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

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: AgentShillington
I've learned something new today, never knew about US vehicle plates informing others that the driver/owner is a former service member, or veteran of conflict.
Here in the UK everyones plate looks the same aside from choice of a small UK/English/Welsh/Scottish/N.Irish/EU flag on the side.

Oh yes. There are loads of designs you can get for your license plate, if you are willing to fork over the cash. Everything from military status to sports team to university. There are even breast cancer awareness plates and wildlife conservation plates. Couple that with each state having their own rules for who can and cant get said plates, and what plates are available where, and it gets hard to tell which plates come from which states.

I'm glad I was able to expand on your knowledge banks.

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.

a reply to: AgentShillington
It all seems a bit "Look at me, look at me!" on the part of those who choose to buy such plates though, and a bit of a strange move making themselves a target for those who would kill service people.
For decades prior to IS/ISIS/ISIL/whatever the # they call themselves these days, the IRA was the reason British service people became careful of advertising their job. The murder of Lee Rigby suggests such precautions are no less required these days.

a reply to: stumason
Agreed.
If the bar for an infantry soldier is not lowered then no issues at all, but if it's like the RN with different timed runs/exercises and 'knees on the floor' for push-ups etc, I can only see a reduction in combat capability.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: stumason
Agreed.
If the bar for an infantry soldier is not lowered then no issues at all, but if it's like the RN with different timed runs/exercises and 'knees on the floor' for push-ups etc, I can only see a reduction in combat capability.

If the bar is going to be lowered, I see it lowered for everyone. Wouldnt that be a nice change of pace?

a reply to: AgentShillington
Nope, the current bar should not be lowered at all in my opinion.
The current bar represents the hardest infantry soldier benchmark that the UK feels required for conflict.
That should not change to accommodate female applicants...perhaps you feel differently?

Anyone that doubts women can do it should try and tell those kurdish women fighting is is that they can't fight well.

a reply to: Irishhaf

I don't doubt women can fight, but my concern is with lowering the standards demanded of a British Infantry candidate. The women should have to meet the same, tough limits set for the men, which are there for a reason.

a reply to: Irishhaf
Agreed, but when I consider those who fight under the UK flag I want them to be the best they can.
I have no idea of the recruitment and training of Kurdish female soldiers but it's probably apples n oranges, and I prefer to rely on the current male oriented benchmark for infantry who could one day defend me. If female soldiers can reach it then great, but lowering it would devalue our infantry.

*Edit*
The construction industry (and many others) changed big time in the UK with the introduction of 25kg weight bags/loads to make the trades inclusive to women as well as weak men, but frontline warfare is different to construction. I wouldn't want someone next to me fighting if their weight limit was a bag of cement. Highest average hardest and strongest male benchmark is the standard I want for any army which may protect me.

originally posted by: AgentShillington

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: stumason
Agreed.
If the bar for an infantry soldier is not lowered then no issues at all, but if it's like the RN with different timed runs/exercises and 'knees on the floor' for push-ups etc, I can only see a reduction in combat capability.

If the bar is going to be lowered, I see it lowered for everyone. Wouldnt that be a nice change of pace?

It won't be though - there are already differing standards across the Forces for roles which do accept women, with females having to meet a far lower physical bar than their male colleagues.

a reply to: stumason
Exactly, as the longer times allowed for the mile and a half run and push-ups on knees for female RN.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: AgentShillington
Nope, the current bar should not be lowered at all in my opinion.
The current bar represents the hardest infantry soldier benchmark that the UK feels required for conflict.
That should not change to accommodate female applicants...perhaps you feel differently?

I don't deal in shoulds.

Maybe the entire concept of physical requirements is flawed. However, I guess one does need to be able to be put into a box to be sent home in one.

a reply to: AgentShillington
Ah, but even in a tribal or mad-max society we always have our security/defence folk, and in whichever situation can be imagined where someone is claiming to fight in the name of my defence, I want the standard of the people defending me to be the hardest percentage of blokes in my society.
Start a new thread about the moral issues of war/defence if that is the slant you are going towards and I may be interested in contributing my on-topic comments there?

originally posted by: AgentShillington
I don't deal in shoulds.

What a weird statement. He said the bar shouldn't be lowered simply to accommodate females. What do you "deal in" then?

originally posted by: AgentShillington
Maybe the entire concept of physical requirements is flawed.

Oh yeah, of course. Let's let any old Tom, Dick or Mary into the Infantry and not worry if they can carry their kit over an 8 mile course, or be able to carry their comrades should they be wounded.

originally posted by: AgentShillington
However, I guess one does need to be able to be put into a box to be sent home in one.

That's the nature of warfare, but we're not here to debate the right's and wrong's of it.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Tardacus
I am optimistic that there is no draft likely in the near future for the UK, but if there was, I imagine such legislation would apply equally to women as well, but I suspect it would not be enforced in practice.
We've had female medics on front line patrols for years now though, most recently Afghanistan.

Lol

Draft in the UK
Lol

No idea how that work or result in anything but MP heads ending up on spikes outside parliment

Would never go doen unless england itself was under direct threat.

originally posted by: AgentShillington

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: stumason
Agreed.
If the bar for an infantry soldier is not lowered then no issues at all, but if it's like the RN with different timed runs/exercises and 'knees on the floor' for push-ups etc, I can only see a reduction in combat capability.

If the bar is going to be lowered, I see it lowered for everyone. Wouldnt that be a nice change of pace?

Hell no!

British solders are considered some of the best if not THE best trained solders in the world for a reason!

No way should we lower the bar otherwise we could end up with a army of dip#s that cant do anything else......like the USA

So if your wounded and left behind to die because she couldn't carry you out, who is to blame?

DingleBerry

a reply to: DingleBerry80
You, for getting shot?

a reply to: DingleBerry80
From what I read of the MoD intentions females will be required to lift the same weights for the distances as males. If that is the case then it would appear that any female soldiers who pass would be able to pull their male counterparts out of danger the same as a male.
...for that reason I do not expect many female infantry soldiers, but it would certainly downgrade the service and create greater risk for the male soldiers if the standards were to be lowered for females.

women in combat is happening and will continue to happen. society is not ready for mixed units, the spiritual, moral levels for society today are to immature. that said , I'm all for women in frontline combat units...but, they have to pass the same tests. in my natl guard unit before deploying to Iraq, most females were givin positions on heavy weapons. the average female was 5'5" , under 130#... at that time the basic protective vest w/ insert was almost 30 #, add ammo, weapon, Basic equipment, you could have 80# on you..and we were just supply personnel escorting convoys. they didn't want the women dismounted with that much gear on them..let them man the heavy weapons on the vehicles.

women would have to be much more dedicated to the frontline portion. just because you are a male does not mean that you will be a good front line combat trooper...its just that society thinks you should and will be able to fight. just because you are a man does not mean you are strong and capable and just cause you are a women does not mean you are NOT strong and capable.

in the beginning, I suspect that an all women front line unit would be better than the average all male unit..just cause they know they have something to show or prove.

I say give them the chance, they are already involved in combat, give those that are willing, to prove that they are the Warriors they think...men or women.