Very simple, and I agree with it. I'd have had no argument whatsoever if that's what people like Xabulba were saying... but instead, blanket statements "women can't meet the standards, therefore they shouldn't be allowed" were being thrown about for a while.I'd love to see more women in combat roles, but the current standards have to be maintained, if not improved. Fewer women than men can meet them. Therefore, fewer women in combat. Simple, eh?
I agree, that sort of blanket statement is ridiculous. Some women, and some men, can meet the established standards, and if they can, and are willing, they should be allowed to serve. Anything else is wasteful of potential recruits, and likely motivated by prejudice rather than concerns about performance.
Very simple, and I agree with it. I'd have had no argument whatsoever if that's what people like Xabulba were saying... but instead, blanket statements "women can't meet the standards, therefore they shouldn't be allowed" were being thrown about for a while.I'd love to see more women in combat roles, but the current standards have to be maintained, if not improved. Fewer women than men can meet them. Therefore, fewer women in combat. Simple, eh?
I agree, that sort of blanket statement is ridiculous. Some women, and some men, can meet the established standards, and if they can, and are willing, they should be allowed to serve. Anything else is wasteful of potential recruits, and likely motivated by prejudice rather than concerns about performance.
Agreed, with the caveat that the testing should be much harder (something akin to the old new york fire department standards).
I answered you, but I haven't seen you refute much... specifically, show me a female professional top tier fighter that could defeat her male counterpart in the sport.
Totally irrelevant. Wars are not decided by single competition. That's why we have an "army" and not a "champion." To refute the general statment of "women cannot meet minimal standards," I don't have to refute that the best male powerlifter can outlift the best female powerlifter, or that the best male Greco-Roman wrestler can defeat the top female Greco-Roman wrestler, or whatever other Olympic event you care to name. All I have to demonstrate is that not all women automatically fail to meet an agreed-upon minimum standard (which you and I agree should be more stringent).
EDIT: Ah! I see above that you agree when Charlie says the same thing, just not when I do. Good enough.
If you meet the physical requirements and mental requirements, no mater the colour of your skin, gender, religion or sexual preferences the you should be allowed to serve in combat.
You also have to be aware of how the enemy are going to treat you should you be captured and that is a thorny issue. The US is perceived around the world to have both sexually and physically tortured prisoners of war. This can be used as an excuse by the enemy to do the same.
I like you, Dwarf.
Want to be my Familiar?
If I'd been able to serve openly in the military, I'd have signed up for the college money and probably served in the Gulf at some point. I don't buy into whole "women aren't mentally & emotionally capable" of being effective frontline soldiers; I gotta call h*rsesh*t, especially after all the lowering of standards that the military has gone through in the last decades to make sure they make their body quota.
If she can pass the physically, ie: 'Can she drag her wounded comrade out of the line of fire?" and "Can she go on foot patrols carrying all that damn gear and still hold her own in a firefight when dog-tired?", it shouldn't matter that she's female.
If you haven't seen it yet, I highly recommend this documentary from a couple years ago: Lioness (PBS). If you watch it, you'll see the question is moot: women already are serving in combat (just not getting recognized).
... If you watch it, you'll see the question is moot: women already are serving in combat (just not getting recognized).
This.
Also, women have served in combat in most wars. There are documented cases of women serving in combat that go far back in history, albeit only because they disguised themselves as men. Popular folk tales have even sprung up about it. (Hello, Mulan, I'm looking at you.) Admittedly, these are rare edge cases, but the argument that women are universally unsuited for combat is demonstrably false, because *some* women have always served in combat.
|
I served six months in Afghanistan as part of Canadas' contribution to the security efforts there. The Canadian forces have allowed women in combat roles for a number of years now.
Women in that role are still very rare, but the two I served with were both stout soldiers that I trusted with my life, and trusted me with theirs. Having said that, there's a reason few women can be found in frontline combat roles: most can't meet the physical demands of the job. The CF fitness requirements for women are considerably lower than for men, and those requirements are, in my opinion, too low. If a person can meet the standard required for frontline combat, then I'm all for it. But differing standards for women produce lower quality troops. The two women I served with were definitely above the norm, easily meeting the mens' fitness requirements (except grip strength, in one case).
Bottom line: as long as standards aren't lowered, women can make outstanding troops. Don't compromise those standards, though, just to get more women in frontline posts.
Thanks, JohnLocke. What are other countries stand on women and combat? Don't Israel female soldiers have to have basic arms training, for example? What about the UK? Switzerland, who are suppose to one of the largest civilian militias or something at this time?
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
In the Army, there are different, lower physical standards for female service members than there are for males. Take a look at these charts that show the US Army PT standards. You'll notice that in some events the standards for males and females are drastically different. ...
All right, you made my day, Charlie. I'm an out-of-shape 48-year-old, and I'm able to do 59 push-ups and 66 sit-ups, the maximum requirement for a coot my age. (Of course, my knees are shot, so I can't run two miles under most conditions, and I'm about 20 pounds over the maximum weight I'd be allowed to carry...)
|
... If you watch it, you'll see the question is moot: women already are serving in combat (just not getting recognized).This.
Also, women have served in combat in most wars. There are documented cases of women serving in combat that go far back in history, albeit only because they disguised themselves as men. Popular folk tales have even sprung up about it. (Hello, Mulan, I'm looking at you.) Admittedly, these are rare edge cases, but the argument that women are universally unsuited for combat is demonstrably false, because *some* women have always served in combat.
Hell, anyone with any doubts on that should just work their way down this list.
I served six months in Afghanistan as part of Canadas' contribution to the security efforts there. The Canadian forces have allowed women in combat roles for a number of years now.
So have the Israelis, and for that matter just about everyone else. save for us Anglo type nations.
Actually the fact of the matter is that women even in the U.S. are on the front line as support troops. and are exposed to many of the same risks. There is a pay issue though, as the roles they are in are not classified as combat.
The Pay issue is a hard one - are support troops going out on combat missions are they engaged in taking the fight to the enemy?
If they are responding to attacks on their positions then they are doing their jobs, then they should have the pay-grade for being a war zone but not combat pay (probably works differently in the Australian Army).
Paying somebody who is in a very dangerous job and somebody who actively put themselves in a fire fight the same amount is a good way to de-motivate soldiers.
Like I said before if you meet the requirements for a professional front line soldier then you should be allowed to serve as as one. That does not mean that the bar should be lowered. The male to female ratio in this case will be skewed towards the male because of physical differences.
Just to point out one of my heroes Nancy Wake the "White Mouse" .
|
|
As a combat vet, I can tell you that under just the right set of circumstances any line can be the front line. I have fought alongside women in combat on a few occasions and they are just as capable as men of getting the job done. In fact there was one woman in our unit that was scary good when the bullets started flying. As long as they can do the job, there is no reason that gender should be a consideration.
|
|
As a combat vet, I can tell you that under just the right set of circumstances any line can be the front line. I have fought alongside women in combat on a few occasions and they are just as capable as men of getting the job done. In fact there was one woman in our unit that was scary good when the bullets started flying. As long as they can do the job, there is no reason that gender should be a consideration.
+1.
As a combat vet, I can tell you that under just the right set of circumstances any line can be the front line. I have fought alongside women in combat on a few occasions and they are just as capable as men of getting the job done. In fact there was one woman in our unit that was scary good when the bullets started flying. As long as they can do the job, there is no reason that gender should be a consideration.
If only 1% can do the job should we restructure the force for that 1%?
1% is an arbitrary number for the sake of discussion, BTW.
|
|
As a combat vet, I can tell you that under just the right set of circumstances any line can be the front line. I have fought alongside women in combat on a few occasions and they are just as capable as men of getting the job done. In fact there was one woman in our unit that was scary good when the bullets started flying. As long as they can do the job, there is no reason that gender should be a consideration.If only 1% can do the job should we restructure the force for that 1%?
1% is an arbitrary number for the sake of discussion, BTW.
Yes, if only 1% can do the job we should restructure the force for that 1%. The fact of the matter is that not every man is cut out for combat duty either. This may be physical or it could be for psychological reasons. That is why some people develop shellshock following their first taste of combat. That is why some men freeze up even in training exercises, because they are just not cut out for the job. Basic training and AIT do a very good job of weeding out most of those and so the only change is opening those specialties to women. I was assigned to a security squadron in the Air Force and I would say that the mix between men and women was about 75%-25%, I can also say that I do not recall a single woman who decided to take the challenge wash out, although we did have several men in my training unit wash out. Now we were technically not a combat unit, but guarding supply convoys in and out of Bosnia meant that we saw our fair share of it. But honestly yes, if only 1% of enlisted females can do the job then that 1% has the right to do the job. Particularly if it means that their spot is not filled by a male that cannot handle it.
If men and women are equal(and they ARE) Then women should be just as eligible to fight in combat. I know plenty of women that I would rather have by my side in a fight than a man. Plus women are awesome.
|
|
Even if all the physical requirements are the same, do we really want 19 year old co-eds bunking together in combat? Do we honestly think things will run smoother that way?
Again, speaking from my own experience, when we were out in the field there were separate bunks for men and women. If we were sleeping in tents, then it was in different tents. If we managed to have a building to sleep in, which was rare except in exercises, then we curtained off a section for the women to sleep in. The only men allowed in the woman's section was the duty watch and then only in pairs and only after lights out. A lot of times out in the field we just slept in or around our vehicles and nobody I knew felt particularly keen on getting jiggy in a humvee or a PK.
I served six months in Afghanistan as part of Canadas' contribution to the security efforts there. The Canadian forces have allowed women in combat roles for a number of years now.
Women in that role are still very rare, but the two I served with were both stout soldiers that I trusted with my life, and trusted me with theirs. Having said that, there's a reason few women can be found in frontline combat roles: most can't meet the physical demands of the job. The CF fitness requirements for women are considerably lower than for men, and those requirements are, in my opinion, too low. If a person can meet the standard required for frontline combat, then I'm all for it. But differing standards for women produce lower quality troops. The two women I served with were definitely above the norm, easily meeting the mens' fitness requirements (except grip strength, in one case).
Bottom line: as long as standards aren't lowered, women can make outstanding troops. Don't compromise those standards, though, just to get more women in frontline posts.
Did pregnancy have any impact on deployability and unit readiness in your experience?
If a the standards for a woman to gain a front line combat position are lowered compared to those required of a man, then we're putting people's lives at greater risk for political correctness or social experimentation - and I think that's unethical.This is exactly what the US military does. In the Army, there are different, lower physical standards for female service members than there are for males. Take a look at these charts that show the US Army PT standards. You'll notice that in some events the standards for males and females are drastically different. For instance, in the 17-21 age bracket, females receive maximum score for 42 pushups whereas males need 42 pushups just to pass (males need 71 reps to max score on pushups). AFAIK all branches of service have lower PT standards for females. There is an explicit, institutional double standard.
In asymmetric warfare (the kind we fight now where there are no front lines) female service members, no matter whether they are combat arms or not, are just as much at risk as male combat arms soldiers. It's almost a moot point to allow females to serve in combat arms. Actually, females already serve in some combat arms branches. The Field Artillery has had female officers leading troops in combat for two years now.
When did FA start having female officers on gun tracks?
Is the unit readiness impact of females in units less than it was for the first Gulf War?
I assume the Army still can't officially punish female troops for getting pregnant?
Yes, if only 1% can do the job we should restructure the force for that 1%. The fact of the matter is that not every man is cut out for combat duty either. This may be physical or it could be for psychological reasons. That is why some people develop shellshock following their first taste of combat. That is why some men freeze up even in training exercises, because they are just not cut out for the job. Basic training and AIT do a very good job of weeding out most of those and so the only change is opening those specialties to women. I was assigned to a security squadron in the Air Force and I would say that the mix between men and women was about 75%-25%, I can also say that I do not recall a single woman who decided to take the challenge wash out, although we did have several men in my training unit wash out. Now we were technically not a combat unit, but guarding supply convoys in and out of Bosnia meant that we saw our fair share of it. But honestly yes, if only 1% of enlisted females can do the job then that 1% has the right to do the job. Particularly if it means that their spot is not filled by a male that cannot handle it.As a combat vet, I can tell you that under just the right set of circumstances any line can be the front line. I have fought alongside women in combat on a few occasions and they are just as capable as men of getting the job done. In fact there was one woman in our unit that was scary good when the bullets started flying. As long as they can do the job, there is no reason that gender should be a consideration.If only 1% can do the job should we restructure the force for that 1%?
1% is an arbitrary number for the sake of discussion, BTW.
Do you think women should be compelled to sign up for selective service?
Woman are already allowed in many combat roles in the US Army. I serve with a great many woman in Air Defense Artillery. I would be apprehensive to send these same women to Infantry or Field Artillery units where equipment loads can reach 150 pounds or more and shells for the larger guns reach 100 or so pounds a piece. I do not see why a female should not be allowed in an a tank though. I see a tank no different than the attack helicopters they are allowed to pilot. Women and men are different. We both have or strengths and weaknesses. If woman are allowed in the infantry, then things will change to meet the new climate. I doubt there is huge line of women, or men for that matter, that really waiting to join this branch in the first place.
If you are in the Army or Marines, you know how it will end up and how things will be. If you are outside these two branches, you can only speculate as to how this will impact them. Same, but different is alive and well. For frontline troops there needs to be a single pt and rucking standard.
Woman are already allowed in many combat roles in the US Army. I serve with a great many woman in Air Defense Artillery. I would be apprehensive to send these same women to Infantry or Field Artillery units where equipment loads can reach 150 pounds or more and shells for the larger guns reach 100 or so pounds a piece. I do not see why a female should not be allowed in an a tank though. I see a tank no different than the attack helicopters they are allowed to pilot. Women and men are different. We both have or strengths and weaknesses. If woman are allowed in the infantry, then things will change to meet the new climate. I doubt there is huge line of women, or men for that matter, that really waiting to join this branch in the first place.
If you are in the Army or Marines, you know how it will end up and how things will be. If you are outside these two branches, you can only speculate as to how this will impact them. Same, but different is alive and well. For frontline troops there needs to be a single pt and rucking standard.
Does ADA still detach teams to infantry and other combat units?
My personal belief is that if you want to have a gender equal society it needs to be as equal as possible in all respects. It sends a bad message to individuals and business if the government is promoting what basically amounts to sexism in regards to the armed forces. Being a women shouldn't be a reason for the government to hold someone back from serving their country.
I do however disagree with having different standards for men and women, it's a form of sexual discrimination if men have to work to a much higher level to reach the same goal. I imagine it could breed some comtempt in the ranks as the men might feel cheated by the system when women can achieve equal levels of standing without doing as much work. A set of gender-neutral standard should be set and then anyone who can meet them should be accepted. Assignments, positions and ranks should be decided without regard to gender as well.
Yes, women should also have to sign up for Selective Service. Again, in my opinion, it's sexual discrimination towards men that women don't have to.
|
|
Actually no, I don't think women should be compelled to sign up with selective service, but I also do not think that men should be either. During my lifetime the U.S. has prided itself on having an all volunteer army, and it has been enough for what the mission profile. If something were to come along on the scale of World War II then we might have to look at re-opening the draft. The brushfire wars of today don't require it and so I do not think that young men should have to sign up for it, just like we should not have to keep paying a phone tax that was meant to pay for the Spanish-American War.
This article is only distantly related, but it does make me curious what EU nations policies are on placing women in combat arms.
I found this interesting.
this man cannot physically fight this woman.
she, however, cannot be frontline combat in the U.S. military. He could......conceivably. Funny, that.
I was in Nat'l Guard; there were two kinda pretty strong women in A.I.T.; one could do 55 pushups, one could do 150 pushups.
You wouldn't want to f*~$ with the one that could do 150 pushups.
IF they could get past "men do 55 pushups at age 18 to pass P.T., women have to only do 25," or whatever the numbers were,.....then by all means, let them into frontline combat. Probably wouldn't be humping the pig; well, maybe the one that could do 150 pushups.....
this man cannot physically fight this woman.
she, however, cannot be frontline combat in the U.S. military. He could......conceivably. Funny, that.I was in Nat'l Guard; there were two kinda pretty strong women in A.I.T.; one could do 55 pushups, one could do 150 pushups.
You wouldn't want to f%!* with the one that could do 150 pushups.IF they could get past "men do 55 pushups at age 18 to pass P.T., women have to only do 25," or whatever the numbers were,.....then by all means, let them into frontline combat. Probably wouldn't be humping the pig; well, maybe the one that could do 150 pushups.....
I still don't get why we replaced the M60 with the M240B.
Bump for shifty. :)
To award a fat military contract to a favored manufacturer, most likely.
I still don't get why we replaced the M60 with the M240B.
I don't have a better explanation. I got to hump the pig in my 11B days, but I have never gotten to play with M240B. I'm told the M60 is lighter and at least as reliable, so I don't get the upside for dismount.
I don't have a better explanation. I got to hump the pig in my 11B days, but I have never gotten to play with M240B. I'm told the M60 is lighter and at least as reliable, so I don't get the upside for dismount.To award a fat military contract to a favored manufacturer, most likely.
I still don't get why we replaced the M60 with the M240B.
I was a commo puke in the Florida Army Guard in the nineties, so I only ever shot the damn thing and cleaned it a little bit.
I think the SAW or 240B was introduced in the regular army by then, I can't remember, but Guard still had 60's......We did other fun self torture that I can't talk about cos it's secret communication stuff and it's not that thrilling anyway; if it doesn't compare to humping a pig then good Lordy, cause I did some manual f@$!ing labor back in the day.
I did BAT detail once; that was dreary. Big ass orange rockets.......ugh.
I don't have a better explanation. I got to hump the pig in my 11B days, but I have never gotten to play with M240B. I'm told the M60 is lighter and at least as reliable, so I don't get the upside for dismount.To award a fat military contract to a favored manufacturer, most likely.
I still don't get why we replaced the M60 with the M240B.
I was a commo puke in the Florida Army Guard in the nineties, so I only ever shot the damn thing and cleaned it a little bit.
I think the SAW or 240B was introduced in the regular army by then, I can't remember, but Guard still had 60's......
We did other fun self torture that I can't talk about cos it's secret communication stuff and it's not that thrilling anyway; if it doesn't compare to humping a pig then good Lordy, cause I did some manual f%!@ing labor back in the day.I did BAT detail once; that was dreary. Big ass orange rockets.......ugh.
BAT detail?
|
|
Even if all the physical requirements are the same, do we really want 19 year old co-eds bunking together in combat? Do we honestly think things will run smoother that way?Perhaps this might be a somewhat un-PC suggestion, but what if female soldiers were required to have a Depo-prevara (or other long-term, rather than daily dose) shot while serving active combat duty?
On the other hand, there has been some research done into a perscription male contraceptive also. Perhaps it will be ready by the time this change is enacted. In that case, both men and women should be dosed just for good measure.
On the other front, I think that there should be one universal set of physical standards. Anyone who meets them should be allowed to serve. That being said, the standards should not be watered down. They should realistically reflect the physical requirements of combat.
For the record, I've never served in any branch of the military.
In my (1st gulf war) experience, pregnancy and other physical issues rendered very large portions of support units with females non-deployable. IIRC, pregnancy alone rendered ~ 20% of females non-deployeble. Mandating temporary chemical sterilization raises numerous human rights issues.
I have trouble seeing how we deal with these issues in the current deployment rotation for combat arms.
