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

[Bill Mattocks]

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]

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]

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!

 

[Tez3]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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’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’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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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’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]

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’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.

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