Women in combat

>ourguy.png
LEVANTINES AREN'T ARAB WE LEVANTINES STRONK LEVANTINES WILL ALWAYS BE BETTER THAN ARABS CHECK THOSE HAPLOS HURR DURR

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violette_Szabo

Well kurdish women constitutes a solid fighting force right now desu.

>>3186470
actually they are used for policing duty and not for front line duty.

>>3186500
There's footage of them acting as snipers literally in combat

>>3186521
>he fell for the obvious propaganda memes
/ourguy/ would be disappointed desu

>>3186263

I'm not trying to start a flame war, I was curious about OPs question so started looking up if there were any women on the frontline in Afghanistan.

This article claims that they do

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1204-lemmon-women-combat-20151204-story.html

>>3186500
No. Some units actively fight IS, and are very efficient at it, since those fuckers believe getting killed by a woman brings great shame in the after-life.
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Protection_Units

>>3186548

>getting killed by a woman brings great shame in the after-life.

People keep saying this, but I have yet to see any evidence of it?

>>3186568
I know I'm linking reddit but this is like to google result and it answers your question

https://www.reddit.com/r/islam/comments/2e6b3r/whats_behind_the_belief_that_getting_killed_by_a/

>>3186587

reddit is not a source you faggot

>>3186597
Yeah except I'm not using it as a source. Read what it says, he links to the originator of the claim, it was a female kurd fighter interviewed by WSJ, there was never a real source to being with.

>>3186629
So its all just bullshit made up to make women look strong, got it

>wants proof women can fight in battle
>doesn't let them fight in battle
Good argument.
It wouldn't even be that hard to implement, just apply the same training standard to female recruits. Obviously the end result is going to be less women than men because the average woman is weaker than the average man, but that doesn't mean all women are weaker than all men.

>>3186263
Dahomey used to field a contingent of amazons.
They were very harshly trained and pretty much brainwashed into being bloodthirsty religious extremists (they were pretty much military nuns, only the king could fuck them) and received the very best equipment.
Both brits and french (the ffl anyway) fought against them, and apparently the legionnaires were quite impressed by what they saw.

There was a female soviet sniper credited with 309 kills. Making her one of the best and THE best female sniper of all time.

Granted it was in an area known for Romanian deployments so it wasnt the most impressive but pound for pound she pulled her weight.

She's obviously the outlier in history but if 1 out of a 1000 women can be a decent to good soldier, utilize them.

>>3186661
>being retarded
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3308795/Women-Army-s-Ranger-School-fail-physical-assessment-period-cut-course.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2301717/Female-marines-fail-complete-grueling-officer-training-course.html

>>3186684
>if 1 out of a 1000 women can be a decent to good soldier, utilize them
That's actually really inefficient, unless you both can identify the outliers BEFORE investing resources into their training AND they are willing to fight for you. In a complete mobilization scenario it might be worth it, but not otherwise.

>>3186661
>just apply the same training standard to female recruits
You pretty much can't. Women have different attributes and needs that make them both more expensive inherently and less effective on average.

>>3186689
Wow, 100% of all 7 women failed training. Must mean all 150 million in the US are too weak, huh?

If you're face with Total War and an existential threat then women soldiers are useful to have.

You could put them in rear echelon duty. This lets you rotate to the urgent and important fronts better troops while still dealing with necessary but less important tasks.

A few talented ones can be rotated to the frontlines where necessary. In a truly desperate scenario women can defend a hardpoint indefinitely. It's even somewhat a morale booster for your troops and a demotivater to the enemy to see your women killing a horde of invaders like in Kobane (even if the situation was exaggerated)

>>3186706
>7 women that were already in the military and therefore stronger than the average
>all of them fail
Yes, most likely the rest of women in the united states of lard wouldn't make it either.

>>3186706
Those were the 7 who wanted to train.
Unless you want to make military service mandatory, that's the quality level you have to work with.

You don't even need to be physically strong in modern combat.
Strong enough to hold a gun steady and big enough balls to fight people willing to blow themselves up is all you need.

Men still have an advantage, of course. More strength and more endurance are always better.

>>3186720
>>3186724
So just because 7 of them failed, women should be barred from the training program?

>>3186726
>You don't even need to be physically strong in modern combat.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. The average rifle platoon soldier's load is 91 pounds, and quite higher for machine gunners, radio operators and snipers.
Soldiering is fucking grueling.

>>3186738
Every failure is a waste of resources. Should they get a chance just to make them feel good?

>>3186757
No, they should get the chance to because they pass the same screening requirements men have to. I don't know the washout rate for these programs so I can't say for certain, but with this few women in the program it's very likely you'll have all 2 or 5 fail the program.

>>3186738
Do you really want to see women get raped and beheaded by the IS? Is America ready for that?
Why do women have to be in combat anyways?

>>3186810
>he's out of arguments so he just changed the subject

>>3186782
I don't think you understand how bad they failed. They didn't even make it through 20% of the program.
And I don't think you understand how basic the stuff they're doing is: ranger tab is basically a mandatory requirement for infantry officers to get promoted, with a fucking gigantic waiting list of candidates who passed screening. They're not failing to become badass special operatives, they're failing something male officers go through to not get passed over.

>>3186757
ME STRONK ME NO THINK ME SOLDIER
USA USA USA

In a real war these things aren't THAT important. Talking more about the Kurdish female fighters, not about American women trying to get welfare money in the army.

>>3186835
>In a real war these things aren't THAT important.
Right. I mean, who needs anything bast a few homemade explosives and a rickety AK? If it works for african civil wars, it should be the standard for everyone else.

>>3186830
Obviously every failure was taking the space of someone who would have passed the test. Unless you can come up with a better screening system, you're going to get failures in the program. I get that being a woman could actually be one of those signs of failure, but a sample size of 2 people is not enough to judge.

Also just as a side question, is Ranger school really required for officers? It feels like there would hardly be an officer corps if that was the case.

>>3186876
>is Ranger school really required for officers
It's not strictly speaking required, but when most of your peers go through with it and half your class gets cut by the time you make major, what do you think your chances are if you don't make it through?
Also I'm talking infantry here. Other specialties have their fair share of officers going through ranger school too, but it's not that necessary for them.

>>3186830
>They didn't even make it through 20% of the program.
Holy fuck and that's just ranger school? Not even rasp?

File: batallion-04.jpg (56KB, 700x400px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 700x400px

>>3186263
what do you got against Battalions of Death?

>>3186876

You don't know what you're talking about. Shut up.

The top 10% of women have muscular strength of the bottom 10% of men. Which means 90% of women are weaker than virtually all men.

>Unless you can come up with a better screening system, you're going to get failures in the program.

What crack are you smoking? You don't want someone weaker, than the weakest dude in your division, to be responsible for lugging essential equipment.

>>3186263
Yes. For most of history women were largely excluded from military service, although that did not prevent some women from pretending to be men and fighting in numerous conflict.

The best examples are probably relatively modern paramilitaries like the Sandanistas, the Tamil Tigers, ZAPU fighters, or the current YPJ in Syria. All of these forces had women, and all were valuable and effective fighting forces.

>>3186919
The 20% part was about the marines. The women in the article failed to make it past ranger physical assessment, which is the first four days out of 2 months minimum of training I think? Don't quote me on the numbers. The point is they didn't even come close.

>>3186876
>is Ranger school really required for officers
90% of senior infantry officers are ranger qualified. It's pretty much mandatory for careerists.

Difficulties of introducing women into combat units, or actual introducing them as combat MOS holders run from social, logistical, emotional, and disciplinary. These difficulties are on both sides of the gender barrier and are all logical arguments. These statements are hierarchical in nature and build off each other.

>>3186965

Physical: The most obvious and blatant failing, the fact is is that most women do not have the physical capacity to perform the tasks that are dictated to infantrymen. This is not a macho he-man and the masters of the universe statement, but a fact of anatomy and biology. Women are not physically the same as men, and men are not the same as women, obfuscation of the fact is silly. Furthermore, while women who can meet the physical requirements held to combat arms, they are the slim minority, and not enough to justify introduction at the expense of the other reasons I will list.

Social: Society doesn't value the idea of women in combat, only a minority does, furthermore the pervasive jest in feminism ideas is that while women should be allowed to participate in the events that men do, they should be allowed to do so on modified standards when difficulties encounter them This can not exist in an Infantry unit, an element of any size must be able to operate in any environment and complete tasks in that environment to a set standard and condition. Exceptions cannot be made in austere and hostile environments for societal norms such as separate toilet and bathing facilities, living quarters, and other expected necessities. This is as much of A problem with the current feminist push as it is with the majority of the advocates for the advance of the Female Gender in Combat Arms who would expect societal standards to be observed where they cannot.

>>3186969

Logistical: For as trite and simple as it may sound, the logistics of providing for Female's in combat complicates what is already a nightmare in the combat supply system. Adding additional requirements to the medical and supply system in a combat zone is a challenge that the armed forces no not need. Combat units often operate in situations where the benefits of a large garrison are not available. Simple things often encountered in combat situations such as Undernourishment and poor hygiene, turn into medical emergencies such as anemia and yeast infections. Combined with the fact that these medical conditions may arise in an environment where medical services are limited to combat trauma management and evacuation, the additional strain on logistics to serve a minority is unneeded and unnecessary.

Disciplinary: Owing problems equally to both sides, the introduction of women into combat units is a strain on what is already a difficult to manage situation for NCO's and Officers. Men and women both submit to biological drives and to ask people to ignore them is unreasonable. And while a prohibitionist and segregationist like attitude towards this situation is Draconian, it is the only one that has presented itself yet. Once again, both sexes are to blame for this failing, but it is a failing that forced integration will not work out. Resentment for real or perceived favoritism, not being subject to the same rules, real or perceived sexual harassment have all been demonstrated in integrated non combat units, and a constant burden to discipline. A common counter to this argument is the race desegregation of the armed forces in the 40's and 50's, however Black men are not subject to the above arguments, and as such do not present a level playing field to counter this facet of sex integration.

>>3186926
>Battalions of Death
Russian meme unit

>>3186263
>Is there even one documented case in all of history where women were a valuable fighting force?
Many. The issue is not so much "can they perform", as much as it is "given that on average they perform worse, do we really need so many troops as to warrant fielding them".

Mexican Civil War had a decent number of women fighters.

>>3186824
>hurrdurr why won't they give women the same training
>get proven wrong because women received the same training but got btfo
>claim #NOTALLWOMEN
you are stupid even for 4chan standards

>>3186971
>>3186969
>>3186965
Nice. Is this OC?

>>3186863
That is why I literally said in the next sentence that my statement applies primarily for non-regular armies. Only thing you had to do was read a few more words. Women can control checkpoints, use a sniper rifle, drive a car and so on.

Though it doesn't really matter. The American army is a joke anyway. It's a force vastly superior to any other army, blown completely out of proportions. Yet they are unable to really win any war, simply because you don't need 11 aircraft carriers but a lot of people willing to die. But every time a single soldier dies all Americans start to wail and a million facebook posts are made by proud patriots.
The American army could have never liberated mosul. (Destroyed the entire city, yes, but that is not liberating).

>>3186997
>That is why I literally said in the next sentence that my statement applies primarily for non-regular armies.
So your statement doesn't apply to 'real war', only to civil insurgencies. Good job self destroying here m8.

>>3186988
>claims he "proved" anything
>ignores all counterarguments

>>3186997
>Though it doesn't really matter. The American army is a joke anyway. It's a force vastly superior to any other army, blown completely out of proportions. Yet they are unable to really win any war, simply because you don't need 11 aircraft carriers but a lot of people willing to die. But every time a single soldier dies all Americans start to wail and a million facebook posts are made by proud patriots.
The American army could have never liberated mosul. (Destroyed the entire city, yes, but that is not liberating).
That's a pretty unfair statement. Would you really classify police actions like Vietnam and Iraq as genuine "wars"? Neither one was undertaken to combat an existential threat to the US, or even to gain any immediate economic benefit for the country. Also, in both cases Americans were willing to support the wars and the casualties that came with them for a while, until they realized that they were pointless and only happened to enrich the military-industrial complex.

If North Korea were to nuke California tomorrow, millions of Americans would gladly die to conquer them. Same with Russia, Iran, or any other genuine enemy. We just don't want to be a tool for Lockheed Martin's balance sheet.

File: sluts.png (902KB, 1024x765px) Image search: [Google]

902KB, 1024x765px

Israel tried putting women into combat and it didn't work.
So now their women soldiers do what all women do: take selfies and suck dick.

>>3186782
>No, they should get the chance to because they pass the same screening requirements men have to.
But they don't. Requirements to pass military tests for women are far lower fir women.

