|
Aylee -> RE: Women in combat (1/28/2013 8:59:58 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SadistDave
Men and women are built differently and have, on the whole, different strengths and weaknesses. That's whats kept women out of combat more than anything else. That's not to say that women aren't as capable of fighting, it's simply that women are not well suited to fight in the way modern warfare is fought. Why is that? Because we favor tactics that are designed to exploit the physical attributes of males and the equipment is designed to compliment the capabilities of males.
I like the idea of women in combat. If they want the same rights as men and want to be truly be treated as equals, then women should share the same responsibilities as men when it comes to the defense of the country. However, I do not like the idea of wasting the biological advantages of women in combat roles that are designed for men. If I remember my high school biology correctly, women have 25% or so less lung capacity than men and about half the upper body strength, which puts them at a severe disadvantage in traditional combat roles that require someone to run around all day in body armor with a lot of heavy equipment. I would rather see women placed in their own unique combat roles with gear designed specifically for them. Let's design combat roles for women based on their smaller size, their higher agility, their ability to adapt to extreme temperature changes (better than men), and their improved night vision. Let's consider their higher tolerances for disease and pain. Let's consider the tactical advantages of a lighter more agile soldier.
Tactically, women are naturally a better choice for a lot of combat roles and environments. I don't think there should be a lower standard. I think there should be a completely different standard. That standard should include tactics, gear, and combat roles specifically designed to utilize their natural advantages. Until we do that, women will continue to perform poorly on the battlefield.
-SD-
Thank you. I would hate to be known as the only female anti-this.
Males, generally build up a high power, medium endurance / burst power, short endurance / fast recuperation profiles with more upper body muscle power and stronger legs.
When you put females on similar training regimen, you generally end up with lower burst/sustained power levels with comparable or more endurance and much much higher endurance reserves. Lower body output is also lower than a male's but since the female chassis is lighter to begin with, they are abler to keep up movement wise.
The main problem starts with load balance; from experience as a log chief for various nature trekkers, I can confirm that up to a certain point around 35/40% body weight, females can endure and pretty much ignore loads regardless of the distance (if they can march/move x distance, they can do it with load without any problems).
The problem is the woman's original weight; your average fit woman will barely/rarely weigh over 60 kgs/ 132ish lbs, which translates this useful quirk as useless as far as infantry loads are concerned.
Given equal chance or even better physical prep, they cannot carry basic load, they cannot perform necessary feats of strength, they cost more log to keep operational (female reproductive organs cannot take the abuse neandarthals (males) suffer regularly) and most importantly; they need more supervision and human oversight to keep ticking.
|
|
|
|
