thompsonx
Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL: Awareness
ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Those statistics are from 1945, you mental midget.
Please show any evidence you may have that would indicate that humans in amerika have changed in the past 70 years you phoquing moron.
[/quote] Demographic changes due to nutrition are well documented. Places like, oh, I dunno, the CDC: http://www.newsmax.com/US/average-weight-man-woman-obese/2015/06/15/id/650546/
The average American male TODAY weighs around 195 pounds. If we presume the military recruits are a little trimmer, you can figure 180 as a reasonable average.
This is what your cite says.
According to the CDC data, 35.1 percent of American adults over the age of 20 are obese. Sixty-nine percent of American adults, who are over 20 years of age, are either overweight or obese.
More than 20 percent of American children, who are between 12 and 19 years of age are categorized as obese, and American children from six years of age to 11 years old are also considered obese.
Even a phoquing moron would/should know that the poor speicmens you mention were not allowed in the military and the sizes in the article cited are for those who were in the military and not the rejects dumb ass.
No, these were inductees who could wash out for a whole bunch of reasons. Generally speaking poor nutrition contributed to reduced height and weight as well as poorer health. Consequently, getting in didn't mean you were healthy and capable, it meant you passed the initial physical, you fuckwit.
Why would the amreikan military allow unhealthy people to be inducted?
Note that this was also before President Truman signed Executive Order 9981 which desegregated the armed services.
More than 2.5 million blacks sereved in the military durring ww2 you racist moron.
No. They didn't - you apparently have trouble reading as well as thinking. Less than 4,000 African Americans were serving in the military in 1941.
I said durring ww2 not 1941. Try to respond to what I post and not the voices in your head.
By the time 1945 rolled around, there were approximately 125,000 African Americans serving overseas.
I said durring ww2 not just overseas. Try to resond to what I post and not the voices in your head.
Overall there were 1.2 million African Americans serving in various roles including the African American Women's auxiliaries. However the units were strictly segregated and the total number of African Americans serving never reached the 10.6% mark which represented their proportion of the population.
Why was that????When 2.5 million registered why were only 1.2 million accepted?
Nowdays, African Americans constitute 13.2% of the military, but during the period from July 1, 1944, to June 30, 1945, African Americans only made up 0.8% of inductees in the US Army.
Any idea why that was?
So, basically... you're wrong. Again. This is becoming a habit of yours.
So far you have yet to show where I have been wrong.
Consequently today's army has more African American servicemen and overall taller, more muscular and heavier soldiers than the lily-whites of 1945. And the weight of infantryman packs is also beyond dispute.
You are the only one who believe that because if you had been in the army would know better than to say such stupid shit.
Anybody who can read believes that because the facts are pretty fucking plain. Plus the military tends to try and recruit from an underclass. And generally underclasses are either ethnic minorities, poor or both.
So patriotism is off the table ehh??
So, yes - you're arguing with the Army about their pack sizes. In inaccessible terrain - such as in Afghanistan - soldiers might be required to carry the Emergency Approach March Load which is indeed between 120 and 150 pounds as documented at http://www.natick.army.mil/about/pao/2004/04-03.htm
Basically, you're wrong. Suck it up.
Basically you are full of shit and need to learn to read. What your cite says in the very first line is:
Nowhere in Afghanistan did Lt. Col. Charles Dean see the folkloric 120-pound rucksack reputed to be carried by a dismounted infantryman in combat.[/quote] That talks about one individual's experience, you fucking moron. In the same article it talks about Emergency Approach March Loads of 120 to 142 pounds.
A little farther down it says:
A fighting load is everything worn or carried except a rucksack and should be held to less than 48 pounds,
Do you just open your mouth to change feet?
Do you just open yours to switch cocks?
You are the only one in this discussion with his cock in his mouth instead of facts.
IN THE SAME ARTICLE I SENT YOU it quotes the following: "After reviewing the data, the average rifleman's fighting load was 63 pounds, which meant he was carrying on average 36 percent of his body weight before strapping on a rucksack. "
If 36 percent of his body weight is 63 pounds, then the bodyweight they're talking about is (can you do math?) 175 pounds.
When I went to school 63 pounds is less than 120 pounds which is what you claimed your cite said which it did not.
|
RE: recruting women for combat - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread