BRIEFING PAPER

Number 7521, 4 March 2016

Women in combat By Louisa Brooke-Holland

Inside:
1. Women on the frontline
2. Reviewing the policy
3. Can women serve in ground
close combat roles in other
countries?

www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | papers@parliament.uk | @commonslibrary

 Number 7521, 4 March 2016 2

Contents
Summary 3
1. Women on the frontline 4
Don’t women already serve on the frontline? 4
What roles are women excluded from? 4
What does the law say? 5
2. Reviewing the policy 6
Hasn’t the Government looked at this before? 6
When did the Government announce the current review? 7
Why is the Government reviewing its policy now? 7
When will a decision be made? 8
Hasn’t the Government already published a Review paper? 8
What did the Review conclude? 9
What does unit cohesion and combat effectiveness mean? 9
What are the Physiological concerns? 10
Are the Armed Forces ready for women to join GCC units? 11
How many women might join GCC units? 12
3. Can women serve in ground close combat roles in other
countries? 14

Cover page image copyright: Female Army Medic in Afghanistan by Defence Images.
Licensed under CC BY-NC-2.0 / image cropped
3 Women in combat

Summary
The number of roles open to women in the armed forces has gradually Ground Close
increased over the years. On recent operations in Afghanistan and Iraq Combat:
women have served on the frontline in a wide variety of roles: medics, Roles that are
bomb disposal operators, engineers, pilots and at sea. Women make up primarily intended
10% of the regular armed forces and the Government has set a goal of and designed with
increasing that to 15% by 2020. the purpose of
requiring individuals
Almost every aspect of the armed forces is open women except those on the ground, to
that have as their primary role close combat with the enemy, known close with and kill the
ground close combat roles. These are infantry, the Royal Armoured enemy.
Corps, the Household Cavalry, the Royal Marines and the RAF
Regiment.
This may be about to change.
The law allows the armed forces to exclude women from those posts
where the military judgement is that the employment of women would
undermine and degrade Combat Effectiveness. The Government is
required to periodically review whether this exclusion should be
maintained.
Before the summer recess this year (2016) the Government is expected Combat
to decide whether to end this exclusion. Effectiveness:
The Government began a review of the policy in 2014 and the resulting The ability of a
paper suggested a period of further physiological research was required ground close combat
to inform a decision in mid-2016. team to carry out its
assigned mission, role
The Prime Minister, Defence Secretary and head of the Army have given or function. The
strong backing to lifting the exclusion. cohesion of a ground
close combat team is
Armed Forces Minister Penny Mordaunt and the Chief of the General a vital factor in its
Staff, Gen Sir Nick Carter, are expected to give speeches on women in combat effectiveness.
combat for International Women’s Day on Tuesday 8 March 2016.
Many countries allow women to serve in ground close combat roles,
including the United States, which from April 2016 will allow qualified
women to serve in every role in the US military.
This briefing paper examines the question of women on the front line,
in the context of the 2014 review, in a Q&A format.
 Number 7521, 4 March 2016 4

1. Women on the frontline

Summary
Women already serve on the frontline in many roles in the armed forces but are excluded from ground
close combat roles: Infantry, Royal Armoured Corps, the Household Cavalry, the Royal Marines and the
Royal Air Force Regiment. Women currently make up 10% of regular forces and the Government wants
to increase this to 15% by 2020.

Don’t women already serve on the frontline?

Yes. Women serve in a variety of roles in frontline units including as
pilots, submariners, medics and bomb disposal operators. Women may
also serve in the Special Reconnaissance Regiment, which supports the
10% of UK regular
Special Forces. 1
forces are women.
Many hundreds of women have served in Iraq and Afghanistan in a
number of roles that have taken them into a combat situation. Four
women were awarded the Military Cross for their actions in Iraq and 15,550 women serve
Afghanistan. 2 in the regular armed
forces.
The number of roles open to women has gradually increased over the
years. Women have been allowed to serve as fighter pilots since the
early 1990s. In 1997 the Secretary of State announced the Army was to Women make up
extend employment opportunities for women from 47% to 70% of 14% of the RAF,
posts. Restrictions on women working as submariners and mine 12% of the Royal
clearance divers was lifted in 2010 and 2011 respectively (see box 2). Navy and 9% of the
Army.
The majority of roles in the armed forces are now open to women:
• 94% of roles in the Royal Air Force
Government goal:
• 78% of roles in the Royal Navy/Royal Marines
At least 15% of the
• 71% of roles in the Army 3 armed forces to be
What roles are women excluded from? women by 2020.
Current policy excludes women from ground close combat roles. The
vast majority of trades in the Armed Forces are open to women except
ground close combat roles where the primary role is to close with and
kill the enemy over short range on the ground. These are: Royal
Marines; the Household Cavalry; Royal Armoured Corps; Infantry and
the Royal Air Force Regiment.

1
“Army reveals secret elite unit that puts women on the frontline”, The Telegraph, 4
September 2005
2
The Military Cross is awarded in recognition of “exemplary gallantry during active
operations against the enemy on land.”
3
Figures compiled in 2014, quoted in the Diversity Dashboard April 2015; The
Women in Ground Close Combat Review Paper, 1 December 2014, quotes similar
statistics. The figures in the box to the right are as of 1 April 2015 and taken from
Diversity Dashboard April 2015. The goal of at least 15% of the armed forces to be
women by 2020 was stated in the NSS and SDSR 2015, Cm 9161
5 Women in combat

What is Ground Close Combat?

Ground Close Combat (GCC) roles are defined by the Ministry of
Defence as:
Roles that are primarily intended and designed with the purpose of requiring
individuals on the ground, to close with and kill the enemy. 4
This is different to Combat Support and Combat Service Roles which
women do serve in and may involve serving on the frontline. 5
What does the law say?
The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Equality Act 2010 allows the
armed forces to exclude women from those posts where the military
judgement is that the employment of women would undermine and
degrade Combat Effectiveness (CE). The EC Equal Treatment Directive
(Council Directive 76/207/EEC) also allows such exclusions but requires
periodic reassessments in order to decide, in light of social
developments, whether there is justification for maintaining the
exclusion. The Government reviewed this decision in 2002 and 2010.

Box 1: Significant milestones for women in the armed forces

1993: Women allowed to serve at sea
1994: First female operational fast jet pilot, flying Tornados
2006: first British female to be killed in action in Iraq (Operation Telic 2003-2009)
2010: restrictions on women serving in submarines lifted
2011: restrictions on women serving as mine clearance divers lifted
2012: Commander Sarah West became the first woman to command a warship, the Type 23 frigate
HMS Portland
2013: First female two star officers in the RAF appointed: Air Vice-Marshall Elaine West and Air Vice-
Marshall Sue Gray
2015: Army promotes the first woman, Brigadier Susan Ridge, to the rank of Major General (two star),
the highest ranking female ever in the Army; Brigadier Sharon Nesmith became the first female
to command a Brigade – 1st (UK) Signal Brigade.

4
Women in Ground Close Combat Review Paper, 1 December 2014, para 10
5
Combat Support includes the Royal Artillery, Royal Engineers and Royal Signals.
Combat Service Support includes the Royal Logistic Corps, the Royal Electrical and
Mechanical Engineers and the Royal Army Medical Corps.
 Number 7521, 4 March 2016 6

2. Reviewing the policy

Summary
The Government most recently looked at the policy in 2010 and decided to maintain the
exclusion of women from GCC roles. The Government was not expected to review the policy
again until 2018, but in May 2014 the Defence Secretary announced a review of the policy. A
Review Paper was published in December 2014 and concluded that a further programme of
physiological research should be conducted, to inform a decision in mid-2016. The Services
are preparing implementation plans in the event the exclusion is lifted.

Hasn’t the Government looked at this before?

Yes, most recently in 2010 and before that in 2010. 6
Under European Law the Government is obliged to periodically review
the basis for the exclusion. 7
The 2002 and 2010 reviews concluded women should continue to be
excluded from close combat roles because of concerns about how
mixed gender teams would function in ground close-combat
environments. This is known as unit cohesion and combat effectiveness.
Both Reviews cited a lack of compelling domestic and international
evidence which would assuage such concerns.
In 2010 the then Defence Minister said the inconclusive results of the
research available and the views of the Service chiefs meant a
precautionary approach was necessary, and the exclusion was
maintained. 8 The review concluded:
The continued exclusion of women from ground close-combat
roles was a proportionate means of maintaining the combat
effectiveness of the Armed Forces and was not based on a
stereotypical view of women’s abilities but on the potential risks
associated with maintaining cohesion in small mixed-gender
tactical teams engaged in highly-dangerous close-combat
operations. 9

6
The conclusions of the 2002 report, Women in the Armed Forces (DEP 02/1055), can
be found in the annex of the 2010 report that is available on the Gov.uk website:
Report on the Review of the Exclusion of women from Ground close-combat roles
7
EC Equal Treatment Directive: Council Directive 76/207/EEC
8
HC Deb 29 November 2010 c61WS
9
Report on the Review of the Exclusion of women from Ground close-combat roles,
2010
7 Women in combat

When did the Government announce the current

review?
In May 2014 the Ministry of Defence announced it was undertaking a
new review of the exclusion policy. 10 The terms of reference were
published in July 2014. 11 The then Shadow defence secretary Vernon
Coaker welcomed the review. 12
The announcement was a surprise in that a formal review of the policy
was expected so soon. EC law requires a periodical reassessment of the
exclusion of women from certain occupations. The 2010 Review said
that the UK must conduct such reassessments at least every eight years,
meaning a review was not required to be completed until 2018. 13
The Government had also said in early 2013 that it had no plans to
review current policy before the end of combat operations in
Afghanistan in December 2014. 14
Why is the Government reviewing its policy now?
Recruiting and retaining personnel is a significant issue for all three
services. Ministers and Service chiefs have spoken of the need to ensure
they can appeal to and recruit from the broadest talent base. The then
Defence Secretary Philip Hammond, when announcing the review, said
the exclusion sent a message to women that the Army was not fully
open to them and sent the wrong signal to potential recruits about
gender in the armed forces. 15
The Chief of the General Staff, Gen Sir Nick Carter, has spoken of the
need to make the Army a more diverse and inclusive employer, calling
for an Army “that gets the best possible deal out of all of the people it
would like to employ.” 16
A further motivating factor was the number of countries that now allow
women to serve in combat units. Since the review was announced the
United States has decided to open all roles in the military to women.
The Ministry of Defence published an initial Review paper in December
2014. The paper cited cite three reasons for change:
• Maximising talent – there is an increasing competition for those in
the recruiting pool for the armed forces and much of the currently
untapped talent pool is female.
• External perceptions – wider society does not share the Services’
view that they are meritocratic. Removing the exclusion would

10
“Women set to get green light for combat roles in the British Army”, Guardian, 8
May 2014
11
Review into the exclusion of women from ground close combat roles: terms of
reference, Ministry of Defence, 3 July 2014
12
“Women set to get green light for combat roles in the British Army”, Guardian, 8
May 2014
13
Report on the Review of the Exclusion of women from Ground close-combat roles,
Ministry of Defence, 1 November 2015. However the
14
Defence in the media, Ministry of Defence, 25 January 2013
15
“Women set to get green light for combat roles in the British Army”, Guardian, 8
May 2014
16
“Vision for a more inclusive Army”, Army website, 3 August 2015
 Number 7521, 4 March 2016 8

make the armed forces genuinely meritocratic and make Services

more attractive to talented women.
• Other nations’ experiences – many nations now open all roles to
women and the UK risks being left behind and subject to external
pressure to change.
The Review was based on the premise that “all roles should be open to
women unless this would undermine combat effectiveness. Armed
Forces’ effectiveness is not, however, to be prejudiced by lowering
operationally necessary standards.”17
The Review is one of a number of steps the Ministry of Defence is taking
to promote women in the armed forces and increase the number of
women in high ranking positions. Penny Mordaunt, Defence Minister,
said these include targeted recruitment campaigns, changing the culture
of the Service environment, providing opportunities for flexible
employment, reviewing the ban on women serving in ground close
combat roles and improving equality and diversity training. She added
the Army are also reviewing all job specifications which state experience
in a Front Line command post is an essential requirement and removing
this if appropriate to do so. 18
When will a decision be made?
A decision is expected before the summer recess this year. 19 The Review
paper published in December 2014 specifically identified mid-2016 as
decision time.
The mid-2016 date was affirmed in the Government’s 2015 Strategic
Defence and Security Review:
The review of women in combat has concluded that in principle,
there is no reason why they should not be able to undertake the
full range of combat roles. We are conducting a study of the
physiological impacts of these roles and based on this work, we
will announce a final decision on women undertaking the full
range of combat roles in 2016. 20

