I guess you are right on that.

Taken so out of context that I didn't recognize it . . .

Most of everyone's soldiers worked behind the lines. Just because you work behind the lines doesn't mean you would suck in combat. However, in general, women [i]do[/i] suck at combat. That makes them fit for little [i]but[/i] behind the lines support roles--and they even suck at a lot of those. (I can imagine a few clever out of context quotes).

Consider, for example, the US Army medical unit that couldn't deply to the Gulf during the war--because there were too many women in the unit. Can't break down the equipment, load the trucks, unload the trucks, set up the equipment. Just one example.



I don't doubt that Soviet women played a significant role in factories and other non-combat activities. I do not believe that they played a significant combat role.

I have no interest in looking up numbers, and in any case I can not logically prove a negative. You are arguing the positive, you are the one who needs the numbers.

In any case, I think the Soviet decision to drop women from the military speaks for itself.



They caused some damage, and tied down some German units. They were really overrated, but in any case the dynamics of partisan activity are different, and due to this there are less objections to women in this type of force. For example, partisans can't be as choosy about the make up of their fighting forces. And, due to the nature of organization, issues about social interaction are basically moot. And partisans are less likely to be called upon to change a heavy truck tire, pack 155 mm shells, or change a tank track.



Where they recruited, equiped, and paid by the Red Army?



Well, yes. Women who choose safety over duty let their fellow soldiers down.



No, but men are more risk taking in general, and are also more prone to peer presure to take risks.  

These statistics are dubious. Marshall collected these stats by interviewing GIs, but many GIs claim his numbers are bogus, and modern research has shown that his methods were flawed.

One detail of Marshall's data: he claimed that most riflemen didn't fire in a given engagment. With one exception: the machine gunner. Also, different men fired in different engagments. He seems to view that as some sort of failure, but I interpret it as: [b]riflemen fire when they have a target (often not the case) and machine gunners fire to suppress (hence they always fire). [/b]

In any case, women would do worse, regardless of the value of Marshall's stats.

I'm going to be a reporter when I grow up !

[smoke]