"Female Marines on women in combat: 'We're ready'" Topic

"Lance Cpl. Callahan Brown talks with a fellow Marine with the Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force after an infantry assessment at Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms, Calif. Following the defense secretary's announcement that all military jobs will be opened to women, Brown, an Infantry Training Battalion graduate, said she hopes to make a lateral move into an infantry rifleman position.(Photo: Mike Morones/Staff)…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

This does not bode well for our military effectiveness, given the results of the recent USMC study, so I certainly hope they will figure out a way to deal with that, or many lives will be lost unnecessarily.

I am all for equality, but not at the loss of military effectiveness of our fighting forces.

Yep.

Weakening the combat forces in the name of political correctness.

About that Marine test, from Questioning the Assumptions in the U.S. Marine Corps' Women-in-Combat Test:

"But here's the catch. There's no such thing as an "average" person. The study was comprised of 300 male subjects and 100 female subjects. No one is questioning the fact that all 300 of the men would be suitable for service in the infantry. But the top 10 women had the same anaerobic capacity — ability to perform short bursts of high-intensity effort — as the bottom 150 men.

Similarly, these 10 women had the same endurance — aerobic capacity — as those bottom 150 males , Marines whose qualifications for service in the infantry was not being questioned or assessed.

…

Now let's talk about the ugly truth behind injuries, both in training and in the field. Simply put, the modern infantry Marine is overloaded by at least 50 percent. This is not a new observation; in 1950, S.L.A. Marshall pointed it out in his classic text "Soldier's Load and the Mobility of a Nation" — and the situation has only gotten worse.

Injuries generated from moving under a heavy load may appear more quickly in females, but sooner or later, it manifests throughout the force; in the 10-year period between 1998 and 2008, service members were diagnosed with 108,266 cases of mechanical degenerative arthritis, or osteoarthritis, at rates of 26 to 50 percent higher than the rest of the U.S. population.

The older the service member, the more likely they were to suffer from this degenerative injury that has no cure. It's anecdotal, but I personally have never met a Marine sergeant major who had not already had, or wasn't scheduled for knee replacement surgery. This is not a question of males versus females; it's about the fact that while we are investing $400 USD billion on a "fifth-generation" fighter jet to support Marine infantry, we have made no significant investment in taking the infantry beyond a "first-generation" force."

Hmmmm, all that got deleted so I guess I'll just preemptively self-censor on this one…

The issue of combat loads is an important one, and something that especially irritated me in the Marine Corps (where we trained with much more realistic, heavy loads than I ever did in the Army). But we claimed to be light infantry. 110-lb packs != light infantry! That guy running up mountains in A-stan with flip flops, a Chinese chest rig, and a plastic water bottle is light infantry. We carry all of this crap mostly to cover somebody's butt about force protection (Why didn't my son, Pvt Schmuckatelli, get issued cold weather gear?!) but all it does is mask the slow erosion of our warfighting capacity from injuries.

This old "paradigm" still raises it's head … especially in the PC, etc., world many of our elected leaders live in. As it's more about votes than reality.
It's more about them waving the equality flag and hence votes than the reality of the situation. Especially with the murderous, feral, barbaric, enemy we currently face.

If this is going to be a reality, will females even be sent to the Infantry ? Even though when you volunteer to join the military, the needs of the military comes first. So she may have wanted to be in the Signal or QM branch, but Infantry"men" are needed at this time. Some in the Infantry did not volunteer for the Infantry, but once again the needs of the ARMY comes first.

Some complain the since females can't go in Combat Arms, many can't get promoted to the General ranks. Even though there are some female Generals and Admirals. But not as many as males. Of course there are more males in the military than females … so that might have something to do with it too ?

But again, PC and votes rules not actual military preparedness … Not like we at war or are anything …

we claimed to be light infantry. 110-lb packs != light infantry!

I too started out in "light Infantry" in the 101 … Nothing light about it …

More women are going to be sacrificed to the gods of the PC. A 110 pound woman carrying a 110 pack is like a 180 pound man carrying a 180 pound pack.

I've spoken to guys 25 years old that needed knee replacements from humping 100 pound packs in the mountains. The VA said no can do as a knee replacement is good for only 25 years so he needs to wait until he's 45 before he gets a new knee because they don't want to have to give him another one 25 years later. Women are only going to ruin their bodies if they attempt this. I carried 65 pounds using the old WWII style pack and suspenders and I felt that was maxed out. I can't imagine 110 pounds.

Here's another reason:
link

My entry got deleted because I stated the stark realities of what's happening today in the lower enlisted ranks according to my son who is on active duty. I think I was a little too graphic. My apologies.

The best way to protect women and let them succeed is to have all female units or administrative positions. My mom is a Coast Guard WWII vet and agrees with me. She also said that women were treated with respect back then, at least that was her experience in the Coast Guard.

Wolfhag

Totally agree Wolf … This is another case … of you really don't know unless you were there, experienced it, etc. …

Not surprised … everyone is entitled to an opinion. yes ? You have daughters ? Would you want them to serve in the Infantry fighting against Daesh, AQ, the Taliban, etc. ? It's a rhetorical question … I know your answer.

It is always more upsetting to me when I see a young female vet missing an arm or legs, an eye, facial scars, etc. … It just seems worse if the vet is female for me … maybe that's just me ?

Legion,
your last comment about sums it up on how I have felt over the years, even before serving in the Corps. My biggest concern was another squad member looking over his back to see if a female member was okay or needed help. As to seeing female casualties, it isnt just you.

Most of the above comments about humping gear make a lot of sense.

I may have mis-read it, but I understood the armed forces committee and congress were supposed to be looking into the change. It may not be engraved in stone yet.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

One hundred thousand women served as soldiers in the National Liberation Army (NLA). Initially, 1 out of 10 NLA soldiers was a woman, but the proportion rose to 1 out of 8. In addition 2 million women were mobilized in the AntiFascist Front of Women (Anti-Fashisticki Front na Zenite, AFZ). These women ran local governments, provided support to the frontline fighters, and engaged in sabotage. According to Barbara Jancar, "From 1941 to 1945 8.5 percent of the total female population of Yugoslavia was killed or died" (Jancar 1982, 91). Twenty-five percent of the women who joined the NLA died, versus 11 percent for males, but there was an even higher casualty rate among the AFZ (Jancar 1982, 93). Though AFZ members were not formally soldiers, the war was a guerrilla one, and the front was elusive. When the Nazis and their allies overran villages, AFZ women fought and were killed or captured. Often capture led to rape, torture, and murder. Some have asserted that the higher casualty rate for women fighters resulted from their inexperience. Other observers, however, have asserted that the women, in general, fought more bravely than the men (Djilas 1977, 210).

Although 2,000 women did become officers in the NLA, women officers were few and predominantly limited to lower ranks. Of the 92 women fighters proclaimed national heroes by the postwar Yugoslav government, only 13 were officers, and 10 of these were political officers. Of these, only 3 served as unit commanders, and only 1 of these commanded a unit as large as a ceta (a detachment of approximately 300 fighters) (Jancar-Webster 1990, 92). Though there were more female fighters than female medics, women in the NLA disproportionately served in medical roles. In this guerrilla war, however, medics fought and died as regularly as other categories of combatants. After the victory of the Partisans, women were demobilized. Their participation in war, as far as the Yugoslav People's Army leadership was concerned, had been an emergency measure. When the Warsaw Pact forces invaded Czechoslovakia in August 1968, expedience again required the militarization of women. To deter Soviet intervention in Yugoslavia, the state organized the Territorial Defense Forces. Women as well as men were given military training in school, and two females became Territorial Defense Force generals. Women were also allowed to volunteer for service in what had previously been an all-male national army.

Insofar as I am aware the Jugoslav Partisans in WWII had the highest percentage of women in their forces of any modern military, beating the Soviets by a couple of percent.

when a country is invaded, anyone can become a combatant. Unless it is that dire women in combat is a recipe for higher casualties and a way to skew gender ratios.

Another point from the Partisan experience was that at any time during the war 25 percent of the women were pregnant. I suppose the military could invest in a lot of chastity belts or put birth control in the MREs, but otherwise you are adding to medical needs and taking personnel off the rosters. The situation is bad enough in a peace time military.

Just a bad idea. Standards will be lowered and soldiers will die. I would hate to have a niece living with the knowledge that due to the fact that she was not up to the minimum standards of the men in her unit that other soldiers died or were maimed.

Yes.

And the women and men who die or are maimed will for the most part not be the ones who are pushing this.

In fact I very much doubt that the people who are pushing this expect to be impacted by it in any way. Even if it becomes necessary to re-institute the draft they and their offspring will be insulated from serving a combat arm.

It will be someone else whose son or daughter pays the price.

So much for Women and children first; now it will be everyone for themselves. I did 20 years in the Marine Corps and in the infantry this is going to be a very big mistake.

"Change is going to happen, no matter how much you resist it."

You already said that.

Just because it will happen doesn't mean it's a good idea or that people have to stop expressing their belief that it's a bad idea.

Bismarck, goragrad, Irish Marine, jdginza …

I also do not wish to see any of our men and women sucked into yet another failed war in the Middle East.

If any one's kin joins the military … and their unit deploys to the Mid East … they will have no choice … but to serve and do their duty. Which may include dying or being maimed …

WWII examples don't mean anything since there was a definite shortage of "trigger fingers". Different time, different circumstances. I can also point out that all of the combattants removed women from front line roles after WWII ended.

There is no shortage of service members in the modern US military, there is actually a surplus.

While I do believe that women can and should serve in combat roles,
This is being done for the purpose of political correctness, not because of need.

This is being done for the purpose of political correctness, not because of need.

Of course … that is the way things are done these day.

our society is changing

Society may be changing, but I don't think the great majority of females have changed physically or mentally. To make them as effective killers as young males in Infantry units. It is a matter of gender … not PC …

Hmmm … news to me … Didn't know too many females when I was in the ARMY that could be as effective well trained killers as most of the men in the Infantry units I served in. But you are right, what do I know ?

Sorry kyote, the pendulum swings both ways.

I'm less concerned about how much a woman can carry, and/or her/their fitness level(s) than I am about disrupting the fighting unit.

Men will be men, and women will be women, unless they want to be like men, or vice versa, so, that tends to get in the way of unit cohesion, and their fighting ability, as shown by the USMC study.

Never mind that though, we've got to fully integrate, no matter how much damage it does to our fighting forces, and/or our ability to conduct operations effectively on the battlefield, for the sake of making people feel better about themselves.

Kyoteblue, you are repetitively, rigidly, and obliviously self righteous about a subject with which you have clearly zero experience. Americans love to be smug about the fact that their zero-knowledge vote counts exactly the same as one from someone with formal training and decades of experience – and then complain about the government being ineffective.

Actually, Legion4, I disagree on one point – I have no doubt women have the mindset needed to kill. In fact I believe that they are less encumbered by notions of fair play, chivalry, honor, etc. than men. Women are far more cold blooded about such matters.

Well let MMA start having fights between Men and women and see how that works out, maybe some of you will see gender is really Black and White.

Well … that may be true goragrad … After a series of bad attempts at relationships. They really are deadlier than the male. No man ever made me feel as bad as a number of females had …

zero experience. Americans love to be smug about the fact that their zero-knowledge vote counts exactly the same as one from someone with formal training and decades of experience

I have to agree with that comment after serving in 4 Infantry Bns in my decade plus on active duty '79-'90. [Plus a year in the Res as Bn S2.] Leading a Rifle Plt in the 101 and later a Mech Co. in the 18th ABN XXX, etc. …

Seems some here take offense when you say you have real world military experience … and they never served. I see many responded negatively if I or others say, yes you are entitled to an opinion. But you never served … so just by default … logically … the vet's take, especially a combat arms vet, we May actually know more than they who never have been in a Rifle Plt, Mech Co., Tank Bn, etc., etc. …

Again, everybody is entitled to an opinion, but if I have a car problem, I'm going hold the trained and experienced auto mechanic's opinion in much higher regard … Than say … over the best Chef's, in the best eatery in Town … about why my car is not starting … Yes ?

The Israeli experience doesn't seem to reflect the "problems" some think will ensue:
link

As for 'romantic' attachments, do you need two genders for that or am I missing something?

Can I suggest you read Melville's 'Billy Budd'?

link

Auden, one of my favourite poet's wisely wrote:

"We would rather be ruined than changed,
We would rather die in our dread
Than climb the cross of the moment
And let our illusions die."

As for 'romantic' attachments, do you need two genders

Well based on my experiences … I like both girls (above 18 … way above !] and women ! At my age a younger women is 50 !

Change is only, "good," or, "appropriate," if it is also logical and wise.

