Should women be allowed to serve in combat roles in the military?

This guy created a fully armored Exo and has been showing this model to the US Military and L.E.'s all across the country. The suit can stand up to a shot gun blast. Including an Elephant Gun. I am guessing 50Cal.

MMC said:

Again, Women have been fighting in battle with men side by side. Fighting against men. Since the Beginning of Time.

As technology improves so to does the Soldier whether they be men or women. Arguing the merits if women are equal to the task in being strong enough. Having the stamina and or strength to carry equipment and a full grown man who may have some equipment on him to. Is a mute point. The technology of tomorrow will define one's ability to, and for combat.

For Example......



While American soldiers get in shape stateside-- with a slew of aerobic exercises, a soldier of the future could soon be seen on the battlefield. It's called an exoskeleton and by stepping inside this robotic exterior-- a soldier can easily perform feats that years ago could only be seen in science fiction movies.....snip~

I believe this will equalize the strength and stamina issues. Note the exo will be closed and armored as well. Creating a stronger, faster, and smarter soldier.

Click to expand...

This is exactly what I have been saying, technology will at some point make it possible, but that is not good enough for some. For now according to all the data and research it is not in the best interest of our ground combat forces.

MMC said:

This guy created a fully armored Exo and has been showing this model to the US Military and L.E.'s all across the country. The suit can stand up to a shot gun blast. Including an Elephant Gun. I am guessing 50Cal.

Click to expand...

It is far to cumbersome for military duty. The cost and maintenance would also probably be prohibitive. Police on the other hand could get good use out of something like that. Maybe one or two for SWAT etc.

if they have the skills, the strength, and the guts, there is NO logical or rational reason to keep women out of combat.

MMC said:

This is a fully armed and clothed Soldier. The Exo is Lockheed's vision of the Future for the Foot-Soldier.

Any excuses now why a woman should not be used for armed combat?

Click to expand...

well, for one, obviously, because we do not have these; and in an environment where we are dramatically slashing the DOD budget, we are unlikely to have them at any point in the next decade or two.

Thunder said:

if they have the skills, the strength, and the guts, there is NO logical or rational reason to keep women out of combat.

Click to expand...

yes there is - namely, that combat is a team sport. your individual strength, skills, or guts are immaterial compared to whether or not you strengthen or weaken the team. there is good reason you aren't allowed to use the words "I" or "me" at Boot Camp, and it's because your individual wonderfulness really doesn't matter.

Blackdog said:

It is far to cumbersome for military duty. The cost and maintenance would also probably be prohibitive.

Click to expand...

no kidding. your wonderexo is great until either A) you get into a firefight B) you have to perform some other kind of dexterous moves or C) you hit day 3 on patrol when the heat of the desert in summer drains your batteries and now you are wearing an 80lb metal suit on top of all your other gear.

in other words, it's perfect.

unless, of course, you happen to be in the combat arms. in which case not so much.

It doesnt need to be worn all the time, as far as cumbersome. The US Army and Marine Corp have been working with the Exos. They already know they can run, jump, crawl and engage into combat with the exo. Now it's just coming up with the casing. The Armor. The Lockeed Video shows some on a training course.

The Japanese were leading the way in robotics. So much so that just like the game Mech Warriors, their vision is a fully Robotic Soldier. Or even a robotic that a Human being can jump into just like a vehicle. One that is bipedal and not limited to terrain. Fully Armored and Armed. Like a walking tank.

This would then be a problem for The New and Improved Foot Soldier in their Exos. As the firepower would be greater than the suit can take.

MMC said:

It doesnt need to be worn all the time, as far as cumbersome.

Click to expand...

ah. so when someone starts shooting at you, you just call a five-minute Time Out in order to climb out of the suit, readjust your gear, and then get ready to go? how very convenient. perhaps in urban scenarios, where the suit couldn't be worn at all, the enemy would agree to take a 10 minute break every hour to allow females to rest? Perhaps in AO's where the enemy is using IED's, they would agree to put all IED's on a 30 second delay with a warning signal to allow someone in a giant metal can time to try to duck the blast?

The US Army and Marine Corp have been working with the Exos. They already know they can run, jump, crawl and engage into combat with the exo. Now it's just coming up with the casing. The Armor. The Lockeed Video shows some on a training course.

The Japanese were leading the way in robotics. So much so that just like the game Mech Warriors, their vision is a fully Robotic Soldier. Or even a robotic that a Human being can jump into just like a vehicle. One that is bipedal and not limited to terrain. Fully Armored and Armed. Like a walking tank.

This would then be a problem for The New and Improved Foot Soldier in their Exos. As the firepower would be greater than the suit can take.

Click to expand...

:yawn: yeah. and how long has "future soldier" been supposedly in the pipeline? the one with the PAS-13 as a scope and a twin barrel with a 20mm grenade launcher that detonates with a laser guide to 'shoot around corners'? :lol: makes you wonder if anyone is considering how useful this stuff is if the guy is to bone-sore from humping it to deploy it.

look man, take it from the grunts on this forum (including this one), this stuff just isn't at the practicable stage - and even then you've only solved one of the several serious problems with injecting females into combat units. You already got smashed in the "warriors beats soldiers" debate, don't get smashed with the "exo's mean females can be just as tough as men" argument as well.

cpwill said:

ah. so when someone starts shooting at you, you just call a five-minute Time Out in order to climb out of the suit, readjust your gear, and then get ready to go? how very convenient. perhaps in urban scenarios, where the suit couldn't be worn at all, the enemy would agree to take a 10 minute break every hour to allow females to rest? Perhaps in AO's where the enemy is using IED's, they would agree to put all IED's on a 30 second delay with a warning signal to allow someone in a giant metal can time to try to duck the blast?



:yawn: yeah. and how long has "future soldier" been supposedly in the pipeline? the one with the PAS-13 as a scope and a twin barrel with a 20mm grenade launcher that detonates with a laser guide to 'shoot around corners'? :lol: makes you wonder if anyone is considering how useful this stuff is if the guy is to bone-sore from humping it to deploy it.

look man, take it from the grunts on this forum (including this one), this stuff just isn't at the practicable stage - and even then you've only solved one of the several serious problems with injecting females into combat units. You already got smashed in the "warriors beats soldiers" debate, don't get smashed with the "exo's mean females can be just as tough as men" argument as well.

Click to expand...

I think at some point this may become a reality. The problem is he is acting like it will be tomorrow. We are looking at 10 to 20 years down the road at least.

Blackdog said:

I think at some point this may become a reality. The problem is he is acting like it will be tomorrow. We are looking at 10 to 20 years down the road at least.

Click to expand...

oh yeah. in the future no doubt something like this will occur. once they've solved the problems with power, with flexibility, with durability, with versatility, with field maintenance, and with ease of use.

until that day, however, the exo's remain in sci-fi and specific limited applications (divers suits, for example).




they just want female grunts because they think it's an "equality" issue rather than a "combat effectiveness" issue, and they'll grasp whatever straw is available to make that argument.

cpwill said:

ah. so when someone starts shooting at you, you just call a five-minute Time Out in order to climb out of the suit, readjust your gear, and then get ready to go? how very convenient. perhaps in urban scenarios, where the suit couldn't be worn at all, the enemy would agree to take a 10 minute break every hour to allow females to rest? Perhaps in AO's where the enemy is using IED's, they would agree to put all IED's on a 30 second delay with a warning signal to allow someone in a giant metal can time to try to duck the blast?



:yawn: yeah. and how long has "future soldier" been supposedly in the pipeline? the one with the PAS-13 as a scope and a twin barrel with a 20mm grenade launcher that detonates with a laser guide to 'shoot around corners'? :lol: makes you wonder if anyone is considering how useful this stuff is if the guy is to bone-sore from humping it to deploy it.

look man, take it from the grunts on this forum (including this one), this stuff just isn't at the practicable stage - and even then you've only solved one of the several serious problems with injecting females into combat units. You already got smashed in the "warriors beats soldiers" debate, don't get smashed with the "exo's mean females can be just as tough as men" argument as well.

Click to expand...

I take it you didn't see the Video on the Korean and Israeli Female soldiers I put up, not the training of our female Marines, and most of all I was a grunt. So you can save that useless argument. Moreover, truly you cannot get smashed when leading the way with the history lesson. As despite how you FEEEEEEL the facts have shown otherwise.

In addition in the warrior on soldier debate. You never did get past the basics of guerilla warfare. In the end the soldier loses to the warrior.

MMC said:

I take it you didn't see the Video on the Korean and Israeli Female soldiers I put up, not the training of our female Marines, and most of all I was a grunt. So you can save that useless argument. Moreover, truly you cannot get smashed when leading the way with the history lesson. As despite how you FEEEEEEL the facts have shown otherwise.

In addition in the warrior on soldier debate. You never did get past the basics of guerilla warfare. In the end the soldier loses to the warrior.

