Imperial City-States wrote:See that's the big catch though, the U.S is by no means desperate and is in-fact trying to down size.
In a theory, you'd be correct in that having females in a Combat Role in a 'Heavy' Infantry unit would not be entirely detrimental, however that is rarely the case. When i was in Afghanistan i was apart of a unit that was technically speaking, 'heavy'. I did not see a single Bradley the entire time i was there. Can you make minimal exceptions? yes. But to suggest that you can deteriorate the standard to the point where another soldier has to carry your load because you're physically
incapable of doing so? Not acceptable at all.
In Afghanistan you can't view it like a 'Force on Force'. 99.9% of the time, we (America) don't get the opportunity to choose our battles. The insurgents however do. That being said, when they do pick a fight, they're for the most part, prepared for it. They don't engage Battalion sized elements if they can avoid it, they engage patrols, squads, maybe platoons if they're feeling particularly spry.
I don't give a flying fuck if my enemy shits his pants at the thought of me. I want him to be dead.
The bit about desperation was an aside, hence the parentheses. I wouldn't use "desperate" in this instance, but filling more specialized roles has always been an expensive issue, since the US has to compete with the civilian market to obtain qualified individuals, or stake it out on subsidizing individuals who they hope will turn out ok for the roles they've been recruited for. Even if they can fill the roles, they're spending more than they'd probably like to in order to do so. Again, for a slight hit to physical effectiveness, the armed forces gain access to a greater amount of potential intelligent, educated individuals for use in roles where such is necessary. This is a form of downsizing, insofar as it reduces the costs per head that it takes to fill roles.
This isn't just for the sake of soldiers. Having soft-intelligence and linguistic skills within the army proper, with existing albeit reduced fitness standards means not having to repeat some of the disasters that have occurred when mixing egghead topics like soft-intelligence and language fluency with combat zones and sleazy civilian contracting (HTS, of course, being the big offender here). This keeps the US army from having to fill shortages of skills with less than savoury methods.
I am not suggesting that women take roles that involve more gear than they can demonstrably hold over a period of time. I'm merely suggesting that this is not the case for all combat roles, while it is the case that education is more than useful for all combat roles. If your load as a forward observer would be unmanageable for a women of average weight and considerable physical fitness then sure, keep women out of fire support teams. If they literally cannot do it then there's a problem. All folks have been suggesting is that there are roles that are not as physically demanding but from which women are nonetheless restricted.
And they're making their attacks on various assumptions based on the intelligence available to them. They can count engagements, they can gauge their intensity, but through it all they cannot count your bullets. They can know that you've used em, perhaps heavily, but they can never quite know if you're dry unless they run up to you and try. If they're gonna hit you, doing so based on how they suppose your ammo is doing is risky, and there's a greater chance of them choosing their engagements based on other factors. This is one of their only chances, their supplies replenish at a slower rate than yours, they rack of casualties at a greater rate, they can't squander an opportunity with such a difficult factor to predict. They are, after all, not just choosing any engagements.
In that case, you should want him shitting his pants. Folks shitting their pants aren't all there, they're gonna make decisions that might not be entirely informed. They'll lose opportunities, take ones that aren't there, advance when he should be holding and holding when he should be advancing. Maybe he'll run away, over open ground, with all his gear safely next to his ruined pants, easy pickings. Or maybe he won't, maybe he'll run away in a little more orderly a fashion, leaving you having taken the territory or removed the enemy from it. Assuming the stated objective is not "kill all guys with guns", everything has gone swimmingly. After all, before ones stated objectives the real main objective is to be about as alive as when you started, and this way is good way of remaining alive.[/quote]