Women to lead Indian Army Units

[Foot12]

The next Rani Lakshmibai

 

[gubbi]

They can't be soldiers simple. You are comparing apples to oranges. Every job is different.

There already are female soldiers, in combat units, in come countries' militaries. Btw, thats what they said about driving, pilots, doctors, scientists, managers, even politics. How do you answer that?

If you behave like a stupid urban minded liberal then how will you understand operational details?

Fortunately, these are the kind of people who frame and drive policies. Deal with it.

 

[he-man]

The problem is not only the village folks, its the educated city slickers too.. look at the comments many have posted here. Sorry to say, but these are the kind of people who harass women, be it in work places, or public transport or domestic violence or other places.
They said, women cant rule...Indira, Thatcher etc showed us how its done. Women cant be scientists, they said. Well hello...Madam Curie, Rosalind Franklin etc worked wonders.... Women cant be doctors they said... again hello there..What I am saying or atleast trying to say is, women are no less than men when it comes to efficiently doing a job, with proper training. The only obstacle is the skewed mindset prevailing here.

We are talking physical standards here dude,,,,and its beyond any reasonable doubt that in that a woman just cannot compete with man,,,provided she is given the same training and is of same weight class.

I know for a fact india is not ready for this yet because i live here,,,the society is just too backward at the moment

 

[spectribution]

There already are female soldiers, in combat units, in come countries' militaries. Btw, thats what they said about driving, pilots, doctors, scientists, managers, even politics. How do you answer that?

Fortunately, these are the kind of people who frame and drive policies. Deal with it.

^^ same people who run economies to ground, think they know it all, screw shit and blame others.

EG : Liberals in USA, UK, ETC.

No women in combat are used actively. Even North korea gives no attention to their female soldiers. Fact is their usage in war comes with too high attrition and too little utility. At the best they fight like 16 - 17 yr old boys.

 

[JohnyD]

women on top is not a big deal dis days ;-)

 

[gubbi]

^^ same people who run economies to ground, think they know it all, screw shit and blame others.

EG : Liberals in USA, UK, ETC.

No women in combat are used actively. Even North korea gives no attention to their female soldiers. Fact is their usage in war comes with too high attrition and too little utility. At the best they fight like 16 - 17 yr old boys.

You apparently have not read the sources I had posted in one of my earlier posts on this thread. And I do not expect you read them, obviously for your views. That being said, have you seen 16-17 yr old boys fight? The kind of energy and stamina they possess? Btw you have no scientific reports/basis for the malarkey you just posted.
Anywho, you are of the viewpoint that a woman's place belongs in the kitchen. Fortunately you are in a minority, atleast not counting the closet chauvinists. The times they are a changin'....

 

[Icewolf]

Haha, women already did lead Indian army units!!

 

[ni8mare]

In fields like Aviation in the Air Traffic Control branch, women are eligible to command after 12 - 14 years. For SSC officers those are their last years of command since permanent commission is allowed only in judicial and ordinance branches as of now.

Some prominent feminists like levina may take hurt but in war there is no place for political correctness. To give you all an idea of of how it works out :

An average women weighs 125 - 135 pounds - an average IA soldier's kit consists of 10 kg Patka helmet (22 pounds) , 8 pound rifle, 60 pound body armor and 40 -60 pound backpack totaling 150 pounds.

150 > 125 - 135

Imagine this much weight being carried in combat!

wtf is that 10 kg = 22 lb your math sucks

 

[spectribution]

You apparently have not read the sources I had posted in one of my earlier posts on this thread. And I do not expect you read them, obviously for your views. That being said, have you seen 16-17 yr old boys fight? The kind of energy and stamina they possess? Btw you have no scientific reports/basis for the malarkey you just posted.
Anywho, you are of the viewpoint that a woman's place belongs in the kitchen. Fortunately you are in a minority, atleast not counting the closet chauvinists. The times they are a changin'....

You are really delusional bro. I said not fit for combat. Infact even 16 - 17 year olds are stronger.

How Do Men and Women Differ Athletically? | LIVESTRONG.COM

Women in Combat: The Numbers Racket | TIME.com

Coed Combat Units | The Weekly Standard

Here are just a couple of blurbs from the MoD in the United Kingdom Report on Women in the Armed Forces (2002') that was reviewed in 2010'-Page 4, Paragraph 10, 11 from the Summary Report. The test compared women and men side by side and did not change the standards for their Infantryman Tasks.

Physiological Factors

10. The physical capacities demanded of personnel serving in close combat roles are necessarily high. Any reduction in standards would pose unacceptable risks to the operational effectiveness of our forces, and must therefore be avoided. The physical tests taken by potential recruits measure their ability to carry out the tasks that they will be required to perform after appropriate training. The testing standards that are set are justified by the demands of the job.

11. The Women in the Armed Forces report examined the differences in the physical abilities of men and women which are relevant to military performance and observed, unsurprisingly, that they differ significantly. Differences between women and men in their capacity to develop muscle strength and aerobic fitness are such that only approximately 1% of women can equal the performance of the average man. In lifting, carrying and similar tasks performed routinely by the British Army, this means that, on average, women have a lower work capacity than men and, when exposed to the same physical workload as men, have to work 50-80% harder to achieve the same results. This puts them at greater risk of injury. In load marching, another fundamental military task, and in all other simulated combat tasks, women were found to perform worse than men, and the greater the load, the greater the discrepancy. The study concluded that about 0.1% of female applicants and 1 % of trained female soldiers would reach the required standards to meet the demands of these roles.

There is loads of information out there on the increased numbers of ortho injuries, the unit cohesion problems (you will have folks having sex when they should be working and lose about 10% of your female force to pregnancy, the branches average between 9-15% losses for pregnancy of female military service members), loads of info about the differences physically and now even the genetic differences that cause higher rates of PTSD in females. No, this is not close to black integration, not a lot of losses due to pregnancy, no rise in ortho injuries due to actual physical differences the women have, etc....etc...the comparison is a false one.

The average female soldier, sailor, airman, and Marine is about five inches shorter than her male counterpart and has half the upper body strength, lower aerobic capacity (at her physical peak between the ages of 20 and 30, the average woman has the aerobic capacity of a 50-year-old male), and 37 percent less muscle mass. She has a lighter skeleton, which means that the physical strain on her body from carrying the heavy loads that are the lot of the infantryman may cause permanent damage.



Closet chauvinist, ahahahaha........

PS : Most Chefs are men.....ahahahaha

wtf is that 10 kg = 22 lb your math sucks

1 kg = 2.2 pounds. Hence 10 kg = 22 pounds

women on top is not a big deal dis days ;-)

 

[ni8mare]

1 kg = 2.2 pounds. Hence 10 kg = 22 pounds

 

[wolfschanzze]

Just speaking from the physical standpoint, if a woman has the same upper body strength of a man, she would not have any more difficulties than her male counterpart.

Nope not exactly, Testosterone hormone in man gives more muscle to men, estrogen gives more fat to women,
Testosterone induces rage and aggression these are needed in war and hand to hand combat or physical exertion.
So even though the woman and man are of the same length they have a huge difference.Why do you think body builders bulk up muscle? because of Testosterone and Growth hormone, unless a woman is willing to take these hormones which are natural in male she won't be able to compete with males in this regard.

 

[Koovie]

Nope not exactly, Testosterone hormone in man gives more muscle to men, estrogen gives more fat to women,
Testosterone induces rage and aggression these are needed in war and hand to hand combat or physical exertion.
So even though the woman and man are of the same length they have a huge difference.Why do you think body builders bulk up muscle? because of Testosterone and Growth hormone, unless a woman is willing to take these hormones which are natural in male she won't be able to compete with males in this regard.

I will leave the rage thing by side.

Generally speaking a man has more muscle % than a woman, and less fat.

But a woman (A) who has the same upper body strength as a man (B) (That can have different reasons, better training, better nutrition, genes etc) has the same upper body strength, regardless the exact balance level of testosterone and estrogen in both.

 

[wolfschanzze]

I will leave the rage thing by side.

Generally speaking a man has more muscle % than a woman, and less fat.

But a woman (A) who has the same upper body strength as a man (B) (That can have different reasons, better training, better nutrition, genes etc) has the same upper body strength, regardless the exact balance level of testosterone and estrogen in both.

wrong the more muscle and bone mass the more upper body strength.
Testosterone is muscle building hormone.
If you take both men and women and give them the same training and nutrition etc.Still men will win compared to women, its due to evolution of millions of years, man and women have become the way they are you cannot undo it in a lifetime of training.
Rage ,aggression is a important factor, in olden days these factors were played up by generals to pep up the troops who would use all their might against enemy.
In hand to hand combat these factors release adrenaline which boosts reaction time and other factors.

 

[Koovie]

wrong the more muscle and bone mass the more upper body strength.

Did I say anything against that?

No.

What you said is generally true.

But my point went into another direction. My original point was that if a woman has the physical strength, endurance and the willpower to complete the 1 mile run in a good time, manages to do 10 pull ups, the balance test and the 9 ft ditch she is able to perform combat duties, from a physical point of view. The people who made those requirements did not come up with them without any thought. (This are the Indian Army requirements, which are indeed quite low and actually do not emphasis much upper body strength, but my point can be transferred to any other armies PT test as well.)

Whether men and women who passed all the requirements can achieve the same training goals using the same training program, rest ratio, nutrition etc etc in a specific time frame does not really matter in the military. They are not professional athletes or competitive bodybuilders.

 

[rockstar08]

if you give command to women , he will be our front line fighter
behold ......................