Greater equality or papering over the cracks? [Archive]

Hangarshuffle

19th Dec 2014, 21:54

Stendec 5 you are on the money- I don't think anyone female will ever actually beat the standard set by the class of 82 who did that march and then fought it out to win the battles in the FI.
Does the country honestly want young women to do that sort of role anyway? I think not (they have a bad enough time accepting the present loss of young men in combat).
I wish someone would publicly stand up and say that to do the nations fighting like that it is best left to young hard men, and also tell them yes be prepared to look the other way while your using them, because the people who do the gutter fighting, the bloody infantry fighting aren't angels and you would not really wish to keep one as a pet.Simple as that.
This country is up its own arse at times.

Been reading Max Hastings "Armageddon" again recently and he covers a lot about the Soviet Unions fighting forces in closing stages of WW2. The Russians employed women extensively, but seemingly even they shied off from using them in outright close combat roles. Think a lot may have been as mechanics, radio operators, NKVD even. This despite massive losses of men in combat roles.
Why was this?
And I have to finish with this. Without doubt two of the crappest officers I ever worked for onboard a front line deployed vessel were both women RN lieutenants. They seemed to be both on a massive ego trip about being in charge of a group of men. They were a bloody awful pair, pretty unapproachable, too young, too inexperienced, very arrogant and very bad at trying to lead and bond a team together. Neither of them were a good reflection on the output of BRNC Dartmouth. I've never forgotten it or them and would cross the road to avoid either of them if I was as ever unfortunate to meet them again.
When you get men and women like you get a minor sex war going on anyway, does not lead to good unit cohesion in my most honest recentish experience.
I'm afraid there is a place for women in the military, but I'm sorry it isn't at the nasty, dirty, oily, spewy pointy end for the majority.

Stendec5

19th Dec 2014, 22:00

Amen, Hanger...

I remember from Catch 22 "What does a sane man do in an insane world?"

Willard Whyte

19th Dec 2014, 22:46

Well HS,

The best immediate boss I ever had was a female S/L.

The worst immediate boss I ever had was a(nother) female S/L.

So, sex made no difference, in my experience.

Errm, not that I tried.

Oh sh1tty hell, that's coming out wrong.

As the actress said to the bishop.

NutLoose

20th Dec 2014, 02:51

One of the engineering officers on the line at Brize was female, though she was on the other shift so I never worked under her personally, but by all accounts from her team she was very good.

The Oberon

20th Dec 2014, 07:09

Females in front line infantry should be allowed when sport of all types and at all levels are gender free.

A mixed gender Calcutta Cup match should be the clincher.

engineer(retard)

20th Dec 2014, 09:16

I think the title of thread could have been worded better :E There are roles when gender is immaterial but infantry is not one of them

Courtney Mil

20th Dec 2014, 09:18

Perhaps the same rules should apply, Oberon. In future we'll have to organise separate men's and women's league battles. Then decide the overall winner with a points system.

Heathrow Harry

20th Dec 2014, 14:50

My bet is that in 5 years we'll wonder what all the fuss was about............

barnstormer1968

20th Dec 2014, 15:36

I was listening to a radio debate about this yesterday, and while some very good points were made, there were also some very silly things put forward to 'demonstrate' why ladies are the equal of men (in an infantry role)

While any of us can think of pros and cons to fit the for or against scenarios it seems that some vary obvious points are being avoided by the government or pro campaigners.

I heard during the debate that women have to pass the SAME tests as men but that they carry less weight during the tests!

It was repeatedly mentioned that women have done superbly in theatres such as Afghanistan, and while this is very true, it's also been nothing like all out war and so the women involved haven't had to do the full on stuff for weeks at a time. An infantry unit needs to be effective in all its roles and not just some of them. Of course it has to be said that lots of males wouldn't hack full on infantry life in combat either.

It seems the government want to keep the tests just as hard, but want to make them easier for women to pass IMHO. They say more appropriate for both sexes, but the men are already passing the tests. One situation was that instead of carrying injured soldiers as part of a test they may be able to drag them as it is fairer for women. I know the Americans like this idea, but I'm not sure that dragging someone over rocky ground, through a river, through a window or over a wall is really a good idea.

The UK is also broke so I'm not sure how much extra it will cost to house a four man squad if one happened to be a female and two four man rooms needed to be paid for and heated instead of one for a small detachment.

I also wonder at what point a woman would be: removed from combat, unable to carry a heavy load, fire weapons etc once pregnant. This is more relevant in an infantry role than a support role. Medics, clerks, signallers etc can all be replaced but it would be a bit odd for a female para to be trained in a specialist role for several months only to not be able to lead her section/company on an op due to being pregnant. It would be coverable but may mean that another person is needed as a stand in just in case. This is a bit different to a normal injury IMHO as the loss of the person would be predictable in advance, but would be on a time frame.

Those are just a few things floating around in my mind and I really don't know how succesful women in the infantry would be for effectiveness. What I do know is that the fact they have been very succesful in recent conflict has no bearing at all on full on combat or a Falklands type situation with very little support or logistics.

M609

20th Dec 2014, 17:48

http://www.aftenposten.no/migration_catalog/article5980565.ece/BINARY/w380/1254232.jpg

Ingerid Gjerde, worked her way up from squad leader to Bn commander. She has worked as both infantry platoon Lt in Lebanon and infantry company commander in Bosnia.

She commanded the guards Bn before going to Afghanistan as Norwegian contingent commander.

Plenty of girls in the infantry in Norway, and they served in Afganistan.....

Onceapilot

20th Dec 2014, 18:05

So... for many years, despite legal equality laws and regulations, the UK Military has supported a case to exclude females (and males who do not make the, mostly physical, grade) from some combat roles. What has changed? Could it be desperate recruitment stats?;)
I can see that male infantry would have a good case to demand a lower physical standard for themselves if the ladies work to a lower standard!
No, for goodness sake, keep fighting troops as tough as possible!:ok:

OAP

RAFEngO74to09

20th Dec 2014, 18:28

In 2013, Col Ingrid Gjerde visited the Pentagon to be quizzed on her experiences and Norwegian policy on this matter. Here is a subsequent session she had at the US Center for Strategic & International Studies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFXJiV6pOYs

Finningley Boy

20th Dec 2014, 18:36

The questions which never, or rarely, get asked is; why have women never routinely filled the ranks of the Armed Forces frontline posts before the last 30 or so years?
If arguments over gender equality were neither here nor there, would the Army be going out of their way to recruit women into the Infantry/Armoured untis etc?
Further, if physical strength and ruggedness are plain and simply not of any true concern, why do we not see women playing alongside men in professional sports teams? Why aren't they mixed? or is that just far too important an endeavour to risk the out come of?

The latter point touches on Courtney's comment, also an observation made many years ago by my Brother in Law, if you take two equal size intakes in to the Marines say, one entirely male the other entirely female and train both to the same standard using the same training syllabus, exactly so, without let or hinderence, what would the outcome be and how would they fair if pitted against one another?

FB:)

gijoe

21st Dec 2014, 10:21

Ingerid Gjerde, worked her way up from squad leader to Bn commander. She has worked as both infantry platoon Lt in Lebanon and infantry company commander in Bosnia.

She commanded the guards Bn before going to Afghanistan as Norwegian contingent commander.

Plenty of girls in the infantry in Norway, and they served in Afganistan.....

...none of which was fighting as Infantry in conventional warfare...it was all COIN.

Or did you miss that bit?

Finningley Boy

21st Dec 2014, 14:00

gijoe,

To be fair, COIN in Afghanistan, as we have seen, involves a fair amount of conventional infantry warfare against an albeit limited opposition, but lethal just the same. That said, I've only ever gained the impression that U.K. and U.S. military and perhaps the Australians have been directly engaged in firefights against insurgents and Taliban. I'm not sure how many women soldiers and to what level i.e. proportion have been at the thick of it so to speak, nor how involved those units from other countries have gotten, but the argument is now getting down to the limit as to whether women are equally an asset on the Battlefield or not. My only questions, which have no concise answer so far, are those in my immediate previous post?

FB:)

Mr C Hinecap

21st Dec 2014, 14:23

As usual, the bluff old traditionalists wheel themselves out for a thread about women. If it isn't you lot drooling over women, it's the same Daily Mail-ruffling Cold War Warriors complaining that things are not hard enough any more. Harking back to the Good Old Days of the FI in 82 is utterly pointless.

If you haven't noticed, the British Armed Forces have been fighting - really fighting - for over a decade. If you've been utterly ignorant of who has been doing what and where (which it appears from these posts that you have been), women ARE on the front line, women ARE bringing much-needed capabilities and women ARE fighting in both offensive and defensive positions. To intimate that the ability to yomp / tab across the FI is a showstopper is to ignore everything from Afghanistan and Iraq. Women are serving with the infantry and, for those who wish to do so, we should let them attempt the same entry criteria.
I appreciate that many of you find the concept of women straying too far from the matrimonial kitchen sink as somewhat alarming, but things can and do change. A few of you may even be surprised to learn that 'they' have the vote these days.

Genstabler

21st Dec 2014, 15:07

If you take two equal size intakes in to the Marines say, one entirely male the other entirely female and train both to the same standard using the same training syllabus, exactly so, without let or hinderence, what would the outcome be and how would they fair if pitted against one another?

And the same applies to contact sports.

It is easy to label the sceptics as stick-in-the-mud, Cold War warriors. I spent my military career as an infantry officer. The thought of going to war, as opposed to asymmetric operations, with a load of women in my infantry platoons, fills me with horror. Women DO have a role on the battlefield, but NOT in an infantry unit unless you really want to degrade your war fighting capability. Would you field a team of females against the All Blacks, except as a gimmic?

Finningley Boy

21st Dec 2014, 15:40

Genstabler,

It's quite revealing that it is indeed Infantry Officers, albeit usually retired, but only recently so, the last 20 years, who ask the same constructive questions. I can appreciate the level of combat that coalition infantry and support units have been engaged in over in Afghanistan and Iraq before.

But all is relative, if, as seems to be the desire of the West's leadership to get involved in a more comparable shoot out with say Russia, we might find out just what a hell hole we'll have gotten ourselves into.

Mr C Hinecap,

At which point did anyone draw any comparison with the Falkland Islands campaign, or FI, as you put it. I would be far more easily persuaded if you had a stab at answering my questions!?

FB:)

Onceapilot

21st Dec 2014, 15:55

Mr C. Love your rant (not!). Weird :bored:

OAP

vascodegama

21st Dec 2014, 16:01

FB in fairness there is mention of the Falklands Campaign overleaf. Equally, the author of said post does have a point, personally I have no problem with the concept of letting women apply for the infantry roles but the overwhelming consideration must be that of the standard required. What we must not do is move the goal posts for political reasons, the level required must remain absolute. Having said all that how many women are likely to apply?

Genstabler

21st Dec 2014, 16:02

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme this morning, Major Webb, who retired in 1986, said: ‘We had a maximum of four women in my squadron and it was perfectly natural and normal for the guys would do all the heavy jobs and those jobs that were physically demanding while women would do the slightly less physical it was just the normal course of events.
‘When we are talking about an infantry section of eight guys and you’ve got one person who is not actually as physically strong or as physically capable as the other seven over possibly an extended period of time, which is what has not been tested, that could create an effect on our combat effectiveness,’ added major Webb, who was the first woman to command an all-male field force squadron in the British Army.

Finningley Boy

21st Dec 2014, 16:11

Vascodegama,

I take your point, another of my questions I also noticed was asked earlier by Oberon. However, I joined the debate quite a way on and to my discredit didn't take sufficent time to read all of the previous posts before ending up paraphrasing.:O

But my points still hold, and yes indeed, should nothing else change then, all is fair in love and war as they say. But of course, the overriding aim here is personal opportunity, which if proved not to be a handicap is not a problem, simply that operational effectiveness has never been the first consideration.

FB:)

NutLoose

21st Dec 2014, 16:34

Personally I think that the problem in front line combat would not be totally down to what the female soldier can do, but more down to the rest of the squad looking out for her, and Gawd knows what will happen if one of the team falls into a relationship with her, you would be better with all female squads to counteract that.

Older and Wiser

21st Dec 2014, 16:37

If they have the balls for it!

To be honest I have no issue as long as they are capable of doing the full job and overall standards are not lowered.

tucumseh

21st Dec 2014, 16:57

MoD's two major infantry programmes over the last 20 years have both had at their core the requirement to increase tempo, which is universally agreed to reduce casualties.

Both proved very difficult and neither has delivered to even the worst case scenario when endorsed.

The unspoken agenda behind one of the programmes was, ultimately, this question of female close combat troops. As many have said, the single biggest issue was seen to be "load carried". The primary aim of one of these programmes was to reduce this to 27kg per man. (Has this been achieved?) That included everything worn, carried, used and consumed. Which is a lot less than the 120lbs carried by the RM in 1982, which at the time was measured excluding anything normally worn which, when wet, is a lot.

Many in MoD naturally ignored the whole issue on sociological and cultural grounds. But this ignores the political correctness that has seeped into Government.

It is a complex argument but the above programme made a valiant effort to reduce it to a simple test. There are (or were) 17 Infantry Vignettes. (e.g. Section Attack, Half Section in Defence etc). These were run, year after year, throughout the 90s/00s in carefully controlled trials that ensured like for like comparisons could be made. The headline data was the reduction in casualties, always as a result of increased tempo. But again, behind the scenes, senior staffs were asking (as someone pointed out above) "What if one or more of the section (the basic Infantry weapon system) was female?" It isn't a simple calculation, because a typical section has few who can cope with, say, 50kgs on a prolonged basis (defined as 72 hours if I recall). In practice, the load carried is shared depending on capability. Their formation is tailored so, for example, you may tend to get a brute of a man on the machine gun and he and his #2 carry huge loads of ammunition; but everyone is expected to fill in and achieve lesser, but still acceptable, standard. If you are told to accommodate a female then the odds begin to stack against you because the overall load carried tends to drop, and the section's tempo is only as good as the weakest point.

Another side of the argument is equally valid. For example, it is accepted by MoD that in a typical section there are 2 leaders (not necessarily the Section Leader and his 2i/c), 4 followers and two who don't want to be there. Head doctors predict that the last 2, especially, will tend to hang around and do something more useful if a female is there. Most would agree there is something in this. Unfortunately, to prove the point (or otherwise) you have to try it out. Only Tony Blair would organise a war to satisfy such personal curiosity.

I wonder what has prompted this debate again? I think it may have been raised for the wrong reason. To compensate for over zealous cuts and overstretch. What I do know is that 10 years ago MoD was quite happy to release reports discussing this. Now, they don't; not even the older reports they used to release. (How the hell do you manage that in a FOI sense?) To me, that means it isn't just a "slow news day" item. Something is up.

baffman

21st Dec 2014, 17:22

@tucumseh. FYI the Women in ground close combat (GCC) review paper was published on the Gov/MoD website.

Hangarshuffle

21st Dec 2014, 17:49

I fully understand Mr C Hinecaps view earlier up the thread, and it indeed can be argued that anyone who puts their head above the parapet about this and rejects the view that female infantry will be as good as male infantry is a misogynist.
I am not a misogynist.
Worked alongside many women in differing places and roles and generally didn't have a problem (apart from where I mentioned earlier, and they were both pretty horrible, and ever after made me think about this issue a little more deeply).
Sec of State for Defence (Fallon isn't it?) says in interview in Saturdays Telegraph we must have the armed forces that reflects UK society today in the 21st century. Again he lost me at that early point, and I disagree fundamentally with it.
I think we need a different, better number of individuals to make up the UK AF than what I see as the average UK individual.

Over time, progress of a sort and technology we have increasingly detached ourselves from actually seeing the blood of war.
But not for the infantry, seems to remain for them just as horrible as 100 years ago.
As a male civvy these days, I am not happy to allow young females to do the gory horrible fighting and killing in the countries name (if that's what our side are actually doing these days). It make's me deeply uncomfortable to think about, kind of in the same way (but to a lesser degree) as when I see women boxing for t.v. sport, if that makes sense.
But concede in this very savage, money grabbing world I am now well in the minority.

Al R

21st Dec 2014, 18:14

If Fallon said that, someone should remind him that defence of our realm is too important a principle to sacrifice on the alter of political correctness.

I would not want to be the section commander who will, instinctively, whether in defence, a section attack or fighting out of a killing ground, pause for even a second wonder and risk tainting a combat appreciation to take into account the death of a female subordinate. Similarly, the dynamic of the section will be affected by gender diversity. I saw it in Bosnia, Africa, Arctic etc, if a young Tom takes a fancy to the new section member what is the effect going to be, when subsequently in contact? Similarly, who gets treated first when wounded? I defy any male to not at least think twice when faced with a male or female injured similarly.

I was wrong about homosexuals serving within a tight knit team like an infantry unit (I thought it would never work) but this is different. This is more than social prejudice (which I guess I was guilty of) and we can't overturn thousands of years of evolution because of a political imperitive. Similarly, what would be the impact on a male prisoner if he was confronted with the threat of either co-operating with an enemy, or being responsible for a female soldier who he is responsible for, being decapitated infront of him? Nicky Moffat, a retired Brigadier was on C4 news the other evening, and suggested that we somehow 're-aligned' the tests. You can't re-align the weight of an unconscious/injured male soldier you need to sling over your shoulder.

Just the other night, a Northern Ireland politician was quick to mention that a female soldier had been targeted in an UV device attack. We, as a society, DO look on females differently. Yes, I know IDF employs females but that confines itself to domestic COIN and IS roles. And we are different to Israel.. I also wonder how the IDF would acquit itself in a wider variety of taskings. This is far more intricate a problem than simply having to identify females who can tab alongside a man. Do we have any option though? Not as long as our decision makers need to pander to opinion in order to keep their jobs, or we don't have sufficient men to fill slots. And that is the reality.

gijoe

21st Dec 2014, 20:18

'To be fair, COIN in Afghanistan, as we have seen, involves a fair amount of conventional infantry warfare against an albeit limited opposition, but lethal just the same.'

To be fair, no it hasn't.

There have been FOBs Ops, raids, etc against a murky enemy...but not after 3 weeks in the field, armed only with the contents of your green handbag, with a 70km advance to contact, carrying, as said above, the evenly allocated ammo allocation of the sect. There has been a total envelopment into COIN and everyone thinks that is all.

Nicky Moffat can say what she wants - it has always been, and for ever will be, those that it is not going to affect that fight hardest for the cause.

:ok:

Mr C Hinecap

21st Dec 2014, 20:18

Let's talk about the tab / yomp across the FI shall we? Undertaken by the elite of the British infantry forces at the time. Not every infantryman could undertake that sort of effort and be successful, so that isn't really the benchmark some would claim it to be.

I stated that most of with a negative view are not referencing the most recent operations, where females have served on the front line along with their male colleagues in medical, comms, driver, interpreter and a plethora of other roles. Due to the asymmetric nature of current ops, these women have faced the enemy in firefights and have held their own. Those bold knights posting in defense of the fairer women seem to blank this factual aspect from their own minds. Women are already there.

Stendec5

21st Dec 2014, 20:19

Mr C. You seem to follow the usual lefty-loony pattern, ie anyone who questions the concept of mass immigration, for example, is an outright NAZI on a par with Dr Mengele.
And doubtless, anyone who questions UK membership of the so-called "EU" is a slobbering hate-filled xenophobe. Likewise, any questioning whether a five-foot, nine stone little girl, could lug a massive weight over a great distance in appalling weather and then fight a life or death battle (as has been the case for generations) is presumably a "sexist" or some other (marxist) appelation that you pick of the shelf. So convenient. Why don't you actually ARGUE your case without recourse to insults and insinuation.
The infantry is a serious life or death situation. The selection procedure for these units must remain absolute with zero concession to ANY consideration other than the ability to do the job. NO political correctness.
If this lunacy goes ahead (for nothing more than to satisfy left-wing bigotry) it will be a seriously backward move which Britain will tragically regret.
"Whom the Gods wish to destroy they first make MAD."

Willard Whyte

21st Dec 2014, 20:30

If a woman can pass the same tests that are required of a man to join the infantry then she should be allowed to do so.

Remarks about 9 stone little girls are UTTERLY irrelevant. The same as they would be for 9 stone little boys.

Pass the test: do the job.

And I am not a politically correct left wing c0ck-sucker. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Possession of breasts and a vigina instead of a penis is no indication of physical or mental ability.

NutLoose

21st Dec 2014, 21:02

And I am not a politically correct left wing c0ck-sucker. Quite the opposite, in fact.

You mean you are a right wing one then? :p

Agreed, if they can pass the test, then fair do's to them.

Al R

21st Dec 2014, 21:04

C Hinecap

Let's talk about the tab / yomp across the FI shall we? Undertaken by the elite of the British infantry forces at the time. Not every infantryman could undertake that sort of effort and be successful, so that isn't really the benchmark some would claim it to be.

I stated that most of with a negative view are not referencing the most recent operations, where females have served on the front line along with their male colleagues in medical, comms, driver, interpreter and a plethora of other roles. Due to the asymmetric nature of current ops, these women have faced the enemy in firefights and have held their own. Those bold knights posting in defense of the fairer women seem to blank this factual aspect from their own minds. Women are already there.

1. Ok, let's. Not every male unit could do it. Maj. General Jeremy Moore was given 5 Brigade because, as much as anything, of red tab interference which wanted the woodentops to be involved. He decided not to commit the Welsh Guards to the tab because, some suggest, they were not physically able to endure the march across the islands after an extended period of London garrison/Public Duties. The consequences are well catalogued.

2. Serving on the frontline and returning fire when one's FOB is being attacked or when a supply convoy is being ambushed, isn't the same as joining a unit with the express task of ramping up to destroy an enemy day after day, month after month. It's easy to suggest that anyone who doesn't "get it" is a patronising Col Blimp. But the military should be able to rise above the more immediate characteristics of a debate which would otherwise distract a less informed perspective or shape a more superficial agenda.

Teeth arm ops are not just about passing physical tick tests. Just as engineers need to have an academic bias to get through the door, the finest engineer I know can't even read as well as most. He wouldn't get in the RAF as a gunner, yet he still managed to rebuild a 27 litre RR Meteor engine from scratch. Should the RAF allow him to service Typhoon? Maybe some just underestimate the role and demands on, and of the infantry.

Stendec5

21st Dec 2014, 22:06

Training Risky

21st Dec 2014, 22:57

Oh Mr C...

If only you would realise that just because some girls have done well as loggies and medics in afghanistan, that narrow COIN example cannot be applied to conventional warfare.

I like the point made above about mixed sports teams. If it is such a progressive idea for society, why are there still gender segregated events in the olympics? Or (to choose a more relevant example) why doesn't the rugby world cup have mixed teams?

Answers on a postcard please...

Mr C Hinecap

21st Dec 2014, 23:17

Do you have any sense of honour? Do you not see anything wrong with women getting mutilated in the front line?
You're one sick bastard.

Why is that worse than men getting mutilated? :confused:

I've never said that women should be put into the infantry. I believe that, if they can pass the requisite tests and training, then they should be allowed to serve. Surely the selection and training is the gateway as it is now?

Al R

22nd Dec 2014, 06:20

It isn't just about the physiological..

Danny42C

22nd Dec 2014, 08:17

Fools rush in.....but I'll have a go !

Had three years i/c of a bunch (70-odd) of Teeside irregulars (well, W.R.Aux.A.F.) whom we were training as Radar Operators and Fighter Plotters for the next conflict. Fortunately I had as my W..F. 'G'. a very capable (and very nice) Flight Lieutenant Penny 'O' (married to the Aux. Engineering Officer of 608, so it worked out fine for them. No relation to the Banking Secretarial chap of the same name I had).

Penny had been a Cpl MT driver in the last lot. Tough and hard as nails, backed by an Officer Cadet, an ex-war sergeant and a couple of ex-war Cpls (all W), they kept my crowd in order. Which was a Good Thing, for "I do not know what effect my lot would have on the Enemy - but by God they frightened me".

Having established my small right to a hearing in these matters, (and in later years as a pedagogue at the ATC School and in my five last years ATC at Leeming, life was made more pleasant by the introduction (in the mid-sixties) of well-brought-up, nice young ladies who (mostly) were the professional equals of the pleasant young gentlemen who came in with them and would soon take over from us Old Hairies left over from the war.

My summary of the WRAF ?: "When they were good, they were very, very good and when they were bad they were horrid" (and there were very few of those). Of course ours didn't have to "yomp" across the Falklands in winter with an 80lb (120 lb ?) pack on their backs (but then, neither did I). So were they the Crown's Hard Bargains or not ?

In the close-combat rôle, I've read somewhere that the Israeli army tried it, and found that when one woman was wounded, they lost two soldiers - as a man had to stay to look after her until help arrived. It wasn't ecomomic. Apart from that, can you imagine what it's really like to have to stick six inches of cold steel into another human's guts, and drag them out ? Could you do it ? Could I do it ? I often think that those of us who volunteered for "technical" arms like RAF aircrew or the Navy had this subconscious, ulterior motive - we were quite ready to die ourselves, but preferred to do our slaughter at a distance, where we didn't have to see the grim results or hear the screams of the dying. Put bluntly, there's something inherently wrong with asking a woman (however much of an Amazon she may be) to do this. And a nation which needs to ask it is not much of a nation in my book. Fuddy-duddy I may be, but that's the way I see it.

D.

teeteringhead

22nd Dec 2014, 08:33

what will happen if one of the team falls into a relationship with her, you would be better with all female squads to counteract that. ..not sure you've thought that through Nutty :E:E:E

Or you haven't met some of the female soldiers that I have .....:eek:

Willard Whyte

22nd Dec 2014, 09:12

Willard Whyte.

Remarks about 9st little girls are EXACTLY the point. Exactly the point that you and your ilk are missing. I am not prejudice against women (much to your chagrin, no doubt) The point is THIS. If a 9st "little boy" wasn't up to the task then he would be binned from the selection process and rightly so...and there the matter would end.
However, if a 9st little girl were similarly binned...for the same reason...then this would, in your twisted lexicon, be "sexism" or "chauvinism." This would doubtless result in a court case followed by six-figure sum of "compensation" for "hurt feelings." All coming out of a rapidly shrinking military budget.
Do you have any sense of honour? Do you not see anything wrong with women getting mutilated in the front line?
You're one sick bastard.

No, Stendec5, they are irrelevant.

Where did I say that if a 9 stone man were binned for failing the test(s) and a likewise a 9 stone woman, then binning woman would be sexism? I didn't. What I said was that if a man or woman can pass the tests then they should be allowed to do the job. Their gender is utterly irrelevant.

I see no honour in either sex getting mutilated. Where did I say this? That YOU choose to opine that it is worse for a woman to be mutilated shows that you are indeed sexist.

Go back to your G&T and continue harrumphing over the state of the nation whilst your little woman irons your socks.

Toadstool

22nd Dec 2014, 09:37

Mr C Said -I've never said that women should be put into the infantry.

This thread started to be about just that. Women in the Infantry, performing combat infantry roles.

Of course there are women on the front line, in all three services. Most if not all have been outstanding. Some have even gone on patrol with the Infantry in Afghanistan as interpreters and dog handlers. When the **** hits the fan though, its the infantry that carry the ammunition, personal weapons and Platoon heavy weapons in the attack. The women do not.

Again, this is about women in the infantry. There are physical standards that must be met and maintained such as the Infantry Combat Fitness Test. If a woman or a 9 stone man can't maintain these standards, then both or either do not join or stay in the Infantry.

If they can, then crack on.

It is interesting though the point that Danny made, regarding the Israeli study. Two men staying behind for every one female casualty. For an enemy force, it most certainly would be a force multiplier to target female infantry.

Al R

22nd Dec 2014, 10:11

The IDF had data, years ago, from junior commanders which related not just to casualty handling either, although that particular point is well documented. The section commanders did pause for thought about how to deploy their troops whilst under effective enemy fire, specifically taking into account, gender. That in itself, places an extra and unfair pressure on junior commanders and could compromise the integrity of decision making whilst in contact.

Al R

22nd Dec 2014, 10:52

Christ, does anyone iron socks? :ooh:

Genstabler

22nd Dec 2014, 10:52

I think I can safely infer from the previous posts that this is a divisive issue for the military!
As is the emotive subject of ironing socks. Surely you chaps don't wear wrinkly socks? You'll be saying you don't wear suspenders next. (Cue for Beags to repost THAT photo)!

