Posted on Feb 25, 2015
LT passes pre-Ranger; 6 women now set for Ranger School
106K
175
111
13
13
0
From: Army Times
A female lieutenant successfully completed the February rotation of the Ranger Training Assessment Course, and she now joins five other women who have so far qualified to attend Ranger School this spring.
A total of 100 soldiers — 17 of them women — started the course, which took place Feb. 6-21 at Fort Benning, Georgia.
Thirty-six soldiers successfully completed the two-week course, said Maj. Gen. Scott Miller, commanding general of the Maneuver Center of Excellence and Fort Benning.
The success rate for this month's rotation was "considerably lower" than normal, said Maj. William "Shep" Woodard, commander of A Company, Army National Guard Warrior Training Center, which runs RTAC.
The typical completion rate for RTAC is about 57 percent, he said.
"For whatever reason, this was an underperforming class for men as well as women," he said.
The most common reasons soldiers dropped out or failed to meet the requirements were:
• Pushups
• Road march
• Injuries
All of the drops happened in the first week of RTAC, Woodard said.
It's too early and the population too small so far to pinpoint any specific trends, Miller said.
"What we're starting to see, if soldiers fail RTAC for some reason, you have pushups, you have some lack of motivation [where] someone says 'this is not for me' and pulls out," he said.
There also have been some soldiers dropped for medical reasons, and "we're looking closely at the medical drops," Miller said.
Many women candidates — six in this February class — who did not meet the requirements for RTAC are opting to stay and complete the two-week course anyway, Woodard said.
"They continued to take advantage of that opportunity," he said. "Even though only one was successful, they seem to see the intrinsic value of the training and opt to stay."
The female lieutenant who successfully completed the February RTAC is an aviator from Fort Carson, Colorado, he said.
The Army announced in January that it plans to conduct a one-time, integrated assessment at its storied Ranger School in April.
The assessment is part of a wider effort to determine whether and how to open combat arms jobs to women. This assessment will be a first for the two-month Ranger School, which until now has been open only to men.
Women who successfully complete Ranger School will receive a certificate and be awarded the coveted Ranger tab. They will not, however, be assigned to the 75th Ranger Regiment, which is separate from Ranger School.
To prepare for the assessment in April, the Army is requiring female candidates to attend the two-week Army National Guard Ranger Training and Assessment Course. There will be up to 40 seats for female candidates in each iteration of the course between January and April. The course has historically been a strong indicator of whether a candidate will be successful at Ranger School, officials said. Data has shown that more than half of the soldiers who complete RTAC will successfully complete Ranger School.
The next iteration of RTAC begins March 6.
During the first integrated cycle of RTAC, 122 soldiers started the course; 26 of them were women.
A total of 58 soldiers — 53 men and five women — successfully completed the course Jan. 30.
RTAC is two weeks long and consists of two phases, according to information from Fort Benning.
The first phase of RTAC mirrors the assessment phase at Ranger School and is designed to assess a soldier's physical and mental abilities. During this phase, a student conducts a PT test, a swim test, land navigation, and a 6-mile foot march. The second phase of RTAC, the field training exercise, is designed to assess and train soldiers on troop leading procedures and patrolling, skills that are used extensively during the Ranger School.
On average, about 45 percent of Ranger School students will graduate. As many as 60 percent of all Ranger School failures will occur in the first four days. Many get disqualified during the physical fitness test on the first day. The test gives candidates two minutes to do 49 pushups and two minutes to do 59 situps, and they also must run five miles in 40 minutes and do six chinups.
In fiscal 2014, PT test failures made up the largest number of Ranger School failures.
The pushup portion of the PT test has been difficult for male and female candidates at RTAC, officials said.
Some don't have the right form, while others couldn't do the 49 required of them within the allotted time.
"We have the same problem with male students, it's not just with the women," said Col. David Fivecoat, commander of the Airborne and Ranger Training Brigade, which runs Ranger School. "Yesterday we started a Ranger School class and lost at least three score students for pushups alone."
Officials expect 40 women to start the March rotation of RTAC. Another 40 are expected for the April class.
Both RTAC and Ranger School are "physically and mentally demanding" courses, Miller said.
"Not every soldier is going to make it through this course," he said. "The standards are demanding, and the standards are not changing. They're not changing in the pre-Ranger course, and they're not going to change for the Ranger Course."
The Army is learning "some great lessons" so far, Miller said.
"Any time any soldier will raise their hand for a voluntary course, particularly one that's very, very tough, I admire those soldiers," Miller said.
http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/careers/army/2015/02/24/ranger-school-women-army/23930153/
A female lieutenant successfully completed the February rotation of the Ranger Training Assessment Course, and she now joins five other women who have so far qualified to attend Ranger School this spring.
A total of 100 soldiers — 17 of them women — started the course, which took place Feb. 6-21 at Fort Benning, Georgia.
Thirty-six soldiers successfully completed the two-week course, said Maj. Gen. Scott Miller, commanding general of the Maneuver Center of Excellence and Fort Benning.
The success rate for this month's rotation was "considerably lower" than normal, said Maj. William "Shep" Woodard, commander of A Company, Army National Guard Warrior Training Center, which runs RTAC.
The typical completion rate for RTAC is about 57 percent, he said.
"For whatever reason, this was an underperforming class for men as well as women," he said.
The most common reasons soldiers dropped out or failed to meet the requirements were:
• Pushups
• Road march
• Injuries
All of the drops happened in the first week of RTAC, Woodard said.
It's too early and the population too small so far to pinpoint any specific trends, Miller said.
"What we're starting to see, if soldiers fail RTAC for some reason, you have pushups, you have some lack of motivation [where] someone says 'this is not for me' and pulls out," he said.
There also have been some soldiers dropped for medical reasons, and "we're looking closely at the medical drops," Miller said.
Many women candidates — six in this February class — who did not meet the requirements for RTAC are opting to stay and complete the two-week course anyway, Woodard said.
"They continued to take advantage of that opportunity," he said. "Even though only one was successful, they seem to see the intrinsic value of the training and opt to stay."
The female lieutenant who successfully completed the February RTAC is an aviator from Fort Carson, Colorado, he said.
The Army announced in January that it plans to conduct a one-time, integrated assessment at its storied Ranger School in April.
The assessment is part of a wider effort to determine whether and how to open combat arms jobs to women. This assessment will be a first for the two-month Ranger School, which until now has been open only to men.
Women who successfully complete Ranger School will receive a certificate and be awarded the coveted Ranger tab. They will not, however, be assigned to the 75th Ranger Regiment, which is separate from Ranger School.
To prepare for the assessment in April, the Army is requiring female candidates to attend the two-week Army National Guard Ranger Training and Assessment Course. There will be up to 40 seats for female candidates in each iteration of the course between January and April. The course has historically been a strong indicator of whether a candidate will be successful at Ranger School, officials said. Data has shown that more than half of the soldiers who complete RTAC will successfully complete Ranger School.
The next iteration of RTAC begins March 6.
During the first integrated cycle of RTAC, 122 soldiers started the course; 26 of them were women.
A total of 58 soldiers — 53 men and five women — successfully completed the course Jan. 30.
RTAC is two weeks long and consists of two phases, according to information from Fort Benning.
The first phase of RTAC mirrors the assessment phase at Ranger School and is designed to assess a soldier's physical and mental abilities. During this phase, a student conducts a PT test, a swim test, land navigation, and a 6-mile foot march. The second phase of RTAC, the field training exercise, is designed to assess and train soldiers on troop leading procedures and patrolling, skills that are used extensively during the Ranger School.
On average, about 45 percent of Ranger School students will graduate. As many as 60 percent of all Ranger School failures will occur in the first four days. Many get disqualified during the physical fitness test on the first day. The test gives candidates two minutes to do 49 pushups and two minutes to do 59 situps, and they also must run five miles in 40 minutes and do six chinups.
