by JAMES CHAPMAN and ROGER DOBSON, Daily Mail

The Army could make training courses for women easier because female recruits cannot cope with the gruelling regime faced by male soldiers.

Women have undergone the same training as men since 1992 when the Army changed its rules to comply with equal opportunities legislation.

But a report by the Army Medical Directorate has revealed a ten-fold rise in the number of women medically discharged because of training injuries.

The report follows the revelation in yesterday's Daily Mail that three women hoping to become the first female recruits to complete the Royal Marines' All Arms Commando Course had failed.

It will also strengthen the arguments of those within the Army who insist that women should not be allowed to serve in front line units.

Last night, the Ministry of Defence said that it was taking the report 'very seriously' and was considering 'a different training system'.

The number of women medically discharged has gone up from three per 1,000 in 1992 to 35 per 1,000 in 1996 - four times the rate of discharge for men.

Fractures and injuries to legs, arms and feet account for more than seven out of ten cases. Women have lower bone density which increases their risk of fractures, and are also more likely to be vegetarians, leading to lower levels of zinc and iron.

Female recruits are issued with boots designed for men - who tend to have wider feet - which can cause more problems during training.

Army medical experts Professor Simon St John Miller and Dr Beverly Bergman, writing in the latest issue of the Journal of Public Health Medicine, add: 'Females have only 30 to 50 per cent of the upper body strength, and 70 per cent of the lower body strength of a male of comparable size.

'Because of hormonal differences, strength training produces less increase in muscle bulk than in men.'

A woman also has to exert herself more than a man of comparable size to achieve the same physical task, the report adds.

Short women can suffer stress fractures during marches as they struggle to keep up with taller males, while women's wider hips make them more vulnerable to pelvic injuries.

Before 1992, most women in the Army worked either as clerks, signallers, drivers or cooks in the Women's Royal Army Corps, or as military nurses. Their training was separate, and reflected the skills they would need.

After 1992, equal opportunities rule changes allowed women to join the same regiments as men and to take on most of the same jobs - with the exception of infantry and armoured combat units. Separate training was no longer seen as acceptable.

Most women 'enthusiastically embraced' the chance, the report says.

'Unfortunately, it was not long before the routine medical statistics began to demonstrate a possible penalty to health.'

It concludes: 'Equal opportunities legislation has been interpreted to require identical training for males and females, but some segregation of training may be acceptable, and this may reduce the excess risk of injury to females.'

Today women make up around 12 per cent of Army recruits, and 7,700 out of the 100,000 trained solders.

Tory defence spokesman Iain Duncan Smith said: 'Those Labour ministers whose political agenda it is to put women into front-line Army units regardless of operational effectiveness will have to answer to this.

'It is no good pretending men and women soldiers are physically alike. They are not. Changes need to be made. Failure to do so is unfair to the Army and unfair to women themselves.'

An MoD spokesman said: 'We are examining the implications of this research and taking it very seriously.

'A huge range of medical material is being considered as part of the evaluation of women's combat effectiveness.

'In the U.S. there is evidence women can reach the same standards as men via a different training system. The Americans are further ahead in that field than us.'

The Government has put off a decision on women serving on the front line until after the election.