Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-05-2018, 08:55 AM
Lucas Jackson Lucas Jackson is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,541
Women military snipers

A few questions about women snipers.

Are there currently any female snipers in the US military?

Are women allowed into US military sniper training programs?

Are there active female snipers in any foreign army?

If yes to any of the above, whatís the longest confirmed kill by a female sniper?
  #2  
Old 08-05-2018, 09:09 AM
Joey P Joey P is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 27,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucas Jackson View Post

Are there active female snipers in any foreign army?
I don't know about active snipers, but Dr Ruth was one in the 40's.
And, while looking up this clip, there appears to be lists of other female snipers on the internet, but I didn't look at them so I couldn't tell you what's on them.
  #3  
Old 08-05-2018, 09:27 AM
engineer_comp_geek's Avatar
engineer_comp_geek engineer_comp_geek is offline
Robot Mod in Beta Testing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 21,966
The Soviets allowed women in many combat roles long before the U.S., and in WWII there were about 2500 female snipers in the Soviet army. Only about 500 survived until the end of the war. Lyudmila Pavlichenko is regarded as the most successful female sniper in history with 309 kills. 36 of those kills were German snipers.

The U.S. has only recently opened up combat positions to women. While officially women can now become snipers in the U.S. military, I don't know if any have actually done so yet.

Israel is one of the few countries in the world that has mandatory military service requirements for women. Many women serve in a variety of combat positions, including that of sniper. However, women are not typically placed into positions where actual combat service is likely. Instead, they are often placed in reserve positions.

Germany and Canada also allow women in combat positions, which I presume includes snipers.

I have read about a Syrian all-female sniper unit, and female snipers serve in many countries that were formerly part of the Soviet Union (not really surprising given the role that Soviet women played in combat over the years).
  #4  
Old 08-05-2018, 10:29 AM
Panther Modern's Avatar
Panther Modern Panther Modern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: /home/
Posts: 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineer_comp_geek View Post
The Soviets allowed women in many combat roles long before the U.S., and in WWII there were about 2500 female snipers in the Soviet army. Only about 500 survived until the end of the war. Lyudmila Pavlichenko is regarded as the most successful female sniper in history with 309 kills. 36 of those kills were German snipers.
Battle for Sevastopol focuses on Lyudmila Pavlichenko.

Another movie about Soviet snipers, which I recommend to all, is Enemy at the Gates.
  #5  
Old 08-05-2018, 02:01 PM
SanDiegoTim SanDiegoTim is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,527
Having nothing to do with marksmanship skills and/or intelligence, I doubt many women would make it through Marine Scout Sniper School. Too physically demanding.

Last edited by SanDiegoTim; 08-05-2018 at 02:02 PM.
  #6  
Old 08-05-2018, 02:18 PM
Loach Loach is online now
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 24,232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panther Modern View Post
Battle for Sevastopol focuses on Lyudmila Pavlichenko.

Another movie about Soviet snipers, which I recommend to all, is Enemy at the Gates.
Although undoubtedly real people and heroes both were also products of the Soviet propaganda machine. Enemy at the Gates is based on an account of a sniper duel which most likely didnít happen.
  #7  
Old 08-05-2018, 07:37 PM
Lucas Jackson Lucas Jackson is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanDiegoTim View Post
Having nothing to do with marksmanship skills and/or intelligence, I doubt many women would make it through Marine Scout Sniper School. Too physically demanding.
Care to elaborate?
  #8  
Old 08-05-2018, 09:11 PM
Gray Ghost Gray Ghost is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucas Jackson View Post
Care to elaborate?
Not a sniper, never been a soldier, but the physical loads that scout/snipers and USA snipers have to carry is enormous. They are light infantry, and light infantry traditionally in the US, well, at least for the last 40 years or so, carry some of the biggest loads in the entire Army.

