Category: Marine Corps

  • Mabus: Marines’ mixed-gendered experiment was biased

    Mabus: Marines’ mixed-gendered experiment was biased

    Mabus

    According to The Hill, the Navy Secretary, Ray Mabus, disputes the findings of the Marine Corps’ 9-month study involving mixed-gender units. He thinks that the study is biased for political reasons;

    “They started out with a fairly largely component of the men thinking this is not a good idea, and women will not be able to do this,” he said in an interview with NPR.

    “When you start out with that mindset, you’re almost presupposing the outcome,” he said.

    […]

    Mabus said some of the report’s conclusions were based on generalizations and not the women’s performance.

    “Part of the study said women tend not to be able to carry as heavy a load for as long, but there were women who went through the study who could,” he said.

    “And part of the study said we’re afraid because women get injured more frequently that over time, women will break down more, that you’ll begin to lose your combat effectiveness over time.

    “That was not shown in the study, that was an extrapolation based on injury rates,” he said.

    I guess that he gets his talking points from Ellen Haring. The fact remains that the women volunteered for the study which means that they wanted it to succeed. Some of the women had initial training, some of them had no training, you know just like some of the guys that I’d get in my unit. They all volunteered, they all wanted to succeed, like the ladies.

    Basically, Mabus is vocalizing that which we’ve always known about this administration’s civilian leadership of the military – they don’t trust the services to give them good advice. Mabus, himself, presupposed the outcome of this study and he’s resistant to information to the contrary and he’s willing to throw his flag officers under the bus because they tell him that his preconceived notions are wrong.

    Mabus and Haring and the rest of the social engineers don’t care that their plans will kill male and female Marines – they just care that they’ve given up those Marines for sacrifice on the alter of their religion.

  • Marine Corps’ mixed gender units tested

    Marine Corps’ mixed gender units tested

    Women Marines

    According to the Marine Corps Times, Corps official released the results of their first experiment in mixed-gender units and it doesn’t look good;

    Data collected during a months-long experiment showed Marine teams with female members performed at lower overall levels, completed tasks more slowly and fired weapons with less accuracy than their all-male counterparts. In addition, female Marines sustained significantly higher injury rates and demonstrated lower levels of physical performance capacity overall, officials said.

    […]

    While the experiment was closely controlled, there was a key experience gap: Many male task force volunteers came from combat units where they had previously served, while female volunteers came directly from infantry schools or from noncombat jobs. One task force unit, a provisional rifle platoon, attempted to mitigate this problem by comparing the performance of male and female troops who received no formal infantry training.

    It’s funny, but many times we got male soldiers in our infantry units who were fresh from infantry school or came from non-infantry jobs and the units’ performance didn’t suffer as a result. But, hey, that’s just my experience. I’m sure that the results of this study won’t convince anyone who already has their mind set on the outcome of these experiments.

    I’m sure it can all be fixed by changing the standards, or by properly immersing male infantry soldiers in some sort of mind-altering touchy-feely training devised by a bunch of people who have never, nor will they ever, hear a weapon fired in anger.

  • More F-35 “Good News”

    Most TAH readers have heard about that new F-35 “Lightning II” that DoD insists will be ready for prime time “real soon now”.   (Yeah, I know the USMC has accepted it and declared it “operational” – but I won’t consider it truly “ready for prime time” until it can perform its Close Air Support [CAS] role too.  And as I’ll discuss below, right now the F-35 simply can’t do that.)

    Well, it seems that there’s another little minor issue with the platform that’s been made public.

    Jonn’s written previously about how the F-35 is less maneuverable in a dogfight than one of the aircraft it will replace, the F-16.  Others have written elsewhere about the fact that the F-35 will be far less effective at the Close Air Support (CAS) role than the A-10 – if for no other reason than the F-35 is only designed to carry between 15.5% (USAF model, 182 rounds) and 18.7% (USN/USMC model, 220 rounds) as much cannon ammunition as the A-10 can carry (1,174 rounds).

    But it will certainly be better air-to-air against the current aircraft it might face from Russia or China, right?  Well, in a word – no.

    Turns out that the F-35 will also likely be less maneuverable than the current aircraft from Russia and China it’s expected to face.  So it will likely be worse than those aircraft in an air-to-air role, too.

    Yeah, the analysis was done by a progressive think tank.  So?   Remember:  they are capable of telling the truth on occasion, too.  (smile)

    Gee, what a surprise. I mean, the program has been an unmitigated success so far, right?

