Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How It Really Went Down in the First Class to Graduate Female Rangers
SOFREP ^ | 8/21/2015 | Rudy Mac

Posted on 08/21/2015 8:26:48 PM PDT by T-Bird45

The following was written by Rudy Mac, a Ranger-qualified, company-grade infantry officer serving on active duty in a light unit in the U.S. Army.

By the time most of you read this story, 96 newly tabbed Rangers and their friends and families will be celebrating the completion of one of the most arduous and demanding courses that the Army has to offer. For them, this coming weekend will undoubtedly involve hours of some of the most satisfying sleep of their lives, interspersed with exorbitant feasts of all of the foods that they have been dreaming about, talking about, and listing in their Rite In The Rain notebooks for weeks and weeks.

They will return to their units with a few new skills and a better understanding of small-unit tactics, but more importantly with a new confidence in themselves and their fellow tabbed Rangers. They will be marked for the rest of their careers with a $1.80 strip of cloth that tells whomever they meet that when tested with adversity, pain, and discomfort, they can be trusted to find a way to get the job done and complete the mission. For the first time in history, two women will pin on this badge of survival and perseverance, and you know what? They f*****g earned it. Every last thread of it.

I started and finished Ranger School this year with Class 06-15, although since I neither recycled nor had to endure a winter phase of the course, my tab should probably be just a little bit smaller than the tabs that many of my peers wear. We were the first gender-integrated Ranger School class, starting on April 19th, with 19 female and 381 male students.

Since my graduation, I have followed the progress of these remaining female Rangers with interest. Although virtually all of the discussion I have heard surrounding their advancement through the course has been pretty positive up to this week, since the Washington Post broke the story of Ranger Griest and Ranger Haver getting their go’s in Florida, I have read and heard an increasing amount of bad-mouthing from a plethora of haters, dismissing their accomplishment as the product of slipping standards or some ultra-liberal, feminist plot by the government and Army leadership. I am speaking out to tell you that these insinuations could not be further from the truth. Ranger School is still hard, and these women earned their tabs.

Before I discuss my own subjective opinions, let’s talk about the numbers, starting with my class (Class 06-15). In 06-15, we started 400 Ranger students in April and graduated fewer than 100 in June. Twenty-eight of us (that’s seven percent), went straight through the course without recycling. In Darby Phase, our recycle rate was almost 75 percent—the highest for the phase in over five years. In my squad of 17 Ranger students, only four of us went forward to Mountain Phase. Another squad in my company (Alpha Company) sent only two of 17 forward. In Mountain and again in Florida, we only had enough students for one platoon in my company. I believe the same was true of Bravo and Charlie.

For those who have claimed that the packing list was reduced for this year to make patrols easier: We weighed our rucks before the Mountains FTX and the Florida FTX. My ruck was 85 pounds at the start of Mountains as a team leader and over 100 pounds at the start of Florida as a SAW gunner. For the past three classes of the course (06-15, 07-15, and 08-15), the course graduation rate has been about 30 percent, much lower than the average for FY10-FY14 of 42 percent, and significantly lower than the historical average of nearly 50 percent. If you believe that the standards at Ranger School have been lowered for recent classes in order to pass the women who attended, you are simply wrong. The numbers reflect what the Ranger Training Brigade officers and NCOs have been saying for months now: The standards at Ranger School are as high or higher right now than they have been in many, many years.

Now, let’s discuss the process that the Infantry School went through to select and prepare female soldiers to attend the course. After the Army sent out the ALARACT message looking for female Ranger School volunteers, they had nearly 400 female soldiers express a desire to attend the course. One hundred and nine of those female soldiers eventually attended the RTAC, the ARNG Warrior Training Center’s two week Pre-Ranger Course, which is second only to the 75th Ranger Regiment’s SURT (Small Unit Ranger Tactics) Pre-Ranger Course in terms of success rate at Ranger School. Several of the women who failed RTAC went back and tried again, for a total of 138 attempts by female students.

Twenty female Ranger Students eventually passed RTAC, and 19 of those 20 started Ranger School with Class 06-15 on April 19th. From this point on, anyone who has followed the story probably knows what transpired. Eight of those 19 female students passed RAP (Ranger Assessment Phase) Week at Camp Rogers, where about 60 percent of Ranger School failures historically occur. All eight went to Camp Darby with Class 06-15 and were either recycled into Class 07-15 or dropped from training. After another Darby Phase with Class 07-15, again, none of the female students received their go’s, and three remained in the course to start over as day one recycles with class 08-15. As an aside, during RAP week with class 08-15, Ranger Kristen Griest finished second out of the entire class on the 12 mile ruck—an astounding achievement, especially considering that she had just gone through RAP week, two Darby phases, and another RAP week, all back-to-back. CPT Griest and 1LT Haver went straight through the rest of the course with class 08-15, finally earning their Ranger Tabs today after 124 days in Ranger School.

