Female Combat Soldiers in T2K

[Mohoender]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.