SAS could change selection test to make it easier for female recruits

Dis86 · 4 Dec 2017 at 09:59

Can already see the sjws creaming their underwear over this.

Hotwired · 4 Dec 2017 at 09:59

Nasher said:
It's not just running/hiking challenges though. They need to be able to be proficient in things like un-armed combat as well. Is it a good idea to put a women up against an enemy who could literally be twice their weight?

Obviously they'll be allowed a smaller opponent.

Duh.

Rifte · 4 Dec 2017 at 10:02

Nasher said:
It's not just running/hiking challenges though. They need to be able to be proficient in things like un-armed combat as well. Is it a good idea to put a women up against an enemy who could literally be twice their weight?

Unfortunately genetic advantages can be interpreted as not supportive of equal opportunity these days.

There is a supposed genetic advantage of black athletes (fast twitch muscles) over other races in a number of sports. Do we give white guys a 15 metre head start in the 100 metres sprint to take this into account?

dowie · 4 Dec 2017 at 10:02

Nasher said:
They need to be able to be proficient in things like un-armed combat as well. You can't get around the fact that a well built male has a massive advantage in a situation like that, especially when it's you or them.

I think you'll find that military personnel are generally armed thus unarmed combat isn't really something the UK military places too much emphasis on in general... though I guess the Royal Marines seem to put on some fancy looking shows occasionally where they dance around like Jackie Chan.

There are already women serving in sneaky beaky units anyway and there have been for quite some time now, including during WW2 in the SOE, their relative size and this apparent concern about unarmed combat hasn't been a major issue so far.

Nasher · 4 Dec 2017 at 10:03

dowie said:
I think you'll find that military personnel are generally armed thus unarmed combat isn't really something the UK military places too much emphasis on in general... the Royal Marines seem to put on some fancy looking shows occasionally where they dance around like Jackie Chan.

There are already women serving in sneaky beaky units anyway and there have been for quite some time now, including during WW2 in the SOE, their relative size and this apparent concern about unarmed combat hasn't been a major issue so far.

For special forces they do. They specialize in close quarters combat. I've heard stories from people who were at camp bastion when the SF compound was attacked. They near enough drove right up to the taliban shot them in the face.

Angilion · 4 Dec 2017 at 10:04

Glanza said:
Wouldn't it make more sense to allow women to apply but they have the same test? All I can think of is anyone who manages to pass this new test will be looked down upon by others for getting in the 'easier' option. Yes it will still be hard to pass but it's not the same.

Did the show with ex SAS people on Channel 4 to see if you could pass recruitment never have any females on there?

It did, and some of them were good enough.

dowie · 4 Dec 2017 at 10:05

Nasher said:
For special forces they do. They specialize in close quarters combat.

You can still shoot people at close range... and regardless see the point before there are already women serving in these sorts of units.

Rifte · 4 Dec 2017 at 10:08

dowie said:
You can still shoot people at close range... and regardless see the point before there are already women serving in these sorts of units.

If they meet the requirements, it should make no difference to the integrity and strength of the operation, then all is fine in the world.

foster grant · 4 Dec 2017 at 10:14

dowie said:
You can still shoot people at close range... and regardless see the point before there are already women serving in these sorts of units.

Yep

Angilion · 4 Dec 2017 at 10:23

Nasher said:
It's not just running/hiking challenges though. They need to be able to be proficient in things like un-armed combat as well. Is it a good idea to put a women up against an enemy who could literally be twice their weight?

If she's good enough, yes.

As a real world example, I suggest Nancy Wake. She was a special forces soldier who, amongst many other things, could and did kill without a weapon when it was useful to do so. She usually used a weapon, of course, since it's almost always more efficient to use a weapon to kill someone, but on one occasion she didn't have a weapon she could use and she needed to kill someone immediately. So she did. She wasn't a big, heavily muscled woman by any means, but she was very well trained.

Besides, unarmed combat shouldn't be a big factor. The SAS are usually armed, which is generally a good idea considering what they do.

Randomface74 · 4 Dec 2017 at 10:25

in b4 someone decides there's a 'problem' and we need to make 'progress' by requiring that half the army is female.

Ayahuasca · 4 Dec 2017 at 10:26

Angilion said:
Besides, unarmed combat shouldn't be a big factor. The SAS are usually armed, which is generally a good idea considering what they do.

Agreed, a situation in where both people become unarmed is exceedingly rare and more stuff you see in a bond movie.

gord · 4 Dec 2017 at 10:30

I suppose if they're going to make the SAS less special then they'll get rid of the first S. Then it'll be the Air Service for all Sexes. Don't see any problems with that.

Mark A · 4 Dec 2017 at 10:52

Angilion said:
It did, and some of them were good enough.

I don't know how true it is but a lot of people in the comments section on Youtube said the C4 thing was easier than the actual thing. It wouldn't make good TV is no one passed the test I guess.

chroniclard · 4 Dec 2017 at 11:07

Dis86 said:
Can already see the sjws creaming their underwear over this.

Seems to be the PC Gone Mad brigade whining so far.

adolf hamster · 4 Dec 2017 at 11:15

As long as women have an equal opportunity to take and pass the test, and as long as the test is a sufficient measure of the physical requirements needed to ensure they can take whatever the role can throw at them then i dont see an issue.

If they've decided that lowering the requirements isnt going to affect the ability of those who pass it to fight effectively then its fine, but i dont think its right to specifically single out women for special treatment.

At the end of the day, man or woman, if you ever find yourself relying on the sas to save your ass then you'd like to hope that whoever's coming is a certified badass

Vonhelmet · 4 Dec 2017 at 11:16

robgmun said:
Thanks...i needed a good laugh in the morning

Oh, OK, I'm sure you can provide some proof of this conspiracy you think is going on.

No?

Thought not.

Dis86 · 4 Dec 2017 at 11:22

Vonhelmet said:
Oh, OK, I'm sure you can provide some proof of this conspiracy you think is going on.

No?

Thought not.

Dunno like, the British military has a long history of stupid decisions from the top brass. A recent one being our lovely aircraft carriers with no planes on them!

wolfie138 · 4 Dec 2017 at 11:54

surely they don't need the same rigorous training if they're just staying behind to do the cooking and cleaning though?

Nikumba · 4 Dec 2017 at 12:06

Glanza said:
Wouldn't it make more sense to allow women to apply but they have the same test? All I can think of is anyone who manages to pass this new test will be looked down upon by others for getting in the 'easier' option. Yes it will still be hard to pass but it's not the same.

Did the show with ex SAS people on Channel 4 to see if you could pass recruitment never have any females on there?

Not sure on the Channel 4 one, but the one the BBC did several years ago now "SAS: Are You Tough Enough?" had a few woman on it and one did really well if I remember rightly