FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Women to serve Army close combat roles
Women to serve Army close combat roles
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
"I'm ex forces and I be leave if mem can do it women can too xx they joined forces for a reason xx give them the choice xx equal opportunities xx" Cool, may I ask what role you did? | |||
 . | |||
 | |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
"I am ex services.. and took part in 9 tours of Afghanistan. As well as other places that the British forces were deployed. I also took part in a lot of patrols... being attached to an infantry unit meant that I went where they went. " 9 tours! Wow! So presumably you see this as a step forward, other people have commented on alternative reasons for the resistance, what do you think drives the resistance to this change? | |||
"Ex forces myself and also believe that woman should be treated as their follow colleges and be be given the same roles and status as they joined up for the same reasons." I think that if they can pass the same tests then why not, I can think of women that could definately kick ass (Ronda Rousey) | |||
"Ex forces myself and also believe that woman should be treated as their follow colleges and be be given the same roles and status as they joined up for the same reasons. I think that if they can pass the same tests then why not, I can think of women that could definately kick ass (Ronda Rousey)" She can kick my ass anytime she wants  | |||
"Ex forces myself and also believe that woman should be treated as their follow colleges and be be given the same roles and status as they joined up for the same reasons. I think that if they can pass the same tests then why not, I can think of women that could definately kick ass (Ronda Rousey) She can kick my ass anytime she wants "Whilst I'd less enthusiastic about Holly Holm kicking my ass, I don't believe there's any physical reason she couldn't fight for our country. | |||
"I am ex services.. and took part in 9 tours of Afghanistan. As well as other places that the British forces were deployed. I also took part in a lot of patrols... being attached to an infantry unit meant that I went where they went. " Who were you serving with? 9 tours seems excessive | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I'd certainly be more scared of a woman in a close combat scenario than a man, what we can lack in height or physical bulk can be more than made up for in other ways "esp if its that time of month .... bloody hell she,s coming back for more iam getting out of here | |||
| |||
| |||
"The ban on women in close combat roles has been lifted. Some of the old guard say it's a bad thing because women just have weaker bodies and will be the weak link. The MOD say that whilst only 5% of women in the Army would pass the current physical requirements, the 5% that do can do the job just as well as a man. I've never been in the Army and never been a woman either so I don't have a great opinion, but I like watching MMA and think the woman there achieve physical fitness that is as good as it needs to be. Anyone else got a view on it? " How are they getting past the womens pelvis's fracture when carrying the standard load at marching pace? Cause I'd wager the offical answer will be "move at the womans pace" which pragmatically speaking isn't feasible so will end up with the men carrying her equipment. Or we're gonna have so many lawsuits from women against the MoD. Then there's the problems that have nothing to do with the women and arent thier fault but cause problems such as rape/interal struggles between the men because of her. Iirc the Israelis gave it a pretty good go and decided it just didn't work fkr front line infantry Plus how will the pretty blonde getting beheaded in an ISIS video go down at home | |||
"Hi, I did 10 years in the army in the infantry, and I am afraid I am going to disagree with the majority. I don't think allowing women to fight in the infantry will enhance combat effectiveness. Of course the necessary consequence is that in any future national emergency conscription will apply equally. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. I can't help fearing it is all going to end in tears. " Why do you feel that way? What's going to go wrong? | |||
"The ban on women in close combat roles has been lifted. Some of the old guard say it's a bad thing because women just have weaker bodies and will be the weak link. The MOD say that whilst only 5% of women in the Army would pass the current physical requirements, the 5% that do can do the job just as well as a man. I've never been in the Army and never been a woman either so I don't have a great opinion, but I like watching MMA and think the woman there achieve physical fitness that is as good as it needs to be. Anyone else got a view on it? How are they getting past the womens pelvis's fracture when carrying the standard load at marching pace? Cause I'd wager the offical answer will be "move at the womans pace" which pragmatically speaking isn't feasible so will end up with the men carrying her " Isn't that what those exoskeletons are supposed to help with? | |||
"The ban on women in close combat roles has been lifted. Some of the old guard say it's a bad thing because women just have weaker bodies and will be the weak link. The MOD say that whilst only 5% of women in the Army would pass the current physical requirements, the 5% that do can do the job just as well as a man. I've never been in the Army and never been a woman either so I don't have a great opinion, but I like watching MMA and think the woman there achieve physical fitness that is as good as it needs to be. Anyone else got a view on it? How are they getting past the womens pelvis's fracture when carrying the standard load at marching pace? Cause I'd wager the offical answer will be "move at the womans pace" which pragmatically speaking isn't feasible so will end up with the men carrying her Isn't that what those exoskeletons are supposed to help with?" ....fine then wait the 40+ years befote a combat ready exoskeleton is ready for mass deployment. Atm exoskeletons are very crude and requure either a tether or a very noisy twostroke petrol engine if you want them to run for more than a few miniutes. Plus they raise more issues than they solve ie tight time limits on all operations | |||
| |||
| |||
" Why do you feel that way? What's going to go wrong? " Fair question. 1. Just before I left active service women were starting to appear is significant numbers in the service support roles - my personal experience is that mixed units had lower availability and that the blokes were taking a high share of the overall burden. 2. Infantry battles are won by the side with the greater endurance and determination. Think Falklands where the war was won by advancing on foot over a bog for 60 miles (with the shits - hence the origin of 'go commando') then breaking into prepared positions and sticking a bayonet into the chest of your opponent. It is a brutal messy business where the reality goes far beyond the 'tests'. 3. The last couple of wars have been 'low intensity' against an enemy without effective air power or artillery so we could stand off and use our technical advantage to grind the enemy down. Against a future enemy like the Soviets (or whatever they call themselves these days) or in thick jungle (like Vietnam) it will be a completely different experience to that of the current generation of servicemen. 3. Occasionally, people have to be ordered to their certain death. What will be the effect on unit cohesion if someone's girlfriend/boyfriend gets selected for the shitty stick duty. In the RN example above the crew has to go where the ship goes. In the infantry it is much more personal and face to face. It will be much more like the first 20 minutes of Saving Private Ryan. I just think under that type of combat stress a mixed unit is more likely to fall apart. As another poster said the Israelis gave it a good shot and gave up on it. Q | |||
| |||
