Turn on thread page Beta

Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Performed Better Than Mixed Units watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    A yearlong Marine Corps study trying to understand how gender integration would affect combat readiness has found that all-male units were faster, more lethal and able to evacuate casualties in less time.

    Overall, according to a summary of the study, all-male squads performed better than mixed groups in 69 percent of the tasks evaluated.

    NPR's Tom Bowman filed this report for our Newscast unit:

    "The Marines created a battalion of 100 female and 300 male volunteers. During the past year, they trained in North Carolina and California, taking part in realistic combat exercises.

    "All-male squads, the study found, performed better than mixed gender units across the board. The males were more accurate hitting targets, faster at climbing over obstacles, better at avoiding injuries.

    "The Marine study says its main focus is maximum combat effectiveness, because it means fewer casualties. The Marines have not said whether the study's results will lead them to ask for a waiver that bars women from ground combat jobs.

    "Defense Secretary Ash Carter said he hopes to open all combat jobs to women."The Pentagon lifted a ban prohibiting women from serving in combat in January 2013. The question since then has been whether the military could open up those jobs without lowering standards.From the summary of the study, here are some key findings:










    Of course, this news comes just weeks after two female soldiers graduated from the U.S. Army's Ranger School at Fort Benning, Ga. As we reported, it's a grueling course that "puts a premium on physical strength and endurance.

    "The summary of the Marine Corps study quotes a 1992 report from the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces. That was the last time the government studied the effect of gender integration on ground combat units.

    According to that commission, winning a war is sometimes "only a matter of inches.

    "Back then, the commission concluded: "unnecessary distraction or any dilution of the combat effectiveness puts the mission and lives in jeopardy. Risking the lives of a military unit in combat to provide career opportunities or accommodate the personal desires or interests of an individual, or group of individuals, is more than bad military judgment. It is morally wrong."

    http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...an-mixed-units
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Interesting.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    This is why we need meninism
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    It isn't much of a surprise really.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Not surprised.
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    I suppose the PC thing to do would be to place an organisation's equality and fairness above its functional effectiveness, but because in this case that conflicts so starkly with people's well-being and safety, political correctness has to some extent been outed as putting the cart before the horse.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    even tho i am a girl (im not a feminist either ) i think the army needs to be all male in infantry roles, this is a case of if it isn't broken don't fix it. there are many other roles availible for women but i think this is one area which needs to be all male. Also i have watched many war documentries and some of these infantry units are stationed in incredibly remote locations for months on end how would a woman cope with 'that time of the month' and all that. Also unit cohesion could be affected by the introduction of women as the infantry units often have a sort of 'brotherhood' thing going on and also during battles a man may feel inclined to protect the woman. There is also obviously the problems that arise when there is romance between two soldiers. A fact which many feminists refuse to accept is that females are less strong than men. Having watched many documentries on selection processes you need to be ridicoulsy fit and stron (im not saying women aren't but i don't see how a female could carry a full grown adult male combined with military kit out of the battlefield). just my opinon and obviously as i haven't had any experience practically (alll my knowledge is from docs) it would be interesting to see what members of the military think.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HucktheForde)
    "Back then, the commission concluded: "unnecessary distraction or any dilution of the combat effectiveness puts the mission and lives in jeopardy. Risking the lives of a military unit in combat to provide career opportunities or accommodate the personal desires or interests of an individual, or group of individuals, is more than bad military judgment. It is morally wrong."
    I'd be interested to know where they draw the line in terms of this doctrine, since one might equally segregate along racial, ethnic or class grounds whilst offering up a similarly spurious justification based upon 'the greater good'.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Profesh)
    I'd be interested to know where they draw the line in terms of this doctrine, since one might equally segregate along racial, ethnic or class grounds whilst offering up a similarly spurious justification based upon 'the greater good'.
    But men and women are different while races arent
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Meninism)
    But men and women are different while races arent
    Was this an ill-judged attempt at Socratic irony?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Meninism)
    Feminist detected
    Troll detected.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Curious what their methodology was, as the document doesn't say. Especially important as some of the training was only done by 7 women (not enough to get a statistically significant result, especially as the US military has over 1,300,000 active personel)

    However given the study was done on actual marines meant that the women serving passed the physical requirements for marine training so obviously they are fit to be soldiers and troops can be selected for units based on the unit's need, if the unit has need of only the most physically capable soldiers only male soldiers will be in it.

    If winning a war is a matter of inches, including women into the armed forces is still a good idea as it enables the military to have over 200,000 soldiers it wouldn't otherwise have.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Not suprised. Could've told them that at the start and saved them the money.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gwilym101)
    Curious what their methodology was, as the document doesn't say. Especially important as some of the training was only done by 7 women (not enough to get a statistically significant result, especially as the US military has over 1,300,000 active personel)

    However given the study was done on actual marines meant that the women serving passed the physical requirements for marine training so obviously they are fit to be soldiers and troops can be selected for units based on the unit's need, if the unit has need of only the most physically capable soldiers only male soldiers will be in it.

    If winning a war is a matter of inches, including women into the armed forces is still a good idea as it enables the military to have over 200,000 soldiers it wouldn't otherwise have.
    You've obviously never served judging by your post.

    Physical fitness standards are one thing. (Incidentally, the USMC like the rest of the U.S. Military and British military have different physical standards for men and women. I've yet to see a British female soldier successfully tab 20k with CEFO and a 50kg Bergen on here back, yet that's something infanteers for example are expected to do.

    This study has highlighted studies performed by the Israeli military that has do started that mixed sex combat arms reduces combat effectiveness.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Not suprised. Could've told them that at the start and saved them the money.
    Come now, comrade, that isn't in the spirit of progressive Britain in Twenty Fifteen.

    Diversity über alles!
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    You've obviously never served judging by your post.

    Physical fitness standards are one thing. (Incidentally, the USMC like the rest of the U.S. Military and British military have different physical standards for men and women. I've yet to see a British female soldier successfully tab 20k with CEFO and a 50kg Bergen on here back, yet that's something infanteers for example are expected to do.

    This study has highlighted studies performed by the Israeli military that has do started that mixed sex combat arms reduces combat effectiveness.
    My post was more aimed at arm chair generals that were going to use this very vague and short document to say that women shouldn't be in the military because every time someone suggests letting certain groups in or having a greater role in the military ***** descend on them by claim that the cons outweigh the pros even though in the big picture they don't.

    As in this instance where the US military has access to 200,000 active personnel they wouldn't otherwise have in exchange for a supposed reduction in specific standards, in certain units that they figured out with methods they haven't divulged. Call me cynical but I'd rather have the extra 200,000 soldiers for my army please.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    During World War I, the US Army tested potential recruits and found black men were intellectually incapable of being soldiers. During World War II, black men were allowed in the military but were not allowed to be combat troops and had to do support roles like driving and laundry.

    This sounds a lot like keeping women out of certain roles because of what they are rather than what they could do. Maybe, they should pitch platoons made up entirely of women against the same made up of men in exercises and see who performs better.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gwilym101)
    My post was more aimed at arm chair generals that were going to use this very vague and short document to say that women shouldn't be in the military because every time someone suggests letting certain groups in or having a greater role in the military ***** descend on them by claim that the cons outweigh the pros even though in the big picture they don't.

    As in this instance where the US military has access to 200,000 active personnel they wouldn't otherwise have in exchange for a supposed reduction in specific standards, in certain units that they figured out with methods they haven't divulged. Call me cynical but I'd rather have the extra 200,000 soldiers for my army please.
    And yet this study backs up studies that the IDF have conducted.


    The USMC has never had problems recruiting. If it ever got that bad they'd reintroduce the draft.

    Things get dangerous when you decide to put people in harms way and then introduce policies for ideological reasons.

    Women play a key role in the military but not front line. Front line is a brutal, tiring and physically demanding environment.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    And yet this study backs up studies that the IDF have conducted.


    The USMC has never had problems recruiting. If it ever got that bad they'd reintroduce the draft.

    Things get dangerous when you decide to put people in harms way and then introduce policies for ideological reasons.


    Women play a key role in the military but not front line. Front line is a brutal, tiring and physically demanding environment.
    The bolded line has been used to keep anyone that wasn't a heterosexual white man out of the military. Sieves hold more water.

    This study doesn't really back up anything as its methodology hasn't been disclosed and in several instances its sample size is orders of magnitude too small.

    If a unit needs to be of a certain physical standard, only take those that meet the standard but don't exclude specific people that do meet it just because the particular demogaphic they may belong to on average doesn't meet the standard.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gwilym101)
    The bolded line has been used to keep anyone that wasn't a heterosexual white man out of the military. Sieves hold more water.

    This study doesn't really back up anything as its methodology hasn't been disclosed and in several instances its sample size is orders of magnitude too small.

    If a unit needs to be of a certain physical standard, only take those that meet the standard but don't exclude specific people that do meet it just because the particular demogaphic they may belong to on average doesn't meet the standard.
    Sadly not. It was widely acknowledged that gays in the military was a homophobic issue. The British military has a long and illustrious history of bummers in the military doing a good job.

    Different standards are set for men and women, and as this study and numerous studies from the Israeli military have demonstrated , mixing sexes impacts on unit cohesion.

    Anecdotal evidence from friends who served in the navy also show that mixed sec ships are also negatively impacted. Stag ship (all male crew) continually outperform non stag ships.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: September 15, 2015
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.