Posted on Jun 11, 2022
Have the women with combat jobs in the Rangers and Special Forces actually been fighting along side men?
78.7K
752
217
272
272
0
Have the women with combat jobs and have made it to the Ranger Regiment and Special Forces actually been fighting along side men, or have they been just for show?
Women in the Military
Special Forces
11B: Infantryman
Combat
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 92
48
48
0
Kickass Women in History: Buffalo Calf Road Woman | Smart Bitches, Trashy Books
Smart Bitches, Trashy Books
(48)
(0)
PO2 Stephen Cline
I served alongside females in the 70's and 80's. Not in combat roles. I worked on heavy aircraft. In my experience they are pretty much worthless, they just don't have the strength to the job required.
(5)
(0)
PFC Kinard Parnell
I don't see any problem. as long as she hits what she aims at, sharing a foxhole is good enough for surviving another firefight, in my opinion.
(1)
(0)
SPC Daniel Rankin
I served with women in the Gulf war and they fought right along side of me. Up front and some of them in the fox holes and even pulled night guard duty. They pulled their weight and then some. I had no problem with them and one of them was a tank mechanic and would out lift a lot of men. And she was not that big of a woman, just learned to lift the correct way.
(3)
(0)
42
42
0
I find it strange how there are so many people responding with negative comments or circumventing the question all together. Hell, I served along side many women, who II would have gladly stood beside in a combat or peace keeping role.
Obviously, women have been serving along side men, since the beginning. There are many examples of women serving along side of men. I have seen many example of women, holding support positions, working beside SF operations, without the designation. Often doing the same work.
That wasn't the question.
Reading it,
I expected to see real yes or no answers, hopefully, with examples.
I hoped to see examples of female soldiers serving in SF, Ranger Regiments, RECON, SOF... excelling in their field.
-Are these women getting a fair shake? Equal opportunities?
-Are they, as one responder described it, only being allowed to hold 'Token' positions?
-Are these women excelling in these advanced positions. Again examples would be nice.
-Are these women finding special niches for themselves where their smaller size and strength, would be more of a benefit, over the larger, stronger men? For example Tunnels, confined spaces, Close courters combat, Demolitions, MOUT...etc.
These are just a few of the more specific questions I would love to hear the answer to. Answers, I am assuming the original poster was looking for. I don't think he was asking a history question.
How is this special, current issue of integrating women into these specialty fields really going?
I do have to admit, the Little Big horn example was kind of interesting.
Obviously, women have been serving along side men, since the beginning. There are many examples of women serving along side of men. I have seen many example of women, holding support positions, working beside SF operations, without the designation. Often doing the same work.
That wasn't the question.
Reading it,
I expected to see real yes or no answers, hopefully, with examples.
I hoped to see examples of female soldiers serving in SF, Ranger Regiments, RECON, SOF... excelling in their field.
-Are these women getting a fair shake? Equal opportunities?
-Are they, as one responder described it, only being allowed to hold 'Token' positions?
-Are these women excelling in these advanced positions. Again examples would be nice.
-Are these women finding special niches for themselves where their smaller size and strength, would be more of a benefit, over the larger, stronger men? For example Tunnels, confined spaces, Close courters combat, Demolitions, MOUT...etc.
These are just a few of the more specific questions I would love to hear the answer to. Answers, I am assuming the original poster was looking for. I don't think he was asking a history question.
How is this special, current issue of integrating women into these specialty fields really going?
I do have to admit, the Little Big horn example was kind of interesting.
(42)
(0)
PFC Kinard Parnell
Personally, I grew up in a neighborhood where many of the females had no problems fighting with anyone. I'm talking about fist fights against disrespectful men. The fact is that it takes a different mentality/mindset, a drive to survive. Not everyone is made like that. However, we are all born with that fight or flight ability in the face of controversy, trouble, or physical harm.
(0)
(0)
SPC Daniel Rankin
PO2 Stephen Cline - History shows that women did serve in the combat zone during ww one and two. WACs they were called and they served honorably. Not all of them were nurses.
(0)
(0)
29
29
0
What are you trying to figure out? Women have been serving in Combat consistently for decades. It's been happening for a good long while. Are you wanting to know if female Rangers are door kicking or is this more general? Even before SECDEF opened up all jobs to females we had female engagement teams out there doing their thing shoulder to shoulder supporting infantry units.
(29)
(0)
SSgt Christophe Murphy
PFC Elaine Knowles - I'm all for anyone serving who can do the job. Comparing CEOs to combat troops is comparing apples to jet fuel. The context and criteria are not the same. Even more so if you are talking about Tier 1 Units. Though around 100 Females have passed Ranger school only about 7 are serving in Ranger Regiment. Graduating a school is different than the Billet of a Ranger in Ranger Regiment. Only 3 females have passed the Army Q course (Special Forces) with the first being in 2020. No females have passed Buds. Only one female has passed the Officer pre buds training. Not to make this a bash session against women. There are plenty of Men who fail to meet these standards as well. Combat units, especially tier 1 units are not for everyone.
(0)
(0)
MSG Moises Maldonado
BS.. Combat support(Logistical) is done at the REBA..(Do you know what REBA stand for?) That's not Direct combat..