    So, to recap: the F-35 is hugely expensive – several times more expensive than the aircraft it replaces.  It’s worse as a CAS platform – and, by the way, it won’t even be available for that role for at least 4 years, as performing that role isn’t possible until gun control software which is projected to be available in 2019 is delivered (and only then if that gun control software works correctly).  It is less maneuverable than the F16 it replaces in a dogfight.  And it’s also less maneuverable than the foreign aircraft it may have to face in air-to-air combat.

    So . . . what’s not to like?

    Folks, we’ve seen this “movie” once before.  Specifically, we saw it early in Vietnam – when US aircraft, designed not for maneuverability and depending solely on air-to-air missiles to take out enemy aircraft – got absolutely savaged by more maneuverable Soviet designs.  (The air-to-air loss ratio early during the Vietnam War was about 1-to-1.)  Plus, those aircraft kinda stunk when performing a CAS role, too.

    The “movie” absolutely sucked then.  There’s a damn good chance we’ll see a modern-day sequel if we continue down this path – and it will suck just as badly as the original.

    We learned from that earlier fiasco, though.  The result was a new generation of US military aircraft that took those lessons to heart.  Those aircraft were the F-15, F-16, F/A-18, and the A-10.

    The F-35 is a turkey.  We need to admit that fact, pull the plug on it, and go back to the drawing board.  Yesterday.

  • Marine Corps Gazette censors Lieutenant Colonel Germano

    Marine Corps Gazette censors Lieutenant Colonel Germano

    I’m sure you remember earlier this month when we discussed Lieutenant Colonel Kate Germano when she lost command of the 4th Recruit Training Battalion on Parris Island, S.C. when she was accused of “toxic leadership” for telling the females in her command that they needed to exceed the standards that the USMC sets for females.

    Well, it seems that she had an article scheduled for publication in the Marine Corps Gazette along the same lines, but the Gazette spiked her article when she was relieved, according to the New York Times “At War” blog.

    The editor of the Gazette, John Keenan, a retired Marine Corps colonel, denies that Marine Corps leadership had a hand in the spiking of Lieutenant Colonel Germano’s opinion piece;

    For the Gazette’s part, the reasons behind the decision to pull the article were simple, Mr. Keenan said. Colonel Germano’s relief complicated prospects for publication in the journal not just because it had damaged her professional credibility but also because some readers might see publication as an implicit endorsement of her position in her dispute with the Corps about being fired.

    “You could argue that running that article would bolster her argument” surrounding her dismissal, he said. “And I’m not going to bolster that argument – on either side.”

    Yeah, well, the Marine Corps really didn’t have to say anything to Keenan – he knows which side of his bread is buttered. We certainly can’t have a Marine telling other Marines that there needs to be one standard irrespective of their ugly parts.

    Mr. Keenan also said, however, that whatever the perceptions about Colonel Germano’s dismissal, her article contained valuable insights. “Personally, I feel there is a lot of validity to what she is saying about, ‘Don’t hold women to lower standards,’ ” he said.

    Well, then what’s the problem with publishing her piece? She has a valid point that no one else in the Corps appears willing to say in public. Germano has the real world experience that bolsters her point. So, what’s the problem?

    Thanks to Chief Tango for the link.

  • Lieutenant Colonel Kate Germano fired

    Lieutenant Colonel Kate Germano fired

    Kate Germano

    Old Trooper sends us a link to Fox News about this Lieutenant Colonel Kate Germano who fired from her job at 4th Recruit Training Battalion on Parris Island, S.C. According to the article, she was fired for making female recruits better Marines;

    She got bounced June 30 after a command investigation accused her of “toxic leadership” by berating and showing contempt for subordinates in public. The 300-page report found her to be “hostile, unprofessional and abusive “ and told recruits that sexual assault was preventable, and that those who drank put themselves in a position to be assaulted.

    She also told recruits male Marines would never take orders from them and would see them as inferior if they couldn’t meet men’s physical standards.

    In May, Germano filed a complaint against her supervisors claiming that they were undermining her efforts to push female Marines to be as well-trained as their male peers. So, in June she gets fired. I remember a letter that Sage Santangelo, a Marine Corps lieutenant who failed the Marine Officers’ Infantry Course when she wrote a letter to the Commandant of the Marine Corps accusing the Corps of not training female Marines to be as good as their male counterparts. I guess that was not taken seriously by Marine leadership.

    From the New York Times;

    When Lt. Col. Kate Germano took command of the Marine Corps’ all-women boot camp, the failure rate of female recruits at the rifle range was about three times higher than that of their male counterparts, and she said there was no plan to try to improve it. “The thinking was girls can’t shoot, so why bother,” she said in an interview.

