Female Combat Soldiers in T2K

[Raellus]

I just watched a documentary called Seeds of Summers about female IDF recruits going through basic. Unfortunately, it wasn't very good- it was more about the young women's social dynamics than about the actual training itself- but it got me to thinking. I know we've had this discussion before in the old forum, but I thought I'd start it up here again anyway.

The Israelis tap into their female "manpower" since their popluation is small relative to their far more numberous (and often hostile) Arab neighbors. For them, female soldiers are a necessity. I was impressed by how the very young, very feminine Israeli women were toughened up during the training process. Since they don't typically serve in mixed gender groups, they seem to develop a unique but effective unit bond and espirit de corps. Physically, they weren't that imposing, but many of them seemed to make up for in enthusiasm what they lacked in size and strength. Perhaps that's the way to go, as opposed to integrating female soldiers into majority male units. All female combat infantry companies in the U.S. army?

Anyway, I can definitely see U.S./NATO armies using more female soldiers in the Twilight War. With a large percentage of young and able-bodied males away at war (the U.S. alone has troops in Europe, Korea, the Middle East, Alaska, and parts of Africa), and with massive civilian attrition post-TDM, young women would be mobilized in increasing numbers. In the CONUS theater, I would imagine a large proportion of U.S. troops would be women. And by soldiers, I mean combat troops. Sure, women would still be posted in many of the non-combat roles (and one could argue that there is no such thing in the Twilight War) but it would seem that necessity would dictate more women in active combat roles.

It goes without saying the T2K Soviet Army would use women in a combat role. Socially, the Russians still (in 2009) aren't as progressive when it comes to gender issues, compared to western nations. However, they did employ women as combat pilots, snipers, and tankers during WWII. So, it stands to reason that a U.S.S.R., after having fought on several fronts for going on half a decade, would tap into its female popluation for combat troops.

Your thoughts?

[Legbreaker]

Well, this is certainly openning up a can of worms!

I believe (and could be very wrong) that all female infantry units have indeed been fielded by the IDF but with mixed results. Although the unit bonds are stronger on the whole, this actually has worked against them - when one got wounded, the rest would stop and render aid rather than continue the fight.

Something about the nurture impulse in women...

[Fusilier]

Definitely... at least for the European armies involved in the War (for the ones that don't already do). Never before have their armies faced such a manpower crisis. You need bodies - good or bad. I'd say if they could make the cut, they'd be on the line. Mostly pushed towards the support first, but not exclusively.

We have them in the Canadian combat arms. Most I've seen aren't exactly top caliber. However, there's a few who I'd make an exception to. We even have at least one female in the JTF (our SAS/Delta people).

Anything is possible if the training is adequate and old mentalities modernized... and the desperation of WW3 military.

[jester]

But, then again the overall ability of women would degrade the units ability. Moving by foot would would be much slower, women would only be able to serve as riflemen, as often the loads of crew served weapons would be beyond their ability to manage for very long.

Those are just some simple observations at the moment.

[Matt Wiser]

We did talk about this on the old board: someone (Raellus I believe, but correct me if I'm wrong) even came up with a die roll to see if a major combat unit had female combat soldiers. I do agree that any combat-exclusion law or reg becomes moot after the TDM, and armies all over need warm bodies in slots, regardless of gender. My SEAL LCDR has a female XO, and her backstory was that prewar, she was part of a pilot program to evaluate if women could be integrated into SEAL teams. Once the balloon went up, she simply stayed in the unit. One of our M-1A1s also happens to be "unmanned....", and two former POWs with us (the group rescued them) are female: I use them as the "bad cop" in the good-cop/bad-cop interrogation technique. However, due to certain unpleasant aspects of their captivity, they have a habit of killing Russians who try to surrender (oops). Then there's a prominent NPC in Black Madonna: CAPT Molly Warren, CO of Bravo Troop, 1/116 ACR, who has a similar personality trait in dealing with prisoners....Also, in the U.S. Army Vehicle Guide, some of the combat vehicles (including tanks and MLRS launchers) mention female crewers.

Kato, if you could find that old thread and repost it or provide a link, that'd be great.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Matt Wiser

Kato, if you could find that old thread and repost it or provide a link, that'd be great.

