ARmy Rumour SErvice

**sandy_boots** · 02-05-2010, 21:00

This has been done to death on numerous threads.

There are two issues here - women in close combat i.e. on â€˜the front lineâ€™ and women in close combat roles i.e. in the infantry. Nobody in the British Army should have any problem at all with women in the front line. They are on the â€˜front lineâ€™ on a daily basis at the moment and in my experience they do their jobs to the equal of their male colleagues. Indeed a fair few of them have been decorated in recognition of their actions in combat and deservedly so. But â€œfront lineâ€ and combat infantry are not synonymous.

The British army has ALWAYS assumed that any soldier regardless of their trade or gender, could end up in close combat. That is the nature of our industry and it is why everyone who joins the army does phase 1 training in order to give them the basic knowledge and skills to do precisely that - fight.

This thread and others like it are testimony to the sad fact that the many of my fellow ARRSErs are quite ignorant of the role and function of the BRITISH infantry soldier. In order for the British army to adopt dual gender combat infantry there will have to be a seismic change in our doctrine and in our equipment. This change will inevitably have a negative impact on our capability. Lighter loads = less kit & less ammo = less capability & sustainability. The only people that will benefit will be our enemies as weâ€™ll be easier to beat.

The MINIMUM combat load (i.e. what he has to fight with) of a BRITISH* infantry soldier is over 35kgs. Lets put that in armchair warrior terms: a can of beer weighs 460g, thus 35kg = 76 cans of beer, a tad over three cases. Next time you're in Tesco pick up three cases of beer and see how it feels. Now try to imagine having that weight on all the time. Now imagine adding another couple of cases of beer to that load when you pick up your Bergan.

Please also remember that our current fitness standards for the infantry are inadequate. Given that the MINIMUM combat load for an infantry soldier is 35kg, the 25kg weight limit set in the Combat Fitness Test for the infantry under MATT2 is insufficient. The old Infantry CFT under the ITD system was a little more realistic at 12 miles/30kg/3.5 hrs followed the next day by 12 miles/25kg/3 hours. Further, MATT 2 allows local commanders to decide how the weight is carried (combat order, assault order or Bergan) Needless to say many "local commanders" opt for the weight to be carried in a Bergan (shame on them) which is hardly a simulation of load carrying in combat.

*Please do not bring up examples of other nations having women in the Infantry. No other nation carries anything like the amount of kit that we do. Thatâ€™s why weâ€™re more effective. Weâ€™re fitter, stronger, carry more weapons, bigger weapons, more bullets, and have better protection.

**Gravelbelly** · 02-05-2010, 21:11

Originally Posted by shagnasty

But name me any army that ever put women into the attack in any numbers in a close quarter battle ...then I'll back down.

Eritrea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrea...ont#Background

I'm not saying it is a good idea; just saying that some of your justification is wobbly

**ottar** · 02-05-2010, 21:18

Originally Posted by shagnasty

Originally Posted by tropper66

During Ww2 the Russians found that women were even better than men in some skills where techno;igy gave them the edge pilots and tank crews, but strangly the also used them as snipers to very good effect. Lyudmila Pavichenko killed over 189 Germans during her time as a sniper

But I still think its a bad Idea

AGREED it is a bad idea....and putting Soviet propaganda aside...it still proves my point. Women, given the tool can kill...at a distance. But name me any army that ever put women into the attack in any numbers in a close quarter battle ...then I'll back down.

You can go back to the English shield wall of Roman times..Ghenghis Khans raids..The Western Front...The Pacific War 1944-45....Korea..The Falklands ..Iraq... Afghanistan....Just a few from history. Name me one battle where women in combat were the decisive factor?

..and don't give me that balls that they were never given the chance...they could have volunteered , couldn't they?

I take it you've never heard of Hannah Snell?
Or Boudica.

Edited to add: (my bold) Will the Spanish guerrillas of the Peninsular War do?

**shagnasty** · 02-05-2010, 21:18

Originally Posted by western

OK so the distance between women and the Infantry soldiers they support in Afghanistan is about 10 metres, what a bunch of REMFs!

Very true and good drills those little sweet badgers. We know how they have supported you guys. Many thanks.

**shagnasty** · 02-05-2010, 21:40

OTTAR : I take it you've never heard of Hannah Snell?
Or Boudica.

Edited to add: (my bold) Will the Spanish guerrillas of the Peninsular War do?

Don't be silly of course I have heard of Hannah, a woman of repute in the 1750s; as for Mrs. Boudica, what a women! . Notwithstanding their individual bravery and contribution to world history ...does this answer the question?

**western** · 02-05-2010, 21:53

Originally Posted by sandy_boots

This has been done to death on numerous threads.

Macho bullsh1t I am afraid. Plenty of people in an infantry Batallion operate well behind the girls and the Corps people in close support.

Do we need a two tier infannry?

**Zarathustra** · 02-05-2010, 23:07

Originally Posted by western

Originally Posted by sandy_boots

This has been done to death on numerous threads.

Macho bullsh1t I am afraid. Plenty of people in an infantry Batallion operate well behind the girls and the Corps people in close support.

Do we need a two tier infannry?

While this is true, the women who are operating at the front are not involved in clearing compounds with bayonets fixed on a regular basis, they are there in a supporting role, not as frontline fighting troops.

On Herrick 6 our FST commander was a female captain, while she was out on the ground with us both operating from vehicles and when we were dismounted in the Green Zone she wasn't cutting around stabbing the Taleban. The same goes for the female RMPs we had for an op, they patrolled with us but stayed in the rear with the Plt Sgt's group.

And be fore anyone starts I know it's a 360 degree battlefield and the Taleban don't care who they kill and would more than likely actively target females on the ground given half a chance.

There is a lot more to consider about whether or not to have women on the front line than just the combat side.

**jinxy** · 02-05-2010, 23:26

Untill the day, that , we as 'Gentlemen' think it ok, right and proper, to stick the nut on a lady, they will not join the Infantry. When that day happens? I'll turn in my grave.

**jonwilly** · 03-05-2010, 05:40

No don't believe in it.
I have never doubted the courage of Women, the old joke being if Men had the Babies then there would be fewer babies.
A mate of mine very strong on Sport says why Woman's Tennis or Woman's anything, if they want to compete then they should so so under the males rules and against men.
No disrespect to the Ladies but they do have a habit of having things in their favour and then when somewhat unpleasant aspects arise, No we want special rules for we are Woman.
There are No Special rues in War and No one wants to see woman captured and mistreated.
Imagine the Burma death railway if it had been woman prisoners.
As anyone who has seen wounded men will tell you.
Men want their Mother and a Female Nurse makes the best substitute.
Woman do some things better then men, lets keep to the old proven ways of History.

john