Hasn’t the Government already published a Review

paper?
Yes. The Ministry of Defence published the results of the tri-service
review paper in December 2014. 21 The paper is available on the Gov.uk
website: Women in Ground Close Combat (GCC) Review Paper.
The tri-service Review was led by the Army. It was based on the premise
that all roles should be open to women unless this would undermine
Combat Effectiveness. The Review identified nine workstrands:
cohesion, physiology, assessments of recent combat operations, an
internal survey, external engagement, literature review of effectiveness

17
Review into the exclusion of women from ground close combat roles: terms of
reference, Ministry of Defence, 3 July 2014
18
PQ9293, 14 September 2015
19
PQ24502, 2 February 2016
20
National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review, Cm 9161
21
Women in Ground Close Combat (GCC) Review Paper, 1 December 2014
9 Women in combat

of mixed-gender teams in a combat environment, other nations’

experience, literature review of gender related physiological issues, legal
case review, implementation and the wider recruiting benefits and/or
impacts. The Review did not commission new research.
What did the Review conclude?
Of the nine workstrands mentioned above two were assessed as critical
to the decision as to whether the exclusion should be lifted: cohesion
and physiology. Cohesion was identified as critical because it was the
basis for maintaining the exclusion in previous studies. Physiology was
identified as critical because it was the area providing the newest
objective evidence.
The Review opted to neither recommend lifting or maintaining the
exclusion and instead concluded a further programme of work was
needed to better understand three main criteria before a decision on
whether exclusions can be lifted is made. These three main criteria are:
a. Analysis of the impact of the functional physical requirements
of each of the four GCC roles (Royal Marines, Royal Armoured
Corps, Infantry and RAF Regiment) in respect of female
physiology.
b. An assessment of the risks to women in meeting these
requirements on a routine and enduring basis. This assessment
will need to address whether these risks specifically affect women.
c. An assessment of whether mixed gender units, operating under
gender free standards, will perform equally as well as a single
gender units. 22
This work is currently underway.
What does unit cohesion and combat effectiveness
mean?
The 2014 Review notes that there is no general agreement on what
Combat Effectiveness (CE) mean, and that there is no definition of CE in
current UK military doctrine. For the purposes of the Review, the
definition of Combat effectiveness is as follows:
The ability of a ground close combat team to carry out its
assigned mission, role or function. The cohesion of a ground close
combat team is a vital factor in its combat effectiveness. 23
The Review explored a wide range of factors in combat effectiveness,
including courage, trust, perceptions, deployability, reaction to stress,
endurance, morbidity, onset of fatigue, values and standards.
The Review summarised its assessment of combat effectiveness as
follows:
An assessment of the factors that may effect CE have been
analysed by a panel of military, physiological, psychological
experts. The panel concluded that three factors (morbidity,
deployability, and survivability/lethality) are likely to have a

22
Women in Ground Close Combat (GCC) Review Paper, 1 December 2014, para 6
23
Women in Ground Close Combat (GCC) Review Paper, 1 December 2014, para 32a
 Number 7521, 4 March 2016 10

negative effect on CE if women were to be allowed to conduct

GCC roles. These factors are distinctly difficult to mitigate against
and if measures were identified they may require a significant
review or alteration of current policy or standards. 24
Morbidity is the rate of injury. On recent operations British female
personnel have approximately 15-20% high rate of disease non battle
injury than their male counterparts.
Deployability: the physiological differences between men and women
pre-dispose females to a high incident of injury.
Survivability in combat is, in part, predicated by physiology, the Review
found. The GCC role is the most physically demanding and
physiological differences between men and women mean that in
ground close combat roles, when carrying the combat load, women are
more likely to result in the early onset of fatigue compared to men
which may result in lower survivability in combat. Women may also have
lower lethality because combat marksmanship degrades as a result of
fatigue when the combat load increases in proportion to body weight
and strength.
Unit cohesion
The review found that, upon examining studies and empirical data on
mixed-gender teams, negative issues of mixed-gender teams can be
offset by collective experience and strong leadership. It therefore
concluded that the issue of cohesion should not be considered in
further research, except where physiological differences have
ramifications for Combat Effectiveness. 25
The Review also said the results of a wide-ranging experiment by the US
Marine Corps on mixed gender infantry units conducted in 2015 will
feed into the further body of work.
What are the Physiological concerns?
Women generally have smaller hearts, about 30% less muscle, slighter
skeletal structure and wider pelvic bones, resulting in less explosive
power and upper body strength, than men.
The Review examined in detail the physiological differences between
men and women in the military, saying it had achieved a considerable
better understanding of these differences since previous reviews. It did
not commission new research, instead relying on data already available.
The Review examined physical performance, risk of musculoskeletal
injury, aerobic fitness, trauma, stress fractures, load carriage, PE
standards, pregnancy, morbidity on deployment, health risks, diet,
infertility and post-traumatic stress disorder.
The Review said there will be some women amongst the physical elite
who will achieve the entry tests for GCC roles but these women will be
more susceptible to acute short term injury than men and a higher risk

