Every time a US soldier is killed it becomes a national news story... Even in a modern environment where our casulaties are far less than thet were generations ago...

SO, the impulse, for those who order campaigns (at the political level) is to develop a robotic-based military as soon as possible. This also fits in with what the industrial powers want...

Bottom line: Talk about gender in war is meaningless, as 'nuts' can't equal nuts in warfare. By 2020, I predict, 80% of 'combatants' in the US inventory will be automated robots.

Well odd you think I never shouldered a rifle...well I have sorry to disappoint you...actually I bet I've fired more powerful weapons than you....

In any case....I corrected myself on the SAS bit the fact your only argument was against a mistake I made is sad.

Secondly, We didn't win WW2 through any military Genius just proves you have NO clue about how combat is waged.

You can go run off and imagine some "super sniper" winning the day like in "Enemy at the Gates" based on a true story and the Sniper was a man...not a woman....lol

And yeah that sniper was really good, but the movie showed that the war was being fought around the sniper (totally true), not with the sniper.

The sniper's main roll is to strike mortally, hit critical points.

These critical points merely open up gaps for the Infantry or Armor to take advantage of, these gaps are not permanent.

The sniper is a small peice of Warfare.

Dragonrider, go back to whatever Military academy you came from....you obviously missed a lot.

Well odd you think I never shouldered a rifle...well I have sorry to disappoint you...actually I bet I've fired more powerful weapons than you....

Please do tell... and be specific, with model and caliber...

Secondly, We didn't win WW2 through any military Genius just proves you have NO clue about how combat is waged.

Regardless of what some text book and hollywood movie would have you think, WWII, just like any other war, is a matter of attrition... Can one side kill enough of the enemy, and destroy enough of thier material to make it impossible for them to continue? We won, simply because we had the superior industrial capacity to make more weapons and field more equipped troops than Germany did... and were helped out immensely by the fact that Russia had killed off the vast majority of German troops in the first place.

I have no clue what your hardon about snipers is. I never said that a war was won with snipers. I do know a sniper, and I also do know that women have traditionally been employed as snipers in combat, owning to thier better depth perception and ranging finding abilities than men. That certainly gives women a wide open niche for combat!

By the way, Heidi Smith is the instructor for the Precision Rifle Course (sniper course) at Thunder Ranch... and I have seen her make head shots in excess of 1000 meters. Repeatedly.

Dragonrider, go back to whatever Military academy you came from....you obviously missed a lot.

I am not military. Never claimed to be. Never wanted to be.

I do however have a burning desire to stay alive and protect my family. I have trained beside law enforcement officers and SWAT officers from around the country, people who face enemy fire on a FAR more regular basis than the average soldier.

Military Academies have precious little to do with combat, or even "how to win a war". They are massively geared towards discipline and the military beauracracy.

I am interested in staying alive, and so take a more central view of what to do when bullets start coming at me.. And what to do with my bullets.

Well odd the way you talk everyone would think you are some "General" since you think you can declare wars are won only by attrition.

What was your extent of study of WW2? Looking at some statistics of munitions and armor produced?

There's a little something called troop movements which involves a little more skill than putting steel into the feild.

I've also made it policy to not divulge specifics on any matter, because as soon as we are "buffing up our histories" we are forgetting the point...facts.

(I love it when people call me pubescent...it's moronic really, to judge knowledge on anything but the provided facts.)

Fact number 1) You are dancing around the truth...War. Is not fought by "snipers"...the few women snipers who have done a decent job did not make a major change in the battle, the men who took advantage of their effects did. But in the end that is all team work.

2) How many weapons I have fired is pointless, considering the argument is how capable is a woman in fighting in the front lines...

Next: Going back to WW2, and your "infinite wisdom" about wars of attrition.

Please tell me when Germany was at the height of her manufacturing capability...

I also would like to see your proof of your claims that women have better perception....and all that...

I also wonder why you've conveniently not addressed the fact, that a large amount of women end up being pulled from duty, from ship or station due to pregnancies....gosh do we really want to rely on them in a war where everything is on the line?

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).

Im not argueing with your numbers... but you are forgetting that the Russians were a totalitarian state, and were not at all adverse to wasting the lives of thier own men and women to wear down the enemy.

As I mentioned, war is about attrition. Russia lost more men than the Germans did... they had far men and women more to loose, and it can be truthfully said that men and women were about all Russia HAD to loose at that point, and therefore would gleefully throw them into the meatgrinder... as long as they knew that they were taking Germans with them.

Originally posted by FreeMason
Well odd the way you talk everyone would think you are some "General" since you think you can declare wars are won only by attrition.

Seee my previous post regarding the attrition that did happen on the eastern front.

What was your extent of study of WW2? Looking at some statistics of munitions and armor produced?

Actually I have studied military history for some time. And you? I mean, besides the mental masturbation of the US being the greatest and brightest of everything of all times?

There's a little something called troop movements which involves a little more skill than putting steel into the feild.

Very true... but it only does any good if you have steel to put in the field...

I've also made it policy to not divulge specifics on any matter, because as soon as we are "buffing up our histories" we are forgetting the point...facts.

(Translation: I have no specific facts to offer)

(I love it when people call me pubescent...it's moronic really, to judge knowledge on anything but the provided facts.)

Strange, I havent seen any facts from you yet

Fact number 1) You are dancing around the truth...War. Is not fought by "snipers"...the few women snipers who have done a decent job did not make a major change in the battle, the men who took advantage of their effects did. But in the end that is all team work.

I never said that a war was won by snipers, and dont understand why you have a hardon on the subject. Besides, you are ignoring the fact that I pointed out that this is one combat area that women are traditionally employed in, and therefore was a large combat niche for women.

2) How many weapons I have fired is pointless, considering the argument is how capable is a woman in fighting in the front lines...

(Translation: I have never fired anything more than a BB gun, which mom took away when I shot my eye out. I wouldnt know sear spring from a primer on a real gun, and wouldnt know which end the bullet comes out)

By the way, I would be happy to divulge a small part of my firearms experience, and if I do so, I would like input from those military members reading this as to whose experience seems more geared towards reality.

Next: Going back to WW2, and your "infinite wisdom" about wars of attrition.

Please tell me when Germany was at the height of her manufacturing capability...

Late 30s, early 40s, probably the highest right after signing the non-agression treaty with Russia, and was recieving raw materials from Russia. This, combined with the massive industrial complex in Germany, and the industry that Germany had captured from Poland and a few other countries was probably the best industrial output she ever had. This ended abruptly when Germany invaded Russia.

I also would like to see your proof of your claims that women have better perception....and all that...

I do not have access to this at the moment, but can get it in short order with an email to Heidi Smith. Seems that Thunder Ranch actually did a study on female shooters in a rather clinical setting, and found reaction time, hand eye coordination, depth perception and range finding to be superior on average for women to men.

I also wonder why you've conveniently not addressed the fact, that a large amount of women end up being pulled from duty, from ship or station due to pregnancies....gosh do we really want to rely on them in a war where everything is on the line?

That would certainly never be a problem on any ship you were on....

Look you seem to say it's a war of attrition and manufacturing (this is a part of it), since you failed to answer...Germany was at the height of her Military production in 1945.

In 1945 she produced more tanks, more munitions, more planes AND more guns, than from 1939-1944.

They had plenty of weapons and they did have troops to use it.

They were beaten tactically.

Not by the russians in that the russians used "attrition warfare" which is why their stagering losses against an inferior force.

US used tactics as well, hence our few losses.

A war of attrition is definately no place for a woman because there's little stopping and much death.

And like-wise a war of tactics is hard fought for a woman, who can't keep up on average nor are they as strong on average.

Women should be a last resort...and by dignity shouldn't be in combat positions at least.

As for your outburst against me...shame on you.

[Edited on 17-7-2003 by FreeMason]

In 1945 she produced more tanks, more munitions, more planes AND more guns, than from 1939-1944.

Ahh... but how many of these actually made it to the battlefield??? They never made it on the field to be outmaneuvered... they were destroyed enroute, or indeed while still on the assembly line, largely by superiour air power.

US used tactics as well, hence our few losses

Again, less to do with tactics and more to do with firepower. We had superior firepower, and we were not afraid to use it. It suited our purposes to destroy the enemy, wherever possible, with long range weapons, mainly air power. Both day and night air raids crippled the German military. Russians resorted to human wave attacks because Russia didnt have much in the way of artillery or air power.

No war or any sort is any place for any human being. But when the meat grinder is in full operation, anything that falls in is fair game.

FreeMason and DragonRider are both BIG names in the world of ATS... Yet I feel bad that they're missing my point... Gender doesn't matter to a service composed of circuits.

Right now, our air force is mostly robotic (bombing runs from manned fighter planes are conducted via computer). The navy (in terms of its fighting elements) is entirely robotic (cruise missiles and all)... Right now, thoughm the army and marines are sweating it out in Iraq while taking casualties... still, it seems like they'll be relplaced by machines eventually (not to disrespect our soldiers)....

So, does the man versus woman argument matter at all in the modern world? In short order every 'instrument of death' owned by the USA will be run by an autotomic computer... to which no gender will apply.

[Edited on 19-7-2003 by FreeMason]

Originally posted by FreeMason

I'm not a "biggot" I just view women differently, as things to protect and treasure and enjoy their company and heed their words of wisdom.

(Translation: In my world, all women are in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant)

I've always respected the well placed and well timed words of a woman.

(Translation: They should only speak when spoken to)

The Germans, used to believe the "fairer sex" was precognitive, they would like-wise listen to what words of wisdom and courage they gave.

(Oh we dont want to talk about Project Lebenstraum, where all women were to be "breeders" for the Master Race)

Just reviewing some interesting facts...

The question is not how wars are won or lost. It is whether or not women should be allowed in combat! Women have served in non-combat situations for years and will continue to do so. For example in WW2, women pilots played an important role in delivering aircraft to the UK (from the USA). Also women have traditional served as nurses. Both the British and the Germans used women within their respective night fighter organizations in the roles as trackers and spotters. There is no question that there are women who are capable of performing combat roles. This cannot be denied. Even if it is only 7% of the female population, then that is 7 out off every 100 women who have the physical ablity to be soldiers. This percentage could probably be increased by better physical conditioning. Hey I met some pretty tough babes in my life (I remember one who took out three bikers in a bar one night and then threw the bouncer out). The question is: Do we want to permit women to perform combat roles? (not if there are women who can). As for the sanquine expectations of automated warfare? Well we are still many years from robots who can perform without direction.

Well done Dragonrider but you seem to be confused.

The idea to breed a master race was called Lebensborn

Lebenstraum was "living space" Hitler's idea for living space for all German peoples.

Originally posted by maynardsthirdeye
Well done Dragonrider but you seem to be confused.

The idea to breed a master race was called Lebensborn

Lebenstraum was "living space" Hitler's idea for living space for all German peoples.

My bad, I apologize. My German is a bit rusty.

Although I would point out that both programs were interlinked... once living space was obtained, the Master Race would need "breeders" to populate that space, as fast as possible.

The rights of these "breeders"? Do you think they rated consideration? (Not according to Hitler... or FM for that matter)

I will only come in this discussion every so often since I'm already fighting with FM on the gay marriage topic.

As far as military prowess of females, just some personal experiences...

Heidi Smith carries a Colt 1911A1 .45 (God bless her!) and can easily put an entire magazine into a human eye socket from 25 meters.

She shoots a .338 Lapua on the Precision Rifle Course, and can consistently make head shots beyond 1200 meters.

I have seen her use an M1 Garand in the Urban Tactical Rifle course and can easily keep up with the guys with AR-15s...

And this is the bland just waking up in the morning stuff for her.

FM, how does this compare with YOUR combat abilities???

(Keep in mind, this is a lady in her 40s as well)

I think he got offline or he left this board or something like that.

Originally posted by maynardsthirdeye
I will only come in this discussion every so often since I'm already fighting with FM on the gay marriage topic.

Well, since you mentioned that...

What was the official Nazi line on women who did not want to "breed"?

If a woman was not willing to "fulfill her obligation to the state", then she must be a degenerate (many were labeled as lesbian simply because they didnt want to have dozens of babies), and as they no longer held a use for the state, they were to be disposed of with the rest of the homosexuals, and other less than desireables.

They weren't human if they didn't support the Aryan race or the Nazi state.

Hitler seemed to hate everyone

Jew, homosexuals, slavs, blacks,