Thread: Women in Combat? Why?

The Obama Adminstration, flush with its recent vicorty in allowing gays to openly serve in the military, is now moving to allow women to serve in combat. The Army has been pushing to place a unknown percentage of women in each MOS (Military Occupational Specialty otherwise known as a "job").

Based on science, the AFPT (or Armed Forces Physical Fitness Test) cuts a large break for one's age and gender. Women have only about 60% of the strength of men. Studies in past have shown women have a non-deployment rate four times higher than men. Brute force is required of any combat soldier that must carry very heavy gear in terrible conditions. Massive strength is also required for many support jobs working on heavy equipment in extreme environments.

Modern history shows few examples of women used in front line roles. The Soviet Union used quite a few women in WW2, even for front line combat and sniper work. They even had all-women bands of partisans. Of course they died in droves like the men and arn't being used in the current Russian Army. How women would do loaded down with modern body armour, packs and weapons is very questionable. There have been a relative few women used in Afghganistan by some NATO countries. So far there have been no glowing reports.

Besides political correctness and social justice, can anyone give an intelligent reason why women should be allowed into any combat role? If women are equal to the task, why don't we also create all female Ranger units and SEAL teams?

Originally Posted by Greataxe

The Obama Adminstration, flush with its recent vicorty in allowing gays to openly serve in the military, is now moving to allow women to serve in combat. The Army has been pushing to place a unknown percentage of women in each MOS (Military Occupational Specialty otherwise known as a "job").

Based on science, the AFPT (or Armed Forces Physical Fitness Test) cuts a large break for one's age and gender. Women have only about 60% of the strength of men. Studies in past have shown women have a non-deployment rate four times higher than men. Brute force is required of any combat soldier that must carry very heavy gear in terrible conditions. Massive strength is also required for many support jobs working on heavy equipment in extreme environments.

Modern history shows few examples of women used in front line roles. The Soviet Union used quite a few women in WW2, even for front line combat and sniper work. They even had all-women bands of partisans. Of course they died in droves like the men and arn't being used in the current Russian Army. How women would do loaded down with modern body armour, packs and weapons is very questionable. There have been a relative few women used in Afghganistan by some NATO countries. So far there have been no glowing reports.

Besides political correctness and social justice, can anyone give an intelligent reason why women should be allowed into any combat role? If women are equal to the task, why don't we also create all female Ranger units and SEAL teams?

Women are already serving in combat roles as pilots and other air crew members
in the Army, Air Force and Navy. For those who think piloting a fighter aircraft
or attack helicopter isn't physically challenging, my only comment to that is...
you've never done it if you think it's easy.

I've seen the toughest, hardest soldiers and Marines reach for the vomit bags
after a corkscrew approach for a tactical landing.

Flying in combat situations is physically challenging and women are up to the role.

I do agree that most women don't have the physical strength to
carry 50 or 60 lbs. of gear hoofing it on long patrols...

However women have already, and are already in combat roles and are doing
so effectively as any man.

I forsee this never happening.

Women that do see combat already operate out of large FOB's which can accommodate segredated facilities.

Infantry units especially in isolated areas dont have the space.

of course unless women dont mind watching guys clean their balls with baby wipes in the humvee's or giving themselves bottle showers with no privacy.

or (*)(*)(*)(*)ing in ditches with your ass in the air.

Originally Posted by Herkdriver

Women are already serving in combat roles as pilots and other air crew members
in the Army, Air Force and Navy. For those who think piloting a fighter aircraft
or attack helicopter isn't physically challenging, my only comment to that is...
you've never done it if you think it's easy.

I've seen the toughest, hardest soldiers and Marines reach for the vomit bags
after a corkscrew approach for a tactical landing.

Flying in combat situations is physically challenging and women are up to the role.

I do agree that most women don't have the physical strength to
carry 50 or 60 lbs. of gear hoofing it on long patrols...

However women have already, and are already in combat roles and are doing
so effectively as any man.

Flying aircraft is not the same as humping anywhere from 60 to 150 lbs of gear in the moutains. I'd like to see a study showing how effective any group of women would be operating as infantry in A-stan. In fact, I'd like to see how well even a group of steroid-enhanced, weightlifting females would do in competition with a platoon of combat infantry Marines or Army in a battle simulation. Is there any data out there that says they are equal to men? I'm sure our enemies would like our troops to be 40% weaker.

So we can all get on our knees and worship at the feet of "equality'.

Originally Posted by Greataxe

Flying aircraft is not the same as humping anywhere from 60 to 150 lbs of gear in the moutains. I'd like to see a study showing how effective any group of women would be operating as infantry in A-stan. In fact, I'd like to see how well even a group of steroid-enhanced, weightlifting females would do in competition with a platoon of combat infantry Marines or Army in a battle simulation. Is there any data out there that says they are equal to men? I'm sure our enemies would like our troops to be 40% weaker.

First of all, I am not sure you know what pain goes along with flying a combat aircraft. Please do not take it lightly. To compare it with carrying gear and humping around the desert is stupid, because it is a completely different type of physical strain.

Secondly, you are making a case on "women in combat" and Herkdriver was correcting you. You would like to talk about "women in infantry roles." Semantics aside, you will not find many in favor of putting women in those positions, even us females in the military. The military is not for social experiments. While some women may be fully capable of handling those jobs, they are few and far in between. You will not get the numbers you need to create separate unit.

I am not sure why it bothers you guys so much to keep making threads about this and discussing it ad nauseam, but it is unlikely to happen anyways.

I served in forward combat units for pretty much my entire 31-year service. And from my personal experience there's no reason not to allow them to serve in such units, even SOC units, as long as the standards remain the same. No gender norming.

Men will have to adjust to seeing women being shot and wounded/killed and fight their natural instincts to maintain. But besides that there's no reason I have ever seen in my experience that says women can't serve in infantry and combat units.

We have a full fledged female fire fighter here, 27, about 5'5", maybe 130 pounds and has carried out the 240 pound guys in her full gear. Does everything the guys do. To top if off she's real easy on the eyes too.

Women are not neccessarily the weaker sex.

Originally Posted by Gunny1

I served in forward combat units for pretty much my entire 31-year service. And from my personal experience there's no reason not to allow them to serve in such units, even SOC units, as long as the standards remain the same. No gender norming.

Men will have to adjust to seeing women being shot and wounded/killed and fight their natural instincts to maintain. But besides that there's no reason I have ever seen in my experience that says women can't serve in infantry and combat units.

Would you rely on a weapon, a tank or any other piece of gear that was tested to be 40% weaker, that broke down four times as often, or sometimes had to taken out of action for 9 months at a time for downtime? Would you mind if any of your troops suffered greater casualities as a result?

At anytime in your long experience in the military did you have any greater problems with work, fitness or moral issues with women in your units? This is what I saw. Just wondering.

Originally Posted by Greataxe

Would you rely on a weapon, a tank or any other piece of gear that was tested to be 40% weaker, that broke down four times as often

You won't have to worry about that as long as there's no gender norming. Keep the standards the same and everyone will be equal and be able to hold their own and carry their own weight.

or sometimes had to taken out of action for 9 months at a time for downtime?

You're acting like women pop one out every year. If one of them does get pregnant then they take leave and return when and if they are able. It's not a big deal and wouldn't happen very often.

Would you mind if any of your troops suffered greater casualities as a result?

It wouldn't happen if the standards remained the same.