(0)
(0)
SSgt Christophe Murphy
MSG Moises Maldonado - Rear Echelon areas are a thing of the past my friend. The modern day combat environment is a 360 degree environment Log trains were running convoys in Afghanistan and Iraq and making contact daily and fighting the enemy on the daily. Men and women in support MOS's put in direct combat while doing logistical combat support. You have a very antiquated idea of combat.
(0)
(0)
19
19
0
Good question but I do not believe you will get enough people to read what you wrote and understand you are asking about women with SF and Ranger tabs seeing action and not women in general.
(19)
(0)
16
16
0
As a woman and in combat I definitely tell you it was not for show! I can think of 3 of the men I served with turned and ran while me and another female stood ground. There’s your show
(16)
(0)
Sara Lucas
Sara Lucas Gina that came across as stupid I thought yo say if you need help I'll have your back ..as a nurse..I'm yoo old to fight but I can beat them into submission with my cane..thank you for representing us women who signed up to serve..
(1)
(0)
Sara Lucas
TSgt James Sutton james....I wasn't in combat..but the Corpman unit at the hospital...A 17 year old in the 6o's...there were times it felt like a combat role..iose days women were fair game..so for gina or any other woman to serve in combat situations... She has my mist sincere respect...show some respect please
(2)
(0)
15
15
0
Maybe I'm reading the question wrong, but I don't see where it ask if they are 'capable', or 'should', or 'belong there'. It seems to be asking 'in the time since women have allowed in SF or Ranger training, have the ones that have completed that training been assigned combat roles?'.
Rule 1 in test taking: READ the question and don't read more into it than is there.
Rule 1 in test taking: READ the question and don't read more into it than is there.
(15)
(0)
I am not sure how you are looking at this. I have served with females that were among the best officers in my unit. I would even say better than me in most areas. I can also say that there have been men that have served in positions that they were not prepared for. We need to stop looking at gender like we stopped looking at race in the past. We shouldn't be questioning a course or the Army in general by thinking they just want a diversity win.
(12)
(0)
SGM William Everroad
MSG Thomas Currie - Good point, but Infantry wasn't closed to women for physical reasons. The gentlemen thought that they (females) would be a distraction:
1. Civilians weren't equipped to handle our "daughters" dying;
2. Male Soldiers would be distracted by females in training, reducing readiness;
3. Male Soldiers would be distracted by injured females as they would rush to save them;
4. Male Soldiers could not handle dead females on the battlefield.
These thoughts permeated our thinking and made anti-female infantry taboo to an extent that they are the true premise behind the "physicality" argument.
1. Civilians weren't equipped to handle our "daughters" dying;
2. Male Soldiers would be distracted by females in training, reducing readiness;
3. Male Soldiers would be distracted by injured females as they would rush to save them;
4. Male Soldiers could not handle dead females on the battlefield.
These thoughts permeated our thinking and made anti-female infantry taboo to an extent that they are the true premise behind the "physicality" argument.
(0)
(0)
MSG Thomas Currie
SGM William Everroad - You forgot #5 Infantry barracks didn't have bath tubs which were required by regulation for female barracks.
You can rationalize why women were kept out of direct combat in the US Army (all the reasons you list are true -- and they were also completely valid at that time and are still largely valid today).
The simple fact is that contrary to modern woke nonsense, men and women are different -- physically, mentally, and emotionally. There are certainly some PEOPLE (both sexes) who are far outside the norm, but policies are generally developed to fit the average.
Women have NEVER been treated equally in the US Army -- whether the net differences have been a detriment or an advantage is open to debate.
There was a time when questioning the ban on women in combat was unacceptable. Today asking whether women are actually serving in those roles on an equal basis with their peers is apparently unacceptable [As clearly evidenced by the hostile reactions here, and the fact that none of the replies ever even considered answering the original poster's question]
You can rationalize why women were kept out of direct combat in the US Army (all the reasons you list are true -- and they were also completely valid at that time and are still largely valid today).
The simple fact is that contrary to modern woke nonsense, men and women are different -- physically, mentally, and emotionally. There are certainly some PEOPLE (both sexes) who are far outside the norm, but policies are generally developed to fit the average.
Women have NEVER been treated equally in the US Army -- whether the net differences have been a detriment or an advantage is open to debate.
There was a time when questioning the ban on women in combat was unacceptable. Today asking whether women are actually serving in those roles on an equal basis with their peers is apparently unacceptable [As clearly evidenced by the hostile reactions here, and the fact that none of the replies ever even considered answering the original poster's question]
(1)
(0)
SSG Bill McCoy
Well put, and spot on! In fact, in today's Army, questioning any aspect of womens fitness in combat typically results in counselling identifying an NCO or Officer as a "Toxic Leader," despite many questions being valid.
(1)
(0)
TSgt James Sutton
Well to be true you completely ignored the question he asked...you compared your infantry unit to the Rangers and Special Forces units? Are you in either and have you had women serve with you in the Rangers or Special Forces? If not, then your response is invalid, who cares if women served in infantry units? That wasn't the question asked....so either answer the question or move along.
