Women in Frontline Combat?

[funguy2121]

I understand that women do see combat, but it is not intentional, and the numbers are laughably small. It's hard enough for a combat troop to see fighting, let alone a support troop people are actively trying to keep out of the fight. It happens, but rarely.

No, they are not "laughably small." It happens every day. It is not "hard" at all for combat troops or support troops to see fighting. Why do you think we're still over there? The fighting is still going on.

Seeing combat as a support soldier and being a combat soldier are two COMPLETELY different things.

One runs into battle against all hope, and runs like hell as fast as they can. The other actively seeks it.

The differences go on, but that's the basic one.

No. A medic doesn't hear a mortar and run like Hell. He (or she) runs to wherever a soldier is down, and I think we can agree where a soldier has just been shot is usually a battlefield.

There's no point in nitpicking this. Women are being shot at and firing back in our Armed Forces every day. If we end up putting troops on the ground in Libya it will be the same, particularly if the anti-Qadaffi forces become anti-US forces as happened in Iraq.

By the way, I met a guy last weekend who was in the unit that found Saddam. Just wanted to share.

Edit: sorry AT, I appear to have misread your post. My point is that, when everything goes tits up, a servicemember with a gun is a servicemember with a gun. They have the same function, be it providing cover fire or simply taking out the enemy.

 

[Bigsmith]

Nothing like some healthy cross gender competition. I would see that the presence of women on the front line along side men won't only just increase the combat abilities of the men, but of the females as well due to competition.

 

[DefunctTheory]

I understand that women do see combat, but it is not intentional, and the numbers are laughably small. It's hard enough for a combat troop to see fighting, let alone a support troop people are actively trying to keep out of the fight. It happens, but rarely.

No, they are not "laughably small." It happens every day. It is not "hard" at all for combat troops or support troops to see fighting. Why do you think we're still over there? The fighting is still going on.

Seeing combat as a support soldier and being a combat soldier are two COMPLETELY different things.

One runs into battle against all hope, and runs like hell as fast as they can. The other actively seeks it.

The differences go on, but that's the basic one.

No. A medic doesn't hear a mortar and run like Hell. He (or she) runs to wherever a soldier is down, and I think we can agree where a soldier has just been shot is usually a battlefield.

There's no point in nitpicking this. Women are being shot at and firing back in our Armed Forces every day. If we end up putting troops on the ground in Libya it will be the same, particularly if the anti-Qadaffi forces become anti-US forces as happened in Iraq.

By the way, I met a guy last weekend who was in the unit that found Saddam. Just wanted to share.

Edit: sorry AT, I appear to have misread your post. My point is that, when everything goes tits up, a servicemember with a gun is a servicemember with a gun. They have the same function, be it providing cover fire or simply taking out the enemy.

Females are not serving as Front Line Combat Medics. Sorry.

EDIT: And yes, Medics do run like hell. With injured soldiers in their hands or on their backs. Basic combat first aid is to put on a tourniquet, a quick splint if time allows, and if their spine is broken... well, then someones going to have one hell of a bad day.

 

[captaincabbage]

I don't really by the whole "It'd injure the male soldier's mental state, etc. etc." thing. I just don't think they should serve of the front lines because strictly speaking, women are physically weaker than men. This isn't not some sexist debate about women not being the same as men, it just is how it is. A physically fit male will be physically stronger than a female of the same fitness level, simply because they have more upper body muscle.

I don't remember how it went, but it was something like "women have higher pain thresholds, but men won't complain about the pain as much" Not my words, it was just something I heard.

There's many little factors in the differences on male/female anatomy, but all in all I just don't see the point in this, for the sake of equality. In a strictly strategic view, having a male soldier in the place where a female soldier would be, could make the difference by a hair's length in all out combat.

 

[captaincabbage]

On a notably unrelated note, this thread reminded me of this XD

 

[Squeaky]

I think its more the matter of weather men could handel wemon on the frontlines rather than if wemon could handel the battle and training. The psycolgical effects of war arnt good, and desensitize men to women being in a violent situation you have to think of the negative effects/repercutions it could have in the civillian world men beating the hell out of average wemon because they assume they can take it.

 

[Hader]

Anyone who can fight and is willing to should be given the chance to do so. Once people get past the traditional views of gender roles regarding war/combat, any differences between a male and female in combat will be just superficial and physical.

 

[Xixikal]

Do you round up the wildlife and airdrop it on your enemies?

Oh no. We have a legion of intensely trained combat koalas, equipped with euykalyptus spray and very sharp rocks that ride into battle astride a platoon of armored kangaroos possessed of RPGs and AK47s. We also have a naval unit comprised of carefully selected platypuses, who are trained to wait under the water's surface for hours until the opportune moment to strike presents itself - at which point they launch themselves, horizontally, 100 meters out of the water and peck out the eyes of their stunned victims.

Do not mess with the Australians...

