Women in Combat? Why?

Way off-topic.

 

That's wrong. The U.S. has put more men and women into combat in the last 10 years than Israel has in the last 50. The fighting the IDF is involved with is more akin to low intensity peace keeping operations. They aren't involved in highly kinetic firefights on a daily basis like in Afghanistan and Iraq(in the past). They aren't doing massive movement to contacts at 15,000 feet with 100lb fighting loads. Also, their political situation and small population means they live and die by their ability to quickly mobilize their reserves(which is very impressive).

 

Israel didn't fare too well in it's last war (but they did succeed in setting back Lebanon a few decades, though not getting their soldiers who were kidnapped back alive). Hezbollah used a rocket attack as a feint to direct Israeli attention away from their infiltrators who snuck in and kidnapped a few Israeli soldiers, thus igniting the mini war in Lebanon in 06. Israel and Hezbollah are gearing up for round 2.

 

Ultimately, combat service support serves the fighting units on the ground...the tip
of the spear is boots on the ground.

I'm not quite sure what that has to do with not allowing women in the infantry because
in 2 weeks, sailors and airmen were cross-trained in infantry skills and became
boots on the ground like any other Army or Marine infantryman.

As the Iraq war heated up in mid-2000s, , more than 30,000 airmen and sailors were retrained to do things
they normally wouldn't be called on to do, like take part in street patrols or convoys.

This was part of a 2 week combat skills training course at the Expeditionary Center in Ft. Dix, New Jersey.
Part of the training received was shooting with the M-4 carbine, hand-to-hand combat training and being shot at by rubber bullets....
also exposure to hundreds of rounds of AK-47 blanks.

This was at a time when there was a manpower shortage on the ground in Iraq.

So for example you'd get an Airman who was trained in the Air Force to pack parachutes,
being re-trained for an infantry role...in two weeks at Ft. Dix.

In two weeks they made infantry out of Sailors and Airmen that had no previous
training in that MOS...

 

You're real training doesn't even begin until you get to your unit, and everyone knows that. You get trained on how to fly, but your real training doesn't begin until you get to your unit and begin flying with them.

You can learn BASIC skills in 2 weeks....throw those guys up against an Infantry unit, or just an Infantry squad and see how they fare. OSUT (One Stop Unit Training) is where you go when you enlist Infantry, and its 14 weeks. We get to our unit afterwords, and quickly find out we don't know squat.

Infantry skills are honed over years of training. Anyone can learn to shoot, and your basic battle drills, but doesn't make them Infantrymen. There's so much more to it.

You're a pilot right? C-130...I believe?

Either way,

You could take me to the cockpit, show me some things for a few days and get me to where I could probably fly without crashing, but does that put me on par with you? Am I then a Combat Pilot with the ability to fly missions to your standard? I know for a fact that I could not, there is no way a few days lessons would put me on par, and to your standard. If I took the few days to learn the basics and could keep the bird in the air without crashing, and someone came along and said "well, you're a combat pilot now", it would be an insult to your ability that took years to hone.

 

I didn't say it made seasoned infantryman out of them, but if the Army had
the need to utilize and cross-train individuals from other service branches; seems to me they weren't meeting their
immediate needs and had no other choice.

In WWII the Soviets had female tank crews, and they fared pretty well....
why? they needed them to fight the Germans...they didn't consider anything else beyond this need.

Right now, the Army can afford to be very selective...The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have
peaked in terms of manpower needs. Most of the services are tightening their belt
as they face defense cuts. Right now, the Army and Marines don't need women
in the ranks of direct ground combat units.

That's right now, there may be a time, when any able bodied person...man or woman,
with combat skills similar to infantry, will be needed.

Folks are writing off, a potential source of needed manpower if the need arises....
No one can predict the future in terms of conflicts.

Minimally, I think women soldiers should receive combat infantry skills, beyond what is taught
in basic training, regardless of their MOS. A nation at war can't afford to be
selective given an all-voluntary military. Unless of course we want conscription to return because,
most draftees in WWII, Korea and Vietnam went into the infantry. That's whre the greatest need was,
to replace casualites and relieve units who were in the field for an extended time.

If a young woman is physically fit, ready willing and able to recieve infantry training,
it's wise for an Army to do this, if for nothing else as a trained reserve if the need
should arise when every availlable boot on the ground is necessary.

Learn from history or be doomed to repeat it.

The burden of Iraq and Afghanistan has been on the ground forces. Keeping up the manpower
needs in an all-volunteer military may require allowing women to serve alongside men in the infantry...
should history repeat itself and the U.S. is in a similar conflict. Another protracted war
with the burden placed on ground troops.

Either that, or be prepared for the draft to return.

 

No they didn't. They made them into provisional rifle platoons. These guys were used mostly in convoy security, base protection, and limited patrolling. You CANNOT make an infantryman in two weeks. Just because you have a rifle and walk around doesn't mean you're a capable or competent grunt. I'd say it generally takes at least a year of training to become competent infantryman. I've heard that Air Forces Security Forces sometimes like to consider themselves as the Infantry of the Air Force. I knew a former Marine 0311 who transfered to the Air Force and did this job. He said that calling the Air Force SF "infantry" was ludicrious and that while competent in base protection, they weren't qualifed or prepared to operate as Infantry.

I remember during a training scenario I had to act as a squad leader for a group of non-infantry Marines. These Marines were all attached to Infantry BNs and had been through Marine MCT (much more substantial than two weeks at FT. Dix) and spent in some cases years around Infantry. It was a nightmare, they had no concept of fire and manuever and couldn't do urban patrolling worth a (*)(*)(*)(*). These Marines were light years ahead of any sailors or airmen but still couldn't compare to actual grunts. The Marine Corps knew very well they couldn't just pump out a competent infantry force in a few months. This is why during the height of Iraq my reenlistment bonus (had I stayed in) would have been 90k.

Heck, we got a brand new Corpmen fresh from Field Med school which is supposed to prepare Corpsmen to become integrated into Infantry BNs. We had to spend an hour teaching him how to break down and properly clean his M16. He did eventually become quite competent, but it took a long time.

 

In WWII, a typical replacement infantryman, went to basic training, AIT and was shipped
off to the front line.

That's the reality of most wars...

Infantry is fodder and had the greatest need to replace given a large pool to select from...namely draftees.

America hasn't had a draft since '73 and Congress ended it.
In Iraq and Afghanistan, extended tours of duty, multiple rotations all placed burdens on the ground forces...
all placed added risk to those individuals because manpower needs weren't being met.

All I'm hearing is how big of a detriment it would be to have women alongside men,
forgetting the detriment of overly-stretched troops...because of ground forces' manpower needs.

Maintaining an all-voluntary military requires utilizing every available resource
including women serving alongside men as boots on the ground in direct combat.

 

Ahhhhhh, a healthy food nut (veggan--lol), now I understand!! This makes all the other nonsense so easy to understand. I even bet you listen to Michael Savage, the online political talk show host and Dr of diet, lol.

 

In my mind and the mind of most of the Generals of History, the infantry (not to include special operations soldiers)is just cannon fodder.

 

Amazing that you can be so accurate, yet use the bored icon, lol. I think you are not bored, just tired of making sense to fools.

 

Every single job in the Military supports the Supreme Commander in Chief, which is now President Obama, not some minor part of the not oldest part of the American military. (the navy is the senior service)

 

Cal, that seems to include about 95 percent of the Infantry, lol.

 

It did not take men on the ground to take out Ben Ladin. It took an order from the president. HE decided to take a chance, for political reasons, on sending in ground pounders. It would have been simpler, cheaper, and much more efficient to use a missile. Or actually, I would have used a lot of missiles, I like overkill.
There were literally dozens of ways to take out osama without infantry. The POLITICAL decision was to take the CHANCE with legs on the ground.

 

I did two combat deployments in Nam, 26 months. Oh, I was an 11E MOS, or Tanker, in an M48A3C. I was a crew member on three tanks that were destroyed, and was wounded 5 times.
The political way that Nam was fought, showed that the only way to win a war, is to win it. Our "limited actions" in Nam only meant that although the US never lost one single battle in Nam, that we ended up losing the war, through politics. The infantry could Never have won in Nam, but major attacks on North Vietnam by combined forces, armor, infantry, air, and artillery would have caused an end to the war. If we had stayed as we were going, with the infantry doing 90 percent of the combat in Nam, then we would still be there, in south Vietnam and still not have won.

 

The major role of the infantry in IRAQ occurred long after Bush declared we had won the war. The infantry did NOT win the war, all they did was win the police action after the war.
Fighting terrorists is NOT war, it is police action. WAR is a state of violence between two nations. Terror actions are NOT war, there are not two states involved, just one and some nuts.

 

Without the infantry we would all be out of jobs. Tankers? As in aerial refueling? Those people that are there to support us so that we can support the guys on the ground? Oh. The groundpounders here are not claiming they do not need support. They are saying our purpose is to support them and they are correct.

 

Incorrect. It does not always get in the way. Perhaps a little more self-control on your part if you cannot work with women without trying to sleep with them.

