Army opens Ranger School to women

Discussion in 'Academy/Military News' started by MemberLG, Sep 2, 2015.

  1. MemberLG

    MemberLG Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    2,807
    Likes Received:
    444
    "The Army announced Wednesday it was officially opening future Ranger School classes to all qualified personnel, regardless of gender."

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/army-opens-ranger-school-to-women/ar-AAdSrmH

    Makes me wonder as the current requirement (i.e. "qualified" equals "meeting requirement") for Ranger school (as of today) excludes most female soldiers.

    "Prerequisites: ENLISTED and OFFICER PERSONNEL: Ranger Training is available on a voluntary basis only for Soldiers of all MOS/CMF, but is limited to Soldiers whom the Direct Ground Combat Rule applies as outlined in AR 600-13 Paragraph 1-12A."

    AR 600-13, paragraph 1-12A "The Army assignment policy for female soldiers allows women to serve in any officer or enlisted specaility or position except in those specialities, positions, or units (battalion size or smaller) which are assinged a routine mission to engage in direct combat, or which collocate routinely with units assinged a direct combat mission."
     
  2. kinnem

    kinnem Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2010
    Messages:
    7,547
    Likes Received:
    1,009
    Seems like they will be changing the wording on those in the very near future. Expect the same to happen everywhere on the Navy side. They've already stated SEALs are open to women. I'm anticipating the same thing for Marine Infantry Officer. My surmise is they've seen the handwriting on the wall, particularly since the political leadership is adament about making it happen. Also, if the argument is that women cannot meet the standard, then give the women the opportunity to prove it. Many won't cut it but some may. Services seeking an exemption just doesn't make any sense to me any longer.
     
  3. MemberLG

    MemberLG Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    2,807
    Likes Received:
    444
    Your point leads to the frustration of some of us (or it maybe just me) that might appear to be against combat positions being open to females. Most things in the military are studied, staffed, prepared, then executed. I will lost my job if I make a decision and tell my higher that I will work out the details later.

    If the leadership wants to just jump on the bandwagon and make announcements without doing any or minimum preparation, hard to aruge against that it's a decision based on politics, not a military necessity.
     
    hawk and -Bull- like this.
  4. kinnem

    kinnem Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2010
    Messages:
    7,547
    Likes Received:
    1,009
    I entirely agree that it's a political decision and not a military one. It's certainly NOT a military necessity. But the dam has been broken and SecNav has given every indication he's for women in combat roles. I can't see SecNav approving an exemption. I doubt the other secretaries will either.
     
  5. Sledge

    Sledge Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2014
    Messages:
    614
    Likes Received:
    324
    So, my next question is - 10 Ranger School slots are available for a certain unit. 20 candidates pass the unit's selection process. 18 men and 2 women. The women passed the requirements but are not ranked in the top ten. Who goes?
     
  6. Sledge

    Sledge Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2014
    Messages:
    614
    Likes Received:
    324
    Just today, the papers quoted SECNAV Ray Mabus saying that his mind was made up that Marine infantry would be open to women and that he would have something to say about the forthcoming official decision. The Marines did a thorough study where 0 out of 29 females passed the IOC. Given Mabus' comments, what was the point of having the study?

    http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/sto...ason-not-open-marine-infantry-women/71529246/
     
  7. MemberLG

    MemberLG Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    2,807
    Likes Received:
    444
    Hopefully top 10 candidates.
     
  8. kinnem

    kinnem Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2010
    Messages:
    7,547
    Likes Received:
    1,009
    I think they had the study when the Corps itself was looking for an exemption. Obviously political correctness will apply. Perhaps even more in this case as they can still be politically correct while probably having no female infantry officers. I'm sure some folks see that as the best of both worlds.
     
  9. zachcleigh

    zachcleigh Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2015
    Messages:
    153
    Likes Received:
    40
    If the females can run fast, jump high and carry their weight plus some, good. Problem is when a 200 lbs man is down and a female has to pick him up.

