Military Rations

>>1032166
They're pricey and can be a bit bulky. I try to pack everything flat, and that's not really something MREs do, although you could open it and store the packages however you decide
>I've heard constipation is an issue
The gum in (at least American MREs) have laxatives to help with this issue

If you bust open a US MRE you can pack it town better. Some of them aren't bad for what they are, I can't remember which ones I've eaten though because they are few and far between. They're kind of inefficient for what you get out of them because of the water weight. But then again, it means you don't have to rehydrate it. The packaging is resilient, but they can be effected by heat, and they realistically do not store very long which is why they are a meme as 'survival food'.

If you do it, don't make it more than a third of your food I would say. Just use them for variety. I keep one in my day pack as kind of an emergent, no prep food item that isn't a protein puck or jerky. Usually I'll have some combination of an MRE entree, two small snacks, a protein puck and either smoked oysters or kippered fish.

I am kind of curious to try some of the Russian MREs, look those up some time, they're pretty different.

File: 24_Hour_Multi_Climate_Ration_Pack_MOD_45157290.jpg (339KB, 1920x1280px) Image search: [Google]

339KB, 1920x1280px

>>1032177
That sounds pretty fucked up for the guy who forgets that and just wants a little gum to suppress his appetite. But I was talking UK ration packs, the gum in them is Wrigley's, the same brand of gum you'd buy any place.

>>1032193
As for bulk I don't see what exactly would be so much of an issue. I don't know how american rations are contained but british ones are in foil bags which are more or less flat in profile, pic related is from the iraq/afghanistan stuff back in 2009 and I'm sure they haven't changed since.

I suppose not being dehydrated is not the most efficient but loads of stuff aside from the main meal seems pretty convenient like soup powder, isotonic drink mixture, and they come with waterproof matches and water purification tablets which is neat.

I guess they're a little pricey from what I've seen so far though. I can get 10 of them for £100, which isn't cheap compared to stuff you can prepare yourself. But it's not extortionate.

>>1032193
Also I checked out russian ones and they seem even worse for bulk! Loads of tins instead of soft flexible foil bags.

File: 1280px-Russian_combat_ration_IRP-P.jpg (396KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 1280x960px

>>1032208
Forgot pic

>>1032166
Ive watched alot of ration video's but never actually had one. As far as i can tell the northern european countrys make the best kind.

NRG-5 / BP-WR / Seven Oceans is what i would recomend, not for taste but for size/volume.

you would have to take water with you or boil some found water

>>1032166

Most that I've tried are very heavy and a bit pricey. Plus, some of the stuff in there isn't worth taking. I'd say it's a better option to chuck a box in the cupboard for emergencies or keep so me in your cabin. Hiking with them is a bit of an arse. Better off with mountain house imo.

Are there any mileage here who can confirm, how many days' rations are you expected to carry on your back?

>>1032204
>As for bulk I don't see what exactly would be so much of an issue.

MREs are volume and weight inefficient compared to what you can put together on your own. I put together my own ready to eat food packages and they are 2/3 the volume of an MRE and are 1,700 Calories / lbs. compared to the MRE's 875 Calories / lbs.

However, my food packages do not contain heatable food, flameless heater, gum, toilet paper, spoon, etc... like the MRE does.

>Perhaps not solely but serving as a high calorie base and adding other stuff too?
If you're camping and have time to cook food, a high caloric base would be stuff like grains and nuts. I treat the MRE more as a flavor variety supplement. If I need to cut down on weight or volume to extend the length of a trip, the MREs are the first things to go.

>I've heard constipation is an issue but that seems easily resolvable if you're prepared for it.
I've eaten these for 4 days once, never had a problem.

>>1032280

Any milfags I mean

>>1032283
>875calories/lb
Haha uwotm8? Is that the state of american ration packs? The british standard is 1400cal/lb, what on earth are those silly yanks doing. And obviously I'm not suggesting you take the entire box, but pulling out the most useful/dense stuff as well as the handy tools like waterproof matches and water purification tablets.

>>1032280
Generally you'll carry 2-3 MRE's on patrol in the US military, regardless of mission length (be it 8 hours or 20 days).

They do realize that shit's heavy and bulky and will have some plan to resupply you.

You can field-strip an MRE and cut the bulk in half and reduce the weight significantly, this also allows you to do all your goodie trading somewhere safe. Removing stuff like the MRE spoon (almost everybody has 1 they carry semi-permanently, no need to dispose of it each time you use it), toilet paper (they don't give you enough and it's super coarse anyway so most people carry a full roll of their preferred brand), the cardboard boxes, any of the condiments you won't use or don't like, and the horrid drink mixes will leave you with a much lighter package at the cost of greatly reducing shelf life. IE, do this right before you leave, not months/years in advance.

>>1032481
Almost half the weight (and over half the bulk) of a sealed American MRE is packaging. Only POGs don't field strip theirs.

Do note that a US MRE has an advertised shelf life of more than double a Brit MRE, and in functionality it's closer to triple (when stored even close to properly they're safe to eat for close to 30 years, when stored the Army way, IE in a sealed connex baking in the NC/GA sun they're safe to eat for about 12 years).

>>1032204
>that sounds pretty fucked up for the guy who forgets that
All gums are mild laxatives. The US MRE gum just contains more, and in and of itself is not enough to induce the shits. This is 50/50 barracks lore and truth.

>as for bulk I don't see what exactly would be so much of an issue
One Brit MRE, field stripped, contains between 3700 and 4200kcal (you're supposed to eat 1 a day). You can fit nearly 15,000kcal of freezedried food in the same volume. Both require cooking, and the Brit MRE does not include a heat source (they use a hexamine stove which is provided separately).

One US MRE, field stripped, contains an average of 1250kcal (you're supposed to eat 3 a day). You can fit nearly 6000kcal of freezedried food in the same volume, but everything in an MRE can be eaten as-is.
>I don't know how american rations are contained
Everything is in its own heavy foil or poly bag, the entree and side are then packed in cardboard boxes, then everything is in one giant heavy poly bag. Great for shelf life, shit for weight and bulk.
>I suppose not being dehydrated is not the most efficient
The Brit MRE's require being heated in water over a hexamine stove (and the entrees cannot be eaten cold/uncooked), there's literally no reason why they couldn't be dehydrated if you have to heat water anyway. The Americans have an excuse in that everything can be eaten as-is straight from their pouch.

>>1032280
Many British ration packs contain mountain house brand foodstuffs.

>>1032483
>>1032485
Of course if you chuck all the redundant shit out you can get it much more densely packed for british rations too. Also I liked the drink mixes in the british ration packs, and they're a very convenient thing for camping.

>>1032495
Lacking a heat source isn't so much an issue as I plan on using these just for the food within them. If I go camping I can just make a regular old wood fire. And the needing water to boil the bags and hydrate the entrees is not a problem either, just camp near a water source.

>>1032233
Thanks for the tip, I'll check those out.

>>1032498

Such As?

>>1032495
Brit MREs can be eaten safely as is, they are boil in the bag meals (plus sundries like crackers). You can eat them cold if you need to. If US ones are different, why do they include those chemical heading pouches that you need to prop up On A Rock Or Something

>>1032495
>MRE's require being heated/cooked

which part of MRE "meal READY to eat" was too difficult for you to grasp

>>1032495

Have you even seen a Brit mre, let alone tasted one? They don't have too be boiled, they can be eaten safely without heating.

Don't spread bullshit that you have no idea about. It's armchair faggots like you that ruin this fucking board.

>>1032177
I've eaten these for years and I swear this is an urban legend

>>1033035
Well I know one of them has mountain house rice pudding and a freeze dried chilli con carne with rice. I don't remember exactly which ration pack that was.

>>1032498
>>1033248
>guy on internet buys mountain house meals
>puts them in a 'ration pack', sells it all for a premium
>retard buys 'ration pack'
>"hey you guys" brit army ration packs come with freeze dried meals

>>1033253
I'm sorry you're so angry/retarded but this is the truth. Just because your country's military is renowned for having shite rations doesn't mean we all follow suit. Why is it so hard to believe?

>>1033253
Normally I wouldn't waste my time on an idiot like yourself but I'm feeling generous. Here are links to two separate independent sources describing mountain house rations being included in the British 24 hour cold climate ration pack.

http://www.combatandsurvival.com/products-and-reviews/rations/5472-cold-climate-ration-marching-ammo-pt14

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VfinKt1ptk

>>1033278
>>1033279
>specialist ration pack for extreme environment
>hey you guys they put mountain house in all brit ration packs

okay idiots

>>1033286
Moving the goalposts much? I never stated all had them. Just admit you sperged out here >>1033253 because you evidently have some kind of bone to pick with british military or are butthurt about the quality of your own country's ones. Incidentally, the standard multi-climate ration packs also include freeze dried meals, usually the breakfasts.

>>1033044
Well, it's a colloquialism. The Brit ones are "ORP"s, or Operational Ration Pack". They don't claim they're "ready to eat" although some don't require cooking.
>>1033038
Because hot food is nice to have.

>>1033330
None of them require cooking you dunce. As you say it's simply nice to have food food if you wish. The only thing needed for a few breakfast parts is rehydration. And really you could skip the rehydration if you were pressed for time. Rations are all ready to eat by design you fool, what kind of spaz military would have rations that needed to be cooked.

>>1032215
All my mates who experimented with them say french ones are best of all.

T. Polish territorial

>>1033342
>what kind of spaz military would have rations that needed to be cooked
Well, the French, British, Dutch, Germans, Finnish, Russians, Estonians, Canadians, Mexicans, and Italians currently have at least one issued ration (usually a cold-weather one, except for the Mexicans) that require either rehydration or cooking. Pretty much every military ever prior to Vietnam did. The US still has some specialty rations that *should* be rehydrated (MCW, LRP) but in theory could be choked down as-is.

>>1032485
>>>1032481
>Almost half the weight (and over half the bulk) of a sealed American MRE is packaging. Only POGs don't field strip theirs.
Thats.... smart. I hate all those extra cutlery, single-use stoves & fuel, when I have my own favorite esbit & tools set. Next time Im out, I'll just repack it all.

>>1033059
I've eaten them for years too, never have had an issue with constipation and I never use the gum either so I wouldn't know for sure, just what I've heard.

>>1033059
>>1033353
You don't get it.
You get constipation ONLY if you eat ONLY american MREs for a prolonged period of time, which sometimes took place in remote bases, in Iraq, or Afghanistan.
That shit they put in builds up.
I remember threads on /k/ about it, it can't be all made up.

>>1033357
It's not made up. It IS exaggerated, and many people don't understand the main cause.

The main reason MRE's plug you up is the situations in which you're eating them: You're dehydrated. Much of the time in Iraq or Afghanistan soldiers are walking a thin line between severe dehydration and water intoxication, even though they're drinking the electrolyte mixes and taking the supplemental tablets. Wearing body armor 12-16 hours a day every day for a year coupled with the intense physical activity cause you to sweat that badly, even in cool weather.

I'm a naturally heavy sweater but during the summer in northern Iraq I was drinking upwards of 5 gallons of water a day when patrolling. I was still pissing dark orange bordering on brown, and ended up being taken to the medics twice for water intoxication. I was drinking every electrolyte packet I could get my hands on and still taking 3-4 salt tablets a day.

>>1033055
Chill out faggot your MREs suck

>>1033357
It's a myth. If you drink water you should be fine. The only thing is, if you're in a desert, YOU NEED MORE WATER THAN YOU THINK, so guys will drain their Camelbak and all be backed up, because they're in a desert, and didn't get enough water

>>1033352
Open the pack like normal, take out what you don't need, slip the shit back in side ways, fold the bag over, tape it shut with a strip of duct tape. Taa daa, you field stripped an MRE.

>>1033361
At that point, you really have to ask why they don't do more rotations. You can't just ship people use to one temp into a fucking desert and expect them to acclimate in that situation.

>>1033458
It's the gear (particularly the body armor) more than the climate. Same shit can and does happen state-side, just generally people aren't eating MRE's more than a couple days in a row during training exercises. Usually you'll get at least one prepared hot meal a day even in the field (and often 2, breakfast and dinner) leaving only lunch being an MRE.

So you're wearing really heavy shit that BOTH doesn't breathe at all AND actively prevents evaporation of accumulated sweat for extended hours for a year straight. Climate plays a small factor in it.

Anyone claiming MREs are pricy are buying from the wrong places.

>>1033348
Rehydration is not cooking anon, i said cooking. If rehydration is an issue for you that means you're so low on water that you have serious other problems to worry about than a dry meal. I know the british cold climate ones need rehydrating but not about the other countries. Whichever of those actually require cooking to eat safely though are joke countries with joke militaries.

>>1033484
You were sperging about ALL issued rations being READY TO EAT.

Needing to rehydrate it is not ready to eat.

The only countries in the world that don't have joke militaries are the US and China.

>>1032166
I've heard Canadian, French, Italian and Norwegian are the best. American ones are pretty generic.

>>1033493
French ones taste the best but they weigh a ton, and are both expensive and hard to find for us non-frogs.

Canadian ones are pretty good short-term but contain too many sweet things for me to like for more than a day or two.
>no joke like half their menus contain maple syrup in some form

I know they're not MRE's but the multi-person ration packs from France are GOD TIER. Literally come with a bunch of baguettes and a bottle of wine.

>>1032177
iirc the constipation rumor came from people eating huge amounts of calories in one sitting; mre's are notorious for being so caloric dense.

>>1033489
Can you even into French foreign legion?

>>1033496
Call bullshit on the maple syrup.

>>1033570
>implying it's either well-trained or big enough to matter
It's 7x smaller than the NYPD (7,700 vs. 49,526)

>>1033591
Lmao someone didn't do their homework.

>>1033571
http://www.mreinfo.com/international-rations/canadian-imp/imp-menus-2008/
Breakfasts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6. Lunches 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6. Suppers 2, 3 and 5.

12 of the 18 meals from their most recent update (2008), 66%, contain maple syrup.

>>1033596
explain

>>1033601
The FFL is an elite unit. Fat american cops are not elite in any sense of the word.

>>1033597
There are three instances of maple references two bring oatmeal and one shortbread cookie. When it says syrup they are talking about a fructose syrup.

>>1033591
This idiot took the bait, the French foreign legion is a BRANCH of the French military. My Jesus fuck Americans are slow.

>>1033604
TOPKEK

>>1033603
The FFL is about as elite as the Air Force toilet scrubbers.

>>1033621
Uh huh....

>>1033489
Except it doesn't NEED rehydration you spaz. It just makes some of the meals more palatable. Just like the other meals don't NEED to be heated, it's just nice if you have the time. Anyway, you just invalidated yourself as having an opinion worth considering by mentioning China as a non-joke military. You clearly understand nothing of that country. And not even mentioning the actually good ones aside from America, like France, Britain, Japan, Germany, Canada, hell even Russia has a half decent one. You definitely must be an american judging from your (incorrect) belief that scale/quantity = effectiveness.

>>1033279
Dude... No. Have eaten all, it's not a thing.

T. Brit

>>1033367
Well that's a logical reply

>>1033465

Where do you buy them from then, anon?

Also, not all of us are in the US, so prices do vary

>>1033778
COLD-CLIMATE ration packs anon. I'm brit too and I've tried most menus of the standard multiclimate which indeed don't have mountain house stuff. Somehow I doubt you've ever been on ops above the snow line so you probably haven't had those packs. Or perhaps you tried them back before the overhaul in ration quality a few years ago.