In fiscal 2014, PT test failures made up the largest number of Ranger School failures.
The pushup portion of the PT test has been difficult for male and female candidates at RTAC, officials said.
Some don't have the right form, while others couldn't do the 49 required of them within the allotted time.
"We have the same problem with male students, it's not just with the women," said Col. David Fivecoat, commander of the Airborne and Ranger Training Brigade, which runs Ranger School. "Yesterday we started a Ranger School class and lost at least three score students for pushups alone."
Officials expect 40 women to start the March rotation of RTAC. Another 40 are expected for the April class.
Both RTAC and Ranger School are "physically and mentally demanding" courses, Miller said.
"Not every soldier is going to make it through this course," he said. "The standards are demanding, and the standards are not changing. They're not changing in the pre-Ranger course, and they're not going to change for the Ranger Course."
The Army is learning "some great lessons" so far, Miller said.
"Any time any soldier will raise their hand for a voluntary course, particularly one that's very, very tough, I admire those soldiers," Miller said.
http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/careers/army/2015/02/24/ranger-school-women-army/23930153/
Ranger
Ranger School
Army
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 35
17
17
0
Well done, proved so far that she deserves to be there. Hope she keeps up the good work and keeps working hard.
(17)
(0)
15
15
0
I absolutely LOVE this discussion and truly appreciate the hard questions. Are women strong enough...some of us probably are. Are we tactically and technically capable....yup. So we break easier...usually. But to answer those questions, we need a test case of female guinea pigs. The 6 of us who have passed so far are volunteering to be those test cases. We get nothing grand out of it. There is no reward, other than the coveted tab at the end of this rainbow. There will be only one integrated Ranger school class to see IF Ranger school should be open to women. All MOS's have been invited to participate because females aren't allowed in Infantry or other Combat MOSs. They have to cast a broad net to get a test group.
One of the reasons I want to participate in this experiment is to move America past the question of whether or not women CAN pass Ranger school and onto something more important. SHOULD we allow women in infantry units? I think that debate hits much deeper issues than asking whether or not I can carry a ruck for 10 days at a time in crappy conditions with little sleep and little food. Should I be allowed to kick in doors with my brothers-in-arms. And if the answer is no, should I still be allowed to participate in one of the best training opportunities the Army has to offer?
As for the % pass rate, those are numbers from RTAC. Traditionally, slightly more RTAC graduates succeed at Ranger school than other feeder sources. If that stays the same during the one integrated Ranger school course, then maybe RTAC is the best pre-Ranger to weed out the weak...men and women.
As for standards, no female that I have talked to wants to see the standards drop. We are offended that it would even be considered. I want to earn the same Ranger tab that my father, friends, and fellow Soldiers have earned. Unfortunately, Ranger school is not as "hard" as it was in 1969 for my father. An that has nothing to do with women. Most of my male peer group went through the course in 2000-2002 and a lot has changed since then as well. If Ranger school changes because the mission or demands of the Army have changed, then fine, but don't do it on my behalf. We all can agree on that.
One of the reasons I want to participate in this experiment is to move America past the question of whether or not women CAN pass Ranger school and onto something more important. SHOULD we allow women in infantry units? I think that debate hits much deeper issues than asking whether or not I can carry a ruck for 10 days at a time in crappy conditions with little sleep and little food. Should I be allowed to kick in doors with my brothers-in-arms. And if the answer is no, should I still be allowed to participate in one of the best training opportunities the Army has to offer?
As for the % pass rate, those are numbers from RTAC. Traditionally, slightly more RTAC graduates succeed at Ranger school than other feeder sources. If that stays the same during the one integrated Ranger school course, then maybe RTAC is the best pre-Ranger to weed out the weak...men and women.
As for standards, no female that I have talked to wants to see the standards drop. We are offended that it would even be considered. I want to earn the same Ranger tab that my father, friends, and fellow Soldiers have earned. Unfortunately, Ranger school is not as "hard" as it was in 1969 for my father. An that has nothing to do with women. Most of my male peer group went through the course in 2000-2002 and a lot has changed since then as well. If Ranger school changes because the mission or demands of the Army have changed, then fine, but don't do it on my behalf. We all can agree on that.
(15)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SFC William Crews - The YPJ is a group of all women fighters in the Peshmerga and has been roughly as effective against ISIS as the male counterparts. This is an old post, not even sure why it popped up, but here is a modern day answer to that question.
(0)
(0)
SFC William Crews
SGT (Join to see) - To what question? Whether women in America should be in Ranger school? Whether women can pass Ranger school? Whether the Peshmerga YPJ should attend Ranger school? ?? I know plenty of women who can pass Ranger school but, that doesn't mean we should allow them to attend. Anybody who says that the mingling of women and men in a front-line infantry unit doesn't cause additional problems and affect the combat effectiveness of the unit is either delusional or has an agenda. Are you telling me that a pregnant Ranger squad leader can be replaced when the unit gets the call? Are you so delusional to think that there won't be relationships going on between young men and women with type A personalities in a combat unit? And that these won't cause ADDITIONAL friction or problems in the unit? It has already been shown to in non-front line units. To say otherwise is a lie. I'm not going to convince you or anybody else in this PC world and I don't intend to try to. Do the Peshmerga operate like a Ranger unit? Do you even know what a Ranger unit operates like? Do you know what a day in the Regiment is like? Because that's where this is going and the ONLY question as to whether or not women should be in these type units is, "Does it INCREASE the unit's combat effectiveness?"
(0)
(0)
SFC William Crews
TSgt Hunter Logan - I never said I had a say in it. I simply responded to a reply to my comment and opinion. Whether it's moot or not is irrelevant. I'm not going to change my view on this issue because, I have been in these units and I know how it affects them. I've seen and led Rangers in peacetime and combat and I see the difference in regular infantry units. The Regiment is basically what a modern day infantry unit should be. Nothing "special" about it other than it maintains the standards and is MORE combat effective than a unit with women in it. I'm not sure you even know what it takes to be combat effective frankly. COMBAT is NOT the same as serving in a combat zone. Until you've at least seen first-hand what Rangers do on a daily basis and what the environment is like, I will consider your opinion on this matter as an uneducated and ignorant opinion. Besides, I don't know about you but, I don't give up on something just because somebody passed it into law or otherwise. If it's close to me, I continue fighting for what I think is right. That's part of what's wrong with our country today; no fight left.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SFC William Crews- I can't figure out how to tag on mobile. The answer was to the the question along the lines of "have you heard of these fearsome female warriors," my previous comment. As far as the hygiene argument, women can be more susceptible to illness but about the same as an uncircumcised male could be in similar conditions. There are distinct physical attributes that make men more capable within the job, but women have their own set of attributes that make them just as qualified: women have been proven to be better thinkers under dire stress, also women are better marksmen (that sounds crazy from most of our experience, believe me, but there are many attributes that can help them be better than men naturally), also women show a stronger will to survive in life and death circumstances, meaning a harder fighting spirit. Another thing is, and this is a BIG ONE, if male soldiers aren't professionals enough that they can't around females without loosing mission focus and/or having assault issues then they need to grow the fuck up. I have served along side women my entire career, down range, outside the wire, going on about our mission and never once felt the need to make that an issue or get distracted. As far as relationships, those are already there, especially with the repeal of don't ask don't tell. Why should that be an issue? There was a Greek or Spartan corp, can't recall the exact name, that was made up of nothing but couples, gay couples at that; they had a reputation for being extremely fierce fighters and deadly in battle. For every point that has been made for any of these arguments there are historical and/or scientific backing to women being able to play a role in combat arms with pretty much only minor physical set backs.
It's a macho man thing, people think to accept women into their ranks they somehow loose something in the mix. It isn't an exchange or a trade off, it's an integration. This is the same argument posed against integration African Americans into the military, then for full de-segregation of the armed forces, then women sailors, women submariners, and the list could go on to basically every personnel change in the military. People somehow forget about all of the truck drivers, the crew chiefs, the medics who have endured combat in the most recent wars and proven to be effective when these types of things come up. One of my soldiers, a female IET soldier, was thrown in for the selection process for this group, (didn't get to go because of language training); but she is a marathon runner, pretty decent marksman, and has a head on her shoulders to make good command decisions if she needed and I'm still damn proud of that and proud of all the women being selected for this opportunity to show the fighting spirit, that since WWI has been used but never applauded.
It's a sensitive topic, probably will be for a decade or more, but to perpetuate the argument based on only the concept of "me man, me big, me strong, she women, she weak" will absolutely spell disaster for any unit, thats where those in command positions need to actually figure out and implement that whole system of figuring out their soldiers' strengths and weaknesses and play to them. it's not a hard concept, just ask some of the support guys how they manage to do it and still accomplish mission.
Shit that's too much on mobile.
It's a macho man thing, people think to accept women into their ranks they somehow loose something in the mix. It isn't an exchange or a trade off, it's an integration. This is the same argument posed against integration African Americans into the military, then for full de-segregation of the armed forces, then women sailors, women submariners, and the list could go on to basically every personnel change in the military. People somehow forget about all of the truck drivers, the crew chiefs, the medics who have endured combat in the most recent wars and proven to be effective when these types of things come up. One of my soldiers, a female IET soldier, was thrown in for the selection process for this group, (didn't get to go because of language training); but she is a marathon runner, pretty decent marksman, and has a head on her shoulders to make good command decisions if she needed and I'm still damn proud of that and proud of all the women being selected for this opportunity to show the fighting spirit, that since WWI has been used but never applauded.
It's a sensitive topic, probably will be for a decade or more, but to perpetuate the argument based on only the concept of "me man, me big, me strong, she women, she weak" will absolutely spell disaster for any unit, thats where those in command positions need to actually figure out and implement that whole system of figuring out their soldiers' strengths and weaknesses and play to them. it's not a hard concept, just ask some of the support guys how they manage to do it and still accomplish mission.
Shit that's too much on mobile.
(0)
(0)
13
13
0
I'm rooting for them. Our sisters deserve the opportunity to prove themselves.
(13)
(0)
9
9
0
Congratulations to the women that have qualified so far! They (you, if you are on RP) are an inspiration to future candidates.
If they have the mental and physical ability to complete the training and the motivation to see it through then good for them. I hope they prove all of the "Negative Nancy's" wrong.
It wasn't that long ago that a female fighter pilot was absurd! They couldn't handle the stress like their male counter parts. Pretty sure that notion was debunked, right COL Jeannie Leavitt?
To those that think that women become a distraction in combat obviously have never had the privilege or honor of serving next to them recently. I watched a young PFC (female) in Iraq on a logistical patrol rock the M240 like an old pro when we were taking small arms fire. I have met a couple of Soldiers that their lives were saved by a female medic after their truck ran over an IED. Pretty sure they weren't distracted by her tits (forgive my bluntness) at that point and time.
As so many have eloquently put it already, "If they can do the job then let them".
If they have the mental and physical ability to complete the training and the motivation to see it through then good for them. I hope they prove all of the "Negative Nancy's" wrong.
It wasn't that long ago that a female fighter pilot was absurd! They couldn't handle the stress like their male counter parts. Pretty sure that notion was debunked, right COL Jeannie Leavitt?
To those that think that women become a distraction in combat obviously have never had the privilege or honor of serving next to them recently. I watched a young PFC (female) in Iraq on a logistical patrol rock the M240 like an old pro when we were taking small arms fire. I have met a couple of Soldiers that their lives were saved by a female medic after their truck ran over an IED. Pretty sure they weren't distracted by her tits (forgive my bluntness) at that point and time.
As so many have eloquently put it already, "If they can do the job then let them".
