Women to lead Indian Army Units

[forcetrip]

In fields like Aviation in the Air Traffic Control branch, women are eligible to command after 12 - 14 years. For SSC officers those are their last years of command since permanent commission is allowed only in judicial and ordinance branches as of now.

Some prominent feminists like levina may take hurt but in war there is no place for political correctness. To give you all an idea of of how it works out :

An average women weighs 125 - 135 pounds - an average IA soldier's kit consists of 10 kg Patka helmet (22 pounds) , 8 pound rifle, 60 pound body armor and 40 -60 pound backpack totaling 150 pounds.

150 > 125 - 135

Imagine this much weight being carried in combat!

Could you please make sure that amount of weight is correct. Ask a grown man to carry 150 pounds for prolonged amount of time or during a firefight and you should have an answer if it is possible. The answer should be anywhere from 50lbs to 100lbs max depending on mission requirements.

 

[Armstrong]

So @levina do you ladies think that you're up for the task ?

If I were a soldier on the other side how in heaven's name could I shoot at a lady officer of the Indian Army without loosing my honor ?

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Bro honestly you think they should send a female officer to your operation in waziristan?

Our lady officers are serving in waziristan already:

During Ops RR in Swat:

We already have Lady officers in AMC,Signal,Ordinance,Eng corps,Army Aviation pilots flying fixed wing n helis,Airforce fighter pilots,Navy,
Counter Terrorism Units:

 

[gubbi]

Even in fighter jets high G forces cause neuro - muscular injuries on women that make them limit their flying time. if they get pregnant, you have to retrain them spending double money.

In a place like Siachen with the factors I mentioned a woman won't last 5 minutes. All that abla nari nonsense does'nt work there.

Medically speaking, women tend to tolerate extreme G-forces better than their male counterparts. It has been proven time again that women can perform as well as their male counterparts, if not better, as combat pilots.
"The reality is that women can counteract G-forces because their physiology makes them more tolerant of G-forces than men.
(G-forces push down on a body, they overcome the ability of the heart to pump oxygenated blood upward into the brain. Blood begins to pool in the lower extremities, while blood circulation to the head is reduced. When blood circulation to the head is sufficiently reduced, the oxygen supply to the brain becomes insufficient.)
Height, not strength or gender, is the most negative factor in a pilot's ability to tolerate G stress. Because women have a smaller body mass the shorter distance between their heart and brain makes it easier for them to counteract the G-forces. Advances in centrifuge technology and training , special exercises, and newer G-suits are making marked improvement in aircrew G-tolerance."

As for all other malarkey about women "unable" to do a military man's work, read up on this:
1. Debunking
2. Military Women Can Hack It

So shove that chauvinistic, misogynist mindset up where it really belongs...

The IA should be opened up to woman more in technical/support branches- Signals, Medical, Intel, Air Defence etc but keep them away from combat arms. Even today most modern militaries have a bar on women in combat arms or have experimented with it and failed.

This is not a sexist position but based on human physiology, I'm sorry to say but the average woman would be a liability to any combat unit not to mention being more prone to injury.

A very wrong perception indeed, both from a medical and a human point of view. Remember some of the deadliest snipers in WWII were Russian women? In our Indian folklore we celebrate women warriors like Rani Laxmibai of Jhansi, Kittur Rani Chennama, etc who actually rode into battle, swords in hand et al.....
And now why this sexism? All those who say that women arent physically fit to do combat military service, I have one question. Who among you all has actually served...undergone/completed basic training to make such comments or draw such conclusions? You guys really know what it is to undergo such training and do you guys really know how a woman's physiology really works?

 

[Koovie]

Our lady officers are serving in waziristan already:

View attachment 41079


During Ops RR in Swat:

View attachment 41080 View attachment 41081



We already have Lady officers in AMC,Signal,Ordinance,Eng corps,Army Aviation pilots flying fixed wing n helis,Airforce fighter pilots,Navy,
Counter Terrorism Units:

View attachment 41082
View attachment 41083 View attachment 41084 View attachment 41085

I think he meant combat ops... lady officers leading men into battle

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

I think he meant combat ops... lady officers leading men into battle

You guys have yet to induct femal officers in ordinance corps,eng corps,signal corps etc etc... except for fighting corps of the army .. Lady officers are working in almost every field.. heli pilots,transport pilots,eng corps,sign corps,ordinance corps,fighter pilots,med corps etc.... even Rangers (yes in combat positions.. mostly Urban ops) ... even CT Units (essentially combat positions)..

 

[Lord ZeN]

Good move
Most of the modern militaries already have

 

[spectribution]

Damn thts heavy..

