[andosa]

That's definitely a flaw in the study. On the other hand, I doubt using equally experienced males would change the conclusions significantly: majority of the tasks seem to have involved major physical effort, and you don't need a study to know that on average, males will perform better in physically demanding excercies.

[mhd]

Weapon use seems to have been a big part, and is that really a "major physical effort"? Unless you fire the rifle at the end of an obstacle course...

[brohee]

Ever ran with a machine gun?

The fact the women seem to have done as well as men wrt hit probability using the M4 but not the heavier weapons, really point to physical limitations and not lack of skills.

The casualty evacuation issue is also a major issue, men can carry both sexes, women will have trouble with many men, and will be completely unable to move the bigger men...

[jimworm]

From personal experience in target sports, strength and fitness plays a surprisingly big part in weapons use. Being able to handle a weapon with the least of effort while maintaining a low heart rate makes aiming a lot easier.

[mattmanser]

It's not just a flaw, it invalidates every conclusion.

Who knows what the results would have been if both the men and women had been inexperienced, instead of skewing it to the men. How much working out had the experienced men done? How many tricks and techniques had they picked up to add to their abilities?

Also, what happens when both are experienced. Does it turn out that after a year the women build more strength on average to make up for present childhood norms emphasising femininity?

[gutnor]

In addition to that it fails to point out another conclusion: maybe the current training is not adequate for mix-gender team.

That's not difficult to imagine that some conditioning or some pattern may not be as efficient with women, especially since that training is based on decades of all-male combat experience with only theoretical adjustment for including women.