    I hope they 1, dont lower standards and 2, don't give slots to females who were out performed by males
     
  10. kinnem

    kinnem Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2010
    Messages:
    7,547
    Likes Received:
    1,009
    I, for one, completely agree.
     
  11. hawk

    hawk ButterBar Dad

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Messages:
    856
    Likes Received:
    65
    While I agree with your hope, I'd be willing to bet $100 that slots will be found for any females which pass RTAC/Pre-ranger, at least for the next several months. Just too much attention on this issue.

    And I hope the world will be fair and objective. And that Politics will never outweigh the needs (not desires) of an organization. And that Santa brings me a pony. :)

    I suspect there would be too much fallout on lowering standards initially, so I don't expect that short term.

    But based on the way other things get handled, I fully expect priority given to qualified females if nothing else to continue the experiment. But that's just my conjecture as an outside observer.
     
  12. hawk

    hawk ButterBar Dad

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Messages:
    856
    Likes Received:
    65
    Another thing that seems to have escaped nearly every news account and news person: While they have figured out that Ranger School is different from the Ranger Regiment... they still do not understand that someone does not just "join" or report to the regiment.

    Specifically, they don't understand RASP and prerequisites. Nor the normal timing/cycle for young officers to put in a package, etc.

    So you hear things like "But they still cannot be in the Ranger regiment, why not? What justification to keep them out now that they have completed Ranger School?"

    They completely miss the aspect that the two grads, however remarkable their achievement is, do not have the required experience to put a packet in for the regiment. And would still have to complete RASP 2.

    Made me wonder: Let's take the two recent grads. Tabbed, but no IBOLC. Would they give them equivalent IBOLC credit and allow them to insert into an infantry unit, much less put in a packet for the regiment? Or do they hold the line until females work through IBOLC?

    Seems like RTAC/Pre-Ranger covers about half of the IBOLC content. Certainly not the same depth even on the items that are common. Or do you do a compressed IBOLC for female 1LTs and CPTs, minus the RS prep and *BOLC stuff common to all branches?

    The rumor the last couple of years has been that USMA c/o 2016 will drop gender from the remaining Army branches. Which will be interesting, as branch night will be before Jan 1 when the Army is supposed to have it's position in.

    Thinking about it now, I predict that given the current direction that we'll see females in IBOLC next summer, if not earlier.
     
  13. Sledge

    Sledge Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2014
    Messages:
    614
    Likes Received:
    324
    Since they were oppressed by the patriarchy for so long, it's only fair that females now receive preference in attending Ranger School. Anyone who objects is obviously a misogynist.
     
    Dixieland and kinnem like this.
  14. zachcleigh

    zachcleigh Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2015
    Messages:
    153
    Likes Received:
    40
    Let's be honest though..
    Every one knows the average female is just as strong, fast, and aggresive as the average male. Not.... But politicians every where will persuade the military to push as many females through RASP as possible anyways.
    Slots will be prioritized to females over males, and because the "quota" of females passing RASP isn't high enough, standards for passing will eventually be lowered.

    The "success of females in ranger roles" will weigh into the decisions of allowing females to go into more and more combat roles.
    Exemplary males will be denied slots. Females will fail out, while simultaneously wasting tax payer money for their training, and if standards are lowered soldiers unsuit for combat will pass through.

    If females want to be soldiers or rangers that's fine. Politics needs to be completely eliminated from the scenario though.

    This is a shaky roller coaster we're getting on.
     
