Infantry Discussion Thread part 11: Gallas Razor edition.

[Ideal Britain]

I asked if there was a specific number. Is there one?

Zero I guess?

So if zero nations sign it it becomes part of CIL? LOL

Just kidding, I know what you mean, there is no fixed number.

[Dtn]

No, you just have it backwards.

Treaties generally codify existing customary international law.

[Gallia-]

Fun fact!
I found old timey Finnish armed forces career NCO school curricula that included general civics courses specifically to cover any gaps left in soldier's civilian education during decades when mandatory schooling wasn't as extensive as it's today.
Then again I guess if things were so bad that you couldn't read or write they probably didn't recruit you as paid soldier neither.

TBF, the Taliban aren't exactly suffering from a dearth of literacy for their footmen.

I guess if you're fighting like a 20th century European army then you need to be literate, since you have to be able to read forms and sign for things, but a 17th century Swedish battalion was probably broadly illiterate and seems to have fought pretty well. Of course the Taliban fight entirely differently in a way that means they can't directly attack a European-esque military without being destroyed, like ISIS was. OTOH, the latter can't really attack them, so they sort of automatically win.

[Austrasien]

Metallic body armour I shouldn't need to tell you as a Russian military history enthusiast is quite possible though its second rate.

i mean it depends?

You can buy titanium or steel ballistic plate inserts and helmets on the internet. Ceramic plates are just better, they provide more protection for the same mass. As are composite helmets.

If you really desired it you could make a cuirass that provided reasonable protection from small arms. It isn't clear why you would do this as pound-for-pound it would be inferior to a plate carrier with ceramic inserts. But you could. You could also make it out of plastic.

[Gallia-]

Out of the way losers, Doron rides again.

[Ideal Britain]

Why do mixed close combat units do less well than all male ones?

[Gallia-]

Because women have poorer upper body strength and weaker joints and ligaments relative to male soldiers.

It's the same reason female bodybuilders don't bench press as much as men and female athletes tear their ACLs more than men.

[Ideal Britain]

Because women have poorer upper body strength and weaker joints and ligaments relative to male soldiers

So it wouldn’t be a problem if they had to pass the same fitness test as the men? Like in the Royal Marines?

[Gallia-]

No, because women wouldn't be able to pass a physical fitness test that is selecting for stronger males.

Women have weak joints and lower overall body strength mostly because their ligaments are different from men (the ACL is notorious for tearing in female athletes due anatomical differences), their pelvis is much wider (thus, weaker) due to mammalian live birth, and the mammary glands severely limit the size of the pectorals and associated connective tissues, which are one of the prime "upper body strength" muscle groups.

[Laka Strolistandiler]

No, because women wouldn't be able to pass a physical fitness test that is selecting for stronger males.

Women have weak joints and lower overall body strength mostly because their ligaments are different from men (the ACL is notorious for tearing in female athletes due anatomical differences), their pelvis is much wider (thus, weaker) due to mammalian live birth, and the mammary glands severely limit the size of the pectorals and associated connective tissues, which are one of the prime "upper body strength" muscle groups.

Cam this theoretically be solved with genetic modification? Just asking because you seem to be pretty informed in the subject.

[Gallia-]

No, because women wouldn't be able to pass a physical fitness test that is selecting for stronger males.

Women have weak joints and lower overall body strength mostly because their ligaments are different from men (the ACL is notorious for tearing in female athletes due anatomical differences), their pelvis is much wider (thus, weaker) due to mammalian live birth, and the mammary glands severely limit the size of the pectorals and associated connective tissues, which are one of the prime "upper body strength" muscle groups.

Cam this theoretically be solved with genetic modification? Just asking because you seem to be pretty informed in the subject.

Yes it's called being a male.

Anyway if you rip out everything that makes females...female and mammalian, then yes you can get a pretty good set of traits that make for a powerful upper body and good running ability.

The usual method is to just bar women from military jobs though.

[Immoren]

1963 Commission
"In 1963, the General Staff Committee, which examined the training arrangements for [cadre] non-commissioned officers, presented the need for the development of [cadre] non-commissioned officer training. The need for development was justified by the constant rise in the level of education of conscripts, the technicalization of the armed forces, and the increase in leadership and training responsibilities. Increasing general education once again identified as necessary. According to the committee, general education had to be given uniformly to all [cadre] non-commissioned officers of all branches of the Defense Forces. All the defense branches and branches of service supported the proposal of the Commission. A new basic education arrangement should have been reached in the autumn of 1964.
The committee proposed the goal of basic training for non-commissioned officers:
-the provision of integrated general education and general military training.
-training for the duties of a junior instructor NCO of the company or similar duties as a non-commissioned officer in appropriate defense branch, training branch or weapon type during peacetime
-basic knowledge of the command of a rifle platoon or similar during the war.

As a requirement for basic training for [cadre] non-commissioned officers, the committee proposed training for conscript non-commissioned officers.

The committee presented the three-cycle basic training as follows
- Period I: General training in a [cadre] non-commissioned officer school (4 months)
- Period II: General military training in a [cadre] non-commissioned officer school (6 months)
- Period III: Branch training in a branch school school (approximately 5 months)

Junior high [?] graduates would have started directly from the second period. This procedure was intended to increase their willingness to serve as a non-commissioned officer. At that time 10% of people on courses were junior high graduates[?]. The above was justified by the desire to take better account of differences in basic education."

[Ideal Britain]

No, because women wouldn't be able to pass a physical fitness test that is selecting for stronger males.

Women have weak joints and lower overall body strength mostly because their ligaments are different from men (the ACL is notorious for tearing in female athletes due anatomical differences), their pelvis is much wider (thus, weaker) due to mammalian live birth, and the mammary glands severely limit the size of the pectorals and associated connective tissues, which are one of the prime "upper body strength" muscle groups.

https://www.cornwalllive.com/first-woma ... ee-2861834

[Ormata]

https://www.cornwalllive.com/first-woman-royal-marine-trainee-2861834

She got through the initial phase. Good for her. That is no guarantee that she will pass the course whatsoever. There's a reason why she's the first trainee and that's because for the vast majority they aren't built up enough to get through the physical beating.

[Crookfur]

https://www.cornwalllive.com/first-woman-royal-marine-trainee-2861834

She got through the initial phase. Good for her. That is no guarantee that she will pass the course whatsoever. There's a reason why she's the first trainee and that's because for the vast majority they aren't built up enough to get through the physical beating.

Yup she got injured on a march a couple of months in and was unable to continue. She was also an olympian...

Since several more have tried but either failed the selection or the revised extra training week everyone now gets before selection..

[Gallia-]

No, because women wouldn't be able to pass a physical fitness test that is selecting for stronger males.

Women have weak joints and lower overall body strength mostly because their ligaments are different from men (the ACL is notorious for tearing in female athletes due anatomical differences), their pelvis is much wider (thus, weaker) due to mammalian live birth, and the mammary glands severely limit the size of the pectorals and associated connective tissues, which are one of the prime "upper body strength" muscle groups.

https://www.cornwalllive.com/first-woma ... ee-2861834

Yes, as you can see this really proves the point. The average male soldier is pretty average, physically speaking, they just do a lot of cardio and lifting while being yelled at. RMs are not stupendous specimens relative to, say, male bodybuilders or Olympian endurance runners or anything of the sort. They're kinda weedy, they can run pretty far-ish, but it's nothing spectacular or ground breaking. There's a reason you would have been able to shanghai guys off the street back in the day to do their job, or have the average peasant farmer be able to keep up with mild effort (if anything, a modern RM is less physically active than an 18th century peasant), and it's not because dudes back then were stronger or anything than now.

Comparatively, "GI Pippa" is an Olympian rower and probably ranks a few standard deviations above the mean for females.

Besides that, she got dropped from the course after breaking her leg. Remember what I said about women having anatomical differences that cause a greater preponderance of leg injuries?

In general you can expect females to suffer a two to three times higher incidence of stress fractures in the lower legs than males for a given period of military training.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

i have a sense of deja vu... as if we already had this specific convo at least 666 times before.

[Ormata]

She got through the initial phase. Good for her. That is no guarantee that she will pass the course whatsoever. There's a reason why she's the first trainee and that's because for the vast majority they aren't built up enough to get through the physical beating.

Yup she got injured on a march a couple of months in and was unable to continue. She was also an olympian...

Since several more have tried but either failed the selection or the revised extra training week everyone now gets before selection..

...wow that really does suck for her. Hopefully she made a full recovery on that front.

[Ideal Britain]

If physically active throughout their life and given intensive training from 15, could a 16 year old boy be stronger than the average 18 year old or their gender?

[Gallia-]

Find out how this teen DOUBLED HIS MASS in JUST NINE MONTHS with this ONE WEIRD TRICK (crew).

[Ideal Britain]

Find out how this teen DOUBLED HIS MASS in JUST NINE MONTHS with this ONE WEIRD TRICK (crew).

Are 18 year olds twice the size of 16 year olds?

[Dayganistan]

If physically active throughout their life and given intensive training from 15, could a 16 year old boy be stronger than the average 18 year old or their gender?

Why are you so obsessed with having people under 18 in your NS country's army?

[Ideal Britain]

If physically active throughout their life and given intensive training from 15, could a 16 year old boy be stronger than the average 18 year old or their gender?

Why are you so obsessed with having people under 18 in your NS country's army?

Why would you want a shorter length of service?

[Dayganistan]

Why would you want a shorter length of service?

Buddy most soldiers are going to leave the military after 4 years anyway when their enlistment is up because they realize it's a terrible job where you forfeit many of the rights you'd have as a civilian and get yelled at by power tripping senior enlisted who make you do bullshit things that don't actually need to be done. It doesn't matter if they enlist at 18 or 16 most of them aren't lasting more than four years.

[Ideal Britain]

Why would you want a shorter length of service?

Buddy most soldiers are going to leave the military after 4 years anyway when their enlistment is up because they realize it's a terrible job where you forfeit many of the rights you'd have as a civilian and get yelled at by power tripping senior enlisted who make you do bullshit things that don't actually need to be done. It doesn't matter if they enlist at 18 or 16 most of them aren't lasting more than four years.

Well in the UK they get command of a fire-team after three years, also in this UK they have strict degrading treatment laws.
Additionally we have conscription for NEETs (mostly 16-30 year olds conscripted until the economy improves).

Oh and the IRL UK soldiers recruited at 16 serve an average of 8 years longer.