Women in Frontline Combat

[BluntForceTrauma]

Came across an article on Soldier Systems about a female soldier passing some jungle warfare leadership course — [FONT=&amp]“I just want to keep pushing and proving women can do anything and everything.... It shows we can do the same things as the men.” I couldn't keep from making some comments about gaming the system and an increasingly Woke military.

Anyway, made me wonder what some of the vets here think about women in frontline combat. I think we can have an intelligent discussion with valid points pro and con.

I believe Russia had female units in both World Wars 1 and 2. Wouldn't surprise me if there were female Viet Cong shooting at us, but that might be a myth.

I'm all for letting women run the courses, get the training, and graduate with a certificate — as long as the standards are strictly the same as required of the men (and a couple whistle blowers dared leak some recent female "firsts" were frauds, with commanders saying, "You WILL graduate these women and nobody gets access to the records"). I am, however, strictly against women serving in frontline combat even if they graduate the courses. I'll get into my reasons after I hear a few of your arguments for or against and cuz it's late.

Anyway, what you guys think?[/FONT]

[Klem]

Women currently account for 18% of the Australian Defence Force, and this percentage is rising. In the combat corps the percentage is slightly lower at 14%. There was a time when women were denied access to the combat corps (Infantry, Armour, Arty etc). Now all roles are available, however women tend to gravitate towards certain roles.

As for Special Forces, for some years women have been eligible to attempt the SASR selection course, without fear, favour, or prejudice. To date no women have passed.

The annual course attracts 1 or 2 women and about 100-120 men. It is not attitude, but mainly unavoidable weight loss. While guys can lose 10kg and still perform towards the end of Selection, women start lighter and have no margin for weight loss - it cripples them. For lighter candidates male or female, if they cannot carry the same weight, or hoist a simulated wounded heavier colleague over distance, or fight a heavier person on the mats with an even chance of prevailing, they are a liability in a small unit.

For the occasional job requiring women they are seconded from other units.

[JASmith]

BFT and Klem are in the right ballpark.

But, first, we need to define "Frontline Combat." The infantry will have a different understanding of that term than naval personnel on destroyers or aircrew.

Mostly random thoughts follow - - -

Philosophically, I suspect that the tradition of keeping women out of combat derived from the need to assure survival of the tribe. To put it bluntly, population growth depends on the number of women who produce babies and not so strongly on the number of men who can beget children.

That constraint is not so clear in an era where we see serious discussions about reducing the human population, so the question posed by BFT has more relevance than a traditionalist might think.

My combat experience was as a pilot and I directed a fair bit of bombs and other ordnance at troops engaged in combat, so my thinking is influenced by that personal history.

My own view is that positions need to be filled by the best qualified for that position.

There are indeed positions where, in my view and experience, women are at least as capable as men. For example, flight crew, where strength is not as important as intelligence and stamina during long periods of flight. There are others as well.

While recent experience suggests that combat flight is not particularly hazardous, a substantial fraction of US casualties in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam were aircrew.

[grayfox]

My perspective is from the Navy. Especially submarines, where I do not think women in those roles is a good idea. They have served and do serve on surface ships (where I am still a traditionalist) with not too many downsides, but even there it is a bit problematic with a ratio of so many men and so few women... but probably kind of a microcosm of any high-stress environment so maybe not new - romance/competition and wartime do not mix well.

When I was in the Nav, at that time women only pretty much took up shore duty roles... and do you need to wonder what all us guys who were afloat, thought about that? Fewer shore duty opportunities for us to roll over to, after having chased the russkies for so long at sea...

So, in general, not a great idea imo... but, as JA says above, from the philosophical side, I think it has evolved to this point at least in great part, to an unwillingness of the menfolks to stand up for and defend our country. If it comes down to this, I'd rather have a dedicated female in my squad than a lackadaisical male.

[montana]

What is a woman? We apparently need to get that clear these days before we proceed..
As a father, I don't want my daughter anywhere near the front lines or in combat. She can out shoot most men and has shocked many with her strength and fighting ability, but there is something wrong with a society that would willingly send women into combat. This is one inclusiveness I'm a real sexist.. I understand if the enemy is in the court yard, but otherwise I say no..I think the more pressing need is to get our young men back into physical and mental shape ..A new study from the Pentagon shows that 77% of young Americans would not qualify for military service without a waiver due to being overweight, using drugs or having mental and physical health problems.https://www.military.com/daily-news/2022...rvice.html
I know, I'm a dinosaur..

[biodsl]

I have mixed feelings on this subject. In the early 80's I was a military police officer at a nuclear weapons storage depot. Our mission was to protect those nukes against a threat of 10-12 highly motivated, highly trained, highly equipped 'men' willing to die for their cause." We had a handful of women assigned to our company and several I had total confidence in. There were both men and women that I did not want by my side in a fight.

I really don't like the idea of women in a frontline, combat role. It's a distraction for the young men. But what I want doesn't really matter. The women wanted the opportunity. With that opportunity should also come responsibility. Women should have to register for selective service.

Fair is fair.

[603Country]

What Klem said is about the way I feel. I’m an old Marine, and I would want the people in my unit to be capable of carrying or dragging my shot-up body to safety. Same if I was a fireman or cop. Aside from that, I do not believe we should have women in front line combat. If they want to be in the artillery or fly jets or choppers, that’s one thing, but next to me in a foxhole about to be in hand to hand combat is not something I think is smart. Granted, there are some big strong women that might be Ok.

You might find it interesting that when meeting people and getting to know them a bit, my mind always goes to “would I want this guy in my Fire team”.

[LRRPF52]

One thing I’ve noticed the military being very discriminatory and unfair with is not letting any females into 11C or 0341 MOS Career Management Fields.

How dare they cheat these she warriors out of the opportunity to crush it?





You know why the Russians used females in combat roles?

Because they were losing fighting-age males by the tens of millions.

[Happy2Shoot]

Everything is on a Gaussian curve.

Are there some women that could handle the physical requirements? Sure, but not that many. Maybe 2%.

[Happy2Shoot]

I don't know these people. I just Googled female Marine.


[ATTACH=CONFIG]19661[/ATTACH]
This is a very good example of what a typical male and female Marine should look like. The male marine would beat the female Marine in any and every category by at least 30%

[biodsl]

I don't know these people. I just Googled female Marine.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]19660[/ATTACH]

This is a very good example of what a typical male and female Marine should look like. The male marine would beat the female Marine in any and every category by at least 30%

I can't access this attachment.

[cory]

Western society was built on the Judeo/Christian idea that all human life has great inherent value. However, this society and most others has held from their beginning that when necessary Men are expendable, Women and Children are not. I don't care if women can meet the standard, I don't want to live an any society that doesn't hold this to be a truism. I don't want to hand over any other society to my children.

[cory]

Everything is on a Gaussian curve.

Are there some women that could handle the physical requirements? Sure, but not that many. Maybe 2%.

True, but the gaussian curve is different for men and women. I believe it's known as the greater variability hypothesis. Women are in many measurements more compressed in the middle near the average, while in these same measurements for men show a relatively flatter and more dispersed curve. We have greater representation at the boundaries than women do. That being said, if we're measuring upper body strength you're going to see very little overlap due to the drastic difference.

E.g., The average woman is smarter than the average man. That's because the large majority of women fall into something close to the 40%-60% with drastically decreasing representation as you approach the lower and upper 10% boundaries. Men on the other hand have a far more varied IQ across the populace. Our curve is flatter in the center near the average, but doesn't flatten out as quickly near the ends. As such we have a drastically greater representation in the 0%-10% and the 90%-100%. Jordan Peterson discusses this in some of his older lectures that are well worth a listen.

[cory]

...That constraint is not so clear in an era where we see serious discussions about reducing the human population, so the question posed by BFT has more relevance than a traditionalist might think...

Not to distract from the conversation, but it's worth mentioning. Looking at the data it appears that our children being born today will very likely live in a time where one of their greatest problems is not over population, but a collapsing population.

Check out this Rogan podcast with Peter Zelhan. I don't agree with everything he says, but it's interesting none the less.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/406fOii...67a076497e

[LR1955]

Forgot something guys.

When a female soldier gets preggers, she is not backfilled, and is non deployable.

So, in garrison someone else will have to carry her load when she is on maternity leave and if the unit deploys, she doesn't go and someone else pulls her weight when deployed.

You see the picture of the dude carrying the "lightweight" base plate? He, he. Must have sucked to be him but he was probably carrying stuff that someone else should have been but for some reason didn't deploy.

You guys have covered the physical aspects perfectly.

Welcome back to Cory.

LR-55

[cory]

In all fairness that base plate is hands down the best piece to have to carry. Followed by the tube. The bipods are hands down the worst, there's no good way to carry those things.

Thanks LR-55.

[Happy2Shoot]

Think I fixed it.

[LRRPF52]

Since male soldiers can now get or identify as pregnant, this voids the discrepancy and an even bigger segment of the unit will stay home.

Identity politics and EEO were designed to weaken the military, not strengthen it.

Russians knew they could never go toe-to-toe with the US, so they had to erode us from within. There is quite an extensive discussion of this in the defector literature called “Active Measures”.

25% of Soviet Intelligence officers’ time was to be dedicated to concocting Active Measures proposals that would be submitted up the chain for review and possible adoption, once committees had assessed the viability of the proposals.

DoD has been penetrated and populated with Soviet moles dating back to the 1930s, starting when FDR openly recognized the Soviets as the legitimate government of Russia in 1933, and Comrade Stalin as their leader.

Speaking of women in combat, launching ideological warfare against the US from within, and sniping with lightweight semi-auto sniper rifles all in one subject, look no further than Ljudmila Pavlichenko.



After she was blown up twice with mortar and artillery fire in Ukraine during the War with Germany, she came to the US on a propaganda tour to shame the US into getting into the ETO so US soldiers could soak up German munitions and not let the Russians do all the bullet-sponging. We didn’t take the bait, and waited until the better part of the Wehrmacht had expended its combat power and men on the Russian front, then we entered the ETO. We of course had the whole Pacific Theater to deal with, which escapes a lot of Euro-centric critics who like to take swings at the US for “not entering early enough”.



The good thing is we didn’t lose a large chunk of our prime age males in WWII, while everyone else in the war did.

I agree about not wanting to normalize a society where we expect women to go to combat. We already have taken women out of the day-to-day functions of the family enough, and need to build a society where women play the pivotal role of nurturing families, not abandoning them. Combat arms is a great way to increase abandonment of children and families, while permanently crushing the female body in a short timeframe, and adding to the epidemic of infertility.

[LRRPF52]

In all fairness that base plate is hands down the best piece to have to carry. Followed by the tube. The bipods are hands down the worst, there's no good way to carry those things.

Thanks LR-55.

Welcome back Cory. How many rounds is that guy carrying in his ruck is the next question.

Every Mortar Platoon or Section I saw cross-loaded their rounds and the Section leader often carried a SINCGARs Radio as well.

We would even carry additional rounds in the Line Platoons down to the Squads and drop off mortar rounds at the mortar position.

Those “lightly-loaded” Riflemen in a Rifle Squad would have to carry 60mm rounds in addition to AT-4s, SKEDCOs, CLS bags, extra linked 7.62 NATO for Weapons Squad, breaching tools....

Nothing Light about Light Infantry.

[biodsl]

Think I fixed it.

Good looking Marines.