" Why do you feel that way? What's going to go wrong? Fair question. 1. Just before I left active service women were starting to appear is significant numbers in the service support roles - my personal experience is that mixed units had lower availability and that the blokes were taking a high share of the overall burden. 2. Infantry battles are won by the side with the greater endurance and determination. Think Falklands where the war was won by advancing on foot over a bog for 60 miles (with the shits - hence the origin of 'go commando') then breaking into prepared positions and sticking a bayonet into the chest of your opponent. It is a brutal messy business where the reality goes far beyond the 'tests'. 3. The last couple of wars have been 'low intensity' against an enemy without effective air power or artillery so we could stand off and use our technical advantage to grind the enemy down. Against a future enemy like the Soviets (or whatever they call themselves these days) or in thick jungle (like Vietnam) it will be a completely different experience to that of the current generation of servicemen. 3. Occasionally, people have to be ordered to their certain death. What will be the effect on unit cohesion if someone's girlfriend/boyfriend gets selected for the shitty stick duty. In the RN example above the crew has to go where the ship goes. In the infantry it is much more personal and face to face. It will be much more like the first 20 minutes of Saving Private Ryan. I just think under that type of combat stress a mixed unit is more likely to fall apart. As another poster said the Israelis gave it a good shot and gave up on it. Q" Thanks for your response. I don't honestly know enough about it to make an intelligent reply. I'd like to think all the issues had been reviewed carefully and a balanced decision made. I do worry that some PC decision get forced through whatever the evidence though. The only one I can make a comment on is point 1 and question whether that trend would change over time as mixed units learnt how to work together better, but who knows... | |||
| |||
| |||
"I'm ex forces, unless things have changed dramatically (and I doubt that) this is the worst decision affecting the military in a long line of bad decisions made by career politicians with no experience combat service. My opinion is purely based on military efficiency. It does not matter how good a woman is, how fit she is or how well she can do the job, my view is not about women it is about men. The truth is when I served in units that had female searchers whenever there was trouble many of the men did not do their job in the same way as when in male only units. This was because they were 'watching out' for the women rather than concentrating 100% on their job. If it were the plan to form female only combat units than I would enthusiastically welcome women combat troops, but that will not happen." Interesting take on it, I wonder if female only units have been tried anywhere? I mean seriously, I know Gaddafi and Kim Jung Il had them but they had different objectives shall we say | |||
| |||
"I'm ex forces, unless things have changed dramatically (and I doubt that) this is the worst decision affecting the military in a long line of bad decisions made by career politicians with no experience combat service. My opinion is purely based on military efficiency. It does not matter how good a woman is, how fit she is or how well she can do the job, my view is not about women it is about men. The truth is when I served in units that had female searchers whenever there was trouble many of the men did not do their job in the same way as when in male only units. This was because they were 'watching out' for the women rather than concentrating 100% on their job. If it were the plan to form female only combat units than I would enthusiastically welcome women combat troops, but that will not happen." What's hard to judge is how many of these problems are inevitable when women first join combat ranks and then dissipate when a new culture emerges or whether they are fundamental issues that can't be resolved. | |||
| |||
| |||
"My concern is tensions between 2/3/4 guys over 1 woman.....but im sure they can do their duty as good as any other.." Women already serve in all units and yes the conflicts do happen but SNCOs and Officers have learnt to deal with it, I know I did. Personally I have no problems with women in combat roles provided they can pass the test and that does not mean lowering them. As was said earlier in recent conflicts there was no front line and females mucked in. There were logistical issue to overcome but most of the females I deployed could more than hold there own. | |||
"My concern is tensions between 2/3/4 guys over 1 woman.....but im sure they can do their duty as good as any other.. " That's the thing isn't it, some changes people just need to learn to deal with. But there are objections that have been mentioned that maybe there isn't a way to deal with. | |||
| |||
"I'm ex forces, unless things have changed dramatically (and I doubt that) this is the worst decision affecting the military in a long line of bad decisions made by career politicians with no experience combat service. My opinion is purely based on military efficiency. It does not matter how good a woman is, how fit she is or how well she can do the job, my view is not about women it is about men. The truth is when I served in units that had female searchers whenever there was trouble many of the men did not do their job in the same way as when in male only units. This was because they were 'watching out' for the women rather than concentrating 100% on their job. If it were the plan to form female only combat units than I would enthusiastically welcome women combat troops, but that will not happen. What's hard to judge is how many of these problems are inevitable when women first join combat ranks and then dissipate when a new culture emerges or whether they are fundamental issues that can't be resolved. " In answer to your first reply, as far as I know the Israeli Army has female only infantry units and the Soviet military had woman only combat units serving in both army and airforce. In answer to your second post, in my experience it is a fundamental psychological problem of men and no amount of integration will overcome millions of years of evolution. But I guess that as this decision is driven by the fact that over the last 30 years our armed forces have been totally eviscerated and the only way to make numbers work without admitting that the last round of cuts left the army unable to function in it's primary infantry roll (our armoured troops already being used as [half trained] infantry) is to arm women and parachute them into under-strength units and call it equality! | |||
"What about in the event of capture? " Surely that's a risk that any soldier takes and it's an individual decision for any of them? I don't think your going to get a bunch of former housewives signing up for the role anyway, I'd imagine the type of women that want to do this are mentally a lot tougher than the average man or woman on the street. | |||
"What about in the event of capture? " They'll be tortured, beaten raped and possibly killed just like has happened to many male soilders throughout the centuries. Just the rape will likley be more recreational than as an interrogation tactic. | |||
"What about in the event of capture? Surely that's a risk that any soldier takes and it's an individual decision for any of them? I don't think your going to get a bunch of former housewives signing up for the role anyway, I'd imagine the type of women that want to do this are mentally a lot tougher than the average man or woman on the street. " Although on second thought i inagine torturing a woman comrade infront of one of the males of the same unit would be much more effective than torturing another of the males. | |||
"I'm ex forces, unless things have changed dramatically (and I doubt that) this is the worst decision affecting the military in a long line of bad decisions made by career politicians with no experience combat service. My opinion is purely based on military efficiency. It does not matter how good a woman is, how fit she is or how well she can do the job, my view is not about women it is about men. The truth is when I served in units that had female searchers whenever there was trouble many of the men did not do their job in the same way as when in male only units. This was because they were 'watching out' for the women rather than concentrating 100% on their job. If it were the plan to form female only combat units than I would enthusiastically welcome women combat troops, but that will not happen. What's hard to judge is how many of these problems are inevitable when women first join combat ranks and then dissipate when a new culture emerges or whether they are fundamental issues that can't be resolved. In answer to your first reply, as far as I know the Israeli Army has female only infantry units and the Soviet military had woman only combat units serving in both army and airforce. In answer to your second post, in my experience it is a fundamental psychological problem of men and no amount of integration will overcome millions of years of evolution. But I guess that as this decision is driven by the fact that over the last 30 years our armed forces have been totally eviscerated and the only way to make numbers work without admitting that the last round of cuts left the army unable to function in it's primary infantry roll (our armoured troops already being used as [half trained] infantry) is to arm women and parachute them into under-strength units and call it equality!" On the latter point I do have some insight. Basically the MOD is under budgeted for what it does. Treasury hates MOD because they can't understand why it can't be like the good old depertment of work and pensions and get its budget requirements flat and unchanging. However warfare itself isn't funded by the MOD it's funded by Treasury. The ~£40bn a year is for peace operations and equipment. So MOD plays a game with treasury where it buys less than optimal equipment from the £40bn budget and them gets a bunch of urgent operational requirements to upgrade them once a conflict kicks off. This way you can effectively get £50bn worth of stuff from a £40bn budget. Unfortunately this means that anyone going on the first deployment is likely to go with sub-par kit and personally I find it morally unacceptable to risk people's lives because of an accounting game, a violation of the military covenant if you will. However, that is the current system as I see it. | |||
"The ban on women in close combat roles has been lifted. Some of the old guard say it's a bad thing because women just have weaker bodies and will be the weak link. The MOD say that whilst only 5% of women in the Army would pass the current physical requirements, the 5% that do can do the job just as well as a man. I've never been in the Army and never been a woman either so I don't have a great opinion, but I like watching MMA and think the woman there achieve physical fitness that is as good as it needs to be. Anyone else got a view on it? How are they getting past the womens pelvis's fracture when carrying the standard load at marching pace? Cause I'd wager the offical answer will be "move at the womans pace" which pragmatically speaking isn't feasible so will end up with the men carrying her equipment. Or we're gonna have so many lawsuits from women against the MoD. Then there's the problems that have nothing to do with the women and arent thier fault but cause problems such as rape/interal struggles between the men because of her. Iirc the Israelis gave it a pretty good go and decided it just didn't work fkr front line infantry Plus how will the pretty blonde getting beheaded in an ISIS video go down at home " Agree with you fully. There is no doubt a woman is capable of many of the duties of a man when on exercise. But its what happens when it goes tits up in real life that is crucial. | |||
| |||
| |||
"For those that don't have any experience this is what an infantry battle can be like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82RTzi5Vt7w This is just the first 8 mins - there is another 12 mins in the film. In real life this went on for a whole day. It is not just about physical prowess." Why would anyone think that a clip from a Hollywood blockbuster is an accurate depiction of anything let alone a battle? | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Hi, I did 10 years in the army in the infantry, and I am afraid I am going to disagree with the majority. I don't think allowing women to fight in the infantry will enhance combat effectiveness. Of course the necessary consequence is that in any future national emergency conscription will apply equally. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. I can't help fearing it is all going to end in tears. " im also ex light infantry and I aggre with most but if its the case of equality then the fems packs should be of the same weight as the males think this would be fair too all | |||
"I don't know if it's changed now but when I served towards the back end 2006-2008 we had women joining our unit, however..........this is where problems started when it came to phys. During the fitness tests the women had longer to run the 1.5 miles and didn't have to do the same amount of press ups or sit ups. The load carry they didn't have to carry the same weight. Now if one of my lads failed the run due the the men's cut off time but got in under the female cut off time he still went on remedial phys and was undeployable yet the female could deploy......where is the fairness in that?? It might of changed now and if it has then great, I'm all for equal opportunity but it works both ways. Carry the same weight and run as fast. I know it won't be everyone's point of view and will prob upset some but I've dealt with the consequences first had on tours. R" | |||
| |||
| |||
"I'm ex forces, unless things have changed dramatically (and I doubt that) this is the worst decision affecting the military in a long line of bad decisions made by career politicians with no experience combat service. My opinion is purely based on military efficiency. It does not matter how good a woman is, how fit she is or how well she can do the job, my view is not about women it is about men. The truth is when I served in units that had female searchers whenever there was trouble many of the men did not do their job in the same way as when in male only units. This was because they were 'watching out' for the women rather than concentrating 100% on their job. If it were the plan to form female only combat units than I would enthusiastically welcome women combat troops, but that will not happen." So the issue is the mens ability, not the women's? Perhaps all female units are the answer? | |||
  | |||
"Bad fucking idea. Jesus wept "Fancy a mud wrestle femme  | |||
| |||
| |||
"A lot has been made of the difference in strength & fitness ... Plus the inbred "White Knight" effect of the male soldiers!! The Infantry don't always have the luxury of armoured vehicles to travel in a lot of the time it's by foot carrying there kit with them.. A unit travels at the speed of its slowest person & if that person is too slow there dragged & pushed along to keep them going.. Male soldiers accept this as part & parcel of there life in the military in a mixed Infantry unit if the woman was the slowest member would this happen to them!!? Or would we have a front page News Story of how the military treated her badly?" I am sure that there are many female soldiers who could put males to shame. As long as they are assessed on the same basis, I can't see an issue. | |||
| |||
| |||
"I'm assuming that the women destined for front line combat duty will be volunteers...appropriately tested and trained for the job. They will already have considered their own ability to carry out the role before volunteering. If they are found to be suitable for the role then IMHO they should be allowed to work in that role." At times I am amazed at the lack of knowledge about our armed forces. All members of HM Armed Forces are first and foremost combat soldiers, sailors and airmen (with the exception of medics, chaplains corps and females for cqc). This is why clerks, cooks and blanket stackers get weapons training and have to stag on when required. With this change in the regulations governing eligibility for cqc means all females regardless of fitness are now going to be available for front line combat duties. | |||
"That's the thing though there not assessed the same. The standard is lower........" Then surely they should be. | |||
"Then surely they should be. " We should have kept the family regiment system, we should have kept the divisional training depot system, we should have refused to change the posting system from one where units move en-mass. However we got rid of the family regiment system breaking the ties between regiments and communities. We centralised training that lowered the quality of troops training. We changed the posting system to one where troops move and units are static resulting in a system where there is less unit stability. We should have kept the 7.62 SLR as the default ground forces personal weapon. We didn't, we changed it for the 5.56 SA80 because the US wanted us to standardise ammo with their M16/M4. Result we now have a weapon that has no stopping power so our troops now have the same SOP as US troops in combat (put it on auto and pump lead to suppress incoming fire and call in an air strike)! But hey look on the bright side, we get smaller armed forces that do more for less (or so we are told). Of course they can no longer retain personnel and we have 10s of thousands of worn out and broken men in our communities, hospitals and prisons (forget the innocents broken in other countries). So in this age of gender equality why not add an equal number of women to the lists of costs all these money saving schemes have produced? | |||
"I'm assuming that the women destined for front line combat duty will be volunteers...appropriately tested and trained for the job. They will already have considered their own ability to carry out the role before volunteering. If they are found to be suitable for the role then IMHO they should be allowed to work in that role. At times I am amazed at the lack of knowledge about our armed forces. All members of HM Armed Forces are first and foremost combat soldiers, sailors and airmen (with the exception of medics, chaplains corps and females for cqc). This is why clerks, cooks and blanket stackers get weapons training and have to stag on when required. With this change in the regulations governing eligibility for cqc means all females regardless of fitness are now going to be available for front line combat duties." Wow...thank you for bringing my knowledge up to date in such an eloquent way. You see when I served my 12 years in the armed forces there was still a W in front of RNS/RAF/RAC and females were non-combatant. | |||
| |||
". We should have kept the 7.62 SLR as the default ground forces personal weapon. We didn't, we changed it for the 5.56 SA80 because the US wanted us to standardise ammo with their M16/M4. Result we now have a weapon that has no stopping power so our troops now have the same SOP as US troops in combat (put it on auto and pump lead to suppress incoming fire and call in an air strike)! " Have you lugged both Gats on Ops? The L85A2 is far more accurate and reliable than the L1A1, it is also a better weapon system than the M4 (the barrel is too short on the M4 which affects MV and accuracy) the new ammo the Spams switched to with the M4 was inadequate. | |||
" Have you lugged both Gats on Ops? The L85A2 is far more accurate and reliable than the L1A1, it is also a better weapon system than the M4 (the barrel is too short on the M4 which affects MV and accuracy) the new ammo the Spams switched to with the M4 was inadequate. " I never carried an SA80, they came after my time. However I did serve in a unit where I had the option of carrying an M16 which used the same ammo as the SA80. Having used bothSLR and M16 on ranges I decided that I would carry the extra weight of the SLR when on ops as I liked knocking over things I shot. Of course I may have been prejudiced because I also carried a 7.62 Enfield .303 Mk4(T) conversion. And in competition shooting at ranges over 200 mts I noticed that the 7.62 was more accurate than the 5.56... | |||
" Have you lugged both Gats on Ops? The L85A2 is far more accurate and reliable than the L1A1, it is also a better weapon system than the M4 (the barrel is too short on the M4 which affects MV and accuracy) the new ammo the Spams switched to with the M4 was inadequate. I never carried an SA80, they came after my time. However I did serve in a unit where I had the option of carrying an M16 which used the same ammo as the SA80. Having used bothSLR and M16 on ranges I decided that I would carry the extra weight of the SLR when on ops as I liked knocking over things I shot. Of course I may have been prejudiced because I also carried a 7.62 Enfield .303 Mk4(T) conversion. And in competition shooting at ranges over 200 mts I noticed that the 7.62 was more accurate than the 5.56..." M16 performance very much dependent on ammo choice. UK SS109 bullet is a bit lighter than the old yank M183  Slug - the Slug can out perform 7.62 in certain anti armour conditions! Competition Ammo, particularly 7.62, is of a higher quality than Ball on general issue. | |||
| |||
" Competition Ammo, particularly 7.62, is of a higher quality than Ball on general issue." I don't wish to contradict you, but in all the military full bore competitions I represented my unit in (and that was a few ranging from standard inter-unit comps to the UKLF's and inter service comps on the 100's range at Bisley) we always shot standard issue sludge supplied on the day by the competition range officer (generally between 3 and 5 minutes before dressing on to either the starting or firing point depending on the competition format (which we had to load in front of the range officer [often in limited time and sometimes blindfolded]). The only thing we were allowed supply was our weapons (provided they were fitted with standard iron sights). The only time I was able to shoot competition ammo was in small bore competitions (which were mostly postal), where we used private weapons (I owned a martini action BSA and an anschutz 1807). | |||
"Only area they were weaker is long distance tabbing, carrying weight." And funnily enough those are the 2 things that really matter in combat... (By the way, there is not such thing as long distance tabbing. TAB is an acronym for 'Tactical Advance Battle', which is never more than 8 miles (no distance at all), done wearing skeleton webbing carrying personal and unit weapons, 1 days rations and full unit munitions.) What you are probably referring to is a forced march, which is a totally different beast and is done at a speed of 7 miles an hour (done in 55 mins with a 5 minute break every hour). Of course then you are expected to carry all your field kit. "Let them crack on I say" OK... So we let them crack on... In a TAB, they cant keep up, and cant carry the weight (your admission). What is your answer? Here are your choices: 1/ To not being able to keep up: Slow down or stop the 'advance to contact' to let them catch up (giving the enemy extra time to prepare for contact), or carry on with an under-strength unit and accept the risks /costs either decision will have? 2/ To not being able to carry the weight. Allow the unit to go into battle under munitioned or dump unit support weapons in order to carry the women's kit for her, or again go into battle under strength and hope the women will turn up before its all over? Seems to me there is a high price to pay so women 'can crack on' in mixed units as is being suggested! As I said before if women want to play 'teeth arms' or even 'spear head' I have no objections if they are in 100% female units. But placing them in mixed units is not just a mistake it is a first class 'fuck up' and will cost lives! | |||
| |||
| |||
"Can't see a problem. The army is evolving. Change is OK and if its done for the right reason. If a young girl can pass the infantry training then why not send her as an equally trained infantry soldier. At battalion things might go pear shaped due to battalion sops but if that happens then just move on to a more suitable roll. Ex senior NCO. Ex infantry instructor. Whittington Brks. ( Depot Lichfield )" OK... So you were a Drill Sargent (maybe higher rank), I assume that means you were an Infantry Platoon Sargent before that. So please answer my questions, or were they above your pay grade and to be decided by your Platoon Commander, Company Commander, Battalion Commander, et al all the way to the Joint chiefs? By the way you (like me) because we no longer serve and are allowed express opinions about military issues provided we do not divulge information that is not already in the public domain. | |||
| |||
"Can't see a problem. The army is evolving. Change is OK and if its done for the right reason. If a young girl can pass the infantry training then why not send her as an equally trained infantry soldier. At battalion things might go pear shaped due to battalion sops but if that happens then just move on to a more suitable roll. Ex senior NCO. Ex infantry instructor. Whittington Brks. ( Depot Lichfield ) OK... So you were a Drill Sargent (maybe higher rank), I assume that means you were an Infantry Platoon Sargent before that. So please answer my questions, or were they above your pay grade and to be decided by your Platoon Commander, Company Commander, Battalion Commander, et al all the way to the Joint chiefs? By the way you (like me) because we no longer serve and are allowed express opinions about military issues provided we do not divulge information that is not already in the public domain." When I was an instructor at depot I was a Corporal ( section comm ) but yes you are correct I did become a Plt Sgt then Colour Sgt. What exactly was your question ? | |||
"The ban on women in close combat roles has been lifted. Some of the old guard say it's a bad thing because women just have weaker bodies and will be the weak link. The MOD say that whilst only 5% of women in the Army would pass the current physical requirements, the 5% that do can do the job just as well as a man. I've never been in the Army and never been a woman either so I don't have a great opinion, but I like watching MMA and think the woman there achieve physical fitness that is as good as it needs to be. Anyone else got a view on it? How are they getting past the womens pelvis's fracture when carrying the standard load at marching pace? Cause I'd wager the offical answer will be "move at the womans pace" which pragmatically speaking isn't feasible so will end up with the men carrying her equipment. Or we're gonna have so many lawsuits from women against the MoD. Then there's the problems that have nothing to do with the women and arent thier fault but cause problems such as rape/interal struggles between the men because of her. Iirc the Israelis gave it a pretty good go and decided it just didn't work fkr front line infantry Plus how will the pretty blonde getting beheaded in an ISIS video go down at home " God...what era are you in !! Just like men vary in both physical and intellectual ways, so do we. Personally I would not choose to train to kill someone but, the women that choose to do this are able. Just like a male recruit who joins unfit etc; they train. Some women are strong and very tough. Many women are leaders, let us spread our skills | |||
"Only area they were weaker is long distance tabbing, carrying weight. And funnily enough those are the 2 things that really matter in combat... (By the way, there is not such thing as long distance tabbing. TAB is an acronym for 'Tactical Advance Battle', which is never more than 8 miles (no distance at all), done wearing skeleton webbing carrying personal and unit weapons, 1 days rations and full unit munitions.) What you are probably referring to is a forced march, which is a totally different beast and is done at a speed of 7 miles an hour (done in 55 mins with a 5 minute break every hour). Of course then you are expected to carry all your field kit. Let them crack on I say OK... So we let them crack on... In a TAB, they cant keep up, and cant carry the weight (your admission). What is your answer? Here are your choices: 1/ To not being able to keep up: Slow down or stop the 'advance to contact' to let them catch up (giving the enemy extra time to prepare for contact), or carry on with an under-strength unit and accept the risks /costs either decision will have? 2/ To not being able to carry the weight. Allow the unit to go into battle under munitioned or dump unit support weapons in order to carry the women's kit for her, or again go into battle under strength and hope the women will turn up before its all over? Seems to me there is a high price to pay so women 'can crack on' in mixed units as is being suggested! As I said before if women want to play 'teeth arms' or even 'spear head' I have no objections if they are in 100% female units. But placing them in mixed units is not just a mistake it is a first class 'fuck up' and will cost lives!" I see where you are coming from...but... I have seen many highly trained fit men fall behind on a long march. If young women can carry their webbing , bergan , base plate or anti tank weapon , their own weapon. Extra ammunition and all the other extras then they deserve the right to be there. I'm not saying it would be easy physically most would struggle but some men struggle. In training I had tough northern lads crying to go home. Mentally women are stronger and more determined than most men. Determination is key. | |||
"(By MiSTARess)I'm ex army and there were women who were far superior soliders than some of the lads. Only area they were weaker is long distance tabbing, carrying weight. Let them crack on I say " In answer to I quoted: ""Only area they were weaker is long distance tabbing, carrying weight."" (and answered) And funnily enough those are the 2 things that really matter in combat... (By the way, there is not such thing as long distance tabbing. TAB is an acronym for 'Tactical Advance Battle', which is never more than 8 miles (no distance at all), done wearing skeleton webbing carrying personal and unit weapons, 1 days rations and full unit munitions.) What you are probably referring to is a forced march, which is a totally different beast and is done at a speed of 7 miles an hour (done in 55 mins with a 5 minute break every hour). Of course then you are expected to carry all your field kit. (I then quoted) ""Let them crack on I say"" (and answered)OK... So we let them crack on... In a TAB, they cant keep up, and cant carry the weight (your admission). What is your answer? Here are your choices: 1/ To not being able to keep up: Slow down or stop the 'advance to contact' to let them catch up (giving the enemy extra time to prepare for contact), or carry on with an under-strength unit and accept the risks /costs either decision will have? 2/ To not being able to carry the weight. Allow the unit to go into battle under munitioned or dump unit support weapons in order to carry the women's kit for her, or again go into battle under strength and hope the women will turn up before its all over? Seems to me there is a high price to pay so women 'can crack on' in mixed units as is being suggested! As I said before if women want to play 'teeth arms' or even 'spear head' I have no objections if they are in 100% female units. But placing them in mixed units is not just a mistake it is a first class 'fuck up' and will cost lives! My 2 questions are above. Luckily I (or those who have followed me [RM]) will never have to make those choices. Will you give an honest answer other than 'I would obey and follow orders'. | |||
"Only area they were weaker is long distance tabbing, carrying weight. And funnily enough those are the 2 things that really matter in combat... (By the way, there is not such thing as long distance tabbing. TAB is an acronym for 'Tactical Advance Battle', which is never more than 8 miles (no distance at all), done wearing skeleton webbing carrying personal and unit weapons, 1 days rations and full unit munitions.) What you are probably referring to is a forced march, which is a totally different beast and is done at a speed of 7 miles an hour (done in 55 mins with a 5 minute break every hour). Of course then you are expected to carry all your field kit. Let them crack on I say OK... So we let them crack on... In a TAB, they cant keep up, and cant carry the weight (your admission). What is your answer? Here are your choices: 1/ To not being able to keep up: Slow down or stop the 'advance to contact' to let them catch up (giving the enemy extra time to prepare for contact), or carry on with an under-strength unit and accept the risks /costs either decision will have? 2/ To not being able to carry the weight. Allow the unit to go into battle under munitioned or dump unit support weapons in order to carry the women's kit for her, or again go into battle under strength and hope the women will turn up before its all over? Seems to me there is a high price to pay so women 'can crack on' in mixed units as is being suggested! As I said before if women want to play 'teeth arms' or even 'spear head' I have no objections if they are in 100% female units. But placing them in mixed units is not just a mistake it is a first class 'fuck up' and will cost lives! I see where you are coming from...but... I have seen many highly trained fit men fall behind on a long march. If young women can carry their webbing , bergan , base plate or anti tank weapon , their own weapon. Extra ammunition and all the other extras then they deserve the right to be there. I'm not saying it would be easy physically most would struggle but some men struggle. In training I had tough northern lads crying to go home. Mentally women are stronger and more determined than most men. Determination is key." Posts crossed. Very diplomatic answer. LoL But knowing what squadies/ grunts/matlots are like, would you be happy taking a mixed sex unit into a cqc environment? And would you trust the men (not women) to 100% concentrate on their jobs and arks of fire? Or would you be worried about the men (not women) neglecting their fronts to 'protect'(in the hope of a quick shag) the women? | |||
| |||
"I still don't think it's a good idea, no matter how bad ass and physically fit the woman is, the other men around her will still want to protect her, she would be more of a target, if captured she'd be raped which I think is worse than beaten and or tortured. Does this lift mean that a woman could actually try p company?" Women have attempted P Coy and All Arms Commando Course in the past. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
"Does this lift mean that a woman could actually try p company?" I know that paras will get upset but P company is easy. It is all in the head (I've done it), its a bottle job. Screw up your balls and do the the aerial course steps and net jump, (block out the whine) and do the fan drop, (don't look down) and step off the balloon platform (second biggest balls job), shuffle along and get pushed out! doing your first proper jump (third biggest bottle job [your scared of the unknown]), your not going to be the first to say I'm not up for this! Fart as the red light goes on and shuffle along to do your second jump (you know what your scared of now!) After that its just clocking up the numbers. The commando course is different, it does not matter how big your balls are or how well you can control your fear it is physically hard, you cant complete it on bottle. Again I know, I've done it. | |||
| |||
"I see nothing wrong with women on front line roles.. Some I served with were harder bastards than most guys. As for the Uor's those are rarer than rocking horse shite. On a whole, most kit is more than suitable for the task in hand.. Yep, there is far superior kit out there but it comes with a premium price tag too.. Do you kit all your soldiers with adequate kit or a few with the mutts nuts stuff? I know what option I would pick. As for the whole 5.56 vs 7.62, i used both slr and sa80 and admit I preferred the 7.62 but it was bloody heavy and out dated. However, it has been understood that the 5.56 doesn't have the stopping power and modern adversaries won't stop to help their wounded.. Also the 5.56 bounces off of baggy clothes.. No good on those man jammies. There is a drive to bring the 7.62 back as the core round on two weapon systems. As a spokesman for the defence ordinance department stated - our enemy knows the sound of our weapons, the 5.56 keeps them coming for more, the 7.62 keeps their heads down and the 12.7 makes them run away. Keep your heads held high, the men and women of our armed forces are doing a Stirling job and should be commended for it." Yes the SLR was a great weapon. The SA80 has of course the option of automatic fire but lacks stopping power. Why we didn't just buy the Armalite from the yanks I'll never know. | |||
"It's about equality. It's about time women were allowed to get maimed and killed fighting on the whims of politicians too." Not if allowing them get killed costs even more men their lives just so some politician can say "we are an equal opportunities employer and women can do any job men can do". | |||
" Why we didn't just buy the Armalite from the yanks I'll never know." Because anyone who used it quickly found that although it had no kick it was a temperamental bag of shite that had no stopping power and jammed any time it saw sand or mud or felt moisture (forget rain). As I said I served in a unit where we had the choice of carrying it or an SLR (none of us carried the M16). | |||
"It's about equality. It's about time women were allowed to get maimed and killed fighting on the whims of politicians too. Not if allowing them get killed costs even more men their lives just so some politician can say "we are an equal opportunities employer and women can do any job men can do"." Why are mens lives more important ? | |||
| |||
" Why we didn't just buy the Armalite from the yanks I'll never know. Because anyone who used it quickly found that although it had no kick it was a temperamental bag of shite that had no stopping power and jammed any time it saw sand or mud or felt moisture (forget rain). As I said I served in a unit where we had the choice of carrying it or an SLR (none of us carried the M16)." I used it twice in NI. Found it a great weopon. | |||
"What about in the event of capture? They'll be tortured, beaten raped and possibly killed just like has happened to many male soilders throughout the centuries. Just the rape will likley be more recreational than as an interrogation tactic." Women who are not soldiers are treated this way everyday. | |||
"What about in the event of capture? They'll be tortured, beaten raped and possibly killed just like has happened to many male soilders throughout the centuries. Just the rape will likley be more recreational than as an interrogation tactic. Women who are not soldiers are treated this way everyday. " Thats a bit of a generalisation. Not all men are rapists and not all women have been raped  | |||
"What about in the event of capture? They'll be tortured, beaten raped and possibly killed just like has happened to many male soilders throughout the centuries. Just the rape will likley be more recreational than as an interrogation tactic. Women who are not soldiers are treated this way everyday. Thats a bit of a generalisation. Not all men are rapists and not all women have been raped "I didn't say all men...throughout the world girls and women are sexually exploited, sold, used and abused everyday. It's a fact | |||
"Why are mens lives more important ? " It is not that mens lives are more important. It is why should more lives be be sacrificed so that women can play also! Think of it like tennis. Why don't we just have 5 set singles and doubles matches? After all that would be sexual equality. Of course every time a female met a male in a 5 set singles match the female would lose when the males height, strength and and stamina overwhelmed the female and the same would be true when ever a mixed doubles or female only doubles team met a male only team. It is the same dynamic and allowing females to serve in front line units will reduce those units combat capabilities. I have no problem with female only combat units, I have many problems with mixed units. | |||
"Why are mens lives more important ? It is not that mens lives are more important. It is why should more lives be be sacrificed so that women can play also! Think of it like tennis. Why don't we just have 5 set singles and doubles matches? After all that would be sexual equality. Of course every time a female met a male in a 5 set singles match the female would lose when the males height, strength and and stamina overwhelmed the female and the same would be true when ever a mixed doubles or female only doubles team met a male only team. It is the same dynamic and allowing females to serve in front line units will reduce those units combat capabilities. I have no problem with female only combat units, I have many problems with mixed units." The sort of women joining up will be able and will undergo the training, I don't forsee heaps of young girls wanting to do this. There will only be small numbers....are you men scared you will be challanged. This idea that all women are weak individuals needing male protection is outdated. | |||
| |||
"I don't think a woman is strong enough to carry the amount of weight on there backs ,a woman's body is built for child birth even when they are pregnant they moan about the weight they carry or even put on sorry but no to being front line combat soldiers ,physically and mentally they won't cut it ,stick to saving life's not taking them ....all you want is a woman with bad PMT on the front line and she losses control and shoots every one lol " God quick get all those women who actually hold down responsible jobs back in the kitchen bare foot and pregnant. | |||
"I don't think a woman is strong enough to carry the amount of weight on there backs ,a woman's body is built for child birth even when they are pregnant they moan about the weight they carry or even put on sorry but no to being front line combat soldiers ,physically and mentally they won't cut it ,stick to saving life's not taking them ....all you want is a woman with bad PMT on the front line and she losses control and shoots every one lol God quick get all those women who actually hold down responsible jobs back in the kitchen bare foot and pregnant. " Thank you. The voice of reason at last | |||
" Why would anyone think that a clip from a Hollywood blockbuster is an accurate depiction of anything let alone a battle?" Because I know two veterans who survived the Omaha beach landing and they said it was a good representation of what it was like. Is there something in particular you can point to as unrealistic? The only thing I know to be missing is the really unmistakable primal screaming when someone dies a violent death. It is just a representation - but for people with no frame of reference about what infantry soldiers may have to do, it helps frame the debate. | |||
"The sort of women joining up will be able and will undergo the training, I don't forsee heaps of young girls wanting to do this. There will only be small numbers....are you men scared you will be challanged. This idea that all women are weak individuals needing male protection is outdated. " You obviously have no understanding of how the military work. All military personnel (with the exception of the Chaplains Department, doctors, nurses and women, who have non combat status) are first and foremost combatants, that is why all undergo basic rifle training and all (including blanket stackers, clerks and cooks) are required to carry arms and stag on in infantry rolls when required. By lifting the ban on females in cqc rolls ALL females (other than doctors, nurses and chaplains) regardless of fitness become potential front line troops! I have already explained this earlier in this thread. Do you understand I have no problem with women training to to be proper troops provided their use does not adversely affect operational effectiveness. Unfortunately this will not be the case as it is nothing more than an underhanded way of further stretching underfunded and undermanned resources in the name of equality. | |||
| |||
| |||
"The sort of women joining up will be able and will undergo the training, I don't forsee heaps of young girls wanting to do this. There will only be small numbers....are you men scared you will be challanged. This idea that all women are weak individuals needing male protection is outdated. You obviously have no understanding of how the military work. All military personnel (with the exception of the Chaplains Department, doctors, nurses and women, who have non combat status) are first and foremost combatants, that is why all undergo basic rifle training and all (including blanket stackers, clerks and cooks) are required to carry arms and stag on in infantry rolls when required. By lifting the ban on females in cqc rolls ALL females (other than doctors, nurses and chaplains) regardless of fitness become potential front line troops! I have already explained this earlier in this thread. Do you understand I have no problem with women training to to be proper troops provided their use does not adversely affect operational effectiveness. Unfortunately this will not be the case as it is nothing more than an underhanded way of further stretching underfunded and undermanned resources in the name of equality. " As you say, its soldier first, trade second. Opening close combat roles doesn't change this. The women who are currently serving are soldier first, and then whatever role second. So I dont really understand what you mean that this will change the status of women throughout the rest of the military. | |||
"The sort of women joining up will be able and will undergo the training, I don't forsee heaps of young girls wanting to do this. There will only be small numbers....are you men scared you will be challanged. This idea that all women are weak individuals needing male protection is outdated. You obviously have no understanding of how the military work. All military personnel (with the exception of the Chaplains Department, doctors, nurses and women, who have non combat status) are first and foremost combatants, that is why all undergo basic rifle training and all (including blanket stackers, clerks and cooks) are required to carry arms and stag on in infantry rolls when required. By lifting the ban on females in cqc rolls ALL females (other than doctors, nurses and chaplains) regardless of fitness become potential front line troops! I have already explained this earlier in this thread. Do you understand I have no problem with women training to to be proper troops provided their use does not adversely affect operational effectiveness. Unfortunately this will not be the case as it is nothing more than an underhanded way of further stretching underfunded and undermanned resources in the name of equality. " You cannot predict the future, and my husband was in the military - infintory soldier for many years. I met many a brave man and woman thanks. Women are equal to you, equality is not about being physically the strongest. I respect anyone who puts their life on the line and those like myself who nurse people who have fought. | |||
| |||
| |||
"As others have said, in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan there was no frontline, this is what General Sir Rupert Smith describes as "War amongst the people" in his book the Utility of Force. Although this may not always be the case, it seems as though asymmetric and hybrid warfare are likely to be key parts of future warfare. If you read War From The Ground Up by Emile Simpson he talks extensively about how all combat now takes place within the political sphere and there needs to be political will to win wars. This means that we are unlikely to go to war with other similarly advanced economies with similar military capabilities. Therefore the future of warfare (for the UK) is likely to continue to be war amongst the people, David vs Goliath where we are Goliath. As half of the populations that these future wars will be fought amogst are women, female troops have a key part to play, and fulfil roles that only women can fulfil. In Afghanistan the UK and the US have deployed Female Engagement Team (US) and Female Engagement Officers (UK). In Muslim countries, basic military tasks such as serching a woman, or a room solely used by women, or talking to women to gain Intel can cause huge problems if conducted by male troops, hence the creation of the above teams. Issues such as this are especially important when trying to win Hearts & Minds. So I think that women serving on the front line and in combat roles does have distinct military advantages and I thoroughly support it. Having said that, I do have some concerns. These are not the White Knight concerns, I am concerned about the physical stresses that lead to people becoming Wounded Injured or Sick (WIS). Military life is tougher and harder than civilian life. The ex-Service community are 3.5 times more likely than civilians to experience hearing loss, twice as likely to experience long term illness, five times more like to experience visual problems including blindness, twice as likely to have muscular skeletal problems etc.(Source TRBL Household Survey 2014). So I am worried that more women will be WIS." A really good post and I agree with 90% of what you say. I am not saying no women in forward areas, as there are many specialist roles that they can do much better than the men. My concern is much narrower, limited to the infantry specialisation. Where I disagree with you is that it is not just who we choose to go to war with, but also who chooses to bring war to us. I can't say that people like Putin will make decisions based on the type of rational assessment you suggest. The Great War broke out as a result of intransigent overreaction to a single political assassination. It was equal folly for the Argentine Junta to order the invasion of the Falklands in 1982, but they still did it. Separately, to make this whole exercise worthwhile, women must make a significant contribution of something like 10-20% plus of the fighting strength. If there are just going to be a few exceptionals then the whole thing is valueless tokenism. | |||
"As others have said, in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan there was no frontline, this is what General Sir Rupert Smith describes as "War amongst the people" in his book the Utility of Force. Although this may not always be the case, it seems as though asymmetric and hybrid warfare are likely to be key parts of future warfare. If you read War From The Ground Up by Emile Simpson he talks extensively about how all combat now takes place within the political sphere and there needs to be political will to win wars. This means that we are unlikely to go to war with other similarly advanced economies with similar military capabilities. Therefore the future of warfare (for the UK) is likely to continue to be war amongst the people, David vs Goliath where we are Goliath. As half of the populations that these future wars will be fought amogst are women, female troops have a key part to play, and fulfil roles that only women can fulfil. In Afghanistan the UK and the US have deployed Female Engagement Team (US) and Female Engagement Officers (UK). In Muslim countries, basic military tasks such as serching a woman, or a room solely used by women, or talking to women to gain Intel can cause huge problems if conducted by male troops, hence the creation of the above teams. Issues such as this are especially important when trying to win Hearts & Minds. So I think that women serving on the front line and in combat roles does have distinct military advantages and I thoroughly support it. Having said that, I do have some concerns. These are not the White Knight concerns, I am concerned about the physical stresses that lead to people becoming Wounded Injured or Sick (WIS). Military life is tougher and harder than civilian life. The ex-Service community are 3.5 times more likely than civilians to experience hearing loss, twice as likely to experience long term illness, five times more like to experience visual problems including blindness, twice as likely to have muscular skeletal problems etc.(Source TRBL Household Survey 2014). So I am worried that more women will be WIS. A really good post and I agree with 90% of what you say. I am not saying no women in forward areas, as there are many specialist roles that they can do much better than the men. My concern is much narrower, limited to the infantry specialisation. Where I disagree with you is that it is not just who we choose to go to war with, but also who chooses to bring war to us. I can't say that people like Putin will make decisions based on the type of rational assessment you suggest. The Great War broke out as a result of intransigent overreaction to a single political assassination. It was equal folly for the Argentine Junta to order the invasion of the Falklands in 1982, but they still did it. Separately, to make this whole exercise worthwhile, women must make a significant contribution of something like 10-20% plus of the fighting strength. If there are just going to be a few exceptionals then the whole thing is valueless tokenism. " At the moment it seems as though the thought of anyone thrusting war upon us is absurd, due to geography and of course NATO, but the world is a fast changing place at time. 25 years ago it felt as though the cold war would continue for generations and communism was the biggest threat, and yet that disappeared very quickly. 15 years ago Islamic terrorism was only known to those in the security services and academia, and yet today it is almost an ever present threat for everyone in the West. 60-70 years ago in the aftermath of WWII countries were coming together to build economic and military institutions to make war in Europe impossible, but I wonder if we are now travelling in the opposite direction. Whilst NATO is the corner stone of our defence today, no body knows what it will look like in 15 or 25 years from now. I don't want to turn this into another EU thread, but if it were to fall apart, that could be very bad for the security situation and stability of the continent. | |||
"As others have said, in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan there was no frontline, this is what General Sir Rupert Smith describes as "War amongst the people" in his book the Utility of Force. Although this may not always be the case, it seems as though asymmetric and hybrid warfare are likely to be key parts of future warfare. If you read War From The Ground Up by Emile Simpson he talks extensively about how all combat now takes place within the political sphere and there needs to be political will to win wars. This means that we are unlikely to go to war with other similarly advanced economies with similar military capabilities. Therefore the future of warfare (for the UK) is likely to continue to be war amongst the people, David vs Goliath where we are Goliath. As half of the populations that these future wars will be fought amogst are women, female troops have a key part to play, and fulfil roles that only women can fulfil. In Afghanistan the UK and the US have deployed Female Engagement Team (US) and Female Engagement Officers (UK). In Muslim countries, basic military tasks such as serching a woman, or a room solely used by women, or talking to women to gain Intel can cause huge problems if conducted by male troops, hence the creation of the above teams. Issues such as this are especially important when trying to win Hearts & Minds. So I think that women serving on the front line and in combat roles does have distinct military advantages and I thoroughly support it. Having said that, I do have some concerns. These are not the White Knight concerns, I am concerned about the physical stresses that lead to people becoming Wounded Injured or Sick (WIS). Military life is tougher and harder than civilian life. The ex-Service community are 3.5 times more likely than civilians to experience hearing loss, twice as likely to experience long term illness, five times more like to experience visual problems including blindness, twice as likely to have muscular skeletal problems etc.(Source TRBL Household Survey 2014). So I am worried that more women will be WIS. A really good post and I agree with 90% of what you say. I am not saying no women in forward areas, as there are many specialist roles that they can do much better than the men. My concern is much narrower, limited to the infantry specialisation. Where I disagree with you is that it is not just who we choose to go to war with, but also who chooses to bring war to us. I can't say that people like Putin will make decisions based on the type of rational assessment you suggest. The Great War broke out as a result of intransigent overreaction to a single political assassination. It was equal folly for the Argentine Junta to order the invasion of the Falklands in 1982, but they still did it. Separately, to make this whole exercise worthwhile, women must make a significant contribution of something like 10-20% plus of the fighting strength. If there are just going to be a few exceptionals then the whole thing is valueless tokenism. " If putin starts a war with the west the gender of our troops will be a non issue and the war will be over in an hour | |||
"What about in the event of capture? They'll be tortured, beaten raped and possibly killed just like has happened to many male soilders throughout the centuries. Just the rape will likley be more recreational than as an interrogation tactic. Women who are not soldiers are treated this way everyday. " So are men. Your point? | |||
"I see nothing wrong with women on front line roles.. Some I served with were harder bastards than most guys. As for the Uor's those are rarer than rocking horse shite. On a whole, most kit is more than suitable for the task in hand.. Yep, there is far superior kit out there but it comes with a premium price tag too.. Do you kit all your soldiers with adequate kit or a few with the mutts nuts stuff? I know what option I would pick. As for the whole 5.56 vs 7.62, i used both slr and sa80 and admit I preferred the 7.62 but it was bloody heavy and out dated. However, it has been understood that the 5.56 doesn't have the stopping power and modern adversaries won't stop to help their wounded.. Also the 5.56 bounces off of baggy clothes.. No good on those man jammies. There is a drive to bring the 7.62 back as the core round on two weapon systems. As a spokesman for the defence ordinance department stated - our enemy knows the sound of our weapons, the 5.56 keeps them coming for more, the 7.62 keeps their heads down and the 12.7 makes them run away. Keep your heads held high, the men and women of our armed forces are doing a Stirling job and should be commended for it." Ok, you stand down range in some baggy clothing, I'll shoot some 5.56mm at you, and we'll see how many bounce off you, sounds like fun, right? | |||
| |||
"I see nothing wrong with women on front line roles.. Some I served with were harder bastards than most guys. As for the Uor's those are rarer than rocking horse shite. On a whole, most kit is more than suitable for the task in hand.. Yep, there is far superior kit out there but it comes with a premium price tag too.. Do you kit all your soldiers with adequate kit or a few with the mutts nuts stuff? I know what option I would pick. As for the whole 5.56 vs 7.62, i used both slr and sa80 and admit I preferred the 7.62 but it was bloody heavy and out dated. However, it has been understood that the 5.56 doesn't have the stopping power and modern adversaries won't stop to help their wounded.. Also the 5.56 bounces off of baggy clothes.. No good on those man jammies. There is a drive to bring the 7.62 back as the core round on two weapon systems. As a spokesman for the defence ordinance department stated - our enemy knows the sound of our weapons, the 5.56 keeps them coming for more, the 7.62 keeps their heads down and the 12.7 makes them run away. Keep your heads held high, the men and women of our armed forces are doing a Stirling job and should be commended for it." L85A2 IW effective range as an individual is 300m and as part of a Section 600m. It weighs approximately the same as the L1A1 but due to its Bullpup design is better balanced and shorter. During Ops in Afghanistan it was recognised that the OPFOR was seen long before they could be effectively engaged by the IW, the AR15 was purchased on UOR in order that the effective combat range could be pushed out further to engage Terry earlier. The AR15 fires a NATO .308, or 7.62X51. I would like to know where Terry got his tailoring done if 5.56 didn't penetrate his baggy trousers and dish dash; certainly better than any body armour on the market if this is the case. The move towards 7.62 is not necessarily on the cards. The US is currently studying a future IW program after the M4 debacle. It is likely that other NATO countries will follow along; H&K will, I have no doubt, build ours as BAe own them, be they 4.85, 5.56, 7.62 or 9mm. | |||
" Competition Ammo, particularly 7.62, is of a higher quality than Ball on general issue. I don't wish to contradict you, but in all the military full bore competitions I represented my unit in (and that was a few ranging from standard inter-unit comps to the UKLF's and inter service comps on the 100's range at Bisley) we always shot standard issue sludge supplied on the day by the competition range officer (generally between 3 and 5 minutes before dressing on to either the starting or firing point depending on the competition format (which we had to load in front of the range officer [often in limited time and sometimes blindfolded]). The only thing we were allowed supply was our weapons (provided they were fitted with standard iron sights). The only time I was able to shoot competition ammo was in small bore competitions (which were mostly postal), where we used private weapons (I owned a martini action BSA and an anschutz 1807). " So no green spot ammo for you then? Shame it is superior in that it undergoes better QA and the performance is repeatable. | |||
" Competition Ammo, particularly 7.62, is of a higher quality than Ball on general issue. I don't wish to contradict you, but in all the military full bore competitions I represented my unit in (and that was a few ranging from standard inter-unit comps to the UKLF's and inter service comps on the 100's range at Bisley) we always shot standard issue sludge supplied on the day by the competition range officer (generally between 3 and 5 minutes before dressing on to either the starting or firing point depending on the competition format (which we had to load in front of the range officer [often in limited time and sometimes blindfolded]). The only thing we were allowed supply was our weapons (provided they were fitted with standard iron sights). The only time I was able to shoot competition ammo was in small bore competitions (which were mostly postal), where we used private weapons (I owned a martini action BSA and an anschutz 1807). So no green spot ammo for you then? Shame it is superior in that it undergoes better QA and the performance is repeatable." Not for 'combat' full bore shooting competitions in my day. It was even frowned upon when those of us who knew to used our issue rifle straps as an extra stabiliser and sooted up the the iron sights to cut glare, and our rear sights were nearly always checked to make sure they had the regulation size hole in the rear sight... (Some of us had black sleeves that slipped over the rear sight and reduced the aperture size for more accuracy. LoL) | |||
