(The lost women in military thread)

Originally posted by FreeMason
Yeah yeah we all know the gun greatly reduces the need for "physical prowess", but not really.

In WW2 the average usage of the gun was at 300 feet or closer.

Speed and strength is still very necessary as the average distance of engagement has not changed.

Women in logistics (based on my opinion) is no better, but that's at least more acceptable.

But Women in combat rolls should never come to pass.

www.auburn.edu...

1) A study of lifting ability conducted by the Navy revealed that only the top 7% of Navy women scored better than the lowest scoring Navy man (NCPA 1)

2) Studies also show that " jobs which entail fixing a tank, carrying a stretcher, or throwing a hand grenade far enough for safety are beyond the physical capacity of nearly all women"(NCPA 2).

Fixing a tank especially, the most common problem with a tank will be the treads, when a tread needs mending, each kleet weighs over 20 lbs, and takes several strong men to wrench the tread back into place.

In the battlefield, a woman growing too tired to help fix a tread, could cost the Army the use of that tank.

Maternity leave is also a problem in the Military (to all those women who seem to think they can keep their legs closed).

Pregnancy becomes a problem especially in the combat zone. An article in Stars and Stripes reported that one women was evacuated from Bosnia for pregnancy every three days (Gutman 21).

Interesting tidbit:

A 1992 Army study about requiring women to serve in combat found that, if compelled to serve in combat, 52% of women soldiers claim they would "probably" or "definitely" leave the service all together (Donnely 18)

"Women offer little to the readiness and effectiveness of ground combat units. Lowering standards and conducting sensing surveys to prove women will be successful in combat will be worthless when the bullets are flying over their head. It is unfortunate that the military is so dominated by the politically correct mentality that it has succumbed to promoting blind equality. War is not and never was about equality. It has always been about survivability, and to survive on the battlefield you must have the strongest, most efficient army, not the fairest and most diverse." -- From source.

I have met no one in the military yet that approves of the "lowering of standards" that is going on.

My friend and I were already past 100% on the physical test for acception to Airborne, and neither of us even worked out through all of high school...

That was a shocker.

There are more than "moral reasons" to not have women in the military, all you need to do is look.

Stop denying the studies because a girl can shoot...wars are not won by shooting alone...it's won by speed, by strength, by sacrifice. (The latter a chick can perform completely theoretically, if they're mentally up to it.) And the others women and men share (Courage, love for country) and so forth.

Yeah, I hope anyone who wishes to retort this, can do so without "flaming".

Originally posted by David
FM, you really set yourself up on this one, not only are the woman going to tear you apart, but most men will too.

*waiting for Gryffen to appear*

Originally posted by rahboni
Dude...

you're askin for it....

Originally posted by FreeMason
Odd I've yet to see anyone address anything but opinions.

And Dragonrider's usual "Well women can shoot" obviously dragonrider you know nothing of Military Science.

As for everyone else...just opinions.

What's the percent of women that can throw a grenade far enough to not take shrapnel? (You could answer this if you looked at the reports).

What's the percent of women who can lift more than the lowest lifting ability of the average man in the NAVY? (you could answer that).

There are more factors than "Women CAN do it".

Sure they CAN do it...they are not GOOD at it, besides the whole Chivalric code of keeping women FROM harm, women shouldn't be there because the MAJORITY of them can't handle it.

Dragonrider again you fail to note....the standards for being in the military have gone down...CONSIDERABLY.

And this isn't Flame bait if no one wants to flame, but I suppose I can see how it can be, there is plenty of evidence supporting my argument, and a bunch of useless opinions against my argument.

Again I am not so much against women in the logistical aspects though personally I see no point in them being there either.

It's in the combat positions they should not be in.

I'll close for the short of memory, with, how about presenting evidence that all women can equally fight as the men can.

You'll find the number more around 7%...

*Laughs at DR*...gosh, you asked me once, what my extent of "combat experience was" but obviously it's more than yours because I atleast know how a war is fought.

Mr...."Sniper".

Originally posted by dragonrider
Women not in combat???

Hmm...

Guess you didnt hear about the female Russian snipers that cut the Germans to shreds in the battle for Stalingrad?

Objectionable, I can equally argue that it was not the female snipers, of which there were so FEW, it was the SAW automatic rifle.

Guess you never heard of the female Israeli battalions that fought the Egyptians and Jordanians to a standstill during the 6 Day War? (Using FALs against Soviet T-56 tanks?)

Guess I haven't, because a T-56's armor protects it from about an 80mm round....pathetic by the 6 Day war.

Guess you never heard of the female Croatian counter-snipers that leveled the field against the Serb snipers who routinely killed large numbers of unarmed civilians?

Again with snipers. 1) Objectionable...who says they actually did ANYTHING to circumvent the enemy snipers, you seem to think two things, that there were ONLY women snipers, and that there were no other conventional methods of combat that got them. I.E. mortars.

Guess you never head of the first British female paratrooper to complete SAS training and go on active duty with the SAS?

miss read this one: Still though one exception which I'll agree there are probably thousands of exceptions. But the SAS is not the mainstain of the combat force. Dragonrider, when will you learn clandestine and sniper warfare is about 15% of the combat effectiveness of a military.

Originally posted by FreeMason
Objectionable, I can equally argue that it was not the female snipers, of which there were so FEW, it was the SAW automatic rifle.

Originally posted by FreeMason
Critiques in Bold



Actually, she DID train with the men, and was given NO special considerations. And according to reports, she skunked the men on several stages

Dragonrider, where's your evidence anywhere that a Woman fights a war as well as a man, and is a valuable service to a war?

We won WW2 without Women Snipers, and without Women on the front lines.


The US didnt win the war due to any military genius... we out gunned, out produced the enemy, which was greatly helped by the fact that the Russians had destroyed a significant amount of the German resources

Meanwhile, the Russians lost 400,000 in the battle of stalingrad, the Germans lost 300,000 in that battle, and a little over about a million, if even near that throughout the entire Eastern campaign.

The Russians lost about 3 million through out that campaign, and I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt in my head (off the head statistics, don't feel like looking those up yet).

Dragonrider your arguments at best are pathetic, supporting female combatants on the front lines...