Change to conform to any other, "reason," besides logic and wisdom (paired) is not good.

With all this talk of PC, are there any Mac users out there?

edit: Nevermind. Don't want to see the DH for this.

The simple truth about this is that this is about female empowerment. Period. Those that wish to see females reach the ultimate heights of power in the military know that for them to do so they MUST have a combat arms background.

There are currently females generals and admirals, but you will never see a Chairman of the JCS, Army C of S, or Navy CNO coming from the ranks of the support/logistics officers.

The debate is not about whether this will make the military tougher, more lethal, efficient and more able to win wars. Never has been, but no one can admit this. It would be a political or military career killer.

Kyote is right, things are changing. It's just unfortunate they are going very much in the wrong direction.

I have commented on this before and will again in the face of the same tired old PC arguments…

1. When that 110 pound female can't carry her 110 pound pack and goes down she will have to be carried to an evacuation point. Her essential gear will be given to the rest of her squad and they will have to carry it in addition to their own kit.

2. If (when…) that 110 pound female gets pregnant she will not be deployable and reassigned for the duration of her pregnancy and her maternity leave. The ugly truth is she will probably hold that billet open while she collects benefits and then she will seek a hardship discharge.

If she is deployed and turns up pregnant she must be evacuated like any other casualty. Imagine women pregnant at Stalingrad…

Please no caterwauling TMP that "it takes two to tango". The bottom line is the male remains and performs his job the female is gone!

3. The military can create no fraternization policies all it wants and heap punishment on those that violate the policy. Fraternization between men and women still happens but when I was in it was limited to support units, no lives were on the line.

Imagine your son ( or daughter that is not not putting out) being forced to perform ALL the dangerous tasks so some NCO or officer can keep his AHEM love interest safe.

Mardaddy, Blackhorse and Dragon Gunner, like I, are all vets … and have made very good valid points here. But we're vets … so what do we know about this military stuff ? I'm sure many here know better … yes ? From reading books and seeing it on TV …

After 12 years in various units in various locations at various levels, I think that if I were to tell some of the stories I personally witnessed well…. it would either be too hard to believe, or I'd be accused of making it up, or someone would just say "I am being "mean"….and repeat their same "Change is happening" hippie mantra all over again….

You are right Murphy they keep presenting their emotion induced opinions and never seem capable of a logical reasonable debate. In the absence of debating skills make personal attacks or try to shut down the topic all together.

Like you Murphy I could tell stories…

I slightly tend towards the Pratchett view on this, that men that worry about women doing their job are worried that they might be embarrassingly good at it.

Also if they do have female marines, we might get a real life Vasquez, which would be rather cool.

Willucv its not that our masculinity is on the line. I think I made some valid points. Can you offer up something up other than a shaming attack? Something not emotion induced?

No I'm slightly making light of the discussion. I work in a job where both male and female employees have to carry out heavy manual handling, digging, shovelling etc and never noticed a difference in ability based on sex. I don't think fitness levels are all important either, mental attitude is an issue too.

On the subject of carrying ability isn't a 90kg person carrying a 60kg load putting a lot more strain on their body than a 60kg person with the same load,all other things being equal?

A grunt's life is a hard life.

How many women will really go out for it?

I work in a job where both male and female employees have to carry out heavy manual handling, digging, shovelling etc and never noticed a difference in ability based on sex.

Digging fighting positions (probably the closest comparison given your work description) is nowhere near as stressful and damaging to the body as conducting road marches (or worse, movement through the treeline/over hills) with full gear. That's where the bulk of injuries occur. I know two people who have fractured their pelvises on marches: one was an average-bodied female when I was in Army Basic Training in 2003, and the other was a REALLY small (like 5'3" and skinny) male in Marine Corps OCS in 2008.

I think it is unquestionable that SOME women could do better than MANY men in combat roles.

There would have to be rigorous fitness tests and assessment before committing women to combat. Most women would fail as many men do. I'm sure only a tiny percentage of women in the military actually want to serve in combat.

As for the points made above about the men not being combat focused because there are women present or sexual dynamics impacting postings/deployment these ought to be addressed by training and better oversight. More women higher up the command chain would help I'm sure.

Women could serve usefully in combat arms I'm sure. There are certainly needs for female soldiers in the numerous policing roles the military have been involved in lately.

Armies that have through necessity put women into combat units have managed. The Soviets had women in combat roles. So have many guerrilla forces.

