All Combat Roles Now Open to Women in U.S.

[Dude653]

I saw a study once on a sports science show in which state took 2 boxers, one male, one female, both identical height and weight. The female was able to hit harder than the man.

 

[Bushido8000]

I saw a study once on a sports science show in which state took 2 boxers, one male, one female, both identical height and weight. The female was able to hit harder than the man.

I saw a study once on a sports science show in which state took 2 boxers, one male, one female, both identical height and weight. The female was able to hit harder than the man.

Sports Science gets it wrong many times. They tried to say this guy was almost as fast as a bolt of lighting

[video=youtube;2B564wOJx_U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B564wOJx_U[/video]


They get many of the things that require measurements of power or friction wrong. But even if a woman could punch as hard as a man of the same weight/training level, she still couldn't take anywhere near the damage as him without taking a snooze.

Again, if women want to kill for country, that's fine. But the propaganda of women being physical equals is a cultural insanity of this nation.

 

[Dude653]

I figure in a battle scenario,if it comes down to melee combat then you are already and deep doo doo anyway

 

[p_rehbein]

I do, and I have seen these female soldiers and I can tell you that, as a mixed martial artist, a 180lbs woman can't subdue an equally-trained 180lbs man in hand-to-hand combat (yes, hand-to-hand still happens occasionally on the battlefield) 9 times out of 10. A pretty experienced female martial artist would have a difficult time subduing a male who was just slightly bigger than her with no experience. This is common sense. This is why there are men's and women's divisions in every professional sport.

This is why everyone who was in the know was rolling their eyes when Ronda Rousey claimed she could beat every man in her weight division.

Google confrontations between female cops and male suspects to really understand what I mean lol.

when a male suspect hits a male cop, a fight ensues.

When a male suspect hits a female cop, shes out cold.

If women want to kill for our country, cool.

But male troops shouldn't be forced to risk their lives for "battlefield equality"

As a Vet who actually served with women and men.........I agree that as a "general rule." But I and others here have specifically stipulated that there are examples where a woman who CAN pass all the requirements be they physical, mental, weapons efficiency......is just as able to serve/fight as the average male soldier.

I personally know by name three such women. Albeit, they have long since retired.........yet, when we served together, I would have been perfectly happy to have any one of them in a foxhole with me as any male soldier in my Unit.

As for not being able to take out a man..............yeah, "as a general rule," however I have seen one of these women I speak of (who only weighed 210 lbs.) with one punch "knock the slap out" a 6'2', 240 lb. male soldier. Broken jaw and all.

As I and others have stipulated, IF they can qualify without the requirements being lessened to a lower standard than what they are now, there is no reason they should not serve.

This is not going to "throw wide open" the doors to women flooding Combat Arms roles............I suspect only a small percent will even volunteer for such.

As for "hand to hand" combat................it is very rare...........and it isn't very often even then when the woman will be isolated from the rest of her Unit.........but that does not mean she can not still defend herself.