Here it is

http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=98

for our new users this is one of the threads from our old home which pretty much got yanked out from under of us. The format is different as I did not have access to the database so I had to merge posts together. This can lead to some quotes blending in with the reply which can be confusing.

[Legbreaker]

I agree that while shortages in manpower will force women more and more into combat roles, having units made up exclusively of women is not necessarily a good thing for the reasons mentioned above (plus a few more I'm sure we'll touch on eventually).

However, there are always exceptions to the rule. Indivdiuals are certainly out there IRL that can run rings around most men - take the average female triathlete for example. Just being male doesn't qualify a person for combat either. I've seen many men of the years who just weren't up to scratch because of physical, mental or emotional issues.

My original point though still stands. A unit exclusively made up of women is unlikely to be as effective as one made of men, or a mixed unit due to the nurturing nature of women as well as their lesser physical strength on average.

Armour, aviation, perhaps some elements of artillery they may well perform very well, but as infantry with the high physical demands? Not so much...

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by jester

But, then again the overall ability of women would degrade the units ability. Moving by foot would would be much slower, women would only be able to serve as riflemen, as often the loads of crew served weapons would be beyond their ability to manage for very long.

Those are just some simple observations at the moment.

I think that relative to each person and over simplifying things. Its the training institution's responsibility to weed out those problems. Besides, from my experience size means little - I'm was the smallest guy in my infantry section and never fell out of any foot march or had my gear and weaponry downsized.

If females can make it to the special forces, I'd say 'enough' could be trained into combat troops at the same level.

[Mohoender]

I'm not really sure that I want to get back on that issue. I continue to disagree guys as I think you underestimate women. I also think that you are thinking from wrong bases.

In T2K, the women you are talking about won't be the one you can find today. They won't be there to make a point or because they want some kind of equality (or whatever you call it) but simply because they have no other choices.

Concerning their hability, I have no doubt about them but that won't be an issue anymore. Concerning the military you'll find them around, completing the losses and that would be true in many armies. Strangely I have the feeling that they would be less numerous in the US forces than in any other forces (including muslims) but that's only a matter of opinion. In some armies, you might very well find them in large numbers (Russia, Israël...).

Whatever, the place of women would have changed dramatically from what it is today and I expect several social structure to exist under the Twilight.

1) Societies where women would be more or less enslaved to their master men.
2) Women forming independent communities from which men would be banned. In that case they would feel the rank of every social aspect, including defense.
3) Structures where women are doing most of the work (if not all) and where men are essentially entitled to provide defense. I think that this will be the most common social structure with either a matriarcal or patriarcal organization.

Anyway, women in T2K won't be complaining about speed or about carrying heavy stuff. If they can't do that, they are dead meat anyway. Your idea of women is similar to that of your fathers and grand fathers when they were saying that women wouldn't be able to work in factories. Two world wars proved them entirely wrong and pre-1950 factories had nothing in common with our current factories. You also easily forget that each time men are going to war, women have to take everything else in charge (strangely I really like the fact that I'm a man ). In my opinion, the only limitation to women enlisting in armies is men (and probably feminists). From, the last discussion we had on that subject what I recall is that men cannot take it. We should start thinking with our brain and I mean the upper part of it (no offense). Of course you have physical limitations but T2K is a world of adaptation. If you can't adapt, you are out!

As Sacha Guitry was saying: I'll willingly grant superiority to women if only they could stop pretend to be my equal.

[kato13]

One thing to remember is that in times of 50% infant and 50% childhood mortality and 40 year lifespans women have to be pregnant for about half of their lives beyond the age of puberty to maintain a population. This in addition to obvious physical limitations are why historically women were kept away from combat.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by kato13

One thing to remember is that in times of 50% infant and 50% childhood mortality and 40 year lifespans women have to be pregnant for about half of their lives beyond the age of puberty to maintain a population. This in addition to obvious physical limitations are why historically women were kept away from combat.

In fact, that is more simply because they can become pregnant. You are reluctant to waste your future in combat. However, they were not banned from anything else and I still have a friend who was borned in the field. Her mother went to work in the morning, had her around noon, finsihed the work that she had and went back with the baby in the evening.

About physical limitation I don't agree at all as, historically, women tend to do work that are more physically demanding than men, it just depends on the type of work.

About being pregnant all the time, you are right but you forget that many women are not well suited for that. Many will die because of it, others will not have babies at all, several won't want to have babies... They were used at others tasks. Also being pregnant doesn't prevent you to do your full part of the job. However, obviously, you will not go to fight unless you have no choice.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

About physical limitation I don't agree at all as, historically, women tend to do work that are more physically demanding than men, it just depends on the type of work.

In my opinion, evolutionarily men are more optimized for combat and women are optimized for childbearing and rearing. Can a car designed for speed go offroad, sure. But I would still perfer a Jeep, as going offroad is what it is designed for. Biologically sacrafices have to be made. Women gain stronger abdominal muscles, better endurance in extreme situations, and pain tolerance from being optimzed for giving birth. From a combat perspective men have better agression, speed, strength, muscle recovery, navigation skills, and night vision (but worse perception of color).

I am not saying no woman could ever be as efficient as the average man in combat but if you compare averages, men are going to be more capable infantry soldiers than women are. Personally on average I think women are better than men in most jobs, but not soldiering.

[headquarters]

been used lots of times in war -as rank and file and as officers -in all women units and in mixed units .

I have served with both female soldiers,NCOs,Officers etc .

Since the women in our forces have typically been volunteers whilst the guys are conscripts there seem to be a slight difference in motivation I feel .

I think the problem with women in mixed units would be that some or all the guys would start getting antsy and a lot of drama would come up.Imagine the added pressure of war,maybe drink -alot of guns .Trouble maybe.

As for womens ability to fight - since it is all pretty much done from a fair bit of distance I quote bruce Lee - "Any fool can pull a trigger"-
meaning they use children ages 8-16 for soldiers many places -why wouldnt a full grown woman with physical and military training be able to lug her 20 kg pack and her 5 kg rifle -and shot it too.Maybe some male units /soldiers would be alot better .But compared to regular troops they would be better than them too.

I have heard about the Israeli female troops stopping to aid a wounded squaddie too -sounds like what I would do actually - but NEVER seen a shred of documentation .I have -however -read about the Finns finding their dead female red army enemies in their firing positions on top of a mound of spent machinegun shell casings -riddled with bullets- but never surrendering .It was very disturbing to the sisu of the Finns .

[Targan]

I went through basic training with a dozen or so women and while every single one of them was enthusiastic and really put in the effort, the strongest of them was still not as strong as the weakest of the men they were training with and they had big problems carrying heavy loads over long distances. Also, back then we were only just starting to be issued Steyrs so in basic we were shooting SLRs (FN FALs) and the female recruits really took a hammering firing the 7.62N round. It was kinda sad and kinda funny at the same time.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by kato13

I am not saying no woman could ever be as efficient as the average man in combat but if you compare averages, men are going to be more capable infantry soldiers than women are. Personally on average I think women are better than men in most jobs, but not soldiering.

I think I understood you well kato. I'm not saying that I would use women in every combat situation but, in the case of T2K, things will be entirely different IMO. Of course, there are differences between both sexes but for many combat duty (in T2K) that might not matter that much. Most fighters won't have access to heavy equipments anyway and most will be grouped in small freedom fighter like units. Strangely, when I'm talking about snipers, the general answer is everyone in the army is not a sniper. Right, but everyone in the army is not heavy weapon crew as well. The most important thing to me is: women will have to fight in the first place.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by headquarters

I have heard about the Israeli female troops stopping to aid a wounded squaddie too -sounds like what I would do actually - but NEVER seen a shred of documentation .I have -however -read about the Finns finding their dead female red army enemies in their firing positions on top of a mound of spent machinegun shell casings -riddled with bullets- but never surrendering .It was very disturbing to the sisu of the Finns .

It was equally disturbing to the Germans. They made a similar observation about Red women tank crews.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Targan

I went through basic training with a dozen or so women and while every single one of them was enthusiastic and really put in the effort, the strongest of them was still not as strong as the weakest of the men they were training with and they had big problems carrying heavy loads over long distances. Also, back then we were only just starting to be issued Steyrs so in basic we were shooting SLRs (FN FALs) and the female recruits really took a hammering firing the 7.62N round. It was kinda sad and kinda funny at the same time.