24
Women in Ground Close Combat (GCC) Review Paper, 1 December 2014, para 42
25
Women in Ground Close Combat (GCC) Review Paper, 1 December 2014, para 19
11 Women in combat

of musculoskeletal injury. The physical demands of GCC role, for

example regular periods of energy deficit, can affect both reproductive
and skeletal health, and on recent operations women had a higher rate
of disease non battle injury than men.
There are mitigating factors identified in the Review which could reduce
the risk morbidity, survivability and lethality. These include a more
scientific approach to fitness regimes, nutritional advice and
supplements; improving current training standards; post integration
monitoring of the health effects on women. Other nations have found
providing ergonomically designed gender specific equipment has had a
significant effect in reducing the physical impact of dismounted weight
carriage on the female form. Reducing the stride length for women in
the Australian Army has reduced the risk of pelvic stress fractures.
Conducting training in single sex platoons has also been found to
reduce cardiovascular strain and thus reduced medical discharges due to
overuse injuries. Implementing a pre-conditioning course could reduce
the risk of injury in training.
Are the Armed Forces ready for women to join GCC
units?
The 2014 review recommended the Services drive forward
Combat Effectiveness
implementation plans to ensure momentum is maintained in the event must not be
the Government decides to rescind the exclusion. undermined or
The Review lists the following principles that should be applied to prejudiced by
implementation: lowering operational
necessary standards.
a. Combat Effectiveness must not be undermined or prejudiced by
lowering operationally necessary standards. Physical employment
b. Implementation is a command led activity and takes time to standards must be
accomplish; short cuts are not beneficial. gender free.
c. A fundamental review of the physical requirements for each
role, linked to the operational requirement, is essential. Physical
employment standards must be gender free.
d. Cultural change is required; any programme should include
measures to ensure that Armed Forces structures and procedures
do not limit female opportunities and prevent sexual harassment
and assault. The Defence Diversity and Inclusion Programme could
include a cultural change strategy. Programmes need to start in
training establishments to set the conditions for successful future
service.
e. Phased implementation (internal transfer first then direct
recruiting) enables a chain of command to be established early in
process; this will assist integration.
f. Specific training, nutrition, equipment and healthcare will be
required.
g. Training and accommodation should be integrated for greater
cohesion, once associated risks are mitigated and managed, and
implemented where appropriate in a carefully controlled de-risked
manner.
h. A rigorous communication strategy, internal narratives and a
marketing campaign is required.
 Number 7521, 4 March 2016 12

i. Trailblazers must be managed carefully.

The principles reference the need to prevent sexual harassment and
assault. This is an issue that has exercised many Members of Parliament
in recent years and was most recently discussed, at the time of writing,
in the House of Lords in relation to the Armed Forces Bill. 26 Sexual
harassment in the armed forces is not the subject of this note.
Potential costs
The Review says it is inherently difficult to estimate the sunk and
through-life costs of incorporating women into combat arms. The Army
and the Royal Marines have submitted cost estimates ranging from a
few thousand pounds to up to £20 million over ten years.
The cost involved for the training centres would depend on the degree
of male/female integration adopted. For example an integrated
approach could mean relatively low expense whereas a segregated
approach would require high expense (the former might include
modesty curtains for showers and doors in accommodation blocks,
whereas the latter approach might require separate accommodation
blocks and infrastructure). The Services advocate a non-segregated, ‘all
for one company’, approach. 27
The Army Recruiting and Training Division estimated infrastructure costs
at ITC Catterick to facilitate the inclusion of women in infantry training
at up to £1.6 million, depending on numbers and the model of
male/female integration adopted. The higher amount is predicated on a
segregated model based on a higher end assumption of 5% women in
training, while a fully integrated model based on 2% of women would
cost only a few thousand pounds. The Royal Marines provided a cost
range of up to £17.79 million over ten years, the higher cost including
infrastructure alterations across all Royal Marines establishments.
How many women might join GCC units?
The Army Recruiting Group estimates approximately 10 entrants a year
will join the Infantry and approximately 20 will join the Royal Armoured
Corps. Figures for the RAF Regiment are similar to the Infantry and the
Royal Marines estimate up to six women could pass training annually. 28

