[LMB] Re: Women in Combat

Dave Klecha dklecha at i2k.com
Mon, 4 Feb 2002 10:59:59 -0500 (EST)


On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, Cat Meier wrote:

> The point he made was that the required weight standards 
> used by the US military aren't the only ones out there, and that they are 
> potentially more flexible than many in the military might claim

Kinda curious as to what you meant by "weight standards."  The only
"weight standards" we have is how much a person weighs in relation to
their height.  We don't really have a weight standard when it comes to how
much a soldier/Marine carries.  We have a minimum gear list, sometimes.
More often than not, though, we set the minimum amount of gear ourselves.
This past weekend, it was a lot, since we were doing cold weather stuff,
so we were bringing warming layers and all three parts of sleeping bags
and our isomats and so forth and so on.

Last I heard, the Marine Warfighting School was trying everything they
knew how to do to make our loads lighter.  I don't ever carry any
superfluous gear and I don't see how much of it could be a lot lighter.
As Danielle and I discussed on-list some time ago, the Army's attempt to
foist an over-sized, over-complicated "successor" to the M-16A2 was denied
by the Marine Warfighting School, in large part, on the basis that it
added far too much weight to the basic Marine's gear, and that the current
point of their research was to lighten the load, not increase it.

But yeah, I'm not coming down on either side of the question, just
pointing out that it may not just be traditionalist or MCP thinking
involved.

Dave (the non-MCP)
http://www.daveman.org