 

FACT:
The marine corps has the lowest average IQ OF ANY of the Armed Services.
Fact:
The infantry has the lowest AVERAGE IQ of any of the branches of the military.
So, for any infantry person to claim they are the best and brightest and the most important is inherently stupid.
In WW1 the Machine gun almost totally eliminated the supremacy of the Infantry. Also in WW1 the tank almost totally eliminated the supremacy of the machine gun.
The stalemate in Europe was caused by machine guns. No mass of infantry could charge into the face of properly prepared machine-gun emplacements and survive. That is why the war dragged on and on in the same positions for year after year after year. Then, suddenly along came the first "modern" tanks. Machine guns could not harm them, and they began rolling up enemy positions, with the infantry following them to "clean up" .
WW2 - Four words, Blitzkrieg, Air power, Patten and Rommel. Those were the deciding factors on both sides in ww2. NOTICE I did NOT mention infantry.
You might be thinking of the pacific islands and the many army landings there. But think on this, where would those legs, cannon-fodder, foot soldiers, infantry have been without the navy, air corp and tanks, especially the flame-throwing ones that went along with them. In case you don't know, they would have been dead on the beach. The days of the power of the infantry as the major force ended with the machine gun and every weapon since then as gone forward to increase that ending. The infantry is still needed, for police action, and that is about it. door to door in a city, ok, take some cannot fodder in and clean up, if we lose a few hundred that is ok, because if we just wipe the city out with bombs, then our political image will be bad---who cares about a few stupid soldiers.

That is the real world, that is where politics stands today and that is why we still have an infantry, for police work and cannon fodder to make things look good.
As far as I am concerned, 50,000 dead enemy civilians are not worth the life of one American Soldier. But, that is not the way govt feels. And, as long as the govt feels that way, we continue to create the "quick and the dead" cannon fodder to die for the image of our politicians.

 

CAUTION: Check yourselves before you start to insult the intelligence of other posters, especially those with military experience in a specific field.

 

Well this has turned into a pissing contest...

My Dad was an Army infantryman, in WWII...
part of a replacement unit of the 75th infantry division.

He was another shlub with an M1 Garand, and his first order
of business was staying alive...find a veteran and do exactly what
he says and what he does. Guys who had been in Africa, Italy, Normandy...
and now Belgium; follow them and do what they do...my Dad was just a 19 y/o kid with no combat experience
thrust into the middle of the Battle of the Bulge, the Geman offensive in the Ardennes.

So believe me, I've heard plenty of war stories and have a sincere respect
for the infantryman. It's not something I wanted to do, but that doesn't mean
I'm one of those who think "only idiots join the infantry"....while sipping
a cognac in the O'club with some cushy zoomy job flying 2-stars around in a Lear jet.

I have a sincere appreciation and respect for our ground forces, infantry, armor and artillery.

My only argument is that given an all-voluntary military; I don't think it's a bad idea to
consider allowing women in the direct ground combat training programs who so desire same.
Provided they meet all of the necessary physical standards required for that particular MOS.

I don't offer that opinon out of affirmative action or being a pro-feminist...just
things are different in an all volunteer force. Utilize every resource possible to spread
the burden out. ....

or

keep it all male...but re-instate the draft and keep that as an option for the next
protracted war America wil be in...and I promise you, there will be other wars; and
the burden again will be placed on the ground combat forces.

That's my final say on this topic, I'm talked out.

 

Actually you just made the point about it being a social club, quite accurate. and I quote 'I would NOT have been happy doing that job and never would have joined if they made me take it. "

You joined for yourself, so you could get a nice job you wanted, and have fun. I joined to serve my country and went where they told me and did what they said I would be best at. We also had a dream sheet and if anyone got what they opted for, it was pure luck.
This modern all volunteer army basically sucks. It is hard at work ruining the nation by not teaching a huge number of idiots what responsibility, honor, and pride in nation is all about. I personally believe the military and the nation would be a far better place with 100% draft of all citizens when they turn 18, ALL citizens, male female, blind crippled or crazy. And the govt should then have two years to use them as they are best needed, be it digging latrines, working in the Library of Congress as pages, or as cannon fodder in Afghanistan.
Stop the country club and move on to SERVICE.

 

Very well said, Herk. I am on board with opening up to TRAINING women for combat. Given that there are no longer front-lines and that everyone is in danger of finding themselves in the midst of a firefight, it would be largely beneficial. I know I would personally jump on board to get trained in the event a base I am at is ever under attack. I would rather fight then curl up under the counter with the coffee pot.

 

In the Military, which includes the infantry, even if you think they are special, we have a command structure and a code of conduct and Code of Justice. If you and yours cannot abide by those rules, regulations and codes, then either your commanders need replacing or you need to be placed in the brig/stockade for a period of time not to exceed five years.

 

There ya go. All we have to do to make this work is ensure that every male enlistee is a Sir Galahad, and that every female enlistee is a Joan of Arc.

Why didn't I think of that?