Help support TMP


"U.K. May Use Women in Military Combat Roles ..." Topic


19 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please don't call someone a Nazi unless they really are a Nazi.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2014-present) Message Board


Action Log

26 Dec 2014 10:22 a.m. PST
by Editor in Chief Bill

  • Removed from Modern Media board

Areas of Interest

Modern

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Featured Ruleset

A Fistful of Kung Fu


Rating: gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star 


Featured Showcase Article

Soviet Motor Rifle Company, Part 2

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian was going to do the rifle teams next, but he forgot something…


Current Poll


Featured Book Review


860 hits since 19 Dec 2014
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango0119 Dec 2014 11:08 p.m. PST

…in 2016 After Review .

"The U.K. armed forces may deploy women in close combat roles as early as 2016 after a review dismissed some of the objections to the move.

The review, by the chief of the general staff, Nicholas Carter, found that the deployment of women would not affect cohesion among troops, one of the reasons combat units have remained male-only. It said there needs to be more research into the physiological effects of combat on women before a final decision is made on sending them to the front line.

"Roles in our armed forces should be determined by ability, not gender," Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said in an e-mailed statement. "I hope that, following further work on our training regimes and equipment, we can open up combat roles to women in 2016."…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

HammerHead20 Dec 2014 11:25 a.m. PST

two senior female army officers were very quick in last nights news to say it not a good idea….

Personal logo Legion 4 Supporting Member of TMP20 Dec 2014 2:59 p.m. PST

I agree …

hagenthedwarf20 Dec 2014 4:27 p.m. PST

Has the Geneva Convention in respect of arming women been changed?

Mikasa21 Dec 2014 4:24 a.m. PST

So Vasquez, you ever been mistaken for a man?

Personal logo Legion 4 Supporting Member of TMP21 Dec 2014 8:11 a.m. PST

LOL !!!!!

CFeicht21 Dec 2014 9:13 a.m. PST

Mikasa – No, have you?

Zargon21 Dec 2014 9:52 a.m. PST

I'll be at home looking after kids ;)
Them army benefits are goo-ood.
Cynical cheers

tuscaloosa21 Dec 2014 12:44 p.m. PST

"Has the Geneva Convention in respect of arming women been changed?"

I had no idea, can you provide details?

MaahisKuningas9021 Dec 2014 1:41 p.m. PST

Yes, would like to hear about that too. First time I ve ever heard that GC would had some limitations towards females as armed combatants.

Personal logo Legion 4 Supporting Member of TMP21 Dec 2014 2:52 p.m. PST

Yes … Interesting …

hagenthedwarf21 Dec 2014 5:25 p.m. PST

Yes, would like to hear about that too. First time I ve ever heard that GC would had some limitations towards females as armed combatants.

Well if I remember my training properly one of the limitations was that women would not be armed; just as with medics.

Bangorstu22 Dec 2014 7:48 a.m. PST

Given the number of countries who do use women, and have done for years, I don't think that was ever part of the Geneva Convention.

I can remember seeing Tunisian female soldiers back in 1985 when on holiday there.

Personal logo Legion 4 Supporting Member of TMP22 Dec 2014 8:46 a.m. PST

Well all armies have females … and they are armed regardless of the MOS/job when on field ops, deployments, etc., like any other soldier. Whether truck drivers, clerks, mechanics, pilots, etc. … But very few armies especailly in the West, have females in Combat Arms like the Infantry, Tanks, etc. …

Lion in the Stars22 Dec 2014 11:59 a.m. PST

The only western army** I am willing to state for certain that has women in combat arms (infantry/armor/artillery) is Israel.

And they had some difficulties with integrated formations at the tactical level. There's something in the primordial instincts of males to rush to assist females in combat, even where a male unit in the same situation would have been left to fend for themselves.

It's my understanding that the Israelis segregate combat units at the company level, to minimize the disruptions caused by caveman instincts.

** I understand that several of the Scandahooligan navies allow women on subs, but they don't do 6-9 month deployments like the US does.

PMC31726 Dec 2014 5:48 a.m. PST

Good. About bloody time. Since the creation of the musket there's been no good reason to not allow women to fight. Actually, there's been no good reason to not allow women to fight ever. Just look at the Dahomey.

Personal logo Legion 4 Supporting Member of TMP26 Dec 2014 7:55 a.m. PST

There is more to being a combat arms soldier than being able to load and fire a rifle …

Bangorstu26 Dec 2014 9:41 a.m. PST

Lion, the Danes have used fully integrated infantry for some time, including in combat, and report no problems – at least according to the BBC.

Lion in the Stars26 Dec 2014 11:13 a.m. PST

@Stu: Didn't know that, thanks!

And PMC317, there are lots of good reasons to not let women fight unless it's a war of extinction. I already mentioned one in my last post. Another is that the only time women fight, it's an enemy-for-life issue. Men are psychologically capable of declaring a truce and actually sharing a meal with their enemy. Women? Nope. Their very biochemistry doesn't work that way.

Ask any teacher (especially Junior High teachers): If two boys are fighting, wade in, pull them apart, send them to the principal's office. But if two girls are fighting (and I mean actually swinging at each other), if you value your life you will stand clear and send the survivor to the hospital. If you try to break it up you will have both of them attacking you.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.