Women are on general principle much physically weaker then men. There is no denying that. But let's say that power armor, for whatever reason, is now a practical, reliable suit of body armor (or just an IOTV that is powered) that has a battery that lasts, let's say, two weeks.
Assuming the army does choose to buy/produce this, would that solve some of the problems of physical fitness and health for women in the army?
Also, on a side note, would power armor be treated like body armor for women in that it has to be adjusted for her?
Second side note, would it be practical to have a piss bag while in a suit of armor? Or should we avoid making it that restrictive?
>>29505507
>Assuming the army does choose to buy/produce this, would that solve some of the problems of physical fitness and health for women in the army?
It would probably relieve the amount of weight a woman would have to carry on the field, if that's what you're asking.
>Also, on a side note, would power armor be treated like body armor for women in that it has to be adjusted for her?
Probably, if it's anything like an IOTV
>Second side note, would it be practical to have a piss bag while in a suit of armor? Or should we avoid making it that restrictive?
Depends, is the armor like an IOTV or nigh short of Fallout? If it's like an IOTV, just piss like a normal person.
>>29505507
Women will become as effective as men (purely in combat) when we get one of two technological advances:
1. Reliable powered armor good enough to make body strength irrelevant.
2. Prosthetics cool enough to justify chopping off your weak fleshy bits.
No word yet as to overcoming millennia of evolutionary conditioning that makes them less socially cooperated and less able to work in the hierarchical social system endemic to military life.
Also, no word on how to successfully condition all military age males to treat women as "just another man" and whether this is in fact a good idea.
>>29505507
You still don't want a soldier that would have to rely on a power suit to be effective or one that has a higher risk of injury than men
>>29508094
This.
why pay even more money to put Mary Rottencrotch on the front lines when you can just send multiple men for the price of her power suit?
You still have logistics, hygiene, potential conflict of interests when Rottencrotch shacks up with one of the many men she'll be around which could cause jealousy from other team members, she won't hold up to stressful situations as well, and she'll probably get pregnant.
Let them be medics and whatever else they can manage to not fuck up just fuck off with this women on the frontlines shit.
>>29505507
The future tech that will make women battle relevant is jet packs.
No fat chicks. Twinks and waifs only.
now imagine power armor worn by a non-hysterical and focused male with fine motor skills and spacial awareness
>>29505507
>the problems of physical fitness and health for women in the army
The physical part of womens inferiority in combat is minor, the big problem for women are that they lack aggression, and are generally worse at spatial thinking.
Just watch womans soccer games, sure, they kick weaker, but what stands out is that they lack the "killer instinct", seeing an opportunity and seizing it.
Going from 0 to 100% in a split second, going in for the kill, that's what makes a real soldier.
>>29508373
Do they have jet packs that work for longer than a jump or two?
>>29509557
>>29508202
>>29508094
This. Women just aren't built for combat in any sense of the word. They can do it, just at a worse quality than men. So just cram some men in this theoretical power armor and call it a day.
>>29508373
The US military had working jetpacks decades ago, and found they were completely useless on the battlefield and let the technology die. All they are good for is getting you shot.