(1)
(0)
11
11
0
I do find it interesting how many people have failed to address that actual question. I'd hope with officers and senior NCOs that reading comprehension would be higher than has just been displayed. He didn't ask if women have seen combat. He didn't ask about female support personnel down range that were "attached" to group or regiment. He didn't ask if any women in the specific 75th and group have seen combat. I only know of one female that served in the regiment and as far as I know she was an officer that was RFSd. I've only known of one SF female whom made it through the Q-course. Whether or not she ever saw combat I couldn't say. The question isn't about women that earned a tab or happened to get shot at in Iraq while in a support position. There are literally only a couple women he specifically asked about. Everything else that everyone is getting up in arms about is over stuff he never even asked.
(11)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
LT William Pellegrini
Which wasn't the question. The question was did the couple of specific women that served in these units see combat?
If I ask if my uncle Steve has seen combat, and then everyone goes on about how various uncles throughout centuries have seen combat and how they've personally known someone named Steve that served with them in combat, in no way addresses the question of if my specific uncle named Steve saw combat. No one has said in this thread that women don't deserve respect. No one has said that a woman has never fired a weapon. No one has said that women have never been in harms way. So why are we changing the terms of the question in order to make it into something that was never asked so that we can rant and complain online?
Which wasn't the question. The question was did the couple of specific women that served in these units see combat?
If I ask if my uncle Steve has seen combat, and then everyone goes on about how various uncles throughout centuries have seen combat and how they've personally known someone named Steve that served with them in combat, in no way addresses the question of if my specific uncle named Steve saw combat. No one has said in this thread that women don't deserve respect. No one has said that a woman has never fired a weapon. No one has said that women have never been in harms way. So why are we changing the terms of the question in order to make it into something that was never asked so that we can rant and complain online?
(3)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
LT William Pellegrini yes. Combat is combat. Being shot at is combat. Shooting at is combat. It still isn't what the person asked. Did the one female that served in group and the one that served in regiment see combat? That's the question. Those two specific people. He didn't ask if women shot at in a combat zone at a MASH saw combat. He asked if two specific people have seen combat yet. No matter how you wish to define the parameters of what combat is-did those two specific people he referred to in his question see it? Once again, no one has claimed at all in this thread that no women have seen combat.
(0)
(0)
10
10
0
Whenever this issue comes up. I think of a friend of mine, retired Colonel ADA, who had an Aunt who was an Army Nurse during WW2. She wasn't as big as a minute, tiny lady. Could never do a ruck-march or hump a tank track block. But she did deal with the mass casualties at Hickam Field on 7 Dec '41. When transferred to the ETO she was on a hospital ship off of Normandy on 6 Jun '44 - and that ship got strafed by the Luftwaffe - and while the male sailors, Corpsmen, etc were diving behind bulkheads and into steel passageways, she was on deck, fully exposed, tossing mattresses over the wounded men who were laying there exposed, to protect them some from fragments of spall as the bullets were splattering the decks and superstructure. She did receive a Bronze Star with the "V" device for that (a man would have gotten a Silver Star at least). Later that year, they figured that she'd had a pretty rough time of it and deserved a break, so they assigned her to a nice, quiet sector where nothing was happening - - - - BASTOGNE! She did great service there as well. It's about more than being able to do so many pushups or jogging miles with a ruck or hauling the tow-cable for a tank through mud. Plenty of women have served bravely and well throughout history. Standards should not be reduced just to accommodate them, but they also should not be automatically excluded just on the basis of sex.
(10)
(0)
10
10
0
It's a decent question but the answers will be all over the place.
If you are referring to the two female Army Rangers that were pushed through the training to meet one of Obama's goals, I'd like to know that answer. The posts some of the men in their squad made were not reassuring. I'd even like to know if the whole thing was true or some made up social media trash.
I've met a few women that could kick ass. Whether they are in elite military jobs is another matter.
But who cares? Modern military equipment can be operated by almost any individual, and gender status doesn't matter in all but the most physically strenuous jobs. That's right, I said it.
There are a lot more men than women in physically demanding jobs because of the obvious differences in physique and tone. Does it not mean there could be an Army of Amazons out there? No.
My take on any job in the services has always been this: If you can legitimately pass the physical requirements, you are qualified to do the job regardless of gender.
So if more women can meet the training requirements to kick ass and take names, I say great!
If you are referring to the two female Army Rangers that were pushed through the training to meet one of Obama's goals, I'd like to know that answer. The posts some of the men in their squad made were not reassuring. I'd even like to know if the whole thing was true or some made up social media trash.
I've met a few women that could kick ass. Whether they are in elite military jobs is another matter.
But who cares? Modern military equipment can be operated by almost any individual, and gender status doesn't matter in all but the most physically strenuous jobs. That's right, I said it.
There are a lot more men than women in physically demanding jobs because of the obvious differences in physique and tone. Does it not mean there could be an Army of Amazons out there? No.
My take on any job in the services has always been this: If you can legitimately pass the physical requirements, you are qualified to do the job regardless of gender.
So if more women can meet the training requirements to kick ass and take names, I say great!
(10)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google