Al R

22nd Dec 2014, 12:08

Ironing socks compresses the fibre which reduces the ability of the garment to wisk moisture away from the foot and to retain air, thereby reducing conducted heat loss. I am horrified that there are possibly people out there ironing socks in ignorance of the devastation they are wreaking on their bodies.

PPRuNe Pop

22nd Dec 2014, 12:35

Some good posts but some are unsavoury. Cool it guys. Just calm it down please. It IS starting to get out of hand. Some are exercising a good debating sense, and good for them.

Martin the Martian

22nd Dec 2014, 13:36

"Ironing socks compresses the fibre which reduces the ability of the garment to wisk moisture away from the foot and to retain air, thereby reducing conducted heat loss. I am horrified that there are possibly people out there ironing socks in ignorance of the devastation they are wreaking on their bodies."

You DO realise that Mrs. Martian might just see this sometime before she next hits the ironing basket, don't you? And after all these years of training. Thanks Al.
:sad:

The Oberon

22nd Dec 2014, 14:16

Further to my post #22, I do not think that, without a compromise to present standards, the majority of woman will be able to undertake this role.

This one size fits all outlook has already caused problems with basic training. You can't get more basic than marching and in the days when males and females were in separate services, the ppm was the same but men marched at a 30 in. pace length whereas for women it was a pace length of 27 ins. Put both sexes in a common service and what happened ? MOD had to pay claims from women who had suffered pelvic injury when subjected to an extra 3 ins.

I could have worded that better but true none the less.

BEagle

22nd Dec 2014, 14:34

The Oberon, that reminds me of a recruiting ad for the Metropolitan Police back in the 1970s. In those days, before it was deemed 'discriminatory', male recruits had to be at least 5'10" tall, whereas female recruits only had to be taller than 5'4"......

Or, as the advert stated: "What's the difference between a PC and a WPC in the Met? About six inches"

I'm sure that they could have expressed that rather better.....:uhoh:

Pontius Navigator

22nd Dec 2014, 14:41

Genstabler, steady, I used to wear a pair of suspenders and our cousins still wear suspenders.

Wolsey socks were woolen and not self-supporting. You needed suspenders.

Bill Macgillivray

22nd Dec 2014, 20:14

History did imply that the "Amazons" were not to be trifled with!! If you have the will, the ability to be selected, and pass non-sexist and common training then I think that, whatever your sex, you should have the opportunity to serve in the role that you desire. (Taking cover!!)

NutLoose

22nd Dec 2014, 21:12

Yes I agree, there are female troops the world over that are excellent.

My point was, is this announcement simply a cost saving exercise to bolster the front line capability by utilising women in the role due to the poor uptake to the reserves and the many cuts they Army has had to suffer.

I.E a penny pinching wallpaper job, done on a cost cutting basis to try to appear on paper that the front line strength has not reduced by the numbers people think, and therefore allowing them to both save money by not recruiting replacements and allowing the numbers to further degrade.

Clockwork Mouse

22nd Dec 2014, 22:49

The Amazons were light cavalry, skilled in lightning attacks on horseback using bows and arrows, and in that role they were very effective. They were small, fast, agile. They did not engage in fixed close-quarter battles of attrition.

The females we would need to be generally effective in an infantry platoon would be 6 foot, 12 stone monsters.

Mr C Hinecap

23rd Dec 2014, 02:10

My point was, is this announcement simply a cost saving exercise to bolster the front line capability by utilising women in the role due to the poor uptake to the reserves and the many cuts they Army has had to suffer.

I doubt it. This topic has surfaced every few years for as long as I can remember and those arguing against it have less and less valid points each time. It was the same argument that stopped women becoming Aircrew and serving on ships and, amazingly, the world keeps on turning.

As far as I am aware, none of the equipment in service requires a specific set of genitals with which to operate it.

Stanwell

23rd Dec 2014, 02:50

Nutty,
As a former Infantryman, having served 7 years in the '60s & '70s, I've paid attention to the views expressed on this thread.

Your observation, apropos the thread title, is correct - IMHO.
This PC pressure for 'equality' in all things, though, conveniently ignores the realities of deadly, often face-to-face, combat.

Thanks for your input too, Danny42C.

ralphmalph

23rd Dec 2014, 03:14

It would be interesting to see how many males in this forum could march 20 miles with 120 lbs on their back.

There would be some that couldn't manage it ever in their lifetime, so they chose a different career.

Clockwork mouse, what utter rubbish. Go back to the stone ages.

There have been plenty of men who have served in the infantry of short stature and light body weight.....but they had a desire and strength of character to strive and succeed.

Look at the Viet Cong...they were **** soldiers because they were small, not!

Nutloose,

Bang on.

Al R

23rd Dec 2014, 06:17

This thread typifies the unique nature of a modern service like the RAF. We think that every solution can be reduced to the abstract and resolved by committee thinking and rational problem solving. It can't. We seem to think that every aspect of military ops is an item of kit you pick off the shelf that you can reduce to a box ticking exercise and rattle off some learning objectives (infanteering isn't like flying a jet).

We are conditioned to be solution seekers and problem solvers (pine poles!) when sometimes, there is no solution that you can say "Sorted!". We want to say "Well, if she can run the same as a bloke, she can do a bloke's job.. surely?" because that reflects solely on our ability to think and act as managers and leaders. Sometimes, there isn't a solution because it's beyond our comprehension.

The RAF has brilliant units like TCW, TSW etc, but apart from the Regiment, how much teeth arm experience does it have? Quite. Yet it holds an expert's view. My points haven't been answered because there is not the experience, the motivation or the ability to answer them. The feedback on ARRSE might not be eloquent and the debating not as rarified but it is at least, informed. So, once more, and keeping as many physiological aspects out if it as possible.. here is a handy box ticking guide for the infantry experts to address.

1. Would the RAF want its jets serviced by someone who could pass a screwdriver turning tick test, but who had cognitive skills when it came to understanding the servicing manual or putting together complex engineering solutions?
2. Have you considered the additional ingrained decision making pressures on local commanders when working out their combat appreciations, if women were also factored in and involved? Please evidence either way.
3. Have you considered the impact on our men when coerced as prisoners, faced with the threat of mutilating or beheading a female prisoner if they failed to co-operate? Once again, please evidence.
4. How will you address the emotional dynamic of the team set up deployed and ensure that the undeniably carnal desires of young, fit people don't upset the apple cart.

Or shall we keep saying "Pine poles!!! Erm, if she can run.. why not?".

Added.

Ralph, it isn't about comparing short men to short women or looking back at a conflict like Vietnam. Even in my pomp there would have been some women who could tab better than me :( ! An infantry section is greater than the sum of its parts. It isn't about allowing people to "be the best they can be" or facilitating any high minded best thinking which reflects a modern society's values (or any of that guff).

Clockwork Mouse is absolutely correct. Compare the modern infanteer with one of even 30 years ago, The stature is significantly different.

It's about putting our young people into harm's way to do a job and not to have the vanity to pander to our perceived abilities as masterful decision makers. It's about ensuring we have taken all things into account and having ironed out as many of the imponderables as possible.. we can get them all back again. If we subordinate that core principle, we are letting them down again through ignorance as much as anything.

Skymong

23rd Dec 2014, 06:35

Well said Al R.

I was formerly of the opinion that if a woman could reach the same standard of fitness as a bloke, then crack on. However since working in a unit containing both males and females I have become aware of the dramas and BS caused by the inevitable "inappropriate relations" between various members of that unit.
While the effects of this may be an acceptable with other units, I can't see the benefits that females in infantry units may bring outweighing the damage to morale and unit cohesion that would be caused in an infantry unit.

Just my 2 cents.

Willard Whyte

23rd Dec 2014, 07:17

Are the people worried about personal relationships undermining the team ethos also worried about homosexual relationships doing the same?

If one allows homosexuals to serve in all areas of the military, ooh-err missus, by any decision making process one must allow females to do the same.

I should also note that I am well aware of cases where (hetrosexual) personal relationships have undermined the cohesiveness of a team. However, should an entire unit be held to task because a small number of individuals are incapable of keeping it inside their pants? In my opinion the fault lies within the individual not the system, although from observation the system itself is far from perfect at dealing with personal issues.

Providing they can pass all the required aptitude tests to the same standards required of male candidates.

Presumably such aptitude test won't be the equivalent of a "screwdriver turning tick test", and would indeed be an infantry versionof recognising "who had cognitive skills when it came to understanding the servicing manual or putting together complex engineering solutions?".

Al R

23rd Dec 2014, 07:29

I was wrong about the homosexuality aspect, I said so earlier in this thread. Is there a direct and meaningful parallel? No, I don't think so. Setting that to one side for the moment, and the running issue, what are your thoughts on the more practical aspects of the questions I posed? Out of interest, do you think you would be faced with additional pressures if a female's life was at stake compared with 'just' another man's?

Just seen your edit.

Apart from placing 80lbs on a woman's back and hips and maintaining existing physical standards, what do you suggest? My point is that engineering isn't just about turning a screwdriver, just as infanteering isn't just about running. An engineer must be able to act and think in logical sequences, she/he must be able to reason through complex problems - and in that role, there is less difference in gender ability. The case for gender equality in infanteering isn't as black and white as being able to engineer.

Willard Whyte

23rd Dec 2014, 08:05

Re. the 'life at stake' situation.

For a very long time, from the dawn of warfare I suppose, the infantry has been seen and treated as a killing machine. Go out there with a weapon, kill, come home. It has suited both the military and society to maintain this point of view. Yet we have seen, certainly from WW1 onwards, that close combat certainly does affect the human mind, whether females are there or not. I'd opine that although a male may admit to being more affected, likely to 'break', if a female colleague is threatened, the same psycological scars will be present should a male colleague be in a similar position. It might be easier for the individual to accept, justify even, but the symptoms of mental trauma will be there and will eventually surface. If you have been part of a close knit team of males, training, living, fighting together, with common beliefs and for a common goal, would you honestly say that just because your brother in arms were a male you would accept his torture and murder? So, no, ultimately I don't think it will make a long term difference.

Melchett01

23rd Dec 2014, 11:03

Just a thought before we open Pandora's box and instigate something we will find difficult if not impossible to undo later down the line.

The studies have been conducted and the jury is out making it's deliberations. Before taking the final step, let's have a trial period, say 2 years, where all the fitness tests are absolutely identical for both male and female. No adjustments to make them gender fair. Everybody achieves the standard required for a set age bracket regardless of gender. That should give us ample evidence as to whether females really are capable of meeting the physical standards rather than simply quoting studies and psychologists. Last fitness test I did before I deployed saw a RN female trudging up and down the gym alongside me. I had to get to 9-something IIRC to pass and was still at a light jog when she dropped out at level 4 in a wheezing slobbering lump.

I'm sure she isn't representative of the whole female cadre, but you get my point. Equality means just that. Equal in everything. So let's start with fitness tests to give us a decent cohort size to allow females to demonstrate that they can meet a set standard without gender bias. Last time I checked, the weight of a rifle + 120 rounds was the same regardless of sex. Conducting a practical experiment across the Forces should also leave a bit of wriggle room should the policy types have got it wrong and need to u-turn. Not that they would get it wrong or make a decision for the wrong reason.

Union Jack

23rd Dec 2014, 11:49

I often think that those of us who volunteered for "technical" arms like RAF aircrew or the Navy had this subconscious, ulterior motive - we were quite ready to die ourselves, but preferred to do our slaughter at a distance, where we didn't have to see the grim results or hear the screams of the dying. Put bluntly, there's something inherently wrong with asking a woman (however much of an Amazon she may be) to do this. And a nation which needs to ask it is not much of a nation in my book. Fuddy-duddy I may be, but that's the way I see it. - Danny

I am on exactly the same wavelength as Danny, to whom along with the many other sterling contributors to this wonderful thread, I wish a very happy Christmas and an even better New Year.:ok:

Jack

Heathrow Harry

23rd Dec 2014, 11:55

" there's something inherently wrong with asking a woman (however much of an Amazon she may be) to do this."

that is a judgement YOU are making without asking the lady (or ladies) if they agree

I'd give you credit and say you were being gallant but some of the ladies would definitely say you were being sexist, misogynist and patronising

Placing the female sex on a pedestal is very Victorian but the world has moved on - they are capable of making up their own minds and deciding what they want to do - this is the 21st Century not the 19th.....

Genstabler

23rd Dec 2014, 12:34

Any talk of equal opportunities in support of this proposal is criminally misguided. Serving in the Armed Forces is not a commercial employment. The Armed Forces exist to secure our national interests through the threat and, when required, delivery of state violence. Proportionality is necessary for reasons of finance, social acceptability and economy of resources. However, the aim is to defeat any threat. Any dilution of capability puts that aim, and those trying to achieve it, at risk.
Though emotionally I find the idea of a female killing in close quarter combat repulsive, I will concede that this may be an old fashioned and now socially irrelevant view.
If our nation wishes to permit our females the opportunity to serve in infantry and other combat arms, so be it. HOWEVER, any downgrading of physical and mental standards to permit them to do so is criminally irresponsible. Set the standards required for a soldier. Only anyone who can meet those standards is acceptable.

vascodegama

23rd Dec 2014, 12:44

Nicely put Genstabler, in order to maintain the current ban on women serving in infantry units the Armed Forces must show that there would be a degredation of operational capability. Some of the points made elsewhere in this thread are subjective but the fitness test is absolute, therefore must be gender neutral- no ifs or buts and no change to allow more women to pass. If they want to join the infantry then they do exactly what the men do, if they can't crack it they get removed just like a man would.

Melchett good idea about the current test but why not remove the age difference as well?

The Oberon

23rd Dec 2014, 13:12

According to Arrse, the IDF tried femail infantry some years ago and collected data on all aspects of their findings, maybe someone ought to take a look at what they found.

Mr C Hinecap

23rd Dec 2014, 13:15

1. Would the RAF want its jets serviced by someone who could pass a screwdriver turning tick test, but who had cognitive skills when it came to understanding the servicing manual or putting together complex engineering solutions?

What are you on about? The Armed Forces sets it's entry requirements for each Trade and Branch, then tests and trains accordingly. I don't care what gender anyone is if they can pass the requisite tests. We're not talking about allowing simians to serve, we're talking about human beings. I'd not want an infanteer fixing a jet but that has nothing to do with anything.

2. Have you considered the additional ingrained decision making pressures on local commanders when working out their combat appreciations, if women were also factored in and involved? Please evidence either way.

They have been doing this for the last decade in Iraq and Afghanistan and those local commanders have coped with both girls and boys. If you want to discuss pressures upon local commanders, then look at the complexity of non-integrated systems and sensors and their effect upon decision-making. THEN you might begin to understand the context and how low down the thought process gender is.

3. Have you considered the impact on our men when coerced as prisoners, faced with the threat of mutilating or beheading a female prisoner if they failed to co-operate? Once again, please evidence.

No difference whether it would be male or female. Formed units are cohesive because of the camaraderie. Your rather disturbing female mutilation scenario would be equally distressing it it were your best mate.

4. How will you address the emotional dynamic of the team set up deployed and ensure that the undeniably carnal desires of young, fit people don't upset the apple cart.

Don't judge all people by your standards. All other mixed gender teams in the Forces cope with such 'desires' and they get along. You do know that women serve in the RAF these days don't you? We don't deploy the WRAF to a nearby base then ship the ladies in under the supervision of a matronly WRAF WO so they can work near 'the boys'.

Pontius Navigator

23rd Dec 2014, 14:00

. All other mixed gender teams in the Forces cope with such 'desires' and they get along.

Actually they often get along too well.

I know from experience that the pressures when people are thrown together in close proximity for months at a time can create bonds and break up marriages.

You mentioned "your best mate" such friendship will not usually cause the break up of a marriage back home. If that best mate is of the opposite sex, and succeed in keeping the relationship platonic, will the spouses left at home see it that way?

Mr C Hinecap

23rd Dec 2014, 14:23

You mentioned "your best mate" such friendship will not usually cause the break up of a marriage back home.

Once again, you are ignoring all the other military units that deploy. Aircraft squadrons have female aircrew, engineers, admin. 90SU have women, RLC have female drivers, medical teams etc etc. Somehow, these units manage to get along, they are mixed gender and I doubt they have divorce rates any worse than an average infantry unit.

M609

23rd Dec 2014, 14:35

On the subject of sexual tension etc: UNISEX ROOMS MADE GENDER INSIGNIFICANT (http://eng.kilden.forskningsradet.no/c52778/nyhet/vis.html?tid=87528)

Pontius Navigator

23rd Dec 2014, 14:59

M609, interesting. Back in the. 80s, on the premise as exercise as you would in war, our stn cdr decreed that dormitories in the HPS would be unisex with toilets used on a programmed basis. It worked even if only for a few days until the queen bee declared that "her" gels had to be accommodated separately.

gijoe

23rd Dec 2014, 17:25

'Once again, you are ignoring all the other military units that deploy. Aircraft squadrons have female aircrew, engineers, admin. 90SU have women, RLC have female drivers, medical teams etc etc. Somehow, these units manage to get along, they are mixed gender and I doubt they have divorce rates any worse than an average infantry unit.'

...none of which had the job of closing and engaging with the enemy.

This debate has had some excellent points made in it - none from Chinstrap.

Pontius Navigator

23rd Dec 2014, 17:39

Mr CH, apologies, I see your point now, divorce rates would be the same between reactive duty and proactive duty personnel.

I suspect the close quarter stress levels might result in even greater for infantry.

Biggus

23rd Dec 2014, 17:55

I believe Fallon recently said something to the effect that the ..Armed Forces should reflect the society they serve....

On that basis one can only presume that the profile of the UK Armed Forces will in future be recruited/trained to achieve:

16% of personnel (rising to 32% by 2050) to be over 65.
64% of personnel (rising to ??? by ???) to be overweight.
23% of personnel (rising to ??? by ???) to be obese.

How about an aspiration that the Armed Forces of the UK should represent the very best of the society they serve....?

Melchett01

24th Dec 2014, 00:11

How about an aspiration that the Armed Forces of the UK should represent the very best of the society they serve....?

Don't be so silly Biggus. Such an idea would never be permitted - smacks of elitism and goes wholly against the concepts of mediocrity we now strive for in order to be fully inclusive.

Stanwell

24th Dec 2014, 06:28

Melchett,
Please don't try to talk our 'inclusive' society up.

Try - "Lowest Common Denominator".

Heathrow Harry

24th Dec 2014, 10:48

"HOWEVER, any downgrading of physical and mental standards to permit them to do so is criminally irresponsible."

I have a funny feeling women might come low on the physical tests but outperform the blokes on the mental tests.................

in which case presumably they'd be the officers and the blokes could continue as the PBI

Genstabler

24th Dec 2014, 12:37

Careful Harry! You are letting your chip show again.

baffman

24th Dec 2014, 20:35

gijoe:
...none of which had the job of closing and engaging with the enemy.
This debate has had some excellent points made in it - none from Chinstrap.
The point you are replying to was about divorce rates in mixed units. Nothing specifically to do with "the job of closing and engaging with the enemy".

Skymong

25th Dec 2014, 13:33

It is if the bloke next to you in the PB is too busy thinking about his failing marriage to concentrate on his job.

baffman

25th Dec 2014, 20:12

It is if the bloke next to you in the PB is too busy thinking about his failing marriage to concentrate on his job.
Regrettably the current all-male infantry has no immunity to failing marriage.

Stanwell

26th Dec 2014, 04:07

I had a profound thought overnight.

Why don't we just let the girls do it?

Roland Pulfrew

26th Dec 2014, 08:33

Stanwell

Because I, for one, am not staying at home to do the cooking, cleaning, washing and gardening..................

...................... ;):E

Wander00

26th Dec 2014, 09:06

RP - profound thought, that, which I wholeheartedly second.........(but Mrs W ain't looking.

THUMP - oh yes she was............

Danny42C

27th Dec 2014, 12:43

Stanwell,

A propos your suggestion in your #101, a thought has occurred to me (it does happen from time to time). If I were the First Sea Lord (which having regard to the safety of the realm, thank the Lord I'm not, sir), a wicked gleam might appear in my weatherbeaten old eye.

How about selecting a corvette or something of that size, and arrange for it to be crewed from Captain to ship's cat entirely with females ? (there must be some WRNS senior enough in the Seaman branch for Captaincy).

It would be interesting to see how popular service in this ship might prove to be among the feminist sorority, faced with a six-month commission in a steel nunnery. Then we should know what the draw of sea service really was: Life on the Ocean Wave - or Jolly Jack Tar !

Perhaps Union Jack could offer an opinion on this proposal ?

D.

Melchett01

27th Dec 2014, 12:55

How about selecting a corvette or something of that size, and arrange for it to be crewed from Captain to ship's cat entirely with females ? (there must be some WRNS senior enough in the Seaman branch for Captaincy).

It would be interesting to see how popular service in this ship might prove to be among the feminist sorority, faced with a six-month commission in a steel nunnery. Then we should know what the draw of sea service really was: Life on the Ocean Wave - or Jolly Jack Tar !

My God man, that must surely be against the Geneva Convention on so many counts. I remember back at university, my girlfriend at the time lived in an all female flat - I wouldn't wish that sort of thing on anybody having seen what it was like when you put just 3 of them together for an extended duration.