During the second Gulf War, I was stationed on the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower. Ironically numbered CVN-69. We were the first combat vessel to have women permanantly stationed on board and over the course of a six month deployment... I forget the actual number of girls sent home due to their 'delicate condition' but it was significant enough to earn us the nick name, 'The Love Boat'... :/
As for the 'our soldiers are professionals' argument. Yes, they are. They are also 19 and 20 year old hormonally driven persons in very stressful situations. Self control is not always their strongest trait.
I still don't get why we replaced the M60 with the M240B.
Because a 5.56mm support weapon was better logistically than having a 7.62mm. If all the weapons systems use 5.56 life is much easier.
On a related tangent, you can carry a LOT more 5.56mm link (or loose) than you can 7.62, which means you can sustain fire for longer in a support role.
The 5.56 round also has 'more favourable' charachteristics when hitting a target, which is a different debate.
Engagement ranges are also (generally) close enough for the 5.56 to reach out and touch the enemy; there isn't as much need for the longer range of the 7.62. That being said, there's quite a few countries rethinking this and looking at bringing 7.62's (Like the MAG-58, M60 etc) back into service due to experience in Afghanistan.
Back on topic, I agree with the posters who go down the whole equal=equal route, I was raised by a devout femi-nazi and was raised on a steady diet of 'anti-patriarchal society' rants, so am well across all arguments.
In an equal world, if they can pull their weight then they should be given a shot - its not that 'women' can't cut it as Infanteers - most average males can't cut it either. It's a rough and unforgiving role.
When asked 'my opinion' on the matter, my PERSONAL feeling is that I would prefer they weren't there.
Maybe I'm a dinosaur, maybe I'm a walking anachronism, but frankly at heart I'm a big fat peacenik. I want us all to be able to just live and let live, and no one to go and kick over anyone elses sandcastle... you know, just live a nice peaceful life where no one is sh****g on other people due to some crazy dogma or stepping on someone in an abuse of their basic human rights.
My nature is such that I seek to do the right thing, and when I see an injustice I feel drawn to comment; I see someone being attacked, I feel drawn to intervene... I'm very protective of my global village, and especially protective of those in it that I feel are generally more vulnerable - hence I react very strongly when its women and children in harms way.
Actively putting women in the frontline of combat thus feels alien and counterintuitive, I dont want to see my fellow man getting killed, women even less so - but the truth is that inevitably some kid in the yard just wont let people be and thus there will be war - and some of us are going to have to be the ones to deal with it. I'm more comfortable dealing with that threat with a group of like peers. It's just how I feel.
Now with all that said, I recognise that sometimes we don't have the luxury of having a convenient battlespace, and that sometimes 'stuff happens', so I am ALL about providing women (being generally more vulnerable) access to skills and training that will save their lives... I'm all for girls to be taught how to fight and look after themselves to increase their survivability - but that aint the same as making a decision to send them to the meatgrinder.
I also have another thought on it once I became a father - I don't want women on the frontline, even voluntarily, because once they can be there as volunteers, they might one day be there as conscripts... and I'm too protective for that to hold any appeal.
I happily shoulder the burden of Infanteering so they wont have to.
If a daughter wanted to do her bit and serve then go with my blessing, but as a father I'd sleep better knowing they weren't pushing for the pointy end.
Now I'm gonna go hug a tree and admire some rainbows.
|
|
When asked 'my opinion' on the matter, my PERSONAL feeling is that I would prefer they weren't there.
Maybe I'm a dinosaur, maybe I'm a walking anachronism, but frankly at heart I'm a big fat peacenik. I want us all to be able to just live and let live, and no one to go and kick over anyone elses sandcastle... you know, just live a nice peaceful life where no one is sh****g on other people due to some crazy dogma or stepping on someone in an abuse of their basic human rights.
My nature is such that I seek to do the right thing, and when I see an injustice I feel drawn to comment; I see someone being attacked, I feel drawn to intervene... I'm very protective of my global village, and especially protective of those in it that I feel are generally more vulnerable - hence I react very strongly when its women and children in harms way.