    So she worked with trainers to give women better skills instruction, and soon passing rates soared, according to Marine Corps records. In June, 95 percent of women passed initial rifle qualification, equaling the rate for men. Colonel Germano made similar gains in strength tests and retention…The corps said that Colonel Germano’s removal had nothing to do with gender, and that an investigation had found that she disobeyed her chain of command and berated and embarrassed subordinates when they did not meet her standards.

    “This whole thing started when her Marines — her female Marines — were telling us they were being mistreated,” said Col. Jeffrey Fultz, the chief of staff for Parris Island. “She was telling them their male counterparts will never respect them if they don’t get good physical scores. You just don’t do that.”

    For the record, I’ve been telling my subordinates for decades that soldiers don’t follow leaders who can’t exceed their standards, in regards to their technical proficiency and physical fitness, male or female. So what’s new about telling females the truth?

    According to the Fox News and the New York Times articles, Germano’s Marines, as a whole, were performing better than most recruits, I guess that’s something we just can’t have. The United States Marine Corps wants to be more like the Army in regards to political correctness and sacrifice standards for feelings.

  • Lieutenant General Robert B. Neller nominated for Commandant of Marine Corps

    Lieutenant General Robert B. Neller nominated for Commandant of Marine Corps

    Robert Neller

    According to the Washington Post, Lieutenant General Robert B. Neller has been nominated by the Secretary of Defense to be the Commandant of the Marine Corps today;

    Neller is known as a no-nonsense leader and a student of military history. He served for the past year as the commander of Marine Corps Forces Command in Norfolk, Va., which oversees and provides Marines for deployments overseas. He previously served as the commander of Marine Corps Forces Central Command, which oversees Marine operations in the Middle East; and as president of Marine Corps University at Quantico, Va.

    Earlier in his career, he deployed to Somalia and Panama and was a staff officer in the policy division of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe in Casteau, Belgium.

    According to his biography;

    Lieutenant General Neller’s assignments in the operating forces include: Rifle and Weapons Platoon Leader and Company Commander with Company L, 3d Battalion, 4th Marines, 3d Marine Division, Commanding Officer, Company A, 1st Battalion, 1st Marines, 3d Light Armored Infantry Battalion and 6th Marine Regiment. While with 3d LAI he participated in Operation “Restore Hope” in Somalia. Commanding Officer, Marine Corps Security Force Company, Panama, where he participated in Operations “Just Cause” and “Promote Liberty”. Additionally, he served as Executive Officer, 7th Marine Regiment, G-3, II Marine Expeditionary Force and G-3, 2nd Marine Division.

    It sounds as if he can gun and I see a Combat Action Ribbon on his rack.

  • Marines may deploy with allies’ ships

    Marines may deploy with allies’ ships

    This story sounds really weird, USAToday claims that US Marines may go down to the sea in other countries’ ships because of a shortage of US vessels.

    The initiative is a stopgap way to deploy Marines aboard ships overseas until more American vessels are available, said Brig. Gen. Norman Cooling, deputy commander, U.S. Marine Corps Forces Europe and Africa.

    […]

    The U.S. Navy has 30 amphibious ships but says it needs 38 to fulfill war fighting requirements. It won’t reach that level until 2028 because of budget constraints, according to the Navy.

    Critics say the Navy has allowed its amphibious capabilities to decline.

    […]

    Much of the Navy’s current amphibious fleet is being used in the Pacific…Fighting in Ukraine and chaos in Libya have raised concerns about the need for forces who can respond quickly to events in Europe and Africa.

    When I think of getting support from our allies, I think of Mogadishu where the troops there were dependent on Pakistani armor to extract them from any difficulties that they might encounter. That didn’t turn out like we planned. It puts our foreign policy at the mercy of the policies of other countries…folks who act in their own interests, not ours.

    Yeah, it looks like a result of piss poor planning at the Pentagon, the White House and Congress. This is what a “peace dividend” looks like.

  • Marine special operations troops are now “Raiders” once again

    Marine special operations troops are now “Raiders” once again

    raiders

    We told you back in August, 2014 that the name change was coming, and now it’s here, according to the Associated Press. MARSOC, Marine Corps Special Forces Command troopers are now officially named “Raiders” drawing from their World War II legacy;

    “It’s a great honor to have this lineage carried forward,” said attendee Charles H. Meacham, 89, who served two years during World War II as a Raider in the Pacific. “Now MARSOC’s carrying on the legacy of the Raiders. It’s a Marine tradition.”

    In a news release, the Marine Corps said the renaming gives commanders a shorthand way to refer to special operations Marines, similar to the labels “Green Beret” or “SEAL,” in what it called “an official identity.”