I think it would be fine if all applicants had to pass the same test, it wouldn't work if the bar was set lower, or if there was some attempt at affirmative action.

Surely trained professionals like the legendary US Marines could cope with the upheaval, any women who passed selection would be remarkable indeed.

@willucv – quite. The macho posturing of current and ex-military types would take a hit – but they probably will be all the better for it.

It's not being super macho that makes a good soldier. Recent developments point to a need for greater professionalism and less 'warrior' cultism.

If the selection bar is set at the required minimum standard and the troops trained to operate professionally there will be no particular problems due to [a very few] women in combat.

Sure, the military does not want women in combat – but they never wanted openly gay men either. Or blacks.

As for lugging loads greater than 100lbs over rough terrain? Why is that so necessary anyway? Combat loads have gone up and up to the point of compromising effectiveness. As alluded to above a lot is a sloppy 'carry everything just in case' mentality. Sure, if you leave behind the bunker buster AT missile and end up needing it there will be hell to pay, but if you have a high rate of injuries and some soldiers disabled mid-career was it worth it?

In my opinion the military should set a manageable combat load – maybe 60-80lbs – and work within that limit. Increasing this to 100lbs for short duration moves. If combat is expected then you don't want your troops burdened by more than about 40lbs of gear.

The macho posturing of current and ex-military types would take a hit – but they probably will be all the better for it.

Ah … NO … it has more to do with experience than the macho posturing … And macho posturing at the wrong place and time will get you killed. We vets know about that type of stuff …

It's not being super macho that makes a good soldier. Recent developments point to a need for greater professionalism and less 'warrior' cultism.

Ah … NO … again … You need all those attributes and many more to be a good Infantryman. Young macho, professional warriors … I'm sure I'm not the only former combat arms leader that thinks that is applicable …

Sure, the military does not want women in combat – but they never wanted openly gay men either. Or blacks.

Apples & Oranges … We used to ride horses into combat and carried muskets … We all have evolved. But you know why we don't ride horses or carry muskets anymore ? It will get you killed … I'm sure many vets here would agree in at example. We know about that kind of stuff …

Noble is an African American, who served in both the ARMY and USMC. From his posts, he sounded like a pretty darn good trooper. I'd have like to serve with him in my Plt or Co. But I'm pretty sure he is not female …

In my opinion the military should set a manageable combat load – maybe 60-80lbs

As many of us "macho" vets know. Many times you don't have that option … It's all part of following lawful orders and being a military professional.

My friend the more you post … the more I see … you really don't understand, what it is like to be a soldier. This not a criticism just an observation … from a former Infantryman …

As for lugging loads greater than 100lbs over rough terrain? Why is that so necessary anyway?

The problem is the emphasis on "light infantry fundamentals". You aren't assaulting an objective with 100lbs of crap, but you have to move all of that stuff *between* patrols and attacks. Unfortunately we don't have Nepalese Sherpas to help us out.

I haven't been in combat, but the best example I have is Patrol Fex during the Infantry Officers Course. We were inserted on Sunday by truck and left Friday around noon on helicopters. For the whole week, each platoon (2 student platoons and one of enlisted Combat Instructors) conducted independent patrol base operations with only food/water resupply across hilly, forested Virginia terrain. We picked up everything (especially MRE trash, can't leave a trail of garbage for trackers) and relocated our patrol base 2-3km every morning.

I was in the Fall class so the Virginia weather in the end of October/start of November was about ~50F daytime and rainy. You needed most of your cold weather clothing and all of your rain gear. We were often sleeping in boxers/t-shirts + polypropelene long underwear + cammies + sleeping bag + bivvy cover. After a couple days you are persistently cold due to your core temperature dropping so you might start sleeping in your NBC suit too. Sleeping bag, NBC mask, NBC suit, bivvy cover, poncho, Gortex top & bottom, extra cammies, extra socks, batteries for all of your optics (night vision, IR laser, GPS, maybe a thermal sight too). Your cammies, skivvy shorts, and socks are in waterproof compression bags ( link ), which add a little weight but are absolutely essential. We learned at TBS what happens when you march on waterlogged feet. Then you've got little stuff like glow sticks, 550 cord, duct tape, all of your writing/mapping/navigation tools. Then add 3-5 MREs and a gallon of water (2L Camelbak + 2x 1qt canteens).

