Men versus Woman and the Experimental War

It is becoming more popular for militaries to accept woman into combat roles. Whether this is a good thing or not and the decision to do this is sensible is open for debate. This thread poses a hypothetical to test an aspect of this argument. The hypothetical test is as follows>>

Imagine a test on a real battle field. The armies Mars and Venus are being pitted against each other on the battle field. Real simulation there will be real casualities.

The teams>>

Mars:
is a squad of 100. Its comprised of 100 men. All fit and healthy and trained in all field weapons and experts in close range (hand to hand combat) and long range (e.g.sniper).

Venus:
is a squad of 100. Its comprised of 50 woman and 50 men. All fit and healthy and trained in all field weapons and experts in close range (hand to hand combat) and long range (eg. sniper)

The weapons>>

Both teams have each person kitted out exactly the same. Automatic rifles, hand guns. Grenades, 10 members of each team are given 2 each.

The battle field>>>

Is separated in the middle by a horizontal trench, neck height. One kilometer way from the centre line trench either side is similar trench where the armies will ascend from and make their way to middle.

The terrian on each side is mirrored with minor hills and protrusions for coverage and camoflage.

The rules
Fight to death. Take no survivors. Team with member/s remaining alive wins.

--------
The Debate which team Mars or Venus is likely to win and why?

reply to post by AthlonSavage


I think the advantage will have to go to Venus:

1. The main advantage men have is strength, this is negated when both sides have modern weaponry, as guns are great equalizers. In our modern era, an elderly person possesses the power to shoot down the mightiest Mr. Universe with a single pull of a finger - quite impressive really. Strength then, is a minimal factor.

2. Women are more dextrous, and can sprint for longer. They will have an asset of speed.

3. I am no expert, but I have read that women make great snipers because they are more patient, less impulsive and they have a better center of balance. All together giving them an edge in the long-game.

4. Women are more social then men. This may translate into them operating better as a coordinated group. I can't say for certain, but it is a possibility to be considered.

5. Close combat: martial arts training is often centered around negating an opponents advantage of strength and/or using it against him. Again the one strength of men is negated. In such an environment, speed would be crucial. Also, men have the disadvantage of having particularly fragile genitals which would be fully exploited by quicker women. (Just how is it that evolution saw fit to put the most fragile part of a man's anatomy near center mass with no protection and external of the body? Seems like a bad idea overall.)

I don't see much going for the guys in this sort of match up. Technology has taken away the prime advantage of having testosterone-pumped muscle men.

Somehow this reminds of my favorite Blue Oyster Cult song, Veteran Of The Psychic Wars:

Mars for sure

The Venus team guys are gonna be too busy hitting on the hot chicks with guns to pay attention

Venus would win.

There's a reason those in the "ruling class", and the media, like to keep men and women divided and squabbling with one another. Because they greatly fear the "common" men and women working together in unison. Together we are as strong as the human species is capable of being. Divided, we are both handicapped.

This "need" we have in this world of comparing men and women needs to stop! Each has their own strengths and weaknesses. Together we become all that humans are capable of being. Divided we become weak and vulnerable prey to those who have learned the necessity of working together to achieve common goals.

Originally posted by domain1000
reply to post by AthlonSavage

 

I think the advantage will have to go to Venus:

1. The main advantage men have is strength, this is negated when both sides have modern weaponry, as guns are great equalizers. In our modern era, an elderly person possesses the power to shoot down the mightiest Mr. Universe with a single pull of a finger - quite impressive really. Strength then, is a minimal factor.

2. Women are more dextrous, and can sprint for longer. They will have an asset of speed.

3. I am no expert, but I have read that women make great snipers because they are more patient, less impulsive and they have a better center of balance. All together giving them an edge in the long-game.

4. Women are more social then men. This may translate into them operating better as a coordinated group. I can't say for certain, but it is a possibility to be considered.

5. Close combat: martial arts training is often centered around negating an opponents advantage of strength and/or using it against him. Again the one strength of men is negated. In such an environment, speed would be crucial. Also, men have the disadvantage of having particularly fragile genitals which would be fully exploited by quicker women. (Just how is it that evolution saw fit to put the most fragile part of a man's anatomy near center mass with no protection and external of the body? Seems like a bad idea overall.)

I don't see much going for the guys in this sort of match up. Technology has taken away the prime advantage of having testosterone-pumped muscle men.

^

Men are physically superior so obviously women are not more dexterous or better sprinters.

A good sniper has nothing to do with gender. Patience, accuracy, etc... are things that they teach you in sniper school.

I'll give you that. Women just can't seem to close their mouths. I don't even want to know how it would be fighting alongside with them.

Again you must be dreaming if you think a female soldier has any chance against an equally trained male soldier. It's just not going to happen.

War is about brute strength, endurance and power. War is man. Women just don't have that in them.

MARS wins this hands down.

reply to post by AthlonSavage


Let me start by saying I am not only a wife and mother, I am also a Naval Reserve PA with the rank of Lieutenant. that's the same as a Captain to you Army types.

Granted my training is in the medical rather than combat field but I can say from experience that new weapons tech has leveled the field when it comes to combat and gender.

Do you have any idea how many times I've sat in the recovery ward with a wounded warrior and heard him say "I never thought "She" was gonna---"

Women can and are every bit as lethal in combat as a man, maybe more so if those men have been raised with the mind set that all women are soft weak and need protecting.

My vote goes to the ladies

Here is some data that may help the discussion on male vs female ability with firearms:

ISSF World Rankings

In the end it's the greater will to kill that generally prevails over skill if the skills aren't absurdly far apart. Females do benefit from a higher likelyhood of hesitation from a male attack unless the male has been conditioned otherwise.

Mars will win due to Venus's insistence on discussing whose rear-end got fat since the last war.

A woman will take another woman down much faster, more efficiently, and with greater gusto than any man could muster.

reply to post by chasingbrahman


Did you mean Venus would win?

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
reply to post by chasingbrahman

 

Did you mean Venus would win?

No. Not at all. Mars would win by a landslide.