Does wider employment of women reduce Combat Effectiveness.

Discussion in 'Army Pay, Claims & JPA' started by Ard-Elly-o, Dec 26, 2003.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Reduced Combat Effectiveness

  2. Made No Difference.

  3. Increased Combat Effectiveness.

    0 vote(s)
  1. See thread on Seniors
  2. Got a thing about birds in the army, ard?
  3. Far from it Dale. I just don't believe men and women are the same and shouldn't be treated as such to fulfill some EO/IIP ideal if it affects the Combat Effectiveness of the Army.

    I go back to my poll, does the wider employment of women reduce, increase or make no difference to Combat Effectiveness. If it is the latter two then HMG and MOD have got it right.

    I know that women make a fantastic contribution to the Armed Forces, and always have done since the WRNS, WRAC and WRAF. (My own dear Mum wanted to be a motor cycle despatch rider in WWII and ended up in "Y" Service with the WRAF)
    My point is that women are very differen to men and when employed in the same jobs that makes a difference. Our job is to produce Combat Effectiveness.
    The question is nothing to do with bravery or the individual ability of women. It is the overall effect they have and whether that is detrimental to training or effectiveness in a combat environment. (Not talking about cushy peace enforcement or benign IS Ops)

    Women are different physically - not as strong, higher risk of injury when load carrying, low upper body strength which is why we have different physical tests for women for BPFA. The CFT is now on 4 levels depending on Arm or Service. Instead of having a basic CFT based on the requirements to be a Soldier in the British Army, we now have an 8 mile walk carrying at the lowest level the equivelent of a couple of shopping bags from TESCOs.
    Why is the weight carried not based on the equipment we would have to carry when vehicles are destroyed and we are on the ground having to survive and tab for up to 48 hours.
    IE Complete Equipment Marching Order (CEMO), wearing helmets, carrying pers weapon, with the full weight of op ammo, rations/water 48 hrs, spare clothing, sleeping bag, med kit, full op issue of NBCR equipment.
    In the full spectrum of conflic, ‘benign’ environments no longer exist – neither does a clean break between combat and combat support troops so why is there such a difference in CFTs if not the numbers game to allow women and therefore physically weaker men in to the Army.
    Why have we stopped digging in on exercise. Bet there were a few holes dug on TELIC!!??

    I know of two ex WRAC who were very happy with their non-combatant terms of service. They were forced into joining their Corps they were attached to, both climbed the ranks and were commissioned. Recent quote from one of them when challenged on soldier ability "I am not a soldier, have never been a soldier and have no intention of ever being a soldier. I joined the Army to do a trade as a non-combatant and had all this crap of "soldiering" forced on me." The same individual is extremely efficient and effective as a senior manager but still has no military ethos.

    There is clearly a psychological impact in mixed units since the wider employment of women. The male hetrosexual bonding that existed across the Army has now been removed in the Other Arms & Services. Training is now softer, less emphasis on ability as soldiers. The sexual liaisons, affairs, jealousies, familiarity across ranks are all facts. My question is do they make a difference to Combat Effectiveness?

    I also accept that most of the psychological problems are from the weaker sex ie MALES!

    Anyway Dale, no problem with women in the Army but I do have a problem with sharing a trench with someone who has no intention or desire to kill the enemy, male or female!
  4. I agree. But also have to agree with the birds from WRAC - I didn't join up to be combatant either - but I have no choice. Doesn't bother me though - I would kill anyone if I was loaded up and I thought they were going to get me or one of mine.

    Don't know about being a trench though. Sounds a bit muddy.
  5. Don’t think anyone questions a woman’s ability of shooting someone, seen big bastard lads pissing themselves more than any woman would. More to the point can you drag my sorry arrse 3 miles while being shot at by some Iraqi shite shooters?
  6. Depends - how fat are you????
  7. I am not as heavy as MDN, so under 18 stone.
  8. 3 miles is a loooonnnng way for a girl of my physique, but if the adrenalin kicks in - 3 miles it would be (even though you are double my weight).
  9. With full load, rifle and all?

    update: And i haven't been for a Johnny Bravo for 3 days.
  10. Johnny Bravo? Got me on that. Is it like commando?
  11. Up north? North of where? Stanwell? :wink:

    Johnny Bravo, number 2....
  12. Oh dear - I will not be carrying you 3 miles until you have been for a Johnny Bravo then - imagine how much more weight that would be. Nurse - get the enema!
  13. Easy tiger, an extra 3 stones it might add, but my bowls are like clock work, give us 2 ticks.
  14. I'd much prefer to have Johnny Knoxville than Johnny Bravo.....
  15. It is not so much being in the trench thats the problem, ITS DIGGING THE FCUKER!! Very hard work digging a shell scrape never mind a trench!!!
    And yes they are muddy, (or sandy) and usually piss wet through.

    They did some analysis in NI some years back to find out if men and women would react the same when faced with the same situation requiring them to kill the enemy. They found out that women would kill the enemy but only as a last resort when under direct personal threat. The blokes actually wanted to kill the enemy and not as a last resort.