Army to review female close combat roles

I guess this topic is a lot more complex than is being expressed.

It's not just simple physical superiority that leads to victory or else the Vietnamese ( average male height 5' 4'') would not have beaten the US ( average male height 5' 10') but other elements such as morale. courage, determination above all intelligence. Napoleon, no slouch when it came to winning battles, thought so. So did Cromwell. So did Caesar.

This probably explains why when there is open recruitment as in partisan or guerilla armies you do get women because you can't stop them joining in. Try telling Boudicca or Joan of Arc that they should have held back from fighting. They fought because they had to. In fact the Red Army used the women's units to inspire the men as famously at one stage the last artillery unit on the west bank of the Volga at Stalingrad was a women's unit. And no they didn't crumble under fire, nor give up because they had trouble changing their sanitary equipment. Nor did the men apparently think they had to risk life and limb protecting them or trying to get off with them

They all had other things on their minds.

I guess this topic is a lot more complex than is being expressed.

It's not just simple physical superiority that leads to victory or else the Vietnamese ( average male height 5' 4'') would not have beaten the US ( average male height 5' 10') but other elements such as morale. courage, determination above all intelligence. Napoleon, no slouch when it came to winning battles, thought so. So did Cromwell. So did Caesar.

This probably explains why when there is open recruitment as in partisan or guerilla armies you do get women because you can't stop them joining in. Try telling Boudicca or Joan of Arc that they should have held back from fighting. They fought because they had to. In fact the Red Army used the women's units to inspire the men as famously at one stage the last artillery unit on the west bank of the Volga at Stalingrad was a women's unit. And no they didn't crumble under fire, nor give up because they had trouble changing their sanitary equipment. Nor did the men apparently think they had to risk life and limb protecting them or trying to get off with them

They all had other things on their minds.

However, as soon as the Red Army got past their temporary manning problems, they stopped using women in their fighting arms.

What ? I think they always had manning problems. After all overwhelmingly most of the German forces were on the Eastern Front.

Stalingrad was 1942-3. Arguably one of three major theatres of war if not the major one as the prime turning point of the war.

''Joan of Arc didn't exactly meet the most auspicious of ends.''

But she was much more successful than the king, Charles VII, in leading the army and inspiring them. We're back to fighting being about much more than just brute force.

Considering she was only a teenager when she arrived, she must have been quite remarkable. It's difficult to imagine how she managed but manage she did. France is full of statues to her ; not many to the king.

Points to note. Man for man, my money was on the US in Vietnam. But then again, the Americans weren't fighting on their own territory for their own political aims. ( Vietnam was a close run thing. The US could've turned that round)

Boudicca and Joan of Arc were leaders. Not 'cave your skull in and cut your balls off' infantry types. Probably more to do with accidents of birth with one being a queen and the other having visions.

The soviet experience was more down to necessity due to manpower shortages. The very same reason why women were allowed to serve in the first and second world wars to alleviate manpower shortages, but I think its quite telling that once those manpower shortages were overcome, the women were relegated back again. Also of Point to note, they were fighting from fixed positions. There's a world of difference between 'pick up shell stored next to gun and load it' to 'advance to contact under fire'

Try, just try listening to those who have gone through what some ideologically driven feminist has not. And remember, that heaven forbid conscription ever has to be brought back, I see no pool of suitably capable women ready to draw from.


Females have done a tremendous job in the forces. But there are also problems with allowing them taking certain roles. The navy has already identified that its all male ships have a higher standard that coed ones. The Israelis who led the way in letting women on the front line ( more to do with manpower shortages) have realised it was a mistake.

When you've experienced having females in the front line with the logistics problems of separate accommodation, having to distribute kit they should be carrying amongst other troops who are already laden, or Private jones and smith fighting over Doris's attention, you'll realise.

Many if the arguments that are being banged out may come across as rehashed examples of why ethnically integrated infantry units. But I'm doubting it.

The military has done a great job and promoting clean wars. But sadly even with the advent of precision guided munitions, it's still down to a tired, scared young lad with a rifle, and a bayonet in many cases, to deliver the good news to the Enemies of the queen.

You may be ideologically driven to want to let women serve, but from personal experience is much rather deny the horrors of fighting to as many segments if society as possible. Is rather upset people to spare them the nightmares that they'll experience after seeing the effects of ann air strike up close or an IED strike that's ripped your mates legs off.

Often more civilians die in conflicts than military : consider Japan WW2

Japan: military casualties WW2 = 2.1m
Civilian casualties (btoh through military action AND through war-related issues , famine, disease, etc) = 1m.



Anyway, we're wandering from the point. This is not a debate on war, on specific cases or on military history. This is about women serving in the front line - within the infantry - of the British Armed Forces. Nothing else.

Perhaps the introduction of more women in armies might alter their mind set? Fewer rapes maybe? Judging by the capacity for massive killing on an industrial scale nowadays perhaps we will all have to think the unthinkable about how to resolve conflicts.

Who's being denied though?

I've not seen one shred of evidence that any female actually wants to be in the infantry. This drive isn't coming from women who are being turned away, it's coming from politicians who haven't once worn a uniform.

The change, if implemented, will cost a huge amount of money for absolutely zero gain. There are no benefits to this and there will only be blood on the hands of those who are backing it.

I once attended a talk by a soldier who said that part of the reason we don't have female soldiers in close combat roles is that, while the British public can cope with hearing on the news: "an 18 year old male British soldier has died in Afghanistan", we would be much more shocked and reluctant to support military action if the heard: "an 18 year old girl, serving in the British army, has been killed in Afghanistan".
Thoughts?

Females are already killed in action. There was a similar argument about allowing females to train in bomb disposal- public reaction when the first one was killed.

Well, it happened and most people barely noticed. Captain Lisa Head, if you're interested. Yes, soldiers get killed. They know the risks and every single woman who goes to Afghanistan, teeth arms or not, signs up for exactly the same thing.

I am aware.
I also remember when, in a Lynx crash over Basra, 4 Army personnel died. One of whom was female. I remember this one particularly because she received about 4 times as much coverage as the other guys put together.
And I also remember when the 15 RN personnel were taken hostage by the Iranians. In the ensuing aftermath the media made a great deal about the 1 female who was taken, practically ignoring the 14 men.

And I would like to take up one of your points: "every single woman ... signs up for exactly the same thing". That may be, but they don't get treated the same. They all have far less stringent fitness tests to pass. In most branches and roles that doesn't really matter, it has no major effect on them performing the role they've signed up for. Certainly, the one you cite, EOD, is not a fitness dependent role.

Infantry, however, is very very different. I encourage you, and anyone who thinks the same, to read this post from Clip. You cannot afford to make the same fitness allowances in infantry that you can in other branches. If you make them pass the same tests as the men, no-one's going to pass and, no doubt, people will sue. If you let them pass an easier test, then the women are more likely to get injured in training, more likely to make the units worse (if they make it that far) and more likely to be the reason more people get injured and killed in action.


Anybody who advocates women serving on the frontline is advocating soldiers dying unnecessarily. It really is that simple.

I'm ex-Forces. I'm never going to back something that makes it more likely people will come to harm.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27331365

Is this a good idea?

Personally, I can't see many women passing the physical Phase 2 Infantry combat course, but I suppose the option should be there.

Most adult women weigh more than 100lb, no army woman is going to weigh that little. Anyone who passes the tests to enter is going to weigh significantly more than that. The point is that a 200lb woman shouldn't be barred because she's a woman.

I know plenty of infantrymen who get pissed every night and struggle to pass PFT's you don't need to be superfit to join the infantry, there are women who are capable of passing it easily, yes the vast majority aren't but there are a few who can and it's unfair and pointless to ban them from the front line as long as they can meet the same physical standards. If we keep the standards the same then there is no reason that the standard of the army would decline.