The Chief of the Australian Army drops some truth bombs

User avatar
Darth-Lampshade
Captain
Posts: 1680
Joined: Thu 10 May 2012 20:12
Location: CT, USA
Contact:

Re: The Chief of the Australian Army drops some truth bombs

Postby Darth-Lampshade » Mon 17 Jun 2013 08:45

Vasily Krysov wrote:So uh, nice one I guess...? Coming into a thread about this to basically drive by post your opinion about women in combat. Check your privilege mate. This is about the crap attitudes held by male members of their female colleagues which has a toxic effect upon organization and force capability.

Also, and uh..
How well would a women hold up in some of the hellish conditions combat took place in during WWII for example?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roza_Shanina
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Lobkovskaya

Are some famous examples you might want to consider.

If you read Russian memoirs of the Great Patriotic War, you'll find that a common figure is the female combat medic. In nearly every case, they are recalled to be extremely brave and courageous. Going out to rescue wounded comrades in the middle of no-man's (heh) land despite all the men around them saying "too dangerous", and succeeding too! Other tales include that of the "Night Witches" It is known that in the Siege of Stalingrad, when the Nazi's were first breaking into the city AA gun crews (majority women) certainly did not run away from their positions. Even when under tank attack they depressed their guns and kept shooting until knocked out by enemy fire.


Check my privilege??? What is that nonsense? I am well aware of the many acts of bravery by women on the battlefield or in supporting roles. I am not questioning their courage or motivation or ability to do any number of roles. I'm just saying that all combat roles shouldn't be necessarily offered to female soldiers. We cannot allow any sort of standards to be lowered either. Nobody will admit this but in today's politically correct culture standards are adjusted all too often.

No I was not aware of this sex scandal issue and that provides some context for the General's statements. They'd do well to highlight the importance of information security as well. Ignoring the obvious moral implications of their group for the moment, one should expect an officer to not be so stupid with emails.

I have no idea how things are in the Australian military but in the US military political correctness BS has gotten way out of hand. Hell, upper leadership has gotten way too politicized and spineless to begin with. I initially thought this was just another example of that trend.

TheFluff wrote:biotruths.txt
(get out)


Are you being sarcastic or what here?
When in doubt blame UGBEAR.

User avatar
Graphic
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 10588
Joined: Mon 30 Apr 2012 10:18
Location: Battle Born
Contact:

Re: The Chief of the Australian Army drops some truth bombs

Postby Graphic » Mon 17 Jun 2013 10:17

Darth-Lampshade wrote:I have no idea how things are in the Australian military but in the US military political correctness BS has gotten way out of hand.

Examples.
k

User avatar
DeuZerre
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 11125
Joined: Mon 27 Feb 2012 23:17
Location: Universe, Galaxy, Solar System, Earth, Ground, Eurasian Continent, Main Landmass.
Contact:

Re: The Chief of the Australian Army drops some truth bombs

Postby DeuZerre » Mon 17 Jun 2013 10:44

The are 4 things I have against women on the battlefield in a (professional) army:

- Periods (AKA bloody gloop) break one of the combat rules relative to "not being detected": Smell. Yes, blood stinks (especially that time of the month blood).
- Favouritism : Mens are programmed since ... ages to protect women. "women and children first" they still say today. A man can die if it saves a women. Still a huge debate, but I believe it's true (in a generalisation) meaning men would do stupid things to save a fellow (female) soldier they wouldn't do to save a (male) soldier/brother.
- STDs : Russian army, especially in Stalingrad, showed that women presence in the regiments favoured transmission of STDs.
- Logistics : Forces expenses on many separated things: Showers, medecine, sleeping quarters, etc... because women don't fall in the men's "standard" and have different needs overall.

Their combat effectiveness is equal/superior to men's depending on the situations, so I don't have anything to say in that regard, but the points above are troublesome.

In a non professional army / Conscript army, who cares as long as you're motivated ?
Image
Marshal honoris causa
FLX wrote:Removing the weaknesses from the divisions leads to all divisions being the same in the long run. We won't proceed like that.

User avatar
Bald3r
Master Sergeant
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun 16 Jun 2013 16:36
Location: Denmark
Contact:

Re: The Chief of the Australian Army drops some truth bombs

Postby Bald3r » Mon 17 Jun 2013 10:53

I see many problems with female serving in the front line.
It is not about their willpower or mental strength. I think for the most of it, they actually tend to have a very strong one.
I see 2 obvious problems, I have experienced myself.

The physical limitations of the female body.
They simply do not have the same potential in gaining strength because of the lower muscle mass.
This causes a strain on the whole chain, because if you have a single weak link, the rest of the chain have to carry extra. This also goes with injuries. You are expected as a soldier to be able to carry your buddy for several hundred of meters, under fire. Now I do not know about the rest of you, but an average soldier over here, ways in about 80 kilos, with equipment it goes up to around 100 kilos. (not counting backpacks).
This have to be carried, no female I know have been able to pass this test.
We also have something we call, "stretcher race" where we have to run several kilometers with usually the biggest and heaviest person on a stretcher in uneven terrain.
I have never seen a female being able to complete these exercises.
And that is OK, they have several other advantages over males. That are more than usable in the military.
They are better pilots, better logistics officers, they are very excellent leaders and teachers etc.

Another thing I have noticed, and this is not the fault of the females.
But it is the tendency that males overreact when their female colleagues are being threatened, by a real or imaginary threat.


We also have different needs, and where resources and supplies are scarce, not having uniform needs is a logistics problem.

This being said, I have many great female colleagues that I would never be without.
They are a needed part of the armed forces. And the only place I do not see them, is the front line.
Not because they are not smart or courageous enough, but because of my before-mentioned reasons.

User avatar
BTR
General
Posts: 6298
Joined: Fri 9 Dec 2011 21:16
Location: Россия
Contact:

Re: The Chief of the Australian Army drops some truth bombs

Postby BTR » Mon 17 Jun 2013 10:56

Periods themselves are a non-issue with hormonal contraceptives, and if they are issued as standard. However, I don't see the point of upping the expense and logistical complication of front line combat roles. I won't comment on the rest, but my experience with women in cramped conditions in a tight group for extended periods of time dictates that its best not to have them around at all.
Image

User avatar
Vasily Krysov
Colonel
Posts: 2671
Joined: Mon 2 Apr 2012 09:27

Re: The Chief of the Australian Army drops some truth bombs

Postby Vasily Krysov » Mon 17 Jun 2013 12:26

Darth-Lampshade wrote:Check my privilege???

.....

I have no idea how things are in the Australian military but in the US military political correctness BS has gotten way out of hand. Hell, upper leadership has gotten way too politicized and spineless to begin with. I initially thought this was just another example of that trend.


These two parts are linked, I'll let you work it out! ;)

Anyone who says "political correctness [...] out of hand" is pretty much on the same level as "i'm not racist/sexist/homophobic, but..."

controlvolume
First Sergeant
Posts: 230
Joined: Wed 3 Aug 2011 10:36
Contact:

Re: The Chief of the Australian Army drops some truth bombs

Postby controlvolume » Mon 17 Jun 2013 18:52

Graphic wrote:As long as the person can pass basic training, I don't see why it's relevant that they're a man, woman, transsexual, gay, straight, or into sexual torture.

It's relevant because they need the sexual torture guys to work for the CIA

User avatar
Darth-Lampshade
Captain
Posts: 1680
Joined: Thu 10 May 2012 20:12
Location: CT, USA
Contact:

Re: The Chief of the Australian Army drops some truth bombs

Postby Darth-Lampshade » Tue 18 Jun 2013 06:32

Vasily Krysov wrote:
Darth-Lampshade wrote:Check my privilege???

.....

I have no idea how things are in the Australian military but in the US military political correctness BS has gotten way out of hand. Hell, upper leadership has gotten way too politicized and spineless to begin with. I initially thought this was just another example of that trend.


These two parts are linked, I'll let you work it out! ;)

Anyone who says "political correctness [...] out of hand" is pretty much on the same level as "i'm not racist/sexist/homophobic, but..."


I can't believe some people actually push this BS. The idea I am "privileged" because the fact that I'm a straight male? College students with trust funds can suffer from white guilt as much as they damn well please, but I'm not going to buy it. I have every right and reason to comment on these issues.

Call me racist, sexist, homophobic, or whatever other slander you'd like, political correctness is one of the greatest scams of modern times.
When in doubt blame UGBEAR.

User avatar
orcbuster
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12362
Joined: Fri 7 Sep 2012 21:04
Contact:

Re: The Chief of the Australian Army drops some truth bombs

Postby orcbuster » Tue 18 Jun 2013 06:52

girl in our squad was MG1. We were a regular infantry squad and she pulled her weight same as the rest of us. She proved that by carrying her MG3 with ammo up our version of currahee without issue every time with no bitching and got respect for it. Girls do have the capability to adhere to the same standards as us guys, fewer can admittedly but it is possible.
Image
Viker for ingen!

User avatar
DeuZerre
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 11125
Joined: Mon 27 Feb 2012 23:17
Location: Universe, Galaxy, Solar System, Earth, Ground, Eurasian Continent, Main Landmass.
Contact:

Re: The Chief of the Australian Army drops some truth bombs

Postby DeuZerre » Tue 18 Jun 2013 08:31

orcbuster wrote: fewer can admittedly but it is possible.

Exactly. And jsut like some men aren't fit for combat and go to other military jobs, most women aren't fit for it either. The ones that are (and I know a few) are goddamn better than most men, pulling their weight and more!

Still have the issues I mentioned above. But they're totally fit for combat in the strict sense.
Image
Marshal honoris causa
FLX wrote:Removing the weaknesses from the divisions leads to all divisions being the same in the long run. We won't proceed like that.

Return to “Off-Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests