First Female Ranger School Gaduates

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

Congratulations to CPT Kristen Griest and 1LT Shaye Haver who will graduate from US Army Ranger School this Friday.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-19-2015, 11:06 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Congratulations to CPT Kristen Griest and 1LT Shaye Haver who will graduate from US Army Ranger School this Friday.

Congrats to them but I can't get behind lowering standards in the name equality, which in itself is disingenuous.

IF women can get through training and tests using the same standards as men, I'm all for it.

Otherwise this is complete nonsense.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-19-2015, 11:31 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Congrats to them but I can't get behind lowering standards in the name equality, which in itself is disingenuous.

IF women can get through training and tests using the same standards as men, I'm all for it.

Otherwise this is complete nonsense.

Live rounds don't care if you're male or female.  That's why they didn't change the standards.

[Bengalzona]

(08-19-2015, 11:31 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Congrats to them but I can't get behind lowering standards in the name equality, which in itself is disingenuous.

IF women can get through training and tests using the same standards as men, I'm all for it.

Otherwise this is complete nonsense.

No. They retained the same standards they have always had. Which is why it has taken a long time for female soldiers to finally pass the course (there were few females who enrolled in it to begin with). These are some tough young women. Congratulations to them and to all of the new class of Rangers who passed. And congratulations to the Army for the wise choice of maintaining their standards in the course while also letting female soldiers attempt it.

[GMDino]

(08-19-2015, 11:48 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: No. They retained the same standards they have always had. Which is why it has taken a long time for female soldiers to finally pass the course (there were few females who enrolled in it to begin with). These are some tough young women. Congratulations to them and to all of the new class of Rangers who passed. And congratulations to the Army for the wise choice of maintaining their standards in the course while also letting female soldiers attempt it.

Pfft.

Their parents didn't raise "proper women"!

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-19-2015, 11:42 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Live rounds don't care if you're male or female.  That's why they didn't change the standards.

As long as they don't lower the standards in any way, I'm fine with it. 

There are way lower standards for regular women in the service.  Same with law enforcement.  

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-19-2015, 11:48 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: No. They retained the same standards they have always had. Which is why it has taken a long time for female soldiers to finally pass the course (there were few females who enrolled in it to begin with). These are some tough young women. Congratulations to them and to all of the new class of Rangers who passed. And congratulations to the Army for the wise choice of maintaining their standards in the course while also letting female soldiers attempt it.

No what? 

I think I was quite clear in my post that as long as they didn't lower the standards it was fine with me, and said that if they lowered the standards in any way it was nonsense. 

[*michaelsean*]

Pretty damn imptessive.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-19-2015, 11:57 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: As long as they don't lower the standards in any way, I'm fine with it. 

There are way lower standards for regular women in the service.  Same with law enforcement.  

I have been aware of talk about women attending Ranger School for at least 20 years.  I always thought if it happens they should maintain a single standard instead of male and female standards.  I'm glad that is what they decided to do.  This is still considered a pilot program.  Part of the reason is because women have been attached to Ranger tasks forces in Afghanistan during combat patrols.  Apparently, less than 3% Army personnel graduate Ranger School.  These women proved they are tough enough and have the leadership skills necessary to graduate Ranger School. 

[jakefromstatefarm]

While they have graduated Ranger school, there are still rules in place regarding women in combat.

This doesn't change that....for better or worse.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-19-2015, 12:37 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: While they have graduated Ranger school, there are still rules in place regarding women in combat.  

This doesn't change that....for better or worse.

It is true some MOSs are closed to women.  It is also true women are already in combat.  The battle field is 360 degrees.  Things like a FLOT and FEBA don't really apply like they once did.  The enemy doesn't even wear uniforms.  You don't know who among the crowd will blow the brains out of the back of your head or vaprize you with a suicide bomb. You don't have to be in a combat arms unit to be in combat.  Additionally, part of the reason for this pilot program is women have been attached to Ranger task forces in Afghanistan during combat patrols.  Because you don't need to be combat arms to be attached to a combat arms unit.

http://nypost.com/2015/04/19/inside-the-military-program-that-put-women-in-combat/

[*bfine32*]

Kind of mixed on this. First absolutely nothing can be taken away from the women; secondly, they will never use the training they received. I wonder what the purpose was except to show women can do it. All this means is that they wiil be able to wear a Ranger Tab.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-19-2015, 01:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Kind of mixed on this. First absolutely nothing can be taken away from the women; secondly, they will never use the training they received. I wonder what the purpose was except to show women can do it. All this means is that they wiil be able to wear a Ranger Tab.

