A recent newstory seemed to bring this idea back up in my mind.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7901629/
Any oppinions here on whether women should serve in the military, and if so, in combat situations? Is there a level women should stop at short of the frontline? Should men and women be equal in all regards in the military?
Nyxie
Definitely: in certain frontline circumstances, women are militarily more useful than men. Women are much better snipers, for example - they're smaller and better able to conserve body heat, which means they can remain hidden and still for much longer. The Russians used them to devastating effect in WWII.
Originally posted by AmauroteI was getting bored and reasearching some historical military women and ran across an interesting site that contains some of the info you speak of.
Definitely: in certain frontline circumstances, women are militarily more useful than men. Women are much better snipers, for example - they're smaller and better able to conserve body heat, which means they can remain hidden and still for much longer. The Russians used them to devastating effect in WWII.
http://www.greatwardifferent.com/Great_War/Women_Warriors/Women_Warriors_01.htm
Seems other countries have'nt had the problems accepting women in the military as the u.s. does
Nyxie
Oh, yes, the Women's Death Battalion was the last real defender of Kerensky's democracy at the end of the February Revolution, along with the cadets. The snipers belonged to a different grouping if I remember rightly: the most famous female sniper, Lyudmila Pavlichenko is described in Martin Pegler's Out of Nowhere (great book). She had 309 kills when her career was finally ended by mortar fire in 1942.
Of course, if you're a female sniper, the prospects of being caught don't even bear thinking about, even in comparison with male snipers. But militarily they were very useful indeed.
Originally posted by AmauroteYes that's why they carried cyanide capsules.
Oh, yes, the Women's Death Battalion was the last real defender of Kerensky's democracy at the end of the February Revolution, along with the cadets. The snipers belonged to a different grouping if I remember rightly: the most famous female sniper, Lyudmila Pavlichenko is described in Martin Pegler's Out of Nowhere (great book). She had 309 kills ...[text shortened]... inking about, even in comparison with male snipers. But militarily they were very useful indeed.
It seems strange noone has stepped forward with an opposing view yet. Apparently the u.s. government believes that women need protecting, surely there is someone here who can help to explain this view?
Go for it girls but in training for the "frontline" there must never be any genre allowance in physical training or testing. Everyone on the unit must be secure in the knowledge that any other unit member could drag or carry them to a safe point and to carry their share. At the front there cannot be separate messing or ablutions. (Ladies and gents facilities will be left at the base. Everyone has to be adult about that and get over hang ups.. not easy but many organisations internationally manage it!!
Pound for pound every one on my team policing unit pulled their weight.. The two females on the team were fast strong and very quick witted. They were on the team on merit.. not many men would have beaten them physically. Different skills and apitudes boosted the team.
Originally posted by AmauroteThe Russians used them because they had lost so many men and needed to.
Definitely: in certain frontline circumstances, women are militarily more useful than men. Women are much better snipers, for example - they're smaller and better able to conserve body heat, which means they can remain hidden and still for much longer. The Russians used them to devastating effect in WWII.
Originally posted by AmauroteThe point I was making was that on the average women are'nt better shots than men. Most women have never held a rifle in their hands prior to entering the military so they are at a disadvantage from the start. I know of some fine women rifle marksman though who shoot on the range with me on the weekends.
Of course. But that does not negate the point I was making.
Maybe, but I don't see any evidence that this is the case, and there's far more to sniping than simply being able to hit the target. In addition to their other physiological advantages, the Russians found that they were more resilient to combat stress, and so far from the women being inferior shots, they compared very well to their men in the training schools. There were many with superior kill ratios, and the combat decorations female snipers received were superabundant.
Originally posted by AmauroteIf they are so resilient to combat stress then why aren't they allowed to participate in training such as the US Rangers, Special Forces, SEALS, British SAS and SBS, and in the case of South Africe the RECCE program?
Maybe, but I don't see any evidence that this is the case, and there's far more to sniping than simply being able to hit the target. In addition to their other physiological advantages, the Russians found that they were more resilient to combat stress, and so far from the women being inferior shots, they compared very well to their men in the training sch ...[text shortened]... th superior kill ratios, and the combat decorations female snipers received were superabundant.
Because we are not in a period of total war, and historically nations not in a state of total war are squeamish about frontline combat service for women. The fact that President Bush is debating the role of women right now is testimony to the strength of Backlashism in the United States, but the stark fact of military over-stretch in Iraq will certainly militate against any wishful thinking he may wish to indulge in.
Originally posted by AmauroteI'm only basing my opinion on my experiences as a former infantry soldier. You still didn't answer my question on the previous post regarding womens resiliancy.
Because we are not in a period of total war, and historically nations not in a state of total war are squeamish about frontline combat service for women. The fact that President Bush is debating the role of women right now is testimony to the strength of Backlashism in the United States, but the stark fact of military over-stretch in Iraq will certainly militate against any wishful thinking he may wish to indulge in.
Slim, for some strange reason you seem to think I'm gainsaying you: I'm honestly not, and I don't pretend to come from a military background. I'm simply telling you what I read in Martin Pegler's Out of Nowhere, which contains a good chapter demonstrating the historically impressive role of female snipers during the backlash to Operation Barbarossa. The efficacy of women is not in question. As for combat resiliency, you would be better addressing that to the relevant military institutes: the fact is that women were used during that campaign, and they proved themselves superior under fire.
My entirely uninformed guess would be that patience, the ability to resist cold (which was a huge issue in Russia during the Winter campaign), and size (especially for countersniping) were factors that inevitably made women better snipers. As for targeting, I see no evidence of inferior or superior ability in either sex, but if you can point to some contrasting evidence I'm happy to be instructed otherwise.
Originally posted by slimjimBecause of political reasons having nothing to do with military efficiency.
If they are so resilient to combat stress then why aren't they allowed to participate in training such as the US Rangers, Special Forces, SEALS, British SAS and SBS, and in the case of South Africe the RECCE program?