Originally Posted by rost495
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by dodgefan
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by David_Walter
'Sniper,

There are no m60s in my current TOE.

However, in the last unit I commanded, we had an EOD flight with those and the Barrett light 50.

My EOD flight commander, a 4'11" woman, used to hump them all the time.

Does that prove or disprove anything?

And my math skills are fine. Barry's implication was that women are unsuitable because large numbers wash out. Large numbers of men wash out, too.

I think you're all missing the point, perhaps purposely. While you have the luxury of disparaging these Rangers, I have the reality of having to make these and any other women effective in the roles to which they are assigned.

You're talking. I'm doing. And it doesn't matter what you say, I'm going to give these ladies, these volunteers while 99% of the male population does not volunteer, every opportunity to prove themselves and to succeed.

I'm going to switch off of this thread now. As the Ranger Major said earlier, you could have been there the whole time and still would not have given these officers the courtesy of recognizing their accomplishment.

That's pathetic.


David, again you obfuscate. There was an earlier class with 19 female Ranger Candidates, and all 19 failed. Out of this class of 18, only 2 passes.

2/37 is 5%. That is a full magnitude different then the near 50% pass rate for men.

Since you are an officer, let me break this down for you.

5% does not equal 50%.

So explain to me how sending 10 times the number of women through Ranger School to get the same number of graduates as their male counter parts is a reasonable expenditure of our tax dollar? Again, you've become such a political creature as you rose though the officer ranks you are no longer capable of doing a simple cost/benefit analysis.

As for volunteering, you seem to forget. I did volunteer.

As for you making the most with what you have, you don't have a choice in the matter. You have to play the hand you are dealt. If the Air Force decided to send you tangled mess of misfits, it might suck to be you, but it doesn't change your mission, just your opportunities for success.


Actually these numbers are wrong 138 started RTAC. Numbers are here. http://weaponsman.com/?p=23048

Eviltwin has seen more ground combat then anyone else on here. I think I'll go along with his opinion as it reinforces what I saw on 21 years active.


RTAC is the Ranger Training Assessment Course. It's a 16 day "pre-ranger school" course designed to weed out those wwho are not up to the physicality of the Ranger Course, and those who can't read maps etc. Generally about 55-60% oof males soldiers can pass this pre-course, but as you mentioned, the success rate for females is significantly lower, with over 80% failing. All total this means that only 1.5% of the hand selected women were able to complete the course.

So the top 1% of females can equal an ordinary male soldiers. How would they compare with the top 1% of male soldiers, and which would you rather have with you in combat?


Would your numbers not reflect what we've been saying, the course will sort it out.

Once again, let the results speak. I wouldn't want the guys that failed to be with me..... same same.


Rost, those schools are not free. That's your and my tax dollars they are spending to get minimal results out of their PC agenda. Of DW and the likes don't care how many of our tax dollars they waste in pursuit of their PC agenda so long as it helps him toward his next promotion.

So you have one group with a 1% pass rate, and another with a 50% pass rate. So by your reasoning we should send more of the one percent group so we can spend more tax dollars and have fewer new Rangers, and fewer that can actually be in a Ranger Battalion, at the end of they year.

Sure, as guys we like babe's with guns, but I"m not in favor of wasting tax dollars on high failure rate, and limited opportunities to use the skills imparted.

You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.

You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell