U.S. Army to Test Body Armor Built Specifically For Women

Bout time...

I don't understand these people who say women don't belong in combat. What exactly does that entail? Okay, first, women are in no way "weaker" than men. They're just not. Anyone that says otherwise fails to recognize the concept of "averages." It really only matters on an individual basis. An individual man can be more able-bodied than an individual woman, and another woman can be more physically capable than him, and so on and so forth.

So are these people really suggesting we BAN an entire gender from active combat roles, not taking ANY individual variances to the mean? Ever hear of personal liberties and freedoms!? What, if a woman is able to meet the physical demands of the work, would she be turned away? "Sorry, you're more than strong enough for this kind of mission, stronger than some of the men out there performing it, but we're denying you because you're a woman and women are weaker." That makes absolutely no sense, and on top of that it's an incredibly stupid and dangerous way of thinking.

---
Always defer to facts rather than philosophy.

@J.James

In any other situation I would have agreed with you but in this situation, no. Reason being, most men will get distracted having women in the front-lines. Its biological; human nature.

A good example of this is the recent shooting in Colorado. You didn't hear of any cases where the women were shielding their boyfriends from gunfire. But multiple guys shielded their girlfriends.

@J. James: The Army understands averages. For example, in order to accommodate women, there is a second, lower physical standard that women must keep. Unfortunately, in combat bullets do not discriminate, and the weights you have to carry while you are shooting, moving, and communicating are quite large.

As Mike said, there are also psychological factors for the men that would make it difficult for them to operate in combat alongside women.

This may strike you as quite unfair, and you are absolutely correct. It is not fair. Neither is war.

These obstacles are not insurmountable. Holding women to the same standard as men in every way would eliminate most women, but there would be certain people who could make it. We train out natural instincts all the time. It is natural for people to not want to kill people, yet we have carefully designed training that all but eliminates this block under certain circumstances. It stands to reason we could do the same with the protective instinct.

Unfortunately, it is unlikely steps like this would be taken, because the decision will be made by those who will never have to die on the front lines, under pressure by more of the same people. People who are more worried about the military being "fair" than it being "effective".

I was raised with a lot of old traditional values, but in life I have also learned more modern ways. My heart reaches out to woman and children, those who are weak and yes I wish to protect them. But in the day to day of life, learning and knowing of equality, they have the right to live life with full opportunity and choices.

My knee jerk response is to not let woman server in combat rolls. But my learned common sense and morals says they have my respect and right to choose to.

Thank you all, men and woman who serve others and defend our country! GOD BLESS YOU ALL for your sacrifices!

oh god here we go again with this "women shouldn't be on the front lines' debate, let me wrap this up for everyone, one nice quick end all to this debate

"women are weaker than men"-on average true, but there are many women out there that are quite capable of meeting those standards....so make the male standard the female standard to enter a front line unit, its not discrimination its just like the standards for rated pilots in the AF.

"Men will inherently try to protect women on the battlefield and this is dangerous" yes colorado does prove that this happens. But what about all those men who jump on grenades, rush into fire to save their buddies, etc. etc. this happens allready with men trying to save men.

"Their are psychologically weaker/it would be a psychologically hard on the men to see"-In general the psychology comment, no bases in fact, actaully perpetuated in the early 60's and 70's to keep women out of the military, no basis in fact, war is hard, and people are allready getting psychologically hurt from war.

Hope that covers everything

I think the "performance issue" is a non-issue. That is the exact reason you test standards. If you require physical strength, test for it. There are women out there who are stronger than most men. If you want speed, test for it. There are women who are faster than most men. If they can't pass the same physical requirements as the men, then they shouldn't be considered for front line service.

Practically speaking, the US Army has been lowering the bar for years to meet retention requirements. Would you rather share a foxhole with the guy that barely made it through ITBs lowered standard or the girl that ate ITB for breakfast?

@J James,

Women are weaker then men on average, that is a fact. Its biology, there is no way around that. You can look at professional sports teams for a good example. Or even better, watch the olympics and compare what the men do vs the women in events like track and field, swimming, gymnastics, power lifting etc. You will see that even the worlds BEST woman athlete in that event will not be faster or stronger then the BEST man in that same event. Key ones to compare: 100m, 200m, 400m, 800m, 1600m, long jump, high jump, shot put, javeline, power clean, deadlift. Then for the complete package look at the decathalon.

As mentioned the military has a seperate physical standard for men and women. Google Army APFT standards for comparison. I'll give you a quick summary: if a woman maxes out the standards on her APFT scale, she will only be barely meeting the male MINIMUM standard for his scale. There is a big gap. So for the most part, the most in shape women in the Army are still at the lowest end of the male physical standard.

Are there women out there who are in amazing shape and might be able to handle the physcial demands of conventional combat? Yes. I watch the CrossFit games and some of those women might keep up with me. However, those women represent .01% of the women population. We cannot simply allow ALL women to enter combat arms in the hopes that you might get 1 out of every 1000 women who actually deserve to be there.

The problem is people like yourself are too concerned about what it "fair" and having the same "opportunity" without realizing the damaging effects it has. War is not a game. It is not nice, it doesn't play by the rules and it is not pretty. It is not a place for 99% of women.

I say IF a woman can meet all the same standards as the men do then she would have earned her place. However, because people want to play "fair" the standards will be lowered or different all together in order to allow this idea of equality. But how "equal" is it when they have different standards? How "equal" is it when someone holds their hand and insures that they pass or graduate a course? How "fair" is it that they do not have to sign up for the selctive reserve but all men over 18 have to? Sounds like they want to have their cake and eat it too.

@Army Juggernaut

Can't say that I disagree with any of that.

With the different male/female standard, the only reason for the existence for the APFT test is to determine who will look good in a uniform. There is no practical application beyond that. If physical strength is really a requirement, then the standard should be same across the board: Lift x number of pounds x number of times. For endurance, run x miles in x minutes carrying x pounds. etc.

Also think that women should be required to register with selective service at age 18.

First, women have a place on the Battle Field. Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations especially need women for a great many of reasons. Indeed, in these roles; women have some advantages over many men.

Second, small COP's often lack running water and many have water rationed for consumption only - personal hygiene is accomplished through wet wipes, if you have them. Men under situations like this are far less likely to get yeast (and other) infections than women. On a mission oriented basis, women can be placed in an austere location, but accommodations have to be made.

Third, women smell differently than men. This is bad for a forward observer, infantryman, or scout who is trying to be discreet. Granted, this would be of a greater problem if we engaged in more conventional wars, but it is a problem never the less.

Fourth, with one exception for women, the IOTV is adjustable to all body types – provided you have the correct size. I know of no women who actually go outside of the wire that have had a problem with the system.

Bottom line is that this is an accomidation that is politically – not tacticly motivated, achieves no additional protection for service members, but will complicate supply channels.

Good. Whether I like it or not women are serving this country and getting shot for it - its about time they get some real armor and not just hand-me-downs.

I love how this immediately turned to the issue of women serving in the military. You always hear women complain about liberty and being treated equal and bla bla bla, but the second you mention being drafted its "gentlemen first". Spoiled brats want all the rights and none of the responsibilities.

The military isn't about feeling good - its about discipline, something we are severely lacking these days. If women volunteer for service, they should be placed with other women - not men. Men are hardwired to treat women differently, and these women know it. Mixing the two together does not enforce discipline on either.

If you think a woman cannot fight in combat, then I invite you to visit a woman Chinese soldier.

Also, anyone who says women don't belong in combat is ignorant of history. Women have been fighting in combat for thousands of years in various civilizations.

@Army Juggernaut
I don't understand your complaint. Of course women are weaker on average. Everyone knows this. But averages don't matter, this is the military we're talking about. Individual ability is the only thing that matters.

"You will see that even the worlds BEST woman athlete in that event will not be faster or stronger then the BEST man in that same event."

"Are there women out there who are in amazing shape and might be able to handle the physcial demands of conventional combat? Yes. However, those women represent .01% of the women population."

Sooooo.... Are you saying it's physically possible for a woman to meet the standards, or not? You just contradicted your previous quote.

But whatever. Our military is 1% of our population. If women capable of serving are 1% or .01% of the female population(you said both, which makes me think you're not citing any studies, just the inside of your colon), then so be it. But to take that portion of women that DO meet the physical standard- I don't say "standards" because there should only be one, at least for the most intense service- and FORCIBLY BAN them from the service, just reeks of senseless discrimination.

