember that RAP week represents 57% of all failures. My point: the five women going to Ranger School really want to be there; they’ve been selected from among the best candidates across the Army; and they already passed pre-Ranger. This skews the expected graduation rate upwards, based on what I’ll call a “motivational skewing factor.” Ranger School is almost entirely mental (several experienced CSMs on this thread have said Ranger School is 80% mental, and I’d agree with that).

“Peers” account for five percent of Ranger School failures. I’d expect the number of “bad peers” to be higher for women in this first Ranger course--and only because I’d expect that a large percentage of the very young men who comprise the majority of Ranger candidates espouse the anti-women-in-Ranger-School-and-combat-arms views many on this thread have espoused, not least because about a third of any Ranger course is comprised of E3-E5, and most E3-E5 at Ranger School come from the Ranger Battalions, which aren’t well known for assimilating to Army integrative programs (ie, the whole “you want to wear black berets, too? Ok, then we’ll wear tan ones! incident comes to mind.) This skews the expected graduation rate downwards, if only slightly.

“Administrative” failures account for about 2.5% of failures. There’s no reason to think this would increase or decrease based on gender.

“Student actions” account for 7.5% of failures. This includes LOM and serious observation reports. I’ve already noted that LOM is probably a lower likelihood from this group of 5 females. And there is no compelling reason to assert that females are at greater risk of a bad spot report. Ranger Instructors are ornery and mean and very standards-based, but the controls seem to be in place to ensure these female candidates are treaty equally.

“Medical” accounts for 6.76% of failures. Many on these threads have argued that women will fail Ranger School at higher rates because of injury. Nonsense, I say. Again, I don’t have the data, and my argument would be stronger if I did, but I recall that most injury-based Ranger School failures were from things like a candidate stepping in a hole and breaking a leg, or falling off a cliff at night, or getting bit by a snake, or other accidents. Women will be as lucky or unlucky as men in this regard.

But, we also have to adjust expectations based on the data from the pre-Ranger course. Women passed at a rate 3.3 times lower than men (16.6% vs. 55%). Men graduate Ranger School at a rate very close to 50%. 3.3 times lower than 50% is 15.5%.

15.5% of 5 = 0.75. Rounding this to 1, which seems logical due to the “motivational skewing factor” above outweighing the potential for “bad peers”, would suggest one of the five female candidates will graduate.

That means 4 of these female candidates will likely fail. As 57% of failures occur during RAP, it is likely that 2 of these failures will occur during RAP.

Of the 3 who pass RAP, two are likely to pass Darby Phase and move to Mountain Phase. One of these two is likely to recycle Darby, Mountains, or Florida. And only one is likely to graduate.

I wish the five female candidates, and their 361 or so male peers, the best of luck this coming April. I’d encourage all of them to remember that most who start do not graduate from Ranger School; that Ranger School is mostly mental, so just don’t quit; that Ranger School is a team sport, so always volunteer to help your Ranger buddies; remember to take care of your feet; and don’t be a chow thief.

Finally, as an aside, many on this thread have complained about the choice of April for the first pilot program. Ranger School is hard at any time of the year. It is cold in the winter, spring, and fall. Hot in the summer. Again, statistics would help, but I’d guess that the pass/fail rates for the April course are pretty similar to courses held at other times during the year.

Response by SSG John Dombrowski made Feb 7 at 2015 11:17 AM

2015-02-07T11:17:25-05:00

Equality is a myth, fairness is not. Equality between the sexes can never be achieved, after all we are biologically different. However in all fairness women should be allowed to do the same jobs as men as long as the same standard is met. By dropping the standard to allow more women to become rangers or infantry then you have a substandard unit. Allow women to compete on the same level. If they make the cut then so be it, if they don't make it then they simply did not have what it takes to be in that specialty.

Response by CPL Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 9 at 2015 2:42 PM

2015-02-09T14:42:36-05:00

thaqnk god im getting out!!!!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 9 at 2015 5:37 PM

2015-02-09T17:37:00-05:00

There is already talk about changing the standards if this one time assessment doesn't work and no females pass. Gender bias PT test will probably be the first. Everyone seems to worry about females privacy and going to the bathroom in front of males. Nobody is concerned with males privacy when there are females around. Welcome to the politically correct Military

Response by SGT Marika Waiters made Feb 9 at 2015 8:20 PM

2015-02-09T20:20:38-05:00

I'm on the fence here. However, I've always said, if women want to be combat arms, then BE combat arms! Don't expect preferential treatment. Period. The mission is always first. No whining about privacy, your period, your purse... Do the damned job. End of story. I wish I was still in, I'd be all over the new openings. But then, I was never the "normal" female servicemember. Got in trouble for making grown men cry, being "mean" & having a worse potty mouth than most; my friends were always combat arms - men,and not because I was putting out. I'm comfortable around guys, always have been. Followed my dad around until he died when I was 14. The dirtier it got, the more physical it was, I was in it! Females irritated me in the military. I say let em in, but keep the standards just as they are now. Too bad, so sad if they can't/won't hack it or tolerate the sameness. Period.