 

[Xixikal]

No it is still a risk. Envisage a major, now in love with a lowly private, she is new in the force but they have agreed to marry after the war is over. However from higher up a command is given, a force is locked down in a HEAVY firefight, and will definately be destroyed unless support is given, if possible he is to help. Losses WILL be heavy, but many more people will be saved. Would he give the order? Maybe. Would his love for the private he is likely sending to their death influence him? Damn right it will.

You make a fair enough point. But people with relationships such as that would not be placed near each other in such a circumstance, senior officers would be well aware of such relationships and the way it would affect a soldier's performance. Having said that, the same thing could easily happen between two homosexual men in a combat situation.

 

[Xixikal]

Fair point, genetically, take an average female and an average male, the male is more physically strong, not taking pain tolerance or anything like that, I mean capacity for physical activities.

Let's say that you have a woman who is fit enough to be infantry, she would probably be that fit because of going to the gym and working out a lot. For the first 3 months of your training, you're not aloud to do any of your own training, which leads to a decline of physical fitness, so by the time said woman would come into Infantry basic training less fit than when she originally joined the army.

The physical effect of the field environment on the human body is intense,during a 10 day exercise, I lost 10kg, yes, I lost 1kg of body weight per day. How would a woman who is already physically more slender cope with losing 10kg of body weight, would she still be able to carry her 10-20kg webbing, 5-10kg rifle or gun (if they gave her the Mag58 it would be insane) and then go patrolling for 3 or 4 hours after having lost that weight? If she can still do that, how about when she has to carry to 30-40kg pack when we move positions? We actually did this, combined with the 90 hour sleep deprivation we had, it was physically intense.

If a woman can keep up this level of fitness, sure, why not let her join? From my experience, none of the women I went through basic training could have done this, during an 8km pack march, with roughly 25kg of weight, we lost half of the women in the platoon and then the ones who completed it were commenting on how difficult it was. In infantry, we do upwards of 40km pack marches carrying 50-60 of extra weight.

Even from the males during my infantry training, we lost a 1/4 of the platoon. This isn't a game regardless of what everyone would like to think.

You're right on every account.

 

[feauxx]

lots of bullshit

do you honestly think you can really make a point when you take someones words completely apart and then put them in a different context?
you ignored my points so why even bother to merge me into your quotes anyway?

 

[justnotcricket]

As you already pointed out, they are generally not as strong as males. Men would take more risks to protect them thus putting their own lives on the line.
Plus they would need separate facilities not to mention the prevalence of rape of women in the military.
Basically its just a huge hassle and creates a lot of unnecessary risks just for the sake of appeasing a few chicks egos.

However, if another world war broke out, another draft introduced, then yeah, women had better have their asses on the front line. If my ass is forced into service then theirs had damn well better be too.

So would those men who 'take unnecessary risks' to protect the women be the same ones who are raping them then?

I'm sorry this makes no sense. This isn't about appeasing egos. And why should women be excluded from frontline combat, because they might get raped in the military? There is so much wrong with that! Why don't the men learn that raping women is, let me think, not appropriate under any circumstances, then not do it, and everyone can serve if they want to, secure in the knowledge that the opposing force will be the ones out to get them, not their own ranks?

But if they're drafted it's different? If you have to be involved in the fighting then suddenly you don't mind if they get raped, or if men take these mythical unnecessary risks and die because of them?

I think you're grossly underestimating what women could contribute to frontline combat. In the case of your own gender, I think you're simultaneously giving them too much credit for chivalry, while at the same time unfairly condemning them as rapists?

The only reason men are ever resistant to women joining in is that they're afraid that they'll be shown up somehow, that the girls will turn out to be better or something. All the 'physical inferiority' stuff is crap chauvinists hide behind (note I say chauvinists, not *all* men) to avoid having their own inadequacies brought out into the light.

/quasifeministrant

It's not about egos. It's about equality, and choice. I personally would not want to be a frontline soldier, but that has nothing to do with my extra X chromosome. It has more to do with the fact that I despise war. But it would be nice if I was not barred from doing so, should I wish to. It's like before women were allowed to vote. Not every woman necessarily wants to participate in the election process (just like not every man necessarily does), but it is important that they have the option do do so, should they wish. I also think drafting is stupid, for both genders, but that's a whole other argument.

 

[Ninonybox_v1legacy]

Recently Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard recently announced that Women should be allowed in frontline combat
as it is >>>"realistic"<<<

wait....what? Its relistic!? No shit JG THIS IS REAL LIFE.

 

[Vault101]

what Im saying is isnt it kind of hypocritical to say "nope! women cant serve" and then turn around and say "well if theres a draft then women should be conscripted too!"

unless of coarse your saying women would be drafted into suport roles

also I would have thourght rape in military was because of the culture, Im no expert but it seems its all too easy to get away with it

 

[Vault101]

so basically what you are saying there is that men cannot stick to their job and will fuss over the female soldiers serving next to them. they will be afraid the women will get hurt and so the men can't do their own job properly because of that. and then you call that a 'hassle'.