Shooting is a very small part of the job; most of it is sitting somewhere, unobserved, seeing what's going on, and timely telling someone else what that is. To do that, you need: radios, GPS gear, designators, night vision, optics, batteries to run all of that, the materials to construct your hide/shelter, food, water, personal items, armor, your weapons, other weapons like anti-tank rockets, and so on, and so on. All of it on your back or whatever local transport you can use. It's not a small load.

People have this idea that snipers are just like what the Soviets bragged about; that Ludmilla could take a Moisin, 40 cartridges, a salami, and a loaf of bread, and go bag a dozen Germans. It doesn't work that way.
  #9  
Old 08-05-2018, 10:25 PM
Mangosteen Mangosteen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Namche Bazaar
Posts: 2,379
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost View Post
Not a sniper, never been a soldier, but the physical loads that scout/snipers and USA snipers have to carry is enormous. They are light infantry, and light infantry traditionally in the US, well, at least for the last 40 years or so, carry some of the biggest loads in the entire Army.

Shooting is a very small part of the job; most of it is sitting somewhere, unobserved, seeing what's going on, and timely telling someone else what that is. To do that, you need: radios, GPS gear, designators, night vision, optics, batteries to run all of that, the materials to construct your hide/shelter, food, water, personal items, armor, your weapons, other weapons like anti-tank rockets, and so on, and so on. All of it on your back or whatever local transport you can use. It's not a small load.

People have this idea that snipers are just like what the Soviets bragged about; that Ludmilla could take a Moisin, 40 cartridges, a salami, and a loaf of bread, and go bag a dozen Germans. It doesn't work that way.
"A 2007 study found Marines typically carry 97 to 135 pounds of gear". Would this be more or less than a sniper would carry? This sounds like a lot of weight even for an above average strength male, but a women? Sorry, but she'd have to be one in a million. Even in training, the terrain and heat conditions where they are carrying this weight are often horrific, but actual combat conditions would be even worse.
__________________
Its only funny until someone gets hurt, then its fuckin' hilarious!
  #10  
Old 08-05-2018, 10:34 PM
Tim@T-Bonham.net Tim@T-Bonham.net is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 14,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucas Jackson View Post
If yes to any of the above, whatís the longest confirmed kill by a female sniper?
The 'longest' isn't really important in snipers, that's from the current emphasis on it. What really matters is the count of enemies sniped -- the consistency of their work.

And sometimes the vital-ness of the person they kill matters, but that is becoming less important as battles are more planned. Like the sniper who killed Admiral Nelson at Trafalgar -- that might have been important, for Nelson could have been crucial to Britain in the future. But the Trafalgar battle was already won by Nelsons' plans for his fleet, and succeeded despite his death.
  #11  
Old 08-05-2018, 11:07 PM
Lucas Jackson Lucas Jackson is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim@T-Bonham.net View Post
The 'longest' isn't really important in snipers, that's from the current emphasis on it. What really matters is the count of enemies sniped -- the consistency of their work.

And sometimes the vital-ness of the person they kill matters, but that is becoming less important as battles are more planned. Like the sniper who killed Admiral Nelson at Trafalgar -- that might have been important, for Nelson could have been crucial to Britain in the future. But the Trafalgar battle was already won by Nelsons' plans for his fleet, and succeeded despite his death.
I didnít say or imply that I thought it was important. But there does seem to be an emphasis on it and it is a judge of skill. Also, it seems records of this is being kept up with so someone thinks itís important. Thus my question.
  #12  
Old 08-06-2018, 03:08 AM
engineer_comp_geek's Avatar
engineer_comp_geek engineer_comp_geek is offline
Robot Mod in Beta Testing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 21,966
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost View Post
They are light infantry, and light infantry traditionally in the US, well, at least for the last 40 years or so, carry some of the biggest loads in the entire Army.
Kinda makes me think that calling them "light" infantry is a bit of a misnomer then.
  #13  
Old 08-06-2018, 04:41 AM
Sloe Moe Sloe Moe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 279
In a prolonged war, inside your own country, all those peace time recruitment and training standards will fly out the window, just like what happened in continental Europe, and you will likely have women and even men past 50 in those roles. Some of the best rifle shots I know are well past 50.
  #14  
Old 08-06-2018, 07:09 AM
clairobscur clairobscur is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,062
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineer_comp_geek View Post

