It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Female infantry may be allowed in the British Army by 2016 - Govt review paper

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   
The thing is there are women that could meet the standard now that are kept out due to antiquated laws.

Past time they should change it.




posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: clearmind

Kiss all the anti second amendment opposition if THEY do it here. I wonder how many women CAN sit in one position SILENTLY for hours...



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
I wonder how many women CAN sit in one position SILENTLY for hours...

That's why the entrance/training demands apparently will not change.
It will be tough as old boots female recruits who get through...many men fail the grade every year.



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf
Urm...that's the point of this thread, the rules are soon to change, just the MoD say they are evaluating the physiological differences/potential damage to female bodies under sustained male standard training regimes.
I want whoever is defending this island to be from the highest percentile of male strength and stamina, if a woman can reach it then great, provided the standard bar is not lowered to accomodate women.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 01:50 PM
link   
I don't think women should be in the military at all. They could serve as nurses and support outside of the war zones but to have the female fight in your place is plainly cowardice on the males part.



a reply to: grainofsand



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: stumason

originally posted by: Ridhya
In Scandinavia its mandatory for men and women, although women get less time. Dear world, it's well past due. Reiterating, if they can pass the same bar that the men have to, they should be fully accepted.


That's the kicker - they will probably lower the bar for women as they have done in every other part of the Forces they can serve in, but there is actually a good reason for the physical limits set as they are - simply being able to carry your kit or a comrade off the battlefield. If they lower the limits, then can female soldiers be relied upon if they have to yomp across 15 miles of srubland to get to the enemy and be able to fight.

That is my only concern with this. That is why they haven't lifted the ban and are reviewing it.


Wars aren't fought like that anymore. Wars are fought in urban environments where you can drive your infantry to the war zone.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Asynchrony

Why? I think it is sexist to not let a woman stand side by side with a man defending the same beliefs that the man is defending. Though you appear to be stuck in 1950's males have to protect the females at all times sexism.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: stumason

originally posted by: Ridhya
In Scandinavia its mandatory for men and women, although women get less time. Dear world, it's well past due. Reiterating, if they can pass the same bar that the men have to, they should be fully accepted.


That's the kicker - they will probably lower the bar for women as they have done in every other part of the Forces they can serve in, but there is actually a good reason for the physical limits set as they are - simply being able to carry your kit or a comrade off the battlefield. If they lower the limits, then can female soldiers be relied upon if they have to yomp across 15 miles of srubland to get to the enemy and be able to fight.

That is my only concern with this. That is why they haven't lifted the ban and are reviewing it.


Wars aren't fought like that anymore. Wars are fought in urban environments where you can drive your infantry to the war zone.



Maybe not for America.

But the UK had the falklands war that required infantry to slog miles from a beach across soggy ground.


Im all for females on yhe front line.

But NO lowering current training standards.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

The Falklands war? The one in 1982? 32 years ago? Sorry but that isn't exactly modern as far as military tactics are concerned. I served alongside the British in Iraq and they employed the same tactics that we did. Drive around then deploy when combat occurs.
edit on 23-12-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Whatever the current tactics of war are as you assert, I want all soldiers fighting in the defence of my country to be in the highest percentile of male fitness and strength. If females can reach the same standard then cool.
Why would anyone want a nation to be defended by people who only reach the highest percentile of female strength and fitness though?
Bit of a silly defence strategy in my opinion.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Oh thank God for that. I must have been imagining all those 10hr patrols in Afghanistan day in and day out carrying 40kg+ in 35C heat followed by dragging myself through irrigation ditches while in contact. I'm glad we won't be doing any long distance advance to contact TABs on my next exercise. I'm looking forward to no more CASEVACs over long distances in the future, or the aggressive and exhausting FIBUA battles.

I think some people on here need a bit of a reality check when it comes to how truly bloody exhausting and physically demanding the job of a Combat Infantryman can be. Just because someone can cope with a 6 month tour doesn't mean they are robust enough for the job. We have women patrolling with us, true. But you will rarely be told of how often we have to drag them across obstacles because they don't have the strength to pull themselves out of a ditch. Bad PR.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: PaddyInf
I assume you support the MoD in their wish to retain the same high physical standards for an infantry soldier then.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: PaddyInf

How many women did you pull out of ditches because they couldn't pull themselves out? When I signed up, women weren't even allowed in field artillery fields (my mos), let alone 11b. So I find it unlikely that you pulled any female out of a ditch because she was incapable of doing it herself.

I saw plenty of women in Iraq wearing the standard "battle rattle" in the heat just like the men.

Also, what say you to the older men in the military who have relaxed pt standards? By the mid 30's you had 18 minutes plus to complete 2 miles. That is a brisk walk. Are you not sharing combat time with them as well? Oh wait, of course you are, they are your squad leaders and platoon leaders.
edit on 23-12-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

Highest percentile? The pt qualifications for active duty, even for men, aren't that extreme.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Apologies for listening in, may I ask do you support the regulations for joining the Infantry being that those who defend the UK on foot patrol have passed a test which shows they are in the highest percentile of male fitness, stamina, and strength?



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
So what is your argument here fella?



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

My argument is that the "reasons" people usually use to keep women from serving on the front lines are all HUGELY flawed.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Apologies for listening in, may I ask do you support the regulations for joining the Infantry being that those who defend the UK on foot patrol have passed a test which shows they are in the highest percentile of male fitness, stamina, and strength?


Do I support PT tests? Of course, but those tests aren't "highest percentile". All you need is the bare minimum and the bare minimum is in mediocre shape.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
I want an infantry which is of the standard which many males cannot reach. I want the hardest blokes or women.
If women can reach that standard then I'm equally happy to be defended by them.
Do you disagree with any of that?
...as I said in my OP I was annoyed by the extra time female sailors get in the mile and a half run, plus the lame press/push ups they were allowed to do on their knees.
I don't want lower standards for frontline troops who allegedly are there to protect me...do you?



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

Then you better champion for stricter pt standards for men too, because what you want isn't the case for either gender. Any person can sign up and after a few weeks of basic training pass the pt test. What YOU want is akin to asking for pt standards for Army Rangers or Special Forces for standard infantry. Grunts don't need that much physical training.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join