Finningley Boy

27th Dec 2014, 13:33

How about selecting a corvette or something of that size, and arrange for it to be crewed from Captain to ship's cat entirely with females ? (there must be some WRNS senior enough in the Seaman branch for Captaincy).

It would be interesting to see how popular service in this ship might prove to be among the feminist sorority, faced with a six-month commission in a steel nunnery. Then we should know what the draw of sea service really was: Life on the Ocean Wave - or Jolly Jack Tar !

Ok here I go again.

Imagine some poor chap flying an enemy aeoplane gets shot down over the sea and he's rescued and taken prisoner by the all female corvette crew, out in the middle of nowhere in particular?!?!?!?!:ok:

FB:)

baffman

27th Dec 2014, 14:14

How about selecting a corvette or something of that size, and arrange for it to be crewed from Captain to ship's cat entirely with females ? (there must be some WRNS senior enough in the Seaman branch for Captaincy).

It would be interesting to see how popular service in this ship might prove to be among the feminist sorority, faced with a six-month commission in a steel nunnery. Then we should know what the draw of sea service really was: Life on the Ocean Wave - or Jolly Jack Tar !It would appear that PPRuNe has now acquired a time machine, enabling posts to be submitted direct from the 1960s.

Compliments of the season!
Baffman

Danny42C

28th Dec 2014, 01:40

melchett01,

Perhaps they'd all have to take a vow of obedience, and have a really tough Mother Superior type (as Master-at-Arms ?) aboard. (I've known one or two who'd easily qualify).

Baffman,

This Best of All Threads on PPRuNe is a time macnine !

Finningley Boy ,

Well, at least he'd be found with a smile on his face !

All the best for '15, Danny. :ok:

Pontius Navigator

28th Dec 2014, 13:54

FB:

Name? Bond

Rank? Comander

Number? 007

Mahogany_Bomber

29th Dec 2014, 11:19

I'm no expert but I do have recent operational experience commanding a tri-service unit in a dismounted close combat role.

When it came to pre-deployment training and assessment, all physical activity and tests were undertaken on a gender, age and capbadge neutral basis. This meant that all personnel passed to the infantry standard in terms of weight carried and times achieved; hard work to get there but achievable if (as we were) you are trained and prepared over sufficient time and with a PT programme designed to take in to account that not everyone deploying was a 20 year old infantryman. Our PT instructors were outstanding in terms of building-up specific areas (ie upper body strength for the females, knackered knees and ankles for old-timers like me) at a sustainable tempo. As a consequence, I have no doubt that there is nothing to prevent females being physically capable of undertaking the role of frontline infantry.

The issue of unit cohesion is, in my opinion, a complete red herring. Both in barracks and on deployment we have for many years had males and females living eating and sleeping alongside (and sometimes with) each other. Unit cohesion hasn't broken down and there doesn't seem to have been a detrimental effect on operational efficiency. As for how the blokes would react to a female member of their unit being wounded, having been in that very situation myself all you care about is that one of your team is down and gender doesn't come in to it.

The appropriate person, appropriately selected & trained and with the appropriate kit - gender shouldn't come in to it.

MB

Stanwell

29th Dec 2014, 16:17

One of the more interesting posts on this thread, so far...

The term 'dismounted' is not familiar to me but it brings some amusing images to mind.

So, the girls and guys were getting it off in the barracks - and how about the guys and guys?
Must have been hard to get some sleep.

Onceapilot

29th Dec 2014, 17:01

MB quote "
When it came to pre-deployment training and assessment, all physical activity and tests were undertaken on a gender, age and capbadge neutral basis. This meant that all personnel passed to the infantry standard in terms of weight carried and times achieved".
I am sorry old chap but, could you just confirm that means "everybody passed the SAME standard"?

OAP

orca

29th Dec 2014, 17:13

Danny,

Am I not right in saying that the tenure of the first female Commanding Officer in a major surface combatant ended in a (for a variety of reasons) disappointing manner?

Finningley Boy

29th Dec 2014, 17:27

Danny & Pontious,

I can imagine the poor chap propped up between two Amazons while the Angelina Jolie look alike Captain draws on her Cigarette holder while cupping the elbow of that hand with the other, then saying in a heavy Russian accent, take him down below and get those wet things off him!:E

More in the next thrilling instalment!:ok:

FB:)

Mahogany_Bomber

29th Dec 2014, 17:40

Onceapilot,

One benchmark for everyone irrespective of age, gender or service. Pass/fail as per the infantry standard, no complaints from anyone.

Stanwell,

Dismounted Close Combat (DCC) is one of the two components of Ground Close Combat (GCC) discussed in the recent review.

See para 13 at the link below for further detail:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/389575/20141218_WGCC_Findings_Paper_Final.pdf

As for what goes on in barracks or otherwise, if it passes the service test it is (officially at least!) of no concern to me. :)

MB

Onceapilot

29th Dec 2014, 18:49

Many thanks MB, quote "One benchmark for everyone irrespective of age, gender or service. Pass/fail as per the infantry standard, no complaints from anyone."
Would you comment upon the present military fitness requirements that do discriminate on age and gender?

OAP

Danny42C

29th Dec 2014, 19:02

No one would dispute that a woman can do an excellent job in the Forces as an Air Traffic Controller, a pilot, an infantryperson or a steam-raising Engineer or anything else, but there are limits.

The question is: Is it right that she should be asked to go into close combat with a man who is (iin most cases), bigger, heavier and stronger.

Wrote Oscar Wilde:

"I know not whether laws be right,
Or whether laws be wrong".

I would invoke Kant's Categorical Imperative: (the morality of any action may be judged by its universal application) - in other words, what would happen if everybody did it all the time ?

Pontius Navigator

29th Dec 2014, 19:06

OAP, I do know that there was only one standard in the RAciAL Regiment 20 years ago when my daughter was in it. Aside from the old BUT they all had to pass the CFT. Just the one standard.

Training Risky

29th Dec 2014, 22:58

the issue is not just about carrying the weight to the infantry standard, that's only half the battle.

can the women conduct section attacks, then tab some more, then dig into a harbour area for a week on compo?

that's all a world away from dismounted triservice humint/loggie ops!

Mahogany_Bomber

30th Dec 2014, 10:35

Training Risky,

if your reference to HUMINT/Loggie roles was in response to my posts, in the words of Roy Walker, "it's good, but it's not right". That said, I'm trying not to be too specific as we are on an open forum after all.

As to your question ref section attacks etc; the situation you describe is exactly what RAMC, Int Corps, RE, RLC, RAVC etc attached personnel (including females) having been doing for years in Iraq and Afghanistan when participating in the everyday activities of ground-holding units. As you are no doubt aware, when you are on the ground your first role is that of rifleman (whatever your background), your specialised role only comes into play when required.

I can only speak of my own experiences over the last 25 years (which may or may not be representative of the wider issue), experiences which have covered the whole range of activities from being so far to the rear in an ops room that I sent my dhobi forward, to dismounting from a Warrior to hear the command "fix bayonets". As I said in my original post I'm no expert; my own view (entirely personal and based only on observation and experience) is that in terms of physical capability, mental toughness and fighting spirit there is no inherent/intrinsic difference which would preclude females per se from undertaking a role with the primary purpose of closing with and killing the enemy.

MB