Erf! Whe are going back to the old issue. I have a question? Why were there for, in the first place?

[Legbreaker]

Women have the right to fight.
Women are not (on average) as physically strong as men.
Mens physical bodies are more optimised for combat than womens.
Women often process problems differently to men and often the answer is less sledgehammer, more finesse.

Women to me can, should, be allowed on the front lines, provided they're assigned to roles they are actually suited to.
Granted there will always be exceptions to the rule, but as I've previously stated, Armour, Aviation, etc where actual load carrying capability isn't as important as skill are likely roles.

My plattoon Sergeant in the infantry was also the battalion bayonet and unarmed combat instructor. His wife used him as her sparring partner (some form of martial arts I can't remember) and regularlly beat him. Mind you this was a couple who ran up trackless mountains for fun....

[Graebarde]

1. I feel in the US military, combat arms will eventually be opened to women. I HOPE however when it is done, standards are not lowered to just allow them in, as it was in other fields. (gee it's too hard for the women to make the grade so we'll lower the bar.. therefore allowing substandard performers in). That being said, if they can make the grade, great.

2. I have served with many females, and was married to a female MP for many years. Just like amoung males there were good ones and bad ones. Could they perform in combat? The MP is nothing but underarmed infantry! There was a silver star awarded to a Kentucky NG female staff sergeant(maybe only a sergeant) for busting an ambush in Iraq. Aggressiveness is NOT an issue that I've noted. It is more a physical problem, and then there is the female hygiene issue that always arises. Many, many females goes down when there monthly cycle comes around. Not all but I'd say the percentages are more than ten percent. Yes they are short lived, but still an issue IMO. Also in current military units where the female is a volunteer and not in any type of combat unit, with pregnancy deterents readily available, there is still a high percentage of 'undeployable' women in said units due to pregnancy, whether wanted or unwanted by conception. It's a command nightmare.

3. I think in the Twilight war in Europe and other overseas theaters you will find females in combat units, but those will be units thrown toegether, and the females will be 'volunteers' where as the male replacement next to her might be 'volunteered' for the combat duty. I do NOT think there will be a recruiting of females for combat arms even then. The 'soldierette' will be utilized to release able bodied males for combat duty, as they have since their inception. The gals call it 'male chauvenism', I call it the midset of survival of the species. However I do see more females in combat support units such as MP, as I feel many of the post TDM units formed in the US will in reality be MP type units rather than infantry perse. Of course HOW they are used will be as infantry, but it's a way around the regulations as I see it.

4. I was under the impression that the IDF women, while trained for combat, were actually used to fill support/combat support roles to release males for combat. They are very concerned in that country about their women, and survival of the species as well.

5. Jester.. every Marine is a rifleman first, hence the BAM is a rifleman/person first right

[Legbreaker]

I agree with just about everything Grae just said!

Twilight units by late in the year 2000 aren't going to be made up all of the one corp (infantry, armour, supply, intelligence, etc) but rather be cobbled together from whatever personell are available. A more extreme example of this is the acceptance of all nationalities into units, both allied and previous enemies.

Larger units (say company and above) are likely to at least try to keep the same types together in smaller units, but if a person knows how to do a certain task, then they're damn well going to be doing it, no matter what their file says!

[Raellus]

It's hard to argue that women are as well suited, physically and psycho-socially, for combat as men. But, I'm sure that, in the crunch, some women would prove themselves at least equal to their male counterparts. And "the crunch", as it were, would have spread to include many more people during a global, pseudo-nuclear war. I just can't see manpower-strapped militaries passing over young, healthy, fit females when their almost exclusively male militaries are being bled white. I agree that most women would take up support roles but I think that, over time, militaries would have little choice but to inject more and more women into combat roles.

I think the gender separated small unit is a viable alternative, given the risks associated with placing a woman in a unit made up mostly of men (overprotectiveness of men, sexual predations by men, hygiene issues, etc.). I'm not talking divisions here, maybe one platoon in a rifle company or one squad per platoon. I also think women would be effective as armor crewmen, although armor would be at a premium c. 2000.

Historically, there have been few instances of all-female combat forces. The Spartans, however, encouraged their young women to be physically fit, both to ensure strength for childbearing (and the mistaken belief that acquired traits could be passed on to the next generation), and to allow them to defend their polis when the men where on campaign.

The Scythians apparently had groups of women warriors (fighting mostly as horse archers) whose effectiveness and psychological impact may have given root to the legend of the Amazons.

As to women's strength, a teacher coworker of my wife used to be in the U.S.A.F. on a security detail. She's only 5'6" or so and can't weigh much more than 115lbs but she was her squad's M-60 gunner. I asked her why she got the job, instead of the unit's burliest guy, and she replied "smaller target". Makes some sense. Anyway, as U.S.A.F., they didn't walk a lot, but the fact that she could carry and fire the M-60 well enough speaks volumes about what women can do. She's currently a mother of two and still plays soccer to stay fit. Women are stronger than we think.

[Jason]

There are some misconceptions in this thread about female soldiers in general, and those in the IDF in particular.

From what I gather, about 1500 female IDF soldiers serve in combat roles (including firing arty and flying combat sorties). Females do serve as insructors at all levels. There is one light infantry battalion that is all female. That is about it. Female IDF soldiers have not been in combat in significant numbers since 1948.

Women are capable fighters. Even on the modern battlefield females can and will fight and kill the enemy. Female soviet snipers in WWII racked up huge numbers of dead germans. Female insurgents have been around for many years, including some killed by American soldiers in Vietnam. As far as females being too caring or nurturing, well you have not met some of the women I know.

The fact is however, no large group of military trained and disciplined female troops has been combat tested on the modern battlefield. There is not enough data to justify sweeping conclusions about female combat efficiency. In T2K I think it is natural to allow females to serve in the combat branches. Most players will roll men anyway, but limiting player choices is usually not a good idea.

[Mohoender]

I agree with Jason

Anyway in T2K it will effectively depend on whom is playing the female character.

If that's your best friend's girl friend and you prefer to rule her out. Just tell her exactly what we have been discussing here. The downside is that you might lose your best friend as well (at least for a time).

If that's one of your friend (male I mean), adapt!

If that's one of your friend (female and gorgeous), always go on her side. You might get complains from your male players but you might bring her to your bed (They'll understand).

If that's your girl friend (or wife) deny having any participation in that discussion unless you want to try her agressiveness at home. Strangely, women tend to raise issues right before the football match you had been planing to watch for weeks.

If she is open minded, and accepts that women can do things as men but have to do it differently, then, marry her! That's what I did and I still don't regret it.

[copeab]

One thing to consider is that by 2000, the physical and mental quality of male recruits of is going to be well under what armies started the Twilight War with. Men who would have been rejected for service out of hand in 1995 will be handed a rifle and uniform in 2000. I think comparing female soldiers to peacetime male soldiers is misleading, as in T2K that's not who they should be compared to because most of the peacetime soldiers are dead.

[kalos72]

Regardless of any "are they capable" modern discussion, I think its rather obvious that in most areas of T2k population, women will be used more so for "civic" style jobs.

Farming, crafting, sewing, methanol production, clearing rubble and such leaving the men to either hunt or protect the community.

In areas where there is a surplus of labor, then I can see them being used more for militia tasks, but still more support oriented.

Only time I see that being different is when the local militia is in short supply, like if the men have just fought off a large assault and many are either dead or disabled. Then women would be used to man the towers or patrol the walls, but again, local leaders will try and keep them out of direct contact with the enemy.

I think its more of a mental thing then a true capacity issue. At least in the US, I think most men in the service are "comfortable" with seeing another man get injured. But society has "trained" most men to view women differently. Enough so that seeing a women get wounded would cause most of us to react differently, potentially a very bad thing in certain situations.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by kalos72

Farming, crafting, sewing, methanol production, clearing rubble and such leaving the men to either hunt or protect the community.

Hope not to hijack. Please reply in the link below.

