found here: https:\/\/assets.documentcloud.org\/documents\/2394531\/marine-corps-force-integration-plan-summary.pdf<\/p>\n
I cite:
\n\u00ef\u201a\u00b7
\nof Research Findings
\nCombatooooooEffectiveness
\nOverall: All-male squads, teams and crews demonstrated higher performance levels on 69%
\nof tasks evaluated (93 of 134) as compared to gender-integrated squads, teams and crews.
\nGender-integrated teams performed better than their all-male counterparts on (2) events.
\nSpeed: All-male squads, regardless of infantry MOS, were faster than the gender-integrated
\nsquads in each tactical movement. The differences were more pronounced in infantry crew-
\nserved weapons specialties that carried the assault load plus the additional weight of crew-
\nserved weapons and ammunition.
\nLethality:
\nAll-male 0311 (rifleman) infantry squads had better accuracy compared to gender-
\nintegrated squads. There was a notable difference between genders for every individual
\nweapons system (i.e. M4, M27, and M203) within the 0311 squads, except for the
\nprobability of hit & near miss with the M4.
\nMale provisional infantry (those with no formal 03xx school training) had higher hit
\npercentages than the 0311 (school trained) females: M4: 44% vs 28%, M27: 38% vs 25%,
\nM16A4w\/M203: 26% vs 15%.
\nAll-male infantry crew-served weapons teams engaged targets quicker and registered more
\nhits on target as compared to gender-integrated infantry crew-served weapons teams, with
\nthe exception of M2 accuracy.
\nAll-male squads, teams and crews and gender-integrated squads, teams, and crews had a
\nnoticeable difference in their performance of the basic combat tasks of negotiating
\nobstacles and evacuating casualties. For example, when negotiating the wall obstacle, male
\nMarines threw their packs to the top of the wall, whereas female Marines required regular
\nassistance in getting their packs to the top. During casualty evacuation assessments, there
\nwere notable differences in execution times between all-male and gender-integrated
\ngroups, except in the case where teams conducted a casualty evacuation as a one-Marine
\nfireman’s carry of another (in which case it was most often a male Marine who „evacuated“
\nthe casualty).
\n3
\n\u00ef\u201a\u00b7
\nHealth and Welfare of Marines
\nIn addition to performance, evidence of higher injury rates for females when compared to males
\nperforming the same tactical tasks was noted. The well documented comparative disadvantage in
\nupper and lower-body strength resulted in higher fatigue levels of most women, which contributed
\nto greater incidents of overuse injuries such as stress fractures. Research from various U.S. and
\nallied military studies reveal that the two primary factors associated with success in the task of
\nmovement under load are 1) lean body mass and 2) absolute VO2 Max. Findings from the
\nphysiological assessment of GCEITF males and females conducted by the University of Pittsburgh\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s
\nNeuromuscular Research Laboratory include:
\no
\nBody composition: Males averaged 178 lbs, with 20% body fat: females averaged 142 lbs, with
\n24% body fat
\nAnaerobic Power: Females possessed 15% less power than males; the female top 25th percentile
\noverlaps with the bottom 25th percentile for males
\nAnaerobic Capacity: Females possessed 15% less capacity; the female top 10th percentile
\noverlaps with the bottom 50th percentile of males
\nAerobic Capacity (VO2Max): Females had 10% lower capacity; the female top 10th percentile
\noverlaps with bottom 50 th percentile of males
\nWithin the research at the Infantry Training Battalion, females undergoing that entry-level
\ntraining were injured at more than six-times the rate of their male counterparts
\n– 27% of female injuries were attributed to the task of movement under load, compared
\nto 13% for their male counterparts, carrying a similar load. (author: that means the risk for women is 100 % higher then for men)
\nDuring the GCEITF assessment, musculoskeletal injury rates were 40.5% for females, compared
\nto 18.8% for males
\n(author: again. Women just is double as vulnarable as men)
\n– Of the 21 time-loss injuries incurred by female Marines, 19 were lower extremity
\ninjuries and 16 occurred during a movement under load task<\/p>\n
Only braine dead feminists could be surprised. Why teh … do you think here are competitons for male and female athletes. And how magically should womon get over their biology. And yes it fits perfely to this entry: https:\/\/www.q-software-solutions.de\/blog\/2017\/04\/liebe-leser-4\/<\/p>\n
Sorry to say but there are too many idiots out there, which really seem to think biology is just wishful-thinking.To get is straigt, women near you in a fight are more dangerous for any man. <\/p>\n
Who could be surprised? Femnazi idiots.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
found here: https:\/\/assets.documentcloud.org\/documents\/2394531\/marine-corps-force-integration-plan-summary.pdf I cite: \u00ef\u201a\u00b7 of Research Findings CombatooooooEffectiveness Overall: All-male squads, teams and crews demonstrated higher performance levels on 69% of tasks evaluated (93 of 134) as compared to gender-integrated squads, teams and crews. Gender-integrated teams performed better than their all-male counterparts on (2) events. Speed: All-male squads, regardless of infantry MOS, were […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[20],"tags":[5105,4558,4565,5838,5839],"class_list":["post-4713","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politik","tag-fakten","tag-frauen","tag-krieg","tag-risiko","tag-untragbar"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.q-software-solutions.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4713","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.q-software-solutions.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.q-software-solutions.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.q-software-solutions.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.q-software-solutions.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4713"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.q-software-solutions.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4713\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.q-software-solutions.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4713"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.q-software-solutions.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4713"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.q-software-solutions.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4713"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}