Australia considers sending women into combat

Should the UK follow Australian example?

  • No doubt. Women to combat just now.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Maybe not now but later or sooner it will happen

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Women on the frontline... It is possible in some special cases

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Current order should remain unchanged

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Gender restriction should be even more tough

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
#1
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090909/wl_nm/us_australia_defence_women

Australian women could serve in frontline combat units, including special forces, as the country's military attempts to ease a recruitment crisis, the government said Wednesday.

Junior Defense Minister Greg Combet said all sections of the country's small but advanced military should be open to women, including special forces units currently fighting Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan.
...
Removing gender restrictions would put Australia ahead of key allies including the United States and Britain in opening combat roles to females, and into line with several European countries, including Denmark and Germany, as well as Israel and New Zealand.
Do you agree that gender restrictions should be removed in HM armed forces?
 
#2
My point is not all ladies want to be married and bring up children ,Some ladies want a career in the armed forces in the front line . If a lady is is medically fit and she as the endurance to carry out the tasks then let her make her own choices .
 
#4
Perhaps with the widening of the recruiting pool in recent years we will see a significant increase in the size of the army as well here in Oz?
 

Legs

ADC
Book Reviewer
#7
We may not have women in the Infantry or SF, but plenty of women have been in combat over the last few years. When someone can point out the frontline then it might be possible to keep women from it, until then...
 
#8
UK MoD already has a routine review of a similar issue under way. The review is required every so often to meet anti-discrimination rules, and does not indicate that there has been a decision in advance to change anything. While I appreciate that there are other views at either end of the spectrum, most people I have consulted have said the rules should stay as they are.
 
#10
VeryExMedic said:
I have long been of the opinion that any culture (or nation or whatever) that sends its women into combat is morally bankrupt.
A bit extreme, but I do agree that there is something fundamentally wrong with a society that wants to put the creators of life into a core position of taking life.
 
#12
mobey said:
My point is not all ladies want to be married and bring up children ,Some ladies want a career in the armed forces in the front line . If a lady is is medically fit and she as the endurance to carry out the tasks then let her make her own choices .
I'd quite like to send you into combat Chubby!!
 
#13
When people talk of the "front line" and how it doesn't exist surely they're missing the point?

No there's no defined FEBA (correct term?) anymore BUT surely frontline roles are clearly those whereby their aim is to actively close with and destroy the enemy. I don't think for one second that a woman can't be a medic/signaller/RMP out on patrol but that's very different to clearing buildings with bayonets! Or are they actively doing this too?

I don't think the fact that everyone is open to attack implies that everyone is on the front line.

That said, if you show me a "woman" that is strong, fit, aggressive and tough enough to do the job then maybe there's a case for it. Unit cohesivness aside.
 
#14
KGB_resident said:
Do you agree that gender restrictions should be removed in HM armed forces?
I agree, I'd quite like an extra 2 and half minutes time and do half the press ups in a PFT.
 
#16
Ace_Rimmer said:
When people talk of the "front line" and how it doesn't exist surely they're missing the point?

No there's no defined FEBA (correct term?) anymore BUT surely frontline roles are clearly those whereby their aim is to actively close with and destroy the enemy. I don't think for one second that a woman can't be a medic/signaller/RMP out on patrol but that's very different to clearing buildings with bayonets! Or are they actively doing this too?

I don't think the fact that everyone is open to attack implies that everyone is on the front line.
You said that so much better than I did.
 
#17
bigbird67 said:
mobey said:
My point is not all ladies want to be married and bring up children ,Some ladies want a career in the armed forces in the front line . If a lady is is medically fit and she as the endurance to carry out the tasks then let her make her own choices .
I'd quite like to send you into combat Chubby!!
Yep she's back complete with crayons!

A tenner to H4H as soon as a DUFDIKEREP is submitted!
 
#18
Ord_Sgt said:
VeryExMedic said:
I have long been of the opinion that any culture (or nation or whatever) that sends its women into combat is morally bankrupt.
A bit extreme, but I do agree that there is something fundamentally wrong with a society that wants to put the creators of life into a core position of taking life.
What? Women no more or less "create life" than men do.

Back to topic:
It would seem that we already have women in combat. I don't like the idea of women in the combat arms TBH. Probably from cultural conditioning mainly, but also the practicalities.
 
#19
This has been done to death on numerous threads.

There are two issues here - women in close combat i.e. ‘the front line’ 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 ‘front line’ on a daily basis at the moment and in my experience they do their jobs to the equal of their male colleagues. But “front line” and infantry are not synonymous.

The British army has ALWAYS assumed that soldier regardless of their trade, 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 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 we’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 most "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.

If the government are silly enough to go down this route it will be the end of the army. I, for one, will find it difficult to work for an organisation that has contempt for my safety and I suspect many of my infantry colleagues will feel the same.

*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. That’s why we’re more effective. We’re fitter, stronger, carry more weapons, bigger weapons, more bullets, better protection.
 
#20
When the government accepts that women are equal and demands that they are expected to achieve the same physical fitness standards as their male colleagues. Then we can consider it. Aslong as women can ask to be trained seperately and with lesser physical goals to meet then the answer is set in stone.

It wouldn't be the women who lowered the standards of the infantry. It would be the lefties who demanded they be treated differently.

Besides there are not that many women who can grow impressive sidies and a good mexican tache which is standard issue for the infantry in theatre at the moment.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top