Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Matti Kuokkanen

What kind of society sends ANYONE to kill and maim?

Never mind Matti's hobby is wargamming ……………





PS/Edit:more proof the hobby has been infiltrated by peace loving hippies ………..[;)]

[:'(]

[X(]

No problem some told me. Women could play in the NFL just as easily as serve int the military. I sure as hell hope NOT:

UPDATE: First Female NFL Tryout Last Just 2 Kicks...

"Silberman pulled up lame after her first kick, which traveled only 16 yards and barely crossed midfield at the New York Jets' indoor training facility."

Women in combat........news flash that happens no matter what what in a conflict with women in the ranks. In air craft.....fine. On navy ships.....ok. Even on some combat vehicles (roll depending). In the freaken infantry'? NO. In SOME combat arms ya ok. In others LIKE infantry.....you have got to be kidding. That will not go well AT ALL... Who has been to comabt and thinks this is a GOOD idea? ZERO problem with woman in military rolls.......even certain combat jobs. But come on now......

Interesting article.

ORIGINAL: parusski

Well, according to the Washington Post:

"To graduate from boot camp, soldiers must perform 35 pushups and 47 situps and run two miles in at least 16 minutes and 36 seconds — but that’s only for male soldiers.
Female troops are required to do 13 pushups and 43 situps and run two miles in 19 minutes and 42 seconds."

And:

"In the 1990s, the British army, under political pressure to put women in traditional male jobs, adopted a “gender-free” policy with identical fitness requirements for both sexes and abandoned its “gender fair” system of separate standards.
A decade later, Dr. Ian Gemmel conducted a study for the British army’s personnel center. He found that the number of women who could qualify for basic training decreased in the “gender-free” system, as more women dropped out of training because of injury, compared with the “gender fair” system of separate fitness requirements.
This study confirms and quantifies the excess risk for women when they undertake the same arduous training as male recruits,” Dr. Gemmel reported."


Why is there a difference? I think it is self explanatory.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/30/army-may-train-women-for-rigor-of-front-lines/?page=all

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

Interesting article.

ORIGINAL: parusski

Well, according to the Washington Post:

"To graduate from boot camp, soldiers must perform 35 pushups and 47 situps and run two miles in at least 16 minutes and 36 seconds — but that’s only for male soldiers.
Female troops are required to do 13 pushups and 43 situps and run two miles in 19 minutes and 42 seconds."

And:

"In the 1990s, the British army, under political pressure to put women in traditional male jobs, adopted a “gender-free” policy with identical fitness requirements for both sexes and abandoned its “gender fair” system of separate standards.
A decade later, Dr. Ian Gemmel conducted a study for the British army’s personnel center. He found that the number of women who could qualify for basic training decreased in the “gender-free” system, as more women dropped out of training because of injury, compared with the “gender fair” system of separate fitness requirements.
This study confirms and quantifies the excess risk for women when they undertake the same arduous training as male recruits,” Dr. Gemmel reported."


Why is there a difference? I think it is self explanatory.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/30/army-may-train-women-for-rigor-of-front-lines/?page=all

Don't confuse progressives with FACTS.

ORIGINAL: Sarge

ORIGINAL: Matti Kuokkanen

What kind of society sends ANYONE to kill and maim?

Never mind Matti's hobby is wargamming ……………





PS/Edit:more proof the hobby has been infiltrated by peace loving hippies ………..[;)]

We're peacekeepers, not peacemakers

My nephew sent me this image and it reminded me of this old thread. Looks like the standards are already starting to drop to allow women to pass training in the infantry. Note the two backpacks of the women being carried by men in the unit.



Jim

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
Note the two backpacks of the women being carried by men in the unit.

[X(] [:(] [&:]

Without getting into this, "the fact that the military is not meeting recruitment goals" is not correct in the U.S. Recruiters are actually being picky about who they let in. Signs of the global economy, or whatever.

Carry on.

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

My nephew sent me this image and it reminded me of this old thread. Looks like the standards are already starting to drop to allow women to pass training in the infantry. Note the two backpacks of the women being carried by men in the unit.



Jim

The picture without the story behind it leaves it open for interpretation. Here's my take. Remember, (those who are older) when walking to school a girl you liked was walking with her lunch box. You offered to carry it for her. That's what is happing here, two young male soldiers infatuated with the 2 female soldiers offered to carry their(instead of lunch boxes) backpacks

The length of their strides tells me this is a training hump and they're moving at a very brisk pace. All I can say is if a man failed to carry his own pack during training, he'd be cashiered from the program and sent to a physical fitness platoon to get into shape before being allowed back into training. If he failed to get into shape he'd be discharged from service.

Imagine these women carrying these packs in combat along with their rifles and hundreds of rounds of ammo. Now imagine they're humping up a mountain in Afghanistan under fire, simply put they won't make it and will force the unit to stop. People are going to die because of this PC agenda trying to force feed women into combat roles.

