Women in Military Service & Combat (not just USA)

**Ken White** · 10-02-2010

combat roles really revolves around fear of their capture -- and, today, for the potential of rape and the resultant publicity / IO aspects. The rationale was that those in rocket and missile units would be further in the rear in a linear war and thus less subject to potential capture while the tube Arty folks were right up front. Same principle held for the aviators; initially they were restricted to transports and such, theoretically less subject to enemy downing -- despite the fact that the average female has some advantages over average males in aerial combat.

We still put a lot of stock in 1917...

**Pete** · 10-02-2010

Originally Posted by Ken White

We still put a lot of stock in 1917...

When Pershing was Chief of Staff in the 1920s the basic and advanced branch officer courses were instituted to put company-grade officer training on a more solid footing.

**Perpetual_Student** · 10-03-2010

I can understand and wrap my head around the idea that being in combat arms (Infantry) puts you more on the front line and "in the action." Although we should not forget and absolutely must appreciate specifically the logistical trains that go out EVERYDAY that are in just as much danger if not more than Infantry units. I have never been to Afghanistan but I can only imagine since they dont have much of a "road" network that the log trains would be traveling a lot of the same routes.

All this said there are women that are motor-t drivers and logisticians. Should we be removing them as well.

I am only playing devils advocate. Not agreeing at all that women should be in Combat Arms, but we need to have a strong argument in the future because the time may come sooner than we think.

**Pete** · 10-03-2010

The integration of racial minorities and women into the U.S. armed forces are done deals. The gay thing will eventually happen. My impression is that people younger than I don't have the same predjudices that we did in the old days -- the kids today are more comfortable than my generation was about having openly gay people around them. In any event, the U.S. armed forces will survive, and weirdos, misfits, and those who can't hack it will be sent packing, as they always have been.

**Rifleman** · 10-03-2010

Besides aviation, the combat role I think women could be most suited for is certain SOF roles.

I don't mean on ODAs - I don't think women belong on a sure enough rucksack team - but, as I mentioned, the OSS and SOE employed numerous women agents in occupied Europe with parachute insertions, espionage, sabotage, partisan liasons, etc., being done by women at times. All of this put them in position for death or capture. I also believe women could be suited for certain counter terrortist roles.

Besides, if you get a couple of gals who look like the ones protrayed in Where Eagles Dare how could you not be for it?

**Uboat509** · 10-03-2010

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Besides aviation, the combat role I think women could be most suited for is certain SOF roles.

I don't mean on ODAs - I don't think women belong on a sure enough rucksack team - but, as I mentioned, the OSS and SOE employed numerous women agents in occupied Europe with parachute insertions, espionage, sabotage, partisan liasons, etc., being done by women at times. All of this put them in position for death or capture. I also believe women could be suited for certain counter terrortist roles.

I tend to agree with this but this is, I believe, a wholly different argument than the one that this thread is about. SOF is a different animal than than GPF. Whereas the primary purpose (in broad terms) of GPF Combat Arms forces is to close with and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver, SOF, by definition, is required to fill a great many more, what I will call niche jobs for lack of a better term. Some of these are jobs for which females are well suited and may even be better suited than males.

**JMA** · 10-04-2010

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Besides aviation, the combat role I think women could be most suited for is certain SOF roles.

I don't mean on ODAs - I don't think women belong on a sure enough rucksack team - but, as I mentioned, the OSS and SOE employed numerous women agents in occupied Europe with parachute insertions, espionage, sabotage, partisan liasons, etc., being done by women at times. All of this put them in position for death or capture. I also believe women could be suited for certain counter terrortist roles.

Besides, if you get a couple of gals who look like the ones protrayed in Where Eagles Dare how could you not be for it?

The numbers we would be talking about here are insignificant and would not address the demand for gender integration in the (any) armed forces.

**Perpetual_Student** · 10-05-2010

Boss Mongo
Missing the point
Arguing back and forth about the PT capabilities of females is missing the point.

Could not agree more! When you look at the arguement we all go back to PT standards (myself included) which I do agree have some relevance. Although I think we are missing the bigger picture because I know some women that can definitely beat some of the men I have seen in the combat arms. If all we can argue is PT standards and physical tests I think that we are missing the point or just do not have a solid argument. There are other reasons such as pregnancy, how the world views women, how America would respond to a female getting killed in a "combat" situation. There are a lot more arguments out there that I think we are missing. Lets transfer the PT conversation to another thread. I will start it in a second.

There is a world of difference between a CSS unit where the primary goal will be to avoid contact and break contact if they cannot avoid it and a Combat Arms unit where the goal is to seek contact and then close with and destroy the enemy.

I would absolutely agree with you on what the stated "goal" is of the perspective units. I would disagree or you misunderstood my point that although CSS units try to avoid contact or break contact, the enemy knows these are the least trained units as well as they are able to break our logistical assets (because we do not live off the people) getting to our FOBs and COPs. Therefore why try and attack the Infantry when I can attack these units that are bound to the same roads and are huge targets of multiple vehicles?

**Uboat509** · 10-03-2010

Originally Posted by Perpetual_Student

Although we should not forget and absolutely must appreciate specifically the logistical trains that go out EVERYDAY that are in just as much danger if not more than Infantry units.

This is another argument that invariably gets made in the debate. It really does not hold true. There is a world of difference between a CSS unit where the primary goal will be to avoid contact and break contact if they cannot avoid it and a Combat Arms unit where the goal is to seek contact and then close with and destroy the enemy.

**Ken White** · 10-03-2010

For less than good reasons. Thanks for reminding everyone.

"There is a world of difference between a CSS unit where the primary goal will be to avoid contact and break contact if they cannot avoid it and a Combat Arms unit where the goal is to seek contact..."