/ Pentagon ends ban on women in front-line combat

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
dale1968 - on 24 Jan 2013
Gudrun - on 24 Jan 2013
In reply to dale1968:

I think they should start a new US Army frontline attacking infantry division comprised only of American multi-millionaires.

This new Regiment would be on the ground and in the frontline of all the fighting.
dale1968 - on 25 Jan 2013
confusicating on 25 Jan 2013
In reply to dale1968:

Why can't they let the laydees join but keep the fitness levels the same? Surely the safety of the regiment is, like, the top thing?
dale1968 - on 25 Jan 2013
In reply to confusicating: the pc brigade seems to win over rational..
confusicating on 25 Jan 2013
In reply to dale1968:

Well, no. It's not really PC stuff. Because it's not about political correctness.

But it doesn't make sense.
dale1968 - on 25 Jan 2013
In reply to confusicating: whats it about then?
Lord_ash2000 - on 25 Jan 2013
In reply to dale1968: I'm sure they enemy will fight us little less hard if they notice they are up ageist women just to make it all fair for them too.

I'm all for anyone fighting in the army but they have to be up to the required physical and mental standards.
Dauphin - on 25 Jan 2013
In reply to dale1968:

Widening the recruitment pool in a more equal society? There will be a few women who can pass arduous selection courses. No need to drop standards. They either make it or not. It's just the usual guff from the traditionalists.

D
confusicating on 25 Jan 2013
In reply to dale1968:

It's not about political correctness, it's about no room for wavering from equality quotas and stuff. No common sense allowed in such organisations, bureaucracy rules. Having to prescribe quotas to try and bring about equality as it ain't currently the case, but the prescription not allowing for wiggle room.

As far as I am concerned political correctness is a non-thing.
Lukas V-L - on 25 Jan 2013
In reply to dale1968:

Bad idea this. Even if they only took women that could pass all the tests as per the males, having women in this role changes the group dynamic. When women are around in these situations, blokes start acting differently. They get jealous, they start showing off, they dont delegate responsibilities the same way, which causes friction. Hopefully for the Yanks this will get batted away rapidly.
confusicating on 25 Jan 2013
In reply to Lukas V-L:

Maybe they should grow up and get over themselves then. *Some* men being unable to act like professionals is no reason for institutionalised bigotry.
Lukas V-L - on 25 Jan 2013
In reply to dale1968:

Its not a 'growing up' thing, its not a bigotry thing, its just the reality of life at the sharp end.

Actually I cant be bothered arguing this one. Enjoy your rose tinted view.
confusicating on 25 Jan 2013
In reply to Lukas V-L:

I accept that I have not been in the situ so can't fully understand or give an informed opinion. But I don't see why, logically or biologically, anything but social conditioning causes what you mentioned.

It's not rose-tinted, I want to learn. But I want evidence to learn from.
ice.solo - on 25 Jan 2013
In reply to confusicating:

id be more worried about guys getting shirty when women best them. ive never seen women in actual combat, but have seen women war journalists in action and the way some men react to them.
it definitely creates a stir - but often in a good way.

depends on the lady too of course. as far as women war journos go, some are bitchy, gnarly types who thrive on the gender issue, whilst others are simply smart, coolheaded, sexy and feminine - the sort youd marry if they were already engaged to the second in command of MI6 or lesbian.

i say go for it ladies. you will either bring out the best in the men around you, or expose their worst.
all-women units would be interesting to see.
ice.solo - on 25 Jan 2013
In reply to ice.solo:

ps: i did once have a stop-over fling with a girl whod commanded a tank in the israeli army.
something very hot about it
dale1968 - on 25 Jan 2013
In reply to ice.solo: there's a dearth of knowledge here about whats required, females cant do it there not physically capable hence why we have different categories in sport, try a section attack and show me a woman capable
confusicating on 25 Jan 2013
In reply to dale1968:

Are you seriously saying that /no/ women are capable? None at all? Because then any pretence at discussion is gone.
dale1968 - on 25 Jan 2013
In reply to confusicating: got it!
sargy - on 25 Jan 2013
In reply to dale1968:

Bloody hell- you gotta meet some of the girls I've come across! I know of a number who would absolutely thrive and show many a male a clean pair of heels in any endurance tests... They lack nothing in agression and competitiveness either! I think it's a positive move- with the caveat that the standards don't slip. How do you feel about gays in the army?
Denni on 25 Jan 2013
In reply to dale1968:
> (In reply to confusicating) got it!


I know a few women in the Forces who have completed (and now in) the SRR selection who would outshine a lot of blokes and are more capable than them.

Not forgetting the women who are out on patrol daily in Afghan getting stuck in at the meaty end of things, saving lives and keeping up with the boys.

ice.solo - on 25 Jan 2013
In reply to dale1968:

I know a lot of men incapable of basic infantry tactics who are nevertheless employed at it.

Its about widening the resource pool, and not just for standard infantry. 'combat' includes artillery, armoured infantry, forward comms and a multitude of other taskings. Its about the best person for the job regardless of whats between their legs.
If women can and chose to, its stupid to not allow them.

Already there plenty of women who have been caught up in front line stuff and had to fight even tho they were never meant to be there. A decade in the guerilla campaigns of afghanistan and iraq has let many women enjoy being shot at and targeted.
Time to let those who chose have a go.
David Martin - on 26 Jan 2013
In reply to dale1968:

I seem to remember employee of the month award went to a female on my basic course. She had a regulation army girl BFA and and could have been a chap for all we know. Perhaps it just meant all us males were a sack of sh1t and never realised.
dale1968 - on 26 Jan 2013
In reply to ice.solo: that's not the reality women get treated differently, men struggle to do the job, women are physiologically weaker, they have 3 times the injury issues in basic training.
take it from me they have already moved the goal posts to accommodate women; they are shorter, so lifts were lowered so they could achieve the standard
do you have any idea what its like to run with a GPMG and ammo?

we dont compete in the same cats in cycling, a good 3rd cat rider will muller an elite female
Its about strength they are weaker, any woman that's as strong as a bloke cant run for toffee
As a triathlete I had a great deal of respect for Dr sarah springman, who tried carrying weight with no success (within a military context)
women already have jobs within HMF, this would be a step to far there is no shortage of dumb arsed blokes willing to do the job

Denni on 26 Jan 2013
In reply to dale1968:

Where is the data to say that women have 3 times the injury issues in basic training? They may have moved the goal posts but not only to accommodate women. They moved them because the type of training they were doing was irrelevant and actually caused more injuries.

Women are different and running with a GPMG and ammo or even as a number 2 with a box of 12 mags is not the best example. I know a lot of blokes, including infantry, that would struggle to run with a GPMG.

We studied ATR's, basic trg and fitness regimes. The percentages of those who passed out were both the same in relevance to the numbers that joined and the increase in fitness was 10% for males and 9% for females. I have no idea where you got the 3 times more injury thing from because in our study, over 3 intakes, the results were that yes more females went sick from injury but it was again because there were less females in the platoon than males so the percentages were different. in fact, more males dropped out or were back squadded than females overall.

What is interesting is that males worked harder on the physical tasks in the initial weeks of basic trg because they had to make up report points because they lacked the academic ability in a lot of the administrative based subjects whereas the females were better at this and they had to make up points on the final exercise so they worked harder there.

Quick statistic, BPFA. Out of 30 males and 30 females, 17 females passed first time and 18 males passed first time so not a massive difference.

It isn't always about who is physically stronger, you have to have a bit about you as well in the brain department. The main point that came out our study was that in the future, same sex trg was probably the way forward, exactly same curriculum but it will actually improve fitness because male and females work on different cardiovascular levels.

Final point, honest! There are so many different variables. Energy expenditure relative to body mass, basic metabolic rate, body recovery for each sex etc etc. Females performed just slightly under when it comes down to it but there are attributing factors.

This does not mean that they are incapable of performing on the front line. They are more than capable of being fit enough but the problem is that at the moment, they are in small groups in other regiments and corps and even more important, they are currently NOT TRAINED specifically to go onto the front line. Infantry units spend half a year preparing for Afghanistan both mentally and physically, stick a battalion of women together and let them have the same trg and they will be able to do the same job.

Den

Denni on 26 Jan 2013
In reply to dale1968:



Also, in this link, they have the opinion of someone who left the forces in 1986, a fair while back and things have moved on a lot since then.

I was just starting my 22 and people were still allowed to hang you out of the top window in a sausage bag after making you drink a top shelf and after trying to shove a Grolsch bottle up your jacksy! (they never managed it!)
James Jackson on 26 Jan 2013
In reply to ice.solo:

> Its about widening the resource pool, and not just for standard infantry. 'combat' includes artillery, armoured infantry, forward comms and a multitude of other taskings.

Not in the British Army. Combat arms as defined as infantry (in its many guises) and armour (tanks and recce). The Army Air Corps used to be classed as combat, but I think in the forces review are now classed as combat support, along with artillery, signals and engineers of various flavours.
Edradour - on 26 Jan 2013
In reply to James Jackson:
> (In reply to ice.solo)
>
> [...]
>
> Not in the British Army. Combat arms as defined as infantry (in its many guises) and armour (tanks and recce). The Army Air Corps used to be classed as combat, but I think in the forces review are now classed as combat support, along with artillery, signals and engineers of various flavours.

Yes but the point is that the nature of conflict has changed and it is not possible to define 'combat' and 'combat support' anymore. Many combat support personnel (and service support personnel) have been in contacts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

James Jackson on 26 Jan 2013
In reply to Edradour:

I'd argue that it is possible to make that definition. Sure, people in CS and CSS roles have been in contact (FACs, Engineers, Medics etc), but this has always been the case. The definition of the role should be based on the prime purpose. That of the combat arms - infantry and armour - is, in a conventional sense, to close with and kill the enemy.

The fact that we need (for example) engineers to do that, and therefore those engineers also get shot at, doesn't make them a combat arm, or the differential any harder.
dale1968 - on 26 Jan 2013
In reply to Denni: time will tell whether the yanks find it a success, and if we follow suit I shall await the outcome

johnj on 26 Jan 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to dale1968: No doubt a part of the psyop to soften us up for the military industrial complex emerging trade agreements i.e war with Iran. Cos let's face it, the only real tech us in the free west export these days is weapons, may as well but some lasses up there for when it starts to get real f*cking dirty!
dale1968 - on 26 Jan 2013
In reply to johnj: If they recruit from Chard then the Iranians will soon be on the run,(there tattoos scare me, and that's just the women)
MJ - on 26 Jan 2013
In reply to dale1968:

It would be a logistical nightmare. Not only would a daily supply of Army Form Sh1t have to be issued, but they would also have to include a random supply of Army Pamphlet Bl0b.
Ian Black - on 26 Jan 2013
In reply to Denni:
> (In reply to dale1968)
> [...]
>
>
> I know a few women in the Forces who have completed (and now in) the SRR selection who would outshine a lot of blokes and are more capable than them.




No doubt Denni there will be WRACS that are physically gifted and mentally strong, but when you have to hump half a house over the mountains day after day, hit the Jungle where plenty get very sick, then if they're still hanging on after that they have the E&E followed by TQs etc... I really would be very very surprised if any woman could come through that. I'm not saying it's impossible, just highly unlikely. Maybe a very fit one could pass the all arms commando course or P coy.

Ridge - on 26 Jan 2013
In reply to Ian Black:
> (In reply to Denni)
> [...]

> there will be WRACS

I think they died out with tinned compo and 58 pattern webbing..
Denni on 26 Jan 2013
In reply to Ian Black:

Hi Ian,
you're probably right. I guess I was trying to balance it out rather than say no it would never happen.
Although, try telling that to my missus just before she jumps onto the MERT for another wee trip forward!
Denni on 26 Jan 2013
In reply to Ridge:
> (In reply to Ian Black)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> I think they died out with tinned compo and 58 pattern webbing..


Mmm, bacon grill!
MJ - on 26 Jan 2013
In reply to Ridge:

I think they died out with tinned compo and 58 pattern webbing..

So where do squaddies now go for their Weekly Ration of Army Crumpet?
Ian Black - on 26 Jan 2013
In reply to Denni:
> (In reply to Ian Black)
>
> Hi Ian,
> you're probably right. I guess I was trying to balance it out rather than say no it would never happen.
> Although, try telling that to my missus just before she jumps onto the MERT for another wee trip forward!






It's a difficult one Denni without sounding sexist, but it is a very big ask. Mind you Demi Moore manged to get badged into the Navy Seals so I suppose...

Ian Black - on 26 Jan 2013
In reply to Ridge:
> (In reply to Ian Black)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> I think they died out with tinned compo and 58 pattern webbing..






Auld habits...

James Jackson on 26 Jan 2013
In reply to Ian Black:

One of the few public bits of information available on the SRR is that they recruit men and women.
Ian Black - on 27 Jan 2013
In reply to James Jackson:
> (In reply to Ian Black)
>
> One of the few public bits of information available on the SRR is that they recruit men and women.






Whilst I'm no expert on the role of the recently formed SRR, I would imagine there would be roles for Females with certain skills. The SB and Regt however is the less glamourous side of the SF, and being involved in the wartime role of these units would not suit a female IMO.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.