quote:

---

History will be made Friday when two women join 94 men in graduating from the Army's grueling Ranger School.
Army officials said late Monday the group had all completed the entire Ranger Course and would graduate from Ranger School the Army's premier combat leadership course -- in a ceremony Friday at Fort Benning, Ga.
It will mark the first time women have completed the course.

The course lasts 62 days and students learn how to operate in woodlands, mountainous terrain and coastal swamps. Nineteen women and 381 men began the course on April 20.

"Congratulations to all of our new Rangers. Each Ranger School graduate has shown the physical and mental toughness to successfully lead organizations at any level," said Secretary of the Army John M. McHugh in a statement.

"This course has proven that every soldier, regardless of gender, can achieve his or her full potential. We owe soldiers the opportunity to serve successfully in any position where they are qualified and capable, and we continue to look for ways to select, train, and retain the best soldiers to meet our nation's needs."

---

quote:

---

Would someone explain the different levels (if that's the correct term) of the Rangers? i.e What happens after they graduate from the leadership school? more Ranger training? Green Beret, Tan Beret, airborne etc?

I was stationed at Ft Benning (not Ranger) in 1970 for six months and met several who were at Ranger School. Good guys, but their mind set was completely different than mine (admittedly, I was in for a two year term).

Thanks

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Would someone explain the different levels (if that's the correct term) of the Rangers? i.e What happens after they graduate from the leadership school? more Ranger training? Green Beret, Tan Beret, airborne etc?

I was stationed at Ft Benning (not Ranger) in 1970 for six months and met several who were at Ranger School. Good guys, but their mind set was completely different than mine (admittedly, I was in for a two year term).

Thanks

---

thewallspc came pretty close. Ranger qualified means you passed Ranger school. An Army Ranger is in Ranger Regiment (75th) in one of the three battalions (Benning, Hunter or Lewis) or is with Regiment HQ at Benning. Outside of RRD, Regiment contains the leadership for the entire Regiment.

The honest mission of the Ranger Bats is to pull security for Delta. Say what you want, but my buddies currently in Bat would agree. They are precision troops that specialize in insertion/extraction. They're a mindset of their own, but a much needed one. Going to Ranger school doesn't mean you're too weak to be in Battalion. Maybe just not your decided career path.

Green Berets (SF) have deviated from their initial mission intent of being teachers of our allies' forces. They are much more mobile and direct combat/impact, but with a highly specialized focus.

All that said, earning a Ranger tab is absolutely nothing to scoff at. You can be in Ranger Regiment without one (initially). My dad went through Ranger school for 63 days as a leg Ranger, then went to Vietnam and got shot once and fragged once. He still says the hardest thing he's ever done in his life is Ranger school.

Most memorable thing my dad ever told me about Ranger school: "Every Army school teaches you a skill. Airborne school teaches you how to crash into the earth without dying. Pathfinder school teaches you how to set up LZs and DZs. Air assault teaches you...well, I'm sure it teaches something. Ranger school teaches you about yourself. You already know how to patrol, you know how to set up a defense. Ranger school teaches you how far you can go after your mind tells you can't go any further."

So, for what it's worth, these two women must be badasses. Tip of the cap to them both.

Also, FYI: Green Beret is SF. Maroon beret is active Airborne. Tan beret us called "Darby Brown" and is the Ranger Regiment once Shinseki gave the black beret to the whole Army.

---

quote:

---

Whoop. Just wish they were Aggies!

---

quote:

---

Green Berets (SF) have deviated from their initial mission intent of being teachers of our allies' forces. They are much more mobile and direct combat/impact, but with a highly specialized focus.

---

quote:

---

So when it comes to the Army Rangers, you can be either Ranger qualified, or be an actual Army Ranger (a member of the Armys special operations infantry unit, the 75th Ranger regiment)

---

quote:

---

I think this is great news. If an individual can make it through the training they deserve it. In general yes, women are less physically capable of it than men are, but there is absolutely overlap. The top tier of women soldiers are absolutely more capable than a large number of male soldiers.

If you qualify, you qualify, regardless of gender.

