Marines' requirements for infantry officers are unrealistic, Army colonel says

I hope the Marines don't take this as the Army's point of view. This claim that the Corps' standard for females electing to become infantry officers is unrealistic, happens to come from an officer who has never served in combat arms nor understands what it takes to be in the infantry and is just espousing views coming from politicians and certain higher ranking officers who want so badly to turn our Armed Forces into a vast, disgusting social experiment. If a woman can't hack it, let alone some males, then they should pursue another career field in the military.Double standards only gets Marines and Soldiers killed in combat and a trip home in flag-draped metal casket.

Now, I've been out of the Marines for a long time, but I was with Weapons Co. 1/4 and Weapons Co. 3/7. At the time the M2 was a "light" infantry, crew served weapon (and still may be). The receiver weighs 60 lbs., the barrel weighs 24 lbs., and the tripod weighs 44 lbs. The M252 81mm mortar, was also a "light" infantry, crew served weapon, components all approached 30 lbs. Neither of these weights include the ammo required to be humped around with it so the systems were functional. At the time, and maybe still, we did what was called the MCRES, which included a 26 mile force march in full combat load in under 8 hours. I had the misfortune of doing it with both units. I never weighed my ALICE and load, and I really have no desire to know what it actually weighed in at. I can tell you it was heavy, it was required, and it was a bitch. If Marine Corp infantry was easy, anyone could do it.

SSG Warren Swan it’s a conditioning thing, Marine Infantry Officers (in my day) didn’t make their troops do anything that they themselves couldn’t do. Again, in my time (early 80’s) my LT, my Platoon Sgt, And section leaders (I’m an Amtracker) would jump twice as far than the rest of us by going up and down the columns checking on us.

LCpl Darrell J. Farley Jr.
YATYAS

CPO Mike Castro - that's not the whole Army genius.

Leave to a Navy Chief to cut right through it. Thanks Chief!

We care what you say.

This is why you don't ask someone's opinion of the standards who's experience gives them zero skills to understand why the standard is what it is...

SSG Eddie Helmling - I like the double meaning there.

I'm all in favor of weeding out any who are less than fully committed. And yet all training should be there not to just be a headFuck exercise but instead to prepare the trainee for actuall demands of combat. Years ago I did PLDC ( today Warrior Leader Course). I attended right after returning from Desert Storm. The training cadre were good guys but I lost track of how often I found myself shaking my head no ea time someone said "Of course in an actual combat situation you would be expected to do or be proficient in XYZ.." when in fact my combat experience in Kuwait showed that to not be the case. If folks downrange arent humping 150 pound weight load into Fallujah Rakka etc then it might be a better idea to focus more on what they are doing.

Haven't done combat Major, so I won't argue with your description of your duty experience. That being said, SN Wright is partially correct. Take the Rangers for example, I saw them spend their first afternoon doing log-rolling-drills, that being rolling around like a log in a pit filled with sand or beauty bark or something irritating like that and they have to alternate hopping over one another while doing these drills for hours. Being a Marine, knowing what it feels like to be burned to the ground physically like that, I can appreciate their torture. Do they do it to see how many soldiers can log-roll well for hours just in case they find themselves in a combat situation where rolling like a log is the only way they'll survive? No. The whole exercise is to get 20% of them to quit the very first day, and they log roll until that goal is met. Some people think, that's stupid, now their time was wasted. Many soldiers like the idea of being a Ranger, being elite, but don't have the guts and determination to stand with the Rangers. A resume won't tell you that. They don't want to waste more than those first 4 hours training the 20% of quitters that never should have come. Being a Ranger, or a SEAL, or Delta, or Marine, requires people who will not quit, ever, for any reason. It is physical, emotional, and mental. If you will quit because you got itchy, dizzy, or puked your first day, I don't want you watching my back. But, these extreme standards of physical strength and endurance ARE likewise a test to see that you can get yourself and your gear to the fight, and most importantly you can get your brother out of it. A fireman's carry is a lot quicker and more effective way to evacuate a casualty while not getting your own head shot off than trying to drag someone. You might be called on to perform such heroics while exhausted, hungry, dehydrated, discouraged, grieving, all at the same time; is that not true Major? Would you not prefer a large, very strong, very fit, very brave and determined soldier to come to your aid if you got hit? There is in my opinion a difference in being cruel for cruelty's sake and testing how much guts a person has, who needs to have to serve in combat arms, and especially to lead the same. No, most POGs like myself won't carry 100 lb pack after Basic, but there are a lot of other things they won't continue either, whereas grunts will. My hat is off to them.

MAJ (Join to see) - Sorry Major Gotta be Infantry to understand that 152lb wgt rule, it's not there for looks but for training to carry your battle buddy out of harms way in combat, why if you can't carry that dead weight, neither you or your fellow officers are going to survive ... Marines are not the only ones who practice that type of weight carrying, just about all army Infantry also practice it as part of training..