Click to expand...

wow. so much delusion in such a small post.

you got hammered when you tried to argue that warriors will defeat soldiers. yes, in guerrilla warfare as well, which is why we have special forces to train guerrilla's to be soldiers.


well disciplined units have consistently destroyed forces made up of "warriors". even when significantly outnumbered - because at the point of impact the team always outweighs each individual it comes across.

what military and branch were you a grunt in that they trained you so poorly so as to think this kind of crap?

which is why you had to increasingly try to come up with bizzare "well if there were no guns and it was all edged weapons and the individual warrior had trained for 20 years and was against a small unit that the warrior was allowed to attack in a jungle environment...." etc. :roll: as though that had any resemblance to modern combat.

the facts of integration of females into the non combat units have already demonstrated that they come along with serious distractions and detractions from mission readiness. putting that extra burden into the infantry is an idiotic idea.

Actually the 'keep 'em out of combat ground units' crowd seems to be grasping at straws. Reminds me of the fight to keep blacks out of combat units. First it was 'they can't operate complex equipment', then 'they are not as brave as whites', then finally it would hurt combat effectiveness.

The only thing stopping women from serving in combat units is not lifting a 100 tube but rather knocking down a few hardliners who refuse to admit there is nothing stopping women from serving in combat units other than male pride or resentment.

cpwill said:

wow. so much delusion in such a small post.

you got hammered when you tried to argue that warriors will defeat soldiers. yes, in guerrilla warfare as well, which is why we have special forces to train guerrilla's to be soldiers.

the facts of integration of females into the non combat units have already demonstrated that they come along with serious distractions and detractions from mission readiness. putting that extra burden into the infantry is an idiotic idea.

Click to expand...

well disciplined units have consistently destroyed forces made up of "warriors". even when significantly outnumbered - because at the point of impact the team always outweighs each individual it comes across.

what military and branch were you a grunt in that they trained you so poorly so as to think this kind of crap?

which is why you had to increasingly try to come up with bizzare "well if there were no guns and it was all edged weapons and the individual warrior had trained for 20 years and was against a small unit that the warrior was allowed to attack in a jungle environment...." etc. :roll: as though that had any resemblance to modern combat.


Still can't change history bro. Once again you forget when the breadkdown of an Army takes place it is every man for themselves. As to Special Forces and Rangers.....yes I know. But now you are talking about Warrior/Soldiers The Elites. Not a regular grunt. Again you talking semantics. Not to mention you cannot get around the Israelis and S Koreans who have been doing so with women for years. Kinda blows that theory of yours out of the water about cohesion and distractions.

Not to mention I was warring long time before I joined Uncle Sam's Gang. So I know all about a different type of soldier mentality. The difference was with the time. Back in the day no child could just run around and grab some sword or weapon and start weilding it or using it on others. In todays day and age, any 6yr old kid can pick up a gun and start shooting people with it.

Women back then trained just as hard as men who fought in battle. Some were shield-mates to their husbands. One woman would lead thousands of warriors and gain a Throne.

roguenuke said:

And we see what we want to see.

I was on one of those ships too NP. Remember? I've told you many times that guys tend to see one or two women out of 50 getting pregnant (and not necessarily on purpose) as some sort of proof that all or most try to get pregnant to get off the ship or out of deployment. It is plain BS. Maybe some do get pregnant to get out of deployment, just like those guys who smoke pot or try to get injured to get out of deployment. But most women would never consider getting pregnant, particularly if they are single, just to get out of deployment.

Both sexes have the ****bags who don't want to do their jobs. Doesn't mean that some or even most women do or even try to do something that will get them out of deployment.

Click to expand...

I am just telling you what the guy told me.....Of course you not going to agree with it.......I was at lunch the other day at the Naval Hospital and for the first time in my life I saw a pregnant CPO...........Can you imagine the laughs in the old days in the Chief's mess about a pregnant chief..........Most in this forum would not understand because they probably don't even know what a Chief is but it would have been a riot............

Navy Pride said:

I am just telling you what the guy told me.....Of course you not going to agree with it.......I was at lunch the other day at the Naval Hospital and for the first time in my life I saw a pregnant CPO...........Can you imagine the laughs in the old days in the Chief's mess about a pregnant chief..........Most in this forum would not understand because they probably don't even know what a Chief is but it would have been a riot............

Click to expand...

Yeah, because in your day there were very few female Chiefs to begin with. I'm pretty sure female Chiefs back then weren't treated well at all.

It's absolutely despicable that you feel it is your place to judge that a Chief should not be getting pregnant, when you likely have no idea if that woman was on a sea duty or shore duty, just because you don't think it's right. Women have just as much of a right to start families while in that men do. Many women wait til they are on shore duty or at least in a position while at a sea command to do so without affecting her ability to actually contribute to the command. Stop judging people on assumptions that you feel it is your place to make.

notquiteright said:

Actually the 'keep 'em out of combat ground units' crowd seems to be grasping at straws. Reminds me of the fight to keep blacks out of combat units. First it was 'they can't operate complex equipment', then 'they are not as brave as whites', then finally it would hurt combat effectiveness.

The only thing stopping women from serving in combat units is not lifting a 100 tube but rather knocking down a few hardliners who refuse to admit there is nothing stopping women from serving in combat units other than male pride or resentment.

Click to expand...

Scientific evidence from 3 different Western Country's study's say the vast majority of women are not physically up to being in ground combat units. The Russians and Israelis both pulled females out of combat units after using them. Israel went even farther and called it a mistake in the first place. So who is grasping at straws?

MMC said:

Still can't change history bro. Once again you forget when the breadkdown of an Army takes place it is every man for themselves

Click to expand...

that is utter crap, and the best example I can think of to demonstrate otherwise is the night drops of the air-borne units into Normandy. Dropped miles away from their organic units and further miles away from their assigned objectives with no obvious chain of command in site, in pitch darkness, surrounded by superior organized forces, if ever there was a time and a place when The Rise Of Ever Man For Himself would have led everyone to become a "Call of Duty" character, that was it.

INSTEAD they responded to their training, formed ad-hoc "little groups of paratroopers", reestablished all the command they could, with Corporals and Sergeants taking charge, and went out to create utter havoc. They performed far above expectations and managed to keep their casualties far below pre-drop estimations because they were disciplined soldiers who did not break apart in the face of chaos.

because they were soldiers.

historically, when armies have broken down into "every man for themselves" is usually about 30 seconds before they get massacred.

As to Special Forces and Rangers.....yes I know. But now you are talking about Warrior/Soldiers The Elites. Not a regular grunt.

Click to expand...

yes. and I have worked with and know Rangers, Recon, SEALs, and Special Forces. not because I'm some kind of bad-ass (I decided right after SOI that my level of motivation had limits), but because I have had friends who are, and been at the right place and time to work with others. They train as a team and they do it obsessively, because hard-won experience has demonstrated to them again and again that your Individual Warrior Duking It Out Rambo Style image is utter crap.

Again you talking semantics. Not to mention you cannot get around the Israelis and S Koreans who have been doing so with women for years. Kinda blows that theory of yours out of the water about cohesion and distractions.

Click to expand...

As Blackdog points out, the Israelis and the Russians both realized that it was a problem and pulled them out. As I have pointed out to you, both only put them in in times of extreme duress when there was nobody else to throw in the line.

Not to mention I was warring long time before I joined Uncle Sam's Gang

Click to expand...

what a fascinating claim. perhaps you can provide some details, because you sound like a kid who plays video games.

So I know all about a different type of soldier mentality. The difference was with the time. Back in the day no child could just run around and grab some sword or weapon and start weilding it or using it on others.

In todays day and age, any 6yr old kid can pick up a gun and start shooting people with it.

Women back then trained just as hard as men who fought in battle. Some were shield-mates to their husbands. One woman would lead thousands of warriors and gain a Throne.

Click to expand...

yeah. Boadicea, for example, led a horde of warriors against Roman Soldiers. how did she do, again?


oh yeah. the Romans were outnumbered more than ten to one, and yet they utterly massacred all those "warriors". Tacitus records 400 Roman fatalities measured against nearly 80,000 Britons.

MMC said:

well disciplined units have consistently destroyed forces made up of "warriors". even when significantly outnumbered - because at the point of impact the team always outweighs each individual it comes across.

what military and branch were you a grunt in that they trained you so poorly so as to think this kind of crap?

which is why you had to increasingly try to come up with bizzare "well if there were no guns and it was all edged weapons and the individual warrior had trained for 20 years and was against a small unit that the warrior was allowed to attack in a jungle environment...." etc. :roll: as though that had any resemblance to modern combat.


Still can't change history bro. Once again you forget when the breadkdown of an Army takes place it is every man for themselves. As to Special Forces and Rangers.....yes I know. But now you are talking about Warrior/Soldiers The Elites. Not a regular grunt. Again you talking semantics. Not to mention you cannot get around the Israelis and S Koreans who have been doing so with women for years. Kinda blows that theory of yours out of the water about cohesion and distractions.

Not to mention I was warring long time before I joined Uncle Sam's Gang. So I know all about a different type of soldier mentality. The difference was with the time. Back in the day no child could just run around and grab some sword or weapon and start weilding it or using it on others. In todays day and age, any 6yr old kid can pick up a gun and start shooting people with it.

Women back then trained just as hard as men who fought in battle. Some were shield-mates to their husbands. One woman would lead thousands of warriors and gain a Throne.

Click to expand...

when the breakdown of the army occurs,then next highest ranking takes his place,if you sqyad goes to combat with a LT and one e-5 and both die and the rest are privates,the first person to raise their hand and accept responsibility takes charge.

when i was in afghanistan i was demoted to e-1 after i got e-2 back i was put incharge of a maintanance squad because i was the most experienced,and the other squads got jealous an e-2 was outperforming everyone with a aquad of extra duty e-1 soldiers vs specialists and sergeants.

point is the army has a leadership plan all the way down till every last person is dead.

MMC said:

Still can't change history bro. Once again you forget when the breadkdown of an Army takes place it is every man for themselves. As to Special Forces and Rangers.....yes I know. But now you are talking about Warrior/Soldiers The Elites. Not a regular grunt. Again you talking semantics. Not to mention you cannot get around the Israelis and S Koreans who have been doing so with women for years. Kinda blows that theory of yours out of the water about cohesion and distractions.

Click to expand...

What part of "the Israelis pulled women out of combat and said it was a mistake" are you not understanding? The Russians also followed suit. Then the best laugh is you want to use North Korea as an example? The same country that is starving it's own people?

MMC said:

Not to mention I was warring long time before I joined Uncle Sam's Gang. So I know all about a different type of soldier mentality. The difference was with the time. Back in the day no child could just run around and grab some sword or weapon and start weilding it or using it on others. In todays day and age, any 6yr old kid can pick up a gun and start shooting people with it.

Click to expand...

You were "warring?" Is that even a word? And what the hell does a 6 year old picking up a gun have to do with anything? That is just insane disconnected rambling.

MMC said:

Women back then trained just as hard as men who fought in battle. Some were shield-mates to their husbands.

Click to expand...

"A shieldmaiden was a woman who had chosen to fight as a warrior in Scandinavian folklore and mythology." - Shieldmaiden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia :lol: :lol:

MMC said:

One woman would lead thousands of warriors and gain a Throne.

Click to expand...

You mean Joan of Arc? Who carried a banner into battle on horseback rather than a sword because she did not want to hurt anyone? They were inspired by her because they thought she was a saint. Not because she was a warrior or soldier.

You are going to have to do way better than that.

Blackdog said:

Scientific evidence from 3 different Western Country's study's say the vast majority of women are not physically up to being in ground combat units. The Russians and Israelis both pulled females out of combat units after using them. Israel went even farther and called it a mistake in the first place. So who is grasping at straws?

Click to expand...

The Russians never had coed units. They fielded all female units.

MMC said:

well disciplined units have consistently destroyed forces made up of "warriors". even when significantly outnumbered - because at the point of impact the team always outweighs each individual it comes across.

what military and branch were you a grunt in that they trained you so poorly so as to think this kind of crap?

Click to expand...

I would love to know what unit you served in that makes you some kind of expert.

Still can't change history bro. Once again you forget when the breadkdown of an Army takes place it is every man for themselves. As to Special Forces and Rangers.....yes I know. But now you are talking about Warrior/Soldiers The Elites. Not a regular grunt. Again you talking semantics. Not to mention you cannot get around the Israelis and S Koreans who have been doing so with women for years. Kinda blows that theory of yours out of the water about cohesion and distractions.

Not to mention I was warring long time before I joined Uncle Sam's Gang. So I know all about a different type of soldier mentality. The difference was with the time. Back in the day no child could just run around and grab some sword or weapon and start weilding it or using it on others. In todays day and age, any 6yr old kid can pick up a gun and start shooting people with it.

Women back then trained just as hard as men who fought in battle. Some were shield-mates to their husbands. One woman would lead thousands of warriors and gain a Throne.

Click to expand...

Elite units and regular line units have the same organization and rely on discipline and unit cohesion the same way.

apdst said:

The Russians never had coed units. They fielded all female units.

Click to expand...

So what? Has nothing at all to do with my comments or the evidence. In the end they also quickly removed them from combat duty as soon as they could as did the Israelis.

apdst said:

I would love to know what unit you served in that makes you some kind of expert.

Click to expand...

actually you were quoting me, there, MMC claimed he was a "grunt", which surprised me since his descriptions of combat thus far indicate someone with approximately zero practical experience either in wartime or in training of what "combat" looks like. It does sound like what people who play first-person-shooters and watch sci-fi channel shows where the obligatory "female security character" can flip 200+ lb bad guys around because she's such a bada-- think combat is like.

Elite units and regular line units have the same organization and rely on discipline and unit cohesion the same way.

Click to expand...

indeed - even more so.