Say the best 10% of the men in the Army is capable of making it through the school, even if only the top 1% of women are capable that 1% deserves their chance.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I think this is great news. If an individual can make it through the training they deserve it. In general yes, women are less physically capable of it than men are, but there is absolutely overlap. The top tier of women soldiers are absolutely more capable than a large number of male soldiers.

If you qualify, you qualify, regardless of gender.

Say the best 10% of the men in the Army is capable of making it through the school, even if only the top 1% of women are capable that 1% deserves their chance.

---

They need to radically improve their pre Ranger screening process for that to be true. 186 women started the program & only two graduate, both of whom were recycled at some point. That kind of ROI is unacceptable. This is a limited resource. Those 184 women who failed to graduate took slots from 184 men of whom 60-120 probably graduate. They need to improve the female screening to be roughly comperable to men before this gets rolled out en mass.

Ranger School is terrible & among the most physically demanding things you can endure but if you are not in Regiment, Armor, or Infantry (maybe FA) you probably should not go as it will not benefit you. I only learned to hate life & be miserable. Some Soldiers learned a few useful things about themselves, but unless your career involves leading small groups in austere conditions to do violent things there is no real benefit to going. It may have helped me as a PL but certainly not in any other position. Cavalry (& infantry) NCO's live & breathe what Ranger school teaches.

Finally I am biased as multiple times my units have had a plethora of highly trained & motivated E-5/E-6 types, who would benefit, get denied slots. Men who would get a major + on basically every Darby event. Hell I take no small amount of pride that almost all the men I sent graduated, & a lot of the guys denied who eventually went graduated. Those are the ones I'm advocating for.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I think this is great news. If an individual can make it through the training they deserve it. In general yes, women are less physically capable of it than men are, but there is absolutely overlap. The top tier of women soldiers are absolutely more capable than a large number of male soldiers.

If you qualify, you qualify, regardless of gender.

Say the best 10% of the men in the Army is capable of making it through the school, even if only the top 1% of women are capable that 1% deserves their chance.

---

They need to radically improve their pre Ranger screening process for that to be true. 186 women started the program & only two graduate, both of whom were recycled at some point. That kind of ROI is unacceptable. This is a limited resource. Those 184 women who failed to graduate took slots from 184 men of whom 60-120 probably graduate. They need to improve the female screening to be roughly comperable to men before this gets rolled out en mass.

Ranger School is terrible & among the most physically demanding things you can endure but if you are not in Regiment, Armor, or Infantry (maybe FA) you probably should not go as it will not benefit you. I only learned to hate life & be miserable. Some Soldiers learned a few useful things about themselves, but unless your career involves leading small groups in austere conditions to do violent things there is no real benefit to going. It may have helped me as a PL but certainly not in any other position. Cavalry (& infantry) NCO's live & breathe what Ranger school teaches.

Finally I am biased as multiple times my units have had a plethora of highly trained & motivated E-5/E-6 types, who would benefit, get denied slots. Men who would get a major + on basically every Darby event. Hell I take no small amount of pride that almost all the men I sent graduated, & a lot of the guys denied who eventually went graduated. Those are the ones I'm advocating for.

---

this is absurd.

60-120 graduate? So if these 2 women hadn't been accepted, you're telling me that the graduating class this week would have been 60-120 people larger?

Please explain that logic to me.

The class they were in started with 381 men and 19 women. 94 men and 2 women graduated. That yields a 24% pass rate for the men and a 10% pass rate for the women.

Yes, there is a disparity, but it's hardly the enormous ROI difference you're implying.

The class would have started with 400 people, no matter what. If you apply your logic that they kept qualified men out, and consider the actual pass rates for the class, these 2 women kept at most , 19 men from attempting and 5 men from becoming Ranger qualified, not the 60-120 you seem to have figured.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I think this is great news. If an individual can make it through the training they deserve it. In general yes, women are less physically capable of it than men are, but there is absolutely overlap. The top tier of women soldiers are absolutely more capable than a large number of male soldiers.

If you qualify, you qualify, regardless of gender.

Say the best 10% of the men in the Army is capable of making it through the school, even if only the top 1% of women are capable that 1% deserves their chance.

