Woman in New Zealand SAS

[steve33]

I read an article on the site www.stuff.co.nz/0a11.html and it states that 200 men and woman from the SAS were given an award from the U.S president for there role in the fighting in Afganistan.

I didn,t know that woman were able to serve with the SAS.

Do woman serve with the British and Australian SAS.?

 

[Lucasnz]

I read an article on the site www.stuff.co.nz and it states that 200 men and woman from the SAS were given an award from the U.S president for there role in the fighting in Afganistan.

I didn,t know that woman were able to serve with the SAS.

Do woman serve with the British and Australian SAS.?

Until recently Chief of Defence Force had the ability to exclude women from Combat Roles. In practice that hasn't happen since the early 1990's. The leglistation allowing restrictions on the roles NZ service women could perform was repealed this month.

While I doubt anyone could tell you if women have actually joined the SAS as badged members. I suspect that any women serve in logistics etc as part of the overall structure of the SAS. There is a program screening of NZ TV about the SAS - starting tonight - so we might get a slightly better insight into the force overall.

 

[steve33]

The doco will be good to see.

Do you know if woman in the New Zealand military who are now able to serve in all combat roles are expected to attain the same physical standards as the men.

I ask because the last time i looked at the New Zealand Army website the woman were able to run slower times do less sit ups press ups and if woman are allowed into all combat roles which they should be able to do if they have the goods they should be asked to attain the same standards as the men.

Do you know what the situation is.

 

[Lucasnz]

The doco will be good to see.

Do you know if woman in the New Zealand military who are now able to serve in all combat roles are expected to attain the same physical standards as the men.

Do you know what the situation is.

The Navy has one standard, regardless of age or gender: 7.1 Beep Test (20meters) and 10 Military Press Ups. Not sure about the Air Force, but I almost certain that they're similar to the Army in terms of times based on age / gender.

ask because the last time i looked at the New Zealand Army website the woman were able to run slower times do less sit ups press ups and if woman are allowed into all combat roles which they should be able to do if they have the goods they should be asked to attain the same standards as the men

I remember when women first went to sea, that was one was the arguments against them been there - especially when it came to pulling the hairy stoker out of the boiler room. In reality it hasn't panned out that way.

The fact that women have a lower physical standards doesn't lessen there ability in combat. Many of today's combat roles require skills and competency (Pilots, Navy Combat Systems operator etc) more than physical fitness. The Army combat trades might be the exception.

 

[riksavage]

I know UK military conducted extensive physical trials early this decade comparing women to men in operational environments in order to finally put to bed the constant pressure from the 'politically correct brigade'. The results clearly revealed women could not serve in combat arms due to the simple fact they were not physically strong enough (load carrying, forced marches), particularly in environments where the likelihood of face to face down and dirty combat is likely to occur. Subsequently they are still banded from infantry units, marines, SF etc., other than in a supporting role. They can and do however serve in artillery units, logistics, signals intelligence, army air corp, as RAF pilots and on board ships (but not submarines due to hygiene reasons).

 

[blueorchid]

I know UK military conducted extensive physical trials early this decade comparing women to men in operational environments in order to finally put to bed the constant pressure from the 'politically correct brigade'. The results clearly revealed women could not serve in combat arms due to the simple fact they were not physically strong enough (load carrying, forced marches), particularly in environments where the likelihood of face to face down and dirty combat is likely to occur. Subsequently they are still banded from infantry units, marines, SF etc., other than in a supporting role. They can and do however serve in artillery units, logistics, signals intelligence, army air corp, as RAF pilots and on board ships (but not submarines due to hygiene reasons).

but not submarines due to hygiene reasons!!! Surely you jest nfloorl:
Women have been serving on the RAN's Collins class for years.

 

[steve33]

The Navy has one standard, regardless of age or gender: 7.1 Beep Test (20meters) and 10 Military Press Ups. Not sure about the Air Force, but I almost certain that they're similar to the Army in terms of times based on age / gender.



I remember when women first went to sea, that was one was the arguments against them been there - especially when it came to pulling the hairy stoker out of the boiler room. In reality it hasn't panned out that way.

The fact that women have a lower physical standards doesn't lessen there ability in combat. Many of today's combat roles require skills and competency (Pilots, Navy Combat Systems operator etc) more than physical fitness. The Army combat trades might be the exception.

I agree in some roles woman could get away with a lower physical standard but in the infantry there can be no let up they must be made to attain the same standards as the men other wise it will weaken the rifle companies, i can,t imagine it will also be good for morale when there are people next to each other in a life or death situation and people know that some people were given an eaiser ride in training than others.

You want everyone attaining the same minimum standard,everyone earning the right to wear the uniform,there can be no handouts because when the girls go into combat the enemy won,t give them any handouts.

 

[riksavage]

Blueorchid - Not on extended tours they don’t, 3-month plus without coming to the surface! Remember the UK fleet is all nuclear and can stay submerged for as long as food is available for a single deployment.

Limited showering facilities combined with the female menstrual cycle – nasty compo!

 

[blueorchid]

The collins class can patrol for months without docking at a port, all the time at sea, certainly not submerged at all times, but not much difference than the nuclear boats once you are at sea and I would think that the nuclear boats would be able to generate much more fresh water and clean air than a collins boat.
If the RAN ever goes nuclear you can be certain that women will be in the crew, certainly they will not care about your "nasty compo"

 

[riksavage]

The following link provides a six page summary of the UK's recent study into women in the armed forces.

During tests only 1% of females were able to meet the same physical standards as males, hence the decision to restrict the former from spear point units - infantry, SF, armoured corps etc.

Women can not serve as clearance divers or as submariners for medical reasons. This aspect is covered in a separate report not for public consumption.

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/10B34976-75F9-47E0-B376-AED4B09FB3B3/0/women_af_summary.pdf

 

[riksavage]

Following on from the 'medical theme' in relation to females serving on Submarines, the following quote was taken from a recent US interview with Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness by CNSNews.com. Same would apply to UK boats who spend the same amout of time at sea as there US counterparts.

Quote as follows: "Medical emergencies occur at two-and-a-half times the rate among women than they do among men, and a large percentage are due to pregnancy. If you create that kind of a situation, you shouldn't be surprised if the entire mission of the submarine is compromised. It's not a woman's issue, it's a national security issue. To say that men are just as susceptible to medical emergencies, as in the case of emergency appendicitis, for example, doesn't wash. I asked the Navy how many cases of appendicitis we've had, among either men or women, in the last three years. It's very rare. Pregnancies on the other hand are extremely common."

The last think you want is to be on a global patrol, somewhere under the arctic ice-pack to then face a situation where one of your female crew has morning sickness!

 

[Sarah(Tough)]

All of the people who are going on about the female menstural cycle........you do realise that there are pills available that stop the cycle completely for as long as you want to stop it??

Just thought you should know seems as though you're going on about the 'bad compo' and all.

 

[riksavage]

The female menstural cycle is only one factor in the arguement, increased ratio of medical emergencies is another, see previous post. Regardless, both the UK and US military for the same reason have determined that women serving on nuclear subs, spending long periods at sea, is not practical for both national security and operational reasons.

Countries, such as Norway and Australia don't operate for the same periods of time at sea and have worked around the issue.

 

[Sarah(Tough)]

So what, they won't let us because we might get pregnant?Hmmmmmm
I know it would be a huge issue females and males working together in such a tough environment, i know, and you probably know yourself that undergoing mental and physical pressure (and i'm talking any combat role in the services) can make us do very silly things without thinking about the consequences.....in this case.......the consequences are having a baby. I personally have thought from the very beginning that birth control pills should be MANDATORY!! But still...it is very foolish of the man and woman to do such a thing in their given environment.....and i think if they wanna do that, they do not deserve to serve their country, but thats just my opinion.

I may be completely missing your point here, and i'm sorry if i am but i just feel very strongly about the pregnancy issue as i fell out with a good friend of mine. She got pregnant whilst serving over seas, came looking for sympathy, i wouldn't give it to her so we ended up falling out.

 

[riksavage]

There is know way you would get away with making birth control pills MANDATORY!! Not in western nations obsessed with human rights, plus not all women can take birth control bills for medical reasons, which means you would have to be selective in which females could serve. At the end of the day it's simply not worth it - cost, accommodation issues, time at sea (3-6 months) etc. etc.

The study carried out by the UK was very detailed and pretty balanced. You also will note from UK's attached report in the earlier thread that both Russia and Israel have now withdrawn females from combat units.

 

[flyboyEB]

This threads a little old but I couldn't resist

Judging by Helen Clark I'm sure kiwi women are more than man enough to serve in the NZ SAS. nfloorl: But I actually doubt any women serve in the NZSAS, even if they're allowed I don't think they would pass selection for the same reasons people have mentioned above.
But in response to the question if women serve in the Australian or British SAS's, the answer is no. The Australian Defence Force has a 'direct combat exclusion' restriction, which excludes women from serving in roles with a chance of 'direct combat,' meaning the Royal Australian Infantry Corps (of which the SASR is a part), Clearance Diving Teams, the Royal Australian Armoured Corps, Royal Australian Artillery, Combat Engineers and RAAF Airfield Defence Guards.
In Britain, females are not allowed to serve in roles whose "primary duty is to close with and kill the enemy" so basicly as with Australia.

 

[ArmyAmy]

(but not submarines due to hygiene reasons).

I thought women weren't allowed on subs for safety reasons my My family is Navy and they always told me it was for the "safety" of a woman under water for six months in a sardine can full of men. although really it never made sense to me because women go on 6 month cruises on the other ships. Mm interesting

 

[AegisFC]

I thought women weren't allowed on subs for safety reasons my My family is Navy and they always told me it was for the "safety" of a woman under water for six months in a sardine can full of men. although really it never made sense to me because women go on 6 month cruises on the other ships. Mm interesting

This thread would be more appropriate place to discuss females on submarines.

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5924&page=2&highlight=females+submarines

 

[icelord]

the common belief is, and i agree, the basic instinct of a male is to protect a female, whether they like them or not, and on a battlefield the last thing you want is for a male soldier to be concerned for a female soldier when theres still an enemy to remove.There will be no females in the SAS till combat units get some, and that won't happen for a very very long time

 

[ltb]

Three main reasons for the lack of women in combat roles is

1) during an assualt if a woman goes down the blokes are more likely to stop and help here rather than carrying the attack through and allowing bemedics to follow on behind as would happen with males

2) due to female bone strucure.. the whole wide hipped thing... the amount of kit reqired by infantry units to carry would more than likly resault in massive dammage to the hips lower knees and ankles... worse than what would be seem in males

3) the chinese did a test with female infantry units they found two issues. one it took them some time to get angry enough to perform, and once they were they could not calm them down again