Women in Combat Discussion

[Marduk]

In the Sukothai period in Thailand extensive bodies of women were used as reserve pike units because while women were not as strong as men and could not fight as long, well-rested reserves committed at the critical moment could often win a battle even if qualitatively weaker on a soldier for soldier basis, and it allowed them to have greater numbers of troops than their enemies who did not employ women.

Of course, steppe nomads from the Aryan peoples in pre-modern times we continue to find evidence for higher and higher numbers of women under arms, possibly as much as one third of the mounted warriors. Herodotus has been right about almost everything else at this point, if Troy was real why isn't Themiscyra?

Interestingly, once we analyze the historical cases, interesting observations can be made about them. In general, all the major historical cases of wide military recruitment of women usually boil down to "a female soldier, even if not as good as a male soldier would be, is still much better than no soldier". Countries in desperate wars for survival, garrisons in ancient societies that have levied all the men they could spare already, reserve forces, militias, nomadic peoples that drag their whole population with them so may aswell turn it into a numerical advantage on the battlefield....

It's distinctly different from modern small, professional militaries that are under circumstances where they can pick and choose among reasonably healthy and willing men for their ranks.

Interestingly enough, the circumstances listed also tend to solve or alleviate any problems that may come with it - for example, a country in a desperate war for survival won't fret over what percentage of officers are female or some allegations of improper relationships in some unit that's currently getting shelled by the enemy, while a local garrison unit can adapt facilities without much cost, if any, and doesn't need top physical shape for long marches with days worth of supplies form their soldiers either.

 

[Francis Urquhart]

Interestingly, once we analyze the historical cases, interesting observations can be made about them. In general, all the major historical cases of wide military recruitment of women usually boil down to "a female soldier, even if not as good as a male soldier would be, is still much better than no soldier". Countries in desperate wars for survival, garrisons in ancient societies that have levied all the men they could spare already, reserve forces, militias, nomadic peoples that drag their whole population with them so may aswell turn it into a numerical advantage on the battlefield.

It's worth noting that the Russian Army put 800,000 women into the front line during the Great Patriotic War (as snipers, machine-gunners, tank-drivers, combat engineers/sappers, radio-operators, fighter and bomber pilots/crews, and field medics - that list is not comprehensive) using exactly the rationale you describe there. Women made very good snipers by the way and were sought-after tank drivers because their small build allowed them to go through escape hatches faster. Which is important if their hatch is the only way out. So the Russian Army should be in a good place to judge and they dropped the women as quickly as they could. (There's a very good book called "The Unwomanly Face of War" that explores the experiences of Russian female soldiers in the Great Patriotic War

It's distinctly different from modern small, professional militaries that are under circumstances where they can pick and choose among reasonably healthy and willing men for their ranks.

Recruiting data from today's world shows that isn't the case. Every army I know of has major issues in recruiting enough warm bodies (remember the definition of "fit for service" to whit "possessed of most extremities and body temperature above ambient") to fill its ranks and most military units are way under strength. It's arguable that if women were not permitted into military service, very few western armed forces would be able to function. This of course fits in with your 'a female soldier is better than no soldier' comment. Evil people have even suggested that the armed forces of various countries actually started the "right to serve" meme as a way of getting women in to fill the gaps.

Interestingly enough, the circumstances listed also tend to solve or alleviate any problems that may come with it - for example, a country in a desperate war for survival won't fret over what percentage of officers are female or some allegations of improper relationships in some unit that's currently getting shelled by the enemy, while a local garrison unit can adapt facilities without much cost, if any, and doesn't need top physical shape for long marches with days worth of supplies form their soldiers either.

Another interesting thing is that the Chinese really aren't worried about the cohabitation issue. They don't provide separated accommodation on their mixed-gender warships (like the carrier Liaoyang) and put men and women into the same berthing compartments. The only thing they won't do is put a single woman into a compartment otherwise filled with men. If one woman is assigned to a berthing compartment, then there will be two or three others. The Chinese Navy claims that they do not have the "improper relationship" problem because this arrangement results in a brother/sister ethic forming. The significant thing about that though is that if the Chinese are having manpower problems, then everybody is.

One last thing, a friend of mine who was a professional soldier before retiring has been stricken with severe leg problems even since she retired - the cause being stress-induced microfractures in the leg bones. Now all mud-pounders do suffer leg and knee problems but hers are significantly worse.

 

[Marduk]

@Marduk , while you are not wrong, women handle confined spaces for extended periods and g-forces better than men, so for a strictly physical/psychological analysis in a society unlike ours not obsessed with equalism, an all-female submariner force and an all-female fighter force, particularly in the age of missiles with highly automated interception, might actually outperform their male counterparts. Of course, such a society would never let women serve in the infantry and would probably also have an all-male surface fleet.

Due to the numbers issue, all volunteer female in anything like that won't work. And then, just like with tankers, there is the issue of physical strength in maintenance, loading things and damage control. Or in case of fighters, well, you are right to that extent, though on the other side of the equation are amount of interest in technical subjects, and gender differences in spatial intelligence.

Certain operational roles where low profile equipment is more valuable than physical strength also present themselves. For example, Soviet tankers had to be 5’6” or less—they only avoided recruiting women because nutrition was so bad in Central Asia. With basically expendable Soviet tanks where maintenance was only done in depots and rounds are loaded with autoloaders, there is no need to worry about physical strength in the field.

OTOH as the joke goes, they were looking for left handed midget bodybuilders, that's for a reason.

It's worth noting that the Russian Army put 800,000 women into the front line during the Great Patriotic War (as snipers, machine-gunners, tank-drivers, combat engineers/sappers, radio-operators, fighter and bomber pilots/crews, and field medics - that list is not comprehensive) using exactly the rationale you describe there. Women made very good snipers by the way and were sought-after tank drivers because their small build allowed them to go through escape hatches faster. Which is important if their hatch is the only way out. So the Russian Army should be in a good place to judge and they dropped the women as quickly as they could. (There's a very good book called "The Unwomanly Face of War" that explores the experiences of Russian female soldiers in the Great Patriotic War

Sounds interesting, might give it a look.

Recruiting data from today's world shows that isn't the case. Every army I know of has major issues in recruiting enough warm bodies (remember the definition of "fit for service" to whit "possessed of most extremities and body temperature above ambient") to fill its ranks and most military units are way under strength. It's arguable that if women were not permitted into military service, very few western armed forces would be able to function. This of course fits in with your 'a female soldier is better than no soldier' comment. Evil people have even suggested that the armed forces of various countries actually started the "right to serve" meme as a way of getting women in to fill the gaps.

Isn't there a whole lot of minor issues, health and otherwise, countless people get disqualified for? Heard a lot of stories of that.
The shortages i do hear a lot about are in highly technical positions where civilians with the same skillset earn multiples of the pay and there is plenty of hiring (doubly so people with military experience), which is a big contributor to the problem - not so many join, and those who did join are tempted to leave as soon as they can with cushy jobs, creating a need for replacements.

Another interesting thing is that the Chinese really aren't worried about the cohabitation issue. They don't provide separated accommodation on their mixed-gender warships (like the carrier Liaoyang) and put men and women into the same berthing compartments. The only thing they won't do is put a single woman into a compartment otherwise filled with men. If one woman is assigned to a berthing compartment, then there will be two or three others. The Chinese Navy claims that they do not have the "improper relationship" problem because this arrangement results in a brother/sister ethic forming. The significant thing about that though is that if the Chinese are having manpower problems, then everybody is.

Chinese also have those reserve/military police formations with plenty of women that they show on parades.
Another aspect is that Chinese don't have "equal opportunity and diversity officers", nor #metoo, to the contrary, if the party says there is no problem with inappropriate relationships, then better no one say otherwise if they know what's good for them, that alleviates some of the related sociopolitical problems.

One last thing, a friend of mine who was a professional soldier before retiring has been stricken with severe leg problems even since she retired - the cause being stress-induced microfractures in the leg bones. Now all mud-pounders do suffer leg and knee problems but hers are significantly worse.

Yeah, that's a problem that's severe even for the top shape men, but as usual with these things, women resist such physical strains less and develop these problems faster than men in the same circumstances.

 

[Francis Urquhart]

Isn't there a whole lot of minor issues, health and otherwise, countless people get disqualified for? Heard a lot of stories of that. The shortages i do hear a lot about are in highly technical positions where civilians with the same skillset earn multiples of the pay and there is plenty of hiring (doubly so people with military experience), which is a big contributor to the problem - not so many join, and those who did join are tempted to leave as soon as they can with cushy jobs, creating a need for replacements.

It depends a lot on circumstances. After 9/11 the armed forces had more recruits than they could handle. Also, during the 2008-12 recession the same applied. However, when the economy is strong and there isn't an immediate impelling factor, recruitment drops right down. At the moment we're in the latter situation. What you say about taught skills and so on is quite true but in a modern army, that accounts for a lot of the positions. The old days when most soldiers were leg infantry have long gone. On ships its even worse; getting simple things done like keeping the ship clean is tough. For example, the Royal Navy has a massive shortfall in recruiting - one of the reasons why it has cut back its strength so drastically is that it can't get recruits to run any more ships. This ties in with the skills comments. The Navy can't run more ships because it can't recruit the highly-skilled people needed and that reduced the vacancies for non-skilled people. That means there is very little future for such non-skilled people and they don't join up either. Same applies all the way across the services. Right now, I would say that recruitment is the biggest problem the western world military forces face.

Chinese also have those reserve/military police formations with plenty of women that they show on parades.

Military Police is one place armies have traditionally put female soldiers. JAG division isn't a "combat arm" you see.

Another aspect is that Chinese don't have "equal opportunity and diversity officers", nor #metoo, to the contrary, if the party says there is no problem with inappropriate relationships, then better no one say otherwise if they know what's good for them, that alleviates some of the related sociopolitical problems.

You mean that a communist political officer may not always tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth!!!!!! Heaven Forfend!!!!!! Seriously, that's a very good point. One of the problems with EO/DO is that it becomes an industry and the people in it are constantly looking for ways to generate more work. They actually have a negative incentive to solve EO/DO problems because if they do and the problems go away, they may actually be moved somewhere they have to do some real work.

I suspect there's also a social thing where largish families living in cramped housing have lower expectations of privacy that in the west. That would fit in with a reinforced "keep your hands off your brother/sister" ethic. Migrate that ethic to the military environment and quite a few problems will go away.

 

[Francis Urquhart]

The risk of being drafted and being sent to fight for and defend your country is the price of citizenship. If your going to be sent to die for your country then you should get a say in how its run. When women gained the vote they gained the responsibility of defending the country from outside invaders.

The problem there is that there are many and different ways of defending one's country that don't involve being in the armed forces and women may well be better placed in those. For example, there's a quotation in the Military Quotes thread that suggests if women had stopped working in the munitions factories for 20 minutes, the Allies would have lost WW1. In WW2, the British actually conscripted women - not for the army but to work on farms, growing food. They also incidentally conscripted men to go down mines which is interesting in itself. Now women did serve in military units - anti-aircraft guns being a classic example - but that wasn't where their services were of greatest value.

There is also the problem that skill-sets may not match. For example, taking your comment about how if your going to be sent to die for your country then you should get a say in how its run. That was created in order to justify reducing the voting age to 18, a proposal that was actually made in an effort to tilt the electoral axis leftwards. My military friend (mentioned above) answer to that was that, in her job sometimes one had to run uphill against a machine gun and it was useful to have men around who thought doing so was a good idea. 17 - 18 year olds tend to be good soldiers but not so hot at risk-assessment.

The old principle was that men went off to fight and women kept everything running while they were away. Now, that's not practical today because modern society is so complex that it requires very large numbers of skilled people to run it, to many to be restricted to just one group. That impacts directly on the number of people who are available for military service. It also impacts on the skills profiles that are available.

As an example, being able to use sonar equipment on ships is an inherent skill that cannot be learned. Either a given person can do it or they can't. So, if for some reason, running a country requires people with that skill, naval ASW capability is going to suddenly take a serious hit. Or if, suddenly a lot of ships get hit and sink with heavy loss of life, the skill cohorts represented on those ex-ships are going to be in short supply.

So what originally seems like a simple equation isn't.

 

[Doomsought]

As an example, being able to use sonar equipment on ships is an inherent skill that cannot be learned. Either a given person can do it or they can't.

It can be learned, you just have to wear a blindfold for a while to learn how to echolocate.

 

[Francis Urquhart]

It can be learned, you just have to wear a blindfold for a while to learn how to echolocate.

This does not teach the user how to operate sonar equipment. To do that, the inherent ability to understand the data being received by the sonars has to be present. If it is, we can do the training procedures and produce satisfactory results but training can increase and refine the ability but it can't create it. We can do them on those who don't have that inherent ability but the results are nowhere near satisfactory. When people enlist in the Navy, tests for that inherent ability are one of the things that get slipped in. it's not so much of a factor these days because our display technology us so much better but back in the day, it was a serious issue.

A point by the way, its not echolocation that is the point at issue. Echolocation is the equivalent of active sonar, sending out a pulse and recording the echo. That is then displayed (range and bearing) on a screen. Using such sonars in an ASW engagement is suicidal. Naval sonars these days are primarily passive; that is listening for sounds generated by the target, distinguishing what those sounds were generated by and deriving what the target is doing from the passive data available. That is what requires an inherent skill. I can't do it and that cost me a place on a research program when I was young. Which was a long time ago.

Another case of the same thing is the ability to use a stereoscopic rangefinder on warships. the Old German Navy made a big play of these back in the day and claimed it enabled them to get on target when firing on other ships more quickly that the coincidence rangefinders used by the British and Americans. Which it did by the way. Only, the ability to use a stereoscopic rangefinder properly is another inherent thing that some people can do and others can't. Again, training can increase and refine the ability but it can't create it. There turned out to be another problem, stereoscopic vision fails under stress or with extended use so the advantages of stereoscopic systems used on battleships faded quickly. It had been noted that German ships tended to get on target quickly but their accuracy faded sharply over time. When the stereoscopic rangefinders were examined after WW1, it was found out why.

Its surprising how subtle testing on enlistment could be. One friend of mine enlisted in the USAAC the day after Pearl Harbor (he already had a pilots license courtesy of a pre-war training system) and went through the usual battery of tests, it being understood that anybody who washed out of those tests would be non-pilot air crew at best. One test was a complex device that required the candidate to hold a dot on a target regardless of the movements of the platform. He failed dismally and resigned himself to air-crew. Instead, he was assigned to fighters and ended up flying P-47s.

The test was actually to see if the candidate could use the Norden bombsight (then highly secret). Those who passed the test were immediately transferred to bombardier school.

 

[Deleted member]

I think what's clear is that while using women as leg infantry may be an act of perfect desperation in normal circumstances, it also not an Army waiting to be defeated. And we haven't yet discussed the advantages to counterinsurgency operations, which are real and very demonstrated, even in recent experience.

 

[Francis Urquhart]

And we haven't yet discussed the advantages to counterinsurgency operations, which are real and very demonstrated, even in recent experience.

Indeed so, and a very strong point. Female soldiers have indeed proved invaluable in a number of insurgencies, especially where its necessary to check people through security points. Before female soldiers were assigned to such checkpoints, terrorists used Islamic dress codes as a way of getting through unsearched. I have been told that another advantage of deploying female soldiers is that there is a pervasive belief amongst Islamic terrorists that if they get killed by a woman while on Jihad, they don't get the promised rewards. How true that is I don;t know.

 

[Deleted member]

Indeed so, and a very strong point. Female soldiers have indeed proved invaluable in a number of insurgencies, especially where its necessary to check people through security points. Before female soldiers were assigned to such checkpoints, terrorists used Islamic dress codes as a way of getting through unsearched. I have been told that another advantage of deploying female soldiers is that there is a pervasive belief amongst Islamic terrorists that if they get killed by a woman while on Jihad, they don't get the promised rewards. How true that is I don;t know.

The other matter is that it generally seems to just calm local populations down when women are part of a military unit and allows more flexibility in interacting with the civilian population. This is enormously important to preventing misunderstandings and outbreaks of violence with the local population. I suspect you could achieve the maximum possible utility by using exclusively MP-trained women for sweeps and then having men in heavy-hitting rapid reaction groups positioned to respond to any flare-up of fighting. Though having some men along on sweeps would be better, depending on the local culture.

 

[Deleted member]

An interesting article on comparative equality of women in fencing

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

It is a good thing for any adult to be prepaired to fight for the defense of their nation, and there occur times historically when an armed and trained woman may make a difference in physical combat despite all disadvantages.

However, that occurance is by definition situational, and should be judged accordingly. Placing women in combat roles today takes a terrifically severe and often permanent toll on their bodies, and it is no good thing to needlessly cripple a woman who could have better served her country in other ways.

I would rather see the army entirely segregated, with women who wish to serve in an armed capacity used for roles that are less likely to result in their permanent disfigurement as a result of sheer wear and tear. As the relative weaknesses are exaggerated most by the demands of maneuver warfare, perhaps female soldiers could be relegated to more static roles, I imagine there must still be such things in war.

If such a thing is even practically conceivable.

 

[ShieldWife]

For some of you, my little diatribe about women in combat may look familiar.

Women have a vitally important role to serve in defending their nations - giving birth to boys. Female in the armed forces are inferior to men in every regard and are held to much lower standards. They’re just there to LARP at being soldiers. Ironically, in Western nations, women would rather play military LARP than actually do something which will protect their nations and culture, which is having babies.

I don't think that they should let women in. The problem with holding women to lower standards than men should be obvious. If they hold women to the same standards then barely any would get in (presumably, if the standards are high enough no woman could pass them) and so you would only have a tiny number of additional soldiers for the massive added headache of a sex integrated military. Where women are going to get butthurt because they overheard some guys talking about sex, guys hit on a girl or date her and all the drama that entails, the girls get pregnant, they need two sets of bathrooms and medical care to accommodate women. Speaking of medical care, the women who pass will likely be on the low end of passing and women in the military are far more likely to have physical ailments such as injuries during training, women's bodies just aren't as tough and are less likely to hold up to the physical demands.

So what are you getting for all of those problems? A tiny handful of subpar female soldiers who can just pass the minimum standards.

Some claim that women have superior G-force tolerances. This is not correct. Men actually have greater tolerances to G-forces, especially when correcting for height. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3753357

Abstract

G tolerances of 102 women and 139 men subjected to Standard Medical Evaluation (Medeval) G Profiles were compared. Unpaired t-tests revealed no significant difference between the women and men in either relaxed or straining G tolerance. Covariance analysis controlling for differences in tolerance due to age, height, weight, and activity status revealed the women to have marginally lower tolerance; the analysis also identified height as a factor having a strong negative influence on G tolerance, and weight as having a positive influence. When the women were matched only by height to the men in the comparison group, the women's mean G tolerances were significantly lower than the men's. On Standard Training G Profiles 88% of 24 women and 80% of 213 men completed the runs, but this difference was not significant. G tolerances of 47 women were measured on the Medeval Profiles both during and between menses, but no significant differences related to menstruation were found. No important differences between women and men in signs or symptoms of G stress were observed, except for two instances of urinary stress incontinence in women during the Training Profiles. We conclude that women should not categorically be excluded from aircrew duties for reasons of G intolerance.

Also, men have significantly better spatial reasoning abilities than women, which would help with piloting. If we're concerned about G tolerance, we should have short male pilots, not women.

Also, women aren't as physically capable for non-infantry roles. How do I know? Because the physical standards are so much lower. If non-combat roles had the same physical requirements for men and women in the U.S. Military, I'm confident that most of the women wouldn't be there. Does the military really need so many more people that they should lower physical standards so much? If they do, why not lower male physical standards too? Then you'd have that many more recruits to choose from.

