Just to rattle the mysoginists here who keep dissing American servicewomen...

[url]http://www.gallup.com/poll/Multimedia/video/archived/2001/12/vr011227b.ram[/url]

Highlights:
77% approve of women being combat aviators
73% think the Navy should allow women on submarines.
63% think women should be allowed to try out for special forces.

[:)]

Just goes to show that many don't know what combat is all about.  The air power campaigns we've had in the past decade has given warfare an aura of sterility.   Vets or students of history know better....

Yeah, and (almost) 100% of the people on the Titanic thought it was unsinkable.

If you saw the movie, you know they were wrong. Many of them DEAD wrong.

I am a student of history, and I cannot agree with your statement.

Opposition to women in ground combat seems to center on the assumption, taken in some circles as gosple, that if women were actually shot at face to face they would be far more likely to curl up in the bottom of a hole and cry... But the Truth is that there are no FACTS to prove this, and the limited documentary evidence from WWII suggests just the opposite...

MultiArmed,
there's a poll within the last year with only active duty females polled.
As I recall 83% did "NOT" believe women should be in combat.
(I always believed women were smart and this poll proves it.)

As for females on submarines, I believe that 50% of the crews of all submarines should be female - and on birth control.

Combat aviators(obviously a Navy term) bunches and bunches should be allowed to qualify.

Special Forces try-outs ?  100% of American women should be allowed to try-out.
That way we can probably get an all female "A" Team.
(I know this secret has been closely guarded but men really cannot conceive children and women really don't have very good upper body strength.)

I can HONESTLY say  I have NEVER personally heard ANYONE use this as a reason for not having women in combat.

Yeah, right, Produce this poll.
Its another Urban Legand.

If adding women to combat units makes the combat units MORE ABLE to defeat an enemy, then it should be done, immediately.

If adding women to combat units DOES NOT ADD to the combat unit's ability to defeat an enemy, then it is a waste of time and energy that diminishes our readiness.

I don't know enough about this subject.  I don't know if having women on board a ship results in needless distraction.  Who knows, maybe morale improves.  

I seem to recall reading that the Israelis tried gender integrated infantry and it didn't work out. But doffing the cap to ArmdLbrl, that could also be a legend.  

Frankly, if I was a grunt and I had a good looking female co-infantryman, I would not be more affected by her getting maimed than by one of the males getting zapped.  It's more a personal quality thing.  If you're in combat, you've got a job to do, and that is to follow orders and if necessary be killed.  If women coworkers do not detract from my ability to carry out my job, I welcome them.

For all the people who think that women are the equals of men physically, that's just silly.   I remember running cross country.  Out of 100 male runners, I might have been 25th from the top.  My mediocre times were better than any contemporary prep school girl in the NY metro region.  

I have also played ice hockey against a couple of women, and while this is not definitive, even the good ones sucked.  One was an excellent athelete, but she was a 100lb excellent athletic dwarf and was therefore inconsequential, even in a wuss non-contact league.  

I don't know many women loggers either.  For that matter, there were no female green chain laborers at the mill where I worked.  

Hmmm, I think I see a lattice forming.....


 

------------------------------------------------
No-Armed, I heard this poll either on Fox or CNN this year and probably within the last six months.
Your "yeah, right, Produce this poll."  
I don't keep a library of polls - either written, audio, visual or audio-visual.
"Its' another Urban Legend."  ( Here I've corrected both your punctuation and your spelling.)
Why don't you provide prove that my statement is an "Urban Legend" and therefore untrue.

All my responses/threads should be read "This is to the best of my abilities and/or to the best of my memory/and/or according to the source material at hand."
At times I will be wrong - wrong memory/incomplete memory, etc., and if I catch my error I will also post that correction.

I wish your implication that I would knowingly falsify a thread/posting would leave me speechless but it does not.
I am, admittedly, working diligently on a "crock" of White Label Dewars in celebration of my ex-wife's marriage but I am still "incoherrent."

Maybe I should simply state that I do not knowingly lie or exaggerate a post/thread here or anywhere else.
How could you or anyone imagine a thread/post anywhere on any subject would be worth knowingly comprimising myself ?
I've reached an age where my "small" integrity is the most important thing I possess.

When you have probable cause please question.  When you have proof please post.
When you have questions please ask.

When you have none of the above........
(Ok, Ok Arock I'm going to follow orders and shut-up.)

I did.
We all know that adding women to a combat unit does not, in any way add to the unit's warfighting ability.
Period.
(I figured I didn't have to actually spell it out for you.[;)])

Kinda ironic that no one ever seems to poll the actual ones involved: active duty military personnel. As a former Marine who saw firsthand the initial influx of females in widespread MOS's in the late 1970s, I can state unequivically (sp?) that expanding the female role in the military is asinine at best, insanity at the worst.