26
HL Deb 1 March 2016 cGC65-79
27
Women in Ground Close Combat (GCC) Review Paper, 1 December 2014, annex E
28
Women in Ground Close Combat (GCC) Review Paper, 1 December 2014, para 20
13 Women in combat

Box 2: Conclusions of the 2002 and 2010 Reviews

The 2002 Review
The Secretary of State is satisfied that as some women will certainly be able to meet the standard
required of personnel performing in close combat roles, the evidence of women’s lower physical
capacity should not, in itself be a reason to maintain the restrictions. Nor are the identified
psychological differences between men and women, or the gap in the capacity for aggression,
compelling evidence that women would perform less well in close combat.
The key issue is the potential impact of gender mixing in the small teams essential to success in the
close combat environment. The small size of the basic unit in ground combat, coupled with the
unrelenting mental and physical pressure extending over days or weeks, sets them apart from other
military roles. Even small failures in a high-intensity close combat environment can lead to loss of life or
the failure of the team to meet its objectives. None of the work that either has been, or could be, done
can illuminate the key question of the impact of gender mixing on the combat team in close combat
conditions.
Given the lack of direct evidence, from either field exercises or from the experience of other countries,
the Secretary of State concluded that military judgement must form the basis of any decision. The
military viewpoint was that under the conditions of a high intensity close-quarter battle, group cohesion
becomes of much greater significance to team performance and, in such an environment, the
consequences of failure can have far-reaching and grave consequences. To admit women would,
therefore, involve a risk with no gains in terms of combat effectiveness to offset it.
The above arguments have been considered in relation to each of the units and roles in question - the
Royal Marines General Service, Household Cavalry and Royal Armoured Corps, Infantry and the RAF
Regiment – to decide whether or not they apply equally to them all. As all the roles necessitate
individuals working together in small teams which have to face and engage the enemy at close range,
the Secretary of State for Defence concluded that the case for lifting the current restrictions on women
serving in combat roles has not been made for any of the units in question. Taking the risk that the
inclusion of women in close combat teams could adversely affect those units in the extraordinary
circumstances of high intensity close combat cannot be justified.

The 2010 Review

Minister(DPWV) and the Service Chiefs judged that, overall, the conclusions to be drawn from the
research are mixed and do not provide the basis for a clear recommendation either way as to whether
the current policy of excluding women from ground close-combat roles should be retained or
rescinded. The Service Chiefs’ view were clear that women are fundamental to the operational
effectiveness of the UK Armed Forces, bringing talent and skills across the board, and in some areas
they are better than men. Their capability in almost all areas is not in doubt, they win the highest
decorations for valour, and demonstrate that they are capable of acting independently and with great
initiative. But these situations are not those typical of the small tactical teams in the combat arms which
are required deliberately to close with and kill the enemy. The consequences of opening up these small
tactical teams in close combat roles to women are unknown. Other nations have very mixed
experiences.

In the light of the inconclusive nature of the research and the views of the Service Chiefs, and taking
into account the views of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (Annex C), Minister (DPWV)
decided that a precautionary approach was necessary. Accordingly, the current policy of excluding
women from ground close-combat roles whilst ensuring that the maximum numbers of trades are
available to provide opportunity to those women who wish to serve their country should continue.
Minister(DPWV) was satisfied that the continued exclusion of women from ground close-combat roles
was a proportionate means of maintaining the combat effectiveness of the Armed Forces and was not
based on a stereotypical view of women’s abilities but on the potential risks associated with
maintaining cohesion in small mixed-gender tactical teams engaged in highly-dangerous close-combat
operations. This view was subsequently endorsed by the Secretary of State for Defence.