Response by SGT Romeo Reyes made Feb 9 at 2015 10:24 PM

2015-02-09T22:24:28-05:00

I am looking forward to seeing female Rangers in the future. Exciting times we live in!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 10 at 2015 3:18 AM

2015-02-10T03:18:20-05:00

For this, I want to simply quote the USASOC Commander "If they can hack it, with zero changes to the standards, then who are we as an Army and as a Country to tell them that can't do it."

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 10 at 2015 10:49 AM

2015-02-10T10:49:15-05:00

It is about time! Many countries have already had formidable women soldiers in their ranks. Women may be slightly less muscular that their testosterone laden comrades in arms, but they can be very effective in combat as well as spying. They should have a right if they wish too, serve their country as their male counterparts in combat. I have served with very capable women. Once we overcome our fears of losing women in combat, or making generalized social assessments about what would happen if they were captured. I also believe that for certain countries it would be demoralizing to them knowing they are fighting women who they deem underneath men, or or inferior. if women can do the training and handle combat on within the same standards, I say we should let them. Let our best and brightest kick some butt toward our national enemies. Also note: that women have already proven themselves on many fronts of what they are capable of if given a chance.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 10 at 2015 11:39 AM

2015-02-10T11:39:27-05:00

Political correctness at its best, common sense....totally ignored.

I understand the 5 of 26 women who started RTAC who completed the course are now spending the next 60 days healing, eating and working on what they failed at. I also understand that none of them passed their patrols (I don't really have a problem with that as a passing patrol is almost un-heard of in any Pre-Ranger). What is screwed up as their male classmates, have started Ranger School immediantly after completing RTAC.

These female soldiers are being molly-coddled in an attempt to get a woman to pass RS. This is the same touchey-feally, liberal, BS which is weaking our country. While I salute the female soldiers for not quiting, this is going to be a failed social experiment.

If sending women to Ranger School was a good idea, it would have happened a long time ago.

Response by LTC John Wilson made Feb 11 at 2015 1:36 PM

2015-02-11T13:36:01-05:00

I am for all qualified persons to be allowed to attend and complete Ranger, Special Forces, Pathfinder, Jump School, if they are legitimately qualified and have passed all the rigorous actions required of that specialty.

I do not support lowering of requirements, gender classification as a qualification, or anything that would denigrate the Qualifications of all those that have become Rangers, Green Berets, Airborne.
Unfortunately, the military is doing just that. Lowering standards and placing the lives of veterans all over the globe in jeopardy. No favoritism for anyone, anytime, anywhere. The only easy day was yesterday and those that have earned their badges shouldn't have to think twice about the other person wearing the badge.

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 20 at 2015 9:54 AM

2015-02-20T09:54:06-05:00

I am not in the Army. However, I feel I do have some "insight" on this topic as a female, and medic. I was active duty 16 years, and will finish out my career in the reserves. My response is more of a "blanket statement" over all "elite special forces teams" i.e.: SEALS, Rangers etc. I will speak from my personal view (as a woman and a medic/nurse). Men and woman are different, there is no way around it. Emotionally, biologically and physically. That's a fact. I have seen men (in the field, brought to us by the medic) in Iraq who had given the females traveling with them their water rations (biologically woman need more water than men, fact.) As a result the men (most were Soldiers) would suffer severe dehydration (which is no joke). Men inherently (NOT ALL but definitely most) want to protect woman. I feel that (some) women are indeed mentally and physically tougher than a lot of men. My Dad, after serving 3 tours in Vietnam had this to say on this subject, "I have had many a woman save my a**, but when your captured the enemy can do things to a female that they can't do to a man, this physical and psychological damage f-s you up for the rest of your life, and the enemy knows it, and will use it. I would rather they kill me than sit helpless while one of my brothers is tortured and killed, let alone a woman". Now, can they "train" the "man" out of these guys (And vise versa)? "Demasculation" of men is a current "issue" in society. Are they going to require that woman once through SEAL and Ranger training have hysterectomies? I am not sure what the "goal" is here. Equality? Proving a point? I know for a fact I can out wit, run, and preform many a man. However, I don't feel a combat situation is necessarily the time/place to prove it. I am not sure that recognizing (strategy wise) that it will cause more harm than good is a bad thing. However, by no means am I saying that woman should not have the opportunity for 'equality'. I guess the old saying "be careful what you wish for" is applicable here.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 20 at 2015 11:33 AM

2015-02-20T11:33:57-05:00

First thing is first, I personally feel that women by no means should be in a Ranger or Special Forces Battalion what so ever.

