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

You watched a lot of Westerns, didn't you? The man would be in a life-death struggle - with her life on the line too - and she would just cringing in the corner rather than grabbing something to bash his head it.

I would guess you would hope that all the enemy killed by women in our armed forces could come back to life because they were wrongly killed by a woman?

Besides, you do a "woman and children" first poll about a sinking ship, and you will find that now the majority of men will say its "every man for himself." Try it. You might be surprised. I was when I put up that poll a few years ago.

What would be idiotic would be for women to rely solely on men for defense.

 

I posted before how when a Russian female top sniper came to the USA during WW2, the only questions she was asked was about makeup and other female questions. She ended up saying that she's tired of men hiding behind her while complaining about her being in combat.

 

Women were more that snipers at Stalingrad and in WW2 in Russia.

Warfare isn't fought the way it was in "ancient history."

 

Yeah, I understand that males make better pack mules than women. Maybe the army should get some mules and donkeys to carry the packs while the men ride in vehicles as they usually do. But only someone really, really hung up on their male ego would claim that women are incapable warfare combat.

BTW. the earliest known instances of women in military combat roles dates back to the 16th bce and has continued ever since. All over the world. Of course, if you add known Chinese history is more like 5,000 years ago - continuously thru now.

I suspect vets in combat in Vietnam - a few - might admit they felt a tad of a reason also to fear female Viet Cong and NVA. Does it really matter the sex of the trigger that fired the 7.62x39 if one coming at you? Or is holding the bomb in the shoebox?

 

Didn't Soviet soldiers have a political officer holding a gun behind their backs ?

I've read many debriefings of German soldiers who said that Russian soldiers were so stupid they didn't know when to fall back and regroup.

Re: Women Soviet soldiers

I don't know JakeJ

There was a lot of commie propaganda that was put out there about Soviet women soldiers. After the Cold War Russia did start opening up their archives and we see a different story about female Soviet soldiers. They were looked upon by the average Soviet troops as the Soviets officers corps prostitutes. They disrupted unit cohesion. When Germany surrendered one of Stalin's first orders was to get the women out of the Soviet military ASAP.

There is so much freaking war footage on film but so little of actual Soviet female soldiers in actual combat except propaganda films.

Here's what has been learned since Cold War One came to an end. Most Soviet female soldiers were nurses or acted like medics on the battlefield and they did carry a rifle as being medics.

If you search the internet there are a few Russian documents that have been translated to English that covers Soviet women soldiers during the Great Patriotic War aka WW ll.

 

I understand your point. Our side often uses women in exaggerated roles for PR.

I do understand your view and will agree if the need is for a small group of men to run 5 miles ASAP carrying 110 pounds of equipment or needs to be rapidly loading a 120 artillery piece, that is a man's role.

While there will likely always be a need for this, it increasingly is not involved in any combat missions nor should the entire combat units and personnel be based solely and singularly upon that contingency. Yet until recently the one-size-fits-all filter into combat roles was based upon that standard.

The military, even the definition of combat, is more diverse now. The military can get more strong back young men than they possible have openings for. This is not an era where there is a shortage of people wanting to join the Army or Marines. Rather, there are far more doing so than sought. What is lacking badly in the military including in combat zones are other skills. Brain skills. Brain skills in the heat and heart of battle if need be. Yes, everyone in a combat zone needs combat training - even nurses as you so often mention - but that does not mean the greatest need of the person is to have Green Beret or Ranger physical abilities.

A person put it this way and it made sense.

Two people in the past with 2 muzzleloading rifles are defending against a small group of attackers. One is firing the rifles. The other loading the rifles. The man is firing the rifle and the woman loading. Which is more important? Fast shooting - or fast loading? Yet many would be inclined to see the man as in combat - and the woman only in a supportive role, despite they both face the identical danger, have the identical purpose, and are equally a necessity to the 2 person unit.