It can take a 7.62 X 51 round. No other Ballistic Helmet of PASGT design can. It's basically layers of Kevlar wrapped around your head.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

It can take a 7.62 X 51 round. No other Ballistic Helmet of PASGT design can. It's basically layers of Kevlar wrapped around your head.

Yeah right... than why do i see some indian naval sf going for PASGT..

P.S: it only provides protection to the sides .. above/upper head zero protection..

 

[spectribution]

Yeah right... than why do i see some indian naval sf going for PASGT..

P.S: it only provides protection to the sides .. above/upper head zero protection..

In close combat you don't expect a round to be fired at you bigger than 7.62 X 39 mm and 9 mm. In battle those 7.62 X 51 mm rounds travel a great distance and are especially deadly when a sniper is involved.

 

[kbd-raaf]

Medically speaking, women tend to tolerate extreme G-forces better than their male counterparts. It has been proven time again that women can perform as well as their male counterparts, if not better, as combat pilots.
"The reality is that women can counteract G-forces because their physiology makes them more tolerant of G-forces than men.
(G-forces push down on a body, they overcome the ability of the heart to pump oxygenated blood upward into the brain. Blood begins to pool in the lower extremities, while blood circulation to the head is reduced. When blood circulation to the head is sufficiently reduced, the oxygen supply to the brain becomes insufficient.)
Height, not strength or gender, is the most negative factor in a pilot's ability to tolerate G stress. Because women have a smaller body mass the shorter distance between their heart and brain makes it easier for them to counteract the G-forces. Advances in centrifuge technology and training , special exercises, and newer G-suits are making marked improvement in aircrew G-tolerance."

As for all other malarkey about women "unable" to do a military man's work, read up on this:
1. Debunking
2. Military Women Can Hack It

So shove that chauvinistic, misogynist mindset up where it really belongs...


A very wrong perception indeed, both from a medical and a human point of view. Remember some of the deadliest snipers in WWII were Russian women? In our Indian folklore we celebrate women warriors like Rani Laxmibai of Jhansi, Kittur Rani Chennama, etc who actually rode into battle, swords in hand et al.....
And now why this sexism? All those who say that women arent physically fit to do combat military service, I have one question. Who among you all has actually served...undergone/completed basic training to make such comments or draw such conclusions? You guys really know what it is to undergo such training and do you guys really know how a woman's physiology really works?

In reference to the highlighted part. I've been in the ring with a woman about 5kg heavier than I (i.e one to two weight classes higher).

She lasted about 15 seconds and all I did was chuck an elbow out.

Yes, would be really great for the same thing to happen in a combat situation.

I present the same question to you, have you served? Do you know that in a combat situation you have to have an utter trust in the abilities of the person next to you? How can you do that if you know that person didn't have to go through as rigorous a training as you, or was nearly as physically capable.

 

[spectribution]

@gubbi

Female Military Pilots in Finnish Air Force
Tuomo Leino, M.D.

Many air forces globally have female pilots flying helicopters, liaison aircraft, some even high-performance interceptor. E.g. Norwegian Air Force has one female F-16 Falcon pilot with over 600 falcon flight hours. However, US Air Force and US Navy did not use female pilots in Combat Flight Missions until November 1993. Especially US Navy has done a lot research work in order to evaluate female fighter pilot`s ability to perform in combat situations with high-performance interceptors. First two female student pilots started their training in Air Force Academy of Finnish Air Force August 1997.

Recently Carreta (psychologist, Amstrom laboratory, US Air Force) reported that despite male-female mean scores of US Air Force Pilot Selection test differ, confirmatory analyses indicated that the same factors were measured in psychological evaluation. However, male and female cadets performed equally well in Cadet School and their flying skills showed similar structure. Conclusion is that from aviation psychological point of view female and male pilots are in the same line.

The military aviation physiological point of view is not so clear. There are no good studies on this subject. We know that US Navy has a lot of problems with female pilot`s + Gz tolerance. Three years ago 50 % of US Navy T-38 student pilots could not found G-suit that would fit. Female anatomy especially in pelvis area is very different to male anatomy and all G-suits are designed for male pilots ! This year US Navy introduced a new female shape G-suit, but still 20 % of female pilots has problems with unfit G-suit. Of course unfit G-suit will drop G-tolerance up to 2.5 G.

Dr. Chelette from Amstrong Laboratory, Us Air Force, did a study with nine female fighter pilots in the Dynamic Environment Simulator (DES). DES is normal fighter simulator situated in centrifuge and these female subjects performed a complex combat flight mission in high + Gz environment (max +9 Gz). Results showed that G-tolerance with fit G-suits is the same compared to male fighter pilots. However, female flight performance was 15% lower than male fighter pilot performance in equal conditions. Conclusion is that female fighter pilots have to push much harder in high G environment and this effort will decrease their ability to make correct tactical maneuvers in order to get clear gun or missile shot.

Based on discussions with Dr. Hamalainen, M.D., Ph.D. (Air Force Academy of FAF), possibility of G-induced neck injuries in female pilots is predicted to higher compared to male pilots. No studies are done on this issue, but in car accidents incidence of whisp splash neck injuries is 20 % higher in females based on anatomical structure of female neck.

In near future Finnish Air Force will make decision about female pilots in active duty in FAF. There are examples even in Scandinavia that female pilot can fly high-performance aircraft. On the other hand, most female pilots in other air forces are situated in liaison or helicopter squadrons. Finnish Air Force policy is to train only interceptor pilots, when applicants are selected for cadet school. From my point of view, FAF should consider the decision very carefully in order not to get disappointments and money waste during interceptor pilot training.

Blacking out and enduring prolonged crippling stress injury is different.

Could you please make sure that amount of weight is correct. Ask a grown man to carry 150 pounds for prolonged amount of time or during a firefight and you should have an answer if it is possible. The answer should be anywhere from 50lbs to 100lbs max depending on mission requirements.

Weight of Combat Gear Is Taking Toll

Same problem everywhere. these feminist shits have no idea what they want!

Weight of Combat Gear Is Taking Toll

Carrying heavy combat loads is taking a quiet but serious toll on troops deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, contributing to injuries that are sidelining them in growing numbers, according to senior military and defense officials.

Rising concern over the muscle and bone injuries -- as well as the hindrance caused by the cumbersome gear as troops maneuver in Afghanistan's mountains -- prompted Army and Marine Corps leaders and commanders to launch initiatives last month that will introduce lighter equipment for some U.S. troops.

As the military prepares to significantly increase the number of troops in Afghanistan -- including sending as many as 20,000 more Marines -- fielding a new, lighter vest and helmet is a top priority, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway said recently. "We are going to have to lighten our load," he said, after inspecting possible designs during a visit to the Quantico Marine base.

Army leaders and experts say the injuries -- linked to the stress of bearing heavy loads during repeated 12- or 15-month combat tours -- have increased the number of soldiers categorized as "non-deployable." Army personnel reported 257,000 acute orthopedic injuries in 2007, up from 247,000 the previous year.

As injuries force more soldiers to stay home, the Army is having a harder time filling units for upcoming deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq, said Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, the service's vice chief of staff.

"There is no doubt that [in] our non-deployable rates, we're seeing increase," he said. "I don't want to see it grow any more."

The number of total non-deployables has risen by an estimated 2,000 to 3,000 since 2006, putting the current figure at about 20,000, according to Chiarelli. "That occurs when you run the force at the level we're running it now," he said.

"You can't hump a rucksack at 8,000 to 11,000 feet for 15 months, even at a young age, and not have that have an impact on your body, and we are seeing an increase in muscular-skeletal issues," Chiarelli told reporters last month.

The top U.S. commander for eastern Afghanistan, where the bulk of U.S. troops in the country operate, has issued a formal request, known as an operational needs statement, for lighter body armor for troops there. The new equipment, called a "plate carrier," would protect vital organs and weigh less than 20 pounds. It would not include additional pieces that troops currently use to shield sides, shoulders, arms, the groin and other areas -- pieces that, with a helmet, weigh about 35 pounds.

Commanders would determine in what circumstances troops could wear the lighter gear, which would make it easier to maneuver when pursuing insurgents over rugged terrain at high altitudes.

"Our dismounted operations are occurring at very high elevations, 10,000 feet and higher, where the air is thinner and it is difficult already to maneuver. You add to that body armor, ammunition and the full load that soldiers carry -- it is difficult," said a military official familiar with the request. "You are operating against an enemy that is very agile -- running around in tennis shoes, if that -- and they are fleet of foot and can move faster and elude us," said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the request had not yet been approved.

Pietro Tonino, chief of sports medicine at Loyola University Health System in suburban Chicago, agreed that the loads troops carry would "absolutely" predispose them to muscular-skeletal injuries over time. "They will get stress fractures or overuse injuries of the back, the legs, the foot," Tonino said. "Recruits get these stress fractures in their feet all the time just from walking."

The military has added to its protective gear in recent years to guard against improvised bombs and other threats common in Iraq and Afghanistan, but that has come with a trade-off, as soldiers and Marines routinely carry more than half their body weight into combat.

Individual Marine combat loads -- including protective gear, weapons, ammunition, water, food and communications gear -- range from 97 to 135 pounds, well over the recommended 50 pounds, a 2007 Navy study found.

In Afghanistan, soldiers routinely carry loads of 130 to 150 pounds for three-day missions, said Jim Stone, acting director of the soldier requirements division at the Army Infantry Center at Fort Benning, Ga. In Iraq, where patrols are more likely to use vehicles, loads range from 60 to nearly 100 pounds, he said.

"It's like a horse: We can load you down, and you just don't last as long," Stone said.

Injuries -- the bulk of them muscular-skeletal -- are the main cause of hospitalizations and outpatient visits for active-duty Army soldiers, leading to about 880,000 visits per year, according to Army data. The injuries include sprains, stress fractures, inflammation and pain from repetitive use, and they are most common in the lower back, knees, ankles, shoulders and spine. They are one of the leading reasons that soldiers miss duty, said Col. Barbara Springer, director of rehabilitation under the Army surgeon general.

The overall injury rate for active-duty soldiers has increased slightly to 2.2 injuries per soldier each year, according to Bruce Jones, director of injury prevention at the Army Center for Health Promotion & Preventive Medicine at Aberdeen Proving Ground.

Jones confirmed that soldiers "are now carrying heavier loads on our back, so there is a greater opportunity for overuse injuries." And with the rapid pace of deployments, he said, "you get a chronic back injury, then you don't recover before the next cycle. . . . You have to go back to theater 100 percent fit," able to wear the life-saving armor every day.

Sgt. Waarith Abdullah, 34, is struggling to recover at Fort Stewart, Ga., from a lower-back injury that he says was caused by the strain of wearing body armor for long hours each day during three deployments to Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

Abdullah's injury flared up painfully during his most recent 15-month deployment to Balad, Iraq, where he had to maneuver to search vehicles and stand for 12-hour shifts in guard towers.

"That takes a toll on you, because you have to maintain your center of gravity wearing all that stuff and doing your job," said Abdullah, of Miami. He wore a Kevlar helmet, body armor with four plates, a throat and groin protector, and shoulder pads, while carrying 10 pounds of ammunition, a rifle, a flashlight and other gear.

"At times, I did think the equipment we were wearing was heavier than usual, but I'm a soldier and I still do my job," he said. "I think it could be lighter and stronger at the same time."

During the deployment, Abdullah was allowed to go without armor for 30 days, but the pain returned when he started wearing it again. He returned last July to Fort Stewart, where he is in physical therapy. He is still unable to wear armor but hopes to recover in time for his next deployment.

Maj. Neil Vining, an orthopedic surgeon at Winn Army Community Hospital at Fort Stewart, said many of those sidelined have debilitating lower-back pain. "If their condition makes them a danger to themselves or others, if they couldn't wear their armor or extricate themselves or others from danger, then they are non-deployable," he said.

After two tours in Iraq, Staff Sgt. James Otto, an Army mechanic, has undergone nine months of physical therapy, traction and medication for back pain. He hopes that in three to four months he will be able to wear his vest again and switch to a different job so he can stay in the Army. In November, an Army board gave him a six-month probationary period in which he has to prove he can "wear the vest and shoot a weapon again," he said.

Further evidence of the frequency of the injuries, which have forced some to leave the military, has come up in studies of veterans.

Carroll W. McInroe, a former VA primary-care case manager in Washington state, said he has seen such injuries in hundreds of veterans from today's wars. "Our infantry should not be going into battle carrying 90 to 100 pounds on their backs," he said. "The human muscular-skeletal system is simply not designed for that much weight, and it will break down over time."

Army experts say some units are adopting more strenuous exercise routines to prepare soldiers for the strain.

At Fort Drum, N.Y., the 10th Mountain Division readies its troops for Afghanistan using aggressive strength training. Command Sgt. Maj. Joe Montour said the training, which involves pull-ups and other drills while wearing full body armor, helped reduce injuries by 45 percent.

Also, the Army is now deploying a physical therapist with most active-duty combat brigades, said Lt. Col Nikki Butler, a senior rehabilitation specialist. And the Army recently held its first two-day summit devoted to tackling the issue.

"We refer to soldiers as tactical athletes," Butler said. "You want to help take care of them early so they can get back in the game."

 

[he-man]

We as a society are simply not ready for this,,,,it will get messy.
People will(some) slam my post but its the truth,,,,,i think the officers will have some problem in dealing with people from north india,,,,,the society is such here that it will be a shock for many jawans to have a female boss

 

[Menace2Society]

So will female Indian commanders rape the male Kashmiris?

 

[he-man]

Purely physically speaking there is no match between a man and a woman of almost comparable weight
So stop this discussion.