Second, I understand that there is a certain type of women (less than 1%) that hit the lottery with genetics and can outperform 95% of most men (probably about 70% of military men). I can understand how that 1% wants to excel to the upmost and perform at their peak and how they have an inner drive to do whatever it takes. However, the fact remains you are a female and when you are inserted into a 95% male unit many things change and not for the better.

I have been in the Special Forces community for a while now and I have seen females attached to teams and it literally DESTROYS teams from the inside out for multiple reasons.

1. Someone has sexual relations with the attaché married or not it causes strife between the team especially when more than one individual is having sexual relations with the attaché.
2. In most cases especially when deployed the female can’t keep up with the men in the team.
3. If women do become Rangers, SF, or infantry the standard will be changed or lowered in order to allow females into the ranks FACT!!

I personally have nothing against females in the military but when it comes to pushing females into the elite units I think it becomes a problem. These types of units are ELITE for a reason and when it comes to a life or death situation or when you’re on a mission for weeks straight at a time with very little food and water, there is no question that a man will outperform/last longer than any female.

I will just go ahead and also state the obvious here. Do you see any sport that isn't separated into a male/female category ?

Response by SSgt Thomas L. made Feb 23 at 2015 1:22 AM

2015-02-23T01:22:11-05:00

Keep in mind that this is only a pilot program. If the requirements are 100% the same, including requiring pre-ranger school... then I say let's take a look at the pilot program and see how it goes. If 0% pass, you have your answer.

Response by SGT Joseph Jones made Mar 12 at 2015 2:51 AM

2015-03-12T02:51:02-04:00

If they maintain the standard and can keep up and they don't have to have anyone carry their weight that's great!

Response by WO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 12 at 2015 2:51 AM

2015-03-12T02:51:52-04:00

A group of female Army support soldiers who were part of the first program in American history to send women into direct ground combat. Without the same training as their male counterparts but with a commitment to serve as needed, these young women fought in some of the bloodiest counterinsurgency battles of the Iraq war and returned home as part of this country’s first generation of female combat veterans. There is always a begining and this group of women will prove the can handle this training.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 12 at 2015 10:55 AM

2015-03-12T10:55:58-04:00

ARE YOU SERIOUS!??

THAT'S IT! I'M RE-ENLISTING.

Grrrr. I remember getting back from Iraq (attached to 5th SF Group) and I asked the SoD at the time why women could be attached but can't be in...
The American People are not ready to see Female Soldiers die.

Seriously! 38 isn't too old yet is it?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 12 at 2015 10:58 AM

2015-03-12T10:58:14-04:00

AND Yes, it should be the same standards. If I can not meet the same standards, I don't want to be in. Don't pity me because I'm a female. That would just be bullshit

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 12 at 2015 4:38 PM

2015-03-12T16:38:01-04:00

I believe at the heart of the Military it is what a soidier can do, whether they be male or female if they have drive, will, and heart to be what at the core is a Ranger and worthy of that Tab, than I don't care what the gender of that ranger is.

I speak from this standpoint that I will never be a ranger, I am not that soldier, there are people who are built for that life, and can make it through that training and those who do, are cut from a different cloth of ACU's. I know of women in my unit who are tougher and stronger than me and I don't have any resentment but see it as what is the strength of this country.

There will be those who see my support for this as not understanding the Ranger life, or the tradition of Ranger School, but many other times in the history of this country women have risen and met the challeneges facing them; Whether serving in the army and all other branches of the armed forces, granted acceptance into military academies and graduate from them, and on fields of war proving that valor is blind to gender.

Women and Men make up our armed forces and if they want to attempt the trianing and pass, than they deserve the opportunity to be all they can be. And we can continue to have the greatest fighting force on Earth.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 13 at 2015 7:20 AM

2015-03-13T07:20:53-04:00

As long as the standards are not diluted, I'm all for it. I can not deny that some women are more than physically and mentally capable of completing such a rigorous course. But if the standards are different simply because of gender, then I will not be okay with that at all.

Unfortunately, I feel that the standards will be different. I feel that the school house will be required to have a certain amount of female graduate, and that is where the problem lies. The standards will not be the same.

