Females in Combat Units

Remington 1858

Active member
Alrighty then; this should start a lively discussion.
How do you feel about women in combat units? Obviously this is going to be opinion only unless you have some scientific data to support an argument. When I was in military service, women were barred from combat units, so I had no contact under those circumstances.
When I first entered law enforcement, same thing. Women didn't go hands - on with criminals. When women were first admitted the old timers said " they will ruin everything", I thought they were just a bunch of dinosaurs. Experience proved them at least partially right. Women didn't ruin everything, but they ruined enough that I was glad to get out of the job.
Females can do some jobs superbly in law enforcement, just not some of the ones you need done. With very few exceptions, they don't want to get in somebody's face or go hands-on. They made good investigators and moderately good administrators. They are great at pushing paper and everything they run is neat and tidy. They just don't want to go kick some scumbags ass! And that really, really needs to be done sometimes. There are exceptions, but that's what they are, rare exceptions
I think ( here we go, opinion) that they lack the aggressiveness and risk taking attitude it takes to win. They are risk adverse. That doesn't mean they are cowardly. It means they are afraid to make a mistake and afraid to lose. That is practically a guarantee of losing.
And all of this is over and above the sexual politics, which is a major problem in and of itself.
So, lets hear what you have to say. No flaming please, just some moderately polite, intelligent commentary. Citing actual experience would be helpful.
 
I suspect you have never met the average Kiwi woman, they are for the most part bigger and angrier than the Kiwi male, I suspect if we dropped about 10 of them on Syria ISIS would be converting to Judaism in a week.

I don't have any issues with women entering combat units (but it is easy to have that opinion when you arent in one) but like yourself my experience of them in certain workplaces is not positive and combat may be one however I am not qualified to make that call.
 
I don't have any experience of having women in the military. We didn't have any when I was in the service (army, infantry) There were women in the Swedish military at that time, but they were in the navy or in the air force. There are women in all branches now and I don't have anything negative to say about that. What I disagree with is, if the requirements for a specific duty are lowered to get women into these positions. The requirements are there for a reason. Although, if a woman fulfills these requirements, I don't mind it. I don't like the concept of having lesser qualified police officers, fire fighters, military personnel, para-rescue, and others. The people qualifying to fill the positions shall have an equal chance regardless gender, but not lowering the requirements.
 
The United States Marine Corp is doing all that is possible to keep this from happening. They have submitted all sorts of studies and test results to show that gender integration will degrade performance, but if the Marines think they can stop this, they are dreaming.
In the Politically Correct States of America it is already a done deal. And when President Hillary Clinton takes over, there will be gender neutral restrooms. or latrines or as the Marines call then " heads" anywhere there are Marines.
What would John Wayne say?
The Duke must be spinning in his grave.
 
I don't have any experience of having women in the military. We didn't have any when I was in the service (army, infantry) There were women in the Swedish military at that time, but they were in the navy or in the air force. There are women in all branches now and I don't have anything negative to say about that. What I disagree with is, if the requirements for a specific duty are lowered to get women into these positions. The requirements are there for a reason. Although, if a woman fulfills these requirements, I don't mind it. I don't like the concept of having lesser qualified police officers, fire fighters, military personnel, para-rescue, and others. The people qualifying to fill the positions shall have an equal chance regardless gender, but not lowering the requirements.

This I agree with, if there was a unversal standard that everyone was required to meet (and I know there is) both pysically and mentally then what does gender matter.
The hard part is structuring it so that it isn't lowered for special interest groups in order to meet some politically expedient quota.

I think it worth noting at this stage that women have been in combat units throughout history and it is only the more prudish Christian ideals of the last 1000 years that has removed them from Western forces so lets not assume that women are not capable of operating within that environment.
 
When the topic of having women in the military emerged. We discussed the risk for them if they became POWs. It can be rough for males being POWs, but it might be even worse for women.

This discussion is about the ground forces, but if we expand the topic to include the navy and the air force. They are fighting too, I guess. There are many duties in the military when the gender doesn't matter much. The crew of a love boat....I mean a submarine or any other naval vessel. Many of the duties there are watching a screen and females and males can do that.
 
QUOTE=Remington 1858;703402]Alrighty then; this should start a lively discussion.
How do you feel about women in combat units? Obviously this is going to be opinion only unless you have some scientific data to support an argument. When I was in military service, women were barred from combat units, so I had no contact under those circumstances.
When I first entered law enforcement, same thing. Women didn't go hands - on with criminals. When women were first admitted the old timers said " they will ruin everything", I thought they were just a bunch of dinosaurs. Experience proved them at least partially right. Women didn't ruin everything, but they ruined enough that I was glad to get out of the job.
Females can do some jobs superbly in law enforcement, just not some of the ones you need done. With very few exceptions, they don't want to get in somebody's face or go hands-on. They made good investigators and moderately good administrators. They are great at pushing paper everything they run is neat and tidy. They just don't want to go kick some scumbags ass! And that really, really needs to be done sometimes. There are exceptions, but that's what they are, rare exceptions
I think ( here we go, opinion) that they lack the aggressiveness and risk taking attitude it takes to win. They are risk adverse. That doesn't mean they are cowardly. It means they are afraid to make a mistake and afraid to lose. That is practically a guarantee of losing.
And all of this is over and above the sexual politics, which is a major problem in and of itself.
So, lets hear what you have to say. No flaming please, just some moderately polite, intelligent commentary. Citing actual experience would be helpful.[/QUOTE]

I'd LOVE to kick some scumbag's ass.
m1309.gif


IMO.. a woman who joins the military is taking an aggressive step and is showing up front that she isn't afraid. If she IS afraid then she's courageous enough to get past that. To me.. that's a winner.
m1281.gif


And if you think all women are neat and tidy.. you should see my desk. :angel:
 
Last edited:
We don't put females in ground combat roles in the UK, but that's changing from next year.

My view is that if they can pass the exact same selection tests as men, then they should be free to serve in frontline infantry combat roles. However, I do believe that they will struggle to pass the physical requirements simply due to physical differences in the female body.

I've had female medics, translators, military intelligence etc join my troop out on patrol and they got stuck in just like everyone else. We were however more protective of them during any contacts, but that's simply human nature. Males will always be protective of females and that could be an issue on the frontline.

I'm all for it, but I don't see it working. The female body is complex, and issues such as being able to urinate when you're on a 4 day patrol, will a woman want to squat and urinate in front of 12 males? It would be a degrading experience for both sexes. Then there's the female menstrual cycle. Can they deal with periods when out in the middle of know where, living out of a hole in the sand for several days. Then there's the issue of sex, which will happen given the environment you're working in.
 
It's entirely a social issue, it makes no sense for a military standpoint. Females have generally been excluded from combat from the beginning of history and this is proof that they are not needed. If a tribe or nation is struggling at the survival level, that's one thing; then you arm children!
There is no shortage of volunteers males in the U.S. forces. In fact at this point they can pick and choose. The is the politicians giving in to the feminists!
What next? Gays, transexuals --Oh wait!
 
Well, women feel they are supposed to have equal "everything", I suppose that might as well include the same horrors and nightmares. I wonder if they can handle PTSD the same way.
 
The Soviets used women tank crews, fighter pilots as well as snipers among other tasks. Apparently they were very good.

On the units I have been on, women have caused major problems among the men.
 
The Soviets were fighting for their national survival and for the survival of the Communist system. From that standpoint, there are no measures too extreme. You draft kids as young as fourteen. You drive refugees over minefields. You use criminals in penal battalions as assault troops.
The Soviets did all that.
The use of women in combat units when there is no shortage of males is social engineering, not military necessity.
 
The Soviets were fighting for their national survival and for the survival of the Communist system. From that standpoint, there are no measures too extreme. You draft kids as young as fourteen. You drive refugees over minefields. You use criminals in penal battalions as assault troops.
The Soviets did all that.
The use of women in combat units when there is no shortage of males is social engineering, not military necessity.

The point is, the Soviets used women in combat units successfully whether or not its social engineering or military necessity. Its putting boots, male or female where they are required.

Israels IDF use females if I remember correctly as tank crews.
 
It's entirely a social issue, it makes no sense for a military standpoint. Females have generally been excluded from combat from the beginning of history and this is proof that they are not needed. If a tribe or nation is struggling at the survival level, that's one thing; then you arm children!
There is no shortage of volunteers males in the U.S. forces. In fact at this point they can pick and choose. The is the politicians giving in to the feminists!
What next? Gays, transexuals --Oh wait!


Women should be spared the horrors and tragedies of direct combat as long as we have enough men to serve. In support roles they should receive every accolade they deserve.
 
The point is, the Soviets used women in combat units successfully whether or not its social engineering or military necessity. Its putting boots, male or female where they are required.

Israels IDF use females if I remember correctly as tank crews.


Both the Israeli's and the former Red Army used women in combat roles. All that was said about the Soviets was true and more. They were fighting for a war of racial extinction. The alternative was slavery and death, Hitler had no future plans for a S.U. with Slav's. Much the same with Israeli "at least early on". The Arabs would have driven them into the sea. They needed every resource they could muster.
You are right Brit the IRDF did and does use women in tank crews.
 
I have quite recently read about SOE operations and there were several women serving in the SOE during the war and successfully so. Hence, women can play a vital role during armed conflicts, even if the SOE operatives weren't military per se. They did a pretty good job and it was dangerous too.
 
The Soviets used women tank crews, fighter pilots as well as snipers among other tasks. Apparently they were very good.

On the units I have been on, women have caused major problems among the men.

The RAF currently has a number of female fighter pilots that are operationally deployed.
 
I have quite recently read about SOE operations and there were several women serving in the SOE during the war and successfully so. Hence, women can play a vital role during armed conflicts, even if the SOE operatives weren't military per se. They did a pretty good job and it was dangerous too.

Quite Right and sadly many paid with their lives.

Here is a list of women who served in the SOE:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_SOE_agents

As an aside, when I left school I worked for the GPO, my office was at Electra House in London which apparently was an SOE establishment. Electra House was 6 floor high with a number of floors underground. It was a massive building.
 
Last edited:
Guys, spies, radio operators. support personnel; that is not combat. Combat is offensive or defensive operations by organized forces to destroy the enemy and/or occupy territory by means of firepower, maneuver and close combat.
The Combat Arms are : the infantry, field artillery, anti-aircraft artillery, armor, aviation and sometimes; special forces. You decide whether females belong in any or all of those arms.
Combat Support - These are organizations within the combat zone , but not directly involved in combat operations. They are; the combat engineers, signal, medical, intelligence and sometimes military police. Females are already found in those units.
Combat Service Support are those in the area behind the combat zone; transport, ordnance, supply, maintenance. No problem with females here!
In the modern battlefield, any of these units could, conceivably encounter hostile forces, even in a rear area. That's why everyone needs basic combat training.
But generally, only combat units will face daily, 24 hour threat of death and the hardship of living in a hole or in an armored vehicle with others, in the same clothes for long periods of time. Only combat arms units will be required to take the fight to the enemy and the enemy will fight back!
I don't imagine that there will be large numbers of volunteers for front line duty. This is someone's vision of a utopian world.
 
Back
Top