Aha!  I knew it...another poll.  Just what we needed to define our society!  Listen up America...we have somebody here who has designed, taken/administered, analyzed and successfully graphed in numbing detail a POLL!  Last time it was about Bush v. Gore...now its about girls in cammy panties!
Pay attention 'cause whatever you see herein characterized as infinite wisdom of this poll has to be the unalterable and absolute truth!
(Truth be known, one of the most fun projects I ever made up in college was a poll to ascertain the relationship of conservatism to ageing.  Damn that was a hoot!  Really.  You can do wonders with numbers...especially when the samples gathered are limited.  The fewer the samples...the greater the extrapolation required...and the greater the fudge-factor.  Fun...huh?)
Aaanyyyway...as I was rambling...POLLS...SCHMOLLS, if you ain't been there and done that you don't have one damn clue what grunt combat is all about.  To paraphrase the Major M. in another post, the female soldier has yet to be born that can do a 25 miles forced march with full kit, drop that kit and whip the average grunt's (or his) ass.  I'm too damn old now to claim that...(Hell, half the WMs or Lady Army troopers out there could probably outlast me...but I'd make their day...and I think, still outshoot most easily!) but I'd put my money the Major is right on the money.  I'd just love to see the WMs in the pugil stick pit up against the guys...NOT!
Flame suit affixed tightly!
[soapbox]

[url]http://pratt.edu/~rsilva/sovwomen.htm[/url]

The tunes be kickin...!

[url]http://www.gendergap.com/military/Warriors-2.htm[/url]

"Ludmilla Pavlichenko like many of the women was trained as a sniper. She is credited with killing 309 Germans."

I don't see why women should be restricted from certain jobs, like flying aircraft. What is wrong with women on submarines if they are as capable of doing their job and the navy could pull a full crew of them together. I see the effectiveness of women as spys and such but I do not believe that they should be allowed in the infantry. I am not afraid that they will fail to perform, the soviets had women in the infantry in the Great Patriotic War (WW2). I'm afraid that when the shooting starts the men won't be able to do their jobs.

God gave men a brain and a dick, and enough blood to operate one at a time.

The Brits employed women in one of their most elite units, company 14.  It was a cross between the SAS and intelligence operatives.  They had women, because a couple operating together didn't set off danger signals with the IRA.  Two men together would have.

I have said it before and I will say it again.  [size=6][b]No Women should be allowed in combat.[/b][/size=6]

[soapbox]

"the White Rose of Stalingrad"


Lilya was born in Moscow in August 18, 1921. Lilya was her nickname, as her actual name was Lidiya. She was regarded by all as a "strikingly beautiful woman", which helped earn her public appreciation and, added to her success as a fighter pilot, served the propaganda ministry well.
She began her service in the all-woman 586th IAP, where she flew mostly defense missions from January to August 1942. In August she was posted to "male" squadrons because of her merits. The first was the 286th Fighter Division (IAD), then to the 437 IAP, which had recently been equipped with the new Lavochkin La-5. With this unit she got her first 2 air victories in September 13, 1943. She was sent as an attachment to the female flight of the 287 IAD, and served briefly in the 9th Guards IAP.

In the end of January, 1943, she was transferred to the 296th along with 2 other skilled women fighter pilots. On February 17, 1943, she was awarded the Order of the Red Banner. Two days later she was promoted to Junior Lieutenant and soon after to Senior Lieutenant.

On each side of her YaK-1's cockpit she painted a white lily, often confused for a rose—hence the nickname. She was so fond of flowers, that she often picked wildflowers and carried them aloft on her missions. According to her mechanic, Inna Pasportnikova, she had a postcard with yellow roses in her instrument panel. The white rose on the fuselage became famous among the Germans, who knew better than to try to dogfight the familiar YaK-1, and usually tried to make good their escape before Litvyak got too close.

Litvyak was injured 3 times during her combat tour. All three injuries occured during the Spring and Summer of 1943, a period of intense combat activity. The first time was on March 15, the same day that she shot down a Junkers Ju-88 bomber, but got hit by their escorting Me-109s (she continued to fly and bagged another Ju-88!). She managed to land at her base, and passed out and she remained in a hospital until May.

When she came back, the 296th IAP had been renamed the 73 Guards IAP for their exploits in battle. She was wounded again in combat in July 16 and 18 (the death-date of her comrade Katya Budanova). Both times she landed in German-ocuppied territory, but got back to base on foot the first time, and was rescued by another fighter pilot who landed after her the second.

She was repeatedly successful in flying missions, although was finally killed in action over Orel, while escorting a unit of Shturmoviks returning from an attack in August 1, 1943. Because of her notoriety amongst the Germans, eight Messerschmitt Me-109's concentrated solely on Lilya's YaK-1, and it took all eight of them to finally shoot down the "White Rose of Stalingrad". Her body and aircraft were not found during the war, but a marble monument, with 12 gold stars—one for each enemy plane that she had shot down—was erected in her memory in Krasy Luch, in the Donetsk region. Litvyak had completed 168 missions, and had 3 shared victories in addition to her personal twelve. She was 22 years old when she died.



Her remains were found at last in 1979, buried under her fallen YaK-1's wing, near the village of Dmitriyevka. Ten years later her body was recovered for an official burial; and in May 5, 1990 she was posthumously conferred the title of Hero of the Soviet Union by then Premier Mikhail Gorbachov.

[img]http://pratt.edu/~rsilva/images/lilyayak.jpg[/img]

Lidiya Litvyak...

So what?

"The Soviet Union drafted unmarried women in the later years of the war although many thousands had volunteered much earlier in the conflict. More than 70% of the 800,000 Russian women who served in the Soviet army fought at the front."

I served with women in The Basic School (USMC).
One cold night, we were doing a little reconaisance training.  Nothing more than concealing our squad, watching a road for 4 hours, and taking notes.
Everyone got all spread out, and in position.
My position was in a fighting hole with a cute female Marine.
This was only training, so.....

Afterwards, I felt guilty for my lack of professionalism.

(it WAS pretty cold out, though)

LOL! Is this how the term "fuckin your buddy" came about?
By the way, I don't think women should be in combat either. I'm just giving credit to the few...

I've always found it fascinating that the people who scream that women should be allowed to place themselves into situations where they may be shot, blown apart, torn limb from limb, captured, tortured, raped, horribly scarred, crippled, etc......


...are the [b]same[/b] people who will screech "SEXUAL HARRASSMENT!" and run a man out of town on a rail if he says "Hey, you look great today..." to a woman.

Boggles the mind....

Sub friggen MOA, baby.

It was only an allegory, the above never happened..... [:)]

A Soviet fighter pilot?  So what?  Women are in ships too...(And THAT is another story!).  That doesn't justify placing women in grunt units, for exactly the reasons already cited here and many times elsewhere.

We're talking about ground warfare...hand to hand combat.  You know...when you can smell your enemy...just before you kill him with your Kabar?  Brutal analogy...but if that's what it takes...

If you haven't been there and done that...you don't have a clue.  Keep that in mind as you try to justify putting women in grunt units.  You just don't get it.

Hey...I got a question for you guys and gals out there:  How many of you have toted a rifle in the bush?  I mean the weapon and all your goods.  I can remember humping an M-16 plus grenades, ammo, water...you know, all that crap plus a PRC-77 radio.  I hated that damn thing and avoided it whenever possible.  Made my back hurt.  I was only a tad at the time and that was many decades ago...but I can't see a girl doing that.  Any comments???  Those that have...I'm interested in your assessment of this question about womenz in battle.
Fire away!

[soapbox]

SECONDED!

[beer]

Riiight, but that was
under Stalin and
after the purges of millions who
I am sure would have "volunteered."

How 'bout this....and it did happen.

Layin low in a fighting hole at Pendleton white beach one night waiting for some specwarfare group 1 dudes to try to infiltrate and wipe us out.  I was E-7 at the time...responsible for perimeter defense.  Sometime on the mid, the E-5 next to me goes apeshit and begins to yell.  I was half asleep anyway (been up for two days straight already) and he scared the crap out of me with his caterwalling!  I shut him up and ask what the hell is bugging him when he shows me...a large tarantula is just exiting our hole...having crawled over and surprised our dude.  I was afraid he had blown our pos but in retrospect, it was funny as hell.  I still LMAO when I think about it.
Very happy it wasn't in Indian country.
[beer]

I don't have a problem with women being in the military. I don't have a problem with women being in combat roles.

 That said, the combat roles women may be suited for are probably very different from the ones men may be suited for -- and the roles that women aren't suited for, they shouldn't be involved in.

On top of that, I'm a firm believer that any women in the military, should be in all-female units -- keep sex out of things. Could we have ships, say, entirely crewed by women? Possibly. And I'd rather see one ship that was all male, and another that was all female, than two ships with mixed crews.


