Women in Combat

Townhall.com ^ | February 6, 2013 | Walter E. Williams

[Kaslin]

A senior Defense Department official said the ban on women in combat should be lifted because the military's goal is "to provide a level, gender-neutral playing field." I'd like to think the goal of the military should be to have the toughest, meanest fighting force possible. But let's look at "gender-neutral playing field."

The Army's physical fitness test in basic training is a three-event physical performance test used to assess endurance. The minimum requirement for 17- to 21-year-old males is 35 pushups, 47 situps and a two-mile run in 16 minutes, 36 seconds or less. For females of the same age, the minimum requirement is 13 pushups, 47 situps and a 19:42 two-mile run. Why the difference in fitness requirements? "USMC Women in the Service Restrictions Review" found that women, on average, have 20 percent lower aerobic power, 40 percent lower muscle strength, 47 percent less lifting strength and 26 percent slower marching speed than men.

William Gregor, professor of social sciences at the Army's Command and General Staff College, reports that in tests of aerobic capacity, the records show, only 74 of 8,385 Reserve Officers' Training Corps women attained the level of the lowest 16 percent of men. The "fight load" -- the gear an infantryman carries on patrol -- is 35 percent of the average man's body weight but 50 percent of the average Army woman's weight. In his examination of physical fitness test results from the ROTC, dating back to 1992, and 74,000 records of male and female commissioned officers, only 2.9 percent of women were able to attain the men's average pushup ability and time in the two-mile run.

In a January report titled "Defense Department 'Diversity' Push for Women in Land Combat" Elaine Donnelly, director of the Center for Military Readiness, points to U.S. Army studies showing that women are twice as likely to suffer injuries and are three times more undeployable than men. Women are less likely to be able to march under load -- 12.4 miles in five hours with an 83-pound assault load -- and to be able to crawl, sprint, negotiate obstacles with that load or move a casualty weighing 165 pounds or more while carrying that load. Plus, there are muscle-challenging feats, even for men, such as field repairs on an M1A1 Abrams tank.

Then there's the pregnancy issue, which makes women three to four times as likely as men to be undeployable. And once deployed, they often have to be medically evacuated, leaving units understrength. Finally, there's another difference between men and women rarely considered in deliberation about whether women should be in combat. All measures of physical aggressiveness show that men, maybe because of testosterone levels 10 times higher, are more aggressive, competitive and hostile than women. Those attributes are desirable for combat.

Here are a couple of what-if questions. Suppose a combat unit is retreating in mountainous terrain in Afghanistan, where a person's aerobic capacity really makes a difference, and the women in the unit can't keep up with the men. What would you propose, leaving the women behind to possibly be captured by the Taliban or having the unit slow down so the women can keep up, thereby risking causalities or capture? What if a male soldier is washed out of the Army's Advanced Infantry Training program because he cannot pass its physical fitness test whereas a female soldier who can't perform at his level is retained? Should male soldiers be able to bring suit and be awarded damages for sex discrimination? How much respect can a male soldier have for his female counterpart, who is held to lower performance standards?

There's another issue. The Selective Service System's website has the following message about draft registration: "Even though the Secretary of Defense has decided to allow women in combat jobs, the law has not been changed to include this. Consequently, only men are currently required to register by law with Selective Service during ages 18 thru 25. Women still do not register." How can that, coupled with differences in performance standards, possibly be consistent with the Defense Department's stated agenda "to provide a level, gender-neutral playing field"?

[Chainmail]

I have served with really outstanding female service personnel and like you, I have observed some females who were more professional than a whole pack of males. The difference is direct combat. It is a whole different environment than any other human experience and it requires an almost superhuman set of capabilities. There is a tendency among combat support and combat service support specialties to look down on the "lowly grunt" but the infantryman has to have the capabilities, the wits, the team and the talent to win and survive while doing it. Infantry is no place for the weak, the stupid, or the distracted. A buddy of mine once said that we have three types of combat troop; the Killer, the Filler and the Fodder. Killers amount to no more than 20% - they are the ones that can retain their focus in the nightmare of a firefight and actually aim their weapons and kill their enemies. Fillers make noise, a lot of noise, and if you're lucky, they don't hit you or bystanders. They make up the main proportion of people on the line. Fodder are going to die no matter what you do for them. They are the ones that didn't pay attention to their training, walk on the skyline, don't dig in when you stop, smoke at night, open gates, walk in the middle of the trail, etc.

Adding ladies adds yet more complication. Now we will have the young men focusing on something other than what they have to be focused on and we will have less success and more dead and wounded.

I admire the patriotisim, honor, and fidelity of the young ladies who would volunteer for this duty but combat is not the right place for them.

[BCW]

I agree 100% with what you are saying. Females don’t need to be in the main fight - be it support or direct - I can tell you we would have gotten alot more done without the female presence - and this notion that they should be able to join in combat is ignorant and is nothing more than a distraction...Yes, the females I served with that were MP’s did an outstanding job - but there is no place for them on the battlefield - in that, they are - the ones I have served with have sacrificed as we all did - some others been killed - some wounded - but I agree, they should be there.

