# Women in combat arms?  Infantry, Armor, ...



## billc (Mar 15, 2012)

Here is an article about women in actual combat arms, the infantry or armor...

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/09/the-harsh-reality-of-women-in-infantry-combat/



> I expect many to claim &#8220;sexism&#8221; and read this as some kind of &#8220;slight&#8221;  against the service of women.  I intend nothing of the sort.  Women have  served bravely in those branches and positions open to them.  Clearly,  women have proven the equal worth of men in many areas.  However, as  biology and common sense make clear, men and women are distict.  This is  particularly the case when it comes to the physical nature of brutal  Infantry ground combat.  A problem comes with the Media&#8217;s portrayal of  operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Seldom does the average American  learn about the nuances of the branches within the different Armed  services and distinctions I have mentioned.​



​ More later...


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 15, 2012)

While, technically women in the Uk armed forces aren't supposed to be on the front line, they can't join an infantry regiment for example, they are however right in the thick of it and it's proving, like having gays in the military to be no problem. I don't think it's a case of sexism, it's a case of expecting people to behave like adults. It's a bit of a nonsense to say when you have mena dn women fighting together the men behave differently to the detriment of the military, they do behave differently but to the benefit of the military, far less of the male 'hoseplay' for a start.

While women can't become infantry soldiers here they do however go out on patrol with them, often the Combat Medical Technician from the Royal Army Medical corps with the regiment is female, there's been notable incidents with these female medics winning medals and being mentioned in dispatches for their bravery and cool thinking in action. There's many soldiers owe their lives to these young women who treat and defend their patients out on the ground like lionesses. The current hearts and minds policies in Afghan mean that female military personnel go out on patrol with the men and can hold their own in a fire fight. The men assume, quite rightly, that the women are trained enough, intelligent enough and disciplined enough not to need baby sitting or any quixotic behaviour from the men. They are a team and act as such. Military men trust their lives to many women, the ATOs, the pilots, the drivers, the medics etc. We've had women killed in action, the reaction was on sadness at a member of the militarys death not outrage at a women being killed. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...oman-medic-killed-fighter-Taliban-ambush.html


----------



## elder999 (Mar 15, 2012)

Women have been serving as front line combat soldiers for the state of Israel since 1948, with no recorded detriment to efficacy or morale.


----------



## billc (Mar 15, 2012)

Then there is this on Israel...

http://www.wnd.com/2001/08/10269/



> &#8220;For example, it is a common misperception that Israel allows women in combat units. In fact, women have been barred from combat in Israel since 1950, when a review of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War showed how harmful their presence could be. The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather than continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in greater danger, but also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit. The study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men saw women killed and maimed on the battlefield,&#8221; Luddy said.
> Writes Edward Norton, a reservist in the Israel Defense Forces: &#8220;Women have always played an important role in the Israeli military, but they rarely see combat; if they do, it is usually by accident. No one in Israel, including feminists, has any objection to this situation. The fact that the Persian Gulf War has produced calls to allow women on the front lines proves only how atypical that war was and how little Americans really understand combat.&#8221;



and this as well...



> Women were active participants in Israel's 1948 war for independence. At some point during the war it was decided that women would no longer participate in battle but would fulfill other roles.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



and then this...

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/femcom.html



> In 1999, Israel announced that women would begin serving as combat soldiers in the year 2000. According to a plan prepared by the Israel Defense Forces, female units would serve along the Egyptian and Jordanian borders and, eventually, take on the vast majority of border patrol duty.
> The Caracal company, for example, is being trained to patrol the border for drug smugglers and terrorist infiltrators. This is a coed unit whose 200 female soldiers outnumber the men by 2-to-1. The elite commando K9 unit, Oketz, also drafts females as dog trainers and soldiers.
> In early 2000, the IDF decided to also deploy women in the artillery corps, followed by infantry units, armored divisions and elite combat units. The Navy has also decided to place women in its diving repair unit. Altogether, at the beginning of 2004, about 450 women were in combat units.



I also saw a piece years ago on 60 minutes about women in the Israeli army.  They serve in just about everything but ground combat units.  They are really good instructors.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 15, 2012)

IMHO, Armor, sure, Infantry, Artillery, NO F'n way


----------



## elder999 (Mar 15, 2012)

billcihak said:
			
		

> Then there is this on Israel....



Women served as front line combat soldiers in the Yom Kippur war, in 1973.


----------



## billc (Mar 15, 2012)

Do you have paperwork for that assertion elder?

http://www.idfblog.com/reports/60-years-of-women&#8217;s-service-in-the-idf/

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htinf/articles/20091028.aspx



> There is also a largely female infantry unit, the Caracal Battalion. Part of the 512th Brigade in Southern Command, the battalion was formed in 2000 to provide a place for women who wanted to be in the infantry. It's a light infantry units that mainly serves along the Jordanian or Egyptian borders. The battalion took part in safeguarding Israeli civilians and troops during the 2005 evacuation of Gaza. Initially, about half the troops in Caracal were female, as are most of the officers and NCOs, and, usually, the commander. Now about 90 percent of the Caracal members are women. While many troops see Caracal as a publicity stunt and a sop to the feminists, the unit has performed well, and has a reputation as a non-nonsense and reliable outfit.
> During their independence war in 1948, Israel had female infantry units, but these were withdrawn. Not because the women couldn't fight, but because Arab units facing them became more fanatical, and less likely to surrender, when they realized they were fighting women. Conservative Jewish clergy in Israel want women to be barred from combat jobs, while Arab radicals are urging more women to get involved in terrorism operations, including suicide bombings.



Let's talk about non-combat areas that could be coed but aren't.  Football, soccer, basketball, baseball, rugby, mixed martial arts.  Why aren't these proffesional sports integrated?  Here you have athletes, with excellent diets, plenty of rest, the best of training, and yet women do not compete with or against men.  Now, put them in a combat infantry role.  Bad diet, little rest, demanding physical activity and add to that actual fighting against other men.  

Are there any combat experienced infantry soldiers from the current wars here on martial talk?  What experiences have you had in the field and what do you think about this topic.  what about combat experienced female soldiers, any thoughts on serving in infantry or armor?

Service in the armor branch requires a lot of heavy lifting, can women do that in a combat environment?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 15, 2012)

Let me first say I have no problem with it.

Having said that, I wonder if America is ready for it.

I think it's an interesting fantasy that would be abandoned by the American public the first time a woman on the front lines was captured, raped, and beheaded by the Taliban on TV.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 15, 2012)

Women have been dying from hands-on violence for a very, very long time. We are also, statistically (according to an Olympic shooting coach I recently met), better shooters and deal with combat better.  I know there are many women who are ready to do it.

Why no f'n way?


----------



## Big Don (Mar 16, 2012)

shesulsa said:


> Women have been dying from hands-on violence for a very, very long time. We are also, statistically (according to an Olympic shooting coach I recently met), better shooters and deal with combat better.  I know there are many women who are ready to do it.
> 
> Why no f'n way?


What I was told by several shooting instructors, it isn't that women are better than men, when properly instructed, it is that women and men that have never fired before have no bad habits to unlearn. 
Honestly, it is a gut reaction, not something I can really define.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 16, 2012)

We have women in the Royal Artillery, we have women in warships, we have female combat pilots. We've got female bomb disposal officers one of whom was killed not so long ago. women are in the Royal Engineers, the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers as well as the Royal Logistic Corps who all serve on the 'frontline'. the army's heavy artillery is 'manned' by women. Women have been in 14 Int working alongside male colleagues in Northern Ireland for many years in dangerous conditions.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...at-Taliban-deafening-noise-instead-bombs.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...posal-officer-who-lived-life-to-the-full.html

When people compare anything military to the Israelis they should remember that the Israelis are in a unique situation, they don't chose to have an army they don't chose to got to war, those choices are forced on them. The American and British military system is completely different both being professional forces made up of volunteers who are selected. Training is different, ethos is differnt in fact just about everything. the Israelis face annihilation everyday, and every man woman and child will fight when they have to, it isn't a career choice or something they fancy doing for a couple of years. Israelis have to defend themselves while trying to live as normal and good life as they can, everyone in Israel just about is a soldier when they need to be. Comparing whether women should be on the front line or not by using the Israelis isn't a good comparision, just living in Israel and being an Israeli means you are on the frontline anyway. 

Professional female soldiers fit in with their male counterparts well, everyone said women would be pulled out as soon as the first female was killed, here that was several years ago and the women are still there. women have a job to do, they do it there's no problem unless someone from outside makes one. A woman captured and tortured by the enemy would receive the same attention or lack of it that a male soldier would to be honest.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 16, 2012)

shesulsa said:


> Women have been dying from hands-on violence for a very, very long time. We are also, statistically (according to an Olympic shooting coach I recently met), better shooters and deal with combat better.  I know there are many women who are ready to do it.
> 
> Why no f'n way?



