Women In Combat - Two Thoughts

[chris_gerrib]

Two women-in-combat thoughts, united only by being in one head (mine):

Throught #1 - Kratman

I'm reading Tom Kratman's novel The Amazon Legion, about a fictional nation's attempt to create an all-female infantry regiment. In general, and despite Kratman's reputation as a troglodyte, I haven't found much objectionable about it. Yes, he does have a woman sleeping with a superior for personal advancement. Alas, this does happen, and men have been known to trade favors, sexual or personal, for advancement too. In Kratman's world, sleeping with the boss in the military gets both individuals shot, which is a bit harsh but understandable given the military situation of the book.

What I really think Kratman understands is the nature of why military training is physically tough. I've discussed it before and am not finding it, but basically the reason you march troops until they puke is so they know how close to the edge they can get. At any rate, so far so good.

Thought #2 - Boob Armor

Smurched from james_nicoll a peice on why boob armor is a deathtrap for the wearer. Basically, a blade aimed at the boob could be deflected into the sternum, where either by penetration or the force on the armor the sternum would be broken, killing the wearer.

From the same source, an article on how not to hold a sword. My knowledge of swordplay begins and ends with my experiences "fencing" with other kids in the playground using sticks, so I pass it on for your edification.

Comments

[baron-waste.livejournal.com]

“Warrior Women on Screen (http://baron-waste.livejournal.com/171066.html)”


I eventually came out the other side of my extreme disgust - indeed, revulsion - at this whole Freudian-feminist make-believe.

“Alien (http://althistory.livejournal.com/41671.html), Starring Veronica Cartwright as 'Ripley'”


I actually see its value now - if you see a doll-house-sized house of playing cards, elaborate and flimsy and incredibly fragile, you know that table doesn't get jostled - indeed, it's probably behind glass. Just so, as I've said, we can afford to ignore military history, human physiology and psychology and play Let's Pretend… and if that ever ceased to be true, if Hollywood Reality™ ever faced a genuine reality check, it would be because of a national disaster that really isn't preferable, y' know?

So “Let the Games Continue!” Let's continue to depict men as defeated idiots and women as their triumphant replacements, let's ignore the fact that “women's sports” only exist because men are excluded from them, let's conceal the problems with “gender-integrated” basic training and the whole forcibly-feminized military, let's ignore five thousand years of military history where commanders would have armed trees if that would have helped, but no one was ever stupid (or literally cowed!) enough to pretend that women could fight right alongside men as interchangeable androgynes…

Because women need “to feel empowered and strong,” and that they actually aren't mustn't be pointed out, lest we create a “hostile environment.” (Mustn't have it!)

Training for War

[(Anonymous)]

There are five reasons why we train, period. Physical hardship is only a part of a part, and about more than just illustrating to people what they can endure. Read these:

http://baen.com/WarTraining-Part1.asp

http://baen.com/WarTraining-Part2.asp

There'll probably be four or five more parts.

Tom Kratman

Training for War

[tom kratman (from livejournal.com)]

There are five reasons why we train, period. Physical hardship is only a part of a part, and about more than just illustrating to people what they can endure. Read these:

http://baen.com/WarTraining-Part1.asp

http://baen.com/WarTraining-Part2.asp

There'll probably be four or five more parts.

Tom Kratman