[ansel12]

Females don’t need to be in the main fight - be it support

Females are terrible in support as well, all of the same inadequacies are there. The only places that they don't hurt things, is where they used to be, in finance, at the hospitals, in the legal buildings, strictly office work.

[Chainmail]

"Computer chips can’t replace the 3lb shoulder mounter computer."

At this moment in time, you are correct. Fairly soon, the battlefield won't have any places for humans except as victims. As an Air Force guy, you should be the first to recognize that we have antiair systems now that are nearly impossible to avoid or defeat - altitude, speed, maneuvering, jamming, even stealth attributes are being overcome by new systems. The air will be nearly unsurvivable soon. Standoff weapons are just an interim solution. The future is unmanned delivery, unmanned persistent airspace control, with no vulnerable links to remote piloting stations.

Like everyone else, I will remember the "white scarf in the slipstream" days with warmth (both of my Uncles were WWII fighter pilots) but the lower reaches of the atmosphere will be the province of machines in battle - and whomever has the best machines will be the winner.

[USAF80]

All you say is possible now but they will still keep man in the loop for the foreseeable future. Robots may play a factor as far as freeing up the humans on some tasks.

The cheapest and very effective anti-missile technology is a loadmaster looking out a troop door with a chaff and flare release control. WW2 technology still being used.

A drone cannot tell the difference between a school bus full of kids or one full of people wishing to do us harm.

[Chainmail]

I am not sure how current your knowledge is. We already have antiair systems that wouldn’t give your loadmaster any chance to recognize the threat much less react to it. Chaff and flares only work on slower shoulder-fired heat-seeking missiles. There are also target recognition technologies that will differentiate between different types of hostile people and friendlies/noncombatants. It’s not 100% yet, hence the wait. Robots will eventually take up all combat roles - possibly within our lifetimes. Drones are only the first rung in the ladder.

[Mr Rogers]

Unless things have advanced greatly in the last 5 years, we’re a long way away from taking the man out of the loop in air combat. Your analysis of air defense systems is inadequate, BTW. Not that we can discuss it in detail here...

[USAF80]

I am not sure how current your knowledge is.

I know a lot more than I can post here. Lets leave it at that.

[Chainmail]

Sure. Like there’s not enough to support my contentions in Aviation Week...
Your loadmaster might have a problem with a Patriot, right?
I love the “if told you, I’d have to kill you” tack..

[Mr Rogers]

Sorry, but I worked operational test before retiring. You don’t know enough to know what you don’t know. You can trust me, or you can at least review the history of EW enough to figure out that anything man can build, man can defeat.

[Chainmail]

I guess we could do this “urination competition” all night - you don’t know what I know either. What I am sure of is that all technology is eventually defeated by more technology. The question at hand is whether we will continue to carry delicate, irreplaceable, G-sensitive, air conditioning and oxygen-dependent payloads into next generation combat. If we don’t advance, our competitors will. The battleship sailors “knew” that airplanes couldn’t harm their ships. Billy Mitchell knew better and proved it. EW is a finger in the dike against the threat of a new generation of combat capabilites.

[USAF80]

I think numbers are important in warfare. After all, Germany did have the technological advantage in WW2 and they lost. We did not have anything that came close to the King Panzer.
They have jet fighters, remote controlled bombs (cruise missiles) and V2s.

[Chainmail]

I agree - and robots will provide the numbers. It is a great deal cheaper to build and field something that doesn't require a human to protect inside. Huge volumes of machines can swarm and overcome the adversary forces.

Small issues with the the German stuff towards the end of the war: The Nazis were so bound to their system that they ignored or delayed really important technologies while wasting huge amounts of resources on completely useless technologies. Without question, turbojet engines were a leap ahead in speed and altitude performance and would have dramatically influenced the cource of the European war. Despite this, Hitler forbade its fielding until the best aircraft available, the Messerschmitt ME-262, was converted to be a "Lightning Bomber". Wasted (thank Heaven) about a full year before they could employ the thing. They also ignored their best scientists (or chased them to us) who recommend development of a fission weapon. They fiddled around with monster howitzers, ridiculously-oversized tanks (the Maus, the King Tiger, etc.) and those tactically and strategically useless V-1 and 2s whioh did nothing at all to win their war. The US and Britain stuck to the technologies that really made a difference: heavy bombers, long-range fighters, anti-armor rockets, and lots of supremely dependable tanks, medium howitzers, and small arms. They made bad choices and they lost - always a good thing.

[Mr Rogers]

“EW is a finger in the dike against the threat of a new generation of combat capabilites.”

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[USAF80]

I read a book a while ago, forgot the name. It claimed that in the future wars anything flying under 10,000 ft will be shot down by MANPADS. These weapons will also have the capability of defeating armored vehicles. In short, it will be foot soldiers vs foot soldiers like in the days of old.

Check out the new stuff our buddies in Israel have developed.