Women in Combat? Yes. Sex integrate units? No.

Why the assertion of "all-male" versus mixed male-female? Why no "all female" units?

Combat units should NOT be sex integrated for the most part, but sex segregated by unit.

WOMEN are SUPERIOR at DEFENSE. MEN are SUPERIOR at OFFENSE. BOTH are evolved traits. Women are dna programs to defend the nest/home. In defensive combat, women go ape-sh-t kill-crazy against attackers of their position. They'll never surrender, but fight to the very last one inflicting superior casualties - notably, as they do.

Men are dna programmed as hunters. Men attack furiously, but defense is another matter. More often than not, if defense seems impossible and they are unable to flee, they surrender.

The fighting in WW2 in Russia confirmed this. In DEFENSE, women outperformed men. In advances, ie OFFENSE, men outperformed women.

Only "stupid" people can not grasp the difference between defense and offense. But STUPIDITY rules when it comes to male ego and insecurities.

The assertion, AWAYS, is that women - if allowed in - MUST become men and integrate into the male units. ALL testing, ALL consideration and reasoning, ALWAYS starts with the presumption that males and male standards are superior and women if allowed MUST then fight in MALE units. NO reasons are ever given for this - OTHER than leftwing PCism and non-combat pencil-pusher logistics. NO combat related reasons are given.

I am still waiting for ANY example of ANY battle lost or even just ONE of our troops who lost their life due to a woman or women in the unit - in any battle or war in the entire history of the United States. But NO ONE DARE talk about REALITY - only anti-women theories instead. Hell, we don't even need any combat troops by that logic. We will just always theoretically fight!

Let's expand that to the entire history of known warfare. In the entire history of warfare in the entire world, name a battle lost or even one soldier who died because there were women in combat with him? If not, all of known reality - not theory - proves the claim wrong.

Not one person, ever, has given ONE - not one - actually proof of their claim that women are not combat capable. The entire history of the US military IN REALITY does not support that claim. So instead they turn to the PRETEND word of "theories."


In WW2, Russian had all-female units. They proved to be true fearless German killers in Defense, occasionally vastly more than all-male units. But for Russian women in combat, German would have won the battle for Stalingrad. The result could have been an opposite outcome of WW2.

DATING BACK TO THE CHINESE and across S.E.Asia for thousands of years, it was recognized women are WELL suited for military DEFENSE. Men for offense. From three thousands years ago to now, Asian militaries have FEMALE combat units - but generally NOT male-female integrated units. Women are for defense. Men for offense.

Germany's chance to win WW2 was KILLED at Stalingrad. It was women in combat and all-women combat units that made the difference. It could be claimed that women in combat won WW2 Western front and Germany lost because it had no female combatants.If Germany had female defensive units for occupied territory and homeland defense, it would have freed up a million+ German men for offense such as against Russia and the USA/British. Germany literally ran out of combat forces because they only used men - losing a full 50% of combat forces potential.

The list of advantages of women units in defensive roles is long, including a more docile and less intimidated civilian population such as the women and men won't be fearing our occupying troops will be raping their daughters, wives and mothers. In warfare, civilians join defensive fighting to defend their women and children. Female occupiers could vastly reduce this fear - saving many lives - both ours and theirs.

This also would end charges and incidents of sexual harassment or rape within combat units.

All-male combat units. All female combat units. Not only all-male or all-integrated.

 

This isn't rocket science. In an advancing campaign, men - possibly running distances with heavy packs and gear - take the offense. Women units follow to assume the defense of taken territory - and the men continue their advance. Or is that just too complicated a concept?

Just TOO hard to think of combat with 2 thoughts, rather than 1? Is our military, our command so pigheaded stupid they can't handle the concept of binary tactics on the ground?

So, guys, explain your leftwing PCism demanding men and women barrack together? I suppose you should proceed to explain why you demand transgender men should use ladies bathrooms too. If you oppose all female combat units knowing the alternative now IS sex integrated units, you are NOT conservative on this topic, but flaming social liberals.

