Army May Train Women For Rigor Of Front Lines

[MemberLG]

Rowan Scarborough appears to be somewhat informed and educated about the military as a reporter goes

Washington Times July 31, 2012

Army May Train Women For Rigor Of Front Lines Studies predict injury, attrition

Some parts I find it interesting

The Washington Times asked the training command whether it plans to require women to meet the same physical standards as men if female soldiers begin infantry training at Fort Benning, Ga. The command basically said yes.

"In preparation for this potential future decision, TRADOC is starting the long-term process of gathering data to provide the Army decision-makers the information they need to determine the way forward," the command stated. "That said, an example we currently have would be the Sapper Leader Course, where both female and male soldiers attend. The standards throughout the course are the same for all soldiers who attend."

Since June 2010, women, who make up 2.5 percent of Sapper students, have a graduation rate of 60 percent, compared with 52 percent for men, according to the training command.

In a second study, the British Defense Ministry conducted an extensive two-year assessment of women and their ability to perform routine ground combat tasks, such as lifting and carrying gear over certain distances.

Its May 2002 findings, in a report titled "Women in the Armed Forces," were not encouraging for advocates of women in combat.

The study concluded that only 0.1 percent of female applicants and 1 percent of trained female soldiers "would reach the required standards to meet the demands of these roles."

"The military viewpoint was that under the conditions of a high intensity close-quarter battle, group cohesion becomes of much greater significance to team performance and, in such an environment, the consequences of failure can have far-reaching and grave consequences," the report stated. "To admit women would, therefore, involve a risk with no gains in terms of combat effectiveness to offset it."

That year [2010], a group of U.S. Army physicians studied one brigade combat team deployed to Iraq in 2007.

Their study, published in the journal Military Medicine, examined the number of soldiers who sustained a disease or noncombat injury. Of 4,122 soldiers (325 women in support roles), 1,324 had a disease or injury that forced them to miss time or be evacuated.

"Females, compared with males, had a significantly increased incident-rate ratio for becoming a [disease or noncombat] casualty," the doctors found.

Of 47 female soldiers evacuated from the brigade, 35 - or 74 percent - were for "pregnancy-related issues." Women had more than triple the evacuation rate of men.

"I infer from this that women are twice as likely to suffer non-battle injuries in current specialties," William Gregor, a professor of social sciences at the Army's Command and Staff College, told The Times. "They will probably have a greater injury rate in heavy physical occupational specialties and the combat arms. The British experience with gender-free or neutral training standards suggests the injury rate will dramatically increase."

[AF6872]

Any Female TBS Graduate can compete with their male counterparts in the field and in some circumstances out think them and out shoot them Oohrah Army might be different.

[Aglahad]

Originally Posted by AF6872

Any Female TBS Graduate can compete with their male counterparts in the field and in some circumstances out think them and out shoot them Oohrah Army might be different.

The evidence presented was about physical durability in non-combat roles then superimposing those numbers to a combat role model by possibly showing even more physical durability loss. It wasn't regarding who can critically think or shoot better.

[raimius]

Interesting that they counted pregnancy as "disease or non-combat injury."
Granted, any of them will get you removed from combat type duties.

[goaliedad]

"Females, compared with males, had a significantly increased incident-rate ratio for becoming a [disease or noncombat] casualty," the doctors found.

I'd be interested to see what exactly they were studying. Was it the frequency or total amount of time spent on the shelf?

I ask because (about to make a gross generalization) men tend to ignore, deny, or downplay the smaller things until they become larger things which may lead to longer time on the shelf. Women are more likely to tend to the smaller injuries which can often minimize longer term effect on the body.

I say this as a man who has to be dragged to the doctor's office. I'm sure I'm not alone in this way of life...

This being said, they personality type that goes out for combat arms (the topic of this article, I guess) I would guess to be less likely to check out than others regardless of sex. The 1% of females they talk about being able to make the male standard for infantry is probably built to sustain the blows of the job (both physically and mentally) as well as their male counterparts for such duty.

I think if they studied the females who meet male standards (and thus be eligible for infantry) and compared their time on the shelf with males they might find a different statistic. This is a more valid test of whether the introduction of women to the combat arms would have a negative impact on the availability of troops.

[Hurricane12]

Though the focus is the Marine Corps, I thought this was a very good article from a female officer who also definitely has the personal experience to back it up that very succinctly summed up a lot of the reservations I (personally) have about women serving in the infantry:

http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/a...-created-equal

I'm not very familiar with Army training for officers in combat arms (MFE?) branches, but the Marine Corps Infantry Officers' Course (IOC) breaks off a lot of very fit men (article above quotes attrition at 17%) and they don't send slackers to IOC. I'd assume that Army infantry training, and definitely Ranger, are not for the weak or faint of heart either.

And completing an infantry training course like IOC and serving as an infantry officer are completely different from completing TBS.* Gutting something out for a matter of hours or even a few days on a FEX is different from dealing with the long-term misery of IOC or the grind of a deployment and general service as an infantryman.
I've talked to a lot of senior GySgts and up with 15-20+ years in combat arms whose knees are destroyed or have other lasting health issues from carrying a combat load. It shouldn't be a surprise that those issues would be compounded in women.


*disclaimer: I have not yet completed TBS.

[MemberLG]

Originally Posted by goaliedad

. . .
I think if they studied the females who meet male standards (and thus be eligible for infantry) and compared their time on the shelf with males they might find a different statistic. This is a more valid test of whether the introduction of women to the combat arms would have a negative impact on the availability of troops.

I would think the number of females that meet the male standards will be relatively small, so hard to do a statistically valid study. For 17 - 21 age group, 15:36 in two miles will get a male 64 points, for a female 100 points; 42 push ups will get a male 60 points and 100 points.

I also think it will be difficult to account for different MOS. Say a female Military Police meets the male standards. In general, Military Police do less dismounted patrols.

I also think we will have to consider duty location as to going to sick call or missing few days in a big forward operating base is not a big deal, whereas going to a sick call from a patrol base to a forward operating base is a big deal.

No study is a perfect . . . . .

[AF6872]

Great article. Not saying TBS is the same as IOC. IOC much harder and Qualify for Infantry Oficer is one of the hardest Survine TBS sounds good to me