Response by SGT Gregg Cummings made Mar 25 at 2015 11:53 AM

2015-03-25T11:53:35-04:00

Look, I know what is going to happen, the dynamics and the standards will change even if they say they won't, it will be natural for those to pay special attention, feel sorry for, and slant favoritism towards any female that is within the training. What happens when the winter phase is in 30+ degree weather in the river with your platoon turning your rafts over then get off on the shore and everyone is told to strip now and get the wet close off and change. We were all completely naked, in the open, with no other thing on our minds and under orders to just strip and get in your rucks and put the dry close on. It made sense to do so because you did want to get hypothermia, but now there will be something done so no female will have to be subjected to that. There are many other examples.

Response by SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 25 at 2015 2:49 PM

2015-03-25T14:49:52-04:00

The standard should not be lowered at all. If the female SM can accomplish the training they have every right to be considered a ranger. But I say again, the standard should not be lowered.

If someone is talking about the change of culture, get over it. This happened when females first were able to join, this happened when segregation ended, and this is happening now with the repeal of DADT and guess what? We adapted and overcame.

Response by CPL Jesse Vasconcelos made Mar 25 at 2015 9:51 PM

2015-03-25T21:51:49-04:00

They are brave enough to join and sign up for combat jobs, let them. It will take time but we did it integrating African Americans and we seen what tgey had to go through. They thrived and are a huge part of our nations defense

Response by PFC Mike Mcdermott made Mar 30 at 2015 7:09 AM

2015-03-30T07:09:17-04:00

Good luck ladies!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 30 at 2015 9:19 PM

2015-04-30T21:19:18-04:00

The first class to accept females (Ranger Class 06-15) has finished RAP Week and begun Student-led patrols at Fort Benning. If anyone has any questions, search ARTB on the Fort Benning website and contact S-5 or Senior Tac.

Response by CW3 Dick McManus made Nov 23 at 2016 1:28 AM

2016-11-23T01:28:51-05:00

This is crazy. We had a guy fall and break his back in Warrant Officer basic course when he fell. Testing soldiers to determine if they are afraid of heights needs to be done safely killers. I am still so sad about my compadre who feel because he was afraid of heights. I never found out how he did. We lost one third of our causalities in South Vietnam from landmines and booby traps. Going to UNJUST wars like south Vietnam sucks. Hell the South Vietnamese Generals were selling heroin to our soldiers and in 1970-71 when was there we had 15 to 30 percent addicted. Thank goo only 1 percent stayed addicted when they returned to the states. I don't know why, because today only one out of seven heroin addicts can be turned into non-addicts with treatment.

Response by PFC Ron Patton made May 18 at 2017 11:04 PM

2017-05-18T23:04:50-04:00

Good luck

Response by SGT James Korman made May 25 at 2017 4:51 PM

2017-05-25T16:51:03-04:00

What a disgrace

Response by PVT John Williams made Jun 1 at 2017 1:24 PM

2017-06-01T13:24:48-04:00

Watered down down for females. Do they do everything the men do ? Doubt it. I want to see one carry someone on their shoulders that outweighs them by nearly 100#.

Response by CW3 Dick McManus made Jun 1 at 2017 2:22 PM

2017-06-01T14:22:57-04:00

Yes, we could have a female ranger companies that go on missions with only women and no men. Guerrilla soldiers in third world nations work very good, but those people are fighting for their neighbors. US soldiers usually don't go into combat with their wives and/or mistresses. I got shot at in South Vietnam by one of the guys within my unit because he got jealous because his friend was having sex with the South Vietnamese prostitute. He killed three guys and wounded six. As a paramedic I had to treat the wounded.

Response by CPT John Hanaberry made Jun 17 at 2018 1:27 PM

2018-06-17T13:27:15-04:00

How many Lactation Pumps are authorized under new Inf Co TOE? The Army has gone MAD. Ranger RVN Inf Advisor

Response by SFC James Welch made Jun 15 at 2020 9:58 AM

2020-06-15T09:58:44-04:00

Not everyone can or should be a Ranger. Only the best of the best should even be allowed to try. That being said, if a woman can make the cut, more power to her. Everyone must suffer the same, no short cuts or exceptions. I was never Ranger material myself and I have nothing but respect for anyone who can wear that Tab with pride. Nothing worthwhile comes easy. I can only imagine what it’s like to finish that course successfully and the immense pride of accomplished at the end.

Response by CPL T.A. Nelson made Jul 19 at 2022 12:41 PM

2022-07-19T12:41:09-04:00

If they have what it takes make the Rangers...