The army discovers there is a difference between male and female anatomy.

@CherryPavlova anyone in the army is a soldier first, it doesn't matter what their duty is there is a bare minimum they're expected to be trained to due to the nature of deployments. Ask any medic who was out in Afghan and I'd be surprised if they weren't in a situation where they didn't need to hold a serious amount of kit, even though we are in relatively peaceful times they are trained for war.

This has been an ongoing issue with the military and I'm sure we will see new cases with the relatively recent changes. I believe it was the RAF who not all that long ago was sued for their drill practices and the impact it had on female pelvises.

This is a physics problem. Curved plates do not have the stopping power that straight ones do. It would be utterly unacceptable to offer women kit with inferior ballistic protection.

Source for this assertion?

(NB, I am a physicist, and one with an interest in armour - both ancient and modern...)

Barbara I think it depends on the individual’s situation and how much damage the boots are causing. It was 8 years ago that I had to buy my own boots. If I’d have had issued boots that actually fit properly, then I might not have had any issues with my feet! Probably wasn’t the type of boots that were the problem.
My DH is still serving, and as he has collapsed arches, certain types of boot make it painful for him to carry out certain duties. So he had to go to the med centre, get his feet looked at by the dr and have the doctor provide the relevant paperwork for the people in the stores to say “yes. Give him whatever boots he needs that won’t mash his feet to a pulp”.
It would seem it’s much easier these days to either have the boots you need issued to you from the off, or be reimbursed for the full or partial cost of buying your own

"last newspaper article I read on this said service personnel were being expected to find the whole cost of decent boots themselves"

Yes and no. Boots are key kit. Issue ones have improved enormously over the last couple of decades. But yes, people (regardless of sex/gender) might choose to buy their own, if there are features/fit they want not available in the various issue ones.

''Twas ever thus!

"The police have found there is a real difference when it comes to body armour. Female officers sometimes went without rather than suffer the constant pain of the smaller size, or the impracical looseness of the larger, until they finally got some tailored for them."

This is a physics problem. Curved plates do not have the stopping power that straight ones do. It would be utterly unacceptable to offer women kit with inferior ballistic protection.

After all, if you needed billet protection, would you choose the best stopping power, which might chafe, or one that won't but doesn't work so well?

(Though the real issue is the better Scandi kit - women still wear make pattern, but performance is better than that chosen by other allies)

Wombat - I can imagine you'd be over the moon. The issue is whether you're expected to pay for it! (I don't know if this is still the case, but last newspaper article I read on this said service personnel were being expected to find the whole cost of decent boots themselves).

BarbaraStrozzi The day I was allowed to buy my own boots and return my issues death wellies, I swear I almost cried tears of joy
It was like going from wearing foot-shaped cheese graters every day, to going to work in silk slippers!

Re. carrying stuff - the actual quantity is pretty non-negotiable, I presume (I'm an ex mountaineer, and had a similar issue - you may weigh 30% less than a bloke, you may be less strong than a bloke - but you still need a rope, climbing equipment, axes and crampons. And the "women need less water and this will make a difference to pack weight" theory is... well, laughable is the first thought that comes to my mind).

But yes, lots of room for ergonomic improvements. It's not just back length, it's pelvic girdle size in relation to back length, it's shoulder anatomy, it's a whole range of things. Mountaineering packs have come in men's and women's for decades (though personally I frequently find a man's frame suits my shape better). Also body armour is an ongoing scandal in both the armed forces and the police (stories of women officers requesting breast reductions simply because they cannot get stab vests to fit them).

A female friend of mine was in the RAF and got invalided out with stress fractures among other things. She commented "I always wondered, back when I was a cadet, why female officers were built like brick shithouses, and now I know". (Disclaimer, I also have an ex-Navy female friend who was very petite - but of the wiry whippet build with surprising strength and immense stamina).

My sympathies on the boots issue too - that's another ongoing scandal in the forces. The standard issue boots are simply not fit for purpose, they're appalling, so soldiers are having to buy decent boots out of their own money.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/emaoconnor/woman-military-doctors-female-problems-health-care

This is a "good" article.

The police have found there is a real difference when it comes to body armour. Female officers sometimes went without rather than suffer the constant pain of the smaller size, or the impracical looseness of the larger, until they finally got some tailored for them.

I'll leave you to your opinions. You clearly work with a very different circle of military medics than the ones I'm familiar with. Note that I didn't say GPs have to carry kit "all the while", you stated you weren't sure why a GP would have to carry 40kg for 4 days from which I infer you've never heard of an STTT or the 7 pillars of deployed health care.
Anyone in the Army who hasn't carried a bergan since "basic training" would have to be medically downgraded so as to avoid their annual fitness test. I note your care to not say which service your friend is in however, an Army medic who can't carry a Med Bergan is next to useless in that trade. Anything that can be done to address the poor ergonomics of current load carriage equipment is beneficial.

And you don’t seem to realise not all GPs in the forces need to do that all the while.....Your average GP in the forces isn’t perpetually deployed in Afghanistan. The forces medic that I had supper with last night is working on a British military base in Bahrain and despite being 6’ 6” or thereabouts, he hasn’t carried a Bergen since basic training (which was a good few years ago).

Thymejuice there’s practically no difference in the kit issued to male/female soldiers.

What will the army do regarding kit for a transwoman? Would they be issued the female kit or the male kit?

Yet you don't know why a GP would carry a Med bergan...

Genvonlinkerhoffen ...and that’s where you’d be wrong. I know plenty of military medics, amongst others in the forces including my son. There are big men small women but on average, women are smaller than men and can carry less.

LetsPlayDarts I agree with you.
I joined the army at 16. I was tiny, 5’4” and weighed 52kg at my smallest/fittest. My full kit (including weapon, water and ammunition) weighed around 2 thirds of my body weight. But everything I was carrying was necessary.
It hurts. It hurts a lot. But you get used to it. It’s part of the job. Yes people get injured - I was one of them. And excessive weight bearing was cited in my medical discharge paperwork as having exacerbated my injury. But again, it’s part of the job and I believe that you have to accept that possibility when you take the job on!
The army can only do so much to accommodate everyone. Adjusting essential kit requirements to lighten loads for smaller people will only result in piss-poor performance because you are inadequately equipped at best, and people dying at worst.
I’m personally more pissed off that my feet are permanently battered and broken because I went through half my training with ill-fitting boots because there wasn’t any available in my embarrassingly small shoe size

@CherryPavlova you clearly don't know any army doctors.

It's definitely a design issue, not a weight one. And I have bigger feet than many of my male soldiers. Many unhelpful assumptions and opinions just in this thread, imagine what the lived experience is...

Not all women are short, not all men are tall. People of either sex come in all shapes and sizes. When you go to the high street you can go through the racks and try a selection to find the correct pack for you. The armed services tend to be more restricted on their range of accessories.

Sounds like they are wise to the problem, and are anxious to correct for it.

It is not the difference in strength that is the issue, it is the difference in women's body shape. Height is only one factor. We aren't just short men, we are a different shape.

Carrying based on shoulders is not good ergonomics for either sex; it’s not a feminist issue it’s a occupational health one

It is if the pack length means that women (shorter) have to carry on shoulders, unlike the men (taller)

Women and men’s spines are remarkable similar with few distinguishing features. Both should have kit that puts the weight on the strongest areas to reduce mechanical back injuries. Carrying based on shoulders is not good ergonomics for either sex; it’s not a feminist issue it’s a occupational health one.