Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 92 guests

Training Standards (Limited to the Honorverse)

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Re: Training Standards (Limited to the Honorverse)
Post by saber964   » Fri Jul 17, 2015 8:09 pm

saber964
Admiral

Posts: 2423
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:41 pm
Location: Spokane WA USA

kenl511 wrote:Tech standards are important, they allow for equalization in capabilities to levels beyond what an unequipped person could. However training standards start with H. Sapiens modern mark whatever and the accompanying problems.

Women in military in modern times is not new. WW1 the Russians fielded a women's battalion after the Revolution. WW2 the Soviets created the Women's Sniper Corps. In US military history there are examples of women stepping in to fight from before there was a USA. The question is not that women can fight or not. (flying crockery and its accuracy are arguments in favor as most men can testify) The question is can the men be trained to let them fight?

During the Israeli war for independence the Haganah had coed units in combat, the female casualties were lower than average but they were withdrawn from action as the male casualties in the same units were much higher, as the men tried to protect the women.

I would imagine this would be culturally accommodated by SKM and PRH, but imagine the difficulty in accommodating this among Graysons. It might be a difficult Test or flat out impossible. I think worth a story or two.



Plus on the IDF female, often the Arab units would refuse to surrender because of the shame of surrendering to women.

It also happened during Desert Storm. One story was that a truck driving Sargent picked up about a dozen Iraqis who were looking for someone to surrender too. After loading the POW's in the back of the truck the Sargent took off her helmet and shook out her hair. The Iraqis seeing this promptly jumped off the back of the truck presumably to find a man to surrender to. But the Sargent not accepting the Arab outlook on a females lot in life pulled out her M-16 fired a burst over the POW's heads to which they dove for the ground and promptly wanted to surrender all over again. When the Sargent got back with her charges one of the Iraqis was quoted "that was one mean woman"
Top
Re: Training Standards (Limited to the Honorverse)
Post by Spitfire80   » Wed Jul 22, 2015 6:53 am

Spitfire80
Ensign

Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 5:15 pm

yes, but all those examples, are from our past, where they were the exception and very rare. And in the Israeli case, a neccesity.

Today, nations that preach gender equality are slowly easing their way into getting women into military and even combat roles. With admittedly varied succes and some trouble.

Give it 50 years though and i imagine they'll be fully accepted in every role. Sooner if we go for a third and convential World war.

And very long before Honor, was even a gleam in her daddy's eyes it was so normal to have women serving, it goes unremarked. And any problems, involving their physique is long solved, taking their strengths and weaknesses, if one can call it that, into account.

The problem off harrassment however as Honor can attest remains.
Top
Re: Training Standards (Limited to the Honorverse)
Post by kenl511   » Wed Jul 22, 2015 11:40 am

kenl511
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 353
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2012 6:01 am

On subject of size of women as combat soldiers:

I grew up in Tacoma Washington during the Vietnam War, with Fort Lewis as part of the city, we had many soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen around. (I was 14 before I realized being a veteran was not a requirement for fatherhood) There were three groups of soldiers treated with wary respect even by other soldiers.

1) Special forces, Green Berets, Navy SEALS, etc.
2) Rangers. (I'm not sure why, but considered separate)
3) Tunnel Rats. requirement: Short, thin and wiry.

No group ran to tall and robust. The only one with distinct physical requirement was smallness.
Top
Re: Training Standards (Limited to the Honorverse)
Post by Tenshinai   » Wed Jul 22, 2015 11:43 am

Tenshinai
Admiral

Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:34 pm
Location: Sweden

SharkHunter wrote:Given that another thread on this subject went bad in a hurry, but started with an interesting "Honorverse" question, I'd like to restart the thought processes on training standards with an assertion, and see where it goes.

Given the variability of humans in the HonorVerse, [consider Palane and HH compared to Susan Hibson or Iris Babcock, or Hugh Arai, Tomas Martinez or Mateo Gutierrez compared to just about anybody else], it's obvious that brute strength isn't the comparative limiting factor on who joins, who washes out, an who stays. It's also obvious that "smart and willing to be deadly" are core requirements.

So what creates the "low bar" for entry/washout and what separates the accepted into further training from the wannabees, and thence up to "first tier" level in terms of unit fighting skills?


Simple, you set realistic minimum requirements for all duties/roles, anyone who cant manage those, fails out right away.

Beyond that, well you can simply encourage personnel to be fit, probably require yearly or bi-yearly or something checks to make sure everyone maintains themself above minimum, you can also require a certain degree of workout depending on role, just as you probably make it a requirement to maintain proficiency with any relevant weapons, electronics and other gear.

Of course, what constitutes acceptable physical and mental requirements is going to be different between places, and many, like SL are going to include a measure of corruption, for example as we have seen, there´s plenty of SLN officers around whose mentality would probably have a fair chance of getting them failed from RMN service, and while physical fitness will have simpler pass/fail criteria, that´s probably not such a huge problem for the right contact to "brush up".
Top
Re: Training Standards (Limited to the Honorverse)
Post by Tenshinai   » Wed Jul 22, 2015 11:54 am

Tenshinai
Admiral

Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:34 pm
Location: Sweden

Spitfire80 wrote:yes, but all those examples, are from our past, where they were the exception and very rare. And in the Israeli case, a neccesity.

Today, nations that preach gender equality are slowly easing their way into getting women into military and even combat roles. With admittedly varied succes and some trouble.

Give it 50 years though and i imagine they'll be fully accepted in every role. Sooner if we go for a third and convential World war.

