All Roles Now Open To Females

Very good question, you can always do something extreme once in peacetime to prove you can but actually doing the same in a combat environment often looks a bit tactically stupid. Even if you can get the ammo to it, all those super fit blokes running up and down the hill with the shells in the kit, the gun is stuck out like a spare pr*ck at a wedding.

It's the same principle as gold plating equipment design, another pointless activity we engage in 'because we can', without thought of the bigger picture.
Not that I wish to argue with anyone, but the Italians seemed to think it was a good idea :)

Cresta Croce Ademello cannon 149G
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
Fat lot of good it did them against this chap.

1571694994367.png
 

Kefi

Old-Salt
Absolutely, and not all men are created equal, no matter how much people pretend to the contrary.

Men are generally stronger than women and at the top level will win every time.

But that is not an absolute, not every man is physically stronger than every woman, and not every currently serving infanter is physically fitter and stronger than every female currently serving.

That’s just the way it is, regardless of how many pretend it’s not true :)
This has got to be the crux of the argumrnt for women in the GCC units. However accepting the fact that there are a very low minority of women who can tick all the GCC units fitness box's there is still the cohesion problems to overcome. I don't believe you can recruit & train M & F & separate them in basic training, if they can't live together they can't fight together, simples.
Here iare the fittness standards after the introduction of women into the RAF Regt, the standards before were not felixibal ie one standard reguardless of age. I would say that when the first female does pass out of the training system it will be by default as she would not have got through the pre selection phase if it was left as it was.



MALES – minimum number required:
AGEPress-upsSit-ups
16-292035
30-341932
35-391829
40-441726
45-471623
FEMALES – minimum number required:
AGEPress-upsSit-ups
16-291032
30-34929
35-39826
40-44723
45-47620
 
Not that I wish to argue with anyone, but the Italians seemed to think it was a good idea :)

Cresta Croce Ademello cannon 149G
The Italians think a lot of military things are a good idea including surrendering by the acre.

I'd also like to read the war diary of this battery [was there a battery or just one token gun] and find out what it actually achieved. Given the nature of WW1 they might have spent 4 months stockpiling the ammunition for a 3-4 hour shoot and then had the front move out of range within the day, or more likely discovered even that shoot hadn't worked, a few thousand men were casualties and they had to start all over again.

As with the ideas being floated on the FIBUA thread for better weapons, the first question to ask yourself in modern warfare, where we can't afford to mobilise millions of men and lose 10% of them, is the real solution, just don't do it.
 
The Italians think a lot of military things are a good idea including surrendering by the acre.

I'd also like to read the war diary of this battery [was there a battery or just one token gun] and find out what it actually achieved. Given the nature of WW1 they might have spent 4 months stockpiling the ammunition for a 3-4 hour shoot and then had the front move out of range within the day, or more likely discovered even that shoot hadn't worked, a few thousand men were casualties and they had to start all over again.

As with the ideas being floated on the FIBUA thread for better weapons, the first question to ask yourself in modern warfare, where we can't afford to mobilise millions of men and lose 10% of them, is the real solution, just don't do it.
Google La Guerra Bianca or The White War. and make your own mind up.
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
Racist.
 
This has got to be the crux of the argumrnt for women in the GCC units. However accepting the fact that there are a very low minority of women who can tick all the GCC units fitness box's there is still the cohesion problems to overcome. I don't believe you can recruit & train M & F & separate them in basic training, if they can't live together they can't fight together, simples.
Here iare the fittness standards after the introduction of women into the RAF Regt, the standards before were not felixibal ie one standard reguardless of age. I would say that when the first female does pass out of the training system it will be by default as she would not have got through the pre selection phase if it was left as it was.



MALES – minimum number required:
AGEPress-upsSit-ups
16-292035
30-341932
35-391829
40-441726
45-471623
FEMALES – minimum number required:
AGEPress-upsSit-ups
16-291032
30-34929
35-39826
40-44723
45-47620
Quite obviously and as usual, the RAf have got it wrong. The Army may very well get it wrong in the future, but currently there are no separate standards for the same part of the Army.
 

Kefi

Old-Salt
Quite obviously and as usual, the RAf have got it wrong. The Army may very well get it wrong in the future, but currently there are no separate standards for the same part of the Army.
And long may that be the case for the GCC army units, the RAF are desperate beyond to get a 100% employment sheet & will do whatever it takes to get there. Our RAF Regt senior management has not got the ability or will to fight the constant adjustments in standards to get that first female through the training system.
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
Quite obviously and as usual, the RAf have got it wrong. The Army may very well get it wrong in the future, but currently there are no separate standards for the same part of the Army.
Their view might have been tailored by getting taken to the cleaners for demanding females to take the same pace as males when marching.

Setting women, (who in general don't have the physiology for modern infantry warfare,) lower standards for the job is only sensible, as is paying them less because they are doing less work.
Oh, hang on...
 
Their view might have been tailored by getting taken to the cleaners for demanding females to take the same pace as males when marching.

Setting women, (who in general don't have the physiology for modern infantry warfare,) lower standards for the job is only sensible, as is paying them less because they are doing less work.
Oh, hang on...
Just to be clear (yet again), they were taken to the cleaners for not following policy. A policy which recognised an initial deficiency and put procedures in place to ensure that everyone could meet the output standard at the end.

However, the concept of using different methods to achieve the same aim seems to be beyond so called professional forces who pride themselves at being at the cutting edge of everything.
 
And there are units in today's armed forces who receive extra pay for being able to do things that other troops are not.
I can't quite see what point you're trying to make.
Merely addressing @Kefi 's assertion that everyone in the Roman Army wore the same kit and was treated in the same (draconian) way, and that it's all been downhill since then, BAHHHH! It were all decimation round here was I was a sprog, being beaten around the head never did me any harm, it should be compulsory, if I didn't carry 200kg up the hill before breakfast my Pl Sgt would stab me to death....

Setting women, (who in general don't have the physiology for modern infantry warfare,) lower standards for the job is only sensible, as is paying them less because they are doing less work. Oh, hang on...
:mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:
And then we can get on with weeding out the scrawny gits and shortarses, and limiting ourselves to the professional rugby players and heavier weight boxers who are what the infantry really needs, because only they can confidently kill any woman they meet with their bare hands (@Kefi in this post)

Setting shortarses, (who in general don't have the physiology for modern infantry warfare,) lower standards for the job is only sensible, as is paying them less because they are doing less work. Oh, hang on...
:mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Quite obviously and as usual, the RAf have got it wrong. The Army may very well get it wrong in the future, but currently there are no separate standards for the same part of the Army.
I've just googled the entrance test for the Army because I thought they still used a variation of the old PFT. Im not sure if this is the recruiting test or just the new test for those already in.


This is a 2km (1.2 mile) run, after an 800m (0.5 mile) warm up jog for between 6 min 30 sec and 7 min. You must run 2km in 11 min and 15 secs or less to meet the lowest adult soldier entry standard. Some trades require a faster time

For the males and females they get an extra 1.30/2.00 minutes to complete the warm up, keeping in mind that a average healthy walking pace is about 15 minutes a mile, the Armys warm up pace for a run is 13 to 14 minutes mile.

For the males and females the new run is 400 metres shorter.

For males who use to have run 2.4Km in 10.30. They had to keep a pace of approx 1km per 4 minutes 22 seconds.
Now they have to to keep a pace of 1km for 5 minutes 37 seconds (and run 400 metres less)

For females who use to have run 2.4Km in 13.00 They had to keep a pace of approx 1km per 5 minutes 25 seconds.
Now they have to to keep a pace of 1km for 5 minutes 37 seconds (and run 400 metres less)

No separate standards though...
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
Setting shortarses, (who in general don't have the physiology for modern infantry warfare,) lower standards for the job is only sensible, as is paying them less because they are doing less work.
:mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:
I can only surmise you've not met many short infanteers.
 
I've just googled the entrance test for the Army because I thought they still used a variation of the old PFT. Im not sure if this is the recruiting test or just the new test for those already in.
I'd be more interested in the exit test, after a few months in the gentle care of a considerate PTI (yeah, right); after all, the differences in the entry test could just be a statement that "we accept that schools are slack at PE, and sometimes disadvantage young female potential recruits by tending to focus on cardio rather than strength"...

I can only surmise you've not met many short infanteers.
I'm a Jock, remember? I'm only 5'11", I was tall among the infantry up here... (and my tongue was fixed firmly in cheek)
 
Last edited:
Snip/

:mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:
And then we can get on with weeding out the scrawny gits and shortarses, and limiting ourselves to the professional rugby players and heavier weight boxers who are what the infantry really needs, because only they can confidently kill any woman they meet with their bare hands (@Kefi in this post)

Setting shortarses, (who in general don't have the physiology for modern infantry warfare,) lower standards for the job is only sensible, as is paying them less because they are doing less work. Oh, hang on...
:mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:
If you take a close look at the units who wear Green lids, wings and DZ patches or sand coloured lids you'll find the majority of gentlemen have a deceptively short and or scrawny appearance.
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
If you take a close look at the units who wear Green lids, wings and DZ patches or sand coloured lids you'll find the majority of gentlemen have a deceptively short and or scrawny appearance.
And then came Op Massive.
 
Correct, that's what I said.
I thought the ellipsis might have been a clue.

Of course there are no separate standards, not when the Army has lowered the current set to below what was the old female standard.

To solve the RAF problem all they need to do is have a "new" standard for everyone which is equal or lower than the current female standard.
 
Last edited:

Latest Threads

Top