Yeah. Who the fuck tied those ties. Every one of them should have the taste slapped out of their mouths…
- Thread starter RRW
- Start date
They are stupid if they aren’t wearing clip-on ties.
You can do a lot to a person, in a hand-to-hand fight, if they are wearing a regular tie.
I wonder what her classmates have to say about her. They were all probably cut some slack so theyd say that she did the same thing as them. At which point it's the worst case scenario. All of them sent to the fleet and can't perform to the standard needed.
This is the problem. In our increasingly gyno centric society, men are to become the worker drones, subsidizing females, and their poor life choices.
Well that is what happens when you recruit thisMy experience pushing studs through a number of different service and component sniper courses is like just about anyone else's.
You have instructors who are true teachers and you have "Standard Protectors" who make it a supreme challenge for anyone to pass. There has to be a happy medium somewhere -- training should be challenging but not impossible to pass.
Not everyone is meant to be a sniper -- especially if you've never lived in the woods growing up, and you can't hit a specified number of targets with a precision rifle and optic (for Chrissakes).
The Leg Army has a huge problem when it comes to filling vacant sniper slots. You have to filter through all the willing volunteers to find those qualified to do the job. You have to prep and train them and get them to the course. Once there they have to meet the objective standards. For good or for bad, with a lack of qualified officers and senior NCOs, who knows the difference?
There are 60 Army infantry battalions (active, Guard, and Reserve). While there might be troops in each slot, many / most are short school-qualified Additional Skill Identifier B4 Soldiers. 32 slots per class, 10 classes per year, if everyone passed that's 320 per year for all infantry and cavalry scout sniper positions. Legacy pass rate is around 50% or less. It seems like it will be impossible to fill slots until divisions and units hold their own schools again -- like we do for static-line jumpmaster, and testing for EIB and EMB.
=================
Army Sniper School Fail
John Buol, Army Reserve Marksman, January 2022
The United States Army Sniper Course just reported that they have a high failure rate due to Soldiers not being able to pass the Army’s minimum threshold grouping of 6 MOA (4cm at 25m) to standard. This is a disheartening but honest reflection of current Soldier ability with small arms. Nobody can address a problem they refuse to acknowledge. Kudos to the United States Army Sniper Course for doing the right thing and being public about it.
Update: Army public affairs has since had the post about this very real problem removed. I guess that’s easier than addressing the issue…
I saved the picture and text as originally posted before it was deleted.
From day one, Sniper School isn’t easy.
Please ensure that Soldiers attending are prepared to perform the first event as it delivers the highest attrition rate of all graded events. This event consist of firing an M4 Carbine with iron sights at 25 meters. We shoot the Army’s standard M4 zero targets and we require that the impacts are within 4 centimeters.
Units spend a lot of money and resources to send Soldiers to this course. We want to graduate 100% of our students as we can but must maintain standards.
Before you stands the bags of 15 students that failed group-in. The one event at the USASC that delivers the largest amount of failures is the 25-meter group-in. This event consists of firing an M4 Carbine with iron sights at 25 meters. We shoot the Army’s standard M4 zero targets and we require that the impacts are within 4 centimeters (6 MOA, which is the minimum Army standard all Soldiers are supposed to be able to pass, including new recruits during Initial Entry Training). Despite this, we commonly see 25-30% of arriving soldiers incapable of meeting this standard, even after being declared as a suitable candidate for Sniper training by their leadership and (allegedly) having qualified “expert” in the past six months.
Do not take this as the USASC poking fun, but rather as a teaching point. Units spend a lot of money and resources to send soldiers to this course. We want to graduate 100% of our students as we believe and know that snipers are force multipliers. Please take the time to ensure you or your soldiers can meet a course pre-requisite.
The 39 students that did successfully complete group-in have our fullest attention. We can also include doctrinal updates, curriculum updates and re-writes, force modernization, equipment procurement for tomorrow’s sniper, equipment testing, international sniper competition, and general soldier tasks. The soldiers used their Assault packs instead of a sandbag which is why there are notable statements highlighted in TC 3-22.9.
We presented a fact that the biggest discriminator at the USASC is the 25-meter group-in. For those that don’t know, soldiers will shoot, retrain if needed, then shoot again. We do not run a selection course as we firmly believe that units have already selected the soldiers attending the course. We provide a service for the Army as snipers can help shape the battlefield. The army is vastly understrength with qualified snipers and we are far from “badge protecting.”
At one point we identified that the force was struggling so bad with the M4, that we provided an M4 PMI, took students through the EST2000, then performed attempt 1, retrain, attempt 2. The number of drops was still 25-30%, meaning no change.
The USASC does not need to disclose any of this information but for the betterment of the Soldier attending, we will share data points where difficulties commonly occur."
Instead of him
I've been shooting rifles and pistols since I was 6 and could see myself fucking up that 25 yard iron sight carbine shooting test on the first try, would be embarrassed on the second try though. Being blind in one eye probably doesn't help either lol.
Men have always been the worker drones. At least we aren't sending boys into coal mines anymore, although the rich pricks who run this country would probably do it if they could get away with it:
Men have always been the worker drones. At least we aren't sending boys into coal mines anymore, although the rich pricks who run this country would probably do it if they could get away with it:
I agree with everything said and then some.
But with younger populations across the world not just the US, the men just aren’t as driven/military types.
That goes back to recruiting and marketing the military, but every country is having the same issues so there’s more to it as always.
Unless they would institute a mandatory national guard /reservist before the age of 30 etc, they just won’t meet the numbers needed.
So here come the women.
And no politician would ever get elected saying he wants a “draft”…and here we are.
Since women are here to stay they should absolutely not be forward deployed on the ground ..that is just a force negative not a multiplier.
Flight, logistics, transport , planning etc…thats perfect, no need for a male to be flying a C-5.
But keep them out of the dirt. Nothing good comes from that, even if they somehow pass quals.
But with younger populations across the world not just the US, the men just aren’t as driven/military types.
That goes back to recruiting and marketing the military, but every country is having the same issues so there’s more to it as always.
Unless they would institute a mandatory national guard /reservist before the age of 30 etc, they just won’t meet the numbers needed.
So here come the women.
And no politician would ever get elected saying he wants a “draft”…and here we are.
Since women are here to stay they should absolutely not be forward deployed on the ground ..that is just a force negative not a multiplier.
Flight, logistics, transport , planning etc…thats perfect, no need for a male to be flying a C-5.
But keep them out of the dirt. Nothing good comes from that, even if they somehow pass quals.
Sorry I didn't dumb it down further but I think most can understand what I was getting at. If you think the past is the same as what is going on right now, I am at a loss as to how to explain it to you.
SIMPs need to get it through their thick heads that where we are headed, will not remotely resemble the past in terms of the male/female dynamic. Furthermore, women are not the real problem here. SIMPs are.....
Women are becoming dependent on the state to be their husband and father of their offspring more than ever before. We are also facing population collapse which will means the state will pay for single mothers more than ever. This will not be limited to liberal strongholds.
Men can stick their heads in the sand and say things like "Men have always been the worker drones." all they want. That "won't stop what's coming. and it is coming like a freight train.....
Cheers......
A huge problem is neither set is joining the Army or the Guard. They've both missed mission the last two years (and this one's starting behind as well).
Females bring a whole set of problems with them. The few I've taken to combat have not only pulled their weight but excelled.
None were infantry or combat arms.
That said, I'd rather have a female Soldier who joined rather than a drafted male who is just waiting to get out. I had a number of Korean Augmentees to the US Army (KATUSA) Soldiers rounding out my squads, many conscripted after their first or second complete years in college, serving out 18 months of their two-year conscription in slots in US units.
As for politicians not wanting the draft, decorated Korean War veteran New York Congressman Charles Rangel wanted it back to provide opportunities for black men.
too many boys are raised by single women and then indoctrinated by women teachers.
of course, the utter failure of middle east policy and the deaths and injuries incurred by the application of those failed policies is a factor.
of course, the utter failure of middle east policy and the deaths and injuries incurred by the application of those failed policies is a factor.
1 box of ammo 1 kill.My experience pushing studs through a number of different service and component sniper courses is like just about anyone else's.
You have instructors who are true teachers and you have "Standard Protectors" who make it a supreme challenge for anyone to pass. There has to be a happy medium somewhere -- training should be challenging but not impossible to pass.
Not everyone is meant to be a sniper -- especially if you've never lived in the woods growing up, and you can't hit a specified number of targets with a precision rifle and optic (for Chrissakes).
The Leg Army has a huge problem when it comes to filling vacant sniper slots. You have to filter through all the willing volunteers to find those qualified to do the job. You have to prep and train them and get them to the course. Once there they have to meet the objective standards. For good or for bad, with a lack of qualified officers and senior NCOs, who knows the difference?
