Can women be as effective as men in modern warfare as enlisted ground combat infantry? Why? Or why not...

youtube.com/watch?v=STkhXT5i25c

hmmm thicc enough for me.
those are thicc muscles anyway so she can choke me with it when she forces me to eat her out hmmm

When will Brazilian rape squads take my virginity?

No. Despite all the advances, physical strength and endurance are still huge factors, ESPECIALLY for infantry.

I mean a women can shoot a gun, if you had the choice of 5 men with guns or 5 men + 10 women you take the second option every time. Hell the top 1 percent of women would probably do better than the worst man of a platoon.

Roasties as nurses or in the field kitchen make lots of sense, it's good for the morale and helps keep homsex out.
But roastis for combat duty is a joke. can you tell me what units accept roasties for combat duty?

Then why do all recent studies by investigators in the military show that mixed gendered squads do the worst?

army Ranger Battalions and Navy SEAL units plan to open positions to women by 2015 and 2016, respectively.

In March 2016, Ash Carter approved final plans from military service branches and the U.S. SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND to open all combat jobs to women, and authorized the military to begin integrating female combat soldiers "right away

america in 2017 lol

because they are worse. but 500 women will beat 10 men is what i'm trying to say, if you are 1945 germany female soldiers are probably a good bet.

Yes, but will those units contain a significant percentage of women?
Or will they have their platoon dyke and thats it?

So your example is bringing up an exhausted nation at the very last days of World War 2 in Europe so exhausted and on its last legs they desperately turn to putting teenaged and young women in combat uniforms?

Literally peace time virtue signalling for political correctness. In the event of a real war women would go back to being field nurses and typists before you could say the word "sjw"...

>if you are 1945 germany female soldiers are probably a good bet.
This makes Wanjas dick hard

yeah dude I don't want any fucking women in combat roles but I can't deny that there are cases it would make sense.

Time to invade, comrades!

>as effective as men
Look, it's simple: if men and women are equally smart, but men are physically more prestant, then women simply cannot be as effective as.
Can they be useful? Sure. Can they be successul? Sure. But as good as? They'd need to be as clearly better than men at something as men are more prestant to be. Can you think of anything? Because I can't.
Of course goes without saying that there being more males looking to enlist than available positions, having women in the military is fucking inefficient.

the top one percent of women would be better than some of the terrible and useless people in the army. BUT the number of good women would be low enough that it wouldn't be worth the effort to intergrate them so might as well have no women.

>the top one percent of women
Yes and then theres 99% more and your argument is moot. shut up, fuck off, thank you!

The top one percent of the whole female population, sure. The top one percent of enlisted women? Fuck no.

so maybe just only let the top 1% of women in, no need to be a dick.

yes I meant the former. It's still unlikely these women will be as strong but I don't doubt there are some exceptional women out there who would be great marksmen(lol) or tacticians.

>yes I meant the former
Then your argument is moot, because the top 1% of women are certainly not gonna enlist, they're too busy being pro athletes.

not all of them and there are genius women who aren't physically fit to be top atheletes that would be good commanders.

Genius women who would want to enlist rather than be geniuses in fields where they can actually get paid?
Besides, it doesn't matter, you can't be a field commander if you can't keep up with your men, and you can't be a senior officer without experience. If you want them to just be analysts, then you're out of topic because that isn't a frontline position.

Can women be as effective as men in modern warfare?

Yes

WILL women be as effective as men in modern warfare?

Depends on circumstances but in most cases, no.

What are armoured vehicles.

Not infantry.

A way to deliver a fireteam to your enemy's IED.

what are motorised infantry.

How can they be when they lack the physical stamina, strength, and endurance to replicate the same physical regimens that men have to go through with less effectiveness?

Bait thread, but I'll point out that the modern US military is an occupying force, where it's important to have women around. Women tend to be far more effective at interacting with the populace, not just due to their typically higher social intelligence, but due to how others perceive them. Many times, women and children will only open to other women, and men tend to respond better to commands from women. When a male voice issues a command to a man, it's often interpreted as a challenge and the reflexive response is to get butthurt. When a female voice issues the same command, it's interpreted as a request or suggestion and the reflexive response is to consider it.

It's important to have women in the military for the same reason it's important to have female firefighters or paramedics or cops. Not to kill people or carry heavy things around (although they should be capable of that in a pinch; we're looking for average to weak physical performers here, not non-performers), but to make use of their femininity in interactions with the public.

You know user, even for motorized infantry vehicles are just conveyance. They still fight prevalently outside of it.

How is asking a question a bait thread?

Because it's a retarded question

>gives a retarded question to an open-ended question
Well at least its pottery how retarded you are, I guess.

This Women in the army are turbo sluts and men in the army are turbo betas while they become turbo cuckolds from '''''''''their'''' GFs at home

Yeah but women are about equal to men in long distance marching and running maybe on the lower side. It's strength they have more of a problem with.

[citation required]
The idea that the average muslim would take a woman's order seriously is fucking laughable. Your whole post smells of bullshit.

Some can. Majority can't but SOME can.

Also, some combat military rolls don't require as much physical strengths and more on psychological strength. Snipers for example.

>women are about equal to men in long distance marching and running
No they fucking aren't. Male and female marathons are separate events for a reason.
Not to mention that they have to carry a fuckton of weight, so the strength difference is crucial regardless.

Not me.

It's bait because it's too heavily politicized of a topic for informed debate. It's the same reason you can't have a rational discussion of climate change or the effects of nicotine: there's so much misinformation on both sides that opinions become as reliable as "facts."

>snipers don't require physical strength
Top fucking kek, snipers are invariably fitter than the average grunt, because they have to carry more weight, and move around more. Did you think they got carried all the way to their camping positions?

People may respond better to commands from women but you could also argue that many may not see a woman as an authority as much as they would with a man. However that could also just be something socialized in certain individuals. If a society does not have any female authoritative figures and they are not seen as equal then they probably won't be treated like an authority. Likewise some of individuals or groups are distrustful of almost all authoritative figures. If they feel that they could over power or "take out" the authority then they may not be inclined to obey it. So wit ha female soldier or cop, if they can be overpowered or evaded easily then there is less incentive to listen to them. Plus there is the possibility that while civilians may become "more open" to a female soldier there is the danger that the female soldier could become too open to the people or too trusting. Like you said, when in an occupying force then it might be okay. But in a warzone, front line infantry, recon, whatever position it might not be.

This is what libshits actually believe in.

Sorry, I forgot that "modern military" meant Americans oppressing dirt farmers in the Middle East and nothing else. Even by that paradigm, there's still a benefit to having women around for handling other women, and we should also be requiring men to grow beards in order to better interact with the locals.

>requiring men to grow beards
[SIXTA INTENSIFIES]

I don't mean they require no physical strength, I mean it's potentially not as crucial. Sniping relies more on psychological strength. Of course they still need to be fit.

There are few women in frontline combat but when they are, you can often find them in sniping or marksmen roles

>you could also argue that many may not see a woman as an authority as much as they would with a man.
Usually because the man is more physically threatening. A platoon of armed men behind the woman telling you what to do is generally going to be enough of a threat.

>Sorry, I forgot that "modern military" meant Americans oppressing dirt farmers in the Middle East and nothing else.
Let's be perfectly honest here, short of you posting me a scientific study, I'm not believing the average canadian numale feminist is more likely to listen to a woman's order either.
>Even by that paradigm, there's still a benefit to having women around for handling other women,
As civil affairs troops maybe, certainly not as infantry.
>and we should also be requiring men to grow beards in order to better interact with the locals.
Why exactly do you think SFs do it? Pro tip, it's not a fashion statement.

Where's the fucking proof

Here we go, assuming things about people baselessly.

>I mean it's potentially not as crucial
It fucking is if you wanna pass sniper school in the first place. Lugging a heavier rifle and more equipment around harder terrain to look for good positions is much more physically grueling than what the average grunt experiences.

No their brains are not wired for constant violence like men.

Likewise, libtard.

>you can often find them in sniping or marksmen roles
Sniping requires a rational brain.

...

>implying the newest crop of numales raised by white soy milk drinking suburban moms are wired for violence in any capacity either

>There are few women in frontline combat but when they are, you can often find them in sniping or marksmen roles
Top fucking kek. The few women allowed on the frontlines are usually given the most generic positions, for which they're generally barely qualified, certainly not the ones reserved for highly trained personnel, who gets to be highly trained in the first place due to outstanding performance in basic training to begin with.

kek

Yes but, it requires an above average woman and a below average man, men are physically stronger and built different then women, so if you compare average examples of each the answer is no.
That being said many militaries that allow women give them lower requirements so they never need to equal the men.

The issue comes down to distribution. Given that more men can meet the requirements and expectations then there is a higher distribution of men in the military. Just for the sake of argument lets say that 20% of men are physically, emotionally, and psychological equipped for military service. In comparison maybe only 2% of women are EQUALLY physically, emotionally, an psychologically equipped for the military. The vast difference in distribution makes it difficult to decide if women, in general, are equally fit to serve in the military. The distribution of the traits that make effective members of the military are not distributed in women the same as they are in men and thus all you get is a small number of exceptions that can make it rather than a generalization that women can make it.

I retract my statement, I didn't think about that but now that you mention it I agree. I forget how heavy sniper rifles actually are.

being a sniper is literally the hardest infantry job. Some of those guys have to lay on their stomach motionless for like half a week before they get their shot, and sometimes it takes them like an entire day to slowly inch towards that position. It's both physically and emotionally draining, and what if they have dogs and the girl starts bleeding? A good guard dog will pick that up easy.

I heard bears can smell the menstruation

You can too. Go in a women's communal bathroom.

To those guys actually serving, if it was legal, or lets say at least accepted that you rape enemy combat roasties after taking them prisoner, would you do it?
Would you make a sport out of it, like having extra zip ties, scissors, lube and a gag on you?

I can smell pee if I have a bowl of it in an air tight room. Doesn't mean my sense of smell is legendary.

>on you
I quite doubt anyone would start the rape still on the field. You'd at least wait to go back to your fucking camp.

The weapon is the least of it. Snipers are often sent off alone to fend for themselves for days at a time. It's not something that even many men are physically or psychologically qualified for.

>[Abu Ghraib intensifies]

>Snipers are often sent off alone to fend for themselves for days at a time.
Modern sniper teams are usually 2-3 men strong. Solo missions are mostly a relic of Vietnam.

I think it would depend on the situation. If it becomes something where everyone is doing it, competing for numbers, encouraging each other then I think one would be more likely to do it. Otherwise I think it would be rare to find people who would do it, other than those that would be predisposed to commit rape.

>those that would be predisposed to commit rape.
So men in general?

I feel as if we've had this exact thread before.

I bet they are as effective as modert basement dwellers if not more effective.

You're a sexist piece of shit and you need to kill yourself.

Sure, but 2-3 men is different from 20-30 men in a platoon. There's a lot less room to pick up the slack there.

>20-30 men in a platoon
Try 40-50.

Yeah. In guerrilla warfare, for example. You don't need to carry nearly as much as your standard Western faggot does, which is really the only limiting factor in modern infantry warfare.

dogs have probably the most developed "heat detection" out of all mammals, they have an entire part of their brain dedicated to detecting the menstrual cycle so they can find females for whatever reason, and not just of their own species but of all species. Dogs can sniff out tons of specific information we couldn't even fathom. They can not only tell if you're ready to mate just from a sniff, but they can detect if there's something wrong too. They're used to detect ovary cancer for this very reason, picking up on a woman's period is child's play to a dog, their sense of smell is ridiculously more potent than ours and it will immedietly drop whatever it's doing to find the female in heat from extreme distances, dogs have absolutely insane smelling prowess when it comes to bitches, they don't stand a chance sneaking up one one

Dahomey had female warriors but Dahomey women are more formidable than most men.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahomey_Amazons

If you think women ever played a non ceremonial role in pugilistic and/or melee combat then you're a moron - sexual dimorphism is very stark in our species. I know these are generalizations but they're well documented.
Women are as a rule are
>fatter
>shorter
>weaker
>slower
>more emotional
>less rational
>less determined
>less ruthless

Generally speaking men have a substantially higher red blood cell count, greater lung capacity and waaay more testosterone.

You would struggle to find a women that could even contend with the martial prowess of an ancient fighting man.

>sexual dimorphism is very stark in our species
Actually it's not, it's quite low in fact compared to other apes. But it's still very important.

Less than 10 women have made it through the ranger and seal acceptance courses combined. On top of this they were given extra training. Unsure if that was to compensate or what but it seems like a waste on the state's end.

Lowered standards for female entry shouldn't be a thing as it would ruin an army but truly equal opportunity for entry to allow upper echelon females on the same teir as men is good as it pumps up numbers.

No.
They're on average worse in every single war aspect, except maybe raw cruelty.

There's some pagans but not much.

Op have a look at the vietnam war, women were often used as they blended in better and took up less space/food

Also check out some articles on how women are preferred for air force roles as they are smaller and have better pattern recognition, better multitasking and have more malleability of mind when it comes to arbitrary calculations

So yeah op, evolving for berrypicking and breeding makes them pretty small and good at things even remotely related to picking berries

White females are cattle they become helpless very quickly.

I really hate this blatant /pol/ posting that's supposedly justified by including "historically" in the OP.

Numales, me included, are cushy and lazy because we have a choice in the matter. Bootcamp turns even the newest males into men, it's not in any way hard wired to be a lazy pack of shit.

females in combat is fucking stupid

t. literal liberal that voted for Hilary and has a liberal arts degree

I never said anything about whether women should be allowed or not you strawmanning faggot.