(9)
(0)
SSG Donald Mceuen
amen the females in the decon unit i was in were bad to the bone i would stand next to them today with that said you 6 go for it and have fun learning. real combat now how hoora.
(0)
(0)
7
7
0
Congratulations to her and the five others who have qualified. Now we'll see if the Army reduces the standards or provides them "special treatment" to ensure they complete the course. Shame on them if they do.
If the females complete the course with no reduction of standards or special treatment, all I can say is "right on Ranger"... Hooah.
If the females complete the course with no reduction of standards or special treatment, all I can say is "right on Ranger"... Hooah.
(7)
(0)
Cpl Michael Strickler
We all did read one of those last quotes that said the standards were not going to change right? This entire class was under performing. Less men and women were able to pass this round for some reason. That means that the standards stayed the same and that even more men could not hack it... Sounds like we can expect Rangers to be the same caliber today that they were yesterday.
(3)
(0)
5
5
0
Best of luck to her! With as much scrutiny as this class is going to get, I'm glad I already have my tab. Maybe more people will 'pass' the push-ups that class, but I doubt it.
(5)
(0)
4
4
0
Congrats to the women who have made it. I aplaud their efforts. However in looking at reality...the cost of the 40 slots being taken up by the female students expected to attend each of the next two classes who will have the opportunity to "receive the tab, but not be assigned to the Ranger Regiment". This is one hell of a price for the Army to pay for Political Correctness, at the expense of Effectiveness, Cost Benefit to the Army, the loss of 80 Ranger slots/graduates who could be assigned to the Ranger Regiment, 82nd, 101st, and other Infantry Division, Regiments and Battalions. Regardless of whether 1 or 80 Females graduate or complete the Course, there is a definite cost LOSS to the Army vs Cost Benefit. Kudos to any Female who (if) successfully completes Ranger School! However, After all is said and done...whats the benefit to the Army's Ranger Combat - Organizatioonal Mission? Absolutely Zero! For the Females who "may" pass and graduate, what's the value to the Army....to the units they are assigned to? Is it worth the over all cost, loss to combat arms units, the Ranger Regiment? Someone please poor beer on my head and just tell me its raining.
(4)
(0)
SPC(P) Jay Heenan
1SG (Join to see)
This is exactly what I was thinking. I am not knocking the females who want to 'earn their tab', but what then? They will not be assigned to the 75th so after all of this, you are correct, what does this do to increase our combat effectiveness?
This is exactly what I was thinking. I am not knocking the females who want to 'earn their tab', but what then? They will not be assigned to the 75th so after all of this, you are correct, what does this do to increase our combat effectiveness?
(1)
(0)
LTC Randy Readshaw
A valid point. But this is a phenomenon ongoing since the inception of these types of schools. How many attend Airborne training and never jump out of another aircraft the rest of their careers? Same with Pathfinder and Air Assault and a host of other professional development schools? At the very least these women will return to their units with unquestionable leadership street cred. That's a fair price. The Army spends a ton of money training folks for potential assignments that may or may not come to fruition. As an aviator she can certainly fly just about anywhere. 160th SOAR would be a good example. I hope she (and the others) are successful.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
As a new soldier who has had quite an interest in one day passing selection to go into SOCOM or 75th Rangers, I've come to understand that there seems to be a difference in being a ranger (tan beret and scroll assigned to the 75th where inevitably you'll be given the opportunity to go to ranger school and be tabbed) and there is the option of being Ranger qualified. Upon graduation of Ranger school, our Lt here will be Ranger qualified: should she make it and I hope she does. But she will not be operating as an Army Ranger.
However, I have crossed paths with many many infantry soldiers alone, who have never passed RASP (Ranger assessment & selection program) and so have not been awarded their tan beret and regimental scroll to be assigned to the 75th.
My view is this. The best of the best are rangers in the 75th who passed selection to be an operational ranger per say or part of the operational ranger unit, and also graduated the 12 week Ranger school to be a fully qualified Army Ranger.