I didn't say women were not ready to fight in combat or to face the dangers.  I said the American public would freak right out the first time they saw an American woman beheaded on TV by the enemy, and that would be the end of that noble experiment.  I have no doubts about the combat capability of women.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 16, 2012)

My first reaction was "Who would broadcast such a thing?" closely followed by the thought that do do such a thing would be the worst mistake any enemy could make.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 16, 2012)

billcihak said:
			
		

> Do you have paperwork for that assertion elder?



Well, I'll try to find some, but don't really need any.

I mean,  you do know that the Yom Kippur war was a surprise attack, right? That "the frontlines" just happened to be wherever you were standing when they started? Yes, as soon as they could feasibly do so, they evacuated women from the front lines, but there were women there, and a shortage of men at the time.

 At least, that's the way my prom-date's mom, who was there, explained it to me three years later...:lol:



			
				Bill Mattocks said:
			
		

> Let me first say I have no problem with it.
> 
> Having said that,* I wonder if America is ready for it.*.



*This*, apparently. *Shamefully,* too, what with all the wondering if "women can do heavy lifting"-shades of "women can't be firefighters," and "women can't be cops" 

EDIT: Here ya go, billi, from the *Israeli Defense Forces Webpage*: 



> during the Yom Kippur War (1973), due to a growing need for ground  forces, women were needed in roles in the field. They served as combat  instructors, operations sergeants, and even officers.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 16, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> My first reaction was "Who would broadcast such a thing?" closely followed by the thought that do do such a thing would be the worst mistake any enemy could make.



Our enemies being known for their clear and rational thinking, right?


----------



## elder999 (Mar 16, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:
			
		

> Our enemies being known for their clear and rational thinking, right?



Not to mention some of their delightfully enlightened ideas about women.....


----------



## ballen0351 (Mar 16, 2012)

As a former primary marksmanship instructor on parris island in the Marine Corps i can say withoit a doubt woman are NOT better shooters then men.  Thats a myth.we always had much higher % fail to qualify every week then men.  Normally due to emotional stress.  They shoot good all week until qualification day and boom they shoot like crapand alot of them would be on the firing line crying.  I can say men were more likly to shoot themselves if they didnt qualify then the woman saw a few guys over the years i was there saw several guys kill themselves never a female.  The females for most part would just freeze up and cry.  As to the woman in combat i dont really have a problem with it so much.  I have worked with many females in police work that i believe would do just as good as any man in combat.  However they really are few and far between.  I dont believe in lowering fitness standards for woman to do same job. If men need to do X amount of push ups then so do the woman ect.  Most physical tests are different for men and woman for a reason


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 16, 2012)

Ballen I would suggest then that your recruiters are doing a poor job with the people they were allowing to enlist. 

Just because the women you saw 'froze up' etc doesn't mean to say all women do, I've seen women shoot at Bisley and I watch women shoot in the Biathlon all the time, pretty good shooting under pressure. The military women as well as those from my service can all shoot perfectly well under pressure, as I'm sure can American policewomen. As you may have read on one of my links women can shoot the enemy even as a 'non combatant medic'. Labelling 'all women' is as silly as saying 'all men' can't do something just because they are men.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/michelle-mc-bravest-girl-in-the-army-7269711.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-awarded-Military-Cross-extreme-courage.html


This girl was regularly out on patrol with the Royal Marine Commandos. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/8382575.stm

The women who go out on patrol with the men carry the same weight as the men, the medics in fact carry more, they all carry their weapons too and do engage in the firefights. Only the female officer physical tests are different from the mens ( I don't know why!) but the standard of fitness for men and women in the British army are the same.

http://www.army.mod.uk/join/20153.aspx _"The same fitness standards apply to both male and female soldiers."  _

I have to tell you as well the female Afghan police officers are pretty good now at shooting and they know pressures you'll not imagine.


----------



## Cyriacus (Mar 16, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Ballen I would suggest then that your recruiters are doing a poor job with the people they were allowing to enlist.
> 
> *Just because the women you saw 'froze up' etc doesn't mean to say all women do, *I've seen women shoot at Bisley and I watch women shoot in the Biathlon all the time, pretty good shooting under pressure. The military women as well as those from my service can all shoot perfectly well under pressure, as I'm sure can American policewomen. As you may have read on one of my links women can shoot the enemy even as a 'non combatant medic'. Labelling 'all women' is as silly as saying 'all men' can't do something just because they are men.
> 
> ...


Im addressing the Bold.

Men freeze up as well. Its a whole lot less likely, but its the same for both sides. But it can be trained out of someone at relative ease. Especially in the Military. I dont see how its a problem.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 16, 2012)

Cyriacus said:


> Im addressing the Bold.
> 
> Men freeze up as well. Its a whole lot less likely, but its the same for both sides. But it can be trained out of someone at relative ease. Especially in the Military. I dont see how its a problem.




Exactly, either they were poor recruits or there was some poor instruction somewhere. Sometimes in the rush to get numbers into the Forces recruiters don't always get the best recruits they could, they don't like to say to people 'no you aren't suitable'. 

In the womens Biathlon the competitors often get more hits than their male counter parts, my other half who had a long career in the RAF Regt including instructing says it's because the women can regulate their breathing better, however this may be true or it could be his excuse for watching the women's chests rofl! Women tend to be the more accurate shots but are slower then men who can fire more shots in the same time. It depends I suppose why you are shooting, however the Biathlon does show that men and women can shoot under pressure.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 16, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> My first reaction was "Who would broadcast such a thing?" closely followed by the thought that do do such a thing would be the worst mistake any enemy could make.


You are absolutely right. The footage would never be broadcast, the way the footage from 9-11 is rarely rebroadcast.


----------



## billc (Mar 16, 2012)

It has never been about courage, or the ability to move a finger to pull a trigger, at least not for me.  It has been getting that finger on the trigger where it needs to be, for extended periods of time, with extreme physical hardship, poor diet, lack of sleep, and then, pulling the trigger after extreme physical exertion.  

I watched the eco-challenge a number of years ago.  Near the end of the race, more than one of the women competitors was falling out due to the extreme physical demands, over a period of time.  Sure, men dropped out, one guy stepped on uneven ground and wrecked his knee.  The women, on the other hand, were just running out of endurance.

I also saw an episode of the show Cops, in New Orleans.  Two female police officers went into a bar and had to arrest an unruly guy.  He didn't exactly fight them, he just wouldn't let them put the cuffs on him.  They needed assistance from the bouncers in the bar to get the guy to comply.

I think actual infantry combat duty would not be possible for a female soldier.   Are there some exceptions to this, of course, but if this experiment is to be tried, the physical standards would have to be the same, as well as the physical training in both basic training and the infantry training.  If you don't submit them to that minimum level of training and its expectations, you would be risking the lives of those women and the men they serve with.

Elder, if you look at the article I posted, it goes into the service of Israeli women in infantry units.  The quote you posted is from the one article I posted and there is the other one that points out the Caracel unit.  Getting caught in the middle of a battle is not the same thing as going into the battle with the intention of sticking in the fight till the end.

The biatholon is grueling.  However, the competitors go into the competition with good health, good diet, plenty of rest and odds are having rested the night before the competition.  Now imagine weeks living without any of those things and still having to compete at the same level, competing against men.

Still, no one has been able or willing to explain why women and men aren't competing in soccer, rugby, football, basketball, baseball, or cricket, on the same teams and against men.  Do women biathalon competitors compete against male competitors or just other women?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 16, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Ballen I would suggest then that your recruiters are doing a poor job with the people they were allowing to enlist.
> 
> Just because the women you saw 'froze up' etc doesn't mean to say all women do, I've seen women shoot at Bisley and I watch women shoot in the Biathlon all the time, pretty good shooting under pressure. The military women as well as those from my service can all shoot perfectly well under pressure, as I'm sure can American policewomen. As you may have read on one of my links women can shoot the enemy even as a 'non combatant medic'. Labelling 'all women' is as silly as saying 'all men' can't do something just because they are men.



I do not wish to put words in his mouth, but I have some understanding of what he was addressing.

Shooting in competition is nothing like shooting on the range in Marine Corps boot camp on Qualification Day.

I was at Camp Pendleton for my rifle range training while I was in boot camp; I watched a young recruit blow his brains out.  I think I had actually forgotten that until now; it was a long time ago, and the Drill Instructors were screaming and yelling for us to turn our heads and not look at the mess, and I did as I was told.  I think I may have suppressed that particular memory, how strange.  The guy was not in my platoon, but he was in my series.  I did not know him and that was the last I heard of the episode.

When you are in Marine Corps boot camp, there are certain things that you must do to graduate.  One of them is to qualify with the rifle as at least a Marksman.  To be 'unqualified' or 'to go unk' in the parlance, is unacceptable; it means you will not graduate with your platoon, you are not a Marine, and you will repeat with another platoon.  If you still fail to qualify, you will be discharged and set home as being "Not Suitable for Military Service."  To a young man, perhaps 17 or 18 years old, immature, and completely terrorized by 13 weeks of spirit-crushing psychological warfare, this can be a terrible time.  It's not like not winning a trophy at the Olympics, it's like being told you suck at being a human.

Yeah, this sounds horrible to non-Marines; even people from other branches of the service have told me that.  Other branches have their special forces and such; but failing is being sent back to your unit.  Crushing blow, but not the same.

To go unk is like the worst thing in the world to a Marine recruit.  I can understand why some just can't face the notion of it.


----------



## ballen0351 (Mar 16, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Ballen I would suggest then that your recruiters are doing a poor job with the people they were allowing to enlist.


May be so they have quotas to fill and if you can breath and sign your name and not currently on probation the Marines will take you.



> Just because the women you saw 'froze up' etc doesn't mean to say all women do,



I didnt say all woman do, I said usually the ones that didnt qualify did. I trained over 7000 recruits and about 1/2 of them were female while I was on the island.  I regularlly was giving the female platoons because I was able to get more then normal to pass quals.  I can say in my personal exp.  and talking to other PMIs (primary marksmanship instructor) the #1 problem for female recruits that did not qual was emotional issues.  




> I've seen women shoot at Bisley and I watch women shoot in the Biathlon all the time,


The amount of training a professional Biathlete gets is FAR more then a regular military person gets.  Anyone can shoot well if thats all they do.  



> The military women as well as those from my service can all shoot perfectly well under pressure, as I'm sure can American policewomen. As you may have read on one of my links women can shoot the enemy even as a 'non combatant medic'. Labelling 'all women' is as silly as saying 'all men' can't do something just because they are men.


I also didnt say woman cant shoot the comment was in general woman can shoot better then men.  Thats just not true I was a firearms instructor in the military and now in the police department and I can tell you in general men shoot better.  Ive seen woman who shoot well my wife can shoot pretty good.  Ive seen ALOT more that cant.  There will always be exceptions to every rule but in general this holds true.  I know female police officers that are afraid to even touch their guns they only take them out of their holster to qualify once a year.  I also know woman that are on SWAT teams and shoot almost every day.




> This girl was regularly out on patrol with the Royal Marine Commandos. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/8382575.stm
> 
> The women who go out on patrol with the men carry the same weight as the men, the medics in fact carry more, they all carry their weapons too and do engage in the firefights. Only the female officer physical tests are different from the mens ( I don't know why!) but the standard of fitness for men and women in the British army are the same.
> 
> ...


Like I said Im not against woman in combat I just would expect the tests to get in to be the same.  If they are able to pass the same tests as I do then they have the same right as I do to be there.  My view may be differnt then some men only because I do work with females in a "mans" profession and Ive seen many woman do a great job.  My wife was a very good cop.  She is small so she was not as stong as others but she was right next to me when we were being shot at by a crazy old man haveing WWII flash backs and thought we were the german army coming to get him.  He fired 12 rounds at us one hitting a door 14 inches away from where I was standing and I only saw 1 officer turn and run away and it was a male.  So I know they can do it just think it needs to be equal requirements for everyone regardles of sex or age.


----------



## ballen0351 (Mar 16, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I was at Camp Pendleton for my rifle range training while I was in boot camp; I watched a young recruit blow his brains out.  I think I had actually forgotten that until now; it was a long time ago, and the Drill Instructors were screaming and yelling for us to turn our heads and not look at the mess, and I did as I was told.  I think I may have suppressed that particular memory, how strange.  The guy was not in my platoon, but he was in my series.  I did not know him and that was the last I heard of the episode.


Quite common actually I saw quite a few of these happen.  Had a one of my own recruits do it about 10 feet from me.  Sad part was he though he failed but the kid keeping his score added wrong and he actually passed but it was too late.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 16, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Quite common actually I saw quite a few of these happen.  Had a one of my own recruits do it about 10 feet from me.  Sad part was he though he failed but the kid keeping his score added wrong and he actually passed but it was too late.



As you know, the pressure to not 'go unk' is unlike any other.

I shot 'possible' back to the beginning of the 500 yard mark.  Then I blew it.  Shot a 216, I believe.  One more point and I would have qualified Expert, instead I was a Sharpshooter.  My PMI and my DI were very ticked off at me.  I did lots of bends and thrusts for that.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 16, 2012)

Bili, I take it you have never been on any military exercise out in the field? It's fine for an armchair warrior to talk about what they think women can and can't do but unless you've actually seen it for yourself you are talking about something that the directors of the film/tv show want you to see, slanted in such a way as to make dramatic viewing. As for the Biathlon I was discussing *a direct comparison to Ballen's comments about women freezing under pressure at the ranges, not being on exercise or deployment.
*
Before going on deployment there are endless exercises, for our troops this is in Kenya for the heat, Canada for the live firing, Salisbury Plain and Otterburn for the buggeration factor. there's the Afghan specific training also.  http://www.newstoday.co.uk/1461/2011/06/troops-train-at-afghan-village-in-norfolk/
 All the troops male and female perform under the pressure of sleep deprivation and extreme physical activity. Poor diet doesn't come into anymore btw, hasn't for a long time the rations are specially designed to provide the calories needed for such work. they carry the rations with them and are unlikely to not have them. they are trained specifically for the job in hand, currently deployment in Afghan. Also as part of the exercises they have to deal with casualties, this is where a bunch of former soldiers now amputees come into their own, they act as very realistic casualties. the troops are well trained, well prepared and being gay or female has very little to do with the way they perform.

The Israeli army is not a professional one, it's a citizen army, in fact it's a defence force. It bears no resemblance to either the British or American forces and any comparisons expecially when it comes to whether there should be female soldiers or not are basically pointless. Far better to look at other professional armies rather than the IDF.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 16, 2012)

I stand by my thoughts that if you have people blowing their brains out because they didn't pass a test then they aren't the calibre of recruits that should be going through the training.  Female soldiers should not have any more emotional issues than male recruits, again I would blame the weeding out procedures. Someone is going wrong somewhere along the line. I would even look at the training, our Royal marine training is longer and more intensive thatn your marines but it doesn't have soldiers blowing their brains out. the course looks to encourage maturity, self deicpline and decision making skills as much as teachning them to be the brilliant soldiers they are, it's not about the old thing of destroying them to rebuild it's about training to be the best, as they say being a Royal marine Commando is a state of mind. I've had a lot to do with them, training with them, as well as working with them. They don't recruit silly young boys, they recruit people they can teach skills to who will lead as well as work on their own, screaming instructors doesn't make for mature soldiers. They don't fold up because they failed a shooting test, they man up and redo it. This isn't an attack on American Marines but we train our soldiers differently and for longer. It's what works for us.

The women who make up the British Biathlon squad are all serving soldiers. The fitness standards in the military are the same for men and women as I've already shown.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 16, 2012)

Of course teaching Royal Marines this way leads to this. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-430251/Pictures-Marines-strap-chopper-daring-rescue.html


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 16, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> I stand by my thoughts that if you have people blowing their brains out because they didn't pass a test then they aren't the calibre of recruits that should be going through the training.  Female soldiers should not have any more emotional issues than male recruits, again I would blame the weeding out procedures. Someone is going wrong somewhere along the line. I would even look at the training, our Royal marine training is longer and more intensive thatn your marines but it doesn't have soldiers blowing their brains out. the course looks to encourage maturity, self deicpline and decision making skills as much as teachning them to be the brilliant soldiers they are, it's not about the old thing of destroying them to rebuild it's about training to be the best, as they say being a Royal marine Commando is a state of mind. I've had a lot to do with them, training with them, as well as working with them. They don't recruit silly young boys, they recruit people they can teach skills to who will lead as well as work on their own, screaming instructors doesn't make for mature soldiers. They don't fold up because they failed a shooting test, they man up and redo it. This isn't an attack on American Marines but we train our soldiers differently and for longer. It's what works for us.
> 
> The women who make up the British Biathlon squad are all serving soldiers. The fitness standards in the military are the same for men and women as I've already shown.



You have your ways, we have ours.  This is not Sparta.  It's better than that.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Mar 16, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> ...
> 
> Shooting in competition is nothing like shooting on the range in Marine Corps boot camp on Qualification Day.
> ...
> ...



So I think I understand, and considering what the Marine Corps turns out, I don't think it is a bad thing they do in making Marines.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Mar 16, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> You have your ways, we have ours. This is not Sparta. It's better than that.



I think that is pretty much it.  Bill will correct me if I am wrong, but I think the Marine idea is that whatever they get at boot camp, 8 weeks later they expect to graduate lifelong Marines... or they go away.  It is unfortunate that some chose a final solution for going away.

The other thing, like airborne, is that they are light infantry and yet they are given missions.  Their missions are never, if you can, try, we wish.  They are told to go do something.  If something gets in the way, they eliminate it or skirt it, as seems best to complete the mission.  If they seem to have been given an impossible mission, that may take a little longer, but it will be done.  That is a mind set.

I don't doubt your Marines are good Tez3, they have proven they are.  I think it is like Bill said, we just do it differently.  BTW, are your Marines considered a separate entity?  Technically, US Marines are not a Branch, but they are often treated that way.  In fact, they are under the US Navy.  They are also sometimes called upon to do things other military such as US Army and US Airforce, cannot, due to US law.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 16, 2012)

My sister is a marine. Or would it be "was"? You fellas who served as Marines, are you still Marines? Anyway ...

I just want to put out there that she was harassed and many attempts were made to sexually subdue her. She went in expecting it (as I think most women do) but when she reported the attempts was told she needed to put her emotional issues aside and go back to her barracks.  Nothing was ever done. She was cited with emotional issues though she had none other than the complete disgust that nothing was done about sexual misconduct.  So having listened intently to my uncles (all WWII vets), my father (also WWII vet), friends who served in Vietnam and others who served in Iraq, I have to keep a hill of salt nearby when I read about "emotional issues" being the cause of failure in miltary females.

Again - this is based on stories I've heard, with all due respect.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 16, 2012)

The Royal Marines come under the Royal Navy, been going since the 17th century but consider themselves separate. The reason we can make our training better is numbers, according to Wiki you have 203,000 active personnel in the Marine Corps, the Royal Marines total 6840. The courses are small, last for* 38 weeks *and are intensive with a high ratio of instructors to recruits. It picks it's recruits carefully, no whingers or immature kids. When you have over 200,000 it must very different, we don't need to do the breaking them, building them thing, if they've got as far as the Commando Training Centre then they want to be the best, I mean really want it. Of course not all pass and get the green beret but those that don't rarely if ever kill themselves after all there's always the army!


----------



## Big Don (Mar 16, 2012)

shesulsa said:


> My sister is a marine. Or would it be "was"? You fellas who served as Marines, are you still Marines?



There is no such thing as an ex-marine


----------



## Jenna (Mar 16, 2012)

I think based upon all the experience posted of those of you who have dealt directly with women in frontline situations in training or in the field, it reads to me that even if *most* women are not emotionally cut for this kind of work (and that must be acknowledged by us all), still there are *many* who are (and that must also be acknowledged, just as some men are not cut for this kind of work, surely?)  Those women who are emotionally right for this work should be given the same treatment, offered neither favour nor prejudice and the same training (including PT requirements) as their male counterparts, otherwise they are being trained to be lesser soldiers; it might be said that they are then being trained to fail.  

I think that *these* women who complete a gender-blind training will have proven theirselves by the same standards as male soldiers must.  If they fail then they have failed through incompetence and unsuitability for the task -as it should be for male soldiers- and they have not failed by virtue of their gender.  However for those women that pass training there is no reason why the same duties cannot be deployed.  After that training process we cannot say yes and but they are women and so will not be capable of making decisions in the theatre and because the same is true of anyone regardless of gender.  These women that have passed gender-blind training and are proven "cut" for the infantry duty will surely be hitting the field in exactly the same condition as their male counterparts.  

I think it is overgeneralising to put gender preconditions before training even begins then potentially good female soldiers will never be reach the stage of giving the kind of service they can and want to give. Surely that is not in any nation's best interest?


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 16, 2012)

Jenna said:


> I think based upon all the experience posted of those of you who have dealt directly with women in frontline situations in training or in the field, it reads to me that even if *most* women are not emotionally cut for this kind of work (and that must be acknowledged by us all), still there are *many* who are (and that must also be acknowledged, just as some men are not cut for this kind of work, surely?)  Those women who are emotionally right for this work should be given the same treatment, offered neither favour nor prejudice and the same training (including PT requirements) as their male counterparts, otherwise they are being trained to be lesser soldiers; it might be said that they are then being trained to fail.
> 
> I think that *these* women who complete a gender-blind training will have proven theirselves by the same standards as male soldiers must.  If they fail then they have failed through incompetence and unsuitability for the task -as it should be for male soldiers- and they have not failed by virtue of their gender.  However for those women that pass training there is no reason why the same duties cannot be deployed.  After that training process we cannot say yes and but they are women and so will not be capable of making decisions in the theatre and because the same is true of anyone regardless of gender.  These women that have passed gender-blind training and are proven "cut" for the infantry duty will surely be hitting the field in exactly the same condition as their male counterparts.
> 
> I think it is overgeneralising to put gender preconditions before training even begins then potentially good female soldiers will never be reach the stage of giving the kind of service they can and want to give. Surely that is not in any nation's best interest?



I have to agree; said it for years.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 16, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> I think that is pretty much it.  Bill will correct me if I am wrong, but I think the Marine idea is that whatever they get at boot camp, 8 weeks later they expect to graduate lifelong Marines... or they go away.  It is unfortunate that some chose a final solution for going away.



Yes, except our boot camp is 13 weeks long.

It is a fact that if a person has graduated from Marine Corps boot camp and later joins another service in the US, they do not have to attend their boot camp.  If a former soldier, sailor, or airman joins the Marines, they go through Marine Corps boot camp.  Every Marine graduates boot camp (or OCS/The Basic School for officers) or they are not Marines.

It is said that one 'joins' the Army (or Navy, etc).  One 'becomes' (or does not) a Marine.  Having enlisted, attending boot camp, does not convey the title. One is not a Marine until graduating boot camp.

I won't claim it is better; I have a lot of respect for other services, and for our allies.  I've trained with some tough hombres from all US services and many foreign ones.  I won't put them down.  But it is fundamentally different from all other services, by design.  Many have said what we do is wrong.  Many times, Congress and other groups have tried to dictate how the Marines make Marines.  So far, it hasn't worked.  We do what we do.

With the Marine Corps being a fraction the size of the other US armed forces (except for the Coast Guard, I think), it's interesting to me that although you see Army, Navy, and Air Force hats, t-shirts, bumper stickers, flags, etc, you see a LOT more USMC paraphernalia.   There is something about us that sets us apart.  Call it brainwashing or indoctrination or whatever; I'm glad of it.  Being a Marine means never having to prove myself to anyone, ever again.

_"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."_  - President Ronald Regan.



> The other thing, like airborne, is that they are light infantry and yet they are given missions.  Their missions are never, if you can, try, we wish.  They are told to go do something.  If something gets in the way, they eliminate it or skirt it, as seems best to complete the mission.  If they seem to have been given an impossible mission, that may take a little longer, but it will be done.  That is a mind set.
> 
> I don't doubt your Marines are good Tez3, they have proven they are.  I think it is like Bill said, we just do it differently.  BTW, are your Marines considered a separate entity?  Technically, US Marines are not a Branch, but they are often treated that way.  In fact, they are under the US Navy.  They are also sometimes called upon to do things other military such as US Army and US Airforce, cannot, due to US law.



US Marines have a lot of respect for the Royal Marines.

_"You cannot exaggerate about the Marines. They are convinced to the point of arrogance, that they are the most ferocious fighters on earth; and the amusing thing about it is that they are."_ -Father Kevin Keaney
1st Marine Division Chaplain, Korean War

The Marine Corps is indeed a part of the Department of the Navy.  The question has often been asked, if we have an Army, why do we need a Marine Corps?  Don't they perform the same function?  The answer is that no, we do not.  The Marine Corps is designed to be a rapid deployment force, the 'tip of the spear' as they say, and are small, light, and maneuverable for that reason.  We rely up on the Navy to provide our medical and religious needs, and to transport us by sea - the Air Force takes us by air.  We perform amphibious landings (hence the term 'Marine') and we are not an occupying force, but a rapid thrust through enemy positions.  The classic example was in WWII, when the Army fought in Europe and the Marines in the Pacific.  There were crossovers and when the war in Europe ended, the Army joined us in fighting on the islands of the Pacific.  But it was not the Marines who 'occupied' Germany and Japan; that task was left to the Army.  We just break stuff and kill people.

Often, other services say it best when talking about us...

_"We have two companies of Marines running rampant all over the northern half of this island, and three Army regiments pinned down in the southwestern corner, doing nothing. What the hell is going on?"_ -Gen. John W. Vessey Jr., USA, Chairman of the the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the assault on Grenada, 1983


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 16, 2012)

Big Don said:


> There is no such thing as an ex-marine



Correct.  We are also not former Marines, by official USMC policy.

_"A Marine is a Marine.  I set that policy two weeks ago &#8211; there&#8217;s no such thing as a former Marine.   You&#8217;re a Marine, just in a different uniform and you&#8217;re in a different phase of your life.  But you&#8217;ll always be a Marine because you went to Parris Island, San Diego or the hills of Quantico.  There&#8217;s no such thing as a former Marine."_  - General Amos, Commandant, USMC


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 16, 2012)

Check it out!

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...ights-20120316,0,2276521.story?track=lat-pick



> Denied combat roles, Army women battle men in cage fighting
> 'We can be as tough as the guys,' says one who made it to a championship round of a tournament at Ft. Hood, Texas.


----------



## billc (Mar 16, 2012)

Well, I was in the army national guard for 7 years in the infantry.  That gives me some background, don't you think?  No combat experience, but I've been through the training.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 17, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Well, I was in the army national guard for 7 years in the infantry. That gives me some background, don't you think? No combat experience, but I've been through the training.




Isn't the National Guard more or less a civvy thing? Anyway I was a regular, have seen and still do see combat....as a woman, so yeah I've been there, done that and thrown away the t shirt because it was old and falling apart. Luckily my part in 'combat' now is merely as an advisor to other ladies who do my job.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 17, 2012)

I think the National Guard is a bit like the TA used to be, Tez (before the TA came to be used more and more as another combat arm of the military).  I know NG units were in Iraq and recall (maybe falsely) that there were concerns about the blue-on-blues that occurred, particularly by their air components (Apache's and A10's in the main) - so maybe training was improved?


----------



## billc (Mar 17, 2012)

The Illinois National Guard has served in both Iraq and Afghanistan...

http://www.pantagraph.com/news/five...cle_21c73874-caa6-501f-83e7-69250bc757e9.html



> Five of the six wounded American troops were from the Illinois Guard's 33rd Infantry Brigade Combat Team, which has a contingent of about 3,000 soldiers that deployed to Afghanistan in late 2008.
> Among the 30-plus units in the brigade are two from Bloomington and Pontiac, as well as Central Illinois soldiers from units based across the state.


----------



## ballen0351 (Mar 17, 2012)

Our national guard is regular army.  They are deployed just like the regular army.  There are national guard guys in my department with 3 trips to iraq and on top of that called up to assist in natural disasters here when they are not in war zones.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 17, 2012)

The US National Guard system serves a couple of roles that the regular and reserve military do not.

First, each state has a National Guard system, usually both Army National Guard and Air National Guard.  These are generally under the direct command of that state's governor, and their budget is paid for with state money.  The members are almost all reservists in that they train one weekend a month and a couple of weeks each summer.  There is a small cadre of full-time staff who are the equivalent of active-duty military.  The NG wears the uniforms and has the same rank structure as the federal component they represent.  They wear a unit patch that designates them as NG rather than regular Army or Air Force.  There is no Marine Corps or Navy NG that I'm aware of.  Recruits go through the same basic training in the same places as regular Army and Air Force personnel.  The NG has also been seen in the past as a place for former active-duty servicemen and women to go when they get out if they are a) not quite ready to hang up the boots yet, and b) they do get some benefits, including a nice retirement (although they have to wait until they turn 65, unlike active duty military who can draw a pension at 37 in some cases).  So if you have say 6 years active duty, you can get out, join the NG, and do 14 years of weekend duty, then retire and get half-active-duty pay starting at age 65.  Not bad.

The reason for this is for a couple reasons. First, because the governors of states cannot 'call up' the US military, even the Reserve units in their state.  So for dealing with natural disasters and that type of thing, they have the Guard.

Another reason is that due to something called 'posse comitatus' in the US, federal troops are not supposed to serve in civilian law enforcement capacities.  A Marine MP for example, cannot arrest a civilian off-base.  However, a NG MP can. NG troops can arrest and detain looters, for example.

The NG is also part federal.  In times of national emergency, the President can 'call up' the NG just like they call up the Reserve component of the regular armed forces.  That effectively nationalizes each state's NG troops and makes them a component of the regular Army or Air Force, again, just like Reserve regular troops that are called up.  They are generally called up as a unit, not by individuals, so a town loses all its NG unit when they get called up.

Prior to 9/11, the NG had not been called up since the Vietnam war, and not much during that.  Many people fought to volunteer for NG duty during Vietnam because they hoped to avoid the draft and being sent to Vietnam.  Former President GW Bush was a pilot for the ANG.  He did not serve in combat.

At one time, the NG (and the regular Reserve) was seen in a somewhat dim light by regular active-duty troops.  They were often derided as 'weekend warriors' and tended to be older, less fit (fatter), and have lax standards for everything from grooming to training qualifications. However, since 9/11, the NG and the Reserve have served on near-constant active duty status in combat and they have proven themselves quite capable.  There is still a stigma in some few cases, but now it is hard to tell the difference between an active-duty soldier and a NG soldier; they dress, look, act, and perform alike.  The NG is much younger than it used to be as well.

In addition to the Reserve and the NG, some states (not all) have a State Guard, which is technically the 'militia' that federal law speaks of.  The State Guard generally wears an Army or Army-like uniform and again, trains one weekend a month and a few weeks every summer, but they train completely away from federal US troops; they do not attend Army boot camps, they cannot be called to national duty.  They can quit if they like; their contract is not an enlistment contract in that sense.  They are completely their own thing, and can be used in whatever capacity the state sees fit to use them in.  Some states find value in this; when the NG is called up and gone, they still have a paramilitary force to respond to natural disasters and other requirements.  They generally do not get paid, they are volunteers.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 17, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Our national guard is regular army. They are deployed just like the regular army. There are national guard guys in my department with 3 trips to iraq and on top of that called up to assist in natural disasters here when they are not in war zones.




Same as our TA. 

What I'm surprised at is how short your basic training times are, here the shortest basic infantry training courses are 28 weeks, the Para, Guards and Gurkhas are longer. Each soldier is trained up to take take control at the rank above theirs if necessary even coming out of basic training and on going training means that this always remains so throught a soldiers career.  The Para recruits have to complete P company before they are awarded their red berets, there's an All Arms P company too for trained soldiers of other branches and services. http://www.theparas.co.uk/pcoy.html


During the war many women in the SOE did the same training as the men and were parchuted into France to work undercover. In offcier training the female cdet officers do the same training over the 15 months they are at Sandhurst.

Btw talking of the Paras if anyone is around the UK in September they can do the Paras 10 and challenge themselves! I'll come and shout you one lol. If you're military see if you can get yourself across! come to Catterick and we'll see if we can get accom etc arranged. 
http://www.paras10.com/


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 17, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Same as our TA.
> 
> What I'm surprised at is how short your basic training times are, here the shortest basic infantry training courses are 28 weeks, the Para, Guards and Gurkhas are longer. Each soldier is trained up to take take control at the rank above theirs if necessary even coming out of basic training and on going training means that this always remains so throught a soldiers career.  The Para recruits have to complete P company before they are awarded their red berets, there's an All Arms P company too for trained soldiers of other branches and services. http://www.theparas.co.uk/pcoy.html
> 
> ...



Our military separates basic training from MOS (military occupational specialty) training, which can be as long as six months or even longer.  Infantry in the Marine Corps goes from boot camp to infantry training school (two months) and from that to Advanced Infantry Training School (AIT) which can last for an additional six months, depending on skills being taught.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marine_Corps_School_of_Infantry

When talking of special qualifications such as jump school, SCUBA qualification, etc, those are all done in their own individual schools, attended individually unless it is for Recon, which is done as a unit.


----------



## ballen0351 (Mar 17, 2012)

Basic training and infantry training are different.  In the marine coprs you go thru basic for i believe its up to 16 weeks then you go to you infantry school which is anotherschool all together


----------



## Carol (Mar 17, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> There is still a stigma in some few cases, but now it is hard to tell the difference between an active-duty soldier and a NG soldier; they dress, look, act, and perform alike.  The NG is much younger than it used to be as well.



They are trained alike as well, at least for most MOS's, yes?  My niece did AIT with Army and Army National Guard alike, same when she decided to reclass to become a (National Guard) MP.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 17, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Basic training and infantry training are different.  In the marine coprs you go thru basic for i believe its up to 16 weeks then you go to you infantry school which is anotherschool all together



Right.  Everybody goes through boot camp (enlisted) and then infantry go through infantry / advanced infantry training.  I went to school at Camp Lejeune after boot camp, then later I changed MOS and went OJT to Camp Pendleton for MOS 5811 (MP).  Most MP's at that time went from boot camp to MP school at Fort Hunter Liggett with the Army white hats.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Mar 17, 2012)

Ah, hunter-liggett. I love all the Oak trees. Very beautiful base, even though it is incredibly boring, off duty.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Josh Oakley (Mar 17, 2012)

I have some pretty good shots of the old mission there.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 17, 2012)

Carol said:


> They are trained alike as well, at least for most MOS's, yes?  My niece did AIT with Army and Army National Guard alike, same when she decided to reclass to become a (National Guard) MP.



Training is th same, yes.  In my day, the NG was considered a place to go if you could not do anything else (with respect to all those now serving, as things are different).  They were often so under-strength that they would keep anyone; you could get to be 300 pounds and refuse to shave and they'd keep you.  That's why at one time, the NG was not really looked up to.  All different now.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Mar 17, 2012)

Bill, thanks for the correction on basic training time in the USMC.  I knew that but had forgotten, and reverted to US Army length.  I do think you must have been thinking of something else when you mentioned the USMC was bound by Posse Comitatus.  Neither the Navy nor the USMC are.  The defense department has ordered they will not be used to enforce civilian law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act but they could be.  I remember as it was part of our law training from as early as basic training.  The expanded on when I went to various law enforcement training.

The military NG and reserves, has become both the backup and immediate augmentation for active duty units.  It was once considered a pool of people trained to various levels of efficiency, that would not require as much training or provisioning in the event of a national emergency.  That has changed as various politicians have decided the military is too much of a drain on our economy; and failing to acknowledge that without a sound military, there would be no economy to worry about.  That is sad, but nothing new.  The US has sort of accepted the military when needed, and disdained it when not, for a very long time.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Mar 17, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Training is th same, yes.  In my day, the NG was considered a place to go if you could not do anything else (with respect to all those now serving, as things are different).  They were often so under-strength that they would keep anyone; you could get to be 300 pounds and refuse to shave and they'd keep you.  That's why at one time, the NG was not really looked up to.  All different now.



Many years ago, a lot of people, even on active duty could get away with lower physical standards.  Usually it depended on if they could do their job or not (or at least appear to).  When I joined the US Army in 1960, there was a sergeant in the dispensary who needed two belts to get around his massive belly.  Even then we were astounded.  But his duties were mainly administrative, and he could do them.  Obviously he would have been of lessened value the closer he might have gotten to combat.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Mar 17, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> ...
> 
> Of course not all pass and get the  green beret but those that don't rarely if ever kill themselves after  all there's always the army!



Watch it lady!!  :uhyeah:


----------



## ballen0351 (Mar 17, 2012)

Another difference the Marines do is every Marine regardless of your job must complete an infantry school first.  Every Marine is a rifleman first.  Both male and female have this requirement.  Thought process is even an office worker in iraq 50 miles from the front line could be attacked and needs to know basic infantry tactics.  I believe its 3 or 4 weeks long for non infantry personel.  Myinfantry school was longer i had a secondary job as an anti-tank assaultmen we blew stuff up.  Learned alot about explosives.  In the end only difference between me and regular infantry was i had to carry heavier crap in the field.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 18, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> watch it lady!! :uhyeah:




lol!


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 18, 2012)

Our RMs are Commandos, they do everything the SAS do but also can do it underwater. All soldiers regardless of trade are trained as combat soldiers even the medics. 
So bearing in mind that the Royal Marines are Commandos ie spec forces think how good the female medics are that accompany them out on patrols in Afghan!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 18, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Another difference the Marines do is every Marine regardless of your job must complete an infantry school first.  Every Marine is a rifleman first.  Both male and female have this requirement.  Thought process is even an office worker in iraq 50 miles from the front line could be attacked and needs to know basic infantry tactics.  I believe its 3 or 4 weeks long for non infantry personel.  Myinfantry school was longer i had a secondary job as an anti-tank assaultmen we blew stuff up.  Learned alot about explosives.  In the end only difference between me and regular infantry was i had to carry heavier crap in the field.



That wasn't the case when I was in.  Only 0300 went to infantry school as far as I know.  My first MOS was 3421 Personal Financial Records Clerk.  I was sent to school for that at Camp Johnson (formerly known as Montford Point, the old 'black Marine' recruit depot), part of Camp Lejeune, NC.  Then on to my assigned duties.  I hated being a Remington Raider and managed to get a change in MOS to 5800, Basic MP, with OJT at Camp Pendleton, CA for 5811 MP duty.  I never went to infantry school, although I did spend a month at Pickle Meadows Mountain Warfare Training School in north CA, integrated into a rifle platoon.

It is true that every Marine is considered a rifleman first and foremost.  That's why marksmanship is so heavily practiced in the Corps.  We say our M16 has an effective range of 460 meters.  Then we qualify with it at 500 meters, because that's how we roll.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 18, 2012)

The only soldiers we have who regard themselves as riflemen are those in the Rifles, they aren't privates they are Riflemen (think Sharpe)  http://www.army.mod.uk/infantry/regiments/3469.aspx

It depends on which regiment you are (not in, 'are') and you do chose your regiment or corps, depends on your role. Everyone is trained for combat, women included even if they are supposed to be on the frontline. Women however are in the SRR, ( Special Reconnaissance Regiment) a spec ops unit, it used to be The Det in my day.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 18, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> The only soldiers we have who regard themselves as riflemen are those in the Rifles, they aren't privates they are Riflemen (think Sharpe)  http://www.army.mod.uk/infantry/regiments/3469.aspx
> 
> It depends on which regiment you are (not in, 'are') and you do chose your regiment or corps, depends on your role. Everyone is trained for combat, women included even if they are supposed to be on the frontline. Women however are in the SRR, ( Special Reconnaissance Regiment) a spec ops unit, it used to be The Det in my day.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifleman's_Creed
_



			Rifleman's Creed
This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
My rifle is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life.
My rifle, without me, is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless. I must fire my rifle true. I must shoot straighter than my enemy who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me. I will...
My rifle and myself know that what counts in this war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, or the smoke we make. We know that it is the hits that count. We will hit...
My rifle is human, even as I, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weaknesses, its strength, its parts, its accessories, its sights and its barrel. I will keep my rifle clean and ready, even as I am clean and ready. We will become part of each other. We will...
Before God, I swear this creed. My rifle and myself are the defenders of my country. We are the masters of our enemy. We are the saviors of my life.
So be it, until victory is America's and there is no enemy, but peace!
		
Click to expand...

_


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 18, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifleman's_Creed




I'm not sure about the bit about being useless without your rifle? We have a regimental system where ones loyalty is to your comrades in arms and to the regiment, the two things are basically the same. The regiment owes loyalty to the Crown. Each regiment has it's battle honours and it's ethos. Brothers in arms is a literal saying, as generations of families have served in the same regiments. I think we may be more individualistic than your forces but then we have fewer so it's easier to that way. I think your riflemens creed is something to make you feel connected to each other, our lot don't need to do that they are connected in other ways plus they like fighting and anything will do as a weapon lol. A lot of the regiments started with longbows, claymores, swords and pikes etc so probably don't see rifles the same way.


----------



## ballen0351 (Mar 18, 2012)

Thats interesting i wonder when they started sending everyone thru infantry schools.  If your non infantry MOS you go to camp gieger for a month of basic infantry training.  If your MOS was infantry your there like 3 months for infantry training.  I then left there and went to an Army demo.  School  where i learned to make all kinds of bombs and booby traps

Thankfully unlike my teachers i still have all my fingers.


Bill Mattocks said:


> That wasn't the case when I was in.  Only 0300 went to infantry school as far as I know.  My first MOS was 3421 Personal Financial Records Clerk.  I was sent to school for that at Camp Johnson (formerly known as Montford Point, the old 'black Marine' recruit depot), part of Camp Lejeune, NC.  Then on to my assigned duties.  I hated being a Remington Raider and managed to get a change in MOS to 5800, Basic MP, with OJT at Camp Pendleton, CA for 5811 MP duty.  I never went to infantry school, although I did spend a month at Pickle Meadows Mountain Warfare Training School in north CA, integrated into a rifle platoon.
> 
> It is true that every Marine is considered a rifleman first and foremost.  That's why marksmanship is so heavily practiced in the Corps.  We say our M16 has an effective range of 460 meters.  Then we qualify with it at 500 meters, because that's how we roll.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Apr 3, 2012)

I, personally would love to see women in the infantry. I have no problem billeting with them, showering with them, and spooning with them in freezing temperatures. I have no problem hold a bag for them to dump in while in the field, no problem at all. I just wonder how many concessions will be made for them.

If I have to shower with gay guys, I should also be allowed to shower with female Infantrymen...uh..Infantrywomen....ugh, Infantry people. I actually can't wait. The sleep systems are mean't for one, but two can fit quite snuggly.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 3, 2012)

yorkshirelad said:


> I, personally would love to see women in the infantry. I have no problem billeting with them, showering with them, and spooning with them in freezing temperatures. I have no problem hold a bag for them to dump in while in the field, no problem at all. I just wonder how many concessions will be made for them.
> 
> If I have to shower with gay guys, I should also be allowed to shower with female Infantrymen...uh..Infantrywomen....ugh, Infantry people. I actually can't wait. The sleep systems are mean't for one, but two can fit quite snuggly.




Accept women and you will have to accept gays and transexuals as well. The women who are in Corps here go out on exercise with the men and do all the things the guys do with no concessions made. they make a s good a job of it as the men do, of course though our lot don't have Coke and snack machines out in the field unlike other countries.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 3, 2012)

I have to say that women in the front line is something I can argue for with my head even tho my heart cries out against it (old fashioned Englishman, as has been made evident before )

I was watching the start of a new series on officer training the other night - I think it is just called Sandhurst - and as I saw these lovely lasses going through their paces and also contemplating their death or worse I realised that I am not quite as 'modern' as I would like to make myself out to be :blush:.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Apr 3, 2012)

I remember in 1987 going for a week to the Officiers selection course at CFB Gagetown. I was in a section of 7 people, 3 men, 4 women. These were the first four women to be considered for the 3 combat fields. I believe two of them made it to basic training, and one made it into a combat trade. That was 25 years ago.


----------



## Carol (Apr 3, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> I have to say that women in the front line is something I can argue for with my head even tho my heart cries out against it (old fashioned Englishman, as has been made evident before )
> 
> I was watching the start of a new series on officer training the other night - I think it is just called Sandhurst - and as I saw these lovely lasses going through their paces and also contemplating their death or worse I realised that I am not quite as 'modern' as I would like to make myself out to be :blush:.




Oh Mark, you.....Englishman! 

Try living with them. You'll have a VERY different mindset, and I mean that seriously.  I saw JROTC transform a shy unspectacular 14 year old into a driven young teen whose toughness and sense of purpose could put people 2 or 3 times her age to shame.  She not only competed on the rifle and pistol teams, she brought the same drive to her equestrian training...by the time she graduated high school, she must have had a wall covered from floor to ceiling in ribbons...most of them blue.  She had a chance to go to college, but turned that down because she wanted to serve instead.  She graduated Basic with Honors, didn't like her initial MOS (it was telecom-related, clearly I was a bad influence...LOL) and decided to become an MP instead...which she loves.

Forget about "a job in a down economy" or "building character" or "dying for country" or "paying for college" or any of the soundbytes that get tossed about.  What the hell prompts a 14 year old girl to say no, I'm not going to the mall after school, I'm going to the Ranger Team workout in the rain?   Its a calling and a sense of purpose that only she could discover...and once she did, it is a fire that will never be shut down.    She is, to the bone, a proud American soldier...can you honestly say your heart would take away the very thing that made her a standout young lady?


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 4, 2012)

Oh please don't misunderstand me, Carol.  I did not mean that I would argue against those ladies wishing to put themselves in harms way, any more than I would argue against a chap doing the same thing.  

What I meant was that, despite that intellectual decision, when I was watching those lasses at Sandhurst I did have a reaction at an emotional level of not wanting to see them in a situation where they could be killed or maimed.

That's what I was saying when I noted that I wasn't as 'modern' as I try to be i.e. that I would not stand in their way but would feel a silent trepidation for them, more than I would for a man.  As I've said before, some attitudes learned early are very hard to shut out .


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 4, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> Oh please don't misunderstand me, Carol. I did not mean that I would argue against those ladies wishing to put themselves in harms way, any more than I would argue against a chap doing the same thing.
> 
> What I meant was that, despite that intellectual decision, when I was watching those lasses at Sandhurst I did have a reaction at an emotional level of not wanting to see them in a situation where they could be killed or maimed.
> 
> That's what I was saying when I noted that I wasn't as 'modern' as I try to be i.e. that I would not stand in their way but would feel a silent trepidation for them, more than I would for a man. As I've said before, some attitudes learned early are very hard to shut out .



If they pass out from Sandhurst then you don't have to fear for them, they've gone through a hard training and more than capable of looking after not just themselves but those they command. Don't be fooled by their outward appearance and demeanor, they are tough. Still, I think those of us who came through Cranwell are actually better!


----------



## yorkshirelad (Apr 11, 2012)

As long as they carry the M240 on road marches, qualify with all weapons, and can pass the APFT to an InfantryMAN's standard, let em in!


----------



## billc (Jul 6, 2012)

Rather than start a new thread...here is a female Marine with war time experience in combat zones...

http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal



> As a combat-experienced Marine officer, and a female, I am here to tell you that we are not all created equal, and attempting to place females in the infantry will not improve the Marine Corps as the Nation&#8217;s force-in-readiness or improve our national security.



The main point and then more of the article below...



> By the fifth month into the deployment, I had muscle atrophy in my thighs that was causing me to constantly trip and my legs to buckle with the slightest grade change. My agility during firefights and mobility on and off vehicles and perimeter walls was seriously hindering my response time and overall capability. It was evident that stress and muscular deterioration was affecting everyone regardless of gender; however, the rate of my deterioration was noticeably faster than that of male Marines and further compounded by gender-specific medical conditions. At the end of the 7-month deployment, and the construction of 18 PBs later, I had lost 17 pounds and was diagnosed with polycystic ovarian syndrome (which personally resulted in infertility, but is not a genetic trend in my family), which was brought on by the chemical and physical changes endured during deployment. Regardless of my deteriorating physical stature, I was extremely successful during both of my combat tours, serving beside my infantry brethren and gaining the respect of every unit I supported. Regardless, I can say with 100 percent assurance that despite my accomplishments, there is no way I could endure the physical demands of the infantrymen whom I worked beside as their combat load and constant deployment cycle would leave me facing medical separation long before the option of retirement. I understand that everyone is affected differently; however, I am confident that should the Marine Corps attempt to fully integrate women into the infantry, we as an institution are going to experience a colossal increase in crippling and career-ending medical conditions for females.



Her Bona Fides...


> As a company grade 1302 combat engineer officer with 5 years of active service and two combat deployments, one to Iraq and the other to Afghanistan, I was able to participate in and lead numerous combat operations. In Iraq as the II MEF Director, Lioness Program, I served as a subject matter expert for II MEF, assisting regimental and battalion commanders on ways to integrate female Marines into combat operations. I primarily focused on expanding the mission of the Lioness Program from searching females to engaging local nationals and information gathering, broadening the ways females were being used in a wide variety of combat operations from census patrols to raids. In Afghanistan I deployed as a 1302 and led a combat engineer platoon in direct support of Regimental Combat Team 8, specifically operating out of the Upper Sangin Valley. My platoon operated for months at a time, constructing patrol bases (PBs) in support of 3d Battalion, 5th Marines; 1st Battalion, 5th Marines; 2d Reconnaissance Battalion; and 3d Battalion, 4th Marines. This combat experience, in particular, compelled me to raise concern over the direction and overall reasoning behind opening the 03XX field.





> I understand that there are female servicemembers who have proven themselves to be physically, mentally, and morally capable of leading and executing combat-type operations; as a result, some of these Marines may feel qualified for the chance of taking on the role of 0302. In the end, my main concern is not whether women are capable of conducting combat operations, as we have already proven that we can hold our own in some very difficult combat situations; instead, my main concern is a question of longevity. Can women endure the physical and physiological rigors of sustained combat operations, and are we willing to accept the attrition and medical issues that go along with integration?





> Five years later, I am physically not the woman I once was and my views have greatly changed on the possibility of women having successful long careers while serving in the infantry. I can say from firsthand experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not just emotion, that we haven&#8217;t even begun to analyze and comprehend the gender-specific medical issues and overall physical toll continuous combat operations will have on females.
> I was a motivated, resilient second lieutenant when I deployed to Iraq for 10 months, traveling across the Marine area of operations (AO) and participating in numerous combat operations.


----------



## billc (Jul 6, 2012)

Some stats that this combat experienced marine points to...



> There is a drastic shortage of historical data on female attrition or medical ailments of women who have executed sustained combat operations. This said, we need only to review the statistics from our entry-level schools to realize that there is a significant difference in the physical longevity between male and female Marines. At OCS the attrition rate for female candidates in 2011 was historically low at 40 percent, while the male candidates attrite at a much lower rate of 16 percent. Of candidates who were dropped from training because they were injured or not physically qualified, females were breaking at a much higher rate than males, 14 percent versus 4 percent. The same trends were seen at TBS in 2011; the attrition rate for females was 13 percent versus 5 percent for males, and 5 percent of females were found not physically qualified compared with 1 percent of males. Further, both of these training venues have physical fitness standards that are easier for females; at IOC there is one standard regardless of gender. The attrition rate for males attending IOC in 2011 was 17 percent. Should female Marines ultimately attend IOC, we can expect significantly higher attrition rates and long-term injuries for women.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jul 6, 2012)

My first impression is that women in infantry roles is a bad idea.  But to be honest, I have seen men less physically able than she.  Worse, they didn't have the drive she had to succeed regardless.  I have also seen women who were just as physically capable of combat operations as most men.  I was against co-ed barracks.  The US Army survived that without many problems.  We probably would women in combat arms roles as well.  

But if there is anything that would be a problem, I think it would be physical fitness.  Despite what I have just said above, women in general tend to be less physically robust.  If women want combat roles, I think they have to be satisfied that a lot more of them aren't going to make it, simply because of that.  Standards of physical fitness are there for a reason.  It was the same in the airborne.  Many didn't even make it to jump school, and some failed jump school, due to inablility to pass physical fitness standards.  Airborne, due to their mission, must be even more physically fit than non-airborne soldiers.

They also have to accomodate themselves to the fact they are going to face a lot of resistance from their peers at promotion time, when they get promotions that some man would have gotten if there wasn't a better qualified woman.  She will be accused of getting a promotion only because she is a woman.  Not right, but it will happen.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 6, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> My first impression is that women in infantry roles is a bad idea. But to be honest, I have seen men less physically able than she. Worse, they didn't have the drive she had to succeed regardless. I have also seen women who were just as physically capable of combat operations as most men. I was against co-ed barracks. The US Army survived that without many problems. We probably would women in combat arms roles as well.
> 
> But if there is anything that would be a problem, I think it would be physical fitness. Despite what I have just said above, women in general tend to be less physically robust. If women want combat roles, I think they have to be satisfied that a lot more of them aren't going to make it, simply because of that. Standards of physical fitness are there for a reason. It was the same in the airborne. Many didn't even make it to jump school, and some failed jump school, due to inablility to pass physical fitness standards. Airborne, due to their mission, must be even more physically fit than non-airborne soldiers.
> 
> They also have to accomodate themselves to the fact they are going to face a lot of resistance from their peers at promotion time, when they get promotions that some man would have gotten if there wasn't a better qualified woman. She will be accused of getting a promotion only because she is a woman. Not right, but it will happen.




 Modern warfare means that armies are changing, modernising, the role of the infantry soldier is evolving however much the traditionalists may hate that so the increasing liklihood of women in the infantry and actually fitting in is increasing. It's also likely that paratroops will not be used in that role again, our Paras haven't jumped in anger since the Suez Crisis. Airborne troops will soon be a thing of the past, much as my Para mates hate that they accept it's the future and that only spec ops will retain that capabilty. 

I'm not sure why the US forces can't..(won't?) accept women in the same way that their counterparts do in other countries' forces? They don't seem to want to accept gays and transexuals either..unless they do and it's the public who don't accept them? I suspect that America's history of warfare is very different from ours in Europe, you've sent armies to Europe but never had the full scale modern warfare on your own territory so have never had women on the front line before. During the last war women in Europe were very much on the front line, we had women doing 'men's' jobs, not just the driving the buses type but flying unarmed war planes to the airfields they were needed at.  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1579391/Air-Transport-Auxiliary-women-to-be-honoured.html and if you didn't know there were American women flying in the ATA you should find out more immediately! We had women in the SOE and women manning artillery units, working on the RAF camps, hundreds were killed when the airfields were bombed. women were in the fire service fighting the sometimes nightly fires from bombs dropped by the Germans. In the First World War women were driving ambulances on the front line,again with some losing their lives. In both wars women died in their homes when the bombs dropped so perhaps we have a different perspective about women's abilities 'under fire'?  We had the conscription of women during the last war. 

My bias is towards my heroines in the WAAF, I proudly wore the same uniform many years later in the WRAF but I am in awe of my predecessor's achievements. I'm sure your military can be open enough to see the possibility that women can contribute enormously.

http://battleofbritainblog.com/unsung-heroes/the-waafs/

I'm also hugely proud of my successors in the RAF   http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/online-exhibitions/women-of-the-air-force/women-raf-today.cfm


----------



## granfire (Jul 6, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Modern warfare means that armies are changing, modernising, the role of the infantry soldier is evolving however much the traditionalists may hate that so the increasing liklihood of women in the infantry and actually fitting in is increasing. It's also likely that paratroops will not be used in that role again, our Paras haven't jumped in anger since the Suez Crisis. Airborne troops will soon be a thing of the past, much as my Para mates hate that they accept it's the future and that only spec ops will retain that capabilty.
> 
> I'm not sure why the US forces can't..(won't?) accept women in the same way that their counterparts do in other countries' forces? They don't seem to want to accept gays and transexuals either..unless they do and it's the public who don't accept them? I suspect that America's history of warfare is very different from ours in Europe, you've sent armies to Europe but never had the full scale modern warfare on your own territory so have never had women on the front line before. During the last war women in Europe were very much on the front line, we had women doing 'men's' jobs, not just the driving the buses type but flying unarmed war planes to the airfields they were needed at.  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1579391/Air-Transport-Auxiliary-women-to-be-honoured.html and if you didn't know there were American women flying in the ATA you should find out more immediately! We had women in the SOE and women manning artillery units, working on the RAF camps, hundreds were killed when the airfields were bombed. women were in the fire service fighting the sometimes nightly fires from bombs dropped by the Germans. In the First World War women were driving ambulances on the front line,again with some losing their lives. In both wars women died in their homes when the bombs dropped so perhaps we have a different perspective about women's abilities 'under fire'?  We had the conscription of women during the last war.
> 
> ...




Pretty much the same thing on the German side, Add to that that many men did not return from POW camps for the first years after the war (not even going into the deal with the Soviets hauling them off to gulags, even civilians, not letting them go until 10 years later) leaving the women to clean the rubble. 






Please, lets not kid ourselves, even men don't have to tough it up anymore in the Army as they had to have to 20 years ago.....


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 6, 2012)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_women_in_World_War_II

"800,000 women served in the Soviet Armed Forces during the war. Nearly 200,000 were decorated and 89 eventually received the Soviet Union&#8217;s highest award, the Hero of the Soviet Union. They served as *pilots, snipers, machine gunners, tank crew members and partisans*, as well as in auxiliary roles"

There were many women in partisan and resistance units throughout Europe. Female soldiers fighting in frontline roles isn't new nor is it that unusual. A third of Nepal's Shining Path army were women and 30% of the Nepalese army combat troops are to be women, in Sri Lanka the women are doing the fighting http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/ASIA-Tiger-Women-Sri-Lanka-s-rebels-rely-on-2796334.php

Even Pakistan has started training it's women soldiers in combat roles.


----------



## granfire (Jul 6, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_women_in_World_War_II
> 
> "800,000 women served in the Soviet Armed Forces during the war. Nearly 200,000 were decorated and 89 eventually received the Soviet Union&#8217;s highest award, the Hero of the Soviet Union. They served as *pilots, snipers, machine gunners, tank crew members and partisans*, as well as in auxiliary roles"
> 
> ...



The Russian woman had a badass reputation, too, they were FEARED!


----------



## Tgace (Jul 6, 2012)

yorkshirelad said:


> As long as they carry the M240 on road marches, qualify with all weapons, and can pass the APFT to an InfantryMAN's standard, let em in!



And that's the rub...back in my day the females were able to drop out of the 25 mile combat "hump" and still pass basic...and their PT standard was less than the males.

If we can accept the fact that...for both societal and biological reasons...that fewer woman than men will be able to meet the standard than fine. If you can prove youre fit to do the job, you should be allowed to do the job. But forcing females through the system and into the field of combat does nobody any service. Combat is not about "fairness" or social justice.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------

