Attrition: Women In Combat

Archives

July 1, 2018: The first woman to join a British infantry unit (the RAF Regiment) dropped out in May 2018 after two weeks of the 18 week course. More women have been allowed to apply for jobs in infantry units but there are still disputes about applying lower physical standards for females (because of physiological differences between men and women). While dozens of women have successfully completed the courses for army infantry officers and several hundred have been allowed to undergo infantry training with the adjusted (for gender) standards, the services that insist on one physical standard for all, like the British and American special operations and marine units, had not had any women completing the infantry training course. In the United States most of the female candidates for infantry training are officers who note that that most senior ranks in the army are all occupied by men with some combat background.

Until 2013 the U.S. Department of Defense had a policy that forbade the use of female troops in direct combat. Britain lifted similar restrictions in 2016. This was mostly about politics but the rule was there and had to be obeyed. Or at least an attempt had to be made to enforce the rule. Despite the earlier ban many women had found themselves in firefights and exposed to roadside bombs anyway, something that's normal for a combat zone. Meanwhile, women were allowed to serve in MP (military police) units and serve regularly on convoy duty. Those convoys often included other female troops who were trained to fight back, if necessary. It was usually the MPs who did the fighting and the female MPs performed well. Several of them received medals for exceptional performance in combat. Hundreds of these female MPs were regularly in combat over the last decade. This was the largest and longest exposure of American female troops to direct combat in history.

Yet women have often been exposed to a lot of indirect combat. As far back as World War II, 25 percent of all troops in the army found themselves under fire at one time or another, although only about 15 percent of soldiers had a "direct combat" job. In Iraq (2003-11) women made up about 14 percent of the military personnel but only two percent of the casualties (dead and wounded). Most women did not (and still do not) want to be in combat but those who do get the job (often involuntarily) have proven that they can handle it.

The issue of women in combat has long been contentious. Throughout history women have performed well in combat, in situations where pure physical force was not a major factor. For example, women were often a large, and often decisive, part of the defending force in sieges. Many women learned to use the light bow (for hunting). While not as lethal as the heavy bows (like the English longbow), when the situation got desperate the female archers made a difference.

Once lightweight firearms appeared in the 19th century women were even deadlier in combat. Again this only occurred in combat situations where the superior physical strength of men was not a factor. Infantry combat is intensely physical, and most women remain at a disadvantage here, except for some specialist tasks, like sniping.

The problem is that the average load of a combat infantryman is over 40 kg (88 pounds) and men (in general) have always had more muscle and the ability to handle heavy loads better than women. But in situations like convoy escort, base security, or support jobs in the combat zone the combat load is lower and more manageable for women. At that point there’s plenty of recent evidence that women can handle themselves in combat. That said, women, more than men, prefer to avoid serving in combat units. After 2001 American recruiters found it easier to find young men for combat units than for support jobs. It’s mainly female officers who demand the right to try out for combat jobs. That’s because the most of the senior jobs in the military go only to those who have some experience in a combat unit.

Because of the strenuous nature of combat jobs (armor, artillery, and engineers, as well as infantry) there are physical standards for these occupations. The U.S. military calls it a profile and if you do not have the physical profile for a job, you can’t have it. Thus while many men are not physically fit for the infantry, even fewer women are. Some women can meet the physical standards and be eager to have the job. But Western nations (including Canada) that have sought to recruit physically qualified female candidates for the infantry found few volunteers and even fewer who could meet the profile and pass the training.

One area where women are recruited for infantry combat is in commando and paramilitary intelligence organizations. This is kept secret but having a combat-qualified woman along on some missions can be the key to success. While these women usually cannot carry as much weight, they often have language, cultural, and other skills that make them an essential part of the team. Women have long served as spies, and this is apparently how women came to become part of some commando organizations. Air forces often train their base security forces as light infantry, in part because when air force units are in combat zones they want their own security personnel guarding key equipment. The RAF Regiment is the British version of this but the RAF Regiment uses the same personnel and training standards as other British infantry units.

Over the last century women have been increasingly a part of the military. In most Western nations over ten percent of military personnel are female. In the U.S. military it’s now 15 percent. A century ago it was under one percent (and most of those were nurses and other medical personnel). More women are in uniform now because there aren't enough qualified men, especially for many of the technical jobs armed forces now have to deal with.

In the United States women became more of a presence in the armed forces after the military went all-volunteer in the 1970s. That led to more and more combat-support jobs being opened to women. This became popular within the military because the women were often better at these support jobs. This led to women being allowed to serve on American combat ships in 1994. In most NATO countries between 5-10 percent of sailors are women, while in Britain it is 10 percent, and in the United States 16 percent.

During World War II over five million women served in the military, although they suffered fewer losses than the men, several hundred thousand did die. These women were often exposed to combat, especially when fighting as guerillas or operating anti-aircraft guns and early warning systems in Russia, Germany, and Britain. Russia also used women as traffic police near the front line, as snipers, and as combat pilots. They tried using them as tank crews and regular infantry, but that didn’t work out. Women were most frequently employed in medical and other support jobs. The few who served as snipers or pilots were very good at it.

Most of the women who served in combat did so in guerilla units, especially in the Balkans and Russia. The women could not haul as heavy a load as the men but this was often not crucial, as many guerillas were only part-time fighters, living as civilians most of the time. Full time guerilla units often imposed the death penalty for pregnancy, although the women sometimes would not name the father. That said, guerilla organizations often imposed the death penalty for a number of offenses. The guerillas had few places to keep prisoners and sloppiness could get a lot of guerillas killed. The women tended to be more disciplined than the men and just as resolute in combat.

Meanwhile the casualty rate for women in Iraq was over ten times what it was in World War II, Vietnam, and the 1991 Gulf War (where 30,000 women served). A lot of the combat operations experienced by women in Iraq involves base security or guard duty. Female troops performed well in that. These were jobs that required alertness, attention to detail, and ability to quickly use your weapons when needed. In convoy operations women have also done well, especially when it comes to spotting, and dealing with, IEDs (roadside bombs and ambushes). Going into the 21st century, warfare is becoming more automated and less dependent on muscle and testosterone. That gives women an edge, and they exploit it, just as they have done in so many other fields.

The downside of women in combat is political pressure to place women in combat jobs where they are at a disadvantage and don’t want to volunteer for or be assigned to. There is also political pressure not to discipline women who misbehave on the job. Not just sexually but using those ploys that women have long employed to get their way in the workplace. It’s not politically correct to even admit this sort of thing exists, but in the last few decades the U.S. military has modified NCO training to include showing the sergeants and petty officers how to handle female subordinates. After generations of dealing only with men, these NCOs, even those with daughters, were surprised to be told what they could expect from female subordinates.

 


Article Archive

Attrition: Current 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 


X

ad

Now That We Have Your Attention!

Each month we count on your subscriptions or contributions. You can support us in the following ways:

  1. Make sure you spread the word about us. Two ways to do that are to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
  2. Subscribe to our daily newsletter. We’ll send the news to your email box, and you don’t have to come to the site unless you want to read columns or see photos.
  3. You can contribute to the health of StrategyPage. A contribution is not a donation that you can deduct at tax time, but a form of crowdfunding. We store none of your information when you contribute..
Subscribe   Contribute   Close