Can women fulfill front-line combat positions in the military?

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: DuffmanOhYeah
Oh thats just not true! All the way up the scale women are physically inferior. Take any percentile you would like, and I GUARANTEE you that women are far out-classed by men. Im not trying to be derrogatoy or mysogynistic, but speaking to physical capability, women just cant cut the mustard.

What do %ile's have to do with it? sure the top 1% of men will be 'stronger' than the top 1% of women as a group. However, break it down into weight classes and you get a more even pairing.

Regardless of all that crap. It doesn't take a very strong individual to be able to fire a weapon accurately and carry the standard of gear....sure a 4'10", 90lb woman may not fare so well in this...but take a 5'7" or so 120-130lb woman and it's easily done with a little strength training. More often than not women excel in endurance which is really what is tested more in a combat situation. You can take two fighters, one at 130lbs and one at 200lbs....say the 200lbs can only run 1-2 miles before winded but the 130lb guy can run 5-7 at the same pace....my money would be on the lighter guy.

Å

 

[WhiteKnight]

At least in the US Army, jobs (MOS) are divided up between three different categories. Combat Arms, Combat Support, and Service Support. Combat Arms includes things like infantry, spec ops., aviation. Combat Support covers artillery, air defense artillery, military intelligence, chem corp, etc. Service Support includes finance, transportation, JAG, etc.

Engineering is unique in that it is the only branch (I believe) that is under all three categories, simply because there is a very wide range of jobs. Aviation may be under both combat arms as well as combat support. A Longbow crew is obvious in a combat arms situation while a Blackhawk or Chinook crew may be in more of a combat support type role.

Anyway, to get to your question, women can serve in Combat Support or Service Support, but not Combat Arms.

A google search turned up this link. From my alma mater (and now grad school) coincidently.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
What do %ile's have to do with it? sure the top 1% of men will be 'stronger' than the top 1% of women as a group. However, break it down into weight classes and you get a more even pairing.

Regardless of all that crap. It doesn't take a very strong individual to be able to fire a weapon accurately and carry the standard of gear....sure a 4'10", 90lb woman may not fare so well in this...but take a 5'7" or so 120-130lb woman and it's easily done with a little strength training. More often than not women excel in endurance which is really what is tested more in a combat situation. You can take two fighters, one at 130lbs and one at 200lbs....say the 200lbs can only run 1-2 miles before winded but the 130lb guy can run 5-7 at the same pace....my money would be on the lighter guy.

Å

If they would make the women's standards the same as the men's, I wouldnt have a problem with it. As long as you dont drag down the men's PT standards just to make it look good. However, that said...

How many 130lbs women are able to drag a wounded soldier to safety, quickly, while staying low? While he still has all his gear on? How many can carry a SAW + ammo +regular gear on a long march? Sure, you have guys to carry the SAW, but the point is anyone on the squad should be able to take over that job. And if women really excelled in endurance, you'd think their standards would have been set to the men's standard in running.

 

[GreasyBurger]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: DuffmanOhYeah
Oh thats just not true! All the way up the scale women are physically inferior. Take any percentile you would like, and I GUARANTEE you that women are far out-classed by men. Im not trying to be derrogatoy or mysogynistic, but speaking to physical capability, women just cant cut the mustard.

What do %ile's have to do with it? sure the top 1% of men will be 'stronger' than the top 1% of women as a group. However, break it down into weight classes and you get a more even pairing.

Regardless of all that crap. It doesn't take a very strong individual to be able to fire a weapon accurately and carry the standard of gear....sure a 4'10", 90lb woman may not fare so well in this...but take a 5'7" or so 120-130lb woman and it's easily done with a little strength training. More often than not women excel in endurance which is really what is tested more in a combat situation. You can take two fighters, one at 130lbs and one at 200lbs....say the 200lbs can only run 1-2 miles before winded but the 130lb guy can run 5-7 at the same pace....my money would be on the lighter guy.

Å

Let's get back to REALITY here. Let's assume everything you said is true then how come women in all services and branches still have watered down APFT standard? How come I don't see men and women compete in the Olympic eventhough they all have same training?