I have read about a Syrian all-female sniper unit,
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-mi...at-hands-of-is
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.
  #15  
Old 08-06-2018, 07:18 AM
clairobscur clairobscur is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,062
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineer_comp_geek View Post
Kinda makes me think that calling them "light" infantry is a bit of a misnomer then.
"Light infantry" is infantry able to operate alone, on foot if needed, possibly in difficult and/or hostile terrain, possibly without transport, support and supply vehicles, so they must be able to carry with them everything they need.
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.
  #16  
Old 08-06-2018, 07:31 AM
Gray Ghost Gray Ghost is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangosteen View Post
"A 2007 study found Marines typically carry 97 to 135 pounds of gear". Would this be more or less than a sniper would carry? This sounds like a lot of weight even for an above average strength male, but a women? Sorry, but she'd have to be one in a million. Even in training, the terrain and heat conditions where they are carrying this weight are often horrific, but actual combat conditions would be even worse.
Your study is newer than the one I've generally used. In the past here (in threads dealing with "should we allow women in the infantry" type questions) I've cited to this study from 2003, looking at US Army (USA) infantry operations in Afghanistan. http://thedonovan.com/archives/moder...LoadReport.pdf That report doesn't cover USA snipers, which IIRC, aren't a separate MOS like they are in the USMC, and in any event aren't that numerically important in an article that seeks to figure out force-wide effects from the physical loads that infantry carry.

I'm sure they've updated it in the 15 years since then. As this guy at quora points out, in his lengthy post at the top of the page (https://www.quora.com/What-weight-do...-a-combat-load),
Quote:
For units that are doing multiple day long range patrols, like sniper teams (which I have also been in) or Recon units, those guys are carrying what I’ve described...,

[Previous paragraphs detailing that his lightest load he ever carried as a Unit Leader in the USMC Infantry was 75 pounds. I'm not sure what he means by "Unit Leader": Platoon Daddy, Fire Team Leader, something else?]

...a little different though for their specific roles, PLUS packs to sustain themselves over a several day patrol with probably no resupply. I carried packs in excess of 135 pounds routinely on sniper training missions I was on back in my younger days (although I never actually weighed one) and that was WITHOUT body armor or even helmets. (I once carried a SASR [Barrett .50 cal rifle] up a hill in Sardinia because I was trying to show off. Bad idea.)
OTOH, these are still easier loads to carry than trying to carry a Bradley or Stryker on their backs, which is what makes them "light" infantry. On the other, other hand, it's a lot easier to move quickly 1,000 light guys, than it is to move 1,000 mechanized infantry and all of their stuff.

Any how, that's where I think SanDiegoTim is going with his post on the physical demands of being a scout/sniper, or of getting through STA Indoc, being greater than what most women are capable of. Go read "Jarhead" for a memoir of one guy's experiences in the First Persian Gulf War as a member of a STA Platoon. ("STA" here stands for ""Surveillance and Target Acquisition," and is where you generally find USMC Scout Snipers.)

Last edited by Gray Ghost; 08-06-2018 at 07:31 AM.
  #17  
Old 08-06-2018, 08:19 AM
engineer_comp_geek's Avatar
engineer_comp_geek engineer_comp_geek is offline
Robot Mod in Beta Testing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 21,966
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
"Light infantry" is infantry able to operate alone, on foot if needed, possibly in difficult and/or hostile terrain, possibly without transport, support and supply vehicles, so they must be able to carry with them everything they need.
Oh, I know. I'm well aware of what light infantry actually is (and heavy infantry for that matter).

I just found it ironic that "light" infantry soldiers are loaded the heaviest.
  #18  
Old 08-07-2018, 11:11 PM
Sloe Moe Sloe Moe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 279
You have lone snipers, and you can have 2- or 4-man sniper teams. Well, that's Vietnam era.
  #19  
Old 08-08-2018, 01:00 AM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan Alessan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 23,333
Are all U.S. snipers specialized snipers/scouts, or do you also have snipers in regular infantry units are the platoon/company level?
  #20  
Old 08-08-2018, 02:14 AM
Sloe Moe Sloe Moe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 279
^
They appeared on the battlefield in Korea, Vietnam, and in both gulf wars.
  #21  
Old 08-08-2018, 07:16 AM
Gray Ghost Gray Ghost is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
Are all U.S. snipers specialized snipers/scouts, or do you also have snipers in regular infantry units are the platoon/company level?
AIUI, there is sniping the way the USMC does it, with 0317/nee 8514 Scout/Snipers (I've seen it written with and without the backslash) serving mainly in STA units, and there is sniping the way the US Army does it. Assuming FM 3-21.21 (https://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...21-21/appc.htm) still, for a Stryker Brigade Combat Team, snipers are a battalion asset and above. There, they exist as a sniper squad, with a Squad Leader, and two, three-man sniper teams.

If you just need a guy who can precisely shoot people between 300-600 meters, the Squad Designated Marksman can be that guy. This site (https://ngmtc.wordpress.com/sdm/), devoted to training National Guard members in marksmanship, including for competition describes the SDM this way:
Quote:
The primary mission of the SDM is to deploy as a member of the rifle squad. The SDM is a vital member of his individual squad and not a squad sniper. He fires and maneuvers with this squad and performs all of the duties of the standard rifleman. The SDM has neither the equipment nor training to operate individually or in a small team to engage targets at extended ranges with precision fire.

The secondary mission of the SDM is to engage key targets from 100 to 600 meters with effective, well-aimed fires using the standard weapon system and standard ammunition. He may or may not be equipped with an optic. Therefore the SDM must possess a thorough understanding and master of the fundamentals of rifle marksmanship as well as ballistics, elevation and windage hold-off, range estimation, MOA, and sight manipulation.

The SDM can also be used to help direct the fire of other squad members into enemy positions. Due to the increased skill level required for his position, the SDM must maintain a high level of proficiency through continued training of the required skills.
It's worth noting that the standard US infantry issued rifle, the M4, with any of the magnified combat optics like the RCO, would easily be considered by WW2 combatants to be a "sniper" rifle, if judging by its accuracy, magnification, light gathering, and ballistics. Especially if using long range ammunition like MK 318 or MK 262 Mod 0.

So, for a squad-level asset, useful for overwatch, PID, and other tasks that we lay people think of when we think, "sniper", I'd think a SDM would qualify. They're usually not going to have the fieldcraft of a school-trained USA sniper or USMC scout/sniper though.

Last edited by Gray Ghost; 08-08-2018 at 07:18 AM. Reason: I need to get my browser to default to something other than Sultans theme.
  #22  
Old 08-08-2018, 08:06 AM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan Alessan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 23,333
Interesting. Back when I was in IDF infantry in the mid-1990s, every platoon had one guy with an M-21 (basically an upgraded M-14), who had undergone a 4-week sniper's course but other than that was just a regular infantryman. Nowadays, I think they've been reorganized similar to your Stryker brigades (and given M-21s), with more extensive training, and lots of regular infantry now carry carbines with scopes and bipods.

The Israeli military never had a very high opinion of snipers - they were considered "too defensive". I understand that's changed a bit recently.

Last edited by Alessan; 08-08-2018 at 08:10 AM.
  #23  
Old 08-08-2018, 09:14 AM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 39,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineer_comp_geek View Post
Germany and Canada also allow women in combat positions, which I presume includes snipers.
Women in the Canadian Forces still represent a very small percentage of front line combat roles; last I looked they were less than three percent of infantry roles and are essentially urnepresented in elite units. I have a few queries in on your question but I'm going to guess no snipers yet.

As has been alluded to by Gray Ghost, I am using the term "sniper" here to mean an actual sniper, a soldier who specializes in that particular role. In the Canadian Army a sniper is not merely a soldier with a good rifle; it is its own trade, with its own school, unique weapons, and the like. Sniper teams in a modern armed forces are elite soldiers, highly trained individuals whose skill set goes way beyond just being a really good shot. The sniper fulfills particular roles on a battlefield, and you need the right people to do those things, and shooting straight is just a part of that. Hell, *I* was an outstanding shot but I wouldn't have lasted three days in sniper school. I simply did not have the physical skills, motivation, and fieldcraft skills for that.

I think one will find that the use of women in combat roles is often tied to the level of urgency faced by the belligerent power. The Soviets in WWII drew on women for traditionally male roles because, frankly, they weren't in a position to be sticky about traditional gender roles. A modern country at peace like Germany or Canada isn't in particular need like that. Even when at war, as Canada was in Afghanistan, today's industrialized countries have much smaller, more specialized armies than in the past.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!

Last edited by RickJay; 08-08-2018 at 09:18 AM.
  #24  
Old 08-08-2018, 10:45 AM
Poysyn Poysyn is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 6,117
Good LORD, I grow weary of men asserting that a woman would not do well in a given combat role because we "can't carry the weight". Actually, we can. There may or may not be a huge number of female snipers, but it isn't some sort of inability to carry the weight that prevents us from that job. While going through training or on Ex, I definitely carried more than what I weighed at the time(my kit, food and ammo plus my part of the section kit) - it was part of the job.

Carry on.
  #25  
Old 08-08-2018, 11:14 AM
Bear_Nenno's Avatar
Bear_Nenno Bear_Nenno is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Alaska!
Posts: 8,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poysyn View Post
Good LORD, I grow weary of men asserting that a woman would not do well in a given combat role because we "can't carry the weight". Actually, we can. There may or may not be a huge number of female snipers, but it isn't some sort of inability to carry the weight that prevents us from that job. While going through training or on Ex, I definitely carried more than what I weighed at the time(my kit, food and ammo plus my part of the section kit) - it was part of the job.

Carry on.
Yes. Women can "carry the weight". However, it remains a very real fact that women who do "carry the weight" suffer higher rates of over-use injuries. Female physiology predisposes them to injury when carrying heavy loads, making it more difficult to sustain the same level of weight carrying for prolonged periods.

"Women have increased pelvic width, forefoot pronation, heel valgus angulation, pes planus, external tibial torsion,and femoral anteversion. Additionally, because of the estrogen influence, women have less lean body mass and greater ligamentous laxity. The combination of anatomy and physiology appears to predispose women to a higher risk of pelvic stress fracture and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears. The diagnosis of pelvic stress fracture has been reported as 1 in 367 female recruits, compared with 1 in 40,000 male recruits, and rates of ACL ruptures for female athletes range from 2.4 to 9.7 times higher than in male athletes." PDF

"In a study of Army wheel vehicle mechanics, overuse injuries accounted for 68% of female injuries (compared with 48% of male injuries)."
PDF

The issue is more complicated than, "women can't do that" or "women can do that". You're right that people should not waive off the possibility of women serving in a given combat role due to their physical ability. But it's disingenuous to suggest that there is no physiological differences that may decrease their effectiveness on average.

With that said: Yes, we will soon see women graduating sniper school and serving as snipers in the infantry. I'm not aware of any graduates yet, but women have successfully completed Ranger School; they can pass Sniper School.

Last edited by Bear_Nenno; 08-08-2018 at 11:17 AM.
  #26  
Old 08-08-2018, 12:22 PM
Poysyn Poysyn is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 6,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear_Nenno View Post
Yes. Women can "carry the weight". However, it remains a very real fact that women who do "carry the weight" suffer higher rates of over-use injuries. Female physiology predisposes them to injury when carrying heavy loads, making it more difficult to sustain the same level of weight carrying for prolonged periods.

"Women have increased pelvic width, forefoot pronation, heel valgus angulation, pes planus, external tibial torsion,and femoral anteversion. Additionally, because of the estrogen influence, women have less lean body mass and greater ligamentous laxity. The combination of anatomy and physiology appears to predispose women to a higher risk of pelvic stress fracture and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears. The diagnosis of pelvic stress fracture has been reported as 1 in 367 female recruits, compared with 1 in 40,000 male recruits, and rates of ACL ruptures for female athletes range from 2.4 to 9.7 times higher than in male athletes." PDF

"In a study of Army wheel vehicle mechanics, overuse injuries accounted for 68% of female injuries (compared with 48% of male injuries)."
PDF

The issue is more complicated than, "women can't do that" or "women can do that". You're right that people should not waive off the possibility of women serving in a given combat role due to their physical ability. But it's disingenuous to suggest that there is no physiological differences that may decrease their effectiveness on average.

With that said: Yes, we will soon see women graduating sniper school and serving as snipers in the infantry. I'm not aware of any graduates yet, but women have successfully completed Ranger School; they can pass Sniper School.
Totally fair - and I will also add, that not all women (or men, for that matter) are physically suited to a career in the military, and out of those, fewer for infantry, and so on (although I have a teeny female friend that would shock many of you with how gung ho she can be).

Last edited by Poysyn; 08-08-2018 at 12:23 PM.
  #27  
Old 08-08-2018, 03:36 PM
AK84 AK84 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 15,137
Pretty much any reasonably healthy young man can be trained to be a soldier and do an acceptable job. Not that many women can. And the ones who can probably will find better jobs than the military. Ronda Rousey and Serena Williams could absolutely serve in any countries military. Doubt they would give up their well paying careers for it. You need someone who is much higher strength than the average woman yet who is unable to make it in other strength and endurance based professions. A rare breed indeed.
  #28  
Old 08-08-2018, 03:55 PM
Tim@T-Bonham.net Tim@T-Bonham.net is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 14,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
Pretty much any reasonably healthy young man can be trained to be a soldier and do an acceptable job. Not that many women can.
Do you have anything in the way of a cite to back up this assertion?

And don't claim as a cite: 'historically, armies have (mostly) been made up of only men'. Something fact-based is needed for an acceptable cite.
  #29  
Old 08-08-2018, 04:25 PM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 39,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poysyn View Post
Good LORD, I grow weary of men asserting that a woman would not do well in a given combat role because we "can't carry the weight". Actually, we can. There may or may not be a huge number of female snipers, but it isn't some sort of inability to carry the weight that prevents us from that job. While going through training or on Ex, I definitely carried more than what I weighed at the time(my kit, food and ammo plus my part of the section kit) - it was part of the job.

Carry on.
I am quite certain women can do the job; as it stands, however, few do in the Canadian Forces. WHY women are so underrepresented in frontline combat trades is probably a complex thing but that they ARE underrepresented is beyond any doubt or question.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #30  
Old 08-08-2018, 04:27 PM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 39,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim@T-Bonham.net View Post
Do you have anything in the way of a cite to back up this assertion?
The fact that any reasonably healthy young man can make an acceptable soldier is rather obviously proven by the fact that every army in the modern history of the world that had instituted a raft has found that pretty much any reasonably healthy young man can be trained to be an acceptable soldier.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #31  
Old 08-08-2018, 04:40 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 27,089
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
Pretty much any reasonably healthy young man can be trained to be a soldier and do an acceptable job. Not that many women can. And the ones who can probably will find better jobs than the military. Ronda Rousey and Serena Williams could absolutely serve in any countries military. Doubt they would give up their well paying careers for it. You need someone who is much higher strength than the average woman yet who is unable to make it in other strength and endurance based professions. A rare breed indeed.
Or maybe, like Gal Godot, they'll serve in the military for a bit before going on to other occupations. I have certainly never met anyone who joined the military for the money, ya know?
  #32  
Old 08-08-2018, 04:46 PM
ZPG Zealot ZPG Zealot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloe Moe View Post
In a prolonged war, inside your own country, all those peace time recruitment and training standards will fly out the window, just like what happened in continental Europe, and you will likely have women and even men past 50 in those roles. Some of the best rifle shots I know are well past 50.
When I was in the former Yugoslavia during the 90's I met a sniper who had also been a Partisan (albeit at the "tender" age of 16) in World War II. The youngest female sniper I ever encountered was 12 though she could have have passed for an older teen.

