Conference repair::reserve_forces

I have frequently heard it said it was to avoid women becoming POWs, this has
many connotations: it is bad for moral, it makes men take risks to save women
that they wouldn't take to save men, hence endangering a mission. And of course 
if a woman is taken with men then there are obvious possibilities for torture 
and mistreatment that "don't bear thinking about".

That said Britain does have some women in combat roles (military intelligence,
MI5/MI6, and during WWII the other undercover operations). They fought superbly
well and very bravely. I had a woman as my No. 2 when I was on active service
in Indo-China and on one occasion at least I undoubtedly owe my life to her
quickness of reaction.

I suspect other reasons (lack of mixed barrackroom accomodation, toilet/shower 
facilities etc) will wither away in the near future.

/. Ian .\

    Re .0:
    
    Some of the best Navy Radiomen (RM's) I served with were women. BTW, the
    US Navy refers to all people, male or female, who work in Naval
    Communications as "Radiomen". Similarly, female Snipes (engineering
    rates) who are so rated are known as Enginemen to give another example.
    
    The only problem is when the Fleet is short of RM's and they raid
    the shore stations for bodies, it is the male RM's who usually take
    it on the chin because female RM's can't be assigned by law (yet)
    to combat ships.
    
    Mark
    RMC USNR 

    There's quite a lot been said about women in the military. Generally,
    I'm supportive of women being given the opportunity to do the job.
    I will agree that 'the average woman' can't handle the rigors of
    combat arms assignments. But, I don't believe that that should pre-
    vent those that may be able from trying. The problem is that noone
    can agree on the how. The natural attraction of the sexes is a very
    strong factor. Most young men that join the military are driven to
    meet the requirements and 'be a man'. Its a problem with our society
    in general. Until each individual is driven to be the best that they
    can 'as an individual', the problem won't go away.
    
    I'm in a unit now (CEWI), that has very stringent mental and
    'background' requirements, while downplaying the physical aspects.
    We are a combat unit, meaning that our assignment is on the front
    lines. Technically, the positions in my company are 'male only'.
    We are being allowed to fill positions with women, because we can't
    get enough men. The women that we get, have to realize that we go
    to the woods, sleep on the ground and eat field rations 'cold'. If
    they aren't willing to put up with these conditions, they don't last
    long. Those that stay can usually function just as well as their
    male counterparts, some better. I would have no qualms about going
    to war with those that chose to stay.
    
    Bob Mc

    As in your unit, we have women in ours.  They go through the same
    phtsical training but there is a less damming attitude if they can't
    quite manage all of it.  However, on patrols etc they carry the
    radio and an SMG whereas the men carry the L1A1.  The women accompany
    the patrol leader of course. So they are probably carrying more
    weight and running around more as well.
    
    On the last exercise we did a section attack and from about 10 feet
    away a thunderflash suddenly loomed into view.  I shouted "GRENADE"
    as is required. I knew there was a woman behind me so rather than
    just diving for cover I turned and pushed her down first, making
    sure I afforded her some cover.  Had a man been behind me I would
    have just dived.  I did not really think about my actions until
    later in the day.  Incidentally, our normally quiet Susie let out
    a few expletives when the thunderflash exploded, I was quite impressed.
    To make matters worse both our weapons jammed so all we could do 
    afterwards was charge shouting BANG BANG BANG.
               
    The women never form all-female OP's and are not trained on any
    weapon other than the SMG. But they do as much walking and running,
    endure the same discomforts and food etc.  As for their privacy, we turn
    our backs at a respectable distance.
    
    I think my unit have a fairer attitude than other similiar units,
    though I would like the tasks not to be so segregated.  Few males
    learn more than basic signals or first aid for example.
    
    Dave 

    As Bob expressed in the title of his reply, they can shoot, too.  Some
    of the finest snipers in the world have been, and are, women.  It takes
    a particular temprament and psychological profile to be a successful
    sniper and a greater percentage of women than men seem to qualify.  I
    don't know why, maybe it's the way our society treats them.  
    
    The women that I've had the privilege of shooting with on rifle ranges
    have, without exception, taken marksmanship very seriously.  They seem
    to have an inate ability to focus on the task at hand and to exclude
    distractions.
    
    Most major police forces put women into the same hazardous duty patrol
    and response situations as men, at least in the US.  Their reaction to
    danger, their ability to use deadly force, and their protection of
    their partner is as good as or better than the average man.
    
    It's too bad that we continue to exclude this tremendous force from our
    US combat units.
    
    Len

    Re .5:
    
    I agree about women being more adept as a rule than men at focusing
    on the task at hand and ignoring distractions (although all RM's
    and ET's, male and female, in my last USNR unit were trained to ignore
    extraneous distractions and focus on whatever was happening in front
    of them, no matter what was going on around them).
    
