Female Combat Soldiers in T2K

[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.