No close-combat roles for women, says MOD

#1
#4
Right, so no more female patrol medics? Bullsh1te!
I think they mean patroling with the intention of killing the enemy.
 
#6
#7
I think they mean patroling with the intention of killing the enemy.
Aye, and the first thing on the BCD Master Drill is win the fire-fight!
 
#8
Aye, and the first thing on the BCD Master Drill is win the fire-fight!
Their primary role is to be medics, not infanteers.
 
#9
#10
I thought everyone was a Soldier first tradesmen second?
Depends on if your definition of soldier first , if you equate soldier first to being an infanteer, you would be very wrong.
 
#11
From the article:
There was no evidence to show that a change in current policy would be beneficial or risk free and so a decision was made to take a precautionary approach and maintain the current position.
(My bold)

You want risk free, you don't go to war.

I'd have been happy enough, but I wasn't infantry. Be interesting to hear the views of any current infanteers.
 
#12
Right, so no more female patrol medics? Bullsh1te!
The way Ive understood it is that the Army wish to keep the buissness of "closing with and killing" for males only.
Infantry team medics should be the only type of medic that is involved with the CQB stuff.

The female RAMC types should be back with TAC which in theory is a more secure and defensivly minded subgroup of the larger offensive action and although they may only be a matter of metres apart on the battlefield, the mindset required, their seperate individual aims and intentions of the two are very different.
 
#14
The way Ive understood it is that the Army wish to keep the buissness of "closing with and killing" for males only.
Infantry team medics should be the only type of medic that is involved with the CQB stuff.

The female RAMC types should be back with TAC which in theory is a more secure and defensivly minded subgroup of the larger offensive action and although they may only be a matter of metres apart on the battlefield, the mindset required, their seperate individual aims and intentions of the two are very different.
"If wishes were fishes, beggers would be Kings"

The Army may wish to only have male medics cutting about the battlefield, but that is up there with fully manned units at all ranks, FRES supplied in full and a lie in on Tuesday morning....
 
#16
"If wishes were fishes, beggers would be Kings"

The Army may wish to only have male medics cutting about the battlefield, but that is up there with fully manned units at all ranks, FRES supplied in full and a lie in on Tuesday morning....
Well thats the point actually.
The Army obviously don't just wish for only males cutting around the battlefield otherwise they wouldn't currently be letting females deploy out on the ground for offensvie actions within the various smaller Infantry HQ elements.

Im trying to highlight the point that YES Woman with certain skill sets are currently used within offensive groupings but NO they are not being used as the people who carryout the actual "fight throughs". Seems like a fair one to me.
 
#17
Try re-reading the piece. Then read it again. Then if you still don't understand, read it again.
Yes, and your point is? We've had plenty of ladies serving as patrol medics, there's presently a few out there right now. They are on patrol right alongside the infantry guys and are often carrying even more kit than the toms are. At least one that I know of has even been severely wounded whilst on patrol (got an MiD for carrying treating a casualty whilst under fire after having parts of her hand blown off and receiving a head injury, that she 'only' got an MiD was decidedly unfair).

On patrol you do what's needed. If it means that the ladies have to fight through because there's no other choice, then that's what gets done. The article as it's presented is rubbish. Fair enough, they aren't going to employ women as infantry, or tankies. But the idea that they won't be exposed to situations where they may need to engage, and if need be, close with the enemy, is silly.
 
#19
So then, 18 posts (and counting) with reference to something that hasn't changed in the slightest? ;-)


Oh well, this being Arrse, I might as well chip in with some more asinine comments to keep this moving:

yeah, but what about that Russian sniper woman??? Eh, she slotted loadsa blokes didnt she? Lol - you guys are all seckists!
 
#20
Their primary role is to be medics, not infanteers.
Correct, RAMC medics (mail & female) do not do a small arms course during training.
During WW1 many conscientious objectors were sent to the front as stretcher bearers.
Their refusal to use arms did not stop many of them losing their lives trying to save others.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top