Combat Arms

[Anonymous]

First I have to say that even if CPT C didn't see any women in the Swedish Infantry units in Bosnia, I can assure you that there have been both female tank-commanders and female "infanteers" serving in the Swedish Infantry in Bosnia. In Sweden we change the battalion in Bosnia every 6:th month.**Some infantry and tank regiments have no women and some have a few women. As I said earlier competition is hard at those infantry and tank regiments, and those working there hold their job because of one thing, they have prooven to be one of the best. The women working there is there because they were better than all the men not accepted. And their skill have been tested in infantry/tank service for at least 12-15 month before acception.The political climate in Sweden was also mentioned. I think I have a little more knowledge about that. When integration starded in the Swedish military, the reason was equality. It was considered discriminating, by the goverment, that certain jobs were closed to women. It was decided that all military job would be open to women, and acception to a job would be based only on skill, not on gender. One might say that they risked national security for a social experiment. In the beginning Sweden had all those problems that many of you fear. Women was harassed, female conscripts didn't cope with the military demands, male soldiers refused to accept their female collegues. The drop out numbers where high. All the time men and women had the same standards, lived in the same rooms and mostly shared everything, even showers. In some way it was a gigantic cultural collision, the culture of the Swedish people(and military) vs the will if the goverment.Now, more than ten years later something have happened. They public opinion have changed and the military opinion have canged. The Swedish people is beginning to learn that men and women can work and live together without problem, the cultural climate have and is changing because of the total integration. When integration started the reason was equality, not many believed that women would contribute much to the military, but by having the same standards, at least the military wouldn't be weakened.Today it have been discovered that by letting both women and men compete, the quality have increased and today it's a widley accepted fact that mixed units have better "team spirit". Today the military itselfe (who in the 80:ies was very negative to integration) consider recruitment of women as a way of increasing quality. The main problem to day is the low number of female applicants. About 50 000 young men is tested every year, about 30 000 of them is considered suitable for military service and about 20 000 serve every year. About 200-300 women apply and is tested every year, and about 150 of them then serve as conscripts. The main reason for the low number of female applicants is culture(identification,rolemodells), therefore it is discussed within the military that maybe all young women would be tested for conscription, but they would still have a free choice of serving. By that it is hoped that military service would be as accepted by young women as it is by young men. More talanted women (and men)would serve and thus the qulity of the Armed Forces increase. The more the culture change, the less "cultural problems" we have, beacuse how men and women treat each other IS a question of culture. Homosexuals is also serving openly in sweden, beacuse the military need their talant too, the rest is just a question of culture.Maybe the "US culture" isn't ready to deal with integration into combat units, but neither was Sweden when it started, and today Sweden is beginning to "cash in" all the benfits from the change. Benefits that no one had expected or accounteed for.The reason for integration WAS equality, but today it IS QUALITY.No, SWEDEN haven't been in war for almost 200 years, but Swedish officers and soldiers, men and women, have been fighting in conflicts, call it "local wars", and nothing yet have proven that Sweden is going the wrong way. We can't compare with US experience since you have a different culture, different moral, diferent regulations. We must do our own testing, maybe Sweden is taking a risk, maybe Sweden will win our next war. Today Sweden is not making social experiments. Maybe Sweden is making experiments with national security, but the reason for that is to INREASE national security.



<hr size=7 width=75%>




hanna.lantz@home.se

[Anonymous]

I don't think we shall put any person (man or women) in a position where they will effect combat readiness. By not recruiting the best, and by not having a cultural climat where recruiting the best is possible, combat readiness is weakened, because it's not as high as it could be. I don't mind having women in places where there are high casualties, someone have to be there, why not women? I really can't see what you are arguing about. You want women in combat units where they don't weaken combat readiness. Well that is easy solved, open all units to both men and women, women have to pass the same**tests as men, get rid of those that doesn't cope and get keep the best, make the same rules apply to women as to men. The result will probably be less women where more strength is needed, and more women in positions where physical strength is not that important, both in combat and non-combat units. I'm quite sure that the proportions of death in a war then will be more equally shared betwwen the sexes



<hr size=7 width=75%>




hanna.lantz@home.se

[Anonymous]

As a serving Armor Officer who recently came out of command and who has read more than a few accounts of the battle of 32 Easting or whatever it is popularly called now, I don't think it is appropriate to dismiss the gentleman's argument with an ad hominem attack. As far as the Gulf War goes, it was a major battle. Incidently, the actual standard for loading tank main gun rounds is 5 -7 seconds, depending on the type of round. I think a more useful discussion would center on the difference in attitudes between enlisted women and women officers. There is a dichotomy there that screams out to be analyzed before we start changing how we do business in the combat arms. It's not all about combat, either. Routine maintenance on tanks is back breaking labor, particularly if one has three man crews instead of four. Infantry and artillery units are roughly the same. As far as our Swedish friend's reply goes, I served with the Swedish battalion in Bosnia and didn't see any women in their Infantry companies. The Nordic countries' ignorance of reality in combat is a result of an utter lack of combat experience coupled with political realities that Americans luckily don't have to deal with. The point is that generally speaking, women who can physically perform well in the combat arms are exceptions, most of whom do other things rather than join the Army. Overall policy should not be based on exceptions, as so far there is no constitutional right to serve in the military. In this forum we can talk about one physical standard all day long, but the political reality is simple: Our senior leadership would expect the implementation of such a policy to have 'good' statistical results; i.e. 10% of tank crewman female, % of crews with females Q1, % of females separated, % of female NCOs (none in existence now), etc. The only way to get the politically palatable results would be to 'adjust' standards so that more women could be successful. That is the true threat of integrating the combat arms. **** None of the details associated with implementing such a social experiment, not to mention the fiscal, professional, and warfighting costs of doing so ever seem to come up in these discussions. What is the agenda here? A more capable force? I think some folks are more interested in breaking barriers than they are in defending their country by producing warriors that destroy our nations enemies. I'm sure many would disagree with my point of view, but I appreciate the opportunity to air it out.



<hr size=7 width=75%>




1bdeS4@1stbdehq.1ad.army.mil

[Anonymous]

Once again you make assumptions about men that are totally false!!! So far, not one man has argued against my position of putting women into combat in cases where it won't effect combat readiness. You may have also noticed that men are not opposing my idea of using women in places where there are high combat casualties. It is women that are against the it but they had better get used to the idea that they are going to be sent into combat and that men don't care!************************** JigsP.S. I can't wait to hear the feminine outrage at this one!!!



<hr size=7 width=75%>




jigs-casey@usa.net

[Anonymous]

: First let's set the record straight. It was Battle of 73 Easting and I was there as the 1sg of K Trp 3/2 ACR. I had 192 soldiers assigned or attached to the Troop, 12 were women, They were assigned to the MP platoon responsible for POW handling. Those women may not have been loading the tanks but they were there less than 1000 meters behind the tanks, and in front of the tanks when taking control of POWs from the scouts. This is a fact many people didn't know they came from the Alabama National Guard. Next let me state, there was a test conducted by The Army War College in 1972. I was assigned to Fort Carson as a Private. We conducted a training rotation with females. We did an entire gunnery rotation from Tank Table I-VIII. My Tank Commander was a Medical Captain from the post hospital. I wasn't privy to the results but I know we Qualified. It seems every time the Army goes into the draw down mode these issues seem to come the studies and discusions occur but nothing is ever done about it. I spent 25 years in the Army and served from unit level to Corps. I've seen women at all levels but I think the best example was when I was the Base Support Battalion CSM in Grafenwoehr. My commander and I talked alot about the way the soldiers worked on the installation and he and I agreed that at least there it was true the female NCOs were better than the male NCOs. We never could come to a logical reason. But I don't subscibe to the line they had to prove more, they were just better. Now let me clarify there were no combat arms units assigned to the installation they were all support units. I believe women can do the jobs but in order for it to work Army units must be more desciplined than they are now. In combat units there is far less privacy than there is in support units. Females must learn to adjust. During Desert Shield we had the latrines provided to us at the port but when we moved to cover the Corps move West we had to leave them. We used the field latrine from the Supply Room. It only survived one more move then we resorted to using open catholes with no protective barrier. For the men it didn't pose problems once we were in Iraq we setup a tent for the females but until then they lived just like the men. Another thing many people don't like to here is women can and will be a distraction. I told my platoon sergeants to keep their guys under control but if there was any hanky panky I would take care of both him and her. I wasn't naive to think the guys didn't want to talk to them but as long as it didn't interfere with their duties I didn't mind. All the soldiers in a unit must understand and the leadership climate must support mutual respect. I believe this is the biggest problem with getting women into combat arms not their physical abilities I've seen women bench press half the gym and those who can't meet the physical demands of a combat unit will be weeded out. It happens every 20 years or so when the Army goes to its drawndown mode officers begin to worry about making to 20 let alone making it to general. They don't want any potential problems around when they take command. Most only get a 12 month shot at command at company level some get a second command. They can't afford any mistakes . A sexual harrassment could bring down the whole chain of command. Few male commanders ever look at it the other way; women in command. But until the He-Men of Ft. Bragg are dethroned, women will never be in combat units. Women will be expected to run the 2 mile in 15 minutes with 70 pounds on their backs, chew tobacco like a country boy and have the IQ of an earthworm.




btusweep@aol.com

[Anonymous]

Men don't care about women going into combat? What a shame that nearly 50% of the world doesn't care about the other 50%--unless of course you meant something else?