concerned dad 60% combat branching for women

E

egeld

5-Year Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2014
Messages
26
My DD is applying to WP this year as well as applying for an rotc scholarship. We went to see a rotc college recruiter yesterday and got some information that I would like to confirm if anybody knows. We have all heard about the increase in women at WP but when it comes to branching has anybody heard about that. This recruiter told us that 60% of the women will branch combat automatically. Apparently thats how it is for men there now. I know boys will be boys and probably more than 60% request combat anyways. For my DD she is excited about the possibilities of that happening. Dear dad not so excited but whatever she wants I support. Anyways just curious if anybody else knows more about this. From what I got from the recruiter this percentage is only towards WP women and not rotc women I could be wrong but the way he explained it I'm not mistaken. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Thanks concerned dad.
 
Women Roles

The "goal" is for a gender neutral Army. The goal is set, timeframe and particulars are still in the air. Therefore, ALL branches and positions will be open to females at some future date (think Starship Troopers). I think Armor, Infantry, and SF are not open at present. Two '14 women picked Infantry this year, but can't go. I have no problem with my DD going to combat in whatever branch she ends up in. I will worry and I will fret, but she has chosen that life of Service.
 
Don't want to start another debate, but not all combat arms positions are equal - being a UH 60 pilot/Aviation platoon leader is different from being an Infantry platoon leader.
 
Last edited:
Combat Arms

In the United States Army the following branches are considered Combat Arms:
Infantry
Armor (including Armored Cavalry)
Field Artillery
Air Defense Artillery
Army Aviation (e.g., Attack Helicopter and Air Cavalry units)
Special Forces
Engineers (only Combat Engineers)

UH60 bus drivers are combat support.

However, in a LIC (Low Intensity Conflict) environment everyone can be directly involved in combat with no clearly defined borders or enemy. We have women medics and cultural liaison people with SF units in Afghanistan.
 
Utility AC Pilots

BTW - I always appreciated the UH60 rides and crew into hot landing zones as both of us were facing an enemy. Me with a rifle and them with little protection. All players are important to the combined arms team!
 
Stevewar2 said:
In the United States Army the following branches are considered Combat Arms:
Infantry
Armor (including Armored Cavalry)
Field Artillery
Air Defense Artillery
Army Aviation (e.g., Attack Helicopter and Air Cavalry units)
Special Forces
Engineers (only Combat Engineers)

UH60 bus drivers are combat support.

However, in a LIC (Low Intensity Conflict) environment everyone can be directly involved in combat with no clearly defined borders or enemy. We have women medics and cultural liaison people with SF units in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

I know where you are coming from, but when a cadet branches Aviation or Engineer he or she count as branching "Combat Arms."
 
Stevewar2 said:
However, in a LIC (Low Intensity Conflict) environment everyone can be directly involved in combat with no clearly defined borders or enemy. We have women medics and cultural liaison people with SF units in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

http://mobile.armytimes.com/article/20140429/NEWS/304290068

All losses are tragic, but this one was hard to read for many reasons.

RIP male and female soldiers.

DS indicated in passing much buzz in the cadet ranks regarding females force branched to combat arms. Have not heard yet if it happened for 2014, or is just expectation that it will.

But it does raise the question: does equal opportunity also imply equal obligation?

I'm aware of multiple female cadets who admit they would not have headed to USMA if there was a significant chance they would have to branch combat arms. Not a judgment, I also know many more males who did not pursue USMA for the same reason.

Point being this sea change may have unintended consequences. My suspicion is that the number of females who did not pursue USMA because they could not branch combat arms is fairly low.
 
MemberLG said:
I know where you are coming from, but when a cadet branches Aviation or Engineer he or she count as branching "Combat Arms."
Click to expand...

Aren't they now called MFE (Maneuver, Fires, & Effects) Branches which now include:

MFE
Infantry
Aviation
Armor
Chemical Corps
Military Police
Air Defense Artillery
Field Artillery
Engineers

Operational Support
Military Intelligence
Signal Corps

Force Sustainment
Adjutant General
Finance
Transportation
Ordnance
Quartermaster

Health Services
Medical Corps
Medical Service Corps
Dental Corps
Veterinary Corps
Medical Specialist Corps
Nurse Corps

Chaplin fits in there somewhere.
 
Last edited:
Jcleppe said:
Aren't they now called MFE (Maneuver, Fires, & Effects) Branches which now include:

MFE
Infantry
Aviation
Armor
Chemical Corps
Military Police
Air Defense Artillery
Field Artillery
Engineers

.
Click to expand...

We are talking something different now as Chemical and Military Police have been open to females long ago. The OP asked about "combat arms" not MFE
 
The terms "combat arms" technically no longer exists. JCleppe is correct in that they're now officially referred to as MFE branches.
 
Jcc123 said:
The terms "combat arms" technically no longer exists. JCleppe is correct in that they're now officially referred to as MFE branches.
Click to expand...

If so the original poster's question would have been something along the line of females being forced into branches/positions that were previously close to them.
 
MemberLG said:
If so the original poster's question would have been something along the line of females being forced into branches/positions that were previously close to them.
Click to expand...

Probably how it should have been worded.
 
I assume the original poster isn't aware of the change in nomenclature that took place several years ago.
 
Doctrine Update

Jcc123 said:
I assume the original poster isn't aware of the change in nomenclature that took place several years ago.
Click to expand...

Actually the use of MFE is no longer valid either. We now have Operations Division with the sub-fields of Maneuver (IN, AR, and AV), Maneuver Support (EN, MP, CM) Fires (FA, ADA) and SOF (SF, PSYOP, CA). Traditionally, Combat Arms still refers to Infantry, Armor, Attack Aviation, SF, Field Artillery, Air Defense Artillery and Combat Engineers. Infantry, Armor and SF all remain closed fields.
 
emwvmi01 said:
Actually the use of MFE is no longer valid either. We now have Operations Division with the sub-fields of Maneuver (IN, AR, and AV), Maneuver Support (EN, MP, CM) Fires (FA, ADA) and SOF (SF, PSYOP, CA). Traditionally, Combat Arms still refers to Infantry, Armor, Attack Aviation, SF, Field Artillery, Air Defense Artillery and Combat Engineers. Infantry, Armor and SF all remain closed fields.
Click to expand...

And as an Army instructor I am remiss if I don't include the reference which is a SecArmy change with an effective date of 23 JAN 14.

On 23 January 2014, the SA directed that the Maneuver, Fires, and Effects (MFE) functional category be renamed Operations to better align with current Army doctrine.

While the name change took effect immediately, it will take a few months before it is universally reflected:

a. On or about 1 May 2014, Officers will see the change reflected in the functional category block on their ORBs.

b. The name change will be reflected in future revisions of AR 600-3 and other relevant Army publications.

From www.hrc.army.mil
 
MemberLG said:
I know where you are coming from, but when a cadet branches Aviation or Engineer he or she count as branching "Combat Arms."
Click to expand...

When it was combat arms, aviation was combat arms.

When it was MFE, Aviation was under Maneuver.

Now that it's ops, aviation is under Ops.

Always has been, always will be. It's only the most maneuverable and lethal force on the battlefield. No big deal.
 
Stevewar2 said:
In the United States Army the following branches are considered Combat Arms:
Infantry
Armor (including Armored Cavalry)
Field Artillery
Air Defense Artillery
Army Aviation (e.g., Attack Helicopter and Air Cavalry units)
Special Forces
Engineers (only Combat Engineers)

UH60 bus drivers are combat support.

However, in a LIC (Low Intensity Conflict) environment everyone can be directly involved in combat with no clearly defined borders or enemy. We have women medics and cultural liaison people with SF units in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

No, UH-60 pilots never were CS nor ever will be. That is 100% false.
 
Kind of moot anyway, DS indicated they're being told the last gender restrictions for slots normally available to cadets will go away for c/o 2016. With infantry being the biggest change.

Also confirmed female friends were force branched Artillery this year, one was well ranked in the top 100 who had expected Engineers. Needs of the Army, etc.

So looks like all but SF which is not available as an option to cadets anyway will be in the cards.

Sent using the Service Academy Forums® mobile app
 
egeld said:
My DD is applying to WP this year as well as applying for an rotc scholarship. We went to see a rotc college recruiter yesterday and got some information that I would like to confirm if anybody knows. We have all heard about the increase in women at WP but when it comes to branching has anybody heard about that. This recruiter told us that 60% of the women will branch combat automatically. Apparently thats how it is for men there now. I know boys will be boys and probably more than 60% request combat anyways. For my DD she is excited about the possibilities of that happening. Dear dad not so excited but whatever she wants I support. Anyways just curious if anybody else knows more about this. From what I got from the recruiter this percentage is only towards WP women and not rotc women I could be wrong but the way he explained it I'm not mistaken. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Thanks concerned dad.
Click to expand...

If the rate IS 60% would it dissuade you from supporting her to pursue an appointment to West Point?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top