  I guess I take my take pretty much from [i]Starship Troopers.[/i] Anyone who wants to serve, fight, and die for their country, should have that option  - I mean, hell, the Second Amendment covers women too, for a reason. Come the Invasion, I want *everyone* armed. But expecting everyone to serve, fight, and die in the same fashion, regardless of individual aptitudes, is just silly.

And weren't they getting their arse kicked by Hitlers 'all male' army, UNTIL the USA entered the war and gave Hitler a seconf front???

Didn't like MILLIONS of Ruskies die early in the war? Could that have anything to do with having their women doing their fighting for them??

Does ANYONE [size=4]REALLY [/size=4] beleive the Russian commanders PREFERRED women soldiers? or was this insertion of chicks (leave that alone [}:D] ) out of necessity???

I don't understand this.

Combat "roles?"

Combat is combat. its fighting and killing, and OFTEN is hand to hand. ANY soldier that ISN'T suited for hand to hand combat DOES NOT belong in combat.

If you mean combat SUPPORT far AWAY from teh front lines, OK maybe.

But combat is combat. Its about running your Kabar up into the enemies gullet, AFTER you have overpowered them in a hand to hand struggle.

That is NO place for wommenz.

To think otherwise is intentional blindness to reality.

Well, of course it was out of necessity. But, hell, nothing wrong with being prepared for necessity -- by, say, having some female elements and places for women prepared in the standing military, so that if it ever *does* become necessary for even the women to fight, we have procedures in place for them to do so.

More important than an individual woman's ability to fight, is her ability to be part of a combat UNIT.
This doesn't work.
Never look to a foreign nation's military as an example of how things work.
Our military is the finest on the planet.
What WE do is the example that should be followed be followed.
Not the Soviets.
Not the ancient Amazons.
Not the Dutch.
Not the Israelis.

When it becomes a Necessity to put women into combat roles, you have already lost the war. You will be putting your women up against the emeies men. Game over.

Its time for the smart commander to admit defeat, and avoid unnecesary further pointless bloodshed.

Cuz that's the ONLY thing that will come out of it - dead women.

Why go there?? its pointless.

Unless combat is 20,000 feet up in the cockpit of a fighter jet, say. That's a "combat role," and one that I can't think of any good reason women might not  be fully competent at. Or, for that matter, in a sniper's nest -- I'm sure you've read [i]Marine Sniper[/i], and I'm sure you remember how many (effective) female Viet Cong snipers are mentioned in that book. Then there's several female Russian snipers that I'm surprised haven't already been mentioned.  

There's a lot more to fighting that massed infantry. Not to denigrate the infantry, they perform an indispensable role, but they're a comparatively small part of modern warfare. Air power, Naval ( aircraft carriers), etc. etc. The man with the bayonet is important, but he's not the only one involved "in combat."

So, if, say, communist, Stalinist Russia had invaded the U.S., it would have been better to surrender than to give guns to the women?  Geesh, you're a piece of work. Some things are *always* worth fighting for.

In my town right now, there is a debate about getting rid of a howitzer which is part of a Veterans' memorial. Those who want it removed say that displaying an obect of mass destuction in a public park is not an appropriate way to honor Veterans.

They must believe that the sacrifices of war are not to be associated with killing and dying, but being away from your family during the holiday season.

Care to guess what job "snipers" held in the military, before becoming snipers?

Infantry.

When it becomes a NECESSITY for women to fight, then it is [b]NO LONGER[/b] a fight. Its a [b]SLAUGHTER.[/b] We may as well have our remaining generals go out and kill the women themselves, cuz at least then they won't be raped before they SURELY die.

There is NO, NADA, ZERO, NIL chance of winning then. So its no longer a fight. Just have the women shoot themselves in the head, and call it a day.

Yes, some things are ALWAYS worth fighting for. NOTHING is worth a pointless slaughter.

No shit? really? I thought they were window-washers.

I'll agree that most infantry jobs aren't best-suited for women. But there are plenty of historical examples of women that have been effective, both in infantry and elsewhere, and saying that "women just can't do it" is silly. (Molly Pitcher, anyone?)
 
 Beyond that, you still haven't addressed any of my other points. "Combat" isn't just infantry these days (or do you want to tell Midway vets they weren't in combat?)

That's a silly argument.
If we get so beat up by an invading army, that we need to use women in combat roles, then we have some serious problems with our military.

Training women for this role, is like practicing the waving of white flags.
It assumes, and anticipates defeat.
Why not just use the time and assets to better train our REAL combat forces, to avoid such an embarrassing defeat.

 Wait, who rules in North Vietnam? Us? Hitler rules from Moscow? Oh, ok, you're right then.