---

They need to radically improve their pre Ranger screening process for that to be true. 186 women started the program & only two graduate, both of whom were recycled at some point. That kind of ROI is unacceptable. This is a limited resource. Those 184 women who failed to graduate took slots from 184 men of whom 60-120 probably graduate. They need to improve the female screening to be roughly comperable to men before this gets rolled out en mass.

Ranger School is terrible & among the most physically demanding things you can endure but if you are not in Regiment, Armor, or Infantry (maybe FA) you probably should not go as it will not benefit you. I only learned to hate life & be miserable. Some Soldiers learned a few useful things about themselves, but unless your career involves leading small groups in austere conditions to do violent things there is no real benefit to going. It may have helped me as a PL but certainly not in any other position. Cavalry (& infantry) NCO's live & breathe what Ranger school teaches.

Finally I am biased as multiple times my units have had a plethora of highly trained & motivated E-5/E-6 types, who would benefit, get denied slots. Men who would get a major + on basically every Darby event. Hell I take no small amount of pride that almost all the men I sent graduated, & a lot of the guys denied who eventually went graduated. Those are the ones I'm advocating for.

---

this is absurd.

60-120 graduate? So if these 2 women hadn't been accepted, you're telling me that the graduating class this week would have been 60-120 people larger?

Please explain that logic to me.

The class they were in started with 381 men and 19 women. 94 men and 2 women graduated. That yields a 24% pass rate for the men and a 10% pass rate for the women.

Yes, there is a disparity, but it's hardly the enormous ROI difference you're implying.

The class would have started with 400 people, no matter what. If you apply your logic that they kept qualified men out, and consider the actual pass rates for the class, these 2 women kept at most , 19 men from attempting and 5 men from becoming Ranger qualified, not the 60-120 you seem to have figured.

---

If it only yields 19 less qualified soldiers, is that acceptable to you? For the sake of fairness?

---

quote:

---

If it only yields 19 less qualified soldiers, is that acceptable to you? For the sake of fairness?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

If it only yields 19 less qualified soldiers, is that acceptable to you? For the sake of fairness?

---

5, not 19. He's saying they took up 19 spots, but only 5 of those 19 (if men) would've graduated. Statistically speaking.

However, what if analysis shows that the pass rate among hispanics is 35% and the pass rate among blacks is 10%, is it ok to continue to allow blacks to try out in the interest of fairness? I'm just playing devil's advocate to your point. I personally don't see the point in this experiment at this point in time. However if combat billets ever are going to be opened up to women, then we have to start experimenting at some point.

---

quote:

---

it's hardly an "experiment" and women are already in combat. While disproportionately low compared to men, nearly 150 women have died in combat during the GWOT. 2 women have been award the Silver Star for gallantry in combat, and 103 women have received Purple Hearts.

The two women that passed Ranger School this week were an Apache pilot and an MP, men in either billet wouldn't even be questioned twice about the ROI of attending Ranger School.

---

quote:

---

Swing your Saber: Ranger School has been opened up to other branches for quite a long time. I was an Engineer officer and it was opened when I wan an LT in '96. And I now work for a number of retired Engineer officers that went through Ranger School in '79-'85.

Read this article:

http://www.itstactical.com/centcom/news/ranger-school-is-dead-but-not-for-the-reasons-you-think/?utm_source=F&utm_medium=SM&utm_campaign=C

---

quote:

---

Swing your Saber: Ranger School has been opened up to other branches for quite a long time. I was an Engineer officer and it was opened when I wan an LT in '96. And I now work for a number of retired Engineer officers that went through Ranger School in '79-'85.

Read this article:

http://www.itstactical.com/centcom/news/ranger-school-is-dead-but-not-for-the-reasons-you-think/?utm_source=F&utm_medium=SM&utm_campaign=C

---

quote:

---

Swing your Saber: Ranger School has been opened up to other branches for quite a long time. I was an Engineer officer and it was opened when I wan an LT in '96. And I now work for a number of retired Engineer officers that went through Ranger School in '79-'85.

Read this article:

http://www.itstactical.com/centcom/news/ranger-school-is-dead-but-not-for-the-reasons-you-think/?utm_source=F&utm_medium=SM&utm_campaign=C

---