The US Marines tested all-male squads against mixed-gender ones..

[AchillesLastStand]

In 2013, the US military lifted its ban on women serving in combat. Shortly after, the Marine Corps began what it calls an "unprecedented research effort" to understand the impact of gender integration on its combat forces. That took the form of a year-long experiment called the Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force, in which 400 Marines—100 of them female—trained for combat together and then undertook a simulated deployment, with every facet of their experience measured and scrutinized.

All branches of the military are facing a January 1, 2016, deadline to open all combat roles to women. The Marine Corps is using this experiment to decide whether to request exceptions to that mandate. The Corps' summary of the experiment, posted online today by NPR, concludes that combat teams were less effective when they included women.

Overall, the report says, all-male teams and crews outperformed mixed-gender ones on 93 out of 134 tasks evaluated. All-male teams were universally faster "in each tactical movement." On "lethality," the report says:

All-male 0311 (rifleman) infantry squads had better accuracy compared to gender-integrated squads. There was a notable difference between genders for every individual weapons system (i.e. M4, M27, and M203) within the 0311 squads, except for the probability of hit & near miss with the M4.

And:

All-male infantry crew-served weapons teams engaged targets quicker and registered more hits on target as compared to gender-integrated infantry crew-served weapons teams, with the exception of M2 accuracy.

And:

All-male squads, teams and crews and gender-integrated squads, teams, and crews had a noticeable difference in their performance of the basic combat tasks of negotiating obstacles and evacuating casualties. For example, when negotiating the wall obstacle, male Marines threw their packs to the top of the wall, whereas female Marines required regular assistance in getting their packs to the top. During casualty evacuation assessments, there were notable differences in execution times between all-male and gender-integrated groups, except in the case where teams conducted a casualty evacuation as a one-Marine fireman's carry of another (in which case it was most often a male Marine who "evacuated" the casualty)

The report also says that female Marines had higher rates of injury throughout the experiment.

Such conclusions may be disheartening to proponents of gender integration in combat, and certainly put a damper on the news that the Army's ranger school recently graduated its first female soldiers. The tests come with at least one important caveat: As the Marine Corps Times notes, many of of the male study participants had previously served in combat units, whereas female participants, by necessity, came directly from infantry schools or from noncombat jobs.

The Marine Corps summary report does not indicate or suggest that the Marines will be asking for an exception to the military's integration mandate. However, it does quote this somber section of a 1992 government study on gender integration in the armed forces:

A military unit at maximum combat effectiveness is a military unit least likely to suffer casualties. Winning in war is often only a matter of inches, and unnecessary distraction or any dilution of the combat effectiveness puts the mission and lives in jeopardy. Risking the lives of a military unit in combat to provide career opportunities or accommodate the personal desires or interests of an individual, or group of individuals, is more than bad military judgment. It is morally wrong.

[LongBlade]

Shocked. I'm shocked to find this.

[Airborne Rifles]

Predictable results. I'm concerned that it won't matter in the end though. The decision will ultimately be made by people who will never be at risk of living (or dying) with the results, and it will be based on considerations that don't bear on the problem at all.

Did that sound cynical?

I actually have a lot of faith in the military brass to make the right recommendations, I'm just concerned their recommendations are not going to make a difference in the end.

[Barthheart]

...
The tests come with at least one important caveat: As the Marine Corps Times notes, many of of the male study participants had previously served in combat units, whereas female participants, by necessity, came directly from infantry schools or from noncombat jobs.
...

This is a very important caveat. Try the same tests again with newly graduated all male units and mixed units and see if the results still hold.

There is nothing like actual combat experience to make anyone a better soldier.

[Airborne Rifles]

...
The tests come with at least one important caveat: As the Marine Corps Times notes, many of of the male study participants had previously served in combat units, whereas female participants, by necessity, came directly from infantry schools or from noncombat jobs.
...

This is a very important caveat. Try the same tests again with newly graduated all male units and mixed units and see if the results still hold.

There is nothing like actual combat experience to make anyone a better soldier.

As someone who has spent a lot of time training soldiers in the past decade, I would say with a high degree of confidence that the results would be the same.

[Barthheart]

...
The tests come with at least one important caveat: As the Marine Corps Times notes, many of of the male study participants had previously served in combat units, whereas female participants, by necessity, came directly from infantry schools or from noncombat jobs.
...

This is a very important caveat. Try the same tests again with newly graduated all male units and mixed units and see if the results still hold.

There is nothing like actual combat experience to make anyone a better soldier.

As someone who has spent a lot of time training soldiers in the past decade, I would say with a high degree of confidence that the results would be the same.

Fair enough.  O0

[Bison]

I'm not sure why this is even remotely surprising.

[Staggerwing]

Maybe because there was no Ronda Rousey meme referenced in the report?

[BanzaiCat]

That does not look like someone that would need help with a heavy pack.

[besilarius]

Had a conversation with an Israeli officer in 72 or 73.  At that time, they had female soldiers but were not assigned to combat.
According to him, in the early fighting for Israeli independence, they found mixed units were as successful as integrated units, but had higher casualties.  But this was because the males tended to take higher risks to protect the female soldiers.
And many of these ladies were veterans of the partisan fighting in the Soviet Union.  Schooled in that conflict, they were utterly vicious to captives.
Because world opinion was so important, and there were so few Israelis at that point, the simple answer was to take women out of combat.

[LongBlade]

Had a conversation with an Israeli officer in 72 or 73.  At that time, they had female soldiers but were not assigned to combat.
According to him, in the early fighting for Israeli independence, they found mixed units were as successful as integrated units, but had higher casualties.  But this was because the males tended to take higher risks to protect the female soldiers.
And many of these ladies were veterans of the partisan fighting in the Soviet Union.  Schooled in that conflict, they were utterly vicious to captives.
Because world opinion was so important, and there were so few Israelis at that point, the simple answer was to take women out of combat.

I do not know quite how to process this.

I have to first lay down the marker that I have no combat and no military experience.

My next thought is to look toward history. This is not the first time women have picked up a sword. Women are certainly not the dominant gender in warfare but plentiful examples of them successfully joining and leading combat exist.

Without any other formal study of the issue I'm left largely with speculation, but speculation enlightened (though lightly) with the pattern emerging here.

There appear to be moments in history where a culture welcomed women into a military context. On average women are not physically a match for men, but that does not mean they don't have a role - the question is what that role is.

The Vikings had Shieldmaidens, the Brits had Boudicca, and the French had Joan d'Arc. The effect of women in combat, and in leadership positions, cannot be ignored. To the contrary we should study it.

Perhaps our studies will conclude that women in combat do not currently match our cultural norms or mores. Perhaps such study will enlighten us to expand the boundaries of our norms and mores.

The historical record demonstrates a successful track record of women, as exceptions, contributing significantly if not singularly to their militaries. Those are the lessons we should study and apply.

[Boggit]

Did that sound cynical?

No. Accurate.

[JasonPratt]

I would think women would excel at some modern combat roles, even if not 11-B bulletstopper general infantry roles.

[Swatter]

I agree that women should have more combat roles open, but I am hesitant to believe that infantry roles would be a good fit. Anyone who reads about the jungle battles in the southwest pacific, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa would have to openly wonder how many women from western culture would be prepared for that. I suppose they would learn to cope.

On the other hand, Japanese soldiers during WWII were physically smaller than most Allied soldiers, but their combat bravery and prowess was legendary. Women would probably need a slightly different version of close combat training. One that took advantage of their size and minimized their physical limitations. Just a thought.

[Swatter]

That does not look like someone that would need help with a heavy pack.

By the way- holy crap. I am a bit stimulated and frightened at the same time. I am way too annoying to have a partner like that. I would hate the thought of randomly waking up on my floor with my nose crooked and my groin aching.