The other comment I've made is that men in the military who strongly hold your viewpoints and cannot contain them expose themselves to career risks. It is not just they might be punished for not being PC correct. Rather, there are women who will fixate on besting that man - and do it - in terms of career path by intense focus and energy. Regardless, any military personnel who does both FULLY respect all others in the service - regardless of who the other person is - based upon rank, duty and the code of conduct - need no longer be in our military. Its volunteer. If a person cannot comfortably handle the reality - like or not - get out. Angry malcontents - even if internal - believing the military is being unfair to them are no longer suited for military service as they are trouble and their head is in the wrong place.

Given the military increasingly is desperate for big brain young people to join, including some that will be potential or certainly be in combat situations - there just are not enough because those are kids in universities heading for their PhD or other top end academic and professional rating and 6 figure careers. Only a few will try to enlist in the military. Eliminating half of such rare potential candidates by eliminating women makes no more sense than to claim in that 2 person muzzleloading situation I described above the man would be better off alone because of the view that women are not suited for combat.

Every week, strong men or men who want to become strong line up hoping to enlist in the Army and Marines. While they can't say it, those deciding look down the line and look at the applications trying to decide if any of them know calculus, computer engineering, software creating, electronics or otherwise seem to be a brainy person... and there aren't enough of those - as they search for any excuse to tell qualified men physically there is some tiny detail that causes him to be rejected because they only need 5 and 17 wannabes are there.

You're living in the glories of your past, friend. I mean that in the friendliest and most respectful way.

 

Holey crap, well written JakeJ.

There's a place for women in the military but not in combat arms. And not aboard warships. The day is coming when America will again find itself in a real war with countries that have real armies, real air forces and real navies.

The U.S. Navy will lose a $1.8 billion dollar Arleigh Burke destroyer because one female sailor couldn't start a P-250 fire pump.

This year the Marine Corps is lowering their PFT standards for all Marines just so women can serve with the grunts.
If you don't want to do pull ups during the PFT you no longer have to do pull ups.

I have to didi but good post JakeJ.

 

if women want to be in a combat unit then they should be allowed into them

 

Its not a "sit in a chair and push buttons" situation either. And its not just sit and pull the trigger.

There are parts that are still very physical, and women are not up to the task.

 

I think we've previously established that when it comes to this particular subject, you're not rational and are incapable of posting cogent comments on this subject and instead, attack other posters.

 

Women in combat is not the same as women in the military. In the "BC" era, when a city was attacked, all the residents of the city were attacked, if the city lost then all were killed or enslaved. Obviously, when the walls were breached women fought.

Attacking armies did not include women. Defending armies might but only if they had no possible choice.

North Vietnam used women because they had to, they did not have enough men to fill the ranks. Plus women as insurgents/terrorists had a better chance of mixing with the population.

That's also why the Russians used women - and old men and boys - in WW2, they were desperate, they lost millions of people, their soldiers were being slaughtered due to poor leadership, they did not have the manpower to fill the ranks. As soon as the crisis was over, the women were not in combat roles (except for PR purposes).

That's also why the Germans used women - and old men and boys - toward the end of WW2.

That's also why the Israelis had women - in fact everyone that could fight - in combat roles, they were desperate and did not have the manpower or the depth of terrain to use only men. But today women are not in front line units except for one border security unit.

Men make better soldiers, that's a fact. When a nation or ruler is desperate, then they sometimes use whoever is available.

 

Israeli Defense Force Decides: Armored Tanks Will Stay All-Male

Women Defend Israel in Border Patrols and Other Support Missions

While some American military leaders are preparing to order women into combat arms units such as the infantry by January 2016, the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) and the British Ministry of Defence (MOD) are moving in the opposite direction. The Israeli and British decisions to keep certain land combat units all-male reflect extensive field tests and U.S. Marine Corps research confirming major differences in the physical capabilities of military women and men in the combat arms.