And very long before Honor, was even a gleam in her daddy's eyes it was so normal to have women serving, it goes unremarked. And any problems, involving their physique is long solved, taking their strengths and weaknesses, if one can call it that, into account.

The problem off harrassment however as Honor can attest remains.


Physique is mostly a nonissue. Going by the same standards, those used today, while more females fails in physical, it´s never more than 1 in 10.

And as i did post, women on average had higher mental scores. So, should we stop accepting males because they´re clearly mentally challenged? (and that was a sarcastic JOKE if anyone missed it)



kenl511 wrote:2) Rangers. (I'm not sure why, but considered separate)


Because they are.

No group ran to tall and robust. The only one with distinct physical requirement was smallness.


I recall what my aquitance once said, that he loved militaries insisting on just the big guys, because that gave him such an abundance of easy targets, being a sniper.
Top
Re: Training Standards (Limited to the Honorverse)
Post by Somtaaw   » Wed Jul 22, 2015 12:08 pm

Somtaaw
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1203
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 11:36 am
Location: Canada

kenl511 wrote:1) Special forces, Green Berets, Navy SEALS, etc.
2) Rangers. (I'm not sure why, but considered separate)


I think Rangers usually get classed as seperate because they don't usually use silenced/suppressed weaponry. They're an elite infantry unit, jack of all trades, but they aren't truly "specialized" like SpecOps.

Special Forces > Rangers > General Infantry
Top
Re: Training Standards (Limited to the Honorverse)
Post by SharkHunter   » Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:39 am

SharkHunter
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1608
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2014 3:53 pm
Location: Independence, Missouri

Somtaaw wrote:
kenl511 wrote:1) Special forces, Green Berets, Navy SEALS, etc.
2) Rangers. (I'm not sure why, but considered separate)


I think Rangers usually get classed as seperate because they don't usually use silenced/suppressed weaponry. They're an elite infantry unit, jack of all trades, but they aren't truly "specialized" like SpecOps.

Special Forces > Rangers > General Infantry
The Green Beret's are specifically top notch soldiers AND trainers, the SEALs specialize in squad level infiltration/destructive missions, etc. The other elite units are the Airborne , think "Ranger level training plus Paratroops plus dropped armor.

Read up on the WWII Rangers or those in the Mogadishu mile. The Rangers are the tough "long distance haul buns across land and fight like a hammer or hold like an anvil" battalion level force.
---------------------
All my posts are YMMV, IMHO, and welcoming polite discussion, extension, and rebuttal. This is the HonorVerse, after all
Top
Re: Training Standards (Limited to the Honorverse)
Post by SWM   » Thu Jul 23, 2015 10:47 am

SWM
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5928
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:00 pm
Location: U.S. east coast

I am mildly amused that, in a thread the original poster explicitly wanted to concentrate on the Honorverse, 90% of the discussion has been on the real world. :)
--------------------------------------------
Librarian: The Original Search Engine
Top
Re: Training Standards (Limited to the Honorverse)
Post by Valen123456   » Thu Jul 23, 2015 1:21 pm

Valen123456
Lieutenant Commander

Posts: 103
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 9:27 am

Tenshinai wrote: Of course, what constitutes acceptable physical and mental requirements is going to be different between places, and many, like SL are going to include a measure of corruption, for example as we have seen, there´s plenty of SLN officers around whose mentality would probably have a fair chance of getting them failed from RMN service, and while physical fitness will have simpler pass/fail criteria, that´s probably not such a huge problem for the right contact to "brush up".


That reminds me of a little scenario I have had in my head ever since SLN personnel started falling into Manticoran hands in 10,000 at a time job lots. Why not demonstrate to the SLN (again) just how outclassed they are ... by putting some POW's through an equivalent of the Crusher (or standard Saganami Island courses) to hammer home the point of what a real first class navy demands of you.

OF COURSE - I know why they don't and just how stupid it would be of them too do this. You never instruct an enemy on how to fight like you. But the thought makes me smile at them showing some of battle fleet's "finest" on how a navy not buoyed up by ego, corruption, and lack of actual combat would work.
Top
Re: Training Standards (Limited to the Honorverse)
Post by munroburton   » Thu Jul 23, 2015 1:49 pm

munroburton
Admiral

Posts: 2375
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 10:16 am
Location: Scotland

Valen123456 wrote:
Tenshinai wrote: Of course, what constitutes acceptable physical and mental requirements is going to be different between places, and many, like SL are going to include a measure of corruption, for example as we have seen, there´s plenty of SLN officers around whose mentality would probably have a fair chance of getting them failed from RMN service, and while physical fitness will have simpler pass/fail criteria, that´s probably not such a huge problem for the right contact to "brush up".


That reminds me of a little scenario I have had in my head ever since SLN personnel started falling into Manticoran hands in 10,000 at a time job lots. Why not demonstrate to the SLN (again) just how outclassed they are ... by putting some POW's through an equivalent of the Crusher (or standard Saganami Island courses) to hammer home the point of what a real first class navy demands of you.

OF COURSE - I know why they don't and just how stupid it would be of them too do this. You never instruct an enemy on how to fight like you. But the thought makes me smile at them showing some of battle fleet's "finest" on how a navy not buoyed up by ego, corruption, and lack of actual combat would work.


Not through the Crusher or any of the modern training programs. But I wouldn't object to GA officers playing matches with the PoWs using SLN simulators. In fact, it'd be an excellent opportunity for the GA officers to get a closer look at the SLN mindset. No such thing as too many aces up their collective sleeves!
Top

Return to Honorverse