Finally...equality

Draft the Swedish Bikni Team!

sbt11.jpg

sbt12.jpg
 
The only thing I would have against women in combat is that a low percentage are waifly and dainty enough that they can't bear a full combat load in weapon and pack.
 
What! You don't think the above pictured lovelies
would fare well with a full combat load on a 20 mile forced march?
Oh for shame! They’d get the male 'members' to pack their loads and ride piggy-back!

Then again if the troops were fully indoctrinated in the Liberal standards of equality,
they would all be left behind to be taken prisoner.
I'm certain the enemy could find a 'use' for them, don't you?
 
Of all the nasty outcomes predicted for women's liberation... none was more alarming, from a feminist point of view, than the suggestion that women would eventually become just like men.
Barbara Ehrenreich
Click to expand...


It offends me that people feel the need to see "equality" for women as merely to become the same as men.

It seems clear to me that women never were and never will be the same as men in that way, however that is not to say we are not capable of carrying out the same things effectively.

Of course women are physically different to men in terms of body strength and this might affect combat - however then women probably do have some advantages over men, and vice versa.

Unfortunately, the way any defence force is structured at the moment is entirely based around a system structured by male ideas and objectives, and so for a woman to try and suit herself to this system seems a bit futile to me. On the other hand, if there were equal opportunities for women to contribute in terms of strategic and intelligence measures in a way that allowed for effective utilisation of each individual soldiers strengths and weaknesses, male or female, then I think that might prove a more realistic and interesting option.

But then, I know nothing about the military and nothing about war - maybe it is just a mans game after all? But then there are the examples of communist armies, or whatever that see men and women as equal and I think that is pretty much an extreme example, but shouldn't be confused with equality here.

and even more pointedly, because it is such a male dominated regime - there is of course the fact that any female soldier that submits herself to a life in the military would have to face obvious sexism, and inevitably, rape (by companion or hostile forces).

besides, ANY woman in her right mind would oppose something as stupid as joining the army simply to prove that she can rightfully fight alongside men.
And I think, any woman in her right mind would see that combat and aggression, fighting and violence: WAR is pretty much a male thing anyhow, because fighting is obviously not something that most women would resort to if they were the ones in power, unless it was the last resort.
 
unclehobart said:
The only thing I would have against women in combat is that a low percentage are waifly and dainty enough that they can't bear a full combat load in weapon and pack.
Click to expand...

An M1A1 APDS-FS round weighs in at about 95 pounds. The HEAT round weights in at about 120 pounds. Both are rather long. Now, regardless of sex, the problem is height. There is only so much room to flip a round inside a tank, so one has to kind of stoop down with the round in order to flip it over. You'll see from the image below the rack along the left side. There is a three inch thick depleted uranium door that slides back and forth. When the loader needs a round, he triggers the door with his knee switch then taps the spring and a round pops out enough for him to grab.

Now, you see that the length of these things are rather long so you gotta 'dip" your body down a wee bit then flip the round over to the position this guy has it. Then you basically shove it into the breach. Again, this takes a bit of umf, but nothing out of the ordinary. Keep in mind that the "shell" on these is cardboard that has a nitroglycerin coating on it. Any damage before it goes intot he gun and *poof*.

So, that all being said, the problem is height and strength. Tall guys can not load worth a shit. If I remember correctly, to meet standard you had to load five rounds per minute. I might off a bit though. Short guys and short stocky guys did the best. You always wanted a loader that was short and stocky, but short worked just as well. What really mattered was getting a loader who was smart. You load the wrong ammo and you just fucked up real bad. The sabot is not as heavy as a HEAT round, so the computer puts less elevation on the gun. You load the wrong round and you could send that thing into someones house a few miles over target.
 
Besides that, I would see nothing other than what I already mentioned that would hinder a woman in any way from doing the same crap on a tank as a male. Most of the routine stuff on there maint. wise is pretty simple. Check the oil, blah, blah, blah. Pretty cut and dry really. I mean how hard can it be for a person to pull a trigger? Actually, a lot of woman are more cooler in the head than men or in tight situations. A tank commander has a lot of crap goin' on at once so a cool head in that situation is a must. I see no reason why a woman couldn't do it.

As for any other combat branch I wouldn't say. I never did that ground pounder BS.
 
Read about the Russian woman snipers during WWII. A lot of Russia's most potent snipers were woman.
 
Most of the women I work with can do the job. The ones that can't get denied re-enlistment at some time in the future. Same for the men. as for the combat? A lot of men can't carry a full combat load of 85 pounds, but a lot more women can't. It's upper body strength, and it has nothing to do with gender. It's based on physiology. If a woman can carry that 85 pound combat load, then put her on the front. If she can't then too bad. How hard is that for the women's movement to understand? Not all guys make it that far, either. If you insist on 'gender equalization', then you're putting lives at risk...
 
The US Army...when it's not kicking ass it's a huge social experimentation. Too bad the ones demanding it's forced participation in this grand experiment aren't members of the US Army & needing to rely solely on the outcome of said grand scheme.

Those that can should be allowed. Those that can't should fail & move on. Damn, that sounds like life.
 
Gato said:
If a woman can carry that 85 pound combat load, then put her on the front. If she can't then too bad.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that that's what equality is. :D

It shows again that hardly anyone wants equality but rather preferential treatment.
 
Put that pack on me and put me at the front and
I'll have dusty footprints all over me after I collapsed.
Now do we lose two additional troops to care for me?
Maybe I shouldn’t have been there in the first place?
 
unclehobart said:
Shes not dainty, Thulsa.
Click to expand...

I dont know. I think shes kind of attractive in a brass knuckles kind of way. Assuming she goes for guys, you think either of us would survive a night with her?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top