Actively putting women in the frontline of combat thus feels alien and counterintuitive, I dont want to see my fellow man getting killed, women even less so - but the truth is that inevitably some kid in the yard just wont let people be and thus there will be war - and some of us are going to have to be the ones to deal with it. I'm more comfortable dealing with that threat with a group of like peers. It's just how I feel.
Now with all that said, I recognise that sometimes we don't have the luxury of having a convenient battlespace, and that sometimes 'stuff happens', so I am ALL about providing women (being generally more vulnerable) access to skills and training that will save their lives... I'm all for girls to be taught how to fight and look after themselves to increase their survivability - but that aint the same as making a decision to send them to the meatgrinder.
I also have another thought on it once I became a father - I don't want women on the frontline, even voluntarily, because once they can be there as volunteers, they might one day be there as conscripts... and I'm too protective for that to hold any appeal.
I happily shoulder the burden of Infanteering so they wont have to.
If a daughter wanted to do her bit and serve then go with my blessing, but as a father I'd sleep better knowing they weren't pushing for the pointy end.
This pretty well sums up my own personal feelings. Whether then can or not, I'd rather they weren't. I realize that's a pretty un-PC opinion, and I'm OK with that. I have lots of un-PC opinions.
Now I'm gonna go hug a tree and admire some rainbows.
Preach it brother.
The pig was my best friend back in the day. I got to the point where I was a bet shot with it than with a M-16.
I never really had a gift for the M60 or the M2, but I loved the M203. One of these days I'd like to spend the money to live fire one of the new six shooter 40mm.
I still don't get why we replaced the M60 with the M240B.Because a 5.56mm support weapon was better logistically than having a 7.62mm. If all the weapons systems use 5.56 life is much easier.
On a related tangent, you can carry a LOT more 5.56mm link (or loose) than you can 7.62, which means you can sustain fire for longer in a support role.
The 5.56 round also has 'more favourable' charachteristics when hitting a target, which is a different debate.
Engagement ranges are also (generally) close enough for the 5.56 to reach out and touch the enemy; there isn't as much need for the longer range of the 7.62. That being said, there's quite a few countries rethinking this and looking at bringing 7.62's (Like the MAG-58, M60 etc) back into service due to experience in Afghanistan.
Back on topic, I agree with the posters who go down the whole equal=equal route, I was raised by a devout femi-nazi and was raised on a steady diet of 'anti-patriarchal society' rants, so am well across all arguments.
In an equal world, if they can pull their weight then they should be given a shot - its not that 'women' can't cut it as Infanteers - most average males can't cut it either. It's a rough and unforgiving role.
When asked 'my opinion' on the matter, my PERSONAL feeling is that I would prefer they weren't there.
Maybe I'm a dinosaur, maybe I'm a walking anachronism, but frankly at heart I'm a big fat peacenik. I want us all to be able to just live and let live, and no one to go and kick over anyone elses sandcastle... you know, just live a nice peaceful life where no one is sh****g on other people due to some crazy dogma or stepping on someone in an abuse of their basic human rights.
My nature is such that I seek to do the right thing, and when I see an injustice I feel drawn to comment; I see someone being attacked, I feel drawn to intervene... I'm very protective of my global village, and especially protective of those in it that I feel are generally more...
Thanks for the input shifty.
I was thinking about the M240B (7.62) rather than the M249 SAW (5.56), BTW.
Have you guys had female support personal attached to combat patrols on deployment? Medics have been the majority that I have heard about for US infantry, but I'm not sure how you guys handle support attachment to infantry units for combat missions. In any case I'm curious how having females in forward deployed combat units has worked in your experience.
One of these days I'd like to spend the money to live fire one of the new six shooter 40mm.Same here. That and the fully auto shotgun.
I was very disappointed by the reliability of the USAS 12 when I got to fire a couple of 10 round magazines on full auto. I had a malfunction with each magazine. The recoil wasn't bad at all, but I have no tolerance unreliability.