The Lizzies?
hahahahaha
Other than “culture support teams” is this gender segregated elite forces a thing, or even a thing under serious consideration?
Official names, no need to differentiate. 357th Special Forces Detachment; SEAL Team 8; Company L of the Ranger Regiment; etc. and it just so happens to be all-Female.
Unit nicknames, OTOH… knock yourselves out ladies. The Nutcrackers will be an early pick…
Ouch.
What do you have against the PPCLI (also, did you leave Canadian out on purpose)?
What would that accomplish? You can change the training, but you cannot change the laws of physics, Cap’n. Ground combat is a heavy physical labor job that strains young healthy men. Carrying 80+ pounds around all day up and down mountains on little sleep, carrying wounded comrades, building fortifications, maintaining heavy machinery. Women cannot do these things as well as men.
Are you going to change the constant of gravity when female soldiers are fighting? Are you going to convince the enemy to postpone their attacks so the women can have extra time to finish digging their foxholes?
Yes, the Soviet Union had some women fighting. That’s because the were facing genocide if they lost and and they were at full mobilization. Once all the available young men are fighting, a woman, boy or old man is not as good as another young man, but is better than nothing. We are not at full mobilization, not even close.
I liked Buffy the Vampire Slayer as much as the next guy, but I understood it was fantasy.
Thunder%$nts* just so they could yell “Hooooo!!!”
I think women could be special ops/Rangers … between Mata Hari - Wikipedia possibilities and just not being expected they could do a lot of damage.
Sanitary pads were developed from WWI wound bandages and tampons were and are used in bullet wounds. Nowadays, they are a bit different than what women use every month but the same principle. Tampon as in “tamponade”.
*I think the C-word is a beautiful word. It’s a strong word. It evokes the image of a baby’s head coming out an opening that usually only gets something 1/4 to to maybe 1/3 the size inserted and we still have more than one child.
How to Understand Infant Growth Charts “head circumference of about 13 1/2 inches.” (for 5 lb to 8 lb babies)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11444668/Study-on-penises-reveals-the-average-size-…-and-its-smaller-than-you-think.html “average penis had a girth of 4.59 inches”
When you need to kill some people and break some things, send in the Marines.
When you need to wage destruction unmatched in the history of mankind, send in the professionals. 
Except, we DO have women fighting, and in the combat arms. Not sure where you get the idea that no women can keep up?
The physical requirements are probably more onerous than they were in world war I and II. Yes, vehicles are far more common than they were then - long overland marches are less necessary. But the combat gear for a full load is heavier. The reason is body armor. I read the full interceptor, with groin and shoulder plates, plus front and rear, is ~34 pounds. The plate a woman would wear is slightly smaller but it is still very heavy.
And it’s obviously mandatory equipment. A sniper in ww2, which is where I read many women served in the Red Army, just has to carry a small quantity of ammo and a mosin. A quick google search says the mosin is ~4 lbs, lighter than the M16 is now.
Anyways, modern infantry combat is also far faster and deadlier than it was before because both sides have automatic weapons and generally plentiful ammo. So the basic strategy is to sprint like a linebacker, carrying all your ammo, armor, and maybe a (relatively lightweight) machine gun while the other half of your forces provide covering fire. You need to carry a lot of ammo so you can afford to burn off a mag or 2 each time it’s your time to provide covering fire.
Almost all women are going to be slower at this and are going to have a greater difficulty carrying that much weight, much less sprinting while carrying it. Upper body strength does matter because a lot of the weight of your vest, ruck, and weapon distributes to your shoulders.
I served in the Army - to be completely honest, I didn’t directly see women in combat, so I can’t say with authority how well they would do. I was on the small and scrawny size, for a man, though, and I had a rough time. The women I did serve with were all significantly weaker than me, and statistics shows that this is typical.
Anyways, there are combat jobs women can probably perform. They could sit in a gun truck and shoot from there. The problem is that if it comes time to change a tire, load that gun truck with ammo, toss a grenade, pull their buddies out from the burning truck - they aren’t going to be the best choice for any of those roles.
If we end up in a land war with China, well, you’re going to need all you can get, but I see no reason to let women serve in these roles if they can’t match the athletic ability of the weakest man allowed to serve in that role.
More onerous (physical needs) today what with drones, satellites, smart guns etc and instantaneous intell ?
Wargames… WarGames (1983) - IMDb
A pale comparison to today yet… computers will be what wins in any war whether from directing strikes to
@shut this poster down now@
$%^&**
send up smoke for me
Once visiting STRATCOM at Ofutt, I commented to someone else in the group, “y’know, if someone from this outfit tells you he can set your world on fire… he CAN”.
Female Elite Military= FEMS?
Also, female seals are called cows. 
I should clarify. I am not talking about me. Although I have always pulled my own weight, I had no dream of being infantry.
Still, I see badass women everyday serving in combat trades. They are capable, and meet (and exceed) the standard.
Well. Maybe. Keep in mind the “standard” should be thought of more as a minimum. For the most part, bigger and stronger = better. And for that right half of the bell curve, where you start talking about peak physical condition for the average man - the number of women in the world who can match that is basically zero.
I mean, if you have a football team, and you have 53 total slots, so you let the weaker kids among the pool who want to join in, or do you pick the 53 best among the pool? Seems obvious, right? If you have 1000 slots for infantry soldiers, you should pick the 1000 best among those who want to do it, sorted in order of best to worst. And including physical ability on weighted tasks, not bodyweight.
This topic is a hot button issue for many people because for those who want women to join in, it really sounds like the same argument of “we should let some of the weak kids onto our football team, passing up some of the stronger kids, because they are part of some underrepresented subgroup of people”. This same type of thinking angers those who are victims of it in other fields. Like elite engineering schools letting in people who are worse at math and science than competing applicants because they are part of some under-represented minority subgroup.
Covert
Operations
Women’s
Squadron
In Sgt. Provo’s words, it sings!
and on the quasi-hijack:
…something must have gone so truly utterly wrong that deployment of female troops will be the least of our worries.
@SamuelA: I was a USAF officer attached to a leg infantry company. This was before women were allowed in the combat MOSes. I’m no expert, but I’ve done my share of humpin’ with the gear and the boys. Like you, I’m on the small / scrawny side of average.
Ideally you’d want the 1000 best soldiers. Which is not the strongest 1000, nor the smartest 1000, nor the most aggressive 1000. It’s the 1000 that do the best on the whole package of capabilities. Strength, shooting, aggressiveness, teamwork, leadership, followership, calmness, reliability, knowledge, etc.
I’ve seen plenty of soldiers as big and strong as an ox but only half as smart as one. Or who had discipline or attitude issues. I’d much rather have had a higher quality soldier even if he or she was smaller.
We certainly have plenty of posters here with recent combat experience on the ground. I think we should defer to their thoughts. Which so far are saying that women do fine.
A final thought. Your football analogy breaks dowen on another dimension. If we had 5000 applicants for each 1000 slots we could afford to be very choosy. When we only have 1010 applicants for each 1000 slots we take what we can get. If for whatever Bizarro reason you care to name DoD suddenly became an all male force it’s be understrength by several hundred thousand people. And there’d be no qualified men rushing to take those positions. Zero. 'Cuz if there were, we’d have already hired them.
I’d pay good money to watch you call a female SEAL a cow. I’d pay even more to watch what happens next. 
Kurdish YPJ, Women’s Protection Units
Has been kicking ass in Syria and Iraq for several years.
I could see the US creating WPU units.
Valkyrie?
Perilous Missions Squadrons