There are 60 Army infantry battalions (active, Guard, and Reserve). While there might be troops in each slot, many / most are short school-qualified Additional Skill Identifier B4 Soldiers. 32 slots per class, 10 classes per year, if everyone passed that's 320 per year for all infantry and cavalry scout sniper positions. Legacy pass rate is around 50% or less. It seems like it will be impossible to fill slots until divisions and units hold their own schools again -- like we do for static-line jumpmaster, and testing for EIB and EMB.
=================
Army Sniper School Fail
John Buol, Army Reserve Marksman, January 2022
The United States Army Sniper Course just reported that they have a high failure rate due to Soldiers not being able to pass the Army’s minimum threshold grouping of 6 MOA (4cm at 25m) to standard. This is a disheartening but honest reflection of current Soldier ability with small arms. Nobody can address a problem they refuse to acknowledge. Kudos to the United States Army Sniper Course for doing the right thing and being public about it.
Update: Army public affairs has since had the post about this very real problem removed. I guess that’s easier than addressing the issue…
I saved the picture and text as originally posted before it was deleted.
From day one, Sniper School isn’t easy.
Please ensure that Soldiers attending are prepared to perform the first event as it delivers the highest attrition rate of all graded events. This event consist of firing an M4 Carbine with iron sights at 25 meters. We shoot the Army’s standard M4 zero targets and we require that the impacts are within 4 centimeters.
Units spend a lot of money and resources to send Soldiers to this course. We want to graduate 100% of our students as we can but must maintain standards.
Before you stands the bags of 15 students that failed group-in. The one event at the USASC that delivers the largest amount of failures is the 25-meter group-in. This event consists of firing an M4 Carbine with iron sights at 25 meters. We shoot the Army’s standard M4 zero targets and we require that the impacts are within 4 centimeters (6 MOA, which is the minimum Army standard all Soldiers are supposed to be able to pass, including new recruits during Initial Entry Training). Despite this, we commonly see 25-30% of arriving soldiers incapable of meeting this standard, even after being declared as a suitable candidate for Sniper training by their leadership and (allegedly) having qualified “expert” in the past six months.
Do not take this as the USASC poking fun, but rather as a teaching point. Units spend a lot of money and resources to send soldiers to this course. We want to graduate 100% of our students as we believe and know that snipers are force multipliers. Please take the time to ensure you or your soldiers can meet a course pre-requisite.
The 39 students that did successfully complete group-in have our fullest attention. We can also include doctrinal updates, curriculum updates and re-writes, force modernization, equipment procurement for tomorrow’s sniper, equipment testing, international sniper competition, and general soldier tasks. The soldiers used their Assault packs instead of a sandbag which is why there are notable statements highlighted in TC 3-22.9.
We presented a fact that the biggest discriminator at the USASC is the 25-meter group-in. For those that don’t know, soldiers will shoot, retrain if needed, then shoot again. We do not run a selection course as we firmly believe that units have already selected the soldiers attending the course. We provide a service for the Army as snipers can help shape the battlefield. The army is vastly understrength with qualified snipers and we are far from “badge protecting.”
At one point we identified that the force was struggling so bad with the M4, that we provided an M4 PMI, took students through the EST2000, then performed attempt 1, retrain, attempt 2. The number of drops was still 25-30%, meaning no change.
The USASC does not need to disclose any of this information but for the betterment of the Soldier attending, we will share data points where difficulties commonly occur."
The one thing noone talks about has nothing to do with whether women can fight or handle combat zones... I think history has proved that they can do both.
And noone can argue that there are 'some' women who can pass the most rigorous selection courses that are out there. As a percentage, fewer than men. But they can and will pass. And can and will pass without standards being altered for them.
The issue noone discusses is the ability of men to function at full throttle with women in combat. For one, we have a genetic disposition to want to breed with them. Sergeant or sniper or officer or not,... it's the number one function of the male. To breed with females. But even assuming those urges can be repressed...
We have thousands of years of cultural indoctrination that a man's job is to protect women and to treat them as the 'weaker sex.' The gatherer to a man's hunter. The Fair Maiden in the Tower. The Medieval 'romanticism' which has shaped most of western civilization reinforced that rather effectively while religious dogma created the concepts of monogamy and romantic love. Yes... it's a creation. Albiet one that helped create modern Western civilization. But it's still a construct.
So the issue is not about whether some women can pass rigorous selection and training courses. It's not about whether they can do a job that is traditionally a man's job. The issue is whether the presence of women will degrade a man's ability to perform a tough job... killing the enemy while those around him are getting killed... without his instincts to protect women kicking in. Thus degrading combat effectiveness.