    For those of you who are communicators, a tech. control facility
    can be a busy place. There are constant interruptions both locally
    and over various circuits. When things go wrong, they can wrong
    big time. The women did as well or better than most men in the focusing
    task mentioned earlier - most seemed to have a talent for it.
    
    One other aspect of my last unit was that people assigned to us
    had to be able to function either as an individual and use their
    own initiative/judgement without orders or as part of a team taking
    orders from a watch supervisor, although much emphasis was placed
    on functioning as an individual. They also had to be able to switch
    back and forth between the two states at will. The job requirements
    gave us a unit that could be somewhat unmilitary at times (at least
    by Fleet standards) but it also gave us a unit of fairly
    self-sustaining people who could be set down just about anywhere
    in more or less total isolation or as part of a larger group.
    
    How does that relate to the women in our unit? Well, they turned
    out to be as flexible and adaptable in general as the men. All in
    all, they were pretty good sailors.
    
    Mark
    RMC USNR

    Dave,
    
    I was surprised to read that your girlies in your unit carry the
    SMG, in our unit we have to carry the SLC and four loaded magazines.
    
    One of the girlies in our unit wants to be a Gunner, but they wouldn't
    let her, although saying that there were rumours going round that
    they wanted me to be the gunner using the GPMG, something to do
    with my height and build or so I heard.
    
    I know the ladies weapon should be the SMG but in our unit they
    won't let us use it, they said that as we are in an Infantry unit
    we must learn to use the SLR and realise just how much the men have
    to carry, so the only time I ever used the SMG was on the selection
    weekend, and I haven't touched it since.
    
    Anyway, I like the SLR, because I like my weapons to be powerful!!!!
    
    Dustie

    
    ref .7 SLC with four magazines.
    
    	Dustie, what the hell is an SLC ?? Is it some kind of medic
    secret weapon ??
    					Steve..

    		Self loading catapult????
                                                           
   Full/semi-automatic including single shot. Night sights maybe.
    
    Steve, remember what happened with David and Goliath and how it
    happened?
    
    I wonder if a SF version is available? Maybe Ian P. could comment.
    
    Dave

To repeat the present situation is that there are basically three discrete 
weapons systems: (in the Brit forces today)

The SMG is a 9mm

The SLR and GPMG are 7.62mm with no common parts.

When re-equipment is complete there will be a single weapon system: the SA80.
It comes in three variants.

Standard: just about short enought to go through a standard doorway horizontally
(this proved to be the biggest bug-bear of the SLR in urban warfare). Can be 
fitted with a grenade launcher and a bayonet

SMG replacement: short barrel and vertical fore-grip. Not light.

GPMG replacement: long barrel and a bipod.

Apart from the barrel and fore-grip all parts are interchangeable common, by 
interchanging barrel and foregrip you change one variant to another. 

---

Without my references isn't the SLC a carbine, rather than an smg?

So everyone better get used to carrying the same, 'cos that's what you'll be
doing in the British army. Incidentally the SA80 will in due course be replaced
by a similar system using caseless ammo - no more hot cases spewing out under 
your right eye! and the lefties will be able to shoot naturally again.

But what will Range Officers do - no need to police the firing points for 
empties any more :-)

/. Ian .\

    
    Dave/Steve,
    
    I have one thing to say to the both of you.
    
    ******* ******  *******   ******   ********
    
    
    Right now thats out of the way, I must say I feel alot better for
    that.
    
    The SLC is, if anybody is interested is the Southern Logistics Centre,
    I was meant to refer to the SLR which is for the thickies like Steve
    and Dave the Self Loading Rifle and not a Self Loading
    Catapult...Plonker.  Unfortunately I was thinking about work, which
    I believe both Steve and Dave don't do alot of, as  their always
    hounding me to read the Notes file.
                                                             
    
    Dustie
    
    
    
    

    Recently, it was announced over here that women are to be taught
    to fly by the RAF, and go to sea with the RN, if suitable.
    
    How do you old squids feel about sharing a cruise with women on
    board?   Part-time female Sailors....Squidettes..

And then of course their is the opinion of the wives of the sailors who will
now be sailing with female sailors.

Several have said "its them or us"...

/. Ian .\

    The events that will occur between two (or more) consenting adults of
    either the same or different sex will occur independent of any Navy's
    Policies.  Those individuals, whether male or female, seeking
    companionship will seek it, and probably find it either at sea or in
    port.
    
    Though the confines of shipboard living might give opportunities not
    otherwise available, it still takes "two-to-tango", so to speak.  I
    personally feel that the stereo-typical belief that females serving
    aboard Naval Vessels have the collateral duty of physical
    companionship, or even the inclination to engage in such activity, is
    both short-sighted and unfair.  If the wives of present day sailors are
    concerned, I wonder how the husbands of potential female sailors feel. 
    In eiher case, insecurity is probably a greater driver than hard (no
    pun intended) evidence.
    
