Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Murphy's Law in Action Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Women In The Infantry
SYSOP    4/26/2015 8:38:56 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
Nate Dog    Same thing happened in the IDF   4/26/2015 12:28:47 PM
Only,
The officers tasked with integrating women into combat roles were much smarter about it then their american counterparts.
No body likes to be told no. So don't. Simply move the goal posts. In the mid 90's all infantry training unit were designated as combat units, armour and artillery soon followed suite. Combat units. And were opened up to women. They still underwent basic training, but from then on their training became much more specialised for training rolls. Essentially all become junior NCO's and specialise in various weapons. Then they spend the rest of their service training troops from the various services in there craft, on all manner of things, from camouflage to marksmanship, map plotting, etc, etc..
These are all tasks that woman are more than capable of doing, and often are even better at, especially when taking into account that these are 18-21 year olds, where maturity levels still differ.
 
Find the loophole, say yes, and still do what you want. Everybody wins, and you may just reap unexpected rewards, as above.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       4/26/2015 12:38:41 PM
Subtle. Many of our officer cadres could use "liaison training" in the IDF. Come to think of it, a few months in the Negev under drill sergeants could do our stupid president and his idiot administration some good.     
 
Quote    Reply

joe6pack    My experience with this   4/27/2015 9:16:22 AM
Was that the people that were the most interested in this policy are politicians and others who have never put on the uniform. 
 
My anecdotal experience most of the women in uniform I met, wouldn't sign up for the infantry if given the option (they thought we were a bit nuts)..  The women in uniform that were more interested in this policy seem to be primarily female officers that viewed some time in the infantry branch as faster route higher rank... (rather than a real desire for "equal" service... but perhaps that's the cynic in me)
 
If you go with the (hopeful) assumption that standards wouldn't be lowered, the pool of women that are willing and able.. seems to shrink to a very small number.
 
That said.. I'm not one of those that says "women" can't do the job..   
During my air assault course, on one of the timed road marches.. I was passed up by a woman (carrying the same load as I was.. and with a big wad of chewing tobacco in one cheek the thought of chewing tobacco and a road march still leaves my stomach queezy..).. she was one of the quicker times.
 
On the American political front.. I do notice that all these "equal rights" politicians aren't suggesting that women be subject to selective service (a.k.a the draft) that all males turning 18 are...  Why don't we start there if we want real "equality" ?
 
 
Quote    Reply

joe6pack       4/27/2015 10:41:09 AM
Oh.. and bull^&!..."Going into the 21st century, warfare is becoming more automated and less dependent on muscle"
 
Lot's of things are more automated.. but then....
 
The combat load of troops has not decreased.  Nor is it in the offing. The desire for more "tech" actually seems to be increasing it.
 
Putting your injured fellow troop into a fireman's carry, and quick timing it to cover / assistance.. that's somehow taking less muscle?
 
Fixing a track on a busted tank is done by robots now is it?   
 
Close combat, subduing the bad guys... nothing at all to do with muscles ?
 
Need I really go on? 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Nate Dog    Nope   4/27/2015 11:47:36 AM
You're pretty spot on.
Lethality grows, equipment gets lighter, which is just an excuse for generals to load more lethal stuff on the troops. 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

timon_phocas       4/27/2015 2:56:28 PM
my son (2 tours in Afghanistan) and son-in-law (14 monsths in Iraq) wrecked their backs humping 880-100 lbs loads on their tours. They were told they had the spinal profiles of 60-year-olds. If women are 10 times more likely to suffer skeletal injuries, how would they ever survive a tour?
 
Quote    Reply

joe6pack       4/27/2015 3:35:16 PM

my son (2 tours in Afghanistan) and son-in-law (14 monsths in Iraq) wrecked their backs humping 880-100 lbs loads on their tours. They were told they had the spinal profiles of 60-year-olds. If women are 10 times more likely to suffer skeletal injuries, how would they ever survive a tour?

There's no shortage of 20 somethings in the infantry like that.  It's one of the reasons I got out.. knees and back were out aging the rest of me by more than a few decades.

I'd say it's probably right that "most" women would not be up to the task.  There are no shortage of men that are not. But, I've seen that the job can be done (by some) women.  Are there enough of them that are willing and able, to justify the all the changes that have to go into it? Probably not...
 
Quote    Reply

leftwinger       4/27/2015 6:00:44 PM
I do not disagree with anything in this article. That said, I do have a question I am sure someone can answer (I have not served in the military). Is it necessary for combat infantrymen to carry 88 lbs. with them. I read a book years ago about the battle of Bunker Hill which commented on the weight carried by British soldiers into combat. I thought the idea would be to carry as little weight as necessary to enable the soldier to be quicker. In case you haven't read it, "Quartered Safe Out Here" is an excellent memoir of a British soldier in the Burma campaign. He remarked that he carried as little as possible, and couldn't understand why the current infantryman carried so much. Just curious.
 
Quote    Reply

ker       4/27/2015 6:36:47 PM
The pols who want the military as unisex as the colleges they came from just need to be voted out. On the other hand a new type of unit made entirely out of women and trained to SF in culture language and medicine could be of value. They would get combat training designed for women. Then would then be assigned to tasks fitting there capability's.
 
Quote    Reply

Nate Dog    Don't look for it anytime soon leftwinger   4/27/2015 7:55:47 PM
If anything, we'll be adding not removing.
 
Look up powered exo skeleton suits, we're trying to find ways to allow our infantrymen to carry more into combat, not less. The more we can load on them the better killing machines they become. Current strategic thinking anyway. 
Call it a biproduct of miniaturisation of extreme lethality.
 
Im not saying you're wrong and that light and agile aren't good for survivability, its just not reflected in current western strategic thinking. Probably correctly. If you can project onto every soldiers field of view exact locations of enemies in the vicinity, which way they are looking, where there weapons can bear, you increase his likelihood of survival exponentially. The price of this added situational awareness is added weight. Telecommunication devices, displays, vid cams so he can contribute to this vast over view, batteries to power the whole. 
And this is just the equipment to allow him to 'see' the modern battlefield, we haven't even gotten to the power projection tools yet (weapons).
So, like i said, look for ways of getting more on that poor grunts back, not less.
 
Back to topic. There certainly are plenty of combat roles women can and in fact already do, do in the armed services. Infantry isn't likely one of them, barring that 1 in 10,000 freakishly big/strong woman. Should we make accommodations for them to allow that very unlikely scenario to happen? As a cost effective measure likely not.
Theres another little discussed aspect. When a mate gets hit during combat, or worse yet, kidnapped (modern combat by west being almost exclusively counter terrorist) the overriding task is still to achieve assigned objectives, no matter what. If you stray from achieving objectives in a timely manner, a lot more troops  are likely to buy the farm, you leave the wounded to medics. 
Problem is, human males are distinctly attuned to the screams of women. Its built into us. Not something we can politically wish away. IDF ran into issues like this numerous times, that when a female soldier got into trouble and screamed for help, men came running, men whom had other things they were supposed to be doing. Men whom couldn't help themselves and instinctively did what males are programmed to do.
One more thing to consider when dealing in such absolutes as this article is discussing.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics