# Female Vostroyan Firstborns



## Beaviz81 (Feb 24, 2012)

What happens to the female Firstborns of Vostroya? Do they serve in some aspect in the Vostroyan Firstborn regiments? Or is the factory-line good enough for them?


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

I can't really see why they wouldn't be allowed to serve, it's not like SM's.


----------



## Beaviz81 (Feb 24, 2012)

I have speculated that they might be medics, but they are the equivalent of the Tsarist-Russia in space, and that place wasn't known for womens' suffrage. Still it comes to mind that they might serve in the rear as less than 9% of the regiments contains females and most are just males on tours of duty.


----------



## daxxglax (Apr 24, 2010)

Patriarchal as Vostroyan society seems to be, I don't think they'd really discriminate. Though they have their own recruitment customs peculiar to them, they still have to meet recruitment quotas. There's an image in the _Only War_ sourcebook depicting a Vostroyan woman in full combat dress, as a medic. I don't think they would be exclusively medics either, considering IG medics are often attached to command squads, and are in just as much danger as other officers.


----------



## Tyrannus (Sep 19, 2010)

I would think female Vostroyans would be a rarity. Even though they say "Firstborn" it's actually the eldest son of every family, so I'd think if a daughter is the family's firstborn she'd be exempt. 

Of course there would probably be occasional exemptions, like if there was a mass recruitment drive for a crusade or something and there aren't enough men or maybe a family only has daughters but still need to pay their tithe (or whatever they call giving your child up for consciption).


----------



## locustgate (Dec 6, 2009)

Beaviz81 said:


> What happens to the female Firstborns of Vostroya? Do they serve in some aspect in the Vostroyan Firstborn regiments? Or is the factory-line good enough for them?


In one of the IG books, about the vostroy, one of the mains was a female sapper, she said it's not mandatory for women to join the Firstborn but they aren't turned away.. I think it's Rebel Winter. Another one of the characters mentioned it's common for women to sleep with Firstborns before they are shipped off, 'in hopes that they will have a firstborn'.


----------



## Beaviz81 (Feb 24, 2012)

I have heard about groupies before. But not groupies who want to become pregnant with the guys they let fuck them. Hehehe. Grimdark-groupies.


----------



## locustgate (Dec 6, 2009)

Beaviz81 said:


> I have heard about groupies before. But not groupies who want to become pregnant with the guys they let fuck them. Hehehe. Grimdark-groupies.


It also said it was common for names not being exchanged and the woman being gone in the morning.


----------



## Beaviz81 (Feb 24, 2012)

Heard something similar about the hookers of Odessa, and I thought that was a bunch of lies told by some old sailors. Except they didn't try to get pregnant of course. At least not to my knowledge.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

If fan artwork is anything to go by, female Firstborn are given skimpy outfits.


----------



## Tawa (Jan 10, 2010)

Phoebus said:


> If fan artwork is anything to go by, female Firstborn are given skimpy outfits.


You mean like 90% of sci-fi women? :boredom:


----------



## locustgate (Dec 6, 2009)

Tawa said:


> You mean like 90% of sci-fi women? :boredom:


Don't you mean fantasy and sci-fi.


----------



## Tawa (Jan 10, 2010)

locustgate said:


> Don't you mean fantasy and sci-fi.


Eeh. good point....


----------



## Reaper45 (Jun 21, 2011)

locustgate said:


> Don't you mean fantasy and sci-fi.


And real life as well.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Reaper45 said:


> And real life as well.


and 99% of them simply shouldn't


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

locustgate said:


> In one of the IG books, about the vostroy, one of the mains was a female sapper, she said it's not mandatory for women to join the Firstborn but they aren't turned away.. I think it's Rebel Winter. Another one of the characters mentioned it's common for women to sleep with Firstborns before they are shipped off, 'in hopes that they will have a firstborn'.


That book was a complete abomination and I don't think anything in it should ever be taken seriously. I'd rather read UM or Draigo Fanwank for the rest of my life rather than even see that a copy steaming pile of desecated horseshit, let alone read it.


----------



## locustgate (Dec 6, 2009)

Jacobite said:


> That book was a complete abomination and I don't think anything in it should ever be taken seriously. I'd rather read UM or Draigo Fanwank for the rest of my life rather than even see that a copy steaming pile of desecated horseshit, let alone read it.


Soooo. You've never read it? How do you know it is all those things you say?


----------



## Beaviz81 (Feb 24, 2012)

It seems he read it, or at least a part of it. I mean I have read awful stuff and not bothered with finishing the book because I want to burn the book not after reading but as I read it and many of the 40k. books are worse than very bad fanfiction. And if a guy think something is worse than UM or Draigo fanwank then I respect his hatred of the matter as a berserk-button and avoids the issue since I don't personally want to intentionally set people off.


----------



## Tawa (Jan 10, 2010)

Jacobite said:


> That book was a complete abomination and I don't think anything in it should ever be taken seriously. I'd rather read UM or Draigo Fanwank for the rest of my life rather than even see that a copy steaming pile of desecated horseshit, let alone read it.


Not a fan then? :laugh:


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

Sorry read it again I mean. I read it couple of years ago. Gun heads is much better. Rebel Winter has no interesting characters, fuck all in the way of tension in the "story" and the action sequences read like a game of golf. 

So no, not a fan.


----------



## Romanov77 (Jan 27, 2013)

Vostroyan women stay were the Emperor intended: the refectoria.


----------



## Beaviz81 (Feb 24, 2012)

Romanov77 said:


> Vostroyan women stay were the Emperor intended: the refectoria.


Haha. Do you encourage women to wear shoes as well?


----------



## daxxglax (Apr 24, 2010)

Romanov77 said:


> Vostroyan women stay were the Emperor intended: the refectoria.


Wow, we made it two whole pages before someone trotted out the wheezing, emaciated husk of a "women in the kitchen" joke.

*Thanks for playing, everyone*


----------



## Beaviz81 (Feb 24, 2012)

daxxglax said:


> Wow, we made it two whole pages before someone trotted out the wheezing, emaciated husk of a "women in the kitchen" joke.
> 
> *Thanks for playing, everyone*


Bah show some humor and be glad someone didn't tell the squickier things in life for a Russian woman during tsarist-Russia.


----------



## Tawa (Jan 10, 2010)

Beaviz81 said:


> Bah show some humor and be glad someone didn't tell the squickier things in life for a Russian woman during tsarist-Russia.


Kitchen clean you....?


----------



## Ddraig Cymry (Dec 30, 2012)

I find it very hard to believe that they'd discriminate based on gender. I mean, a body is a body, and one of the Guard's biggest things is having more bodies than opponents have bullets. So yes, I believe women are treated equal in Vostroyan society, even if they can't grow those impressive mustaches.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Just to cut in, they probably don't have women in their regiments.

The IG codex states that the Firstborn regiments are made up first born _sons_. They put a lot of stock in the whole Firstborn title. I can't recall any non-firstborn soldiers (well, one, but he pretended to be his older brother in order to shelter his mentally handicapped brother from military service).

I think it's a rather exclusive club. There's too much honor in joining the IG.

In _Winter War_ (I think that's what it was called) there was a ferocious Voystran priest. He was one hell of a fighter, but since he was not a first born son, he could not join the actual ranks of the Firstborn.



Ddraig Cymry said:


> I mean, a body is a body, and one of the Guard's biggest things is having more bodies than opponents have bullets.


Yes, but more women at home mean more children. More children mean you can afford to send your first born son into war and fill out the factory quotas. 

Plus, as I said, the Firstborn regiments are rather exclusive.


----------



## Beaviz81 (Feb 24, 2012)

Under 9% of the IG is women. So it's not a far stretch thinking they are home with the recaffer wearing shoes and being preggy, and they are based on a society not known for women suffrage with tsarist-Russia.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Beaviz81 said:


> Under 9% of the IG is women.


Source?


----------



## Beaviz81 (Feb 24, 2012)

For the Emperor. It was under 10% not 9%.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

I glanced through my copy and I can't find it. Could I get a page number, please?


----------



## Beaviz81 (Feb 24, 2012)

Chapter 3, page 66.


----------



## Chryckan (Jul 17, 2013)

Romanov77 said:


> Vostroyan women stay were the Emperor intended: the refectoria.


 Not to split hairs but a refectoria is a mess hall or eating hall. (Means a place to restore oneself in Latin.) So basically you're saying that women should be waitresses. Sexist yes but not the same punch as telling them to stay in the kitchen.

Despite the image in Only War I can't really see women in Vostroyan regiments as the fluff clearly states first born _sons _which in turn fits the Judea-Christian theme of penitence the Vostroyan back story is built on.


As for women serving in the guard in general there is really no reason why most regiments would not consist of equal parts women and men. 
Besides the inherent patriarchal attitudes in our society the only real reason why women are to be kept from front line service is the fear of them being raped if captured.
Now considering the type of enemies the Guard are up against that should no longer be a concern. Unless the foe happens to be DE or Slaanesh worshipers but then in those cases just having a body with orifices puts you at risk. :grin:

Sadly, the real reason we don't see more women in IG is because little Timmy thinks girls are yuky and doesn't want to play with dolls.


----------



## locustgate (Dec 6, 2009)

Chryckan said:


> Not to split hairs but a refectoria is a mess hall or eating hall. (Means a place to restore oneself in Latin.) So basically you're saying that women should be waitresses. Sexist yes but not the same punch as telling them to stay in the kitchen.
> 
> Despite the image in Only War I can't really see women in Vostroyan regiments as the fluff clearly states first born _sons _which in turn fits the Judea-Christian theme of penitence the Vostroyan back story is built on.
> 
> ...


Last I read 5th ed, the Firstborn sons of Vostroy MUST join, it said nothing about volunteers.

Edit: Like others say I can't imagine any IG turning away a trooper.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Beaviz81 said:


> Chapter 3, page 66.


My copy seems numbered differently. Could I get a quotation, please?


----------



## Beaviz81 (Feb 24, 2012)

hailene said:


> My copy seems numbered differently. Could I get a quotation, please?


Damn you I was on page 330. One second.


----------



## Beaviz81 (Feb 24, 2012)

Amberley Veil: It was hardly unprecedented for men and women to serve together in the Imperial Guard. Notable units which this was the norm included the Omicon Rangers, Tanith First, and Calderon Rifles. However, with women making up fewer than ten percent of the total numbers under arms, and the vast majority of these serving in single-sex regiments, it wouldn't be that surprising if the 597th excited a certain amount of curiosityamong the onlookers present.

Beaviz81: Man do I hate write quotes, I must really be in a great mood today as I did just that.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Beaviz81 said:


> Beaviz81: Man do I hate write quotes, I must really be in a great mood today as I did just that.


Thanks for taking the time to write it out. Hrm, interesting.



Chryckan said:


> As for women serving in the guard in general there is really no reason why most regiments would not consist of equal parts women and men.


Contrary to popular belief, the IG is technically the cream of the PDF (usually). People have compared the IG's standard to today's special forces. It's hard to tell when you're fighting living-metal death machines, bio-engineered murder-forms, and 8 foot tall super-humans shooting automatic rocket launchers. 

So we can only assume that the best, both mentally and physically, fit are sent off to fight in the Guard.

Mixed regiments seem to be the exception and not the rule. So you gather the toughest, meanest group of soldiers together to fight. Men are genetically predisposed to being bigger and tougher, so you end up with regiments of men. This sets a precedent and, well...the Imperium loves precedents .

And to counter any counter-points about some women being tougher than most men, yes, this is true. But, again, exception to the rule. I'm dealing in incredibly broad strokes.


----------



## Beaviz81 (Feb 24, 2012)

Well hailene that's certainly the case at many planets. But at others, they just barely train them and send them along, which means the best and worst regiments have one thing in common. They are mixed regiments.


----------



## locustgate (Dec 6, 2009)

hailene said:


> Contrary to popular belief, the IG is technically the cream of the PDF (usually). People have compared the IG's standard to today's special forces. It's hard to tell when you're fighting living-metal death machines, bio-engineered murder-forms, and 8 foot tall super-humans shooting automatic rocket launchers.


I always thought of the Ig as a combination of the Army and Marines and the PDF as the Guard.

Edit: No offense.


----------



## Chryckan (Jul 17, 2013)

hailene said:


> Thanks for taking the time to write it out. Hrm, interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well if we're talking broad strokes then I'm amazed not all IG remgiments are made up of women seeing how women both have a higher threshold of pain and endurance compared to men, not to mention is generally more natural marksmen than men. 
I'd take expert marksmen that can go on fighting forever even when wounded over a bunch of heavy lifters any day. 

The truth is while you'll see a difference in physical feats between the sexes when it comes to high level sports the difference between a man and a woman in any other physical situation is negligible. 

Take fire fighters. The reasons there are so few female fire fighters has more to do that few women is interested in that kind of work than it have with any difficulty passing the physical tests. Those women that do apply generally have no problem passing the same tests as the men.

That women and men differ physically is a myth created by the patriarchy. While there are some differences between the sexes physically they are smaller than the differences between individuals of the same sex.

The reason there are no female seal team six members is because we live in a society that think girls should play with dolls, not guns. Not because women couldn't do the job.


----------



## locustgate (Dec 6, 2009)

Chryckan said:


> Stuff


Ok I'm sorry to say that humans are sexually dimorphic, like so many other species. I'm in no way shape or form saying women are inferior, hell both my oldest cousin and sister can still dislocate my shoulder/ kick my ass, my sister has become a master at resetting it too. 

Brief physical:
Women tend to be shorter than men.
Mammal males lack\ damn near non existant, at least in cows, pigs, horses, sheep, cats, dogs, goats, llamas, humans, and o/possums, the surge center in the hypothalamus, affecting hormone fluctuation and the whole endocrine system.
Center of gravity is different, i.e. chair experiment.
Hip\waist sizes are different.
Shoulder size
Middle 3 finger sizes.
Men tend to have more muscle mass.
Women tend to have weaker bones.
There is a reason why beef producers castrate their bulls and it's not cause they want them to sing soprano. 
The list goes on.



That being said I don't really see the point of gender rolls.

This is just the physical:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_human_physiology#Size.2C_weight_and_body_shape


----------



## Beaviz81 (Feb 24, 2012)

I always am a sucker for logic, locustgate proves the point with simple and brutal logic.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Chryckan said:


> The truth is while you'll see a difference in physical feats between the sexes when it comes to high level sports the difference between a man and a woman in any other physical situation is negligible.


Excuse me, but...what? You know there IS a reason why almost every sport is not mixed, right? There are definite physical differences between men and women. Pick any physically demanding activity and look at the world record.

I'll take some random bits from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world_records_in_athletics. Just looking at some random results...

100m, 200m, Marathon, Hammer throw, long jump, triple jump, 

Men/women: 9.58 s/10.49 s, 19.19 s/21.34, 2:03:38/2:15:25, 86.74m/79.42, 8.95m/7.52m, and 18.29m/15.5m, respectively. I'm sure if you look at almost any (if not every) record on the page, men will come out ahead.

And what about something that relies primarily on strength, like weight-lifting?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Olympic_records_in_weightlifting

Let's look at the open records:

Man/Woman
Snatch: 212/151
Clean & Jerk: 263/187
Total: 472/333
~~~~~~~~~~

There are clear physical differences between men and women. As a nationally competitive fencer, I will tell you that, as a rule of thumb, men are stronger and faster than women. This isn't an RPG where the world is a balanced and all players use a point buy system. Women aren't "smarter" or "more agile" to compensate for men being stronger and faster. 

Though I will admit women are more flexible, outright. But that's not so important in fencing.

You're living in another world if you believe men and women are physically equal.

That being said, women are by no means second-class citizens. They should enjoy every right a man possesses.

I also am not saying that women can not take part in the military. I believe they should be able to fight--even in combat units. I think they should be held to the exact same standards of a male soldier, though. 

But, really, I would be interested in seeing proof to the contrary. Everything I have observed in my years of training as a competitor and information I have seen on world records backs up my own opinion, but I very well may be wrong. So, please, enlighten me if you can.


----------



## NetherMessenger (Aug 6, 2011)

To disprove the idea that men and women are more equal physically outside of sports than is seen in sports, you roll out sports statistics?

Equally offtopic, did you guys know that the main Imperial Guard character in the Space Marine game is female? 2nd Lieutenant Mira.


----------



## locustgate (Dec 6, 2009)

NetherMessenger said:


> Equally offtopic, did you guys know that the main Imperial Guard character in the Space Marine game is female? 2nd Lieutenant Mira.


OMG THAT'S WHAT A FEMALE LOOKS LIKE!....They didn't really hide the fact that she was a she. I never noticed her lasgun looked different.


----------



## Chaplain-Grimaldus (Aug 4, 2013)

It's funny. All of you who are comparing female to male ability I wonder how many of you have actually fought in combat? And if any have how many alongside women?

Put it this way. If i wasn't on my way out already.

If they allowed women to join the infantry in mixed sex units, I would be leaving.

Women have a higher threshold or pain and endurance? Bull shit. I have had to take a female soldiers kit off her and carry it for her on around 7 seperate times and 3 different women. 

I had a male medic who had to go on every patrol because the other one was a chick and the med kit was to big for her.

Out of the 4 people I have seen break down, freeze or cry in combat 3 were women. When you think there are about 15-20 men to one woman what ratio does that show?

It makes things hard. I can be clearing a compound and my best buddie can get shot in front of me, I can stay focused and fixed, calm and finish clearing the place safely. If that was a girl I had been seeing the past X months then I'm not going to leave her am I and I'm certainly going to be emotionally compromised.


Think of all the little gossips and difficulties there are between guys and girls in offices and other work environments. Add to that a need, no, a necessity for an inviolable chain of command, extreme violence and combat.


Mixed units for real. Joke. Pure joke.

And don't even try and say people should be professional enough to not develop relationships like that. Bullshit, people are human.

My experience- 2 years in combat as an infantry commander, 8 years in the Army. Worked with women In combat a lot. I can think of one who didn't let me down, complicate matters or make things harder.

End of fire mission


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

All the stats and so forth presented to date really only show that in tests designed to highlight the strengths of Men, Men are better than Women.

No real surprise there.

In a similar fashion we say "Combat will be fought the way men fight it and women have to fit into that if they want to take part."

Rather than fitting the person to the situation we are fully able to engineer the situation to fit the person.


----------



## Chaplain-Grimaldus (Aug 4, 2013)

In counter point to my above post and to highlight what you said,

The top 37% of all Apache pilots and guided weapons pilots are women.

They do have a place in combat if they want it. The front line face to face isn't it. Not in a mixed unit anyway.

I can't begin to tell you some of the awesome things I have had female apache pilots and jet pilots do for me when I have been in the shit. 


Like. Fucking. Awesome.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

NetherMessenger said:


> To disprove the idea that men and women are more equal physically outside of sports than is seen in sports, you roll out sports statistics?


That was a mistake on my part. I misread his post.

Still, the stance that men are only physically more capable than women in sports is insane. Some of those sports are purely physical--like weight lifting or sprinting. I suppose you could argue that there is some mental component to long distance running, but the fact is that if you take almost any physical measurement of anything, a men will come out ahead, on the whole. The only thing I can think of off the top of my head that women have the advantage would be flexibility.

But, hey, if someone wants to make the argument that women are just as capable as men in things in most physical activities outside of sports--as if by designating an activity as a "sport" somehow makes women worse at it--feel free to do so.



Magpie_Oz said:


> Rather than fitting the person to the situation we are fully able to engineer the situation to fit the person.


That's an interesting point. Change the way war is fought, and the discrepancy can fade away. Or perhaps even go the other way.

I mean, we see a fair amount of women Princeps, after all. The physical body has little to nothing to do with commanding a Titan.


----------



## Chaplain-Grimaldus (Aug 4, 2013)

hailene said:


> I mean, we see a fair amount of women Princeps, after all. The physical body has little to nothing to do with commanding a Titan.


Or... An Apache gunship  (outside of eyesight of course)


----------



## locustgate (Dec 6, 2009)

Chaplain-Grimaldus said:


> Or... An Apache gunship  (outside of eyesight of course)


I don't think you would want to eye a princeps, she could crush you like........well..a human would crush something an ant would crush and then the thing that would crush. Not to mention most princeps kind of look like limbless pruned fetuses.


----------



## Chaplain-Grimaldus (Aug 4, 2013)

Lol, no as in physical attributes don't really matter other than eyesight. 

Eeeew eyeballing a princepes lol.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

hailene said:


> That's an interesting point. Change the way war is fought, and the discrepancy can fade away. Or perhaps even go the other way.
> 
> I mean, we see a fair amount of women Princeps, after all. The physical body has little to nothing to do with commanding a Titan.


I was actually thinking a little less technological than that.

Look at the case of the Vietnam War.

I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that the physical disparity between a Man and a Woman could be seen as being quite similar to the physical gulf between a 1960's GI and your average Viet Minh. 

In fact I think you could even suggest that a fit woman from a developed western culture would in fact be physically superior to your average Viet Minh. 

Yet that physical disparity played little role in the various match ups between the two forces, the Viet Minh were able to match their enemy on the battlefield and acquit themselves quite well, once they had side stepped the overwhelming firepower of the forces defending South Vietnam.


----------



## Chaplain-Grimaldus (Aug 4, 2013)

True but they fought as an insurgency carrying a weapon and a few mags. They fought, then ran.

Conventional soldiers carry a hell of a lot more. 
Plus one could argue that they aren't as "soft" as western women.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Chaplain-Grimaldus said:


> True but they fought as an insurgency carrying a weapon and a few mags. They fought, then ran.
> 
> Conventional soldiers carry a hell of a lot more.
> Plus one could argue that they aren't as "soft" as western women.


That's kinda my point, they played to their strengths. Conventional Soldiers carry more because that's the doctrine. What I am saying is change the doctrine.

Leading a harsh life does not make you stronger, nor does a well cared for life make you soft. Quite the opposite in fact. A person from the US will have developed better, will have stronger bones and be better nourished. Life expectancy in Vietnam in 1960 was 44 (disregarding war deaths) in the US it was 70. 

Remember I'm talking about a fit person here who takes advantage of what's available in a developed nation, not a couch potato.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Magpie_Oz said:


> Conventional Soldiers carry more because that's the doctrine. What I am saying is change the doctrine.


Let me start off by saying I personally know nothing of actual war. So tell me if I'm off base here, but I'm just going to use my common sense.

Let's say we change doctrine. We don't need people hauling 80 pounds of kit. We can make do with 30 pounds. Everyone can do that.

But what if...we had soldiers that *could* carry 80 pounds just as effectively as someone who could carry 30 pounds? Wouldn't that be awesome? We could so much more, right? We can either tailor the kit to be more effective at what it does, be able to achieve a greater variety of roles, or both, right? We don't have to even use the whole 80 pounds necessarily, that's just an _option_.

This is just my civilian talking, but I think to a certain point, being larger and stronger has its advantages with minimal disadvantages. I mean, I wouldn't want to be a 8 foot tall soldier (not unless I was packing enough armor to protect me from just about everything and something to help my poor joints), but I think the cons of being a 5'10 180 pound person outweighs the benefits of being a 5'6 155 pound person, assuming they are both in excellent shape.

And back to your Vietnamese comparison, yes, I will accept that the Viet Mihn proved to be effective (for various reasons). Okay...

But what if they _were_ bigger and stronger? Would they have been _more_ or _less_ effective? True, yes, they would have to have made their tunnels probably larger. And let's assume the rest of the Vietnamese people were of equal stature so the guerrillas could still hide amongst the villagers. 

I personally believe that if the Vietnamese soldiers were physically stronger, their ability to fight would have been better, all else (doctrine, kit, organization, ect) being the same.

Agree? Disagree?

I'll check up in the morning. I ought to be back in 8-9 hours. Talk to you soon, guys! (At least for me, it's just a quick coma .)


----------



## Chaplain-Grimaldus (Aug 4, 2013)

You can't radically change doctrine that much to accommodate for physical fragility. In order to be combat effective you need to be able to carry the minimum kit.

At the best of times going out with minimal kit a soldier is carrying about 55-60kg.

All that is,

Body armour plus helmet
Weapon
Ammunition
Water 
Bit of food
Some med kit
Radio.

Then divided around will be spare batteries, extra Ammo for machine guns. Grenades, secondary weapons. Stretchers, search kit. The list goes on and nothing taken is taken for no reason.

I can't find a single thing on that list I would not go out with.

The Viet Ming had to fight the way they did because they could not take the Americans in a straight up scrap. Because the Americans had more they they did, because they carried more!!!

At a basic ground roots level there it is.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

The point is it doesn't matter if they were bigger and stronger or not, they were what they were and they fought an extremely protracted and ultimately successful war against a foe that was considered superior by every conventional measure.

Combat is not about how much weight you carry, in fact extreme lengths have been gone to to reduce the weight born by soldiers. One of the principal reasons for adopting the Assault Rifle as the standard side arm is that the weapon and it's ammunition is lighter.

There is no particular reason that a taller and heavier person makes a better soldier than a smaller lighter person. 

By heavier person I am talking about "all up weight" so the 90kg person and their 40kg of kit.

A heavier person requires bigger equipment to lift them, so a helicopter can carry fewer heavy soldiers than light ones. They also take up more space so consequently their cars and APC's have to be bigger. That also means they cost more so you can afford less.

A larger heavier person is slower to accelerate and decelerate so they will be less agile.

A heavier person has less mobility, they need firmer ground to move on, stronger walkways to support them, bigger doorways, they can't jump from as high heights due to the limits of bone strength.

They need more food to sustain.

Where the Viet Minh beat the US GI was that they could operate for the same length of time in the same theatre but required a pittance of the logistical support. 

"They fought and they ran" yep they did and it was a devastatingly effective tactic because the GI's couldn't get to grips with them and smash them with their superior firepower. There is nothing stopping this form of warfare in a more conventional conflict, in fact it is a central principle of the Cavalry mission in a conventional army.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Chaplain-Grimaldus said:


> At a basic ground roots level there it is.


At the basic ground roots level the doctrine failed and the Viet Minh won.


----------



## Chaplain-Grimaldus (Aug 4, 2013)

It did but it was a conglomeration of things that caused that. The US didn't know how to fight an insurgency back then. Look to the successes in breaking the Iraqi Insurgency and the way the Taliban have been reduced to scoot and shoot bomb laying and even that is now failing.

I can understand where you are coming from, but there is a reason every Army in the world carries what it does, because that's the best way to do it.

Yeah they keep making things lighter so its not as much of a burden but then the fuckers just make us carry more of it anyway lol.

Like i said in my first big post. Physicality only forms a part of the problem. Emotions and the Human factor are big big issues and short of issuing drugs to suppress emotions and feelings there is little to be done about that.

I am a firm believer that Females do have a place in combat. Just not at the front.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Chaplain-Grimaldus said:


> It did but it was a conglomeration of things that caused that. The US didn't know how to fight an insurgency back then. Look to the successes in breaking the Iraqi Insurgency and the way the Taliban have been reduced to scoot and shoot bomb laying and even that is now failing.


I'm really not talking about an insurgency as such, rather that we have seen previously, not just in Vietnam, where physically smaller soldiers can be the equal of larger ones.



Chaplain-Grimaldus said:


> I can understand where you are coming from, but there is a reason every Army in the world carries what it does, because that's the best way to do it.


According to the entrenched doctrines they have. Not all armies are the same and some armies account for the smaller size of their soldiers with differing SOP. Doctrine has to move with the times as well.



Chaplain-Grimaldus said:


> Yeah they keep making things lighter so its not as much of a burden but then the fuckers just make us carry more of it anyway lol.


I see that as a bad thing. I am a firm believer that modern forces that are well supported and supplied have the ability to travel much lighter than they do.



Chaplain-Grimaldus said:


> Like i said in my first big post. Physicality only forms a part of the problem. Emotions and the Human factor are big big issues and short of issuing drugs to suppress emotions and feelings there is little to be done about that.


You have said that women respond to situations in different ways to men and I'm sure they do.
Yet they are given the same training as men? 

That's my central point. 

We simply take a system designed entirely around men and throw women into it and then nod sagely when it doesn't work, blaming the short comings of a woman rather than the bad fit of the system. 

You said you saw women freeze in combat and that somehow was their fault? Obviously they hadn't been prepared for it correctly.

That's no different to giving a training course in English to non-English speaking soldiers and blaming them when they fail.


----------



## Chaplain-Grimaldus (Aug 4, 2013)

You can only prepare people so much. Everyone says "when i get shot at for the first time im going to XYZ", no one knows how they will really react until it happens.

The system is designed to train people to recact in a way. When I was first ambushed the whole phrase "the training takes over" it is true. I reacted doctrinally, i got blokes doing what i had been trained i needed to get them to do and we got out. Later i realized..... fuck that was close.

Psychological preparation isn't featured much in training. If you are lucky you get a crack and thump demo (rounds over the top so you know the sound) But that's about it.

I don't think there is any way you can prepare people for the reality of war until it happens. The fact is, women in my experience) have not reacted the way men do. 

there could be hundreds of factors and reasons why. I point to the mixed unit as an issue. Perhaps there is some kind of genetic memory that man is there to fight, i hide? (such as the way from pre historic man up to Saxon and right up until recent years).

Its the same way a Female lion will go hunt. But if an enemy comes, she wont fuck with that, that is the mans job. If the man loses, she goes off with the new one because she knows he is stronger.


Don't get me wrong, i think there COULD be a way to change it but we don't know enough about the difference in thinking between men and women to make an effective program and at the moment, it wont work.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Chaplain-Grimaldus said:


> The fact is, women in my experience) have not reacted the way men do.


True but those women were not trained Infanteers nor were they members of a Combat Unit, which is what I am getting at. They need to be assessed for suitability once they have had the same level of training and indoctrination as the men.



Chaplain-Grimaldus said:


> ... there COULD be a way to change it but we don't know enough about the difference in thinking between men and women to make an effective program and at the moment, it wont work.


That is the nub of it IMO, we are talking about changing a system that has developed in a particular vein for 1000's of years and will take a LOT of thought before it works. 

However you have to start somewhere and that somewhere is 2014.


----------



## Chaplain-Grimaldus (Aug 4, 2013)

Could be my friend could be, but like I said the physicality is one issue, mixed units brings its own world of dramas lol.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Chaplain-Grimaldus said:


> ..... mixed units brings its own world of dramas lol.


I preferred to think of them as challenges. :grin:


----------



## Chaplain-Grimaldus (Aug 4, 2013)

Sometimes the challenge just ain't worth the reward man haha.

I'm telling you. Some of the trivial childish shit I have had to sort out because of blokes and women together on ops is ridiculous lol.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Chaplain-Grimaldus said:


> Sometimes the challenge just ain't worth the reward man haha.
> 
> I'm telling you. Some of the trivial childish shit I have had to sort out because of blokes and women together on ops is ridiculous lol.


Sure but you get that in any environment. I've had to deal with that in the military and also my civvy career. It's really more about the people themselves than the gender.


----------



## Chaplain-Grimaldus (Aug 4, 2013)

True true, but women bring a whole new level of issues than single sex groups lol.

I don't need to say why haha.

Been really good having a sensible grown up chat with someone on a complex subject without douchbaggery. Thanks


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Sorry for the late response. I had...I _have_ some work backlogged. In fact, I'm still working on it... Anywho, back to the thread.



Magpie_Oz said:


> The point is it doesn't matter if they were bigger and stronger or not, they were what they were and they fought an extremely protracted and ultimately successful war against a foe that was considered superior by every conventional measure.


The question I am asking, though is, were they successful _because _they were smaller and weaker than their American counterparts? Or were they successful _despite_ their physical shortcomings?

As I said, I think the benefits of them being a couple inches taller and packing on 20 pounds of extra muscle probably would have helped their fight and not hindered it.



Magpie_Oz said:


> Combat is not about how much weight you carry, in fact extreme lengths have been gone to to reduce the weight born by soldiers


I'm not part of the military, but aren't there complaints about how combat loads have been steadily _increasing_ the last 50 years? At least in the US military.

A quick google search shows quite a few threads about how combat load is so heavy that troops are suffering arthritis and other physical issues while still in their 20s?



Magpie_Oz said:


> One of the principal reasons for adopting the Assault Rifle as the standard side arm is that the weapon and it's ammunition is lighter.


I thought it was because they discovered most firefights occurred at a relatively short distance (250 meters>, I think?) and that a full sized rifle bullet was not needed. 5.56 rounds were more than capable of covering that distance.

The same study, I think, also discovered that one of the primary factors of hits in a firefight was determined by the number of shots. Therefore, all else being equal, a given soldier could carry more rounds (and therefore afford to shoot more rounds), and carry more rounds in his or her magazine in a given time (and therefore able to shoot more rounds in a quicker amount of time).

Also the reduction in weight for gun/ammo would mean _more_ weight for other stuff.



Magpie_Oz said:


> There is no particular reason that a taller and heavier person makes a better soldier than a smaller lighter person.


Besides being able to carry more necessities, tools, gear, whatever. 



Magpie_Oz said:


> They also take up more space so consequently their cars and APC's have to be bigger.


That's actually one thing I thought about. In World War 2, at least, tank crews were picked based on height. Designing a tank around a 5'5 guy saved a lot of space (and therefore weight) when compared to a 6'2 guy.

So on the subject of IG regiments, perhaps it would be better to start fielding more all-female armored regiments?

Then again, the Russes are STC, anyway. So that probably doesn't matter, in universe.



Magpie_Oz said:


> However you have to start somewhere and that somewhere is 2014.


Why not 2013  ?


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

hailene said:


> The question I am asking, though is, were they successful _because _they were smaller and weaker than their American counterparts? Or were they successful _despite_ their physical shortcomings?
> 
> As I said, I think the benefits of them being a couple inches taller and packing on 20 pounds of extra muscle probably would have helped their fight and not hindered it.


The point I am trying to make is that their diminutive stature did not condemn them to defeat. 
"Women can't win in combat because men are bigger" is not a correct assessment.



hailene said:


> I'm not part of the military, but aren't there complaints about how combat loads have been steadily _increasing_ the last 50 years? At least in the US military.
> 
> A quick google search shows quite a few threads about how combat load is so heavy that troops are suffering arthritis and other physical issues while still in their 20s?


Yes there we come upon the paradox of the military. They makes things lighter and then get you to carry more. Lighter loaded troops are better troops, that's why the first thing you do in a firefight is drop your pack.



hailene said:


> I thought it was because they discovered most firefights occurred at a relatively short distance (250 meters>, I think?) and that a full sized rifle bullet was not needed. 5.56 rounds were more than capable of covering that distance.


Yes but that realisation meant that the weapons themselves could be made smaller and lighter, also the ammo. Again however the miliraty paradox kicks in and you carry more !



hailene said:


> The same study, I think, also discovered that one of the primary factors of hits in a firefight was determined by the number of shots. Therefore, all else being equal, a given soldier could carry more rounds (and therefore afford to shoot more rounds), and carry more rounds in his or her magazine in a given time (and therefore able to shoot more rounds in a quicker amount of time).


That theorem is a widely accepted one but is not a conclusive one. Lots of shots for sure but lots of accurate shots are better. The key with more ammunition is more about sustaining a firefight for longer.



hailene said:


> Besides being able to carry more necessities, tools, gear, whatever.


It depends on how you determine what is necessary tho' and that relates to tactical doctrine. A foot infantry unit operating independently of a main formation will need to be more self sustaining than a mechanised unit that operates as part of a larger force. Consequently the required equipment will change. 




hailene said:


> Why not 2013  ?


Because 2014 has been hinted at as the target date for the release of the policy for women in combat units by the pentagon and possibly in Oz as well.


----------



## Chaplain-Grimaldus (Aug 4, 2013)

I never auto dropped my pack. The only time we do that (Brit Infantry) is when we are going on the final bound, the commander and assaulting guy leave it with the point of fire, usually no more than 75m away.

In recent times in modern ops, never seen it done.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Son of a bitch. Apparently I had clicked on something earlier and when I pressed enter it took me to another page...deleting my comment. I'll start again.



Magpie_Oz said:


> The point I am trying to make is that their diminutive stature did not condemn them to defeat.


That's good. I'm not making that point. I am saying that they won despite being smaller and weaker.

I'll put it another way. I coach fencing and I have some students. I can beat them pretty handily. Now let's say I had a cold or something. Could I beat them still? Yes, I very likely could. Did I win because of my cold, or because of other factors like my greater experience and technical skills?

That's the point I'm making. The Viet Mihn did not do as well as they did because they were weaker and smaller, but because of other factors. If they were bigger and stronger, I reckon they probably would have done better. How much better is up for debate. A debate beyond my knowledge.



Magpie_Oz said:


> Yes there we come upon the paradox of the military.


I don't think it's a paradox. The military tries to cram as many gadgets and goodies it can into a soldier.

Imagine you're moving to a new house. You want to make as few trips as possible. You realize that you can decrease the weight of your...hot tube by removing all the water in it first. You just saved yourself 200 pounds and a good amount of space. What will you do? You'll cram that open space with as much junk as possible to save you a trip.

Same deal with the military. If they save space on one thing, that just means more room/weight for something else.



Magpie_Oz said:


> It depends on how you determine what is necessary tho' and that relates to tactical doctrine.


It does. Absolutely. But doctrine is based on the capabilities and abilities of the soldiers. If the majority of a military's soldiers can carry an 80 pound kit and be combat effective...then he or she will carry an 80 pound kit, right?

Let's coach this in different terms. Rather than a man vs woman debate, let's do a bigger, stronger vs smaller, weaker person debate.

When would you want a smaller, weaker soldier, all else being equal? Skills, knowledge, experience, ect.

The only times I can think of, would be if space was at a premium (like in AFVs), supplies were running low, or if physical abilities didn't matter (like piloting a drone).

Unfortunately, I do not believe this covers the majority of roles within an infantry regiment in the Imperial Guard.



Magpie_Oz said:


> ecause 2014 has been hinted at as the target date for the release of the policy for women in combat units by the pentagon and possibly in Oz as well.


We all know that policy changes slower than a melting glacier. Might as well start now and we'll have it done sometime in 2045 instead of 2046.


----------