Israel exists under constant threats, so most able-bodied citizens are conscripted to serve in the military. On May 18 the Jewish Press quoted the Hebrew-language YnetNews.com in reporting that even with personnel shortages, IDF officials have decided that women will not be assigned to armored tank units:

“After extensive field tests to explore the issue, the IDF has decided that female soldiers cannot serve in the tank corps. . . .The trials, carried out in coordination with the Medical Corps, concluded with the decision that ‘integrating female soldiers into tanks was harmful,’ a senior IDF officer told Ynet News.com in an article titled IDF Rejects Female Integration in Armored Corps.

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz, in a May 18 article titled IDF Rules That Tanks Are Still No Place for a Woman, quoted researchers saying that women can be integrated into the fighting forces, but only in keeping with physical limitations:

“The attempt to train female soldiers for combat on the front line beyond their physiological limitations, simply in the name of equality, is liable to end with a large number of injured soldiers just to find the one soldier who can withstand the load required.”

The Israeli field tests were done as part of an effort to expand the number of female combat soldiers in the IDF, in which most citizens must serve but with different requirements for men and women. According to news reports, the IDF has lost thousands of combat troops after reducing the mandatory service period by four months.

Personnel Directorate officials have noted encouraging signs in female combat recruits' motivation to serve in the new light infantry brigade called the Lions of Jordan, which will be permanently assigned to guard the eastern border of the Jordan Rift Valley. This unit is similar to the Caracal Brigade, which patrols the border with Egypt.

Both of these gender-integrated units perform important missions on borders with countries that have signed treaties with Israel, but IDF officials have confirmed that they do not mobilize to seek out and attack the enemy with deliberate offensive action.

Israel Counters Amazon Warrior Myths

Washington Times reporter Rowan Scarborough researched the largely-unreported news from Israel and wrote a front-page story that should give American policy-makers pause: [1]

Women's Combat Roles in Israel Defense Forces Exaggerated, Military Traditionalists Say
In the article Center for Military Readiness President Elaine Donnelly commented, “Uniformed Israeli women patrol the borders or help to train men for combat positions, but these important missions do not involve ground combat, meaning deliberate offensive action against the enemy. None of America's allies, much less potential adversaries, are treating women like men in the combat arms.”

Israeli defense officials who made a final decision to exempt women from service in tanks may have reviewed data published in the December 2014 report of the British Ministry of Defence (MoD), which was analyzed in two-section CMR Policy Analysis in February 2015. [2]

The British MoD explained with unusual clarity exactly what Ground Close Combat (GCC) units face when they “close with and kill the enemy.” Quoting qualitative studies into load carriage conducted by the Defence Science & Technology Laboratory (DSTL), the report stated:

“Women exhibit disproportionately lower strength on the single lift, with 5.4% achieving Infantry/RAC (Royal Armoured Corps) standards. Lifting involving upper body strength is a principal (88% of all tasks) manual handling task of the British Army.”

Israeli officials also may have been aware of preliminary findings produced by the American military’s Women in the Services Restriction Review (WISRR). The September 2014 Interim CMR Special Report titled U.S. Marine Corps Research Findings: Where Is the Case for Co-Ed Ground Combat? CMR was the first to publish interim proxy test findings that are highly relevant to armored tank communities: [3]

• In the 120 mm Tank Loading Simulation, a gunnery skills test, participants were asked to lift a simulated round weighing 55 lb., 5 times, in 35 seconds or less. Quoting the report, “Less than 1% of men. . . [compared to] 18.68% of the women . . . could not complete the tank loading drill in the allotted time.” The report added, “It would be very likely that failure rates would increase in a more confined space [such as a tank].”

• In the 155 mm Artillery Lift-and-Carry, a test simulating ordnance stowing, volunteers had to pick up a 95 lb. artillery round and carry it 50 meters in under 2 minutes. Noted the report, “Less than 1% of men, compared to 28.2% of women, could not complete the 155 mm artillery round lift-and-carry in the allotted time.” If trainees had to “shoulder the round and/or carry multiple rounds, the 28.2% failure rate would increase.”

The Israeli Ynet news service reported that concerns about physical deficiencies contributed to the decision to keep tank crews all-male:

“The physiological trials included a test of the abilities of an average female young adult inside the combat compartment of the Merkava tank, specifically in fulfilling the two duties which require significant physical effort ˗ the ‘loader,’ tasked with carrying the hefty artillery shells, and the ‘driver,’ who must press down on the heavy peddle with considerable strength.”

Officials also expressed concerns about the Armored Corps lifestyle, in which men are forced to spend several days locked into a small cabin while on operational duty. Instead of adding complications associated with gender-integration, which would make deployments more difficult and more dangerous, IDF officials decided not to assign Israeli women to armored tanks.

The IDF decision to have all-male tank crews appears to have been based on sound military principles that assign highest priority to military necessity, not social agendas or political considerations. In 1992 Hebrew University scholar Martin Van Creveld spoke of these principles when he testified before the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces.

continue -> https://www.cmrlink.org/issues/full/israeli-defense-force-decides-armored-tanks-will-stay-allmale

 

Do women out shoot men?

There are reasons to claim women are better snipers, primarily because they are capable of being motionless and focused for a greater period of time.

But the greater question is do women out shoot men?

If so, then it could be argued in the same logic that is used to claim women should not be in combat, that NO MAN should be allowed in any military role that has involves possibly using a firearm, since if one sex is better than the other at anything relevant, the other sex must be totally excluded.

So read and weep:

"As a military logistician, my units (after the Women’s Army Corps disbanded) had around 20 percent female personnel in both officer and enlisted ranks. All the women fired Expert their first day, but less than a third of the men did so. Several men had to re-train and repeat the course to qualify. This pattern continued when the 9mm replaced the .45 in 1985, until I retired in 1997. It also appeared that differences in musculature and hand size had no effect on the scores."

https://www.nrafamily.org/articles/2017/2/1/are-women-better-shooters-than-men/

The author overall with 32 years, over 3 decades, of military training men and women said that every year military women would out shoot military men.

CLEARLY, the firing capabilities of men versus women should be tested IMMEDIATELY. 50 men. 50 women.

Whichever sex shoots better then this MUST 100% excludes the other sex from any roles involving using a firearm. If it turns out women are better shooters, no male must ever be allowed into any military role that may involve usage of a firearm - unless of course our nation is invaded and we are running out of women. Then and only then could any man be allowed in any military role involving firearms. After all, any inferiority is intolerable.

But don't worry men. It has been proven that men make excellent nurses. Besides, the women probably could use men to carry their gear. Women are the shooters, men to be pack mules if necessary. Plus men could be loading heavy artillery shells, though women actually doing the aiming and firing.

- - - - - - - - - -

"Gentlemen, I am 25 years old and I have killed 309 fascist invaders by now. Don't you think, gentlemen, that you have been hiding behind my back for too long?"
Lyudmila Mikhailovna Pavlichenko, WW2 female Russian sniper

 

Some time ago I did quite a bit of research on Russian women in combat in WW2. While I understand Russia like all countries does propaganda and can use women for this, what the USSR would not have propaganda that made Russian men in the military look bad. Thus, those were the recounts that matter.

I'm not going to look up again what I have posted now and then in the past. Rather, just summarize it. The most notable example was a major battle in which all Russian male units fled or retreated, whichever word you prefer. The women's unit did not. This left them facing massively superior German opposition in numbers and vastly superior equipment. The women fought to the last one, inflicting greatly higher numbers of German casualties and so reducing German heavy mechanized armor it temporarily halted the Russian advance.

In the few recounts of Russian women in combat, this is what I concluded is accurate. None of this disputes that men have stronger backs and can lift more - which most men on these threads claim is the only measure that matters.

What I concluded is that women are vastly superior at defense than men. Men flee and panic, when women will not. These seem to be the 2 traits of women on defense - and at risk of not being PC gender neutral I believe it maternal instinct that drives it:

1. In defense, women's internal instinct to defend their nest kicks in. They are defending their home of their people.
2. In defense, women's internal maternal instinct kicks in as soon as others in their unit - male or female - are killed. To women, instinctively, this is as if it is their own children, their own family, being killed - and it turns the women into a killing frenzy. NOTHING matters but revenge, retaliation.

That was the curious aspect of women in defensive combat in WW2. Once a woman started killing it was nearly impossible to get them to stop. Orders to fall back, retreat, would be outright ignored - even the male units did and left them alone. "Hell hath no fury like a woman..." seemed to apply.

The claims that Russian women were whores is just the old view that promiscuous men are studs and promiscuous women are whores, nothing else. The oft refusal of women to comply with retreat or disengagement orders was made more generic to women can't follow orders. Yes, Stalin disbanded female units after WW2. But that may well have been because he feared them. If he wanted to engage in atrocities in his consolidating power, it would be far less likely women units would be willing to kill women, children and old folks than male units. In addition, if large numbers of women were combat trained and in units, his taking over areas after the war might have been far more difficult because men flee, women in combat stand their ground to defend their turf.

What I have never found was any instance of female units engaging in atrocities against civilians. If an equal number of men and women in Russia and Eastern Europe in WW2 and post WW2 Russia/USSR had been women, Stalin's creation by force of the USSR may not have gone anywhere near as well.

 

Stay TOONED: Marine Corps IOC lowers it standards again

 

That's the scuttlebutt.

 

I don't disagree that women can shoot well. I know several of them that can out shoot me although that isn't saying much. However, absolutely none of them would be able to carry a snipers ruck sack and gear with them. They weigh 120+ pounds. Also if you look up Olympic sharpshooter scores the men slightly lead the women although in most cases its so small as to be statistically irrelevant......except on the events that require high endurance activities before shooting such as decathalons where they have to ski or run before they shoot. Men have the advantage their since they have higher stamina and can recover more quickly this is far closer to representing "combat" than just sitting at a range and comfortably shooting targets.

My opposition to females in combat comes from their inability to carry gear for extended periods of time an they have are twice as likely as men to have joint and muscle injuries. That being said I have no problems with women in air combat, armored divisions where they aren't carrying around giant 100 pound ruck sacks, MP or long range artillery services etc.

 

Oh...

... I thought SF meant San Francisco...

... nevermind.

(I'm so embarrassed.)

 

if Bush was a traitor, what does that make the next president that expanded his drone program to kill more?

 

you may thank traitor Bush for building up ISIS and prompting the program

 

So why expand Bush's drone program, and kill people in countries like Pakistan (wedding in Pakistan for instance) when they specifically asked us not to? Why oust Libyan leader and send troops and drones to syria that told us not to? You're saying those were great things to do?

 

Today we have athletic women who are 5'10" and weigh 170 lbs who have no such difficulty. This in contrast to my uncle who was 5'4" or 5' 5" and only weighed 125 lbs during the Korean war. Whether you want to believe it or not, many women today are far bigger/stronger than a great many male soldiers in past wars.

 

your heroes in the Republican party were accusing Obama of building up ISIS and spreading the influence of both Sunni and Shiia forces throughout the region - his actions were in response to this endless criticism

by contrast, traitor Bush caused all that instability in order to promote war and the military industrial complex - this without a single word of criticism except (ironically) from Trump (and Alex Jones) who called him a liar at that time but later denied that he said it

 

My questions were completely dodged. Please reread and answer my questions about Obama EXPANDING the drone program and intervening (helping kill) foreign leaders and invading Syria.

 

I just told you - here's a repeat: "your heroes in the Republican party were accusing Obama of building up ISIS and spreading the influence of both Sunni and Shiia forces throughout the region - his actions were in response to this endless criticism"