BlackFive has posted an AMAZING after action report from Raven 42, the bad azzed cops from 617th MP Co, Kentucky National Guard, assigned to the 503rd MP Bn (Fort Bragg), 18th MP Bde.
They were ambushed, they killed bag guys.
There is one bad azzed chick in this outfit.
The team leader sergeant--she claims four killed by aimed M4 shots.
Say what you want about girls in combat but they are a durn sight tougher than terrorists. The ones from Kentucky anyhoo...
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2005/03/after_action_re.html
shreck,
Got an E-mail covering the same.
All I gotta say is that Jhonny Jihad had just better be thankfull that they REALLY didn't tick this bunch of Soldiers off!
The standards of training and discipline that are evident within this unit are obvious.
Jhonny Jihad didn't have a clue or a chance.
One Soldier is wounded for life, and should be kept in our prayers and thoughts.
Two others were wounded and should recover.
Remember them when you eat a hot meal tomorrow, and sleep in a comfortable bed..
We are spoiled and completely insulated thanks to young and brave troops.
Whatever their gender.
The Enemy does not lack sophistication, training or ability.
Our guys and gals however are just flat BETTER thanks to training, and individual resolve expressed in a team effort.
I have always been opposed to MP's being eligeable for the CIB.
Not any more.
These MP's crossed the lines, and became GRUNTS.
Where the hell is the news media now that we have a true female hero or two to celebrate HONESTLY, now that Jessie Lynch has couragously spilled the beans???
7 against 24-27?
In an ambush?
Good thing Those Soldiers weren't from Vegas and could care less about odds!!!!!!
Also,
Those "Chicks" rate.
They are Soldiers.
And obviously Damn good ones!
Semper Fi!
E4E
Someone I know put this post on Marlinowners.com's forum. This was a poll on the best general purpose military weapon. Topic went to women in the military. Pretty much somes it up....
-----------------------------------
Not quite. The basic 30 round magazine for the 223 can be used for the 6.5 Grendel, and will still hold some 28 rounds. The effective fire power for the size gives the Grendel a significant advantage. The 308 is good, but the 6.5 Grendel just has too many good things about it not to be the current first choice, with the 6.8 Rem Spc right behind it.
Also, I can't tell you how much the basic platform (either M4 or M16/AR15) has evolved in the last 30 years. The M14 just cannot compete with it anymore, and even the 308 models available in the AR style, though similar, can't use the same lower receiver. The advantage it gives our troops is phenomenal. Either the 6.5 or the 6.8 Rem Spc can just fit right in and go. No getting used to a new stock or sight picture, and all the nice toys that allow us to respond to enemy fire when they fire first, but we hit the target.
One comment about current soldiers. They are probably the best shots the army has ever fielded. This is amazing when you consider that many, if not most of them had never fired a weapon before basic training. The 30-06, and even the 308 in some cases, is just too much for some of the almost half of the service female soldiers to be able to fire effectively without flinching. I've seen female MP's operate a M2 50 cal just fine- while it was vehicle mounted and not knocking them back three feet. But the same attempt with a 30-06 would not be a pleasant sight. There are some who could, but not the average 102 pound 18 year old.
By the way, there is a lot of info coming back now about combat stress. One study has found that only about 14 % of soldiers ever fired their weapons at the enemy in WW2. The reason is that, while combat is stressful, what really causes the effect on people is taking, or believing you have taken a human life. To avoid that, many just never fired, especially unless they had to. The highest percentage of soldiers treated for serious combat stress are those who know they have killed someone. That's why, if you ask people from Viet Nam, they don't want to talk about it at all. The current combat roles in Iraq make it impossible for female soldiers not to be "in the mix" as much as men. There isn't any real front line, and probably won't be in any conflict for the forseeable future.
The current information beginning to come in is that, while women can perform as well, or sometimes better than men in combat situations, the percentage of combat stress is much higher among females afterward. Too early to tell why. It could be societal, or it could just be that no one normal, man or woman, was designed to go around killing people, but when you have to men handle it a little better afterward. Until it happens to you, you just don't know. It does seem that the percentage firing their weapons is higher, and I attribute that to training. You train until it is automatic....but then you feel it later.
The times, they are a changin'. Just ask Terri Schiver's parents. Where is our country going....
I hope what's going on causes a lot of stress to about 22 judges and one very lousy "husband".
Bud
_________________
Boom! - plop
_________________
I think that tells us a lot about how women perform... and what we have to do to take care of our soldiers when they come home.
As an active duty naval officer and aviator going on 25 years now, all I can tell you that lifting the Title 10 restriction allowing women to serve in selected branches of the combat arms, was the single worse decision we've made in our 200 years of military history. Suffice to say that I was "in" on all of the original studies and even the Soviets and Israelis that tried it told us not to do it. You have no idea what it's done to our warrior culture. Fortunately, they are still out of the infantry, submarines, SPECOPS and a few others. jorge
Suffice to say that I was "in" on all of the original studies and even the Soviets and Israelis that tried it told us not to do it.
It is not controversial to assert that certain female units have acquited themselves admirably in fierce combat situations. Even taking into account some over-the-top government propaganda (especially Soviet), some women have distinguished themselves in that arena. That some individual females are a genuine asset in combat is not a good enough reason to ignore all other relevent facts in the rush to fully integrate women into combat units.
In recent history, the Russians and the Israelis have the most extensive experience with women in frontline combat. That they have chosen to discontinue the practice ought to at least cause people to ask "Why?".
At least one chick gave a good account of herself as a Soviet sniper. Stalingrad no less, and NO not the chick in that awful movie, Enemy at the Gates or something. How Stoopid was that?
And the real life story was so great, the book is War of the Rats.
