Hi Gravel, no, I meant deployment within Infantry units as Infantry, but again, all good examples. No one doubts that women can do their jobs and more when required. Also, Google on Monica Lin Brown's Siver Star.
However, the quoted examples are all the result of vehicle ambushes and/or consequent mounted or dismounted counter ambush drills - mostly over in 1/2 an hour or less, with little movement and with the area soon dominated by an overwatch force.
None of these, however, give support to the proposition that a fighting unit with a significant percentage of females in offensive roles is equally as effective as a conventional all male unit, during an extended period of high tempo ops where physical strength and endurance have progressively greater opportunites to become critical to unit survival. Note that this includes the period after the first adhreniline hit is long gone.
The point often overlooked is the effect of women in offensive roles on the military force's effectivesness, not whether women, as individuals, can do their jobs under fire.
The proof will come out in the pass rate for women in Infantry / Artillery / Eng IET (still the current Aus-speak, I think), plus the debrief/ LLs after a (eg.) four week high tempo exercise. If the female soldiers are still there and the exercise mixed units were effective, then objections will fade away. If the books where cooked to achieve the result, there will soon be much misery for anyone not smart enough to be elsewhere asap.
How much latitude can we allow in unit effectiveness ? The answer could be - for what trade-off, and what is the margin in a "near run thing" ?