And, with greatest respect to all commenting, I'd say that a number of the comments here reflect that worldview.
Contrast that with Eastern (or Middle-Eastern) cultures that don't share the same Western precepts and you will see entire battalions of women. Trained to be just as lethal as their male counterparts.
Humans of both sexes are rugged as hell when push comes to shove. And much of combat is mental survival, not just physical strength. Things that degrade mental states (like an inability to accept women in combat due to a millenia or two of cultural conditioning) degrade combat capability.
Is there a solution? IMHO, no. Not without a lot of cultural conditioning.
So how, one asks, did Chinese and North Korean and Hamas manage to handle it? Look at their histories of compliance, servitude or, simply, not valuing life. Westerners value every life. Other cultures value the preservation of their culture and the individual is a non-entity. Thus cannon fodder.
Just some Sunday Rambling... I'll put on my Nomex Tighty Whitey's about now... Because I am sure I'm gonna get lit up!!
Sirhr
And noone can argue that there are 'some' women who can pass the most rigorous selection courses that are out there. As a percentage, fewer than men. But they can and will pass. And can and will pass without standards being altered for them.
The issue noone discusses is the ability of men to function at full throttle with women in combat. For one, we have a genetic disposition to want to breed with them. Sergeant or sniper or officer or not,... it's the number one function of the male. To breed with females. But even assuming those urges can be repressed...
We have thousands of years of cultural indoctrination that a man's job is to protect women and to treat them as the 'weaker sex.' The gatherer to a man's hunter. The Fair Maiden in the Tower. The Medieval 'romanticism' which has shaped most of western civilization reinforced that rather effectively while religious dogma created the concepts of monogamy and romantic love. Yes... it's a creation. Albiet one that helped create modern Western civilization. But it's still a construct.
So the issue is not about whether some women can pass rigorous selection and training courses. It's not about whether they can do a job that is traditionally a man's job. The issue is whether the presence of women will degrade a man's ability to perform a tough job... killing the enemy while those around him are getting killed... without his instincts to protect women kicking in. Thus degrading combat effectiveness.
And, with greatest respect to all commenting, I'd say that a number of the comments here reflect that worldview.
Contrast that with Eastern (or Middle-Eastern) cultures that don't share the same Western precepts and you will see entire battalions of women. Trained to be just as lethal as their male counterparts.
Humans of both sexes are rugged as hell when push comes to shove. And much of combat is mental survival, not just physical strength. Things that degrade mental states (like an inability to accept women in combat due to a millenia or two of cultural conditioning) degrade combat capability.
Is there a solution? IMHO, no. Not without a lot of cultural conditioning.
So how, one asks, did Chinese and North Korean and Hamas manage to handle it? Look at their histories of compliance, servitude or, simply, not valuing life. Westerners value every life. Other cultures value the preservation of their culture and the individual is a non-entity. Thus cannon fodder.
Just some Sunday Rambling... I'll put on my Nomex Tighty Whitey's about now... Because I am sure I'm gonna get lit up!!
Sirhr
In the movie "GI Jane," Viggo Mortensen plays the command master chief in charge of bud/S. During the evolutions at SERE, he expresses this exact concern. He has no doubt that the female can complete the physical and mental rigors of training. It's the men who are going to crack in order to protect a woman because it is ingrained in our culture and maybe even our DNA to do so.
Years back there was also guidance for CT shooters. You enter and clear the breach and encounter an armed pair shaking off the effects of your strip charge and multi-bangs -- one is a female.
"Shoot the woman first." If she's serious enough to bear arms after all that, she'll be the first to shoot you deader than fried chicken.
"Shoot the woman first." If she's serious enough to bear arms after all that, she'll be the first to shoot you deader than fried chicken.
That is the act of the movie I am talking about. They go to SERE and she is the one they interrogate.
Favorite line of the movie is when Demi's character says to Viggo's character, "Suck my dick!"
We look to be moving towards a world where men no longer have any kind of protective instincts towards women. Progressives have no idea just how deep and dark this rabbit hole is going to be.
If I was the good Samaritan, that piece of shit would've been bleeding out of mouth, nose, and ears. Good to see a little MMA action...
But tell me more about the one bull dyke you met who could lift 160lbs.
I actually think she was...or at least bi. She did date guys but? Anyway, you ever meet "large" people that can still out run the "fit" people in a mile? That was her.
Similar threads
