Women in Combat

[LTC William E. Bailey]

Hawks Jr asks, "what branch did you serve?"

I served in the US Army Special Forces and was involved in combat in Just Cause in Panama, Desert Storm in Iraq, and Restore Hope in Somalia. My opinion is based on two dozen years in combat arms positions, experience in actual ground combat, writing combat doctrine, conducting combat training, and being a graduate of the Infantry Officer's Basic Course, Infantry Officer's Advanced Course, Ranger School, Special Forces Qaulification Course, Combined Arms and Services Staff School, Command & General Staff College, and the US Army War College. I also hold a Master's degree in Special Operations/Low Intensity Conflict from the Naval Postgraduate School. This is the difference between an informed and educated opinion and an uninformed and uneducated opinion...not all opinions are of equal value.

You state, "The reason a morbidly obese person can't serve is because they can't meet the physical requirements..."

Unless the US Army has tested the physical abilities of each and every morbidly obese person, which they have not done, then they are making an assumption based on averages. This is precisely what they have done with regard to women in the combat arms.

You state, "about 13% of the military is made up of women.."

Wrong, the US Army is approximately 17% female and has been at this percentage for over 10 years. As I retired 6 years ago, the percentage has not changed appreciably in that time. A distraction is a distraction whether it was last week or 10 years ago. The implication of your statement is that we have evolved socially since I was on active duty so that men and women being placed in close proximity at the ages of new enlistees will no longer be distracted. Please provide any evidence that you know of that supports this contention. I might also add that there is a considerable difference between seeing an occasional female nurse or MP "around a combat zone", and having a female in your Special Forces "A" team, or SEAL team, or Ranger platoon. Since you are not now and have never been in any of these organizations you are hardly in a position to suggest what would or would not be a distraction to them.

You state, "but if a women were able to meet the physical requirements, I highly doubt she'd be 120 lbs."

If women could meet the physical requirements...but they can't as a group meet those requirements, although some rare individuals may be able to do just that. Just as morbidly obese people cannot as a group meet the physical requirements, although some rare individuals may be able to do it as well.

Nobody is pushing aside anything or running away from anything as you suppose. Almost every position in each of the services has been opened to women, with a very few exceptions based on physical requirements, or refitting costs (submarines). The issue of gender integration is not, nor should it be, the primary or even secondary consideration with regard to our national defense. The reason that this monumentally silly idea shouldn't be seriously considered is that nobody, not even the most ardent feminist, suggests that the inclusion of women will enhance the combat effectiveness of combat arms units, just that they won't degrade them that much.

Feminists see this issue as a question of "women's rights" or an issue of "fairness", and neither of these issues is of the slightest concern with regard to the national defense. National defense takes precedence over such issues, without a Constitutional guarantee, so that the only concern can and should be combat effectiveness and unit cohesion. This position has been reiterated by every administration since Eisenhower, and by the US Supreme Court.

[BCutie]

in direct ground combat, but ONLY if they can meet ALL the same physical requirements as men do. Personally, I don't think there are many of us out there that can. Before I could get my job, I had to be able to lift a certain amount of weight. And I had to be able to do it without too much of a problem. I think it was 70 or 80 pounds. If I couldn't do it, then I had to pick another job. I think that's fair, even though that did cut out alot of women's chances of getting that AFSC. But no one has the time or inclination to pick up someone else's slack when you're trying to get planes in the air on time just for the sake of being PC. Most women can't do the same amount physically as men can and no one can say I'm being a male chauvinist, because I'm a female. :0) Men overall are stronger, and I think that's a wonderful thing. It's nothing for women to feel ashamed of, and no amount of debating is going to change that fact. I wouldn't want to go toe-to-toe with a man in a boxing ring even if he weighed the same amount as me. Men being stronger than women pound for pound is just a fact of nature and a fact of life. That would be like men being upset about not being able to have children.
And just a thought, we can't forget that women also have certain needs that men don't have to worry about and in a combat situation, that could definitely pose a problem....

[ashisbaby]

LTC Bailey I seriously think you have a problem! I don't know if you are suffering from Gulf War Syndrome or what but you seriously do have a problem. We all know there are PT standards for Combat Units and if a "person" not male or female but "person" can pass them then they are just as qualified as the other person that passed them. If they complete the training fluently then they are just as capable as the other person that completed it. I'm not saying every man can do it and I'm not saying every woman can do it. I am saying that there is a diverse group of people who can do it. Why limit ourselves to one particular group. Most african americans are stronger than caucasians (I am neither). Yet we allow caucasians into these units. Why not let the 1-2% of women join these combat units. After all it's not as though they will let anyone waltz right into them. If they qualify for them and then complete the training why not? You are completely engulfed in these conservative views from your era that you deny progression and evolution. Having qualified women in combat units is not a bad thing. While you may not trust them to be beside you fighting others will. You don't have to like the idea but you have to accept the fact that it's going to happen some day. Maybe not this year or the next ten years or even in our life time but it will happen someday and it's better to prepare now than fight the beast and pull everything together at the last minute. Also I agree with Laurain. Respect is not something you deserve based on rank. You have to earn peoples respect just as you earned your rank. This should not stop people from acting professional towards you however for you to demand respect will only supress any respect people may have had for you. There are a lot of people in my unit that I am professional towards but I do not have respect for.

[LTC William E. Bailey]

It is a violation of the rules of this site to conduct a personal attack as you are doing when you suggest I suffer from a syndrome because I don't agree with your preconceived notions of the place for women in the US military. I imagine you really meant to write that I suffer from "PTSD", which is a psychological disturbance, and not "Gulf War Syndrome", which is a variety of different carcinomas. I am free of both syndromes I know you will be relieved to read.

So much of your post is ridiculous I hardly know where to start. Combat Arms units may have higher "goals" in the APFT then non-Combat Arms units, but there is only one "standard" for the APFT...the Army standard. As a life-long member of Combat Arms units, I must tell you that the standards for the APFT are no different than they are for non-combat arms units...no matter what you've heard. Many units, including some Combat Arms units, desire higher goals in the APFT, but failing to meet that goal does not mean exclusion from the unit.

So far no women have completed the Combat Arms training you refer to in the US Army, and if competent authorities remain competent it will never happen. PT standards are a means of determining a basic level of fitness and nothing more. This is a basic failure on your part to understand why you take the APFT. Passing the APFT, or even maxing the APFT, doesn't qualify you for a single duty position. Of course, failing the APFT means you aren't qualified to be in the Army, as your basic level of fitness is insufficient to conduct military training.

The US military has determined that certain groups are more trouble than they are worth, and hence they are prohibited from joining: openly avowed homosexuals, morbidly obese, convicted felons. Other groups of individuals are allowed to join, but are limited to the jobs they can hold because of physical or mental inabilities, and women are one of the groups so designated. There are dozens of studies that show that women are not physically qualified to conduct Combat Arms operations.

Where did you get the idea that blacks are stronger than whites..? I have never heard such poppycock in my entire life. Individuals are as strong as they can become based on their gender, heredity, diet, genetics, and training. No racial group is stronger, faster, smarter, or better looking than any other group; however, women are weaker no matter what their race, creed, or color.

You ask, "Why not let the 1-2% of women join these combat units..?"

The reason that the 1/10 of 1% of women that could meet the basic physical requirements shouldn't be permitted into Combat Arms units is that they will alter the relationships from philial to erotic. You should look those words up so that you understand the difference. Whenever women and men of a certain age are placed in close proximity they will develop erotic emotional relationships. This will cause a change in behaviors and a host of problems including: real or perceived favoritism, attempts to protect the weaker sex, sexual liaisons, sexual harassment, issues with privacy, possibly sexual assaults, and ultimately a breakdown in unit discipline leading to a loss of military cohesion. This happens in non-combat arms units all the time, but as these units are not primarily trained to close with and destroy the enemy using small arms, it isn't as big an issue. In combat distractions will get you killed, and a combat arms unit with women will be distracted.

I have never denied "progression and evolution"; however, when I read the posts on this site I don't see alot of progress or evolutionary change. By the way, the evolutionary process is an extremely slow one, so maybe in 100,000 years women will become the physical equals of men, but I wouldn't count on it.

Finally, the subject of military respect once again raises its ugly head. You need to have one of your NCOs explain to you the meaning of the phrase "proper military respect". Whether you feel officers need to earn your respect or not, if you choose to behave without proper military respect to them you would be in violation of the UCMJ. This is what I explained to Laurain when she suggested that she would refuse to salute me when I was on active duty.

[inpaininwv]

Speaking of women in War, I present you with lyudmila Pavlichenko PerhapsThe greatest female sniper of the 20th century. She had 309 confirmed kills during World War II.
The only sniper of the era greater was our boy of "enemy at the gates” fame. With only two more truly confirmed kills.
She was the first Soviet citizen to be a guest of the White House.
In my mind the argument of capability is moot.

See

Kazimiera J. Cottman "women in war and resistance: selected biographies of Soviet women soldiers.

RW

[LTC William E. Bailey]

You are mistaken. Lyudmila Pavlichenko was perhaps the most successful of Soviet female snipers, in that she is officially credited with killing 309 German soldiers, including 36 enemy snipers. Having attained the rank of Major, Pavlichenko never returned to fighting after being wounded by a mortar but instead became an instructor. She trained hundreds of Soviet snipers until the wars end. In 1943 she received the Gold Star of the title of Hero of the Soviet Union.

Some other famous snipers and their records:

Simo Häyhä (Finland, Winter War/Second World War) –the most effective sniper in the history of warfare, credited with up to 542 Soviet soldiers using a Model 28 (Finnish version Mosin-Nagant) and iron sights.

Vasily Zaytsev (Soviet 1047th rifle regiment) (Battle of Stalingrad, Second World War) –credited with 242 German officers and soldiers.

Mihail Ilyich Surkov (Soviet 4th rifle division) (Second World War) –credited with 702 German officers and soldiers.

Fyodor Okhlopkov (Soviet Union, World War II), had 429 confirmed kills, most during the Winter War portion of World War II.

Josef 'Sepp' Allerberger (Second World War) credited with 257 kills on the Eastern Front.

Carlos Hathcock (US Marine Corp, Vietnam War) –with 93 confirmed kills; held the record of longest confirmed kill from 2,286 meters for 35 years, until 2002.

Chuck Mawhinney (US Marine Corp, Vietnam War), currently holds the highest number of confirmed kills (103) for any American sniper in history.

The current record for the longest-range sniper kill is 2,430 meters (7,972 feet), accomplished by Canadian sniper, Corporal Rob Furlong, of the third battalion Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry (3 PPCLI), during the invasion of Afghanistan, using a .50 cal. BMG (12.7 mm) McMillan bolt-action rifle. The bullet flew for four seconds, and dropped some 150 feet.

The deadliest sniper in the world was the Finnish soldier Simo Häyhä, with 505 confirmed kills in only 100 days in the Winter War.

Obviously, obtaining a high kill ratio as a sniper depends more on the availability of a target rich environment, than on anything else. The issue is not whether women as a group have the emotional wherewithal to kill. Anyone who has studied sociology knows women can and often do kill with as little mercy as men. The issue is about physical capability conducting modern ground combat operations in the US military, short of defending the homeland from invasion. Beyond the issue of physical capability are the other problems that continue to preclude women from serving in modern ground combat positions, except in the emergency conditions prevalent in Russia during WWII. Specifically, because combat is a group effort and not an individual effort, the introduction of women into ground combat position hitherto held exclusively by men would reduce esprit-de-corps due to the introduction of sexuality. This would cause distractions, and in combat distractions get people killed.

[LTC William E. Bailey]

Following is a complete list of snipers with more offical kills than Lyudmila Pavlichenko:

702 - Mihail Ilyich Surkov (4th rifle division)
534 - Vasiliy Shalvovich Kvachantiradze (259th rifle regiment)
500+ - Simo Hayha
500+/1 tank - Ivan Mihailovich Sidorenko (1122nd rifle regiment)
494 - Nikolay Yakovlevich Ilyin (50th Guards rifle regiment)
487 - Ivan Nikolayevich Kulbertinov (7th Guards airbone regiment)
456/[inc. 14 snipers] - Vladimir Nikolayevich Pchelintsev (11th rifle brigade)
437 - Mihail Ivanovich Budenkov (59th Guards rifle regiment)~100 - by machinegun.
429 - Fyodor Matveyevich Ohlopkov (1243rd, 234th, 259th rifle regiments)
425 - Fyodor Trofimovich Dyachenko (187th rifle regiment)
422/[inc. 70 snipers] - Vasiliy Ivanovich Golosov (81st Guards rifle regiment)
422/[inc. 12 snipers] - Stepan Vasilievich Petrenko (59th Guards rifle regiment).
418/[inc. 17 snipers] - Nikolay Ivanovich Galushkin (50th division)
417 - Afanasiy Yemelianovich Gordienko (136th Guards rifle division)
400+ - Suko Kolkka
400+ - Pyotr Alexeyevich Goncharov (44th Guards rifle regiment)
397 - Tuleugali Nasyrhanovich Abdybekov (8th Guards rifle regiment)
367/[inc. a general] - Semen Danilovich Nomokonov
362/[inc. 20 snipers] - Ivan Petrovich Antonov (160th separate rifle company).
360 - Gennadiy Iosifovich Velichko (1008th rifle regiment)
349 - Abduhagi Idrisov (1232nd rifle regiment)
346/1 tank - Philipp Yakovlevich Rubaho (393rd separate marine batalion)
345/22 MGs - Leonid Vladimirovich Butkevich (1331st rigle regiment)
345 - Matthaus Hetzenauer (3rd Gebirgsjager Division)
340 - Ivan Ivanovich Larkin (1183rd rifle regiment)
338 - Ivan Pavlovich Gorelikov (29th Guards rifle regiment)
331 - Victor Ivanovich Medvedev (969th rifle regiment)
328/[inc. 18 snipers] - Ilya Leonovich Grigoriev (252th rifle regiment)
324/[inc. a general] - Yevgeniy Adrianovich Nikolaev (14th rile regiment NKVD).
320 - Mihail Adamovich Ivasik (380th rifle regiment)
315 - Leonid Yakovlevich Butkevich
313/[inc. 30+ snipers] - Zhambyl Yesheyevich Tulaev (580th rifle regiment)

[Marine84]

I LOVE it when you prove 'em wrong Sir!

[inpaininwv]

Following is a complete list of snipers with more offical kills than Lyudmila Pavlichenko:

702 - Mihail Ilyich Surkov (4th rifle division)
534 - Vasiliy Shalvovich Kvachantiradze (259th rifle regiment)
500+ - Simo Hayha
500+/1 tank - Ivan Mihailovich Sidorenko (1122nd rifle regiment)
494 - Nikolay Yakovlevich Ilyin (50th Guards rifle regiment)
487 - Ivan Nikolayevich Kulbertinov (7th Guards airbone regiment)
456/[inc. 14 snipers] - Vladimir Nikolayevich Pchelintsev (11th rifle brigade)
437 - Mihail Ivanovich Budenkov (59th Guards rifle regiment)~100 - by machinegun.
429 - Fyodor Matveyevich Ohlopkov (1243rd, 234th, 259th rifle regiments)
425 - Fyodor Trofimovich Dyachenko (187th rifle regiment)
422/[inc. 70 snipers] - Vasiliy Ivanovich Golosov (81st Guards rifle regiment)
422/[inc. 12 snipers] - Stepan Vasilievich Petrenko (59th Guards rifle regiment).
418/[inc. 17 snipers] - Nikolay Ivanovich Galushkin (50th division)
417 - Afanasiy Yemelianovich Gordienko (136th Guards rifle division)
400+ - Suko Kolkka
400+ - Pyotr Alexeyevich Goncharov (44th Guards rifle regiment)
397 - Tuleugali Nasyrhanovich Abdybekov (8th Guards rifle regiment)
367/[inc. a general] - Semen Danilovich Nomokonov
362/[inc. 20 snipers] - Ivan Petrovich Antonov (160th separate rifle company).
360 - Gennadiy Iosifovich Velichko (1008th rifle regiment)
349 - Abduhagi Idrisov (1232nd rifle regiment)
346/1 tank - Philipp Yakovlevich Rubaho (393rd separate marine batalion)
345/22 MGs - Leonid Vladimirovich Butkevich (1331st rigle regiment)
345 - Matthaus Hetzenauer (3rd Gebirgsjager Division)
340 - Ivan Ivanovich Larkin (1183rd rifle regiment)
338 - Ivan Pavlovich Gorelikov (29th Guards rifle regiment)
331 - Victor Ivanovich Medvedev (969th rifle regiment)
328/[inc. 18 snipers] - Ilya Leonovich Grigoriev (252th rifle regiment)
324/[inc. a general] - Yevgeniy Adrianovich Nikolaev (14th rile regiment NKVD).
320 - Mihail Adamovich Ivasik (380th rifle regiment)
315 - Leonid Yakovlevich Butkevich
313/[inc. 30+ snipers] - Zhambyl Yesheyevich Tulaev (580th rifle regiment)

With all due respect, Sir: I had two typos "one of the" and "Female" that didn't make it into my text. For which I apologize if it was misleading,
It is quite easy to do using an older version of Dragon Dictate.
You will be hard pressed to deny some facts. In 75 days in 1941 near Odessa (at Belyayevka) she Personally dispatched 187 Nazis In a battle over Hill 54.2, where the Germans them flanked.