So what I've gathered, and what one of my NCO's whose husband has spent the majority of his career in the 75th, is that there is a divide in being a Ranger vs being Ranger qualified or tabbed as we know it. Both are incredibly difficult and only a small few make it, but to do both is to be an undisputed Ranger.
But those who pass Ranger school without assignment can take their qualifications, their knowledge, discipline, and experience and bring it back to their units and ideally they share their experience there to increase the combat effectiveness of that unit, who now has another ranger qualified soldier.
To your point though 1SG (Join to see) I agree that if we have so many slots that do not have the potential to be assigned to the regiment than what are we actually doing it for other than to show that it can be done and pass on the experience to the females that qualify. The best should be able to attend selection for assignment to the 75th, male or female if they haven't been to RASP before.
However, I have crossed paths with many many infantry soldiers alone, who have never passed RASP (Ranger assessment & selection program) and so have not been awarded their tan beret and regimental scroll to be assigned to the 75th.
My view is this. The best of the best are rangers in the 75th who passed selection to be an operational ranger per say or part of the operational ranger unit, and also graduated the 12 week Ranger school to be a fully qualified Army Ranger.
So what I've gathered, and what one of my NCO's whose husband has spent the majority of his career in the 75th, is that there is a divide in being a Ranger vs being Ranger qualified or tabbed as we know it. Both are incredibly difficult and only a small few make it, but to do both is to be an undisputed Ranger.
But those who pass Ranger school without assignment can take their qualifications, their knowledge, discipline, and experience and bring it back to their units and ideally they share their experience there to increase the combat effectiveness of that unit, who now has another ranger qualified soldier.
To your point though 1SG (Join to see) I agree that if we have so many slots that do not have the potential to be assigned to the regiment than what are we actually doing it for other than to show that it can be done and pass on the experience to the females that qualify. The best should be able to attend selection for assignment to the 75th, male or female if they haven't been to RASP before.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
The important consideration is that the Army maintains the current high standard for Ranger School and doesn't try to come up with a "female standard". If there are females that are up to the challenge, then they should earn the Tab. That's my two cents.
That said, what are your thoughts on allowing females in the 75th Rangers?
That said, what are your thoughts on allowing females in the 75th Rangers?
(4)
(0)
That is awesome. So far 6 out of 43 made it so far. So a 13% success rate is completely sustainable. It is on par with the 57% rate for males.
Thank goodness there is no favoritism so far. They said they would have the same standard. But what, they added in this nugget of information.
"Many women candidates — six in this February class — who did not meet the requirements for RTAC are opting to stay and complete the two-week course anyway, Woodard said.They continued to take advantage of that opportunity," he said. "Even though only one was successful, they seem to see the intrinsic value of the training and opt to stay."
I don't recall any male candidates being given the opportunity to stay after they failed when I was there. Maybe they should not fail anyone and let everyone stay. Then they can all get a certificate for showing up.
Thank goodness there is no favoritism so far. They said they would have the same standard. But what, they added in this nugget of information.
"Many women candidates — six in this February class — who did not meet the requirements for RTAC are opting to stay and complete the two-week course anyway, Woodard said.They continued to take advantage of that opportunity," he said. "Even though only one was successful, they seem to see the intrinsic value of the training and opt to stay."
I don't recall any male candidates being given the opportunity to stay after they failed when I was there. Maybe they should not fail anyone and let everyone stay. Then they can all get a certificate for showing up.
(4)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
It has happened and it is up to the commander. I have done it for a couple of male candidates. Best not to run with half information. There's a lot of clouded judgment going on on this subject because of pashion. Put it aside. Wait for the results and then let the people who are going to tear into it, tear into it...because it's going to happen. Until then, it's not conducive to rational conversation. Right now we are getting reports from the media (which are highly biaised and not very reliable) and we are getting "I heard it from a friend who knows a guy who knows things," BS that shouldn't even be thought about because those guys have a biais as well. 13% pass rate. Big deal. Now we know. Wouldn't have known if we hadn't have tried it. Maybe it'll change when it's over. Who the hell knows? No one. That's right...because we haven't tried it before. Do something for the first time that is as hard as hell with a boat load of people saying it shouldn't be done. You're going to have a hell of a time.