I'm with Jorge---the fact that a few women are born warriors doesn't change the fact that their virtually full integration into our military has damaged our fighting capability.
And the horrible vidoes the media now play incessantly of maimed female amputees, grieving orphaned children (an amazing number of women soldiers are single mothers, to put it in the current euphemism), and left-behind husbands----all designed to make it even harder to deploy US forces into combat in the future.
No knock on the courage of the women, or their sacrifice, but a decent society would not have put them in that position.
Without dropped standards, 99% of these women warriors would not have made it through basic. But the services are now dependent on them----it's a Catch 22.
If the United States had fielded an all woman 3rd ID could it have gone all the way to Bagdad, at the begining of the war?
Some time back an F4 from the Oregon National Guard went down off the coast. Both pilot and back seater ejected safely into the
cold pacifc waters.
A rescue helicopter from Portland was sent to pick them up.
One of the rescuers, a woman, jumped in to the waters to rescue the back seater who had two broken arms as a result of the ejection. She was to secure him in a raft, get him out of the fridged water while the rescue copter went to find and rescue the
pilot who had ejected a distance away.
The nice lady rescuer who tried very hard to help the back seater could not, did not have the upper body strength to help the man in the raft, to get him out of the water which by this time he was in for some time. Try as she will, she just did not have it.
The backseater died from hypothermia before he reached the hospital.
I'm sorta being the Devil's advocate here as I think chicks would break up unit cohesion but what about all femme units, even in a combat arms role? Say an all female firing battery. Females make better pilots so why not an all femme squadron?
Shreck--you mean like an Amazon Butch PMS Death Brigade? Now that would scare the bejeepers out of those peace loving jihadis, wouldn't it? Maybe give them pigskin uniforms to complete the effect?
hehe wouldn't that shame 'em. Running from an all girl unit.
I'd have to reiterate JorgeI and Steve's comments. I believe that women in combat positions is another proof of the irrational nature of liberal thinking
I don't know about the sister services, but women are very much in SPECOPS in the USAF.
My ex-wife is one (married at 19). I would hate to go up against her. She was a fine NCO, and now a fine Lt Colonel.
Females make better pilots? What are you smoking? I was Chief Of Staff at a Training Wing and we had to lower standards from physical to most aspects of flying just to keep up a decent percentage of them graduating. Listen, "been there and done that" in fact, I'm still doing it and I'm here to tell you that it's not the same. jorge
Well, I was smoking a cigar, I'm not supposed to so don't tell anyone. My understanding was that females had a lower center of gravity and would be better pilots. I base this on my childhood reading of Heinlein. Starship Trooper.
I looked on line alebit briefly and could find no supporting evidence except for some report about female pilots having a lower incidence of accidents.
This "Killer Chick" most definitely earned her spurs. With all due respect, she has mine.
http://www.talkingproud.us/EditorChoice041103.html
There are damn few that are worth their weight as a combat soldier. Problem is you have to spend a hell of a lot of time and money trying to find out which ones.
Keep a woman awake for 48 hours and see how functional she is. Ignoring that there are significant physiological differences and requirements between men and women is what reduces the capability of a fighting force.
Lower physical standards are but one of the problems - The public in general will not accept the rape and brutalization of significant numbers of female soldiers as would happen if we fielded all female units. Females in combat roles are of detriment to our military - period.
One of the biggest problems the Israelis found with female soldiers was not that they could not be brought up to par with the same standard as male soldiers (by booting those that couldn't cut it, not dropping the standard), but that the males lost it when a female was killed.
Their combat experience was that, by and large, females performed as well in combat, if required to meet the same standards, as males. But, when a female was part of a unit and KIA within sight of the males in the unit, the males lost their edge/cool and went for revenge - often getting killed in the process.
So, even if the standards were the same - which they are not, and that alone is reason enough to say no to this PC crap - and even if the U.S. populace could stomach what would happen to large numbers of female soldiers, which they couldn't, and that's another strike against it - the impact on the males on the frontlines is severe enough to outweigh any potential legitimate argument for female combat troops.
Their combat experience was that, by and large, females performed as well in combat, if required to meet the same standards, as males.
Tha is the crux of the argument --- They aren't and don't. (meet the same standards)
There are damn few that are worth their weight as a combat soldier.
Keep a woman awake for 48 hours and see how functional she is.
First, there are damn few MEN who are worth their weight as a combat soldier, even fewer who stand up to the test of MCRD. Second, if you keep me awake for 48 hours I ain't worth a crap walking or riding.
Lowering standards isn't the answer.
Those chicks in the 617th MP Co. proved to me that they ARE worth a lot in a combat enviroment. Proof is in the pudding.
In conclusion, lower standards-no
If chicks can haul their load-yes
Schrek,
I am with you in that regard.
Overall Mission focus should never be comprimised for PC.
Yet at the same time, some units, with what appears to be methodology in training and expectations, can overcome the obvious.
Those that prevail, must be lauded, and their methodolgy researched and implimented.
Across the board? no.
Too many PC tokens in every dadgum "integrated" unit I ever dealt with.
I currently am dealing with a "Integrated unit" underneath me in a Govt. regulated private sector entity.
70% of the staffing issues are with females.
80% of the workload stress issues are with the females.
But there are those 10% that are meaner than a rabid Pitbull on Crack, and hold the line to the end, that keep my mind open.
Every once in a while I envision trading some of the male "snivel sissies" for the good dozen Chicks on the force.
Life would be good. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
Issues with Men being lazy and documenting the fact, is as bad as documenting certain females being unfit.
Whatever and however the 617th did to acheive this level of commitment and resolve, needs to be studied.
I am afraid "Integrated units" are here to stay, and we need to put effort into maximizing the human assets under those constraints.
E4E