 

[GasX]

What are you saying? That a woman's life is more valuable than a man's? That a woman's death is more hurtful than a man's?

 

[GreasyBurger]

Originally posted by: Mwilding
What are you saying? That a woman's life is more valuable than a man's? That a woman's death is more hurtful than a man's?

So you are saying we should make military a political correctness playing ground to make the feminists happy? Because she's a woman therefore should not hold the same APFT standard as the man?

 

[GasX]

Originally posted by: GreasyBurger

Originally posted by: Mwilding
What are you saying? That a woman's life is more valuable than a man's? That a woman's death is more hurtful than a man's?

So you are saying we should make military a political correctness playing ground to make the feminists happy? Because she's a woman therefore should not hold the same APFT standard as the man?

no, I amquoting GI Jane...

 

[Koing]

Originally posted by: GreasyBurger

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: DuffmanOhYeah
Oh thats just not true! All the way up the scale women are physically inferior. Take any percentile you would like, and I GUARANTEE you that women are far out-classed by men. Im not trying to be derrogatoy or mysogynistic, but speaking to physical capability, women just cant cut the mustard.

What do %ile's have to do with it? sure the top 1% of men will be 'stronger' than the top 1% of women as a group. However, break it down into weight classes and you get a more even pairing.

Regardless of all that crap. It doesn't take a very strong individual to be able to fire a weapon accurately and carry the standard of gear....sure a 4'10", 90lb woman may not fare so well in this...but take a 5'7" or so 120-130lb woman and it's easily done with a little strength training. More often than not women excel in endurance which is really what is tested more in a combat situation. You can take two fighters, one at 130lbs and one at 200lbs....say the 200lbs can only run 1-2 miles before winded but the 130lb guy can run 5-7 at the same pace....my money would be on the lighter guy.

Å

Let's get back to REALITY here. Let's assume everything you said is true then how come women in all services and branches still have watered down APFT standard? How come I don't see men and women compete in the Olympic eventhough they all have same training?

Ditto.

I'm sure 'some' women can do it. And better the men but they probably don't do it

The tests are lower for a reason. Otherwise they would be equal.

Koing

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: Aj_UF
I'm all for women in combat roles when women have to meet the same standards that men do - specifically the physical requirements...I got out in '95...the APFT requirements changed in '98 (some good news).

Males must perform a minimum of 42 pushup (60 pts)
Females their minimum is 19 (60 pts)...42 is their "max" (100 pts).

Same standards for both with situps!

Males 15:54 for 2 mile run (minimum)...max is 13:00 (100 pts).
Females 18:54 for 2 mile run (minimum)...their max is 15:36 (100 pts)...their max is nearly as slow as the male minimum.

Same job...same pay...same risks...same standards - that's just my opinion.

~AJ

I agree. I think that anyone who can meet the standards should be given the opportunity for a front line combat postion, male or female.

Now I would consider different physical requiremnts for different postions... obviously you need to be more fit if you are infantry as opposed to AG.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Mookow


If they would make the women's standards the same as the men's, I wouldnt have a problem with it. As long as you dont drag down the men's PT standards just to make it look good. However, that said...

How many 130lbs women are able to drag a wounded soldier to safety, quickly, while staying low? While he still has all his gear on? How many can carry a SAW + ammo +regular gear on a long march? Sure, you have guys to carry the SAW, but the point is anyone on the squad should be able to take over that job. And if women really excelled in endurance, you'd think their standards would have been set to the men's standard in running.

The average soldier I have witnessed is pretty much a healthy pencil neck.

The average woman I see in the gym could probably kick their ass.

The PT standards are set to allow the average woman to get in....I am sure there are more than a handful of women that can blow the average soldier out of the water fitness wise.

You don't see to many because most are not joining the military.

Å

 

[GreasyBurger]

Women make up 10%-11% in U.S. armed forces. Can you just imagine if U.S. military abandon double standard? I bet female recruitment is going to take a big bite in the ass and the feminists in the Pentagon is going up in armed