Last edited by ZPG Zealot; 08-08-2018 at 04:47 PM.
  #33  
Old 08-08-2018, 05:56 PM
Tim@T-Bonham.net Tim@T-Bonham.net is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 14,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
The fact that any reasonably healthy young man can make an acceptable soldier is rather obviously proven by the fact that every army in the modern history of the world that had instituted a raft has found that pretty much any reasonably healthy young man can be trained to be an acceptable soldier.
And it's also a fact that some countries apply their draft to both young men & women. Israel, for example -- they draft women, too, and seem to make reasonably good soldiers of them. The Israeli army is generally recognized as pretty effective in the area.
  #34  
Old 08-08-2018, 06:03 PM
Scumpup Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 13,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim@T-Bonham.net View Post
And it's also a fact that some countries apply their draft to both young men & women. Israel, for example -- they draft women, too, and seem to make reasonably good soldiers of them. The Israeli army is generally recognized as pretty effective in the area.
Yes, exactly. "In the area." The IDF benefits from facing some the most ineffectively motivated and led armies in the world.
  #35  
Old 08-08-2018, 08:14 PM
Tamerlane Tamerlane is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: SF Bay Area, California
Posts: 13,223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
The IDF benefits from facing some the most ineffectively motivated and led armies in the world.
That's pretty unfair to the IDF and slightly unfair to their local opposites.

Far as I can tell from literature and anecdotes( this is not first-hand knowledge, so take it with as many grains of salt as you like ), the IDF stacks up well on any objective scale to any armed forces you can name. It really doesn't matter that opposing Arab armies are far less capable. When you are constantly surrounded by a numerically superior enemy, you hone yourself to the best you possibly can be. The IDF is far from perfect and has made their fair share of strategic and tactical blunders over the years. But they succeed mostly because they are good, not just because their opposition is crappy. Large, "crappy" modern armies can inflict a helluva a lot of damage if not properly contained, as Iran and Iraq discovered.

As for the surrounding Arab armies, many/all of them have traditionally struggled with issues of politicized leadership and poorly adapted strategic/tactical doctrine. But when given a smidgeon of imagination they can perform adequately, as Israel discovered with Egypt in the early stages of the Yom Kippur War. The IDF is not in a position to underestimate anybody.

Last edited by Tamerlane; 08-08-2018 at 08:16 PM.
  #36  
Old 08-09-2018, 03:34 AM
AK84 AK84 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 15,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim@T-Bonham.net View Post
Do you have anything in the way of a cite to back up this assertion?

And don't claim as a cite: 'historically, armies have (mostly) been made up of only men'. Something fact-based is needed for an acceptable cite.
John Keegan in a History of War good enough for you?
Women have been involved in war as participants since its beginnings. Thats not the point. Combat in armies falls heavily on one cohort. Young men. Not middle aged men or older boys, or girls, but young men. Combat requires strength and endurance which is best seen young fit men. And, if anything modern combat requires a much higher amount of strength and fitness than ever.

If using women was an advantage then warfare is an ever practical business, it would have been done, you'd double your available fighters at as stroke. Yet everytime it has been done, its been during times of extreme desperation. Like the Soviets against the Germans. Or the Kurds against ISIS.