Lastly, for what it’s worth, I would like to offer my own impressions of what our class was like with female students in RAP week and at Darby. Unlike many, I didn’t doubt that some female soldiers in our Army would at least have a decent shot at getting their tabs. There are a whole lot of female collegiate, professional, and Olympic athletes who can PT a whole lot better than me, so why shouldn’t they be able to at least come close to passing a course like Ranger School? Like many, however, I was somewhat skeptical that the cadre at RTB could successfully administer a course with extremely close living quarters and significant field time like Ranger School without compromising the integrity of the training.

I quickly found, however, that the gender issue was a non-issue. The barracks at Camp Rogers are shaped like a ‘U’, with a latrine and shower facilities forming the center of the U, connecting two long bays of bunk beds and wall lockers, with doors at the end of the bays. The female students in our company slept towards one end of the bay, where an enclave of wall lockers formed an area for them to hurriedly change in when the need arose. In the latrines, during the absurdly short time hacks we were given to use the bathroom, the women simply walked past the men and used the stalls. After the first real smoke session of the week on day one, nobody cared much about using the same latrine. We were all just Ranger students.

During the few times we were able to take showers, the cadre dedicated the showers on one side of the bay to female students for one quarter of the shower period, and a Ranger instructor and female NCO stood in the center of the ‘U’ to avoid confusion. RAP week passed and we were on to Darby. In Darby, the female students in our company dispelled any doubts of their ability to hump weight on patrols during the first few days in the field. If I remember correctly, Ranger Griest carried the M240 for her squad on day one of patrols and another female in her squad carried the radio as the RTO. The next day of patrols, they switched, with Ranger Griest humping the radio and the other female student carrying the M240. Physically, they were studs. They carried their own weight and then some.

In the two months since I have graduated, I have spoken with countless fellow tabbed Rangers on the topic, both from my class and from previous classes. Every morning, my Facebook news feed is filled with statuses from my peers, with links to articles on the topic and discussions on the progress of the females left in the course. We are universally in awe of what these two female Rangers have accomplished. Everyone I have talked to is of one mind. They earned it. Without the same wide shoulders, large frames, and high testosterone levels of their brother Rangers, they earned it. Unfortunately, the naysayers will continue to talk trash and belittle CPT Griest and 1LT Haver’s historic accomplishment. In response, I would like to close with a recent quote from MAJ Jim Hathaway, the current RTB executive officer:

No matter what we at Ranger School say, the non-believers will still be non-believers. We could have invited each of you to guest walk the entire course, and you would still not believe, we could have video recorded every patrol and you would still say that we “gave” it away. Nothing we say will change your opinion. I and the rest of our cadre are proud of the conduct of our soldiers, NCOs, and officers; they took the mission assigned and performed to the Ranger standard. Rangers Lead the Way!


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: humpedtheload; military; militarywomen; rangerdetails; rangers; usarmy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-167 next last
To: golux

lol!


101 posted on 08/22/2015 6:54:14 AM PDT by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: rlmorel

My view at the outset of this experiment was that the Army could find a very few individuals capable of graduating the Ranger course, and I thought that once they were found, they would graduate even if they had to execute the Weekend at Bernies scenario. That last part was unfair to these two women.

Consider the numbers: With a pent up demand by women, 400 of them showed an interest. 100 or 25% of those interested made it through some screening and entered the Pre-Ranger course. This course is designed to weed out too weak to make it through Ranger School. 20 of them made this screen, 20% of those who attempted. Through several recycles, 2 women graduated, 10% of those who started the Ranger course, and 2% of those who actually began the total training cycle. This suggests to me that the standards were not changed and these 2 women earned their Ranger tabs along side all of the other men who have earned a tab.

At these rates, the Army could expect that between 1 and 5 women per year could graduate from Ranger School, perhaps even less considering that we had a large pool for this first effort. This demonstrates that Ranger School is not for women and that women should not be assigned to ground gaining combat units and Special Operations units. The Army gave it a fair test and the results show that the infantry, ranger, and armor combat unit exclusion is sound policy.

This will not please the Feminazis and the politicians bent on destroying our military, so they will twist these result to justify their goal, something that can only occur by lower the standards, and lowering them by a considerable margin. I expect that graduation numbers will go up, and that other courses will be opened with standards adjusted to accommodate femailes. It will be a mistake.