  15. davejean90

    davejean90 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2015
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    3
    From a resource allocation point of view this is a horrible idea. So far we have 2 Rangers from the original 19. So lets say it cost $1000 just to get them to the front door of Ranger School which is $19000 total. So that is $4500 in TDY travel per Ranger. Now I don't have any stats, but assume males have a 50% washout rate or 10 Rangers from 20 starts or $20000, which equals $2000 in TDY travel per Ranger. So to start with TDY travel is 2.5 times higher just to get the women through. Now lets talk recycle. The two woman that graduated recycled at least once. No I know men get recycled also, however how many days over the normal length of the 61 day course did it take the average woman to graduate? At least some of the men made it all the way through. Also how many days of training did the woman who did not graduate take? So now the new metric is training days required to create a Ranger. Each day is assigned a cost for TDY, time lost away from unit, etc. I am sure that if those numbers were provided, we would find that it is much more expensive to produce a female Ranger than a male one. So in these days of constrained budgets, I ask the question why? I was an armor officer in the early 1990's. At my basic course, we were told that we would have to compete for 1 or 2 Ranger slots out of a class of over 100. We were told it was because the school was focused on infantry officers and they did not have the resources to send all officers from other branches who wanted to go. Needless to say, the two guys that went from our class were really fit and had to prove it. I doubt these women could have kept up with them.
     
  16. MemberLG

    MemberLG Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    2,807
    Likes Received:
    444
    I think the reality will not cooperate with what politicians work. I also think the Army leadership will not break. Some of you might remember who Shannon Faulkner was. Perhaps she had the right intention and intellecutal capability, but what didn't realize was that she didn't have physical abilities to make through the first week of the Citadel.

    I am sure there are many females soldiers that want to attend Ranger School for right reasons, but most will not meet the minimum physical requirement. Some might say those physical requirements are made up, nothing to do with Ranger School. If so I wil just say during the Mountain Phase, Ranger students do a buddy rappel (rappelling down a clift carrying a "buddy" on your back). Without certain amount of upper body strength (this is after starving, not getting enough sleep, and being exhuasted for at least 20+ days), no way for anybody to make that buddy rappel. Okay, we don't need the buddy rappel as a course requirement, if so why not make the Ranger school a distance learning course.
     
    hawk likes this.
  17. beachlover

    beachlover New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2015
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0

    I fully expect with these new rules, that as of Jan 1, 2016, all females reaching the age of 18 are required to register for the Selective Service!
     
  18. hawk

    hawk ButterBar Dad

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Messages:
    856
    Likes Received:
    65
    Agreed 100% on reality vs politics, though I think it will take a while for that to become clear. I hope you are right that Army leadership does not cave on the standard, I guess we will have to see. Again, mine is an outsider's perspective. You are one of the few in the discussion with firsthand knowledge! :)

    BTW, I've heard arguments for MOS based standards that made quite a bit of sense. Makes me wonder if it's time to revisit that.
     
  19. -Bull-

    -Bull- Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,378
    Likes Received:
    338
    You don't have to be Infantry to be in the Regiment. The Regiment has almost every MOS in its ranks, each of them Rangers. Just saying this for those that may be under the impression that the Regiment is Infantry only, it's a light Infantry unit but needs just as much support as other units. But yes, everyone must go through either RASP or RASP II.

    On a side note, credit is due to the 2 recent females that graduated RS. I was skeptical at first, along with many others, simply from what the talk around town was. But there are a few guys I've met at my duty station that were in the same class, and even same squad, as one of the female graduates and they said they were extraordinary people and pulled more than their weight. Talking with guys at BOLC who went to school with many of the women in the first class said that almost all of them were athletes at USMA and some of the most physically fit women they've ever seen. Unfortunately they do not represent the vast majority of women (and a good number of men) in the Army, so I do believe standards were not changed for that first class. But there's only so many D1 athletes from USMA that can be sent to RS so hopefully they don't flood the course with substandard soldiers (man or woman) just to appease the media/politicians or public that aren't real concerned with how tinkering with combat readiness can cost lives.
     
  20. Sledge

    Sledge Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2014
    Messages:
    614
    Likes Received:
    324
    Do you mean by that that you think "Army leadership" will request an exception and seek to continue the exclusion of females from Infantry and Armor?
     

Share This Page