concerned dad 60% combat branching for women

Discussion in 'Military Academy - USMA' started by egeld, Apr 30, 2014.

  1. egeld

    egeld Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2014
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  2. Stevewar2

    Stevewar2 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    Messages:
    238
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  3. ProudofOurMilitary

    ProudofOurMilitary Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2012
    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    2
  4. MemberLG

    MemberLG Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    2,807
    Likes Received:
    444
    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: May 1, 2014
  5. Stevewar2

    Stevewar2 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    Messages:
    238
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  6. Stevewar2

    Stevewar2 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    Messages:
    238
    Likes Received:
    0
    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!
     
  7. MemberLG

    MemberLG Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    2,807
    Likes Received:
    444
    I know where you are coming from, but when a cadet branches Aviation or Engineer he or she count as branching "Combat Arms."
     
  8. hawk

    hawk ButterBar Dad

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Messages:
    856
    Likes Received:
    65
    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.
     
  9. Jcleppe

    Jcleppe Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,541
    Likes Received:
    842
    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: May 2, 2014
  10. MemberLG

    MemberLG Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    2,807
    Likes Received:
    444
    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
     
  11. Jcc123

    Jcc123 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2010
    Messages:
    894
    Likes Received:
    285
    The terms "combat arms" technically no longer exists. JCleppe is correct in that they're now officially referred to as MFE branches.
     
  12. MemberLG

    MemberLG Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    2,807
    Likes Received:
    444
    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.
     
  13. Jcleppe

    Jcleppe Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,541
    Likes Received:
    842
    Probably how it should have been worded.
     
  14. Jcc123

    Jcc123 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2010
    Messages:
    894
    Likes Received:
    285
    I assume the original poster isn't aware of the change in nomenclature that took place several years ago.
     
  15. emwvmi01

    emwvmi01 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    14
    Doctrine Update

    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.
     
  16. emwvmi01

    emwvmi01 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    14
    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
     
  17. scoutpilot

    scoutpilot Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2010
    Messages:
    4,276
    Likes Received:
    610
    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.
     
  18. scoutpilot

    scoutpilot Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2010
    Messages:
    4,276
    Likes Received:
    610
    No, UH-60 pilots never were CS nor ever will be. That is 100% false.
     
  19. hawk

    hawk ButterBar Dad

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Messages:
    856
    Likes Received:
    65
    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
     
  20. FlyBoy1993

    FlyBoy1993 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2011
    Messages:
    237
    Likes Received:
    26
    If the rate IS 60% would it dissuade you from supporting her to pursue an appointment to West Point?
     

Share This Page