2014 Review
The review recommends that a programme of physiological research should be conducted to further
assess the risks and mitigation to women in GCC roles, in order to inform a decision in mid-2016.
Implementation plans are to be driven forward concurrently to ensure momentum is maintained.
 Number 7521, 4 March 2016 14

3. Can women serve in ground

close combat roles in other
countries?
Yes.
A number of other countries have lifted restrictions on women
participating in combat units in recent years, including Australia,
Canada, Germany, Israel, New Zealand, Norway and most recently the
United States. National Geographic has a useful summary of eight
countries (compiled before the US change in policy, see below).
The MOD commissioned a review into the experiences of other nations
for its 2010 Review. The report, Women in Ground Close Combat Roles:
The Experiences of other Nations and a Review of the Academic
Literature, profiled 18 countries. It found that of the countries that do
employ women in such units, uptake has been slow. Reasons given
include the rigorous physical demands of the role, perceived lack of
resilience or aggressiveness and enduring negative gender stereotyping
from male colleagues.
A Defence Minister said that as part of the current review, the MOD is
working closely with other nations who have lifted the exclusion
including Australia and the United States. Penny Mordaunt said: “This
engagement includes collaboration between scientific and research
bodies as well as on policy and training development. The UK research
programme is investigating the long-term health effects of UK combat
requirements which will benefit both male and female personnel.” The
Minister also discussed this with US counterparts during a visit to
Washington in September 2015. 29
United States opens all roles to women
All roles in the US military will be open to women from 2016.
The decision, announced by the Defence Secretary Ash Carter in
December 2015, means women who qualify will be able to serve as
Army Rangers and Green Berets, Navy SEALs, Marine Corps infantry and
Air Force parajumpers. No exceptions will be made in the Army, Navy,
Air Force, Marine Corps, and Special Operations Command. 30

29
PQ21394, 12 January 2016
30
“Remarks on the Women-in-Service Review”, Secretary of Defense speech, 3
December 2015. The Pentagon had previously announced in January 2013 that it
intended to lift its exclusion on women serving in units whose primary mission was
engaging in direct ground combat in January 2016. The Pentagon gave the Service
chiefs three years to examine and recommend whether any of the remaining
positions warrant a continued exemption from being opened to women. Only the
US Marines Corps made such a recommendation for a partial exclusion. The chiefs
of the Army, Air Force, Navy and US Special Operations Command recommended no
exception.
15 Women in combat

Ash Carter noted that women have been serving on the front-line and
seen combat throughout the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Excluding
women from units whose primary mission was engaging in direct
ground combat, Ash Carter said, meant the military was cutting itself
off from half the country’s talent and skills, adding “we have to take full
advantage of every individual who can meet our standards.”
The UK is likely to closely observe how the US military implements the
new rules. Ash Carter emphasised that implementation will be the key
and that leaders must assign tasks and jobs according to ability and not
gender.
The new stance does not ignore the physical differences between men
and women. Ash Carter noted it is likely only a small number of meet
the physical demands of some of the most physically demanding
combat occupational specialities. He said that equal opportunity does
not mean equal participation and there will be no quotas. Roles will only
be open to those men or women who meet the criteria. 31

31
“Remarks on the Women-in-Service Review”, Secretary of Defense speech, 3
December 2015.
 About the Library
The House of Commons Library research service provides MPs and their staff
with the impartial briefing and evidence base they need to do their work in
scrutinising Government, proposing legislation, and supporting constituents.
As well as providing MPs with a confidential service we publish open briefing
papers, which are available on the Parliament website.
Every effort is made to ensure that the information contained in these publically
available research briefings is correct at the time of publication. Readers should
be aware however that briefings are not necessarily updated or otherwise
amended to reflect subsequent changes.
If you have any comments on our briefings please email papers@parliament.uk.
Authors are available to discuss the content of this briefing only with Members
and their staff.
If you have any general questions about the work of the House of Commons
you can email hcinfo@parliament.uk.
Disclaimer
This information is provided to Members of Parliament in support of their
parliamentary duties. It is a general briefing only and should not be relied on as
a substitute for specific advice. The House of Commons or the author(s) shall
not be liable for any errors or omissions, or for any loss or damage of any kind
arising from its use, and may remove, vary or amend any information at any
time without prior notice.
The House of Commons accepts no responsibility for any references or links to,
or the content of, information maintained by third parties. This information is
BRIEFING PAPER
provided subject to the conditions of the Open Parliament Licence.
Number 7521, 4 March 2016