The Chief of the Australian Army drops some truth bombs

ikalugin
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 10430
Joined: Sun 6 Nov 2011 01:00
Contact:

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

Postby ikalugin » Mon 1 Jul 2013 00:28

I wonder if we would see reverse rape cases in the future.
Image
Spoiler : :
We need more missilez code for the missilez god.
Praslovan:
"Tactical Ikalugin inbound on this position in 10... 9..."
Image

p.klyver
Master Sergeant
Posts: 170
Joined: Thu 7 Mar 2013 14:56
Contact:

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

Postby p.klyver » Mon 1 Jul 2013 08:19

praslovan wrote:He is not physically fit. Kick him out. Without glasses he can't shoot straight. He can't see 30m in front of him to recognise an enemy from a friend if he drops his glasses.

Barring people from serving, just bacause of glasses? That is rather odd, considering a fair part of people need correctional optics. Now then, this won't satisfy anyone, so let me give you some examples from real life army:
I had/have three colleagues that i want to use as an example.
The first one, he wasnt the fastest runner and he used glasses. But i pulled his own weight and as soon as it had anything with explosives to do, he was a genius! (You didnt wan't to OPFOR when he put out alarm-mines and boobytraps!)
The other one, also wore glasses. But he was amazing around vehicles! Anything could be fixed and the driven anywhere.
The last one is a close friend of mine who is roght now the best shot on light support weapon in denmark. And no, he does not have in-built telescopes in his glasses.

So, baring a person because of glasses, gender or whatever is not the best way to go forward. You have to see what assets they can bring along and then test them to see if they can live up to the standards required. This brings me forward to the female-soldier discussion:

DeuZerre wrote: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 ?


1) Periods: hmm you say one can be discovered by smell alone, especially that of womens period!? Wow i dont know where you've served, but it seems that a) the enemy is getting pretty close, on a fair few occasions b) your male soldiers must have some really good deoderants because me and my lads reek, stink, smell alot after we've been out for a week or so!

2) favoritism: I wonder if you could get me the sources: There has been women in afghanistan, with the danish army for the last 10 odd years. I have not heard of a single case that supports your claim. On the contrary, their performance has been, mostly, examplary!
Actually, my experiences are that women tend to push themselves way over what is demanded of them! the ones i served with refused to be tested physically with the handicap afforded to women. They demanded, and i have heard of none doing otherwise, to be tested according to the 'mens' version.

3) What army does not instill, in their soldiers, enough disciplin to keep their cocks in their pants!?!
I have found that many of the women becomes 'one of the guys' just as raunchy in their humor, they just sit down and piss, not more to it actually.

4) If a woman decides to join up, she must understand that she is readily going into a situation where she cannot expect the comforts of home.
The women i served with, they didnt wan't, nor need showers or seperate sleeping accommodation when in the field. When we had basic bady search, they lined up with the guys, when we were freezing our arse of in the snow, they curled up with the rest of us.
The only thing women had more of than men, logistics wise, were skivvies. They had 10 pairs, we men only had 7.

And lastly: in a conscription army, who gives a IF you are not motivated? Isnt that the whole point of conscription?

Yes, this is a rant, not for the inclusion of ALL women and ALL men into the armed forces. There has always been some who has the cut, both physically and mentally, to be soldiers. The percentage might be lower with women, but that shouldnt stop them from being able to join any way if they have what is required.

Rant over. ;)
Last edited by OpusTheFowl on Mon 1 Jul 2013 13:48, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Language

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 1 Jul 2013 09:19

p.klyver wrote:1) Periods: hmm you say one can be discovered by smell alone, especially that of womens period!? Wow i dont know where you've served, but it seems that a) the enemy is getting pretty close, on a fair few occasions b) your male soldiers must have some really good deoderants because me and my lads reek, stink, smell alot after we've been out for a week or so!

You're thinking on the tactical level, during a firefight. Firefights are a very small part of duty, aren't they? Now imagine on a patrol, or sneaking in, or many other situations that requires "not being discovered". As for reeking, well we don't use deodorants (they have a strong smell... Kind of defeating the purpose), but we wash(ed) as much as possible as to leave as little lingering stench as possible.

2) favoritism: I wonder if you could get me the sources: There has been women in afghanistan, with the danish army for the last 10 odd years. I have not heard of a single case that supports your claim. On the contrary, their performance has been, mostly, examplary!
WW2, russian front.
Actually, my experiences are that women tend to push themselves way over what is demanded of them! the ones i served with refused to be tested physically with the handicap afforded to women. They demanded, and i have heard of none doing otherwise, to be tested according to the 'mens' version.

From my experience too, but that's also an other issue: By trying to prove themselves, they may put the rest of the squad at risk; and putting themselves at risk they drag the males of the squad on the instinctive level.
3) What army does not instill, in their soldiers, enough disciplin to keep their cocks in their pants!?!
I have found that many of the women becomes 'one of the guys' just as raunchy in their humor, they just sit down and piss, not more to it actually.

During 6-12 months of deployment? They may keep them in their pants, but it causes unrest and resentment, when most can only jerk off at pictures and videos when a select few cna have the real deal.

4) If a woman decides to join up, she must understand that she is readily going into a situation where she cannot expect the comforts of home.
The women i served with, they didnt wan't, nor need showers or seperate sleeping accommodation when in the field. When we had basic bady search, they lined up with the guys, when we were freezing our arse of in the snow, they curled up with the rest of us.
The only thing women had more of than men, logistics wise, were skivvies. They had 10 pairs, we men only had 7.

I didn't specify "on the field". It can be back home. Women's dormitories where half the corridor's empty, etc... And the many things they don't tend to discuss: Pills, hygienic towels, whatever women need.


Now you may have missed a big point: I'm not against women in the army, I was just pointing the various issues that come with it.
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
TheFluff
Lieutenant
Posts: 1483
Joined: Mon 13 Aug 2012 03:07
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

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

Postby TheFluff » Mon 1 Jul 2013 10:01

As far as I know in the Scandinavian countries (at least in Sweden) men and women share both accommodations and hygienic facilities. Most barracks were built only for men after all and don't have separate facilities. In the field I know for certain they do. A lot of the "problems" with women in the army stem from silly men having silly problems with them, not from anything the women themselves do or are.

ikalugin
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 10430
Joined: Sun 6 Nov 2011 01:00
Contact:

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

Postby ikalugin » Mon 1 Jul 2013 10:11

I think menstruation leads to hormonal disbalance, and hence a certain degree of mental instability, no?
Image
Spoiler : :
We need more missilez code for the missilez god.
Praslovan:
"Tactical Ikalugin inbound on this position in 10... 9..."
Image

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 1 Jul 2013 10:25

Oh is it time yet?
Spoiler : :
Image


I still think that menstrual cycle is more of a logistical problem than hygienic.
Image

p.klyver
Master Sergeant
Posts: 170
Joined: Thu 7 Mar 2013 14:56
Contact:

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

Postby p.klyver » Mon 1 Jul 2013 10:29

DeuZerre wrote:
p.klyver wrote:1) Periods: hmm you say one can be discovered by smell alone, especially that of womens period!? Wow i dont know where you've served, but it seems that a) the enemy is getting pretty close, on a fair few occasions b) your male soldiers must have some really good deoderants because me and my lads reek, stink, smell alot after we've been out for a week or so!

You're thinking on the tactical level, during a firefight. Firefights are a very small part of duty, aren't they? Now imagine on a patrol, or sneaking in, or many other situations that requires "not being discovered". As for reeking, well we don't use deodorants (they have a strong smell... Kind of defeating the purpose), but we wash(ed) as much as possible as to leave as little lingering stench as possible.

If you can smell an enemy at more than 25 meters, then you have one hell of a keen sense of smell. If the enemy is within closer range than that, a) somebody up, because an enemy should never be allowed to come within 25 meters. b) the enemy is waiting for you and hence he already knows you are there. What i am trying to say, is that smell on a patrol or the likes, are some of the least of your problems. How about the rustling of your clothes and other sounds? How about being spotted? The only people i could think of where it might become a problem is the special forces. I have most certain never had to worry about the smell on my patrols with my squad.

2) favoritism: I wonder if you could get me the sources: There has been women in afghanistan, with the danish army for the last 10 odd years. I have not heard of a single case that supports your claim. On the contrary, their performance has been, mostly, examplary!
WW2, russian front.

WW2 russian front, what happend there? Also WW2 is neigh on 70 years ago, dont you think some things has changed since then? I bet it have, in every way, with regards to warfare, society and education.

Actually, my experiences are that women tend to push themselves way over what is demanded of them! the ones i served with refused to be tested physically with the handicap afforded to women. They demanded, and i have heard of none doing otherwise, to be tested according to the 'mens' version.

From my experience too, but that's also an other issue: By trying to prove themselves, they may put the rest of the squad at risk; and putting themselves at risk they drag the males of the squad on the instinctive level.

Soldiers in general are not, trying to 'impress' the system, but rather the soldiers they are around, mostly on a squad or section level. (this is what most military psycologist say, at least) When females try to push themselves, it is not to prove something to the brass, but to prove themselves infront of their piers.

3) What army does not instill, in their soldiers, enough disciplin to keep their cocks in their pants!?!
I have found that many of the women becomes 'one of the guys' just as raunchy in their humor, they just sit down and piss, not more to it actually.

During 6-12 months of deployment? They may keep them in their pants, but it causes unrest and resentment, when most can only jerk off at pictures and videos when a select few cna have the real deal.

Ehm and you know this, how? ;)
In the danish army all sexual relationships are, on deployment, not allowed. If there is any, they go on the first flight home, end of story.
In garrison it is very much frowned upon even if it is someone from another company. ( i knew another pair where they were in the same company, but different platoons. They had a chat with the CO and the meeting was without tea or coffee!

4) If a woman decides to join up, she must understand that she is readily going into a situation where she cannot expect the comforts of home.
The women i served with, they didnt wan't, nor need showers or seperate sleeping accommodation when in the field. When we had basic bady search, they lined up with the guys, when we were freezing our arse of in the snow, they curled up with the rest of us.
The only thing women had more of than men, logistics wise, were skivvies. They had 10 pairs, we men only had 7.

I didn't specify "on the field". It can be back home. Women's dormitories where half the corridor's empty, etc... And the many things they don't tend to discuss: Pills, hygienic towels, whatever women need.

Whatever women need, is not all that different from what men need. Pills? what pills can a woman NOT live without?


Now you may have missed a big point: I'm not against women in the army, I was just pointing the various issues that come with it.


The fact of the matter is, that this comes down to what each of us has experienced. Apparently you have experienced problems/recognised issues with it, and that is fair enough.
Even though we disagree, i have in none of the above, been trying to offend you, and if it does, please take it as sarcasm or something rather. This discussion is very much needed and actual in the world, so lets at least try to keep some amiable tone between us :)

Return to “Off-Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests