Would a military consisting of only men be better for cost effectiveness and overall combat capability?

[RiseofArtemis]

As we know in many armies today there are women as well in it but from what my logic and reasoning would say if you wanted the best military it would only consist of men, especially if you wanted it to be cost and combat effective.

[jshm2]

Depends what you mean as you're probably thinking military as in "video games" military.

The reality is that the military is a complex industry and the actual "soldier" is only a small fraction of the overall organisation. Every solider, pilot, agent etc will have/require at least 10 staff deep to supply, inform, and handle them.

There is a lot of work that goes into managing and maintaining a military. Some roles you will find in neither public, private, corporate, or civilian life.

To put it simply, women have always been involved from the very first militaries. But there has never been a shortage of men willing to kill for money and medals.

[Anonymous]

Well according to the research that was done, yes it was more effective. If someone wants to argue w you just ask them this. If your family’s town/village was on the verge of being attacked would you rather the military send in 300 men or 300 women to defend your family and their village/town?

[Dinklex3]

Have you served?

I don't understand why people think the military is just muscular grunts who go around fighting people with their bare hands.

Educate yourself or try joining. Maybe you'll understand more and won't say dumb things.

[MTC29]

A modern army has roughly 7 support troops for every "war fighter", which means that there might be 300 combat troops in a battalion of 1000. Why pull men off the line to handle duties such as logistics and communications? duties which woman are fully capable of?

During WWII in the Pacific Theater the support to combat troop ratio was 15:1. Of course with the draft, limitless numbers of men could be put in uniform.

[ChrisMaster69]

Nope and it’s clear you have fuck all idea on how a military organisation operates.

[SaoirseS]

No, it wouldn’t. Stop trolling.

[RiseofArtemis]

Really? A test of the US army proved that men's only combat units generally are faster and performed better then mixed units. Not to mention that the cost does make a difference as for women there would have to be made another size of clothes and protective armors and the military currently doesn't have that or if they have it already women pay more for it as its seen as an extra size and different shape as women's bodies are not the same. They get the smallest set of body armor which is still too big for most. They have a standardized size of body armors and clothes which makes it cheaper and having to change that would make it more expensive. Not to mention most vehicles are made to be for tall soldiers who usually operate them. Before saying no to a question its usually better to research about it.

[SaoirseS]

I spent four years in, have you?

[SaoirseS]

@Chrismaster69. An internaut troll for your amusement.

[RiseofArtemis]

I'm perfectly aware of what the army does and I can tell that most women cannot get over basic training like most men can. I'm short so I probably wouldn't be able to enlist anyway. The standard of the basic training was set for men which weeds out the weakest men and only allows a minimum standard to pass. Women who do the same basic training and pass as the men are probably at the top end of the female strength but still compared to the males they are far closer to the average if not lower, then the top score soldiers. You can't deny biology. Women would be better in all the parts of the military which don't require combat. Its overall better and stops certain issues in the army from happening. There are dozen reports of issues with female soldiers which wouldn't happen if they always were separated. Mixed combat units are a mistake, that has unseen issues. You wouldn't want to be captured as a female solider do you.

[SaoirseS]

You’re way out of date, with the overwhelming majority of your comments coming from out of your fourth point of contact. You’re just making yourself look foolish. Some of your comments made me laugh.

[ChrisMaster69]

@RiseofArtemis you do not have a fucking clue.

You also have not been in an AFV, made for tall people fucking hell.

What a joke

[ChrisMaster69]

@SaoirseS I’ve only got about 12-18 hours to piss people off.

Might as well get started with this one.

[SaoirseS]

@Chrismaster69. I about died laughing at the vehicles for tall people one too. Enclosed vehicles favor runts like me. So do M88 Tank Retrievers. Fighter cockpits and submarines aren’t exactly tall people friendly either.

[ChrisMaster69]

I know
They actually have height restrictions on some aircraft for ejections, as in tall guys would lose their kneecaps.

I do love how these fuckwits come up with utter bollox, then again likely not much to do in Mommy’s basement

[SaoirseS]

@ChrisMaster69 He's trolling, and he's about 25 years behind lmao. He needs to enlist.

[ChrisMaster69]

@SaoirseS is the US that hard up it needs to accept fuckwits?

[SaoirseS]

@ChrisMaster69 It's not, but some get through the cracks anyway.

[ChrisMaster69]

@SaoirseS I guess the Air Force could use some dumb ordnance

[SaoirseS]

@ChrisMaster69 Just wrap them up and drop them as a JDAMM

[ChrisMaster69]

@SaoirseS Sat Nav and some wings to flap

[SaoirseS]

@ChrisMaster69 That works!