Women in Combat

I am sure everyone here is well aware of the bruhaha that the last SecNav caused by embracing the women in the infantry concept. You are all also probably aware that the Marine Corps resisted strongly. Their data, which they collected over about 18 months, was obviously dismissed as sexist. Yet it showed rather well that women do NOT mix into infantry units well, that such units’ performance is degraded, and that women in infantry units suffer WAY more injuries and more serious issues than men.

This is not surprising. Women, at least to the thinking population, are different than men; the crazies don’t seem to recognize this. Women are simply built physically differently. They have less skeletal muscle, less upper body strength, less weight bearing ability. They are smaller and less physically aggressive.

These issues have been objected to as not true. Yet there is ample evidence that women in front line infantry units do not fare well. Even the Israelis, who would kill for a larger number of soldiers when the time is necessary, have concluded the same after a 13 year search for placement of women in the infantry.

We have, of course, started graduating females from the service academies. One might question the wisdom of such a move, but it’s there. And some of the WP ring knockers have made noise about being up to combat and as good as the men. None of them, however, as far as I know, have served in a front LINE unit. All have been in motorized units. Yes they have been in firefights, and at risk in a combat environment, but then the RN’s of WWII were in the same risk exposure (and some were even made POW’s in Europe) yet no one then questioned not placing women in the line.

I would like to open a discussion on whether women should or shouldn’t be allowed into the infantry. And should there be exceptions to any such rule.

Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Women in Combat

  1. MLHMLH says:

    Last Spring I attended a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar. Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness was one of the speakers. My main take away: Women don’t want to serve in the infantry.

    Here’s a link to her speech

    Now that they can, how many women are in infantry schools?

    I’m going to vote “no,” women should not serve in the infantry with a caveat: perhaps all female units (at what level, though). Of course every 28-30 days they’ll have to stay in garrison. . .

  2. DevereauxDevereaux says:

    These should give some pause. I copied this from an unpublished paper (yet) by John Roe on Integrating Women in Combat.

    . These conclusions are echoed in a recent book entitled “Lochamot Betzahal,” by Israeli Colonel (res.) Raza Sagi, a former infantry regiment commander, in which he states that 13 years of research on women assigned to combat roles in the Israeli Army shows that women suffer many more serious non-combat injuries than men and that those injuries frequently last a lifetime. See, http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/181604#.V3gILfkrJD.
    Subsequent to the publication of Colonel Sagi’s book, the Israeli newspaper Arutz Sheva (IsraelNationalNews.com), reported:
    After at least 15 years of hyping the idea of women in combat units, the IDF is admitting that women suffer injuries at a much higher rate than men during combat training – despite the fact that training requirements for women in combat are considerably less demanding than for men.
    According to a report in the IDF’s Bamahane magazine, a large-scale study was conducted among female combat soldiers in the Karakal infantry unit, the Artillery Corps and the Field Intelligence Corps, between the years 2012-13.
    The study indicated that a full 46% of the female soldiers suffered injuries during their initial period of training, as opposed to 25% among the men. One third of the women in the study were injured more than once.
    The injuries included torn ligaments, sprains, knee pain, back pain and stress fractures. The latter were much more common in women, afflicting only 2% of men but 8% of the women. “Most stress fractures appear in weeks 4-6 of the training period, and mainly in the field and warfare weeks,” an officer explained to Bamahane.
    “The bone density of female combat soldiers is lower than that of men, and that is why they suffer more injuries,” said the officer. “The fat percentage in women is 70% to 100% greater than men’s and that is why they are slower than them, and consume more energy during activity. At the same time, their muscle density is 33% less than the men’s and their ability to carry weights is lower.”
    The study found that the injury rate for female soldiers in Karakal is 40%, and in the Artillery Corps it reaches a whopping 70%. Knee pain among female combat soldiers is three times more common than among males, and tears in knee ligaments are also more common in women.
    Women drop out of the combat track for medical reasons at rates that are 2 to 5 times those of men’s.
    Gil Ronan, IDF Admits Problems with Women in Combat, Arutz Sheva (July 30, 2015), https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/198853
    The above results were recently the subject of an article published in Military Medicine, in which it was found that for females –
    The overall injury rate was 28.3%. Of all injuries, 86% were in the ankle and calf (41%), the lower back (23%), and the knee (22%) regions. The average lost training days was 11 d for females as compared with 8 d for males. The overall rates of stress fractures and the rates of femur and femoral neck stress fractures were significantly higher among females as compared with males (11.2% vs. 2.5%, p = 0.0032, and 7.8% vs. 1.6% p = 0.00001, respectively).
    Schwartz, O. et al. (March 14, 2018), Military Medicine, Oxford Academic (https://academic.oup.com/milmed/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/milmed/usx238/4934212?redirectedFrom=fulltext)
    Moreover, there are indications that apart from a higher rate of injuries, women may be more susceptible to extreme changes in temperature.

  3. DevereauxDevereaux says:

    Notice that the Israelis studied this for 13 years. They have a severe shortage of combatants, considering the small size of their nation and the large size of the enemy. Ergo one would expect them to use any rational source for troops they could. And, indeed, there are women in the IDF. But not in the infantry. Or even in front line units I believe.

    • MLHMLH says:

      People don’t think about non-combat injuries anymore than they do about having to fly sailors off ships to have babies. Let alone how these things affect others.

      I remember an argument about women getting more clerical jobs and it not being fair to the men because the men had to deploy more. . .

      If an infantry erm ahhh wom. . . female member of the infantry gets wounded will they have to replace it with another of the same sex, er, gender, or will the unit be enTITLED to one that doesn’t break as easily?

  4. DevereauxDevereaux says:

    This whole thing is classical liberal foolishness. It is feminazis who have never had any exposure to the military thinking they can dictate “equality”.

    One of Gowdy’s more astute comments was that no one has a “right” to be in the military. We regularly reject diabetics, rheumatoids, bad vision, too short, too tall, congenital defects, endocrine deficiencies, etc. These are all citizens, Americans who may very well wish to serve (indeed, I know of one hypothyroid young man who would like to be a Marine – but no way). They can’t. Even back in the draft days there was a 4F class – physically unfit.

    Personally I am not for women flying fighters either. I know they have a lower G-tolerance. Indeed, one way to take a woman in ACM is to pull high +G, then suddenly reverse, then go -G. You fall right out of her vision and you’re behind her! Works every time. Women don’t seem to tolerate -G well and can’t transition from + to – well.

    • MLHMLH says:

      Interesting. I wonder what the physiology of that is. Changes in intracranial pressure?

      But what does it really matter: the planes are so smart now! (sarcasm)

      • DevereauxDevereaux says:

        Actually the physiology of that is pretty simple. Look at how women are built, compared to a man. There is less mid and upper body size and more pelvic size. Harder to keep blood flow to the brain in G situations.

        Look at the Israeli approach to fighter pilots – the wrestling team. They are looking for all those guys with no neck. ?How many women do you know built like that.

  5. DouglasDouglas says:

    Some women are not going to like this, but… here it is.

    Women should not be in the military. ESPECIALLY in combat roles. What roles they CAN perform should only be in very limited administrative tasks at domestic bases. There should be NO women in foxholes, submarines, or aircraft. CAN they fly jets? Yes. Should they? Not for the military.

  6. DevereauxDevereaux says:

    IF you approach military service from a combat power viewpoint, then you find women do fine in certain positions. These are not the frontline positions but rather support positions.

    Sen. Kirsten Guilledebrand is more interested in women being presnet in the front line positions than worrying about combat power. This is because she has an agenda – and. it’s not combat readiness but “sexual equality”, which generally has nothing to do with combat power. She has never herself been in the military so has no experience in the area. All her positions are purely ideological.

  7. NandaNanda says:

    The idea that women in support/logistics roles freed up men for the front line is a sound one. I want these women fit and able to defend themselves and others -even in support roles. @douglas, do you want nurses/doctors in field hospitals? That necessitates being under fire, too.

Leave a Reply