Infantry Discussion Thread, Pattern 7: Sword Edition.

by **The Archangel Conglomerate** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:48 am

Registug wrote:oh, are those the identifying tattoos you keep going on about?

Fuckin' zombie! Kill it. . . or something.

Azenyanistan wrote:opinions on female infantry???

No reason not to.

by **Nachmere** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:51 am

Azenyanistan wrote:opinions on female infantry???

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/d3/da/f5/d3daf5fe5c5900e06b0931eeb84d9416.jpg

My 2 cents:

1) Case to case basis, there are many many women who can serve as infantry. As mechanization and technology reduce the physical constraints and weight load this % of infantry capable women will likely increase.

2) That said, there is no doubt that generally men are better fit physically for infantry and other combat roles.

3) To implement female combat troops well, I strongly believe that uniform standards must be maintained. If you let females do the same jobs while requiring less demanding physical fitness...Well, it is no different than just having slow and weak men in these roles.

4) I will bring the popcorn and watch this unfold.

* This poster participated in infantry tactical training with females, commanded female troops, and has no issues with female military service generally(Son of a female Lt. Colonel and brother to 2 female Lieutenants)

by **Fordorsia** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 6:01 am

The Archangel Conglomerate wrote:No reason not to.

They are all weak. Boudica was a feminazi.

by **Puzikas** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 6:04 am

Something something M16 self cleaning organ something something muh biology's

by **The Archangel Conglomerate** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 6:05 am

Lady bits don't keep them from squeezing gats.

A or B?
Why?

by **The Kievan People** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 6:06 am

Azenyanistan wrote:opinions on female infantry???

No point really aside from politics. Unless you lower physical standards significantly the number of women who would qualify is trivial, and the number who would be interested even more trivial.

by **Nachmere** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 6:08 am

The Kievan People wrote:
Azenyanistan wrote:opinions on female infantry???

No point really aside from politics. Unless you lower physical standards significantly the number of women who would qualify is trivial, and the number who would be interested even more trivial.

well if you go completely co-ed barracks and facilities it costs you nothing to do...so why not. ofcourse at that point they start getting pregnant at 25-28 and drop from the service/reserve pooland all the training goes to waste.

by **Korva** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 6:08 am

The Archangel Conglomerate wrote:Lady bits don't keep them from squeezing gats.

A or B?
Why?

A

not telling you why

by **Nachmere** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 6:10 am

The Archangel Conglomerate wrote:Lady bits don't keep them from squeezing gats.

A or B?
Why?

A because i like my shoulders in their original colour.

by **The Archangel Conglomerate** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 6:11 am

To be fair, a 5mm round probably won't whack you that badly.

by **Nachmere** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 6:13 am

The Archangel Conglomerate wrote:To be fair, a 5mm round probably won't whack you that badly.

fair point, i still would rather have a decent butt to shoulder properly.

by **Fordorsia** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 6:13 am

B's stock wouldn't be all that stable though.

by **The Kievan People** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 6:21 am

Nachmere wrote:well if you go completely co-ed barracks and facilities it costs you nothing to do...so why not. ofcourse at that point they start getting pregnant at 25-28 and drop from the service/reserve pooland all the training goes to waste.

Point. But I could flip this around and ask why, if we are conscripting, we couldn't just send the women to other non-combat units and send the men they free up to the infantry.

Your earlier point about mechanization is correct. But greater mechanization also means relatively more need for rear services and relatively less need for bodies on the front line. Infantry IIRC only account for something like 5% of all manpower in the US military so there doesn't seem to be a need to "broaden" the pool of potential recruits. On the contrary, a modern military could be highly selective of its infantry and probably (in contrast to historical practices) should be.

by **Nachmere** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 6:31 am

The Kievan People wrote:
Nachmere wrote:well if you go completely co-ed barracks and facilities it costs you nothing to do...so why not. ofcourse at that point they start getting pregnant at 25-28 and drop from the service/reserve pooland all the training goes to waste.

Point. But I could flip this around and ask why, if we are conscripting, we couldn't just send the women to other non-combat units and send the men they free up to the infantry.

Your earlier point about mechanization is correct. But greater mechanization also means relatively more need for rear services and relatively less need for bodies on the front line. Infantry IIRC only account for something like 5% of all manpower in the US military so there doesn't seem to be a need to "broaden" the pool of potential recruits. On the contrary, a modern military could be highly selective of its infantry and probably (in contrast to historical practices) should be.

Oh, I am not pro female infantry, I am just proposing ways in which if one has a burning wish to make it work, one should do it. Generally there is no logical reason to do this.
I was not reall

by **Registug** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 6:31 am

Puzikas wrote:Where the hell have you been?

I log in weekly to check the RMB, and nothing else :)
samoz linked me to that post and I felt like making a snappy comment tho

by **Ulfr-Reich** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 6:39 am

The Archangel Conglomerate wrote:Lady bits don't keep them from squeezing gats.

A or B?
Why?

B, That grey man, it's so gut.

by **Husseinarti** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 6:52 am

The Archangel Conglomerate wrote:Lady bits don't keep them from squeezing gats.

A or B?
Why?

Wat if put Gat in lady bit doe

by **Fordorsia** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 7:09 am

Husseinarti wrote:
The Archangel Conglomerate wrote:Lady bits don't keep them from squeezing gats.

A or B?
Why?

Wat if put Gat in lady bit doe

I saw a porno like that once

by **Spreewerke** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 7:26 am

Husseinarti wrote:
The Archangel Conglomerate wrote:Lady bits don't keep them from squeezing gats.

A or B?
Why?

Wat if put Gat in lady bit doe

Prison pocket.

Surrender to enemy, they think you're unarmed, noep.mp4; birthed a Liberator, shot captors in face.

by **United RussoAsia** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 8:01 am

Spreewerke wrote:
Husseinarti wrote:
Wat if put Gat in lady bit doe

Prison pocket.

Surrender to enemy, they think you're unarmed, noep.mp4; birthed a Liberator, shot captors in face.

That's why invasive searches.

by **Crookfur** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 8:12 am

Spreewerke wrote:
Husseinarti wrote:
Wat if put Gat in lady bit doe

Prison pocket.

Surrender to enemy, they think you're unarmed, noep.mp4; birthed a Liberator, shot captors in face.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news ... na-6408153

by **Spreewerke** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 8:13 am

Crookfur wrote:
Spreewerke wrote:
Prison pocket.

Surrender to enemy, they think you're unarmed, noep.mp4; birthed a Liberator, shot captors in face.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news ... na-6408153

Was waiting for this.

by **United RussoAsia** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 8:14 am

Crookfur wrote:
Spreewerke wrote:
Prison pocket.

Surrender to enemy, they think you're unarmed, noep.mp4; birthed a Liberator, shot captors in face.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news ... na-6408153

Yep.

by **Korva** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 8:15 am

Spreewerke wrote:birthed a Liberator, shot captors in face.

>multiple captors

I hope you have twins.

by **Fordorsia** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 8:32 am

Who loves forward swept falchions? I know Nirv does

Infantry Discussion Thread, Pattern 7: Sword Edition.

Who Will be the OP of the next Infantry Thread?

Who is online