The feeble excuse usually offered is that somehow the male soldiers' senses of chivalry will compel them to protect the helpless damsel like lemmings leaping off a cliff, or that there is some insurmountable male-female hostility, or something. You might as well ban black people, and justify it by saying that them and whites "just can't mix," and that they'll never be able to get along. Who knows, maybe the white soldiers will just fold and give in to their natural desire to lynch the black soldier from the nearest tree. After all, they just can't help themselves, right?

You see how flawed that logic is? It's disgusting, but you often see it as the standard excuse. Someone even brought it up just in this comments section!

"We cannot simply allow ALL women to enter combat arms in the hopes that you might get 1 out of every 1000 women who actually deserve to be there."

Uh, "simply cannot allow?" What rules are YOU following? It would not take a whole lot of imagination to make it so that women aren't banned active combat, but make it so that the standards are not lowered. All you would have to do is keep the single set of physical requirements, and instead of saying "men who can meet these standards can fight," you say "anyone who can meet these standards can fight." Was that so difficult? You change one word and now the whole thing settled. Your bizarre strawman -that somehow a DELUGE of unqualified women will render the standards null and void if women are allowed their right to serve- is defeated by just keeping the standard the same but letting ANYONE who meets that standard get in.
---
Always defer to facts rather than philosophy.

@J. James
Women are curently serving in Manerver, Fires, and Effects branches of the Army. This is the catagory that contains Armor, Infantry, etc. Though they are not serving in the Infantry or Armor specifically, they are in other branches associated. The notion, though that individual abilities are the core to military achievements is one of action movies. The military works off of averages, not accomidations for individuals. This is your proposition. You are focused on individuals, with out consideration of Mission, Enemy, or Enviroment.

You only address physical strength - there are far more physiological differences. I am not strong or fast by male standards, but I know few female soldiers that can match my speed and none that can match my strength. Ignoring this, as I am only working from my observations, there remains a question of the other differences. Hygiene as mentioned earlier is a chalange for male soldiers, but a huge issue for health of female soldiers. Bone density is an other issue. When one goes out with a minimum of 100lbs. extra on one's body, this is definately a concern.

I'm not implying that women are incapable; as I said earlier there are some MOS's in which women are some times more useful than men. I am saying that women are different, and those differences require accomidation. Accomidation requires resources. If resources need to be expended, then they need to be expended to meet mission requirements - not political correctness, or Fairness.

@cokkies453,

I'll meet a male Chinese soldier without any fear or problems. I don't see your point. You are ignorant to what modern conventional combat requires both physically and mentally. The war in Afghanistan is not a conventional war, it is unconventional. Nobody should use unconventional war as an example for change in policy over a conventional fighting force. Riding around in vehicles and getting blown up by IED's is worlds different then pushing a forward line and capturing territory from an enemy. Or closing with and destroying the enemy in ground combat. This is very physically and mentally demanding. I would point you in the direction of the 101st airborne division and what combat was like for them when they entered Afghanistan immediately following 9/11. It is a task that 99.9% of women cannot handle.

"The feeble excuse usually offered is that somehow the male soldiers' senses of chivalry will compel them to protect the helpless damsel...You might as well ban black people... After all, they just can't help themselves, right?"

Using race as an equal argument to sex is specious, because the differences between a white male and a black male are small enough that they do not have a tactical impact, whereas the differences between a male and female soldier are far greater. If you read the comments that have been left, most who do not wish women to be allowed in combat are not motivated by some sense of chivalry or chauvinism, but instead are motivated by tactical effectiveness.

In combat the individual is under extraordinary pressure. Social niceties and preconceptions tend to fall away, and what shows through is instinct, unless that instinct has been superseded by programmed behavior training. It can be shown, time and again, that many men have an instinct to protect women who are in danger, to a greater extent than they are motivated to protect males in the same situation. Whether this is genetic or socially programmed does not matter. What is clear is that it exists, and must therefore be acknowledged and overcome.

Give men training to overcome this instinct in combat situations, like we give them training to overcome their aversion to killing the enemy, and you eliminate this problem. To do that, though, we must first acknowledge it -is- a problem, rather than turning a blind eye in the interests of "fairness".

That being said, I've often wondered aloud how the women who are, shall we say, "well-endowed" got by in their standard issue body armor. The new IOTV's helped substantially, but it makes sense to have armor designed for their own physical needs.

@J. James,

You contradicted yourself based on your first post. It is very obvious that you don't understand averages and are now trying to back track.

My statements did not contradict themselves at all, even when quoting them back to back they don't. You need to work on reading comprehension.

The military makes up less then 1% of the US population. Women in the miltiary are a very small percentage of all service members. The percentage of the female population that could actually meet the physical demands of conventional combat are increadibly small. I was being very generous when I said .01%. The actual figure would probably be closer to .001%. Even among female athletes very few of them would posses all the physical capabilities necessary. Now of those women who are CURRENTLY serving in the military I estimate that about 1% of those women could actually meet the physical requirements. I know of just one personally, who can meet the requirements. I have 9 years of experience to draw from.

I don't use the arguement that men feel the instinctual need to protect females because I think we can train people out of that mindset. I also don't get hung up on the inevitabiltiy of women being a sexual distraction to men. It does pose a morale problem and a rediness problem but I as a leader can address those issues. But what I cannot control is biology.

I already stated that I have no problem with women serving in combat roles provided that they can meet the same physical standard that men do. However, due to people like yourself who are overly concerned with what is "fair" they will not have the same standard. Because in the same breath a femenist will insist that women have the same opportunity as men because they "can do everything men can just as well as they can" but then insist a different physical standard because biologically they are on average weaker then men. They will always insist a double standard.

When women are eventually allowed to serve in combat jobs(it will happen) they will have a different physical standard then men. Politicians, policy makers and loudmouth never served a day in their life liberals will make sure of it. And because of this they will slow down the rest of the team, squad, platoon, company........entire military down. We become less effective in combat and we will sustain more combat casualties. But I suppose more dead service members will be worth it for the sake of making civilians feel like the military is being "fair."

The idea of keeping one standard(and not a lowered standard, but the same standard as it stands now) is the true solution but it WILL NOT HAPPEN, this I guarantee. They are about to let women attend Ranger School and it has already been stated by the higher command that there WILL BE female graduates regardless. So even those who do not meet the standards(and I will say all of them will not meet the standards) some will be graduated anyway. They will hold their hands and demand they be passed, they will garantee graduates and degrade the meaning of the school, all for politics. Not a single one will have actually earned that tab. That is the future of our military. PC to the core, and in the process more lives will be lost.

@Military Juggernaut
"The idea of keeping one standard(and not a lowered standard, but the same standard as it stands now) is the true solution"

So you know that it's the right thing to do, but you would rather take away people's rights and shame the meritocratic principles of our democracy because you think it's hopeless to even TRY to do the right thing, and you think someone will eventually come along and mess things up again?

That's one dangerous attitude. Why bother doing anything, then? After all, we're going to die anyway. Nothing is permanent. We should have just stayed under the heel of the British, because eventually all empires collapse, so why bother? Scientists should just stop looking for new treatments to diseases, because eventually they all just evolve and make us suffer all over again.

It's attitudes like that which stymie human progress. You know what we call people that spit on that kind of attitude and fight for the right thing anyway? Heroes.
---
Always defer to facts rather than philosophy.

@J. James:

If we can get women into serious combat units, ready and willing to fix bayonets, then we could hugely increase the number of soldiers our glorious country has. Consequently we can fight more wars more effectively. Furthermore because women have their sexual organs on the inside and not the outside as men do, they will be far better suited for mine and IED clearance as their fertility is less likely to be affected.

The downside is that the military treatment is almost singularly adapted for treating and healing men, and this is especially true of psychological trauma like PTSD.

Unfortunately when we have truckloads of psychologically scarred women coming home, in many cases without limbs, I worry they will struggle somewhat more than even men do - given the gender biased medical and psychological assistance.

But anyway, this stuff aside, I'm totally on your side bro: Women in the army now! HELL YEAH!

J.James I have to say your posts are so sublimely considered that you deserve a second response viz your point on human progress.