102 posted on 08/22/2015 7:03:11 AM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: luvbach1

Even these two washed out twice before finally making it through.


103 posted on 08/22/2015 7:05:10 AM PDT by Shimmer1 (Liberals need to be caged for the safety of human beings. (FReeper Norm Lenhart))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Chode
Exactly.

There were two things about this article that made me think this is not the dispassionate observation of an objective observer:

1.) Referring to people who disagree as "plethora of haters". That is the way liberals talk.

2.) Referring to the females as "studs". I cannot imagine why a man would refer to a woman as a stud in any description, even colloquial usage. Again, just to show how "equal" males and females are.

On an additional note, the segregation of facilities, and someone to watch over things to ensure nothing untoward happened. As if it won't, and having an assignment to do that. Are they going to add that to the watch list each day, who gets assigned that duty? This was the segment:

"...I quickly found, however, that the gender issue was a non-issue. The barracks at Camp Rogers are shaped like a ‘U’, with a latrine and shower facilities forming the center of the U, connecting two long bays of bunk beds and wall lockers, with doors at the end of the bays. The female students in our company slept towards one end of the bay, where an enclave of wall lockers formed an area for them to hurriedly change in when the need arose. In the latrines, during the absurdly short time hacks we were given to use the bathroom, the women simply walked past the men and used the stalls. After the first real smoke session of the week on day one, nobody cared much about using the same latrine. We were all just Ranger students. (shades of GI Jane here)

During the few times we were able to take showers, the cadre dedicated the showers on one side of the bay to female students for one quarter of the shower period, and a Ranger instructor and female NCO stood in the center of the ‘U’ to avoid confusion..."

To avoid "confusion". Got it.

104 posted on 08/22/2015 7:05:24 AM PDT by rlmorel ("National success by the Democratic Party equals irretrievable ruin." Ulysses S. Grant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

I will also state I do not harbor any negative feelings towards these women as individuals. They want to do what they are allowed to.

My issue is with them being allowed to.


105 posted on 08/22/2015 7:06:52 AM PDT by rlmorel ("National success by the Democratic Party equals irretrievable ruin." Ulysses S. Grant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: rlmorel
My issue is with them being allowed to.

The result proved your point.

106 posted on 08/22/2015 7:09:49 AM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: sparklite2

It is not hate to logically want an all male military.


107 posted on 08/22/2015 7:13:22 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PROCON

2 dykey split tails were given 3 chances to beef up on steroids to pass Ranger school all to promaote Obamas leftist socialist agenda. Again ra ra ra.


108 posted on 08/22/2015 7:21:23 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak; wardaddy
There are plenty of weak, mush-minded Freepers who accept the PC line and feel all warm and fuzzy when they can jump on the PC bandwagon, reality be damned. The term “cuckservative” that’s been floating around lately applies to these people.

All because I complimented two women for passing the Rangers test (if the standards weren't lowered.)

Then I said I had concerns that their bodies weren't designed for all this physical activity long term?

And all of a sudden, I'm as liberal as Hillary? If you two are honorable gentlemen, then please debate on the issues here rather than calling me names.

109 posted on 08/22/2015 7:25:59 AM PDT by MinorityRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican
2 months for now when these women let their hair grow out, stop lifting weights and come off steroids neither one would be able to pass that course again; the other men in that class would be able to pass however.

These wymen were hand picked, drugged up to pass this course ONE time and then go back to being women.

110 posted on 08/22/2015 7:30:13 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: central_va
2 months for now when these women let their hair grow out, stop lifting weights and come off steroids neither one would be able to pass that course again; the other men in that class would be able to pass however.

Link please.

What may had happened is that those women were freaks of nature. Maybe they're in top 1%.

111 posted on 08/22/2015 7:35:53 AM PDT by MinorityRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

These two beefed up on muscle mass. They will probably lose weight and look like women again. But there will be no follow up to this story. None. You can count on it.


112 posted on 08/22/2015 7:37:55 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy

Foisted by those who despise military power


113 posted on 08/22/2015 7:43:36 AM PDT by MarvinStinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: JimSEA

My daughter was in the Marines. She made the point that there are women who can do very demanding things, who lift weights, work out, and can pass tests. But she says the real test is when you have to keep passing that test, day after day, for months and years. She thinks the women will break down because it already stresses male bone structure to the breaking point - her 200 lb husband has shoulders and knees like a man 3 times his age after 2 tours in Marine infantry.