Everyone does their damnedest to cut weight, going so far as stripping the packaging from MREs and wrapping them in a single layer of 100mph tape. I bought an aftermarket assault pack because it was a good 1-2lbs lighter than the Marine Corps-issued one.

And after you've done all that prep work….you're still lugging a 90-pound pack. :(

If combat is expected then you don't want your troops burdened by more than about 40lbs of gear.

The Corps finally figured that out when they switched from the massive Modular Tactical Vest to the lighter Scalable Plate Carrier. I'd say actual combat loads are probably close to the 40-50lb mark.

Oh, and when I said 100lbs, I was referring only to fully-packed ILBEs (some friends were actually weighing theirs because they were incredulous of the loads we carried). That doesn't include helmet, armor, weapon, ammo…i.e. the 40lbs of stuff you take on patrols.

I'm not going to entirely nay-say the knowledge that comes with experience but I'd hope you'd agree that there needs to be more than that.

As my reference to the great Auden seems to have fallen on deaf ears, I'll try a more pop culture reference: Rex Stout.

"Intelligence Guided by Experience" was advice often proffered to Archie. Policy should be dictated by generals not by junior ranks.

As a side note, I am sad to see what I perceive as a turning away from change & innovation in the US. Half a century ago, Americans were 'square-peggers'. Nothing was sacrosanct. Now it seems to be quite a hide bound society, scared of change. I write this in sorrow rather than criticism & I hope it will be taken as such.

Americans aren't scared of change.

They don't like the possible breakdown and/or reduction of military unit performance and cohesiveness due to the introduction of women into combat units, and the resulting sexual dynamics that will create.

It is a real concern, and no matter how many rules, and how much oversight you heap on, biologic imperatives trump military rules.

Even high level generals and admirals are not immune, as we've seen from the prosecution of David Patraeus, and others.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, going forward. I suspect some of us will be vindicated in our views.

I don't like the idea of women in combat units right now and wholly agrees with the vets on their points.
I also understand the counter arguments and the "change is coming" BUT what you want might not be the best or most suitable option.

I like the comment about MMA with men vs women and maimed female veterans, it fully illustrate the problem. Western society/culture doesn't see women as equal to men to begin with so it will not be ready to see women in combat, be it injury, mistreatment or being captured.
If I say domestic violence which side would you automatically think is the victim, why is that?

I like to look at these issues from another angle.
In a full scale war with 100s of soldiers being captured, will you be ok with many of them being women?
Would you rather use resource to win the war or rescue them?
What if after the war those women POW come back home pregnant?

Better or worst, enemies are not going to treat male and female soldiers equally.

Noble is an African American, who served in both the ARMY and USMC. From his posts, he sounded like a pretty darn good trooper. I'd have like to serve with him in my Plt or Co.

I appreciate the endorsement, Legion! But I hope we are never in a situation where we have to slay bodies together, because then things have REALLY gone up!

As a side note, I am sad to see what I perceive as a turning away from change & innovation in the US. Half a century ago, Americans were 'square-peggers'. Nothing was sacrosanct. Now it seems to be quite a hide bound society, scared of change.

Innovation is meant to yield quantifiable improvements in an object or system. Change just for the sake of change is terribly misplaced. This applies doubly-so for the military where poorly-thought "innovations" results in PEOPLE DYING.

The onus/burden of proof should be on the innovators to demonstrate how the inclusion of females will yield a NET GAIN in the lethality of an infantry unit. As Mako and Wolfhag have said, the elephant in the room is how basic human sexuality undermines unit cohesion….and a combat unit lives & dies by its unit cohesion. So far we've only heard "Equal rights! Diversity! More women flag officers!"

I think using small all-female teams of snipers *might* work. The RKKA built up a good data set during the Great Patriotic War as evidence. Anecdotally, women seem to either be terrible shots (never get comfortable with the weapon) or exceptional (the good ones are very attentive students), with no one in the middle ground. Sniper teams don't interact too closely with the line companies so fraternization below the battalion-level is somewhat reduced. A 6-woman sniper team (precision rifle + spotter, anti-material rifle + spotter, team leader, xtra body for security) is small enough that you can reasonably expect to train a sufficient number of Enlisted females. Snipers travel somewhat light so that mitigates some of the risk from lower body injuries/heavy loads as well.