Re:U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)
by rtkwe on Monday August 01, 2022 @05:13PM
(#32312105)
In addition to things other people have said there's a lot of roles that aren't combat so increasing the number of women who can qualify can fill out those roles (logistics, the reams of sundry clerical work, maintenance, etc) where physical strength isn't as critical helps fill out a volunteer army.
Re:U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)
by jcranmer on Monday August 01, 2022 @06:09PM
(#32312702)
There's a concept called 'tooth-to-tail ratio' which is the ratio of combat personnel to non-combat personnel in an army. The modern US army has a tooth-to-tail ratio of about ~1:8. This isn't necessarily a great correlation to physically demanding versus not-physically-demanding jobs, it does illustrate how tiny the front-line portion of the military actually is.
Re:U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)
by rtkwe on Wednesday August 03, 2022 @02:31PM
(#32335247)
That was the concept I was gesturing at but I couldn't remember the name. Militaries in general but the US in particular are predominantly logistics organizations with a lethal last mile delivery focus. It's part of why they're so good for responding to natural disasters in far flung island countries, they're used to delivering goods with little infrastructure at the destination.
Re:U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)
by rcurry on Monday August 01, 2022 @04:31PM
(#32311659)
The new Navy camouflage is designed to keep your uniform looking clean when you are working around paints and oils and so on. It’s purely for workplace aesthetics and not intended to hide you from anyone.
Re:U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)
by Retric on Monday August 01, 2022 @03:56PM
(#32311273)
It was a diagnostic test. Like how a loss of fuel efficiency is a sign that something is wrong with an engine, if someone can’t meet the standard something has gone wrong. Which is why it was treated as a pure pass fail.
Re:U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)
by imwillofficial on Monday August 01, 2022 @04:11PM
(#32311448)
It’s a standards test, where failing can potentially get you kicked out.
While also used as a diagnostic to let you know if you’re slipping, its primary and only stated purpose is to uphold an objective standard.
This makes variations by age and sex concessions to that goal, rather than design elements.
Re:U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)
by Retric on Monday August 01, 2022 @05:34PM
(#32312326)
The standards test is different. Occupational Physical Assessment Test results are Unqualified, Moderate, Significant, or Heavy which is then used to decide if someone meets an appropriate standard.
Meanwhile the Army would sometimes retain people incapable of passing the old age and gender standard. As an extreme example people with missing limbs could be retained.
Not everything the military does is about effectiveness. Sometimes senior NCOs want the enlisted to "look military", not just be effective.
Here's another example: why is the military PT (physical training) test varied by sex and age? If it was only about combat effectiveness, presumably there'd be 1 set of values that determine if someone had sufficient fitness relative to the rigors of combat (or whatever their job requires).