Blog powered by Typepad

« "Should have gone to Specsavers" #1 | Main | My holiday, and therefore yours, too, is imminent »

Thursday, 08 May 2014

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"Women have undertaken combat roles since time immemorial, including frontline fighting "
But not the wholesale dying - that is the province of young men.
It is more the role of women to make the bullets for men to fire.

Are the brasshats stuck with an outdated regiment/battallion/unit structure? Would those old Romans placed in a tight spot and with a bunch of (well) fit tough women to help them out have thought that slapping a bag of cement on their backs was a good use of talent? A fast moving extreme-violence force would seem more like it - look around Newcastle on a Friday night.

Were I a military strategist I would be looking to render ineffective all that computery drone stuff, more street fighting, civilian terror and guerrilla work and disrupt comms and power nets - do what that sort of kit is no good at. Back at base have clever chaps and chapesses knock out satellites in a big way, put out the enemy's eyes and stop up his ears.

I absolutely agree with you, Roger, in that my sense of modern warfare, which is not highly informed, leads me to believe that what I call e-warfare is crucial. I have mentioned before, as a result of a talk with 'SoD', the enormous difficulty these days for troops to actually move an inch on the battlefield without being spotted and zapped. On the other hand, I still think the old adage holds that at the end of day you still need the 'pbi' to hold the ground.

A couple of points. I was serving when troop trials were being carried out to determine women's suitability for the infantry. As David correctly says, they just couldn't cope with the horrendous amount of kit that every infantryman has to carry. In almost all cases they lack the bone density and the muscle. Also, their rate of injury was 8 times that of men. Finally, the Israeli Army carried out its own research, based on real combat and it found that men behave one way when a male comrade is hit, but behave completely differently when it happens to a female and this has a significant effect on combat efficiency.

Common sense (which has been banned by political correctness)should also tell us that 8 men are a damn sight better in a fight than 4 men and 4 women.

Well when it turns out that the girls can't yomp across moorland carrying all their kit and after 80 miles or so still be fit enough to go straight into battle, you know what will happen, don't you?

The requirements will be relaxed, of course.

All must have prizes! Green berets all round!

What could possibly go wrong?

Very interesting, Richard, thanks.

And what, Andrew, would a Minister of Defence who went from school to Uni to study politics, philosophy and economics, then into industry and from there into - dread word! - consultancy know about anything military. Probably his only time in the field was when he was a Boy Scout!

And where are our generals when we need them - halfway up his arse, is my guess! What a shower!

Ah, Richard, I'd argue one point. If one, as a woman, can shoot better than a man, the best at fighting would be moot :-).

However, I agree that standards should not be relaxed simply to allow women to join professions they may simply be inadequate to undertake. I have heard that fire fighting standards have been relaxed - which is great if you're talking about planning how to get in, which materials to use etc. Not so great when you have to carry an 18 stone bloke on your back. Down a ladder.

I did read though, an interesting point. It is men going out and getting killed, which would imply the really important people in society, who simply cannot be risked in war, are the women.

Yay, Matriarchy is here! Bow down before my greatness!

Ah, dear Miss Mayfly, you would be worth a regiment of Guardsmen any day of the week!

The comments to this entry are closed.