Of course change is as constant in warfare as anywhere else, and the above could change. We have already seen it in air warfare. There is a very finite amount of people who can be trained as fighter pilots and it has been worth everyones while to get women in there.
  #37  
Old 08-09-2018, 04:28 AM
Melbourne Melbourne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
And, if anything modern combat requires a much higher amount of strength and fitness than ever.
Not combat Woman would be just as good at combat as the typical modern child soldier.

After WWI, child soldiers were excluded from modern European armies because they weren't good at not falling asleep, a skill that was particularly valued in WWI.

After WWII, older soldiers were excluded because they weren't as good at surviving POW conditions as a specific case, and poor food and demanding conditions in general.

In the American Marines, women aren't as good at carrying heavy equipment loads -- a particular and unique feature of the American military, which has an international reputation both as the best equipped force, and the force which depends most on it's equipment. (It's no coincidence that in the recent Thai cave rescue, the divers were an international group, but the logistics support was provided by the Americans).

FWIW, I was watching 'sniper' on TV, and they were featuring a sniper team that was stationed on the top of a city building. It didn't look like 'patrol under full load' was any part of that deployment.

Last edited by Melbourne; 08-09-2018 at 04:29 AM.
  #38  
Old 08-09-2018, 05:44 AM
AK84 AK84 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 15,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melbourne View Post
Not combat Woman would be just as good at combat as the typical modern child soldier.

After WWI, child soldiers were excluded from modern European armies because they weren't good at not falling asleep, a skill that was particularly valued in WWI.
Which army regularly used "child soldiers"? Excluding drummer boys and powder monkeys on ships, I can't think of any. The earliest age of
recruitment was 16 IIRC.
Quote:
After WWII, older soldiers were excluded because they weren't as good at surviving POW conditions as a specific case, and poor food and demanding conditions in general.
Yeah, cite... there were plenty of POW in WW1 and earlier wars.
Quote:
In the American Marines, women aren't as good at carrying heavy equipment loads -- a particular and unique feature of the American military, which has an international reputation both as the best equipped force, and the force which depends most on it's equipment. (It's no coincidence that in the recent Thai cave rescue, the divers were an international group, but the logistics support was provided by the Americans).

Unique to Americans? The Australian military carried upto 58 kg for infantryman (128 pounds). The British carry upto 63 kg.
I believe the Canadians carry somewhat less.

Between the start of the flintlock musket era (1700 AD), to Korea, the basic infantry backpack was more or less stabdard and weighed about 50-60 pounds. I also recall an estimation from the mid 1960's were they wrote that less than half of WW2 era fighter pilots would have qualified on the new jets if they had been suddenly transported to that era.

Last edited by AK84; 08-09-2018 at 05:47 AM.
  #39  
Old 08-09-2018, 07:27 AM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan Alessan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 23,333
On a more cynical note, one reason that armies have always recruited young men is that they don't have wives and children to support, and thus, in broad social terms, more disposable.
  #40  
Old 08-09-2018, 07:58 AM
AK84 AK84 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 15,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
On a more cynical note, one reason that armies have always recruited young men is that they don't have wives and children to support, and thus, in broad social terms, more disposable.
True. Also young men are a lot more easy to train to march headfirst against the enemey. Everyone else is too sensible.

Though, I read that in WW2, the one cohort which protested against killings was ytoung men. Older men and women generally had no problems. Read that what you will.
  #41  
Old 08-09-2018, 10:45 AM
Bookkeeper's Avatar
Bookkeeper Bookkeeper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Ottawa, Canuckistan
Posts: 2,680
One possibly overlooked issue is that because armies have been traditionally made up of young men, equipment, tactics, and doctrine is also built around the physical and other capabilities of young men. If the makeup of the army changes enough, then these factors will change to match the new capabilities. For example, powered "fighting suits" or exoskeleton supports may become common in First World armies, making the physical differences between men and women less important.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:35 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017