    I'm constantly amazed by these concerns and how they may become self
    fulfilling prophesies.  "Gee whiz!  Seaman Jones and his wife Suzy are
    getting a divorce.  Did you you know that there are women on Jonesy's
    ship?  That must be the reason!"  Off course, that fact that the
    marriage was shakey anyway never enters into it.
    
    I can recall, in the ancient days of my Active Service, a number of 
    male-female (both officer and enlisted, and all combinations thereof) 
    'affairs' that took place.  No one seemed too concerned.  And, yes, there 
    was a high (in my opinion) divorce rate - however, extramarital affairs 
    was a small percentage of the cause.
    
    Biological drive aside, why can't we treat all professionals as exactly
    that - Professionals?  Let folks do their jobs.
    
    	Bill Tarmey (who had one of the first Female US Naval Aviators
    		     as a student......TWENTY years ago!  I think she was
    		     actually Coast Guard, now that I think about it.)
    

Actually the wives of today's RN sailors are citing as evidence the results 
of the US navy allowing women to serve at sea. I forget the figures but the 
pregnancy rate amongst un-married female seagoing personnel was certainly
grounds for concern...

/. Ian .\

    RE: .15
    
    Ian,
    
         You obviously have more, and more current, data than I.  However,
    I would caution you you to carefully look at and understand (if you're
    so inclined) the information presented.
    
         As an example.  Based on personal observation within Digital
    Boxboro, I could honestly state the following:  Over the past year,
    there has been an extremely high rate of Secretary pregnancies.  Also,
    based on personal observations, the same condition seems to have
    inflicted the Female Engineering Community.  I have further noticed
    that many of the Females in this building are not married.   However, 
    marital status notwithstanding, since the work here requires close 
    contact, frequent 'after hours' effort, and occassionally requires that 
    I travel with Females, my wife believes there is a strong case for 
    eliminating females from the Boxboro workforce.
    
         Now, I think to most that sounds ludicrous.  But, where is that 
    logic flow different?  By the way, is the above really ludicrous?  When 
    I left the hallowed halls of General Electric, to start a career with
    DEC, my wife had heard from concerned friends that the DEC divorce rate 
    was very high.  She was very concerned.  You know something?  Based on 
    what I saw and heard after I got here, what she had heard was correct.  
    Somehow - and I am far from a shy, bashful, angel-like individual - we 
    have survived for more than ten years.
    
         So, be careful with statistics - as a Quality Professional, I have
    found that few people use statistics, but many abuse them.  Someone
    once said, "Figures don't lie, but liars figure".  What might seem to be 
    a logical progression based on our system of beliefs, might only be a 
    series of totally unrelated, independent events.
    
         A rhetorical question:  If the sexual connotation is removed, I
    wonder why it is that we (the macro-we) really don't want Females aboard 
    Naval Vessels?
    
    		Bill Tarmey
    
    

    Re last couple:
    
    Current Navy policy (if I remember correctly) is that fraternization
    is a no-no. It used to be that fraternization was OK within certain
    limits (no sexual harassment, etc). However, as a result of a
    celebrated case (i.e., a certain male Reserve Admiral who was divorced 
    dated a female junior officer and the feces hit the fan), the
    fraternization rule was tightened up.
    
    Females can serve aboard US non-combatant ships (everything from
    destroyer tenders to tugboats). However, in an all-out war even
    non-combatants can become "combatant". There is some friction between
    male and female sailors because the female sailors, due to the current
    law, tend to dominate any open billets on the non-combatant ships,
    thus extending the tours of the male sailors aboard combatant ships.
    
    I've deployed overseas with female RM's and ET's. In general, they
    are just as capable as their male counterparts. True, they don't
    have the upper body strength that most males have so they weren't
    able to participate as fully in loading up the C-130's as the males
    but as far as standing radio watch was concerned, they held their
    own.
    
    FWIW,
    
    Mark
    RMC USNR

    Thank goodness.  There is life out there. 
    I'ld been away for a few days and there was very little to read 
    when I returned.  
    IMVHO, this is one of my favourite conferences and I thought it
    might be drying up.
    
    Keep it coming,
    Dave

Bill, (and others)

I reported only what I read: no protests have come from the sailors - of either
gender - but serious objections are being voiced by the spouses - predominantly 
the wives of male sailors. The basis of the objections is reports they have 
seen of the US experience.

In general terms I can only say that I have served (yes, even in combat 
situations - though not anything that I will discuss here)  with women soldiers
and have no reservations in saying that they are fully capable of filling the
role assigned.