>>1033604
This

>>1032485
>30 years
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YieLNwaI1uo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zsF4SPelhE
Also there's FSRs which cut down on the bulk.

>>1034819
Yeah that guy takes chances I wouldn't.

But yes, they last basically forever when stored properly.

>>1033456
Given how incredibly common this is in the US military, I wonder how much money could be saved if they just didn't put the bullshit in in the first place?

>>1035925
True, but different people in different situations want to keep different stuff.

>>1032166
>she
>military

>>1037304
>bong military, home of women suing the government for having to march in the military and winning
>their version of the reserves
Checks out

>>1032208
>>1032209
Are russian MREs tasty?

>>1037321
>>1037304
Americlaps detected. I guess you're butthurt about having a country full of useless women, whereas ours are actually capable of contributing in some way.

>>1038900
Supposedly, they are alright if a bit greasy. But the FSB mountain ration is comparable to some of the best of any country.

>>1038900
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FIDxkl9_yw
Steve seems to enjoy them.

>>1038921
I wasn't kidding though. Your female soldiers sued the government and won because they were made to march.

You really don't get any more useless than filing a lawsuit against the government because an organization you willingly joined told you to walk somewhere.

>>1038900
Depends on what you consider tasty.

Cheap tinned sausages and tinned whole unseasoned fish with a slab of stale bread is not particularly appetizing to me.

I also don't understand why like half the shit in their MRE's are in tins.

>>1038921
>>1038966
Bought the 1,7 kg one with tinned food, cost me 40 bucks. Just wanna try it once, wonder what they cost locally in russia

File: russian irp contents.jpg (73KB, 1047x769px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1047x769px

>>1038966
>24 hour ration
>under 1500kcal
>freezedried
Also that's a specialty ration. The regular IRP contains 3100kcal and is more or less ready to eat.

Pic related is a regular IRP's contents.

File: botulism city.png (499KB, 388x520px) Image search: [Google]

499KB, 388x520px

>>1038982
>>1038983
Here's the mountain one. Russian rations look good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgICbOwP7NQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GowFRT19yok
Nothing compares to Italian MREs. Feast in a bag.

>>1038984
>6 different packages of crackers
>3 different types of beige unidentifiable pate
>tinned "meat" that's 60% gelatin and 35% potato
>potato hash with extra potato
No, they do not look good.

>>1038989
Are you implying there's something wrong with potatos?

>>1038994
No, I'm implying that 90% of your caloric intake being refined starches and the remaining 10% being saturated fat is bad.

I'm also implying that having zero texture to your food is bad.

>>1038983
I think that's the one I bought
>>1038984
Looks tasty and filling, alot of packaging but weight won't matter in any situation I'd bring MREs in the first place
>>1038989
>>1038998
Its literally designed not to be consumed for more than 6 days straight though

>>1038999
Yeah every military says that about their rations.

Every military also forces their soldiers to eat these same rations for weeks/months on end even in non-emergency situations because they're easy and cheap compared to freshly prepared food.

>>1039006
I'm not in the military though. I'd probably bring 1 MRE. a pound of oats, milk powder and beef jerky

Any russians here can tell me what your MREs cost locally? Might cross the border and fill up my trunk

>>1038975
I only found this story reported in the daily mail, which isn't even worth wiping my arse with. But assuming it's true as reported, they were genuinely injured because they followed instructions of their commanding officers (not female) which ignored regulations about mixed gender squads (regarding stride length/pace). And initially they settled for a very small sum just to cover their medical costs but it was some military related legal group (again not female) which told them they should take further legal action for loads of money(about 100x as much as their initial settlement). I wonder how much those lawyers made off of that. So I think you'll find the majority of the blame lies with the shitty parasite lawyers and incompetent commanding officers. Women can serve effectively in the military if deployed with a little sense, guns are remarkable equalisers in that way.

>>1039227
....

No. One standard. ONE standard. If a female cannot meet that standard for ANY reason, they should not serve in any capacity. Full stop.

A short male would not have been able to successfully sue the government, but would be put through the same """"danger"""" (protip: none of the females was ever even minorly injured and several have come forward and admitted it was entirely a plot to get rid of a senior officer they didn't like). It was a scam, top to bottom, and it worked because the UK is both spineless and incompetent.

>>1032177
The MRE themselves do not constipate. The gum does not have a laxative. The reason this rumor started is because some soldiers are a bit too shy to shit in the woods and hold it for a week at a time. When they get home that shit is compacted and instead of admitting they were too chickenshit to take a shit they blame the MRE.

MREs are fine to eat. The gum will not loosen anything, either.

>>1039227
>Women can serve effectively in the military...
Apparently not if they're suing because they're too weak to keep up.

>>1039262
Are you retarded? If they can't keep pace with the men then there are obvious solutions that don't involve simply drumming them out of the army entirely. It's about knowing the strengths and weaknesses of your own troops and making the best use of them where you can. So if the women can't keep up with a certain stride length, you could reduce the stride length and increase the stride rate. That way the overall marching speed could be kept the same. Not to mention the other solutions, like having separate squads for females only. If they can't march at the same speed then keep that in mind when deploying them, not using them for the most time sensitive objectives. I mean really, this is just common fucking sense. Not to mention that marching speed is hardly relevant at all anyway since any long distance travel is done by vehicle nowadays. Idiots like you are keeping an entire 50% of the population from contributing to the military when they can be just as effective.

>>1039248
>one standard
What a joke, as if all the idiots that get through basic training are actually at the same standards.

Anyway, I saw nothing in the report regarding admittance to it being a trick, that sounds like horseshit. Even the daily mail mentioned nothing about that. And yes they were injured actually, some of the women had multiple hip fractures.

>>1039621
>hip fractures
>(solely and exclusively) from walking
You're extremely gullible, aren't you?

>>1039621
>do this one thing that benefits ~4% of your military very slightly
>give the other 96% shin splints
mmmkay, you are literally functionally braindead

>>1039663
>>1039664
Your arguments might hold merit if you didn't manage to entirely contradict each other while trying to refute me. So a heavily burdened woman (note that women bear most of their weight on their hips unlike men) can't possibly develop injuries from an extended march at a stride greater than their nature allows, but if we make the men take marginally shorter strides they'll all develop injuries? Fucking idiots. Besides, you conveniently ignored my first solution of deploying women only squads so they can all keep an identical pace/stride with no conflicts.

>you're extremely gullible
This from the daily mail reader, pure pottery.

>>1039621

Great femsplaining there.

Femsplaining (v): The attempted rebuttal of a logical point with distorted, emotional fuzzy logic.
Eg. "Just because I don't meet the standard it doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to be in the army. YOU HAVE TO CHANGE THE STANDARD!"

Also known as cucksplaining when used by men.

>>1039879
>rebuttal of a logical point
You're giving yourself far too much credit. If your point was logical then I would have no issue with it. You are the one who seems too braindead to understand the idea of putting different people in different roles that suit them. If women can't meet the current extended marching standards then don't deploy women on extended marches(meanwhile there's no reason not to undertake a proper review in the current standard to see if it can be reworked to accomodate women without reducing effectiveness). It's really fucking clear cut logic. There's nothing to stop a women being just as effective as any other grunt in many other combat scenarios, basic infantry are basically just cannon fodder anyway. But I see you're probably too emotionally invested in the idea of the army as being a "manly" institution and it hurts your delicate feelings to have women in the mix making you feel less special. That explains your inability to process/refute the point I've stated at least three times now.

>>1039621
Youre the light in this world.. or should i say board

>>1033465
Yeah, where do you buy them cheap? I call bullshit.
I'm in the US and they're not cheap here.

>>1039259
>some soldiers are a bit too shy to shit in the woods
True had several guys like that.

>>1040196
Thanks man. I try to hold my tongue when I'm lurking but I won't tolerate these kinds of gibbering retards in my threads.

>>1040207
It's possible he meant buying ones from the wrong countries. If you buy the ones from shitty poor countries they tend to be dirt cheap. For example, the Lithuanian ones are like 3 euros each. I can't imagine they're very pleasant though.

>>1039939

No, do go on. You should keep responding.

>>1039939

U mad?

>>1033465
where do you buy em?
I know I got like 4 cases for 100, so each one came out to about 2 or 3 bucks each, but havent shopped around on my own, since

>>1039621
>its obvious if they can't keep up just give them a different standard and then be surprised when they start whining because they can see that they're getting away with men pulling the weight.

Anyway, I don't understand what you're saying so I'll just figure I'm right.

>>1041231
If you live within reasonable proximity to military bases (particularly Marine bases), most pawn shops will have big rubbermaid bins full of them at like $2-3 each. Full cases come at a premium though, and be damn sure to check expiration dates.

Also if you live near military bases check craigslist/armslist/backpage, there's almost always a staff NCO selling full cases he stole from the cages. Can usually haggle them down to around $20-25 a case which works out to $1.70-2.00 per MRE.

>>1033496
>French ones taste the best
can confirm
>but they weigh a ton,
can't really compare cuz I only bought the french ones. The box is pretty big though, and with at least two canned items in each, I can imagine there being lighter solutions
>and are both expensive and hard to find for us non-frogs
huh, I got myself the 12x big boxes (literally cardboard boxes labelled "NATO-(@)-OTAN" on the side) for 150€ each, thats uh less than 15€ per day ration... I considered that to be a good deal at the time?

If thats so someone could probably make some decent dosh on the side buying a whole shipping container of those and, well, shipping it over the pond so the yank preppers can have some novelty food items...

>>1042223
That's certainly cheaper than what I can get them for in the US m8.

I'm US, so obviously US rations are gonna be the cheapest (around $3-4USD each without doing any real searching), but I can get Canadian rations for around $9 each, and German or Brit rations for around $17 each.

Meanwhile a single French ration goes for about $65 (58.4 euros), and a whole case commands a premium at over $200 constantly and occasionally as high as $250. They're also much rarer, no website has them routinely in stock so you're usually stuck trolling ebay (I'm sure this plays a large part in the cost). And that's before any shipping.

REJOICE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QJxxdL5yjA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd0mWi-E_sI

>>1039006
Actually it's usually logistics that prevent them from getting fresher food to soldiers, fresh food = higher morale, they would get it to them if they fucking could.

>>1033604
>>1033609

God damn amerifats are stupid.

>>1043826
Maximum bait

>>1032166
They're like $8/meal but are enough that 1-2 will easily last you a day.

I'm not a fan but they would work.

>>1043825
If it were just combat or peacekeeping missions in foreign countries I'd 100% agree, but it includes shit like being in the field still on their home military base. And at that point it's at least a matter of laziness (the platoon sergeant isn't willing to drive half an hour to the DFAC to pick up a couple muramites of hot food) if not outright cheaper.

The number of times I was out at OP13 or range 78/79 on Ft. Bragg, less than an hour away from a dining facility and still within range of the gut truck, but living off MRE's for weeks at a time because nobody was willing to drive back to get hot food for the platoon is almost too high to count.

>>1039248

>No. One standard. ONE standard.

This.

Equality. One standard. Pass or fail, male, female, whatever color, doesn't matter.
I 100% support women in the military - if they can pass the same physical tests as the men.
War does not discriminate. Neither should we.
Would there be fewer women in the military?
Yes. That's life - men and women are NOT equal physically, on average.
But the women that passed WOULD BE.
And yanno, if I need to trust a squadmate with my life, I'll put my trust in the one who passed the same physical qualifications that I did, thank you very much.
Not one who was 'passed' with easier, lower standards.

>>1044407
Standards are sexist and racist. Go back to pol

>>1032284
2-3 a day, you field strip them before you pack them, you remove all the extra bits, only keep one spoon to reuse. The purpose is reduced bulk and weight.

>>1044417
Did your liberal arts professor tell you that?

>>1039939
>women are equal to men and are every bit as effective as men in combat
>we must accommodate them with different physical standards
Really penetrates the pistachios

>>1044479
No, the mods did

>>1044483
Makes me think women are just lazy as they have no other excuse

>>1044483
Ughh, I thought I put this thread to bed long ago but this fucking board is so SLOW jesus. I won't have you putting words in my mouth. Nowhere did I say they are equal to men in every way and you fucking know that. I said they could be effective soldiers when properly deployed which is fucking true. But you're clearly hysterical with rage against women for whatever reason since you're all so keen to ignore the actual words I'm typing and substitute them with your bullshit. I'd have though you'd be cheery about the idea of women getting gunned down for political horseshit, god knows why you're so eager to stop that when you seem to dislike them so much.

>>1044966
I value women more than you do apparently.
They should be safe at home providing the next generation rather than dying for Greater Israel.

>putting words in my mouth
If women are not as effective as men then why put them in combat? We have enough servicemen.

Stop white knighting, women perceive that as weakness.

>>1044971
Oh please, don't give me that child-rearer nonsense. A child should have two parents really, it's fucking absurd to expect a woman alone to be the child-rearer, what are you some sort of primitivist? Anyway you made a lot of assumptions there, I'm guessing you're american. Just because you have a profusion of idiots in your country signing up to get all blowed up and more money than should reasonably be spent on such things doesn't mean the rest of the world follows suit. In many countries numbers of soldiers are not as high as perhaps they ought to be and there is a lot to be said for allowing women into the army. As I said, in particular, deploying them in positions where their physical inferiorities to men are largely rendered moot.

>white-knighting
Go fuck yourself. As if I'd stoop so low, these are genuine arguments and you can't get away from your foolishness with dumb ad-hominems. I bet there aren't even any women on this board anyway. Fuck there's like nobody on this board it's so dead.

>>1044978
I think reddit might be a good place for you desu.
>are you some sort of primitivist
Yes. This is /out/ after all.
Women are the primary child-rearers. This is a biological fact. Of course there needs to be two parents but if someone has to go out and fight, the man is better suited. Evolution strikes again.
>deploying them in positions where their physical inferiorities to men are largely rendered moot.
Such as a POG? Well fine but there is a base physical standard that they must be able to meet but most women cannot. If you can't get past basic without having special treatment then you don't deserve to be a soldier.
There's a reason it's called "basic", or "boot camp", it's because it's the MINIMUM training required to be a soldier, and physical marches are done even by POGs, and giving special treatment to women does nothing but lower morale and unit pride, both of which are invaluable in war.
>geninune arguments
You've made none except
>muh women

>>1044986
>reddit
Go fuck yourself x2. Despite having less of the new /pol/ variety retard reddit is far worse than this place in so many ways.

/out/ isn't just for people who wish they were cavemen anon. But ok fair enough, if in a traditional male/female couple someone does need to go out and fight then sure the man is better suited. My point is how does that relate in any way to the world as it is today? We're not all huddled away hiding from the cold and the wolves and the other tribes. That sort of thinking is absurd and irrelevant to the modern world.
>biological fact
Also no, the only biological fact is that women are the child bearers. After birth, all bets are off.

Anyway, thank you for finally conceding to my point. Many women can and do successfully pass basic training in many countries (including my own) without so much as a single complaint. Again, I think somebody here is just butthurt about having a country full of useless women.

>>1045015
>After birth, all bets are off.
No, women have the natural instincts and sensibilities that make them really great at raising children, meanwhile men have the instincts for providing and protecting.
>That sort of thinking is absurd and irrelevant to the modern world.
Not for long, if you can't see society TUMBLING DOWN TUMBLING DOWN TUMBLING DOWN then you are blind.
People were happier as cavemen.
>Many women can and do successfully pass basic training in many countries
Considering you are probably a western europoor, I wouldn't be surprised at that.
Here in America, women do not pass basic at the same physical standard as men and I guarantee that is the case elsewhere and if it isn't the probably lowered the standard overall.
>butthurt
You are the only one using hostile language to defend
>muh women

>>1045020
Haha holy shit you weren't kidding about being a genuine primitivist. You're scarcely even worth engaging with at this point but whatever.

Yeah I know in America women don't make it because you've got shitty women. Probably too busy taking nonsense classes at your trash universities. Ours are made of tougher stuff. Time was, our women commanded armies, built empires and brought countries to their knees.

>hostile language
Haha now who seems like they'd be better suited somewhere other than 4chan. There's nothing wrong with using hostile language in an argument. It is only a logical failure if your argument entirely consists of insults and hostility. I am making solid logical points and topping them with hostility for a little flavour since you seem like kind of a cunt.

>>1045023
>Ours are made of tougher stuff. Time was, our women commanded armies, built empires and brought countries to their knees
Unless you are Eastern European that's bullshit.
The modern western woman is universally shit.
>It is only a logical failure if your argument entirely consists of insults and hostility
That would be most of your """arguments""".
I don't mind hostile language but it's hilarious when you claim another to be butthurt but you act butthurt yourself.

>>1045023
>ours are made of tougher stuff
No, your military entrance standards (across the board) are much lower.

And that's saying something, considering in the US you just need to not be deathly ill or morbidly obese. Don't even have to be literate.

>>1045027
Interesting statement you just pulled out of nowhere considering you don't even know where I'm from. But anyway, entrance standards are meaningless and irrelevant (barring actual disabilities and whatnot). What matters, is whether they are capable of passing basic training. The whole point of the military is to absorb all the dregs and trash people of society and hammer them into tools that can contribute to their country by serving as cannon fodder. Face it, conventional infantry became almost 100% irrelevant after the invention/use of nuclear weapons.

>>1045026
>that would be most of your arguments
Key word there being "most". It doesn't matter how much vitriol you spew if there's a solid point underneath it all. If you actually had basic reading comprehension skills you'd have realised this when i said "it is only a logical failure if your argument ENTIRELY consists of insults and hostility".

>>1045045
>It doesn't matter how much vitriol you spew if there's a solid point underneath it all.
It does actually, because arguments are not for convincing the other side, but for convincing the people watching.
Acting like a raving lunatic (you) doesn't help.

You don't even have a solid point. Women don't pass basic at the same standard as men, not even close in fact. They don't pass anything else either, the only women that passed ranger school had to be given so much unprecedented special treatment it's a disgrace.

>>1045050
Yet more assumptions! Bloody Americans, the world does not revolve around you, not everyone you meet online is from your country. As I've already stated, many women(though certainly not most) successfully pass basic training in a number of militaries around the world, including my own country. With no relaxing of standards and no complaints/whining (beyond average grunt dissatisfaction).

>convincing the people watching
Yeah exactly, this is why I'm not feeling the need to hold back at all as I normally would. There are like a dozen people on this board man, nobody is watching.

>>1045059
>the world does not revolve around america
>eurofags actually believe this

>>1045059
Where do you live?

>>1045062
Hah, you know what maybe you're right. I suppose I forgot to account for the gravitational pull exerted by your bloated populace.

File: burgers.png (77KB, 592x554px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 592x554px

>>1045067

>>1045066
Normally I wouldn't say for risk of shifting the crosshairs of the argument to nationalist bullshit. But screw it, I'm surprised you haven't figured it out already, I'm English.

>>1045059
>women are as capable as men physically
This guy is fucking delusional, and as an European you're a disgrace for the rest of was. Fucking marxist indocrination.

>>1045072
>as an European you're a disgrace
See this is literally exactly what I said would happen the moment I mentioned my particular nation. Nationalist horseshit.

It's so funny how we keep coming back to the same hysterical responses again and again. Plus an extra /pol/ bonus buzzword this time, you know you're doing something right when they resort to screaming about marxists. But I'll humour you, where did I say women are as capable as men? I think you'll find I said precisely the opposite many times throughout the thread. What I actually said was that some women are capable of passing basic military standards and can serve effectively in the military if deployed with a little sense. But I see that complex sentence is a bit much for you, so it's easier just to imagine me screaming "muh womyn are as good as men".

>>1045069
Bong army has different physical standards for men and women. Therefore, women cannot pass basic at the same standard as men.

>>1045078
Yes and as a result they are excluded from certain jobs/positions. However they can and do meet the minimum requirements for a wide range of combat positions. Hence my point about being having them deployed effectively being so important.

>>1045081
I don't know about bongland but in America the POGs march with everyone else. Women need to be able to do that at the same pace as men.
There's also the fact that if a POG base was attacked, the women would be utterly annihilated in combat comparatively.

>>1045077
I wrote my comment before you posted that you're British. It was so fucking clear you were a euro that was not even funny. Actually I thought you were either a scandi or german but fucking hell, a true #gocorbyn bong. I don't even know what to think about how your education was to you come out such little bitch. All that nanny state was obvious it would produce some of the most retarded men that ever walk on earth but your levels of retardation are something else.

The rest I will not even argue, I came late to this party but if you really think that women in the military doing anything other than support roles is a good idea then pls go tell the queen to kick you in the head until you bleed out, you mong.

>>1045083
They aren't only "POGs" (interesting phrase) but whatever. Women do march too, i don't know why you seem to have this presumption that they don't.

>if a POG base was attacked
Hahaha, good one m8. If a British army base was actually attacked then the potential loss of that position would be the least of our problems. The imminent nuclear war would sure overshadow such an issue.

>>1045050
See, if my point wasn't clear. This >>1045086 is a fine example of when an argument consists of nothing but belligerent hostility. Very different to my posts that actually had a point to them.

File: 1498186902884.jpg (133KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 960x720px

>>1045094
>belligerent hostility
>plox guize don't be meanie
I'm speechless

>The FBI translator who went rogue and married an ISIS terrorist
>http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/01/politics/investigates-fbi-syria-greene/index.html
Strong, independent wyman YES:

>>1045090
POG means non combat. Women we have established cannot do combat. A woman's body is more fragile than a man's universally.
>Women do march too, i don't know why you seem to have this presumption that they don't.
They don't do it as fast or as well as men. See earlier in this thread.

>Hahaha, good one m8.
POGs exist everywhere your military is. Hurting your defensive capabilities for
>muh women
isn't a good idea.

There are things women should not have to deal with and war is one of them. Why should we try so hard to give women PTSD when the best thing they could possibly do for our nations is to have many white children.

>>1045100
>plox guize don't be meanie
Oh look an illiterate. Or were you just too stupid to read the thread(whynotboth.jpg)? I literally advocated the use of insults (alongside arguments) just a few posts above. Also nice cognitive dissonance with that article, or is your argumentative strategy just to confuse me into submission with such a non sequitur?

File: 1498266006472.jpg (222KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 960x640px

>>1045101
>Why should we try so hard to give women PTSD when the best thing they could possibly do for our nations is to have many white children.
das it raycis

>>1045101
We have not established that they can't do combat you imbecile. They are literally serving in combat positions as we speak. Also are you seriously so deluded as to believe that because you're a man you are somehow more resistant to bullets/explosives? The nature of modern combat/weaponry has radically reduced the differences between men and women in a combat context.

If you're referring to the daily mail article I was discussing above then you'll know that is an exceptional circumstance. 4 women who couldn't handle it. But there are no news articles about the many women who serve just fine because that's not sensationalist enough for you idiots.

File: 1498266184628.webm (783KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

783KB, 480x360px

>>1045107
>He thinks my point is anything else than calling him the absolute fag that he certainly is
It must suck balls being raised by a single mom, Andrew.

>>1045116
>>1045108
It's ok guys, we don't need more proof of what a joke the american military is.

>>1045114
So what if they are serving combat positions, that means nothing to their actual effectiveness. Many women become infertile after serving in combat.
The shit that arabs do to POWs, do you really want that done to women?
Everyone gets shot but there is a hell of a lot more to war than actual shooting.

There is long marches.
There is living in cramped quarters with absolutely no privacy.
There is being able to scale a wall without help.
There is being able to drag a 250 pound man plus his gear out of harms way.
There is the fact that every man is biologically programmed to have a savior complex towards women and they WILL and HAVE risked their lives endangering others to save that one women who shouldn't even be there.

There's also the fact that putting (relatively) attractive women near men who haven't seen a white woman in months is a terrible idea.

>>1045118
*what a joke women soldiers are
FTFY

File: 1494475551057.png (728KB, 560x1199px) Image search: [Google]

728KB, 560x1199px

>>1045118
>says the bong
kek, did your country get armored transport vehicles already or you still send your soldier to die in the front line in their defenders? Also how does it feel not having a navy capable of force projection?

>>1045119
And they're doing their jobs just fine. You don't want to believe it and I get that but those are the facts.
>many women become infertile after serving in combat
OK? Is that relevant in any way? What's with all the non-sequiturs at the moment.
>do you really want that done to women
Why should I care any more about it being done to women than it being done to men? I don't want bad shit to be done to anyone anon but if bad shit is being done then let it be shared out in equal measure.
>there is a hell of a lot more to war than actual shooting blah blah...
Yes I know that, which is why women should only deployed in the roles in which they are effective. How many fucking times do i need to repeat this. I'm getting pretty tired of saying the same thing to every asshole who wanders into the thread.

>>1045128
What facts you kike? Your """facts""" are you saying it is, without any evidence, even anecdotal.
>OK? Is that relevant in any way?
>women suffering health problems isn't relevant.
>if bad shit is being done then let it be shared out in equal measure.
>women being tortured in barbaric and cruel ways is okay
Who's the misogynist now?
>Yes I know that, which is why women should only deployed in the roles in which they are effective.
I guess that excludes combat because all of those things I listed are things that combat and infantry do.

>>1045123
>navy capable of force projection
Unlike the Americans we don't feel quite as strong an urge to stick our dicks into the rest of the world's business. We don't need that level of force projection. We have a few good aircraft carriers like any modern navy. And more importantly, we have nuclear missile subs which are essentially the only military assets which matter these days.
>armored transport vehicles
We were planning on ordering them but we had to use the money to develop more advanced body armour to protect the backs of our troopers. All those "highly trained" american soldiers gunning them down in fighter jets and whatnot was getting to be a problem.

>>1045129
Sure is /pol/ tonight. I don't understand why you seem to think it's ok for men to suffer in the army but not women?

>misogynist
Suggesting that women should suffer equal to men makes me a misogynist? Damn, I guess my dictionary must be out of date, I could have sworn it had the opposite meaning.

Anyway I can see you're not interested in rational discussion unlike the previous contenders so you can go fuck yourself.

File: 1984.png (498KB, 589x997px) Image search: [Google]

498KB, 589x997px

Anons don't make fun of Britain or the internet anti hostile bobbies will come for you.

>>1045135
No one should suffer in war but if anyone has to it should be men only. That is our burden.
Women need to be protected from harm at all costs to secure an existence for our people and a future for white children.
>rational discussion
You have not refuted a single thing beyond
>no u

I guess you ran out of arguments?

File: stuck in the sand.jpg (70KB, 634x376px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 634x376px

>>1045132
>Unlike the Americans we don't feel quite as strong an urge to stick our dicks into the rest of the world's business
hahahahahahahaahhahahahahahahahahhahahhahahahahahhahahah
Libya and all the Mediterranean crises want to have a word with you.

>We have a few good aircraft carriers like any modern navy
Don't lie, motherfucker. You have not a single carrier capable of operating today.

>we have nuclear missile subs
not for too long. It barely went away a couple months ago.

>tfw even Lineker was tweeting against it
kek

>We were planning on ordering them but we had to use the money to develop more advanced body armour to protect the backs of our troopers.
In another words, no we don't.

>>1045137
Jesus just listen to yourself man, it's embarrassing.

Anyway, I've already addressed those points multiple times in this thread and I'm not intending to waste more of my time repeating them just for the benefit of some stormfront type cunt. Look above and read if you care to.

>>1045141
Nice argument :^)

>>1045139
I said not quite as strong, I didn't say were completely free of such things.

Also you're actually right about the aircraft carriers, I forgot the HMS Illustrious was scrapped last year. We have brand new one about to come into service in a month or two though. And another one a year or two after that. As i said though, it hardly matters when there is really no need for such force projection in the nuclear age. And regarding Trident, every political party has committed to supporting the trident renewal scheme, regardless of what Corbyn himself feels.

File: IMAG0621.jpg (3MB, 3000x4000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3000x4000px

Who tryna buy these mister E's?

>>1045158
Send them to Steve.

>>1045163
These aren't rare, but the skittles are vintage

>>1045081
That's all well and good, too bad you (and every other country that's ever tried putting women in a front-line role) have failed miserably at it.

Face it. The bong army hasn't seen combat at all since WW2, with the sole exclusion of your special operations units (which, unsurprisingly, are vagina-free). So you have no fucking idea whether or not your female soldiers are even remotely effective at anything other than clerical work.

Meanwhile the US has been sending women into combat (actual combat, not "sit on this 4 square kilometer FOB and get mortared a couple times a month), and has been consistently extremely disappointed with the results. Empirically, women are FUCKING HORRIBLE at war, this has been proven time and time again by the most effective military to ever exist.

>>1045101
POG actually means non-infantry and incorporates all the other non-infantry-but-still-frontline-combat jobs (combat engineers, cav scouts, tankers, mortarmen, etc). Stands for "personnel other than grunt" and grunt stands for "infantry by MOS, IE 11B or 0311 *only*"

>>1045148
>about to come into service
What good is an aircraft carrier with no fucking planes?

You scrapped 90% of your Harriers and mothballed the rest, you have exactly 0 operational Harriers. You also have exactly 0 F35's to launch off it. The QE is a glorified helicopter taxi until you pull the scotsman out of your coin purse and actually buy some planes.

>>1045158
>tfw you get issued an MRE
>tfw it has Charms in it
>tfw they stopped putting Charms in MRE's 10 years before you joined
Botulism here I come!

>>1045190
Okay I guess this was a little exaggerated.

6 years before I joined (1999 was the last year Charms were put in MRE's). Which means the MRE expired at least 12 years ago.

>>1045186
>bong army hasn't seen combat at all since WW2
Haha what? Are you high? Have you somehow missed all of the British troops that went off to assist in your county's madness in Iraq and Afghanistan? Many of which were killed by your military's gross incompetence might I add.

>most effective military ever to exist
HAHAHA I can't believe you actually think that. Ignoring some of the obvious historical greats like the mongols and the romans, even just considering relatively modern ones you don't get 1st prize. Aside from the substandard quality of your troops, the age in which your military exists is one which doesn't not permit it to bring its full might to bear. The only good thing about your military is its size and how much money is thrown at it. And it's all wasted since you can't actually make full use of it. Most effective my arse hahahah. Try that claim again once you've conquered half the world and brought those countries directly under your control.

>>1045189
We still have an array of typhoons for the moment. And there is a large order of F-35B Lightning IIs incoming. 24 sometime next year to fully fit the HMS Queen Elizabeth and another 20 by 2023 for the HMS Prince of Wales. There's no great rush, it's highly unlikely we'll need them in the next few months.

>>1045308
>large order of F35 L II
Oh right you guys fell for that meme
Why do you need an aircraft carrier for planes that won't take off?
If it were me, I'd just send them to ISIS. The planes blow themselves up.
>>1045307
>conquered half the world
Anon, I have bad news for you. America already has conquered more than half the world. You don't need a police state or laws to rule the world.

And effective... yes, that's still US. You must have confused effective with efficient. To put it better, the US is the most powerful fighting force to ever exist in the history of mankind.

>>1045336
>planes that won't take off
Am I missing something? Those fighters are perfectly functional. But anyway, as you'll notice I stated above it scarcely even matters. It's not like we really fucking need them. The only thing that really matters in the modern age is nuclear weapons. And we have those in our subs which is more than enough defense. All the rest is just window dressing to perpetuate the military industrial complex. As if we'd actually get into a proper war again .

>america has already conquered half the world
I knew you'd say this. Of course you have but your military was pretty much 100% irrelevant to that. That was largely subterfuge and sneaking and stuff like that from the CIA and what have you. If you're not actually using your military to conquer then it's not effective. No I didn't mean efficient, pay attention. If you have such a powerful military but you can only ever bring about some small percentage of its might then your effective military strength is really that small percentage. The rules of engagement in the modern world don't permit you to actually use your military fully. The romans/mongols were so terrifying because they didn't need to concern themselves with things like diplomatic organisations/alliances, human rights conventions/treaties etc. They invaded conquered and won, subjugating entire swathes of the world beneath them.

>>1045307
And have you missed the fact that ouside of 2Para and the SAS they sat around on US FOBs doing fuck-all?

>Typhoons
Can't launch off the QE because they have no STOL capability.

>F35's incoming
""""soon guise, we promise!""""

File: RCIR.jpg (43KB, 477x634px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 477x634px

French rations best rations

>>1045492
-t. never seen an Italian ration
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GowFRT19yok

>>1045448
>no STOL
Fair point, though there has been much talk of a minor redesign. It already has an exceptional takeoff capacity.

>soon guise
We already have a handful of them (8 I believe, 33% of the total capacity of the carrier) you spaz, but there's no point ordering the bulk of them until the aircraft carrier is actually in service. They are awfully expensive after all so there would be outrage if we bought a whole bunch now and had them sitting around doing fuck all when we have other things money needs to be spent on.

>>1039939

Literal self contradiction

>don't deploy women on extended marches if they can't meet the standards
>oh but... maybe we should review the standards

Slow claps for you

>>1044966

>women are capable
>as long as you change the standards

What about your own posts do you not understand?

>>1045123

Fuck I would love to know what happened when that bike wheel was confiscated lol

>>1046241
Probably nothing desu. It's just britbong police doing britbong stuff and keeping its citizens at bay. Orwell adverted us to it but people seem to not care. They never experience freedom so it's kinda understandable-

>>1045528
Last I looked, which admittedly was about a year ago, you had 4 F35A's (again, no STOL) stationed at Cranwell for the purpose of trainup on the airframe. You didn't have any F35B's (the STOL ones intended for the QE) at all, and didn't even have a purchase agreement being discussed.

>>1046233
>>1046235
I feel sorry for you Americans sometimes. It's not your fault that you were born into a country with a shit education system. You can't all be as lucky as some of us. So I understand why you're having difficulty with your reading comprehension, I expect you were too busy dodging bullets to have time to read books in class.

So let me clarify for you yet again. If you look closely, you'll notice I said "review", not "change". Change of standards is not equal to reduction of standards incidentally. If the current marching regulations can be altered without reducing combat effectiveness then why the fuck wouldn't we do that? And this point is largely moot anyway seeing as there are a range of combat positions they can occupy which don't involve extended marches, which you'd know already if you actually had the mental capacity to read the thread.

>>1046311
>admittedly was about a year ago
Then maybe you should leave the debate to people with up to date knowledge(or at the very least the people with the will to actually look shit up if they aren't sure). They're based at RAF Marham in Norfolk, and I was wrong actually, there are currently 9 F35B IILs in possession of the British military.

>>1046264
>>1046241
I've no great love for our police forces but I should think it was obvious why there are a range of unusual items that are definitely not weapons in that picture. They went into a housing estate (which is a bit like what you lot call "the projects" but not quite as overwhelmingly awful) looking for weapons. In the process they evidently discovered a bunch of obviously stolen shit, like the bike wheel and the car radio and took them as evidence as is their job. You'll notice they said "finding a number of items" not "a number of weapons". I swear to christ you americans are thick as pigshit, it's like none of you ever learned to read.

>britbong police doing britbong stuff
Ah yes, so much worse than americlap police doing americlap stuff. I love police that have the power to get away with on the spot executions of whoever they want. What's that officer? You want to me to bend over? Of course sir, I'd never want to be resisting an officer of the law.

>>1046390
>change of standards is not equal to reduction of standards
Yes it is, in practice. Every single military on the globe has separate standards for males and females, and the female standards are significantly lower in every single one of those countries. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.

>if the current marching regulations can be altered without reducing combat effectiveness
But they can't, and you know it. They significantly slowed the pace.

>combat position
>doesn't involve extended marches
Don't exist and you know it.

>>1046414
>every single military
Haha what? So many global militaries don't even permit women. Let's try and refrain from the nonsensical hyperbole.

>they can't, and you know it
False. The problem was about stride LENGTH not stride RATE. One could conceivably achieve the same pace by decreasing stride length marginally and increasing stride rate correspondingly. This would also serve not just women but also shorter men.

>don't exist
Wrong again. You see we have these funny old things called vehicles, that allow us to travel from A to B without even taking a step. Marvelous aren't they? Not to mention a whole host of non-infantry jobs like combat engineers, tankers etc.

>>1046427
>combat position
>thinks you'll never ever ever conceivably under any circumstances have to walk anywhere because you have vehicles
Nice to know you have no fucking clue about anything in the military.

>increase stride rate, decrease stride length
Except that didn't happen, they kept the same stride rate and decreased the length, as a result the moved slower.
It also totally fucks up taller people of both genders and is a great argument for (more stringent) minimum heights for both genders.

>some militaries don't allow women
Would that not count as a separate standard then?
-men have to meet X, Y, Z
-women cannot be in
But yeah that was poorly phrased. Let me retry. Of the militaries that allow both men and women to serve, all of them have separate standards for men and women. All of the womens' standards are significantly lower than the mens' standards.

>>1046456
>thinks you'll never ever ever conceivably under any circumstances have to walk anywhere
Again with the absurd hyperbole. We were talking about EXTENDED marches causing a small percentage of female soldiers problems. Female soldiers are perfectly capable of marching for a reasonable length of time, it is merely the longest and most grueling ones which caused problems. The use of vehicles means unreasonably long marches don't occur very often at all, and if they do then it's a simple matter of not deploying women on that operation.

>except that didn't happen
How the fuck is that relevant? I'm not discussing the current military situation. I'm talking about how it could be, and maybe how it should be. If decreasing stride length and increasing rate hasn't yet been done then it fucking should be tried at least. Hence why I said there should be a review. I fail to see how increased stride rate fucks up taller people. I'm kinda tall and I prefer a faster stride.

>is a great argument for (more stringent) minimum height
I have no issue with this idea at all, and it probably would be the case if we could afford to be so picky. But people are much more aware now of the fact that the military is the place where the true fuckups and failures try desperately to be worth something and not some glorious institution of pride and prestige. All those strong tall young men who would be ideal are doing much better things with themselves like pursuing sporting careers. So we need to be realistic about the pool of potential recruits, one of many reasons allowing women to fight is something I advocate. There's also the idea of having separate squads that internally consistent in height so taller squads can be sent on ops more appropriate to their physicality and the short ones being deployed where their limitations are irrelevant. Discriminating purely by gender is fruitless and counter productive, but I entirely support more standards based on objective physical properties.

>>1046264

Okay, calm down burger

>>1046390

"You Americans"

I'm not American lol, your argument is void

>>1046852
>argument is void
Hah, you wish. If you aren't american then it just means you should be even more embarrassed about how stupid you are, because you don't have the excuse of going though the burger "education" system.

>>1032280
>Better off with mountain house imo.
Norwegian rations have freeze dried meals produced by Drytech. But since it's produced by norwegians it is off course expensive (high manufacturing cost in Norway).
I just buy the civilian Drytech meals separately when they are on sale in a local store. I would only buy our rations if I got a good deal on them. Otherwise they are overpriced.

>>1046878

That's the best you can come up with? You abandoned your argument pretty quick. Notice how your responses are so long? It's because you're blathering on trying to justify fuzzy logic nonsense.

Can't make the standards? You don't pass.

>>1047414
>That's the best you can come up with?
Oh please, that post didn't even deserve the response I gave it, never mind something more well thought out.

>abandoned your argument
That's news to me. I have done no such thing. I merely tire of repeating arguments made time and time again within this very thread and getting no counterpoint.

>can't make the standards? you don't pass
Congratulations, you now have basic reading comprehension skills. That is indeed what the word "standards" means yes. A shame that is entirely besides the point. Are you seriously so arrogant/idiotic as to believe that right now in 2017 we have utterly perfected the art of military training and that we will never need to change the standards ever again?

>responses are so long
Maybe it's just because I'm not into the whole brevity thing? Anyway, I can't help but notice your own responses are little on the short side. So much so that they still lack anything to address any number of points I've made? The ball is in your court after all, I made an array of fine points in the above posts which you have still said nothing to (obviously because you're incapable).

>>1047877

The truth doesn't need explanation.

Cry harder.

>>1046884
Drytech sells Real Turmat at least in the Nordics. Taste is spot on.

> inb4 expensive

I don't give a fuck about the price since the price difference to shit tier food is not big.

Also good food while /out is just so much nicer.

>>1045132
>Unlike the Americans we don't feel quite as strong an urge to stick our dicks into the rest of the world's business
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAA HOLY SHIT DID A BONGKEK ACTUALLY JUST TYPE THIS

figures the muslims running his country dont teach them their own history

>>1038979
probly tinned because it's cheaper.

>>1042306
Where do you guys buy US MREs cheap? I've had my best luck finding them in bulk off craigslist, but does anyone have a good website or other ideas outside being near a base?


>>1041304
can't do this cuz don't live near a base, but thanks anyhow. also not the same anon you answered, but interested

>>1033780
included cuz same question

File: IMG_0520.jpg (21KB, 150x255px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 150x255px

>see thread
>jump in expecting reasonable discussion of military food
>it's just shitflinging about women in the military with some /int/ mixed in

>>1048480
>don't teach them their own history
We don't CURRENTLY feel quite as strong an urge as the Americans to involve ourselves in the rest of the world's business. I thought that was fairly obvious, I didn't realise I had to spell things out for you. Yeah of course we used to be the masters of sticking our dicks into other countries. But like the other great historical empires we learned how inherently unstable and unworkable large scale empires truly are. It just doesn't work, the best have already tried. So now we adopt a much more cautious and less interventionist approach. Your time will come don't worry.

>muslims running the country
Theresa May and her new ultra catholic irish buddies are actually muslims? Wow I never would have guessed. Anyway I thought it was the Jews who ran everything, or was it reptilians, or the illuminati? It's so hard to keep things straight with you nutty /pol/ types

>>1048748
>Invite millions of child rapists openly plotting to take over
>Cautious

>>1032166
You can make the bags alot smaller if you take all the extra stuff out. Maybe a handful or two of protein bars. I just take a box of cliff bars.

You could try cooking worms, ants, slugs, and stuff.

>>1032166
If you get constipated just rock back and fourth/ side to side whilst booping

>>1046235
Because pull ups do not equal combat effective. Communication, ability to learn and apply tactics, MOS competency. Those are what makes squads, fire teams ,batallions effective.

But muh muh women can't carry big fat Freddy after he got shot innaleg. But they can provide suppressive fire and flank the bastards that shot them. Chances are your going to be using a stretcher to haul wounded people and not just one person

>>1046561
Female soldiers already do marches. They've been doing it since whenever they were allowed to join

>>1048966
I know? I literally have been making that point all along. Perhaps you meant to reply to the guy I was arguing with.

>>1048961
Oh jesus finally someone else with a little sense. It was getting a little tiresome carrying the torch of logic all alone in this thread.

>>1048954
>try cooking worms, ants, slugs
Haha what? Why would I need to resort to such things when there are much better edibles to be gathered with just as little effort. Plenty of fungi, fruits, leaves and roots to be had almost all year round and it's not difficult to make snares for rabbits, gather crustaceans, or set up static fishing lines for protein.

>>1048480

Damn you Americans are so fucking fragile

>inb4 Brit / eurocuck
Am neither

>>1048961
Pull ups are a very good indicator of upper body strength though. I was in the Marine Corps for a little over 5 years. It's the only branch which requires pull ups for everyone and not just SO. I didn't know anyone, man or woman, whom I would call "combat effective" who couldn't do pull ups. Strength is very important in combat, as is everything else you listed. You're carrying at least one hundred pounds of gear for a basic combat load, and it's not at all uncommon to have to navigate over obstacles which requires a great deal of strength. And as far as the use of stretchers goes, you are often going to be required to move the casualty out of harms way and into cover before load them onto a litter. If you are in a firefight, you may be able to get one or two other people to help immediately, or you may be doing it on your own. If the person is able to help, that is one thing, and if they're not, it's completely different. Moving a human who is completely limp is difficult enough with no extra weight, and in perfect conditions. Add a full combat load, and difficult terrain, and it is extremely hard for anyone.
>>1048966
They fall out of those marches at an alarming rate as well. Not all of them, but I'd wager at least half.


Now, I'm not completely against women in combat roles, but they must meet the same standards as their male counterparts. These standards should not be lowered in order to meet an agenda, because if they are, more people will be killed.


Also, MREs make pretty good camping, backpacking, etc food.

>>1049171
Not that guy you were responding to but I think it was fairly apparent he was being facetious with the pull up remark, I don't think he literally meant capacity for pull ups are irrelevant. Incidentally, it's all well and good being able to singlehandedly drag away some heavyset, overburdened soldier who got shot, but if you don't actually have anyone else around you who could help, then why the fuck would you be trying to drag away the guy who got shot? Without someone else to provide covering fire, you're just gonna end up right on the ground next to him. Even a strong tall man isn't going to be able to drag such a weight quickly enough to avoid that, so i think the whole upper body strength thing really is quite irrelevant in that sense.

>>1049171
>they fall out of those marches at an alarming rate as well
Perhaps true for the marine corps, but I know plenty of female soldiers in the british forces who do just fine. Many can't hack it of course, but that's true of a few male as well. Certainly though more than half of the women who serve are fine for the job.

File: suddenly.gif (2MB, 355x275px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 355x275px

There are people that fall for the MRE meme? Just save your pennies, buy a dehydrator, spend some time on youtube, make food that you enjoy, and pack it yourself.

You should try making classics like Pemmican

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_vLuMobHCI

File: Navy-PRT-Standards-Female.png (131KB, 1469x950px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 1469x950px

I haven't gone through the whole thread but...

>there are people actually trying to make an argument for women in the military especially in direct combat roles.

No, unless you've been in you just don't know the horror of working with women in uniform. The one that perform well are unicorns and even the weakest performing men can out perform them often enough.

>>1051044
wish i knew what's the taste, pemmican is absolutely unknown in my yuropoor country, but only served as dog food