Jim

Why would the unit leader allow this to happen in the first place?

ORIGINAL: Ostwindflak

Why would the unit leader allow this to happen in the first place?

Zero choice in the matter.

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

The length of their strides tells me this is a training hump and they're moving at a very brisk pace. All I can say is if a man failed to carry his own pack during training, he'd be cashiered from the program and sent to a physical fitness platoon to get into shape before being allowed back into training. If he failed to get into shape he'd be discharged from service.

Imagine these women carrying these packs in combat along with their rifles and hundreds of rounds of ammo. Now imagine they're humping up a mountain in Afghanistan under fire, simply put they won't make it and will force the unit to stop. People are going to die because of this PC agenda trying to force feed women into combat roles.

Jim

I agree with all your points of concern. I was just joking in my previous post.

ORIGINAL: Zap

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

The length of their strides tells me this is a training hump and they're moving at a very brisk pace. All I can say is if a man failed to carry his own pack during training, he'd be cashiered from the program and sent to a physical fitness platoon to get into shape before being allowed back into training. If he failed to get into shape he'd be discharged from service.

Imagine these women carrying these packs in combat along with their rifles and hundreds of rounds of ammo. Now imagine they're humping up a mountain in Afghanistan under fire, simply put they won't make it and will force the unit to stop. People are going to die because of this PC agenda trying to force feed women into combat roles.

Jim

I agree with all your points of concern. I was just joking in my previous post.

My wife is 27(I just turned 49), and very athletic. Previously she was all for females being in combat roles. UNTIL several incidents occurred. Like not being able to open a freaking jar of honey. Like not being able to put a 50 pound carry on bag in a plane compartment. Like cursing herself for packing nearly 70 pounds of items in a hiking back pack during a 10 mile hike in the mountains of Wyoming, which I ended up putting about half her stuff on my back, bringing my total to nearly 100 pounds.

There are also the "wrestling" matches we engage in, which she ALWAYS loses. She finally admitted that the superior body strength men have is very important. But I do not want a flame war here. Rhonda, I love you kid.

Oh, and for a while 22 months ago I was going through a divorce(yep, she left me after 27 years) and she married a 35 year old(my ex is 49). I I upped her one and married a 25 year old(who just turned 27).[:D]

Guys, there are women out there who can hold their own... no one is saying that every woman can be a combat soldier, but we deserve the chance.

And a small woman who happens to be a very skilled sniper might be worth giving her a lighter load to carry. Combat is about a lot more than humping the biggest rucksack in the platoon LOL

Women can also be stealthier for a recon unit...

Give it a chance.

And love you too guys

i've never been in the forces, but when i was younger i joined the army cadet force here in the UK, because of my size for my age i was given the largest weapon for our size unit a LMG, now we had no ladies in the unit then but do so now, but if we did in my day they would have been sized the same as me, depending on build and fitness is what you got to carry, i was big for my age so got a support weapon with extra ammo, while others smaller than me got a standard layout of equipment, the women now would be the same, as not all men are equal either, i was the area boxing champion, running and rugby star, also the international swimmer, im my time over the years i have come up against ladies who could not only out run me, out swim me, distance wise that is, and out train me 2 or 3 times, so have no fear of most women being suitable for force life and thank all men and women for doing a role i'm not doing, in the end it's a job, and anyone can do it, i have a family member who was a member of the special forces SAS and later in life trained them, and his views are the same as mine, there is next to no difference in general once you group a certain level or standard of young men and women together, which neither being the best in everything, strength isn't everything in modern combat forces now days, like it used to be, where brains are now just as important if not more so with the hardware and tech that's available, anyone who says differently are just sexiest tbh, but saying all of this and ending up writing a novel again, i wouldn't want my sister or any woman i know in harms way or captured either, so understand peoples fears and worries and concerns, but in a free modern world we have to give everyone the same choices, then live with it, as the same was said of coloured units / soldiers and many many others not so that long ago and again with history that was also proven to be very wrong.

edited typo and spelling as always, and are my views and not anyone else's / staff etc, plain and simple, bit like me tbh[:D][;)]

My wife and I train 4-6 times a week doing weight lifting and crossfit. We run Spartan Races, 5k's, and hike mountains. My wife is one of the fittest people I know. I can push and pull more weight than her, but she can run circles around me when it comes to cardio and endurance exercises.

Now, she is also strong too. The other day she hit her personal best on a back squat with a barbell for a total of 273lbs. She can bench press 175lbs. There is no doubt in my mind she could perform just as good if not better than some of the men that go out for the military. My point is there are probably millions of women like that across the globe. I wouldn't exclude women from combat roles just based on the perceived "strength" argument. I say give them a chance and let's see what they can do.