/. Ian .\

    I, also, have seen those reports about the pregnancy rate of
    female, sea-going, sailors. What gets me about the reports, is that
    no effort was made to determine WHERE these women got pregnant.
    It is 'automatically' assumed that they must have gotten pregnant
    while at sea. To me, this is as patently ridiculous as assuming
    that the members of an all-male ship's company that contracted VD
    must have gotten it from the toilet seats during the cruise. It
    had nothing-what-so-ever to do with that little bawdy-house next
    to the port area of that little town they stopped at during the
    cruise.
    
    Those of you that are veterans of guard/reserve ATs, will notice
    that a large number of your buddy's kids were born in the March-
    April-May time frames, depending on when your ATs were normally
    scheduled.
    
    Bob Mc

    I'd love to see some lass get pregnant on a destroyer in the
    North Atlantic, can't be done.....  :-)

careful,

there's some as'd take that as a challenge... :-)

/. Ian .\

    
    As a female, in the reserve forces, I just had to write into this
    one, I agree with most of whats bin said in here so far, and I can
    see the wives points of view, but if the girls are trained to the
    same standard as the lads, then why shouldn't they be allowed out
    at sea, the only reason, I can think that the wives are getting
    upset, is that their marriages are already unstable, and instead
    of the lads bonking in port they can do it at sea. 
    
    But the same can be said for the girls that are married, but you
    don't hear of the husbands complaining.
    
    If the guys/girls have got the horn, they are going to get it whether
    at sea or in port, so what difference does it make.
    
    Ok I'll shut up know.
    
    Dustie

    I can see it now, in years to come part of a standard issue ration pack
    will be a DPM condom 8-)
    
    

    In my former life as a US Army type (Sergeant E-5 Radio Relay Team
    Chief) before I got smart and became a sailor, one of the guys on
    my radio relay site in Germany told me about the time a friend of
    his went on a joint exercise with the French Army in Germany.
    
    My friend's friend was out in the field when he had to answer a
    call of nature. So he found the nearest latrine and was minding
    his own business when a French Army woman GI casually strolled in
    to the latrine and proceeded to answer her call of nature! :-)
    
    I guess the French are bit more casual......
    
    Mark
    RMC USNR

    re .24 I thought you may be interested in this snippet from Soldier
    magazine of 14th May-
    
    "With certain taboos now a thing of the past, I wonder how many
    old soldiers remember the directive issued by Major Gen. Dudly Ward,
    4th British Division, during the "incident" called the Greek Civil
    War in 1944-45. 
    It wen like this:
    Because of the rapid increase in the reported cases of VD during
    our short stay in Athens, every man in his Division will have on
    his person at all times at least two condoms - or whatever his
    capacity.
    CMP's will be empowered to check, and any man not complying with
    these instructions will be charged..."
                         
    From  Mr Clarke, ex- The Black Watch.

    re .26
    
    Sort of like the post-Korean war era when a US soldier couldn't
    go on pass, in Korea, without a 'pro-kit'.
    
    But Dave, whatever made you enter this in the women in combat topic?
    
    Bob Mc

<.20> where did they get pregnant?
	I was on active duty when the USS Yosemite, a destroyer tender, made the
1st cruise with 5 women aboard.  2 came back pregnant, one was when she left,
and didn't know it.  The other flew her husband across the pond for a pierside
visit in Valencia, Spain.  The comment that I thought was cute, but true, was
that there was one instance of 'unauthorized' hugging during the cruise!
	Having been to sea on several cruises, I can see where that could
cause some problems.

	I don't want to see women in combat.  It is bad enough that men have 
to fight, let's fight to protect the ladies at home!

						AT1 USNR (Now)
						   Gary

    
       I don't see any problem with women serving aboard ship, because you
    have logisticle support at hand. I don't feel women should serve in any
    direct combat related job where you have prolonged field time
       
        We had a female try to keep up with us in the field at Ft. Campbell
    KY. she insisted she could keep the pace. I admit alot of us thought
    she might be able to. I'll never forget, It was november, It was
    raining, cold. Just a very raw day. Perfect Infantry weather, We moved
    all night long, totally tacticle. After a night of moving through ft.
    cam. woods, she was not a happy camper. As far as we were concerned she
    was an extra body, besides her normal gear, she carried the commo
    wire,3 batteries for the prc-77, ammo for the M-60. Standard packing
    list for our squads. NO SPEACIAL FAVORS. well that night she wanted to
    know where she could go relieve herself. We told her that since we are
    in a temp. defense, 360 deg perimeter she had to do it inside the
    circle. Then we told her that she needed to have someone pull security
    while she did it. She thought we were doing it to because she was a
    female. Not so.She changed her mind about the role of a female in
    combat arms real quick. There is no dought in my mind that a women
    could do the job, HOWEVER, the many problems that females would create
    in a combat enviorment would definately decrease the efectiveness of a
    quick strike force like the u.s. infantry.