Correlating human progress with the acceptance, nay, encouragement of young women across America to fight in unending wars in countries you've never heard of is totally perverse.

I love it when you say that not permitting women to fight in close combat is akin to 'taking away people's rights and shaming the meritocratic principles of our democracy'. Ah.. so now you're making a heartfelt plea to protect the rights of women everywhere to get turned into bloody vapourised mist. The implementation of this idea is an unmissable opportunity for the law of unintended consequences to take your lovingly defended ideas and run supremely out of control, affecting all sorts of areas and people in ways that are so completely unpredictable that there is no possible way to know what effect this would have.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. A firefight with some guys from Yemen is not the place to put into practice ill considered theories about gender and identity.

On the other hand, my dear American ally, if you'd be happy to send your own mother, sister, or aunt into a IED-laden bloodbath then I bow to your superior intellect and purity of ideology.

The thing is, J. James, that we do know the solution. We, the soldiers, the grunts, the guys who actually have to face the bullets, know the solution. What we also know is that the solution won't be implemented. As long as the discussion includes the word "fair", it will inevitably result in a lowering of standards.

I wonder if the solder in this picture is wearing 'curlers' under her hat? I am just curious. ;)

@lobe
Another fatalist. Well, since Mr. Argument From Authority here says it is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE for the right thing to be done, might as well give up, right? Just consign ourselves to the inevitablility that someone somewhere is going to oppose the true, just solution. Might as well just roll over and die, and let the unjust assholes of the world win.

@Chris

Whether the war is just or not has absolutely no bearing on unfair discrimination, which would exist regardless of whether the war was for the right reasons or the wrong reasons.

---
Always defer to facts rather than philosophy.

I find it rather sad that a discussion over women's right to enlist in the military has been started over an article that encourages this right. I understand that there are still plenty of people out there that believe women are inferior to men,and I also understand how those people could be so thick. But it doesn't matter how religiously they try to make their arguments,they will always be wrong. Human capabilities are not determined by gender,but by the individual. It's true,girls distract boys,and boys distract girls. But any soldier,man or woman,who deliberately acts on these distractions in a way that could compromise the safety of the group or the integrity of our military's laws has not received the proper discipline required on the battlefield. It is not human nature,but human mindset that drives these attractions,and they can be controlled. Furthermore,taking a bullet for another soldier is a heroic act and happens among all sexes and branches of the military. There are numerous stories of soldiers diving onto live grenades,sacrificing themselves in order to save their comrades.Women prove themselves everyday,both in society and in the military,and yet there are still those who chose to look past their achievements and abilities and dismiss them as inferior because of their gender. I think that the military's decision to even consider a new armor design specifically for women should be evidence enough that they are proving to be as much of an asset on the battlefield as any man in our military.

Did no one read up on the study of women in the IDF? It was proven time and time again that corpsmen, medics, docs, whoever would spend more time with a wounded female soldier than a male. In Iraq we worked very closely with female Marines and Sailors who were trained to search suspected females for explosives, etc. They performed their job beyond reproach, however, they were not required to stay "outside the wire" and their own quarters and head were constructed. There was one really attractive female Marine and you could just tell that everyone around her would appreciate her beauty in the most professional manner a sex-deprived grunt can muster. My point is we were aware of her more than her colleagues, subconsciously. If for whatever reason she were to be captured along with a male. If you think for one second the ruthlessness of our adversary wouldn't dip so low as to possibly assault and abuse her sexually in front of us to get information or even for pure psychological effect you are dead wrong. That situation cannot be tolerated on any battlefield. The enemy will always exploit your weakness, and our greatest weakness is our soft spot for the opposite sex.

J.James your very wrong, here are the reasons, women shouldnt fight in the army.

1.Morale. If a women did get shot or got blown up it would decrease the Mens morale scince its diffrent from seeing a guy get shot.

2. Women are not built for war or fighting for the most part. Men can see farther than girls,but while women have a great Peripheral vision.

3. See one

2. see two

I am not saying that women shouldnt be in the amy more away from the battlefield. P.S I am not trying to be sexist.
P.S.S Sorry for all my grammer mistakes and mipelled words. Is mispelled one word or two words?

Next the government will be issuing specifically tailored vests to each individual. The truth is to make it cost effective it has to be mass produced, therefore, not a perfect fit. I hated wearing the Modular Tactical Vest (MTV) because even though it had great distribution and ventilation, the thing was heavy as s**t when decked out with full battle rattle. The side SAPI plates were the main element that tweaked my comfort. I'm a small guy, 5'6" and 130 lbs. As a corpsman I gotta be able to maneuver, but with all 4 SAPI's, ammo(yes medics carry weapons for u out of date people), medical equipment, its tough. My MTV fully loaded weighed around 60 lbs. Luckily that was only worn during mounted ops. The plate carriers we used for dismount provided obviously less protection with only 2 SAPI's and less carrying slots, means less gear, but also means better maneuverability. Key point, don't try to remodel the vest, try redesigning the equipment that goes into to make it conform to the body better, add elastic along the chest so it stretches, engineer a fluid SAPI instead of bulky plates, that'll help both sexes down the line.

Mike_000:

"A good example of this is the recent shooting in Colorado. You didn't hear of any cases where the women were shielding their boyfriends from gunfire. But multiple guys shielded their girlfriends."

From the above, it looks as though you've made a good argument for female officers.

When I think of military units, I almost always think of them in a pitched battle scenario. If one of our units gets caught out in an ambush or pushed off of their position into a retreat; that's when the reality of that strength standard separates PC from dead people.

The unit is only as fast as it's slowest person, in this case, a female troop humping as best as she's able. Anytime there is a woman there, that is their speed limit, and that is their raw endurance limit whether in attack or retreat.

On Topic: Whether they are serving on the firing line or not, if they are in a situation where body armor is required, they should have something that permits them to work at their best. The protests on here to the vest itself don't make any sense to me when cost is raised, because they would actually be less expensive than the men's. The same contract that procures the men's now can fill the need more effectively. The military isn't going to stop ordering body armor as long as we are there anyway. As it would cost less to make a woman's vest, it will save money.

Hey, this is my own opinion here, but there aren't many women who could do the job me and my guys do.
On average, as well, women under stress recieve far less testosterone than men do, and that is a major factor. Add on to that most of our guys are big, not just fit, just big, for the job that they have to do, and I completely lose faith in the ability of women to keep up with our machine gun section.
Back to the topic of the article, though, this is just another excellent waste of money. Could just rock medium Sapi carriers.

As one who commanded women in a variety of settings in the military, including integrating them into the Military Police combat support roles at Division, Corps, and Theater Army levels, I have had the pleasure to see a wide range of response from our women as they adjusted to these roles. Military Police have assumed much more 'combat' roles after the main combat operations have ceased and the tasks of rebuilding the infrastructures of a country have begun. They were at the forefront of each and every convoy that was hit with IEDs, they were patrolling in the countrysides when the politicians figured out that they had the all important 'shoot-don't-shoot' training of law enforcement while the combat troops did not. MPs were deployed more often and for longer periods of time and were subjected to more 'stop - loss' orders during recent combat operations than any other branch of the US Army.
The key to individual body armor - for either male or female - is to have a common exoskeleton of kevlar with the ability to have rifle plates. On the extreme inside, you must have a system to cool or heat the body (like the vest that Harley Davidson has that you soak in water before a ride and cools the body by 30 degrees) or a quilted vest that can be heated in ovens and provide warmth to the wearer for several hours (did you know that frostbite was a major casualty producer in the desert at night as the heat of the day is lost and nothing is retained at night). In between it the key to ensuring the tight fit between the exoskeleton and the individual. You take a foam product that can be activated to fill all the gaps between the person's body and the exoskeloten. The key is to make sure that there is no air gaps (air gaps increase the pressures of the punch of a bullet or ied shrapnel, less air gap, less trauma. The foam would even (shock and awe) allow for the differences of the anatomy of male and female. The foam is the only thing that would have to be 'thrown away' when the wearer is rotated out. Foam generally is cheap and could be cheap enough to allow for refits every so often to allow for change in body sizes, wear and tear, etc. Hows that for a cheap, but effective fix for all troops - male and female. I waive the patent to ensure that our troops have the best.