>>3187104
I said this in another post, but obviously it won't be 50/50 because women are on average weaker than men. However, that doesn't mean every woman is weaker than every man.

Modern combat is more conducive to female soldiers than ever.
Granted, pt standards not be relaxed, but women can be hard core.
Especially as they generally present a smaller target, are not inferior marksmen, kill more easily than men and many women can match the fitness standards of the average infantryman. They don't need boxes of tampons, hormone implants can be given before deployment and otherwise there is no additional logistical burden to women.
The idea they affect levels of discipline is also retarded, as many actual female /mixed fighting force can attest, and the historical examples of closeted gay men can also attest. And even if many women cannot meet frontline standards, most personnel are not frontline soldiers, talented women free up fit men from tasks they cannot leverage their physical strength doing.
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=70893
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko

>>3187135
On the other hand, every woman causes logistical and disciplinary problems that men don't. So unless their performance is so much better it balances that disadvantage out, what's the point of letting women in?

>>3187009
>real wars
>2017

>>3187033
>only happened to enrich the military-industrial complex
Yea, but those 11 aircraft carriers are totally just for self defense and not because some people make big money with it.

I'm sure you a lot of Americans would gladly follow Trumps calls to invade Iran or Russia, until you realize that you are not allowed to shoot everyone and that war is not as easy as posting on Facebook with your flag as a background. You would invade, have initial success, then you would grow weary, support would stop, the cost of operating your highly advanced, huge military would be immense, your already large debt would grow even larger, you would shitpost about the Jews and how you're only in this war because of the military-industrial complex.

>>3187154
Yeah women are much better soldiers!
Men are useless!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1jCOkyuzCs

>>3187187
>pugile sticks
Holy shit, Anon. You completely recked us with your crazy arguments. You not only proofed beyond any doubt that men are superior soldiers and that women are completely unfit to serve, you also made us look like complete fools. Thank you for sharing your insight into this difficult subject, can we contact you in case we have more questions regarding other situations in life? I know, a man like you must be busy, but still, we could learn so much from your vast knowledge.

God bless you, Anon.
USA USA USA

File: pata.png (280KB, 321x777px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 321x777px

>>3186263
Joan of Arc
She humiliated England to many tiomes to count

>>3187200
t. angry feminist

>>3186965
>>3186969
>>3186971
This, even when in dire need of manpower commanders would choose to conscript old men and young boys over healthy adult women.

Even if you could ignore all of those issues, why would you send the ones that give birth to and take care of the future generation into harm's way?

>>3187211
>why would you send the ones that give birth to and take care of the future generation into harm's way
Because the enemy has sworn to kill them all anyway if you lose.
At least that's the kurds' rationale.

>>3187227
>muh kurds
fuck off with your meme kurds, they have been disproven already

>>3187154
>kill more easily than men
Lmao what? They have lower tolerances for violence and get PTSD more often.

>>3186726
Except modern soldiers carry more weight than ancient ones.

even if the best soldier in the world was a woman she would be more effective in following her natural role of providing the state with more soldiers than fighting herself
there is no reason whatsoever to have women fighting even if they were physically superior to men since they are the ones who bear children which means that every woman lost on the battlefield means the loss of potential recruits
while the same doesnt apply to men because the potential amount of new recruits is bottlenecked by the amount of women

>>3186263
There were women in combat but were literally always inferior to men. Any time they get mentioned in primary sources it's because they're seen as a hilarious novelty and not something normal.
Women in combat are similar to women in sports by the way, there's people who pretend they're equal to men, but considering even an average unathletic dude can beat female college players in basketball, you know that's not really honest.

>>3186263
No, they're just usually better than nothing.

>>3187154
>kill more easily than men

???

File: 1377777435802.jpg (11KB, 224x225px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 224x225px

>>3187154

>>3186661
The problem is that women are more prone to injuries than males are; In total war, it probably wouldn't matter too much, because we'd need every body we could possibly throw into combat anyways, but otherwise its just inefficient to have them in combat units.

>>3187601
>The problem is that women are more prone to injuries than males are
how about you take your sexist attitude and stuff it?

File: basic training female.webm (3MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 320x240px

>>3188101
If sexism saves lives, I'll gladly take it.

File: W E A K L I N G.png (646KB, 1050x1050px) Image search: [Google]

646KB, 1050x1050px

>>3187200

What is sexual dimorphism

>>3188101
He's right. It's a fucking biological fact, retard.

>>3188133
Thats not how you do things in 2017
Now we prefer women even if it kills you

>>3186277
This is true though. I'm Levantine and there isn't a single thing Arab about me. In fact, there has been no bigger parasite which has affected me than Arabs.

I don't get it. Why do people insist so much that women have to be equally good at physical aspects of war or better than males to be part of the force?

Even children can fire guns. A bullet shot by a woman is as deadly as that shot by a man and therefore an asset.

>>3190865
The point is that most of the work that modern soldiers do isn't shooting, it's moving from A to B while transporting heavy weights. Also, if you have a mixed platoon, transporting wounded people becomes an issue because weight differences are compounded by sex differences.

>>3190873
Would you kick out an athletic woman for a fatso male?

Why not just tie whether someone can serve to actual capabilities, rather than gender?

>>3190876
Look, we've already seen that "just use the same standards for men and women" doesn't work because too many women fail it, what happens is the get some fuckin lawyer to write a bullshit reason why the standards are bad, so they get lowered and quality goes down.
Even setting aside this issue: you have to organize a bunch of units in a different way just to have a bunch more soldiers. It's just a waste of money.

>>3190884
But ur being sexist af rn

>>3190884
>Look, we've already seen that "just use the same standards for men and women" doesn't work because too many women fail it,
Are you saying that it's inherently impossible for a society to have fair testing standards or are you just saying that they don't exist now?

If it's the latter, then you should try fixing your institutions and then allow it, especially if your institutions are of such low quality that an a judgement isn't reflecting justice and is "just bullshit".

Also, do you have any cross-national, longitudinal statistic backing up your claim?

>>3190895
I know, I am very sexist.

>>3190902
I'm not saying it is necessarily impossible for a society to have and maintain equal standards for men and women, of course not, I can conceive of a society like that therefore it's logically possible. But, given the currently climate of progressivism and disdain for standards, I highly doubt that those equal standards would last for more than a few years.

>>3186263
OP, think further. There is an active role as well as a passive role in war. The active part is fighting, the passive part is all the work done to make war possible, for example to gain weapons and ammo, to repair, to cook, to clean and most important to transport all these goods as well as gathering information and maybe organise some form of propaganda. in post-medieval times an army always was accompanied by a tross, constituting of families, merchants, prostitutes, and so on. This tross made it possible to sustain an army. In guerilla warfare it is the same for example, but maybe women have in this case a more important role, because if no one supplies an army, there is no army and no war. Women have always played an important role in fighting, just not at the front.

>>3190973
>where women have been a valuable fighting force
>drones on about how women are important in support roles
That's nice dear but maybe you should learn to read first.

>>3191022
if women would stop supporting and do nothing instead, there would often have been no fighting force. if you are for example in the army and you do logistics, do you fight? no. but don't you wear the same uniform as the soldiers on the front? you do, because you are in the army. you have stop looking at war with your narrow view concentrated on the soldiers on the front, because things in the background are important as well if not more important. there's plenty of evidence in history for that. (napoleon's russian invasion for example) my point is that either you fight on front or do work to support people on the front, you are a fighting force. for the simple reason that you also participate in war, but not actively. Maybe you are too proud and alpha-tier to recognise, but this support work was/is often done by women.

>>3191551
No roastie, women are shit when it comes to fighting. Now fuck off

>>3191710
haha, no arguments?

Scythian women would help in fighting with the tribe until they became pregnant and became full time mothers. That's about the only instance of women taking a regular and serious role in combat I can recall historically.

>>3191551
semantics. OP is clearly talking about actual combat roles. no one disagrees that women make a fine addition to support roles in the military.

>>3191551
That still doesn't invalidate the argument that men handle logistics far better simply by having more strength to carry shit around. Men load and unload logistics vehicles faster. The only useful part of the army in which women can be useful is, funnily enough, the kitchen.

>>3190902
>Are you saying that it's inherently impossible for a society to have fair testing standards or are you just saying that they don't exist now?
First they were fair. One set of standards for both genders. Then they got lowered for women because hardly anyone of them passed. People found this "sexist" so now units get people in them that perform worse than the guy who barely passes the men's standards.

>>3188101
Goddammit he is right you know

Women don´t have fighting body as men do, they need to enter in combat more progressively and they usually cannot sustain in more extreme situations...

Testosterone helps a lot in cases where the body needs to keep shooting adrenaline up in your blood, women usually have higher cortisol levels as well in stress situations.

Women usually have problems in their bones usually after 5 or more years working in the army, while men take a lot more...

In a total war it does not make sense recruit women, as they cost more to train, more to maintain, are more likely to get some disease because can´t handle the weight or simply recoil of weapons, and are not as nearly as effective then men...

Rarely in modern days the problem is the lack of able fighting men, so it does not make any kind of sense...

Even because there are several cases of men acting stupid to save women in the army, where they lose their lives to save WAmen.

If you are not taking actual science in consideration and the REAL dimorphism in account you are not even worth of debating military strategies.

Take your social studies elsewhere.

>>3189123
>that one 35 year old manlet
topkek

WE WUZ WARRIORS N WOMEN N HOMETOWN BUFFET N SHIIIIIIIIIII

>>3192563
>demands to "take actual science in account"
>doesn't cite any
>categorically excludes a whole field of study that is relevant

>>3186810
If we're cool with some people signing up and getting beheaded, it'd be against our values of equality and liberty to prevent another grouup from doing the same.

>>3192563
I don't think you catch a disease because your gun kicks back very hard

>>3186263
>give me examples of women in combat
Well there were the Soviets
>doesn't count, meme
and the Kurds
>doesn't count, propaganda
and some Americans
>doesn't count, some failed a test
Well what about Scythians, Mexicans, Joan of Arc, etc.?
>no response, i.e. can't think of any reason to discredit them but doesn't want to give up his belief that women are inferior fighters

What are you really after here, OP? Somebody to give you a (You) and tell you that you're right, dumb roasties never had a chance?

File: kurds kek.jpg (180KB, 834x500px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 834x500px

>Kurdish female fighters
Literally a meme

>>3186263
No, there have been cases of female leaders filling roles behind the lines but in actual physical combat, largely no.

Even with the female units of the YPG, the manner of warfare they are engaging in mostly long range. Most attempts of integrating female fighters has ended in complete disaster.

>>3192915
>Well there were the Soviets
Propoganda actually, "muh snipers" or not"muh pilots" was just propoganda
The female units that fought for the Tsar were also a disaster
>Kurds
Again, mostly propoganda Kurdish female fighters only engage in long range combat or support roles and their effectiveness is dubious
>Some Americans
If someone could post the story of the female veteran who participated in combat roles largely saying that women don't belong in combat roles, that would be nice. It's a meme.
>More memes
Why not include Viking shield bearer myths as well?
>Joan of Arc
All she did was ride into combat waving a banner around, she didn't kill anyone and it's debated among historians whether she was a strategist for the military at all.

>>3186568
>>3186587
>religious basis
It's literally just a childish "girls have cooties"-tier meme

>>3193003
You can't even spell the word propaganda, what makes you think anyone's going to take your retard simplifications of the most important front in the most important war in human history seriously?

have you ever even shot a firearm in your life?

>>3193067
Have you?

>>3193067
>I see you made a spelling error
>Do you even shoot brah?
Kek wtf kind of comment is this?

Do Swiss conscript women too? Or is the "entire population" meme only meaning "entire male population"

childbirth used to be extremely sangerous so it wasnt fair to put a woman through warfare when she already has to risk dying having a kid. You were more likely to die in childbirth as a woman than die on a battlefield as a man. Ancient armies might lose 10% of their men in a battle and that would be considered a huge loss, so really thats like a 10% chance of dying in a battle, usually far less. Meanwhile female mortality rates for birth could be as high as 40% in ancient times, so it just wasnt fair until very recently since birth has become far less risky for mothers.

Horse tribes are the big exception, since horsearchers are even less likely to die than footsoldiers considering they can just gallop away when the fighting gets too intense, so having women as light skirmishers works since theyre unlikely to be captured or killed. You certainly didnt see them using lances, a bow is the closest a woman will come to participating in an ancient battle.

P.S. germans had their women screaming behind the men to discourage them from fleeing, since their women were right there with their boobs hanging out letting them know that theyd be raped if the men ran away.

>>3191916
Most likely a greek meme

>>3186263
Russian snipers and Russian pilots both contributed during world war 2

>>3195581
>Russia participated in WW2
I don't believe you