Latest news women in combat roles

Honest question... please no flames.

It seems the arguement against having women in direct combat roles that require certain physical requirements has some merit. At least that's what the pros with real world experience are saying here. I can see how a certain amount on strength is requried to hual around a 100lb+ loadout day after day for example.

But what about women in the armored units? Is there any substantial reason they can't be a driver in a Bradley? Gunner in an Abrhams? Or vehicle commander in a Stryker? etc

(And yes, I'm guessing Strykers are not considered "armor units" per se, but the question stands for roles like that)

Thanks in advance for the civil discourse.
 
Last edited:
Honest question... please no flames.

It seems the arguement against having women in direct combat roles that require certain physical requirements has some merit. At least that's what the pros with real world experience are saying here. I can see how a certain amount on strength is requried to hual around a 100lb+ loadout day after day for example.

But what about women in the armored units? Is there any substantial reason they can't be a driver in a Bradley? Gunner in an Abrhams? Or vehicle commander in a Stryker? etc

(And yes, I'm guessing Strykers are not considered "armor units" per se, but the question stands for roles like that)

Thanks in advance for the civil discourse.

Tank crew jobs are a progression. Drivers become loaders. 120mm rounds weigh about 85 lbs and are loaded by hand to a time standard.

Ever busted track? Nothing on a tank is light. Nothing.
 
Just curious about one thing.

When they decide to allow female junior officers the opportunity to branch transfer to Armor or Infantry, what will be the standards that need to be met for the transfer.

Found it on the internet

Answer ..... Having a pulse
 
Tank crew jobs are a progression. Drivers become loaders. 120mm rounds weigh about 85 lbs and are loaded by hand to a time standard.

Ever busted track? Nothing on a tank is light. Nothing.

Thanks, Scout. Did not occur to me that those tanker roles were progressive and might need to be cross-trained. Fair point.

And I'm sure you would know better than me, but from what I saw most of the 120mm rounds were about half that weight. But your point is still a fair one that there is a significant physical component to the role.
 
Thanks, Scout. Did not occur to me that those tanker roles were progressive and might need to be cross-trained. Fair point.

And I'm sure you would know better than me, but from what I saw most of the 120mm rounds were about half that weight. But your point is still a fair one that there is a significant physical component to the role.

Well, I was recalling incorrectly. The current ones range from 50 to 60ish pounds depending on variant. Regardless, driving a tank isn't just a career of sitting behind a wheel (or yoke).
 
Not sure the logic to prohibit women from registering holds any water anymore.

But how could this change "cost about $6 million" as the the Selective Service spokesperson suggests?
 
Not sure the logic to prohibit women from registering holds any water anymore.

But how could this change "cost about $6 million" as the the Selective Service spokesperson suggests?

In the article it talked about rewording where it states 'male' to 'male and female'. I also expect they need a checkbox to indicate gender.
 
But what about women in the armored units? Is there any substantial reason they can't be a driver in a Bradley? Gunner in an Abrhams? Or vehicle commander in a Stryker? etc

I can talk about Bradley Fighting Vehicles. The MOS most related to Bradley Fighting Vehicles is 11M - mechanize infantry. So when a soldier becomes 11M, he (I guess in the future, she) is specializing in mechanized infantry. 11Ms are supposed to proficient in everything related to Bradley Fighting Vehicle - driver, gunner, vehicle commander, plus being infantry soldiers that rides the vehicle and dismounts. So if we set a limitation that females can only serve as driver, gunner, or vehicle commander in a Bradley equipped unit, what would this rule create?
 
This'll break your heart: 11M isn't an MOS anymore.

Thanks.

Makes me feel old, but that furthers my example why we just can't use one job/position to say why can't we have females in combat arms. How about from a Bradley Fighting Vehicle Gunner to M420 gunner. If my memory serves me correctly a manual 25 mm engagement (turning the turret manually) was a gunnery table task.
 
In the article it talked about rewording where it states 'male' to 'male and female'. I also expect they need a checkbox to indicate gender.

Administrative costs would also increase, maybe not as much as

(current average admin cost per registrant) * (number of females who would need to register)

but still, they would increase.
 
One caveat of Selective Service is that you will lose all Federal aid/loans for college if you fail to register. We certainly have a few anti patriots out there and probably anti everything who make their valient stand against a draft that will never happen.Though mostly it is the typical American 18 year old who forgets to sign up. I would think hundreds of thousands. Let's double this by adding women. I would imagine it creates a lot paperwork for colleges. What is the costs created for colleges with the extra paperwork and monitoring and the endless communication. If quickly needed a few million young men and women for our country I think we could reasonably and quickly get it done without Selective Service.
 
Back
Top