As of late December 2018, the British Army now welcomes applications from female civilians to apply to join the Infantry.
The move follows the announcement that exclusions on women serving in close combat roles were being lifted.
Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson announced the date at the Land Combat Power Visit on Salisbury Plain in October, when he opened infantry roles to women who are already serving in other Army units. New recruits could potentially start basic training in April 2019.
According to an MoD news release:
“It is hoped that opening all roles to women will increase the quality and quantity of soldiers. Indeed, it is only right and fair that people who can meet the standards are given the opportunity to do so.
Combat effectiveness will be maintained through the maintenance of physical employment standards, which are designed to match an individual’s physical ability to their employment. Standards will not be lowered.
A front-footed approach, ensuring the right people are employed in the right role, will promote and reinforce Defence’s intent to create a modern, diverse and more effective organisation whilst implementing change responsibly.”
The gradual roll-out of close combat roles becoming available to women began with the Royal Armoured Corps in late 2016.
Since 1914, in western militaries, women have served in greater numbers and more diverse roles than before. In the 1970s, most Western armies began allowing women to serve in active duty in all military branches.
In nine countries women are conscripted into military service. Only a few countries allow women to serve on an equal basis. At the start of last year they included Australia, Canada, Germany, Norway, Sweden and Denmark.
We have to start paying more and making it a decent carear. That doesn’t mean everyone will become a General, it just means more can stay for longer with a good pay and a good life and health care if they stay fit and options for balancing family life and so on. It needs to be more like civi street on the “HR” front in that they are looked after, properly trained and equiped so that if push came to shove they will all come home. It’s a tough job and I admire everyone who serves, but less so those who govern and pay them less than fire fighters who in get to go home every 24 hours and work under considerably lower chances of making the ultimate sacrifice.
I support this if they compete on equal standards with men, since almost no women if any at all will make it through. Drop standards for women and this is the politically correct equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot
Hear! Hear! Levi. Well said.
Not true Levi. I have seen many females outperform their male counterparts, including myself and although the best females will ultimately fall short against the very best males physically thet can certainly hold their own against the rest.
Our womans have more biger Bolloks than yours.
You’re probably right!?
Who is “ours” by the way?
ykpanha, our womans are big scary fighty people, are you woman of army ?
Ivan Kalot….well, they do say that it can affect your eyesight. Tell me, do you type one-handed?
WWF SMACKDOWN!!! USMC vs RM RUMBLE in a desert showDOWN! (Did I do that announcer thing right?) This ought to be interesting as two peer fighting forces with different combat doctrines face off.
https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2018/12/28/new-in-2019-the-british-will-invade-in-a-force-on-force-battle-with-marines/
Actually a win win situation for both.
Cheer!
What a stupid and misleading title. Get a grip !!
All well and good, but what about the defense budget?
The new Army fitness tests are starting soon, the combat troops only tests look completely different to what we are doing now, look to be a bit of a beasting to be honest and interestingly is gender neutral.
BV
Replace Jonny wilkinson with jenny , would we win more or less test matches….
You aren’t replacing Jonny. The army is low on numbers. Keep the full squad of 15 and add Jenny in as well. Now who will win more matches?
Anyway, the world has moved on and excluding people from any career because of the arrangement of their genitals is no longer an option.
It is an option if it is irrefutable biological reality that women are weaker, have less stamina, have worse depth perception and less coordination
Our womans has scary Gentiles, big crushy grip and don’t go down much with Bodka breff.
There are differences between the sexes other than just the arrangement of their genitals, just as there are differences between the races (now that is something REALLY forbidden to talk about even though it is scientific fact).
The world has moved on? tell that to ISIS, just look at the video of that chap been arrested in Manchester the other day, 5 or 6 blokes on him 2 women officers holding stuff.
Many years ago I was a junior officer on hold over between courses. I was fortunate to take a temporary post as a divisional officer at the naval nee entry establishment, by chance we had the very first combined male / female entry course. Now being one who had risen up via the ranks I was somewhat sceptical, however, I was amazed ay the positive results, on average it balanced out, we lost as many boys as girls, both sides had poor trainees and both had high flyers. At the end of thier basic training I would have been delighted to have served with anyone of them.
Just like it costs more to find a new customer than it does to keep an existing one, it costs more to train a new soldier than to pay a bit more to keep an existing one. While I am unsure about the army, by the accents heard in the RAN, you seem to be missing a sizeable slice of the RN. If you don’t want to pay your people properly, their are others that will.
It is even possible to transfer to Au/NZ/Ca while still in the services (automatic drop of 1 rank without special agreement) or wait & apply direct. Unknown to many, after medical professionals, military professionals are some of the most exportable people around.
It would be interesting to hear from the grunts that slogged around Helmand in 45deg C, lugging 100 lb sacks what they thought.
Reckon the Pelvic thrust’s exorcises Helped there, truth be known.
I have had a female medic out in Afghan carrying as much kit as I was, med bergans are heavy, although she volunteered to be attached to us so I suppose it takes a certain sort to actually want to do that sort of thing. I have had some howlers though, a few of my smaller lads were struggling on a particularly hot day, turns out the medic made the lads carry all her kit on top of all the other crap they have to carry, her med bergan was empty, she got moved on thank F**K.
To be honest I don’t care what is going on in their pants, if they can fire, move and communicate then that’s good enough for me.
BV
BV. Sad and annoying. Suppressing experiences and evidence like that makes political policies like this not just absurd but endangers everybody. It really makes me reminds me of the Roman Empire that ended because of the decay within. We are going the same way, denying reality,
There are some areas where most women cannot compete with most men. Frontline soldiering is one of those areas. Many women have performed better than men in fitness tests and many have performed perfectly adequately in combat. When fitness is combined with stamina, physical strength and close combat male soldiers will outperform female soldiers on every occasion. For women to serve in frontline roles the bar must be lowered to fulfil politically motivated quotas. This will create gross unfairness in the selection system and see male personnel leaving as a result, not to mention the lives that will be lost. Not for the first time that blood will be on the hands of the politicians.
We need the biggest baddest scariest men to go up against our enemies. End of
PS our potential advisories have some seriously strong guys eg Russian spetznas. Don’t we need to be on par or exceeding that sort of spearhead force?
Wee haz bigist badess woomans