If you are going for realism (which from your posts you seem to be) you need to drop methanol as a fuel source. This was one of the largest mistakes in the game IMO. I understand why they put it in but the chemestry is not at all realistic.

My methanol post

[jester]

Originally Posted by Graebarde

5. Jester.. every Marine is a rifleman first, hence the BAM is a rifleman/person first right

That term became politicaly incorrect then they went to WM's and even that became politicaly incorrect. I have no clue what it is now.

But I want to find the advertising bozo who came up with that and put it on the market. I have had countless discussions with folks of all MOSes who chime that. I simply ask them, "whats your mos? I always thought 0311 was Rifleman" and they ain't got it. Although every Marine has the MOS of 0300, which is basicaly trained Marine. And there is a big difference between your 2nd Phase of 3 weeks under well controlled field training in Boot Camp and another three weeks of MCT and maybe a week or two field op a year and being a REAL RIFLEMAN or Infantryman.

It isn't about hefting a rifle, thats a small part.

As for someones comment that support weapons won't be to common.

In a Rifle Company there are 3 Rifle Platoons and 1 Weapons Platoon, and usualy the weapons platoon is the largest platoon in a company.

So, I would say that there are a good number of crew served support weapons around. A belt fed machinegun is a support weapon as are rocket launchers and certainly mortars.

And keep this in mind, those beasties require the riflemen to carry ammo for the crew served support weapons, so there is no getting out of it if you are just hefting a rifle.


As for how effective they will be:

I have a freind, a she. She works as a field surveyor constructing roads. She joined the Army NG with the hopes of becoming a zero. As a result of her basic training and keeping up with the boys she ended up with multiple stress fractures and a pelic fracture not from any injury just from the stress she was placed in. And it is common knowledge that Basic Training is pretty safe and well controlled not like in the regular units or even in the field or combat where alot of the safetys are removed.

It is also common knowledge that women in the military even in support units tend to suffer more injuries than the men, we are talking about 20% and that is in peacetime support units.

As for the whole Twilight thing, I think there would be alot of coed units for 1 simple point, when would the last time the U.S. forces in Europe would of had replacements? Alot of units would just reconsolidate and reconsolidate and reconsolidate merging unit upon unit upon unit, merging units with others to maintain a national integrity.

So, we would end up with ALOT of composite units when several were formed just to get enough bodies to call it a and not just a couple people.

[Slappy]

I'll just echo Copeab. Whatever the relative merits of women v. men in today's military, they'll be found in T2K units. After four years of war in Poland, to use the canonical example, I have to expect that any man between 16 and 40 would be considered fair game for recruiting as long as the unit has a rifle to arm him. While many women might not be up to scratch compared to current US army target inductee, there are many that I would rather have in my unit than middle aged and out of shape former pencil pushers from Warsaw. I would certainly take an intelligent and dedicated woman with prewar basic and specialty training over an eastern block civilian who was drummed out of the first three conscription drives of the war and only made it in on the fourth round. The 'will they be there' question misses the point for me. I'm sure they will be. For me the more interesting question is in what proportion. I'm guessing that they will be only 10-20% of a unit, but not nearly scarce.

[copeab]

I think this is a case where the military experience of many players works against them. The men you served with are not at all like the the men being drafted in 2000, unless you served with 14 year old boys or 50 year old fat CPAs with asthma and high blood pressure. If you have man in your unit close to 20, it's because he's a heroin-addicted thief booted out of prison. Are you still going to claim that there is not a useful percentage of the female population mure physically capable than such male recruits?

Frankly, the manpower situation is far worse than what Germany faced in 1945.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by copeab

I think this is a case where the military experience of many players works against them. The men you served with are not at all like the the men being drafted in 2000, unless you served with 14 year old boys or 50 year old fat CPAs with asthma and high blood pressure. If you have man in your unit close to 20, it's because he's a heroin-addicted thief booted out of prison. Are you still going to claim that there is not a useful percentage of the female population mure physically capable than such male recruits?

Frankly, the manpower situation is far worse than what Germany faced in 1945.

The first time I finally realized that was when I was a young newly-minted sergeant and found my squad almost had to have military manners and respect pounded into them...the previous squad leader put up with their antics -- if they weren't appropriate, I didn't.