 

Obviously none of the men trashing women on other threads cares much for the prospect of there ever being a comparison between the effectiveness of all-male combat units versus all female-combat units. No surprise about that!

 

Ignoring the fact that you don't back up any of your claims and you have already been proven a list so no one should believe a word you say.

So which US military combat unit is it that is a defense only unit. Oh wait that's right none.

 

"a list?"

Everyone knows there are combat units assigned to defense of bases, locations, etc.

I believe there is a limit to how much a member can just troll stalk another member across the forum. 3/4ths of your messages so far are solely to troll me specifically.

 

BASE DEFENSE AT THE SPECIAL FORCES FORWARD OPERATIONAL BASE

After-action review results from the Joint Readiness Training Center demonstrate that many SF battalions are not prepared to execute base defense tasks without the assistance of other forces.

http://www.soc.mil/SWCS/SWEG/AY_2004-/Hubbard, C 2002.pdf

 

Sorry. A typo. A liar. Because that is what you are.

So rather then talk about your BS claims or your ridiculous ideas you just try and deflect. How very unsurprising.

 

Proving again that you have no idea what you are talking about. Base defense is one task of many that they do. I said a unit that does only defense.
You really can't be this dense can you.

And just FYI. There are already women serving at the BN level within SF.

 

The topic is not about the way things are, but proposes changes. You too "dense" to understand that.

Women are already serving in SF, definitely. Of course, every other man on these threads claim that's a untrue. Seems like you have too, at least about the woman I've posted about.

I hope you do understand that absolutely no one cares about this little personal feud between us, don't you? Members don't read these type messages. Why would they?

 

Having read your messages I would have guessed you are younger than 37 (your profile page on the forum). You have made representations on the forum about yourself personally. This is my current view of what is likely accurate about:

You hold the rank and in the areas that you claim you do. You hold a high, earned and honorable high rank as enlisted. Most enlisted will not obtain such a rank. I think it likely you have served our military and country very honorably, bravely, with devotion and overall well. Thank you.

You are in a somewhat inherently frustrated point in your career life, though it is a bright one. This, though, is one of the lower spots on that life career path. As enlisted, you just about peaked in the military career ladder. You will have an acceptable, but not lucrative retirement in terms of final pay or ranking. You will have to retire from the military before you are near retirement overall. However, for your rank and other notable high skills, ratings and record resume, you have a high paying and desirable private sector jobs that will put you solidly into the top 10%, plus your career military pay and benefits.

You do think you not really have the military all figured out as you seem to think. But if you stop and think about it, it is far more likely I am correct that of the entire military you know less than half of it and likely even much less. Virtually everyone in the military is the same way, certainly as are those not in the military. We all think we know more about the overall military than we do. The "military" - which included the CIA, NSA, FBI and other Pentagon special SF departments plus defense industry and political interactions - is vastly too complex, diverse and secretive for anyone to know even half of it all. Not even the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Its just too big, complex and secretive. It is designed to be that way for security and many, many more reasons.

So, my final comment on the topic of you in my opinion - since this seems to be a personal feud and personage comparison - is to tell you thank you for your service. Keep up the good work.

 

Uncle Ferd says havin'...

... sex before a big battle...

... saps yer strength.

 

So you want to reorganize the entire US military to make them less flexible which would also force the military to grow rather drastically all based of some claims that you provided zero evidence for.


I don't care what others claim. There are workout a doubt women serving within SF. They are at the BN and higher level filling support roles like riggers cooks Intel and the like.

 

So you want to reorganize the entire US military to make them less flexible which would also force the military to grow rather drastically all based of some claims that you provided zero evidence for.


I don't care what others claim. There are without a doubt women serving within SF. They are at the BN and higher level filling support roles like riggers cooks Intel and the like.

 

"SF" has a HUGE and DIVERSE number of meanings. You are not privy to all of "SF." Virtually no one is. We only see our corner of it - such as allowed to see, military or civilian.

Women do more than just what you list.

 

Integration works. East European partisan units were fully integrated which proves the point.

 

This is just such an ignorant claim its astounding.

"Offense" and "defense" have a whole lot in common, I can't think of any unit in the Army which is only trained to fight defensively or only offensively. Even security forces tasked with defending bases are trained in offensive tactics.

And to think that its a good idea to train units in just "defense" and expect they will never need to be used in offence is utterly ignorant.

And to think that training women in "defense" and place them in defensive roles suddenly makes them better than a male unit trained in offense is also completely ludicrous.

In Ranger school, there is a lot of training in offense and defense with exercises in both. There are similar exercises in army units. Women fail in all of them.

The Germans failed at Stalingrad for many reasons, not the least of which was the weather, poor planning, poor strategy, and poor leadership. A few women snipers did not make the difference.

<>

Israel has a mixed gender unit which patrols the border, its more of a police role so it counts as a defensive role in your eyes. The women carry less gear than the men - the women cant carry a standard load and do their job. The men have to carry extra gear to pick up the slack.

<>

Why aren't there all women armies in ancient history? Because its an utterly stupid idea. Up until about 50 years ago in the USA, manual labor was how things were done. Roads were built with shovels and wheelbarrows, etc. It made it so glaringly obvious that men were more capable at physical labor that the question of women in combat was answered every day at work and at home.

The few cases of large numbers of women in combat were due to dire necessity (Israel in 1948, Russia at times in WW2, Germany toward the end of WW2), it was a need to use every living body or lose the war.

 

Only to people who really don't know what they are talking about. Special Forces is a specific organization within the US Army.
Tell a SEAL Ranger or MARSOC they are Special Forces and they will call you an idiot.
The corner you see is that from watching movies and TV shows. Neither is grounded in reality. The same as your little fairy tales you have told on this site.

I suppose you can quote me saying that, that is all women do in the military.

 

Special forces and special operations forces are military units trained to conduct special operations. NATO defines special operations as "military activities conducted by specially designated, organized, trained, and equipped forces, manned with selected personnel, using unconventional tactics, techniques, and modes of employment".

 

His problem is he has watched one too many movies where a 110lbs female is tossing around and kicking the cap out of a 230lbs muscle bound bad guy and now he thinks it's reality.

The best is his little fairy tale of his friend the female super hero who stands by to at a moments notice to deploy on her own to any enemy country around the world to go kill bad guys. It's pure comedy gold.
It's too unbelievable to even make some crappie Hollywood B rated movie.

 

Good for you. You actually used goggle. Maybe you can learn something.

Now note that I said SF which is the abbreviation for Special Forces. Had I been talking about Special Operations Forces I would have used their abbreviation of SOF.

It was you the individual with zero knowledge or experience that was claiming SF has a huge and diverse meaning. All while talking about the US military. Proving once again you have zero idea what you are talking about.

 

Yes, I checked Google to see if my usage of "Special Forces" was within ordinary English and in military jargon and of course it is.

I say to you, "I see you got a job as a cashier at WalMart." You rage back "you're an idiot, you don't known nothing." That you are a 'customer sales representative' It says so on your name tag, "ask anyone who ever worked at WalMart they'll tell you," "cashiers are who count the money in the back," while repeatedly calling me a liar.

Son, while I'm not a senior yet I've got a couple decades on you and I have many children. That means in child rearing years I have decades of experience with younger people being annoying to try get attention or just throwing an emotional tantrum. Although only on this forum for 2 years, I have been on political topic forums for many years. You have escalated your trolling to stalker-trolling. Sorry if you are as angry a person as in your messages.

 

Nothing more then off topic ramblings and deflection. How sad.

 

Why are some men in the military so immature and insecure towards women?

 

Why can you not so posting lies.

 

Why are you so reckless in your writing? Proof reading too much thinking involved?