Ranger School is a leadership school.  You don't even need to be in the military to use the leadership skills you learn in the military.

If they're leading a convoy of PAC clerks from the airport to the FOB which comes under attack, they should be better leaders because of what they learned during Ranger School.  If they are a company commander at a TRADOC school, they should be better leaders because of what they learned during Ranger School.

[*bfine32*]

(08-19-2015, 01:28 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Ranger School is a leadership school.  You don't even need to be in the military to use the leadership skills you learn in the military.

If they're leading a convoy of PAC clerks from the airport to the FOB which comes under attack, they should be better leaders because of what they learned during Ranger School.  If they are a company commander at a TRADOC school, they should be better leaders because of what they learned during Ranger School.

This briefs well; however, there are a number of leadership schools in the military that do not require the time and money spent on Ranger Candidates and many of them teach more appropriate tactics. Many are just "tab chasers" that have no intention of ever using what they learned except to increase their chance of promotion. The TTPs you learn in Ranger School are minimal unless sleep and food deprivation are essential. When I was a Ft Bragg, it was a "requirement" for Senior leaders to be Ranger qualified and it had zero to do with the leadership skills we learned there.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

I know some of you guys are military guys, as am I.  And I'm not trying to compare my service to Ranger School to my time in the Navy.  But I did experience something similar to this while I was in.  After my first 2yrs in we received our first female officer, then it just became common place.  There were some small changes that needed to be made (I couldn't just go to the head in boxers anymore), but overall it didn't change much.  Everything operated the same for the most part. The only issue I saw was some fraternization issues.  But you'll have that.

Edit: PS I'm in full agreement that standards shouldn't be changed.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-19-2015, 01:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This briefs well; however, there are a number of leadership schools in the military that do not require the time and money spent on Ranger Candidates and many of them teach more appropriate tactics. Many are just "tab chasers" that have no intention of ever using what they learned except to increase their chance of promotion. The TTPs you learn in Ranger School are minimal unless sleep and food deprivation are essential. When I was a Ft Bragg, it was a "requirement" for Senior leaders to be Ranger qualified and it had zero to do with the leadership skills we learned there.

Did you learn leadership at Ranger School?  Yes or no.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-19-2015, 02:08 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Did you learn leadership at Ranger School?  Yes or no.

The silence is deafening.  Didn't realize it was so difficult to answer a yes or no question.

(08-19-2015, 01:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This briefs well;

What briefs well?  Explaining the intent of Ranger School is leadership training? Or explaining leadership isn't specific to the military and applies to many different scenarios?  Are you aware ACAP teaches transitioning soldiers to translate their leadership experience into resumes for civilian employers?

Quote:however, there are a number of leadership schools in the military that do not require the time and money spent on Ranger Candidates 

What is your point?  Women aren't worth the time and money spent on Ranger students?  That's very Biblical of you.

Quote:and many of them teach more appropriate tactics.

Name the leadership schools which teach "more appropriate tactics" and define WTF "more appropriate tactics" are.

Quote:Many are just "tab chasers" that have no intention of ever using what they learned except to increase their chance of promotion. 

Are these two women "tab chasers"? You don't have any idea.

Quote:The TTPs you learn in Ranger School are minimal unless sleep and food deprivation are essential.

LMAO.  I learned more TTPs at Ranger School than professional development schools such as PLDC, BNCOC, OCS, and OBC combined which are required for promotion.  I don't know WTF you're talking about.  

Here's a digital copy of The Ranger Handbook . . . https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/ranger.pdf

Looks pretty "minimal."  LOL  I suggest you read Chapter 1.  Then explain how it doesn't apply to these two women.

You're completely missing the point.  Ranger School isn't designed to make you an infantryman just because they teach small unit tactics of the infantry platoon and squad.  The patrolling, sleep and food deprivation, etcetera is designed to teach and test the students leadership abilities by stressing them under simulated combat conditions.

Quote:When I was a Ft Bragg, it was a "requirement" for Senior leaders to be Ranger qualified

When I was at 3rd Ranger Battalion it was required of every oscillating Richard.  I wonder why?  

Quote: and it had zero to do with the leadership skills we learned there.

Oh, so I guess the answer to my question is, "yes."  You did learn leadership at Ranger School.  Now I understand why you didn't answer my question.  

Developing leaders helps them assume the next level of responsibility to ensure mission accomplishment and the welfare of their troops.  I don't think it is ever a bad idea to teach leadership to leaders.  I don't understand why you or anyone would believe otherwise.



Ranger School is by no means the only method to teach leadership.  There are good leaders without tabs and bad leaders with tabs.  But, like the sign says, "Not for the weak or fainthearted."  If they have the courage to try (which is more than most) who the hell are you to tell them, "No"?

[BonnieBengal]

(08-19-2015, 12:37 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: While they have graduated Ranger school, there are still rules in place regarding women in combat.  

This doesn't change that....for better or worse.

As long as they were able to graduate while holding the same standards as the men, I see no reason why they cannot be in combat.  Some women can do this physically.  

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-20-2015, 08:05 AM)BonnieBengal Wrote: As long as they were able to graduate while holding the same standards as the men, I see no reason why they cannot be in combat.  Some women can do this physically.  

I agree.  That's why I qualified my statement by saying "for better or worse". 

[*bfine32*]

(08-20-2015, 05:14 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The silence is deafening.  Didn't realize it was so difficult to answer a yes or no question.



What briefs well?  Explaining the intent of Ranger School is leadership training? Or explaining leadership isn't specific to the military and applies to many different scenarios?  Are you aware ACAP teaches transitioning soldiers to translate their leadership experience into resumes for civilian employers?




What is your point?  Women aren't worth the time and money spent on Ranger students?  That's very Biblical of you.




Name the leadership schools which teach "more appropriate tactics" and define WTF "more appropriate tactics" are.




Are these two women "tab chasers"? You don't have any idea.




LMAO.  I learned more TTPs at Ranger School than professional development schools such as PLDC, BNCOC, OCS, and OBC combined which are required for promotion.  I don't know WTF you're talking about.  

Here's a digital copy of The Ranger Handbook . . . https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/ranger.pdf

Looks pretty "minimal."  LOL  I suggest you read Chapter 1.  Then explain how it doesn't apply to these two women.

You're completely missing the point.  Ranger School isn't designed to make you an infantryman just because they teach small unit tactics of the infantry platoon and squad.  The patrolling, sleep and food deprivation, etcetera is designed to teach and test the students leadership abilities by stressing them under simulated combat conditions.



When I was at 3rd Ranger Battalion it was required of every oscillating Richard.  I wonder why?  




Oh, so I guess the answer to my question is, "yes."  You did learn leadership at Ranger School.  Now I understand why you didn't answer my question.  

Developing leaders helps them assume the next level of responsibility to ensure mission accomplishment and the welfare of their troops.  I don't think it is ever a bad idea to teach leadership to leaders.  I don't understand why you or anyone would believe otherwise.



Ranger School is by no means the only method to teach leadership.  There are good leaders without tabs and bad leaders with tabs.  But, like the sign says, "Not for the weak or fainthearted."  If they have the courage to try (which is more than most) who the hell are you to tell them, "No"?

I didn't answer your question because you get overly excited about everything (must be that calm under pressure you learned at Ranger School).

No where did I state anyone who wants to go to Ranger School should not and I said absolutely nothing should be taken away from these females; I simply said my opinion is mixed. If we are looking for ways to trim the budget there are much more inexpensive and effective ways to teach leadership. Sorta like the guys we saw walking around with Jump wings having a total of 5 jumps.

You mention the modern day battlefield and fail to mention that there is no longer a desert (where we are currently engaged) phase in Ranger School. I'm not even sure if the modern cirriculum addresses unconventional warfare, mostly just squad level tactics.