Should India allow women into combat roles?

[WAJsal]

thanx god !

no need to be surprised .I don't think there is any country where women don't rear kids.

 

[MilSpec]

Good question.

Because the world over, not just in India, there is growing discontent about the basic qualification requirement being watered down at the altar of gender equality and PC. And under pressure from strong lobbies for political gain.

That's a fact. And her I invite you to read up on the debate in the US and Canada for instance.

Right training for the right job, I am not saying that you need 33% quota in NSG for women. i am saying that there are various active combat roles that women can train and out perform their male counter parts in.

I dont see why women cannot work in arty regiments especially MBRL, SAM teams, BRBM deployments, Air combat roles for both fixed and rotary wing sqdns, field medics, support staff, infantry reserve forces, instructors etc.

I am in no way proposing any watered down course regimen. If she is fit to serve and deserves the position, there should be no gender bias.

 

[Fireurimagination]

Sports are what provide a basic idea about Male and Female physical comparison, in tennis for women it's 3 set and for men it's 5 sets, you can compare 100m or any athletic records or probably guess what will happen when any Women's cricket, football or hockey team will play against their male counterparts. As far as I believe there should be no compromise and only the best of the best should be selected for the combat roles

 

[Blue_Eyes]

Personally I believe that women are simply not strong enough. Plus they have child rearing issues.

physically I agree that we are not as strong as men but mentally we are as good as men and modern wars need mentally and physically strong soldiers
have you heard about Neerja Bhanot??
Neerja Bhanot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and child problem is just an excuse.

A woman combatant would be more a hindrance for the men fighting alongside her than a help. War is brutal, and a male's first reaction is to shield women and kids from it. That can lead to bad decisions, compromised actions.

yes war is brutal but not only for women.
and If any woman want to fight for her country then leave this up to her and she is not fool , she will think before joining the war. so mentally she will be prepared for war and training is for what??
training will do the rest man.

 

[13 komaun]

No, considering the Army of our neighbours who don't believe in humanity let alone honouring the P.O.W we have the example of Lt. Saurabh Kalia,instead of combat role female soldiers/officers should be inducted as gunship pilots or spy etc

We should need soldiers like Digendra kumar at our western border.


Noor Inayat Khan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[utraash]

I would like to see women combatants in Navy n Airforce in full fledged combat role whereas in army women can play active role in sniper unit, military intelligence n some engineering units.....
@levina which one you will chose to kill your enemy?

 

[doppelganger]

I dont see why women cannot work in arty regiments especially MBRL, SAM teams, BRBM deployments, Air combat roles for both fixed and rotary wing sqdns, field medics, support staff, infantry reserve forces, instructors etc.

Bro, arty was one of the worst examples you could bring into this debate.

Arty guys traditionally have more than average wear and tear to normal infantry guys, when it comes to knees and back. Ask any arty guy. Its a brutal job. Second to none, not even the tankies.

And when you get down to it, without getting into heated inter-service debates, in the context of this discussion per se, traditionally the world over, the air and naval wing deployments (except the gunners, again for the same reason, and the submariners, for completely different ones) are not lumped under the "combat role" category, from both physical as well as close quarter perspectives.

 

[About.to.be.banned]

Hi,

Don't take this as an insult, but from your views stated above, you should read more.

Physical strength is not the only parameter that defines characteristics of a combatant. Women can match and exceed endurance of their male counterparts, along with that they can surpass their male counterparts in presence of mind, exceptional focus, discipline and patience (yes patience, WWII a female polish sniper waited for 3 days in her location for the right shot) . Along with that with the right training and right placement among men, women fighters have time and again proved their mettle on the battlefield in Soviet army, IDF, US armed forces etc.

Fyi women fighter pilots have shown better resistance to higher G forces than their macho counterparts. Also Women combatants have proven themselves as exceptional snipers. Female covert ops have been responsible for changing fates of wars in modern history. So I do think women have place active combat. Absolutely YES!

But what about Economics of such decision.


A Fighter pilot has a carreer of 15 years. If women are allowed in Fighter Pilot role and they have 2 children, nearly 4 years of prime of their career is wasted.

Could an Airforce which has to fight real wars afford to waste resources on training Pilots which would be physically capable of working only 2/3 of time?

Concept of Female fighter Pilots has not worked well in USAF too.

 

[MilSpec]

Bro, arty was one of the worst examples you could bring into this debate.

Arty guys traditionally have more than average wear and tear to normal infantry guys, when it comes to knees and back. Ask any arty guy. Its a brutal job. Second to none, not even the tankies.

And when you get down to it, without getting into heated inter-service debates, in the context of this discussion per se, traditionally the world over, the air and naval wing deployments (except the gunners, again for the same reason, and the submariners, for completely different ones) are not lumped under the "combat role" category, from both physical as well as close quarter perspectives.

Female soldiers in Fort Bragg's artillery units paving way for expanded role - Fayetteville Observer: Local News

But what about Economics of such decision.


A Fighter pilot has a carreer of 15 years. If women are allowed in Fighter Pilot role and they have 2 children, nearly 4 years of prime of their career is wasted.

Could an Airforce which has to fight real wars afford to waste resources on training Pilots which would be physically capable of working only 2/3 of time?

Concept of Female fighter Pilots has not worked well in USAF too.

how about now

Indian Air Force Short of Around 600 Pilots

this was in 2010, dont know how much better the situation has been now.

As far as if's the woman has two kids and all that is concerned, those can be mitigated with appropriate resource planning, we have been doing that in corporate sector for decades. Unavailability of prominent female engineers or managers did not shut us down. Discrepancy in availability of female pilots is still better than unavailability of male pilots.

 

[utraash]

physically I agree that we are not as strong as men but mentally we are as good as men and modern wars need mentally and physically strong soldiers
have you heard about Neerja Bhanot??
Neerja Bhanot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and child problem is just an excuse.

yes war is brutal but not only for women.
and If any woman want to fight for her country then leave this up to her and she is not fool , she will think before joining the war. so mentally she will be prepared for war and training is for what??
training will do the rest man.

Agreed....

Lighter side
Women have more sharp shooting skills n have you noticed how they aim Karchi-Belan at their hubbies n hubby see no escape but a hospital...... Haha
@levina how is your shooting skills ?

 

[About.to.be.banned]

how about now

But shortage is not an argument for inducting Women as Fighter Pilots. Induction of a Pilot, whether male or female, would cost same.

And most of these reports of shortage are highly exaggerated. Armed forces of India have never suffered from shortage due to lack of qualified persons intreseted in joining Armed forces. Shortages have always been due to economic reasons.

 

[Levina]

I would like to see women combatants in Navy n Airforce in full fledged combat role whereas in army women can play active role in sniper unit, military intelligence n some engineering units.....
@levina which one you will chose to kill your enemy?

I will be in the intelligence
One of our neighbour used to work for army's intelligence unit. He inspired me. Lol

@levina how is your shooting skills ?

Haven't tried actually.
But am good at darts, will that help??

Hey i like this topic, give me time i'm coming back to this thread.

 

[doppelganger]

Female soldiers in Fort Bragg's artillery units paving way for expanded role - Fayetteville Observer: Local News

For the US Army, this was the lesser of two equally difficult decisions between artillery and infantry.

And it was pushed down their throats (never mind the PC sound bites) by the exact same strong political lobbies I was referring to earlier.

A lot of senators made their careers on this move.

 

[nair]

I will be in the intelligence
One of our neighbour used to work for army's intelligence unit. He inspired me. Lol

Is that the reason for joining PDF?????

 

[Zarvan]

Please give your opinions for or against, with rationales.

Please try and keep this clean and not get vulgar in your jingoistic enthusiasm.

Personally I believe that women are simply not strong enough. Plus they have child rearing issues.

A woman combatant would be more a hindrance for the men fighting alongside her than a help. War is brutal, and a male's first reaction is to shield women and kids from it. That can lead to bad decisions, compromised actions.

Not a good idea not only exposing them against enemies but also with so many male around would lead to sexual voilence and crime and will affect morale