Pretty much. Men generally are more protective of women. Like it or not it is just how shit is. And god forbid they start fucking, that will pretty much guarantee trouble. It has a whole pile of downsides and not many upsides.

~~~

anyway as it said on the news there were women serving in israel army, so why not here in aus? if women are willing and capable I say sure

Cost vs benefit. Lot of hassle, not enough reward.

~~~

as for the whole rape int he military...well isnt it better to take steps to stop that then to just say "well it is what it" and do nothing?

Yeah... You are just going to stop rapists from raping with a few classes on respecting others. Good luck with that. XD

~~~

even though they were denied proper training before and wouldn't stand a chance.

Implying people (men or women) who are drafted are not given proper training or differing amounts of training based on their gender...

~~~

But if there's a war, I should be forced onto to the front lines against my will, even if I was a cheerful anti-violent housewife?

Men are drafted regardless if they are cheerful and anti-violent. Why would women be any different?

~~~

but, when a war breaks out and shit get's real those women better be right there at the front line, fighting and dying equal to men.

But if there's a war, I should be forced onto to the front lines against my will, even if I was a cheerful anti-violent housewife? This makes no sense to me.

whats the different between now and a world war? if fact it would be better, if what you say did happen could you imagine the fuss it would cause i the army was suddenly flooded with women when it was previously a no-womans land?

I am going to direct you to a post by another user.

-Zen-

For this, I refer to Terry Schappert when I say that the military in not a place for political hanky panky. It's a death machine. It should only be changed if the changes make it deadlier and more resilient. Otherwise, fuck you and your politically correct bullshit.

Says all it needs to really. And the difference between the military now and in a world war is that now its not about survival. Most of the wars now are minor conflicts or in the case of the middle east, ***** slapping a entire country in retaliation for what a few nutjobs did.
And you can afford to have highly trained, specialised squads.
Full world wars are about survival. So yes, currently there is not enough benefit to warrant putting women on the front lines. But in a war of survival the most important thing is churning out troops. Politics, fairness, equality, all that bullshit takes a back seat and the only thing that is important is trying to wipe out as many of the enemy as possible so you make use of every able body you possible can.

Edit:

It would appear that the sexy new trend in the medical/scientific community is to turn the men-are-sissies-when-it-comes-to-pain myth on its head.

Thats never been a popular myth. Men have always been considered to handle pain better than chicks.
The popular myth is that men handle sickness worse.
And for my part, thats true. I get so much as a clogged nose and I go all whiney. But cuts and burns I shrug off.

what Im saying is isnt it kind of hypocritical to say "nope! women cant serve" and then turn around and say "well if theres a draft then women should be conscripted too!"

unless of coarse your saying women would be drafted into suport roles

also I would have thourght rape in military was because of the culture, Im no expert but it seems its all too easy to get away with it

 

[BlumiereBleck]

You do realize that almost all European countries such as Germany and britland have women in frontline combat....even the U.S.A. has them. I mean in the Afghanistan Invasion women were fighting with men in the German Army

 

[SteewpidZombie]

Dude, women already fight on the frontlines in the Canadian Armed Forces, United States Military, and Russian Military, heck they are even in special ops in South and North Korea. Russia had women corps in WWII and they killed a HUGE number of Germans (One AAgun unit of the female corps held off a entire German tank division, they took out like 22 tanks using several AAguns when Germany attempted to invade Russia and they fought to the death as they eventually were killed by the Germans in a forward push).

Most countries have female soldiers, and even rebel/terrorist groups in various countries have female soldiers. Get wit the times dude, it doesn't matter if your a chick or a dude anymore. If your pointing a gun at the enemy you'll still shoot them down if they attempt to kill you, regardless of their or your own gender.

Plus in the Military you are TAUGHT to not get attached to teammates (Relationships can have you discharged, and in life or death situations you are taught that you can't stress over losses till the fighting is over) or to panic in any situation regardless of gender. Any soldier who is dumb enough to mourn more over a female teammate more than a male teammate is a soldier who isn't fit to even be fighting on the frontlines. Personal feelings aren't supposed to be factored into your actions, any soldier who can't act rational is the type of soldier who is likely to screw up and get people killed.

Most soldiers will even say they don't care, the only people who have a issue are the people who aren't fighting. Unless you're in the military and fighting beside someone of opposite gender...YOUR OPINION IS INVALID! (It'd be like saying you hate Pepsi when you've never drank pop in your entire life). So evidently I believe personally that everyone has the right to fight on the frontlines, it's your own choice and nobody should stop you from doing so unless it is PROVEN as a FACT by fellow soldiers that it creates problems. Till then we should all shut up, cry a river, build a boat, and get OVER IT.