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
CPT (Join to see) RTAC has historically discouraged studs from staying on through the course after they have been dropped, however it is not unheard of or even uncommon. For various reasons, being that the stud is going on to Ranger School regardless of their performance (AD SMs only) or that their unit has requested them stay on as holdovers for the next class, in my time there we generally had 4-8 holdovers after Land Nav was over. As to whether or not these holdovers continued to train, I can tell you first hand that while they were not still in the class, they still received training. These holdovers would preform various administrative duties to assist the cadre and would then sit in on the classes, sometimes be inserted into squads for the FTX (pending overall numbers), etc.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
CPT (Join to see) We had a few that did that when I was there. But for all the females to stay is a bit odd. I pretty can figure out they stayed. I don't even made that they stayed to be honest. The information gathered is vital to assisting them but the Army didn't say that. The Army seemed to let everyone think that they stayed just all all others can.
One a side note. If you need any LTs at WTC I would be there in a heartbeat. I will be back stateside in a while.
One a side note. If you need any LTs at WTC I would be there in a heartbeat. I will be back stateside in a while.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
CPT (Join to see) On the other hand, active duty males who fail RTAC can still go on to Ranger School (with their commander's approval). I know of a guy who failed the 2.5 mile run who is going to Ranger School. I would personally rather get a slot to Ranger School after failing to pass RTAC than staying around for two weeks at RTAC. I am guessing most people would feel the same way.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
I hope that I speak for a lot of soldiers when I say this is quite an exceptional accomplishment. I have been and still am of the mindset that for high standards such as ranger school you have to uphold the measuring stick regardless of gender because it IS possible, all it takes is for the opportunity to be there and someone like this outstanding Lt to take advantage of it and prove to those that bear witness that it can be done!
I once heard part of speech that went something like this :
"Before 1954, the common belief, the universal belief; because it had been tried again and again and again and people had failed: the belief was that man was not capable of breaking the 4 minute barrier, that he could not run a mile in less than four minutes. When something happens to them, they begin to believe that's just the way it is. That's the way it's always been and they can't see the possibility of it being any different.
Roger Bannister came along, and he broke the 4 minute barrier. Since that time, to this day, over 20,000 people have done it, including high school kids. Twenty-thousand people- what changed? Here's what happened, when they got on the track, they knew it had been done, and because they knew it had been done there was a new belief... about this barrier that was unreachable. And those 20,000 people got in a race believing... knowing in their heart that someone had done it, that it's possible. That if someone had done it then they could do it, that if someone could their dream become a reality, you could make your dream become a reality."
Father Charles Rorick was quoted saying: "Maybe sometimes people need to see someone do it so they can do it themselves."
I once heard part of speech that went something like this :
"Before 1954, the common belief, the universal belief; because it had been tried again and again and again and people had failed: the belief was that man was not capable of breaking the 4 minute barrier, that he could not run a mile in less than four minutes. When something happens to them, they begin to believe that's just the way it is. That's the way it's always been and they can't see the possibility of it being any different.
Roger Bannister came along, and he broke the 4 minute barrier. Since that time, to this day, over 20,000 people have done it, including high school kids. Twenty-thousand people- what changed? Here's what happened, when they got on the track, they knew it had been done, and because they knew it had been done there was a new belief... about this barrier that was unreachable. And those 20,000 people got in a race believing... knowing in their heart that someone had done it, that it's possible. That if someone had done it then they could do it, that if someone could their dream become a reality, you could make your dream become a reality."
Father Charles Rorick was quoted saying: "Maybe sometimes people need to see someone do it so they can do it themselves."
(3)
(0)
SGT Mark Rhodes
HOORAH LT want a great accomplishment, my daughter is a 1LT in the Marines and I know if she wanted to go into any SOCOM she would make it too. She is that damn good.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google