I don’t doubt you are better read on the subject than I am. That said
How many of the snipers on your list did it with a broken back?
She fell from a tree when a German sniper fired at her and had to play dead for a day. FYI she was hit twice in the head with a mortar fire. They rescued her on a sub from the siege of Sevasopol rather than risk losing her.
I also don't see a few names I know belong on that list.
Since you are near Indian Head, you can ask my Great Uncle, Col. Galusha (AF) about our family’s contribution to that list.

In regards to my reading History, as someone profoundly disabled and Homebound. All I can do is read. I am on the Third read of Gayle Rivers Book. I am sure you are familiar with it.
I Just finished one on the battle of Agincourt in 1415. It was arguably the most decisive Battle in history.
Those are My Grandfather’s medals, to clear up any misconceptions.
The Marines don't treat that marksmens medal lightly.

In regards to your other two posts: Quite simply we may not have a choice.
I'd hate to think of the U.S. looking like Europe in 1946 or the south in 1864.
I would hope our survival would be the first order of business.
If we aren’t around, the rules are kind of moot.

RW

[LTC William E. Bailey]

Of course, I have no way of knowing when someone posts but fails to include words or phrases in their post. I was disputing your claim that only Vasily Saitzev had out-performed Lyudmila Pavlichenko. He did not, and his total number of confirmed kills, taken from his own "Notes of a Sniper: Vassili Zaitsev's Account of the Battle of Stalingrad" support my contention.

I don't have access to the medical records of the listed snipers, and so it is impossible to say who was and wasn't injured during their wartime activities, even if they make the claim later. It is not unusual for soldiers, and not just snipers, to continue to conduct operations after being injured or wounded, sometimes mortally.

I have only read one book by Gayle Rivers (pseudonym), "The War Against the Terrorists: How to Win It" which was published in 1986. He claims to be a New Zealand counter-terrorism operator, although there is no evidence for this as he has kept his identity secret. New Zealand does have an SAS battalion, but they seldom conduct any world-wide counter-terrorist activities. Perhaps I am skeptical because he provides so little information about himself, except for war stories that seem apochryphal.

The Battle of Agincourt, 25 October 1415, was certainly the most decisive battle of Henry V's invasion of France. However, it was only one of many decisive battles in military history. The battle was also immortalised (and somewhat fictionalized) by William Shakespeare as the centrepiece of his play Henry V. Due to a lack of reliable sources it is impossible to give a precise figure for the French and English casualties. However, it is clear that though the English were considerably outnumbered, their losses were much lower than those of the French.

Until recently, Agincourt has been feted as one of the greatest victories in English military history. But, in "Agincourt, A New History" (2005), Anne Curry makes the claim that the scale of the English triumph at Agincourt was overstated for almost six centuries.

According to her research, the French still outnumbered the English, Welsh & Cornish but at worst only by a factor of three to two (12,000 Frenchmen against 8,000 Englishmen). According to Curry, the Battle of Agincourt was a "myth constructed around Henry to build up his reputation as a king". The legend of the English as underdogs at Agincourt was definitely given credence in popular English culture with William Shakespeare's Henry V in 1599. In the speech before the battle, Shakespeare puts in the mouth of Henry V the famous words, "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers." Furthermore, Shakespeare seriously overstated the French casualties and understated the English, even by the traditional count; at the end (Act IV, Scene 8), when Henry's herald delivers the death toll, the numbers are 10,000 French dead and just 29 English.

However, the subject was snipers, of which there were none in Agincourt. I would prefer to think of the Battle of Trafalgar and Admiral Lord Horatio Nelson who, even as he was winning his greatest victory ever, was struck down by a sniper's bullet.

Now, to your final remark. We are not now, nor are we likely to resemble Europe in the aftermath of WWII, or the South after the Civil War. We are not facing an implacable and well-armed foe with that capability, although that might be their desire. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

Terrorism is certainly more than a minor annoyance, but it is not the Warsaw Pact either. We in the US do not face, nor are we likely to face in the foreseeable future, any imminent danger to our way of life. Consequently, there is no good reason to abandon the military practices which have been supported by dozens of capability studies and over fifty years of successful modern combat operations, even if those practices may prevent women from obtaining a small number of combat arms positions.