Much Ado About Nothing? Army Expects Few Women To Opt For Combat Arms If Fields Are Opened To Them.

2015-07-01T11:18:19-04:00

Despite the heavy publicity and heated debate both within the Army from the lowest levels all the way up through the rings of the Pentagon and to Capitol Hill, polling research conducted on behalf of the Army indicates that if and/or when MOSs and Combat Arms Branches of Infantry and Armor do remove current gender restrictions, only a small percentage of Army women would consider pursuing reassignment to one of these fields.

What say you, RP Nation? Does this research match your reality in the field today? Why or why not?

Army Expects Few Women to Choose Combat Arms if Positions are Opened

Studies show that a small percentage of women would try for an infantry or armor MOS if gender restrictions were lifted.

Response by SGT Joseph Goldman made Jul 1 at 2015 11:21 AM

2015-07-01T11:21:02-04:00

I think that any number of women who would opt in for such an assignment or opportunity would still be a relative number in comparison with the size of the total force strength. That being said, I have personally witnessed women under fire in combat and I have no doubt that there are those capable. If the country can accept everything this administration has done and continues to do, regardless of controversy, then it is up to those who choose to.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Jul 1 at 2015 11:39 AM

2015-07-01T11:39:03-04:00

AT some point the needs of the Army will outweigh personal preference so once the doors are open all's fair in branch assignments. At that point there will probably be complaints arising that men are given preference over women for combat arms assignment/reassignments/branch detailing but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

Response by SFC Stephen King made Jul 1 at 2015 11:41 AM

2015-07-01T11:41:59-04:00

One team one Fight.

I say go for it. As for the data we will see.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 1 at 2015 11:57 AM

2015-07-01T11:57:40-04:00

I know it's a far cry from the Army, sir, but I couldn't help thinking "Hell, Security Forces have had females forever & we have combat roles (well, as much as one can in the Air Force :) )" I found this article:

Security Forces - Not SOF, but Impressive Still | SOFREP

The military is ripe with their own acronyms; put a few veterans together and a language is spoken few civilians could truly follow. As interesting as the

Response by SSG John Erny made Jul 1 at 2015 12:11 PM

2015-07-01T12:11:04-04:00

Some Women will choose not to go into Combat Arms for the Same Reason some men don't. A 125 pound guy may not like the Idea of loading heavy 155MM Shells all day, same for a 110 pound female. A strong athletic female may like the idea of being on a canon crew.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jul 1 at 2015 12:36 PM

2015-07-01T12:36:40-04:00

I love numbers games.

15%~ of the total force structure is Female. However that is Service wide. If you look at each service you will see marked differences. The Marine Corps only has about 7% women, while I think the USAF is closer to 20+%.

The Combat Arms field is "self selecting" (at least in the USMC) in other words, no one ends up there "open contract." You have to choose to go there. So it's really a question of how much the needle is going to shift?

The first question that must be asked is:

"Is the inability to serve in a specific role preventing someone from choosing to serve at all?"

I don't think this is happening. I don't think we have a "Grunt or Bust" situation, because (at least in the USMC) you choose an OCCFIELD, not an MOS. Even so, they have four services to choose from, and a variety of options.

The USMC recently did some testing out in lovely 29 palms, and there estimation was 0-2 females in a PLATOON, if I recall correctly, where 2 was considered HIGH. That would place an Infantry BN around 20-30 tops including H&S Company.

In other words "Much ado about nothing."