No, I trained Territorial Army recruits and tested them, and trained and tested others previously and subsequently in an Inf Bn.It's based on having trained Regular Army recruits and tested them, and trained and tested others previously and subsequently in an inf bn. You've done neither...
Where I might differ is that you probably relied on your NCOs to actually deliver the training. I spent six months as a recruit instructor; and taught recruits from their very first weapons training lesson, all the way through to their TOETs and APWT. Our recruit platoon had two of us from the unit shooting team teaching skill-at-arms (Hugh on SLR, me on SMG); we managed 100% pass rates at first attempt for both tests. Of the other recruit platoons training alongside us, one had decent instructors but mucked them around; got a 50% pass rate at first attempt - the other had crap instructors, it took them several extra days to achieve test passes.
Later on, I ran the unit shooting team; and when running Company training, was occasionally the "coach of last resort", e.g. trying to figure out why Pte X couldn't group inside a foot circle at 100m...
* Pte X, you know they say "put the weapon in your shoulder"? They don't mean "right on top of the shoulder joint", they mean "in that nice nook between shoulder and neck, just here...."
Hold on - you're claiming that 5.56 isn't significantly more affected by a crosswind than 7.62? A lot of people are going to judge your competence, just based on that one statement...Ummm .... no, it ignores nothing as it's a far easier weapon to "point more accurately", far, far easier weapon to "hold just as still", and the requirement to aim off more for wind at ranges out to 400m is minimal.
The same people who cover for the non-existent soldiers in all the undermanned battalions right now. So, the best case is a reduction in the need for cover, the worst case is no difference.who covers for them when they're injured
The Army, of course. You've said yourself that very, very few women will apply for the infantry; so we aren't talking about huge costs here.who pays their remedial training and medical discharge when they're close to ten times as likely to need it as men in the infantry?
Meanwhile, you haven't quantified the rates of injury (is that "0.1% of blokes and 1% of women will get injured" or "10% of blokes and 100% of women will get injured"?); and I have to ask if you're comparing like with like, i.e. allowed that the likely female infantry recruit may be sturdier and better-prepared, hence less prone to injury than the average female recruit (what's the injury rate of male infantry recruits compared to male all-arms recruits?).