Women in Combat Arms/ SOF Discussion

[racing_kitty]

Well in this weeks news from my Son's unit: 1 female now pregnant, by a member of her squad, unknown which one at this point, since she admits to having sexual contact with 4 of them thus far. Another female was caught on duty, having sex with her squad leader, a SSG two weeks ago. My son has done 3.5 years thus far active duty. He is ETSing this month. He was offered a SGT / E-5, he opted out and will return to the private sector. He has no intention of re-enlisting in the military, ever. Every one of my expectations for this social experimentation has gone perfectly to script. Rah go Army!

This is evergreen.

I’m sorry to hear that your son is getting out. However, I can’t say I’m surprised, not that I blame him.

 

[Topkick]

View attachment 22147

This is evergreen.

I’m sorry to hear that your son is getting out. However, I can’t say I’m surprised, not that I blame him.

When I was a young soldier, I knew I was going to make the Army a career. I loved almost everything about it. The old, crusty NCOs would say to
me "you'll know when its time to retire, because it will feel like its no longer your Army" I didn't believe them until that day actually came. I am not one of those old NCOs who say "it was better back in my day" but its definitely not the same.

 

[Gunz]

Well in this weeks news from my Son's unit: 1 female now pregnant, by a member of her squad, unknown which one at this point, since she admits to having sexual contact with 4 of them thus far. Another female was caught on duty, having sex with her squad leader, a SSG two weeks ago. My son has done 3.5 years thus far active duty. He is ETSing this month. He was offered a SGT / E-5, he opted out and will return to the private sector. He has no intention of re-enlisting in the military, ever. Every one of my expectations for this social experimentation has gone perfectly to script. Rah go Army!

The "Hate" is not for you but for this politically force-fed clusterfuck.

I've tried for a long time to be open-minded about this. I was starting to think that maybe my old school views needed to change. Your posts have confirmed my earliest doubts about this and have only hardened my opinion. When the Navy first went coed aboard ship, this same soap-opera bullshit started to happen, pregnancies, jealousies, sexual tension to name just a few.

Maybe it can work in very small doses in a highly professional atmosphere. But in the combat-arms squad, in the platoon, this is fucking poison.

 

[Grunt]

It's functioning just how we suspected it would. There is no surprises in anything @Loki wrote.

Prophecy being fulfilled....

 

[Topkick]

Yeah, I've always been against women in combat arms but I tried to have an open mind and accept it as the future. I thought that as a dinosaur, I'll just keep my old dude opinion to myself. One thing that I do find interesting is that I keep hearing it works in other countries.

 

[Devildoc]

One thing that I do find interesting is that I keep hearing it works in other countries.

Because it's cultural. It's already ingrained. I am not saying it couldn't work here, but like racial integration, needs to be a few generations removed before it's "normal" and the deviant behavior starts being culled out.

I am against women in combat MOSs, made no bones about it, but I am curious if the example @Loki brought up is normal, excessive, or conservative based against the numbers across the spectrum.

I am very familiar with how this has gone down aboard ship (no pun intended), and the high rate of pregnancy has generally fallen except for right before deployment and when ships are ordered to stay on station beyond deployment time (so I ask, what's the point??).

 

[Box]

Just an observation, but.........

I visited a few different places during my brief time in the Army and I also find it quite interesting to hear proponents preach about how well women in direct combat roles is working in other countries...

My question is, what 'other countries' are they talking about?
I have NEVER...
...EVER...
...EVEREVEREVER...
...been on a deployment and worked with another military that included women in direct combat roles that I was able to observe or interact with.

If it is working so well in other countries, where are all of the 1st person accounts of success with women in combat arms ands SOF?
Where are all of the success stories? Maybe I was shielded from these units because the USA was ashamed of my caveman outlook and didn't want me interacting. I've seen women on deployments - combat service and combat service support roles; I have NOT seen or heard of anyone working with women in combat arms/SOF roles. Allowing them to serve and then keeping them at the FOB is not an example of success. Full implementation, exposure, and employment is the only valid evidence of any level of success.

Now, before anyone ignites their flame-thrower, I get it - Psyop, CA, MP's and Aviation are front line direct combat SOF roles - I get it - I am sure that there are tons of anecdotal evidence about those career fields - but I am asking about the "other" direct combat roles where the primary duty description is to employ fire and maneuver to close with and destroy the enemy and his equipment.

 

[Topkick]

Just an observation, but.........

I visited a few different places during my brief time in the Army and I also find it quite interesting to hear proponents preach about how well women in direct combat roles is working in other countries...

My question is, what 'other countries' are they talking about?
I have NEVER...
...EVER...
...EVEREVEREVER...
...been on a deployment and worked with another military that included women in direct combat roles that I was able to observe or interact with.

If it is working so well in other countries, where are all of the 1st person accounts of success with women in combat arms ands SOF?
Where are all of the success stories? Maybe I was shielded from these units because the USA was ashamed of my caveman outlook and didn't want me interacting. I've seen women on deployments - combat service and combat service support roles; I have NOT seen or heard of anyone working with women in combat arms/SOF roles. Allowing them to serve and then keeping them at the FOB is not an example of success. Full implementation, exposure, and employment is the only valid evidence of any level of success.

Now, before anyone ignites their flame-thrower, I get it - Psyop, CA, MP's and Aviation are front line direct combat SOF roles - I get it - I am sure that there are tons of anecdotal evidence about those career fields - but I am asking about the "other" direct combat roles where the primary duty description is to employ fire and maneuver to close with and destroy the enemy and his equipment.

I think this is particularly interesting because the Special Forces mission is to train other Army's around the globe, yet don't see women in their combat arms units. I'd like to hear more experiences from other green berets on this subject.
As a conventional dude, I dont have much experience with other Army's.

 

[RackMaster]

Just an observation, but.........

I visited a few different places during my brief time in the Army and I also find it quite interesting to hear proponents preach about how well women in direct combat roles is working in other countries...

My question is, what 'other countries' are they talking about?
I have NEVER...
...EVER...
...EVEREVEREVER...
...been on a deployment and worked with another military that included women in direct combat roles that I was able to observe or interact with.

If it is working so well in other countries, where are all of the 1st person accounts of success with women in combat arms ands SOF?
Where are all of the success stories? Maybe I was shielded from these units because the USA was ashamed of my caveman outlook and didn't want me interacting. I've seen women on deployments - combat service and combat service support roles; I have NOT seen or heard of anyone working with women in combat arms/SOF roles. Allowing them to serve and then keeping them at the FOB is not an example of success. Full implementation, exposure, and employment is the only valid evidence of any level of success.

Now, before anyone ignites their flame-thrower, I get it - Psyop, CA, MP's and Aviation are front line direct combat SOF roles - I get it - I am sure that there are tons of anecdotal evidence about those career fields - but I am asking about the "other" direct combat roles where the primary duty description is to employ fire and maneuver to close with and destroy the enemy and his equipment.

They aren't in large numbers but Canada has had women in combat arms for quite some time. The first to come to mind was our first female to die in combat, Captain Nichola Goddard.

15 Stories: Death of Nichola Goddard showed modern face of Canada's fighting forces

 

[256]

Just an observation, but.........

I visited a few different places during my brief time in the Army and I also find it quite interesting to hear proponents preach about how well women in direct combat roles is working in other countries...

My question is, what 'other countries' are they talking about?
I have NEVER...
...EVER...
...EVEREVEREVER...
...been on a deployment and worked with another military that included women in direct combat roles that I was able to observe or interact with.

If it is working so well in other countries, where are all of the 1st person accounts of success with women in combat arms ands SOF?
Where are all of the success stories? Maybe I was shielded from these units because the USA was ashamed of my caveman outlook and didn't want me interacting. I've seen women on deployments - combat service and combat service support roles; I have NOT seen or heard of anyone working with women in combat arms/SOF roles. Allowing them to serve and then keeping them at the FOB is not an example of success. Full implementation, exposure, and employment is the only valid evidence of any level of success.

Now, before anyone ignites their flame-thrower, I get it - Psyop, CA, MP's and Aviation are front line direct combat SOF roles - I get it - I am sure that there are tons of anecdotal evidence about those career fields - but I am asking about the "other" direct combat roles where the primary duty description is to employ fire and maneuver to close with and destroy the enemy and his equipment.

Don't think you'll ever find that evidence. I think this nonsense was signed off on by military leadership because they could say, "look at the outstanding performance of female MP's during GWOT." They are forgetting that the GWOT has been fought primarily from FOBs or COPs and we weren't spending a month in the jungle (generally). I am fully aware that some of us sat on small OPs for days or weeks at a time, but females have not been a part of that; at least I never saw it. I've heard the Female Engagement Team arguments (FET) as well. Men have fought wars throughout human history, why do we think we're smarter than all that evidence?

@RackMaster understood, but the GWOT is not Vietnam and it is not WW2. I don't think we can use the experiences of females in GWOT as evidence.

I can't stand fluff in these stories either: “Supported by her team of three men, the well-regarded 26-year-old had just executed high explosive and illumination fire missions in support of Canadian troop manoeuvres against a known enemy — the first time a Canadian soldier had done so since the Korean War more than 50 years earlier."

- When the author says "the first time a Canadian soldier had done so since..." people read that and use it as evidence. It doesn't take a genius to call for fire. It is a task to be taken very seriously, but when people read that stuff it's very deceiving because it sounds so profound. PFC's have accomplished that mission, we make "cheat sheets" for it, just fill in the correct data. I'm not down playing Capt Nichola Goddard at all, but her experience or accomplishments should not be held as evidence that females are capable of continued combat.

I edited this because I wanted to reply to @RackMaster's article.

 

[Gunz]

Plus, @RackMaster, an officer generally has more education, more maturity and discretion then the E1s thru E5s at squad/platoon level. For the most part, that's where the shenanigans will happen and where there will be the most damage to unit integrity.

 

[ThunderHorse]

There are women in direct combat roles in the British Army. They are few. Their standards are the same from what I've seen. You can see how many women went through Commando course before actually one making the choice to serve in one of those units. It's much different than here.

 

[Etype]

I think this is particularly interesting because the Special Forces mission is to train other Army's around the globe, yet don't see women in their combat arms units. I'd like to hear more experiences from other green berets on this subject.
As a conventional dude, I dont have much experience with other Army's.

First, the Special Forces mission isn't to train other Armies. Three of SFs potential missions involve training, although operationalization is the primary focus. There's a big difference between what a drill sergeant does and what an SF guy does.

Second, it doesn't work in other countries. The other countries, especially the European ones, engage more in combat zone tourism than they do in combat. They have the same problems we have in the matter, if not more -their saving grace is that for them, the stakes aren't as high.

 

[Topkick]

There are women in direct combat roles in the British Army. They are few. Their standards are the same from what I've seen. You can see how many women went through Commando course before actually one making the choice to serve in one of those units. It's much different than here.

The culture may be different, but physics are not. Are the physical standards somehow more achievable, or do they just except different standards from men and women in order to make it work?

 

[ThunderHorse]

The culture may be different, but physics are not. Are the physical standards somehow more achievable, or do they just except different standards from men and women in order to make it work?

I don't know about enlisted specifically other than the training pipeline in 26 Weeks for Infantry (10 weeks longer than in the US Army), 23 Weeks for Tankers and Armored Recce. Their Officer Standards at Sandhurst are high.

There are baseline Army Fitness Standards, and then you have progressive standards within those same tests per different Unit. So the Para Regiment has a Higher Standard than standard Infantry, Infantry/Armor have high standards than Logistics.

 

[Topkick]

First, the Special Forces mission isn't to train other Armies. Three of SFs potential missions involve training, although operationalization is the primary focus. There's a big difference between what a drill sergeant does and what an SF guy does.

Second, it doesn't work in other countries. The other countries, especially the European ones, engage more in combat zone tourism than they do in combat. They have the same problems we have in the matter, if not more -their saving grace is that for them, the stakes aren't as high.

Thanks for the clarification. I certainly didn't mean to try and define exactly what you do. My main point was that you dudes have more credibility and exposure than us conventional guys in this arena and I value that experience. I often hear that other countries have had women in combat arms for a long time and I just don't get how it can be successful.

 

[Devildoc]

There are women in direct combat roles in the British Army. They are few. Their standards are the same from what I've seen. You can see how many women went through Commando course before actually one making the choice to serve in one of those units. It's much different than here.

How many women have graduated the commando course? (I don't know) I DO know that the first women to do so did it on her third attempt, only to be assigned to a supply/log unit.

 

[RackMaster]

Plus, @RackMaster, an officer generally has more education, more maturity and discretion then the E1s thru E5s at squad/platoon level. For the most part, that's where the shenanigans will happen and where there will be the most damage to unit integrity.

This is to @256 as well. Capt. Goddard is just the most prominent story of a woman in combat here recently. She was the FOO, not exactly just calling in fire; they were forward and she was manning the GPMG in the hatch, exposed. As for enlisted ranks, I know of many women in the infantry, armoured recce, artillery and even combat engineers. Women have been equally serving for quite some time here.

 

[ThunderHorse]

Thanks for the clarification. I certainly didn't mean to try and define exactly what you do. My main point was that you dudes have more credibility and exposure than us conventional guys in this arena and I value that experience. I often hear that other countries have had women in combat arms for a long time and I just don't get how it can be successful.

It's "successful" because there's like one or two women in an entire battalion joining the grunts, and they're outliers. For the British at least, it has mostly been officers. When I spent my time with the French, there was not M/W Standard. There was a baseline fitness test and then different things added for different schools. You had women attending Commando Course and succeeding often, yet they didn't go to Commando Units often. Granted, each school had progressive qualification as well. Primary Course at CNEC (Centre Nationale Entrainement Commando) was two weeks long, then you have a four week course, a six week course, and an eight week course. Similar with Jungle Warfare, 2 Weeks, 4 weeks, 8 weeks.

@Devildoc It's close to 20 (course has been open for 19 years). However, I only think two women that have graduated from All Arms Commando course have gone to Commando Units. The majority of women graduates have chosen to return to their support roles. Specifically due to the physical breakdown that occurred during the course and the requirements they'd have to meet based on everything I've collated over the years. Also something to think about, When they opened the All Arms Commando course, they didn't do a controlled test like they did here in the Army where they did Pre-Ranger at their duty station, then Pre-Ranger Prep for months away from their Unit (men have to train on their free time), then Pre-Ranger at the Warrior Training Center, and then go to Ranger School. It was: it's open, here are the standards, meet them.

 

[x SF med]

here are the standards, meet them.

Exactly how it should be.