Look at the increased injury rate for women during training. This is despite the lower standards. http://cmrlink.org/data/sites/85/CMRDocuments/ArmyMonographonInjuriesinMilitaryWomen.pdf

Army women are more likely to be disabled than men and are approximately 67% more likely than Army men to receive a physical disability discharge for a musculoskeletal disorder.1 the discharge rates for musculoskeletal conditions have been as high as 140 per 10,000 Army women per year, compared with 81 per 10,000 Army men per year.1

Military women tend to suffer a higher incidence of injuries than military men. several studies have identified female gender as a risk factor for injury in Army basic training programs in the united states and around the world.2–10 For example, one study shows the cumulative injury incidence in basic Combat training (bCt) was 52% for women versus 26% for men. It was 30% for women versus 24% for men in Advanced Individual training (AIt).11 other studies showed a similar incidence for training injuries in bCt populations: approximately 50% for women and 25% for men.4,10,12 In addition, the proportion of train- ees discharged from bCt for medical reasons was 12.7% for women, compared with only 5.2% for men.13 there was even reported gender differences in the utilization of medical services on a military ship.14 during a 6-month period, females were evaluated at a rate 9.2 times that of males (6.44 vs 0.70 visits per year). only 39% of the visits were gender-specific, whereas gender-neutral conditions resulted in a female- to-male visit ratio of nearly 6:1.

Now, what about this little fact? Unplanned pregnancies may be on rise in military - CNN

Every year 11% of active duty female service members have an unexpected pregnancy. 11%! These are women who need to be shipped home and given pay and free medical care for a year while their bodies get fat and out of shape. 11% every year. How much is this costing our military in money and preparedness?

I could go on if you like.

The military has women because of political correctness, not because they are a benefit.

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

For some of you, my little diatribe about women in combat may look familiar.

Women have a vitally important role to serve in defending their nations - giving birth to boys. Female in the armed forces are inferior to men in every regard and are held to much lower standards. They’re just there to LARP at being soldiers. Ironically, in Western nations, women would rather play military LARP than actually do something which will protect their nations and culture, which is having babies.

I don't think that they should let women in. The problem with holding women to lower standards than men should be obvious. If they hold women to the same standards then barely any would get in (presumably, if the standards are high enough no woman could pass them) and so you would only have a tiny number of additional soldiers for the massive added headache of a sex integrated military. Where women are going to get butthurt because they overheard some guys talking about sex, guys hit on a girl or date her and all the drama that entails, the girls get pregnant, they need two sets of bathrooms and medical care to accommodate women. Speaking of medical care, the women who pass will likely be on the low end of passing and women in the military are far more likely to have physical ailments such as injuries during training, women's bodies just aren't as tough and are less likely to hold up to the physical demands.

So what are you getting for all of those problems? A tiny handful of subpar female soldiers who can just pass the minimum standards.

Some claim that women have superior G-force tolerances. This is not correct. Men actually have greater tolerances to G-forces, especially when correcting for height. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3753357



Also, men have significantly better spatial reasoning abilities than women, which would help with piloting. If we're concerned about G tolerance, we should have short male pilots, not women.

Also, women aren't as physically capable for non-infantry roles. How do I know? Because the physical standards are so much lower. If non-combat roles had the same physical requirements for men and women in the U.S. Military, I'm confident that most of the women wouldn't be there. Does the military really need so many more people that they should lower physical standards so much? If they do, why not lower male physical standards too? Then you'd have that many more recruits to choose from.

Look at the increased injury rate for women during training. This is despite the lower standards. http://cmrlink.org/data/sites/85/CMRDocuments/ArmyMonographonInjuriesinMilitaryWomen.pdf



Now, what about this little fact? Unplanned pregnancies may be on rise in military - CNN

Every year 11% of active duty female service members have an unexpected pregnancy. 11%! These are women who need to be shipped home and given pay and free medical care for a year while their bodies get fat and out of shape. 11% every year. How much is this costing our military in money and preparedness?

I could go on if you like.

The military has women because of political correctness, not because they are a benefit.

look at it this way, the army is clearly doing something to get loads of women without children to suddenly want them!

 

[Doomsought]

Look at the increased injury rate for women during training. This is despite the lower standards. http://cmrlink.org/data/sites/85/CMRDocuments/ArmyMonographonInjuriesinMilitaryWomen.pdf

Do you have any source on the rates for stress caused injuries, such as stress related infertility? That one was a real shocker for me when I read a testemonial from a female soldier that said her reproductive system shut down do to the stress. When your organs start shutting down to preserve other organs, you have been pushed far passed your limit and should stop whatever you are doing as soon as you know it won't kill you.

 

[Francis Urquhart]

On the pregnancy/infertility issue, we can again consult the Russians. "The Unwomanly Face of War" goes into these issues in great (and somewhat uncomfortable) depth. The infertility issue is a myth. Russian women on the front line did get pregnant - when they did they were shipped back to the rear in disgrace and remained there until the baby was delivered. It was then taken and given to foster parents while the mother was returned to unit. Those women of course lost their "front line" privileges until they did return. So, infertility wasn't a universal problem.

What appears to have happened is that women in front-line units found that their menstrual periods first synchronized and then ceased, the process taking three to six months. At first, many of the women actually thought they were turning into men and one of the things older women did was reassure new arrivals that this wasn't happening. They also pointed out that their periods drying up was a major plus. The Russian Army in its wisdom hadn't realized that having large numbers of women on the front line brought quite a few additional requirements. Eventually, they got their sanitary supplies (and women's underwear) from the US under lend-lease. Anyway, it seems likely that the women in front-line units assumed because they were not menstruating they were infertile and didn't use contraception (contraceptives were available because they . . . cough . . . kept water out of machinegun barrels . . . . .) Then said women got a surprise.

I would think that the same basic mechanism probably applies today; military women from less-well educated backgrounds assume that no period means no pregnancies. Russian experience says otherwise.

The musculature and skeletal problems are very real. Friend of mine who was a female soldier for thirty years is crippled by exactly those effects. Ironically they only started to manifest when she retired.

One curious little history note. Russian women on the front line prior to the Americans taking a hand had no sanitary supplies at all. Male soldiers used to cut the sleeves off their shirts and give them to the women to use.

 

[Francis Urquhart]

Some claim that women have superior G-force tolerances. This is not correct. Men actually have greater tolerances to G-forces, especially when correcting for height. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3753357 Also, men have significantly better spatial reasoning abilities than women, which would help with piloting. If we're concerned about G tolerance, we should have short male pilots, not women.

We do; the preferred physical build for fighter pilots is short and heavy-set. G-tolerance is absolutely critical. In WW2 the USAAF fighter pilots had a significant advantage from mid-1944 onwards because they had G-suits that increased their tolerance to G-forces in both horizontal and vertical dimensions. That's one major reason how we ended up with a 4:1 kill rate in our favor. These days the G-suit is standard.

 

[Doomsought]

We do; the preferred physical build for fighter pilots is short and heavy-set. G-tolerance is absolutely critical. In WW2 the USAAF fighter pilots had a significant advantage from mid-1944 onwards because they had G-suits that increased their tolerance to G-forces in both horizontal and vertical dimensions. That's one major reason how we ended up with a 4:1 kill rate in our favor. These days the G-suit is standard.

That sounds fascinationg, do you have any sources?

 

[Francis Urquhart]

That sounds fascinationg, do you have any sources?

Read any history of American WW2 fighter operations. The significance of the G-suit is very well-understood by everybody who has studied WW2 air combat. The difference was even more pronounced in Korea where American pilots had G-suits and Russians didn't. If you look up the Russian-made history of the Korean War by Starmedia, they tell the same story from the other side. This is why, by the way, long discussions about whether this aircraft was better than that one tend to be pointless. There are so many other factors involved that just comparing a few details don't tell us anything important

There's a brief account here The g-suit in World War 2 - Jon's WW2 blog This will take you on elsewhere to more detail.

 

[Comrade Clod]

If they want to fight let them.