Like you, I think some small percentage of women can do it. I’m not convinced that means it is a good idea. My experience deploying with women is that sex causes lots of problems that are not there with an all-male force...at least, that were not there when homosexuals couldn’t openly serve.

I’m also reading a book now about the Marines in WW2. Given that the Japanese held up to the rigors of combat, and many of them were no larger than women here, the physical “Can you move X in Y time” part is probably OK. But going on patrols and bayoneting men, or trying to haul a 200 lb guy with his gear out of an open area after he’s injured? I don’t buy it.


114 posted on 08/22/2015 7:44:02 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (Can you remember what America was like in 2004?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: steve86

Chapter and verse, please.


115 posted on 08/22/2015 7:55:00 AM PDT by Rebelbase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

My last combat tour was sitting in a FOB. I was 49 years old. I could do 80 pushups for my PT test, run 1.5 miles in 9 minutes, and was overall in pretty good shape for a 49 year old guy.

But the truth was that I could do an honest 6 hours of combat-level field work, provided I had a week to recover afterward. I could do fine for a few hours, but the 20 year old guys would keep going for 12 or 18 hours, and then do it the next day, and the next, month after month.

My suspicion is that women will prove to be similar. A few will be able to pass the test. Many will be able to put in a good day’s work. Some a good week’s work. And if they are on a FOB, like I was, it won’t matter. But if they are in real field conditions - something I didn’t do at 49 (in part because no one WANTED me at 49) - they won’t cut it long. And they will be the weakest link. They may be good. But like me at 49, they won’t be close to the best. So why bother?

At 57, I’d volunteer to go fly jets again in a heartbeat. But in my honest moments, I have to admit I can’t handle the strain of flight line operations like I could at 25. The military would be STUPID to seek me out and recruit me instead of a young guy. And it is STUPID to seek out women in the interest of “fairness”. If a motivated old guy is still an old guy, then a woman is still a woman.

As a Japanese fighter pilot a friend of mine knew used to say, “You no have will to cheat, you no have will to win!” There is no place for fairness in combat.


116 posted on 08/22/2015 8:00:08 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (Can you remember what America was like in 2004?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: hillarys cankles

No. It was the Emory S. Land. I imagine every ship that had women on it experienced the same or similar problems. One other thing that you mentioned..pregnancy..back in the 1980’s if a woman got pregnant she wasn’t transferred out of her division. She was put on light/lighter duty and then at some point sent Temporary Assigned Duty to a hospital.

What that did was make the division short handed. They couldn’t get someone else into the division to fill her billet because technically she was still billeted to that division. It was viewed by others in the division as extra leave because being TAD to a hospital meant that the hospital didn’t really keep tabs on you except for doctor appts. It also wound up cutting into and causing other sailors leave being cancelled because after all, you can’t cancel pregnancy.

All in all, it did not make units or the ship operate at a efficient rate. If women weren’t on the ship, I guarantee it would have been far more efficient.


117 posted on 08/22/2015 8:08:43 AM PDT by ScubieNuc (When there is no justice in the laws, justice is left to the outlaws.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Ground combat is an environment best handled by young men. The Left have a fantasy that they can wish away all of realities that support this simple fact. Acting out your fantasies in combat will get people killed.


118 posted on 08/22/2015 8:11:22 AM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: ScubieNuc
This also doesn’t even take into account what adding sexual tensions to a combat unit will do to distract it from it’s overall mission. <<<

BINGO!....The male species hasn't “evolved” enough to do away with that “tension” yet <<<< (and IMHO thank God!)...

In my 2 years in Viet Nam I observed way too many fights among enlisted men and officers alike over “hoochmaids” and especially over “overweight round-eyed Donut Dollies” to be convinced otherwise!!!....

IMHO....the failure rate of a regular GI and a female in an uneventful perimeter foxhole for 2 weeks together would be greater then Ranger School!!...but all I have to go by is my experience with the former...

119 posted on 08/22/2015 8:13:44 AM PDT by M-cubed ( Their hope is to find a way to pick a nominee who, if elected, would actually stay the course the w)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: sparklite2
Women aren't men. They will never be men. Even if through some freak incident of nature they are physically capable (they aren't, and won't be) of serving as Rangers, they will never belong. Women can't force themselves into a brotherhood no matter how hard they try.

The force is weakened. Politically-correct nonsense has taken a front seat over common sense. You think it's great? Good for you. You probably think Bruce Jenner's switcheroo is great as well.

120 posted on 08/22/2015 8:38:38 AM PDT by Wyrd bið ful aræd (Exsurge, Domine, et judica causam tuam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-167 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson