I'll start.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roza_Shanina
>>330292
>Soldier
>Good
Don't you mean efficient?
>>330292
The ones who were smart enough to help out in areas where they were actually needed and useful.
>>330292
>inb4 the thread is basically just WW2 Soviet women
>>330402
They are really the largest use of females in infantry.
>>330355
That's what being a good soldier means.
>>330520
*slits your throat*
>>330292
Joan of Arc <:o)
>>330292
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taramon_Bibi
L
O
R
I
F
Holy fuck stop being an autist
I
E
D
Were female guards common in the past? Or is that just shit you see in Skyrim and Robin Hobb novels? Seems to me like it'd be rape city for them.
>>331110
>Were female guards common in the past?
No
>Seems to me like it'd be rape city for them.
Yes
>>331110
women are physically inferior to men, why would any one voluntarily choose a girl for any duty that may involve combat?
>>331228
Simple aswer, not all all combat roles rely primarily on physical superiority, which is why in modern armies, you'll find most of the women in the airforce or in sniper roles.
>>331250
>sniper roles
You're onto something as shooting is something a female can be equal to a man in.
Melee medieval and ancient warriors though? Top lel.
>>331269
>You're onto something as shooting is something a female can be equal to a man in.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/09/10/mixed-gender-teams-come-up-short-marines-infantry-experiment/71979146/
>Male-only rifleman squads were more accurate than gender-integrated counterparts on each individual weapons system, including the M4 carbine, the M27 infantry automatic rifle and the M203 grenade launcher.
>>331110
>Mauryan imperial bodyguards
>>331809
Well that makes sense, those weapons seem to be pretty heavy.
The discussion was about snipers though
>>331228
Gaddafi's female bodyguards were chosen for their assets. Dick sucking experience was a plus, but he gave on the job training.
Weren't female soldiers in Ancient Japan radical as fuck?
>>330421
Why are communists so based? It didn't work out in the end but you have got to give them points for their egalitarian ideals.
>>331269
stationary targets, yes, moving, no. They also have poor depth perception in comparison.
>>330292
All the women soldiers are propaganda, from the shield maidens, to the Soviets, to the Peshmerga (100 confirmed kills with a combat rifle, my ass). Women aren't somewhat inferior to men in combat; they are literally worthless. All of the real battles that involved women were an easy victory for the other side.
>>332456
>All the women soldiers are propaganda, from the shield maidens, to the Soviets, to the Peshmerga (100 confirmed kills with a combat rifle, my ass)
Do you have any sources for this bold claim?
>>332477
Common sense. Most of the great male soldiers are mythologized. Most of the great female soldiers are nonexistent. There is no combat oriented tasks that a man can't do many times better than a woman.
Also, most of the "great women" were from Soviet Russia. They lied about everything. Prior to that, there were very few claims of women fighting.
>>332506
Fascinating theories, however I've asked for sources.
>>332477
Common, it's 2015, sense
You know this whole thing about women not being good for combat made me reflect about something.
Like, what stops governments from giving soliders substances that increase perfomance? War isn't sport so it's not like you're gonna get disqualified if your army uses doping.
>>332663
I can't believe it's the current year and you don't think like me
>>332640
Fascinating. Do you have any other non Soviet sources? Did women all of the sudden gain the needed mental and physical proclivities required for combat, or are the Soviets a bunch of rat faced liars? It's a publicity stunt. It always was and always will be.
>>332703
You've mentioned other figures like the shield maidens though, which were not Soviet at all.
>>332703
I've heard a lot of folks say women make competent snipers (anecdotal, I know), but the idea isn't really way out there. Probably not enough to justify suspicions of a Soviet conspiracy.
>>332456
>that picture
Could they not have just said greater testosterone product on which directly contributes to at least half of those features?
>>332703
>Shieldmaidens aren't Soviet
>African Dahomey Amazons
>Japanese Onna-Bugeisha
>Women US Army Ranger literally a couple of months ago
No, women warriors weren't as wide spread as men. That doesn't mean they never existed or were even counter productive.
This is a history board. Stop talking shit and pick up a book some time.
How many times do you guys think she got raped?
I say at least 3
VALKYRIA CHRONICLES MADE ME JOIN THE US MILITARY
>>332745
Soviets did employ females as snipers, but not in a way that we see snipers today. In WW2 for instance they were deployed in huge groups. One account by Sepp Allerberger in the book " Sniper on the Eastern Front: The Memoirs of Sepp Allerberger, Knight's Cross" as a chapter where he talks about how he came into contact with a group of around 20 female snipers, which he killed. Their tactics didn't really rely on skill, but just numbers where a lot of different angles were covered, when going up against actual trained sniper German sniper to female soviet sniper who's only experience is group sniping, she they would most likely lose. It is interesting to note though that soviets did have better snipe training since the Germans did not like the idea of it because it did not seem honorable, and also because the snipers that did exist in the Wehrmacht did not always work well, and got hindered by those in their own ranks because they were snipers. For instance conforming, and working with artillery as spotters etc. They only widely employed it during the later stages of the war, they even had to used soviet sniper training videos in German subtitles that even had female snipers in it, because they did not have any of their own. There was never that many German snipers in WW2, compared to other countries and even after starting to train them, many died early on since they could not compete with enemy snipers who already had experience through learning their craft in the earlier stages of the war. The average skill gap was just too wide. You don't even want to know what would happen to German snipers caught on the eastern front, very horrible.
>>332808
Shield maidens are fantasy, faggot.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shieldmaiden
>was a woman who had chosen to fight as a warrior in Scandinavian folklore and mythology
Dahomey Amazons have a very odd history as well. The reporting is very sketchy and outright fraudulent at times.
The Japanese women didn't fight, so it doesn't count. They were a last line of defense, purportedly, but were seldom used as such.
The U.S. Rangers let women in, they haven't fought anyone.
I think it's hilarious that the only time that women are heroic is when nobody can see them and the reporting is spotty. With modern camera equipment, I'm sure we won't see any more courageous women. If we do, it will be mysteriously unverifiable and unrecorded.
>>333221
The peshmerga and YPG have female battalions, fighting because all the men from the villages were killed.
Women fighting has historically been an act of desperation. There are accounts of women and children taking up arms against Alexander, when he decided to besiege random towns for the sake of legends. Of course they were all slaughtered mercilessly.
The Tai Pings fielded large armies of women, but these were mowed down by imported western gatlings.
>>332407
> those weapons seem to be pretty heavy.
>M4 Carbine
>Heavy
>M27 Rifle
>Heavy
>M203 Grenade Launcher
>Heavy
I understand that this isn't /k/, but at least put in the minimum effort here.
>>333318
No they don't. That is 100% propaganda. It is just to get you to sympathize with the fight against ISIS.
>>333331
That's fake.
>>333331
This guy holding the head is now a refugee in germany btw
>>333358
Evidence that it's all fake?
There's literally videos of them in gun fights with ISIS.
>>333358
>Making big claims with nothing to back them up
This is never a good sign.
>>333374
>There's literally videos of them in gun fights with ISIS.
We call that propaganda. They have never engaged in combat, I'm sure of it. They even had the gall to say one of the woman got 100 confirmed kills with an AK. That doesn't happen in the real world, and certainly not with the type of tactics being implemented in this conflict. There are no women fighters in the Middle East.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/kurdish-beauty-killed-100-isis-fighters-disappears-article-1.1988845
Translation: why aren't you helping us? Why don't you give us more money? Look, our women are tougher than you. Why don't you man up?
>>333430
The 100 confirmed kills is probably propaganda. Stuff like that usually is. But saying they never engaged in combat at all, with nothing to back it up, is silly.
And not "I'M SURE OF IT!!!!!!!!!" doesn't count, neither does trying to change the subject.
>>333418
Look at the IDF. Every verifiable woman unit has underperformed terribly. The only ones that don't are the ones that aren't being watched closely.
>>333449
Shit doesn't pop up on liveleak, or any other independent media. There has never been a private journalist filming their combat. It's literally a few clips of a woman shooting a machine gun. If they really wanted sympathy, they would show the combat footage, with the wounded women and the dead enemies, etc. They would if it was real. It isn't.
Quit believing everything you hear. If they are willing to lie about 100 kills, they are willing to lie, period.
>>333451
Female soldiers are terrible in comparison to male soldiers. This is an objectively true fact. That doesn't mean they don't exist. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
>>333430
>It's propaganda because it doesn't support my conclusions about women
You've given no evidence of any of this being propaganda other than your opinions.
>>333482
>Desert skirmishes in the middle of goddamn nowhere should be meticulously documented as though a film crew is following everybody 24/7.
>>333221
>Dahomey Amazons don't count because I say they don't
>Onna-Bugeisha didn't fight
>Who are Takeko Nakako and Masako Hojo that's assuming Tomoe Gozen is just a myth
>People obviously just made this shit up hundreds and thousands of years ago to appease future feminists
You're fucking retarded.
>>333430
Are you mad?
You can google it and see them fighting, on non news websites like liveleak.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=kurdish+women+fighting+liveleak
>>333510
Funny you say that; they do with everyone else. There are literally thousands of videos showing the FSA campaign, or the Ukrainian conflict. They want us to believe 100 kills? Show me indisputable footage of a woman engaged in combat. I've never seen any footage, ever. (Shooting a gun doesn't count.)
>>333496
It's worse than you think it is. Women haven't evolved to handle any aspect of combat. They are worse than being down numbers. No competent commander would use them at any point. They don't even make good fodder as they will run away.
>>333505
It's psychological. It's meant to kick the male protective instinct in. You are supposed to see your woman "fighting" and run out to enlist. It is also a moral boost, due to the same protective mechanism. It's not meant to be taken literally. All the Soviet and Peshmerga stories are complete fantasy.
>>330292
>>333554
You're making out like women are literally children mentally and physically. I think you hang out on r9k too much.
Women are weaker than men but not that much, they're still more than capable of killing you.
Lets face it, if child soldiers can exist, female soldiers sure can.
>All the Soviet and Peshmerga stories are complete fantasy.
Hardcore denial from personal emotional bias rejecting all factual evidence because it conflicts your fragile world view.
>>333538
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a9d_1437967410
Patently false. There are pictures of them posing over dead bodies, but that obviously doesn't mean anything. The only footage available shows absolutely 100% no combat.
>>333567
Male teenagers are much better suited for warfare than grown women are. Women are meant to raise children. It's patently clear they have the mental and physical ability of children. If we were dependent on women for our intellect we would be living in caves, literally. If we were dependent on woman to defend us, we would have been Muslim the day that arrangement started.
>>333554
>They want us to believe 100 kills?
100 confirmed kills is most likely propaganda, but claiming they never fought at all is stupid.
>Women are weaker than men but not that much
A woman can train intensely all her life and still be only slightly stronger than the average man. The gap in strength potential is huge.
We need to recognize that there is a logical middle ground here: Yes, female soldiers exist now and they have also existed in the past. No, they aren't effective at all in comparison to male soldiers.
>>333554
Even if women are on average not the best at combat, a few examples to the contrary do not contradict that statement, nor must you contradict such evidence in support of the original statement. It has no logical bearing.
As the original poster of these pictures, I was making the case that women fighting was an act of desperation, which would actually be supportable by your thesis, except your head is so far up your ass you can't even admit to a single deviation.
To say that women are not great at combat is not logically equivalent to saying that there does not exist a single woman who has engaged in combat. Crackpot rationalizations are not proof. The rustle in your jimmies is not proof.
>>330292
C U M D U M P
U
M
D
U
M
P
>>333626
They don't exist. Numbers aren't just numbers, that's bullshit. Modern warfare is inherently tactical and movement based. There are many mental processes going on that women point blank do not have. As I posted earlier >>332456 it is common knowledge that men have many physical capabilities absent in women, as well. Women would be a complete liability. Women in the IDF also ran from combat, something men could be executed for in a real conflict. Quit believing feminists. Men have fantasized about their Amazon warriors for millenniums, but it has never been a demonstrable reality.
>>333592
Thinking it's not true. Actually buying into equality between the genders.
>>333554
So the picture of the beheaded person is also fake?
>>333694
Yes. Lot's of the footage has been faked, actually.
>>333693
>They don't exist.
They clearly exist, for better or worse.
>>333718
No they don't. They exist on your TV, not on the battlefield.
>>332764
Cus that would make the men turn homocidal and the women grow beards.
>>333753
>They exist on your TV
But you said there was no footage.
>>333753
Proof nigga PROOF
Saying "It's fake I don't believe it" is not proof.
>>333753
>Regularly says others provide no proof
>When show pictures nah that doesn't count because I say so and it makes me look like an idiot
>Provides no proof but bullshit uninformed opinion with complete disregard for history
Fuck off back to pol
>>333774
Why can't the proof be on them? It's well known that the male sympathy strategy has been implemented before. Why is anyone assuming that this would be anything other than that? Why can you make a claim with absolutely no empirical footage to back it up? They want us to believe that they are some sort of super soldiers? Okay, show us the combat footage. Even if they weren't great, at least everyone could see strong women in action. They don't have footage, and women are definitely not strong. If given the choice between 13-year-old boys and women, no sane commander would pick the women.
>>333828
I don't have proof beyond common sense. What source do you think I could possibly come up with? It's quite strange how women are tough and strong now, but there has never been one video in the history of the universe of a woman competently handling herself in a confrontation against a male. They must've turned off the camera by accident...
>>333855
>If given the choice between 13-year-old boys and women, no sane commander would pick the women.
Sometimes there isn't a choice. Sometimes you have to send both the 13 year old boys AND the women. How naive are you that you believe that truly desperate groups of people don't exist?
>>333895
Like I said, if doesn't work that way. Anyone you bring on is either beneficial or detrimental to your overall strategy. Having more bodies doesn't mean anything, especially not when men will go out of their way to protect them, potentially compromising the mission. Desperation doesn't work that way. Nobody actually thinks bringing a bunch women to fight will improve their chances. It's actually empirically the opposite, as evidenced by the IDF debacle. Women do work very well as an impetus to enlist reluctant young men, however; and that's exactly what's happening.
>>333956
The preponderance of evidence clearly suggests that female soldiers exist, especially in modern asymmetrical conflicts.
>>333999
Not really. There is no actual combat footage. You can say whatever you want. There is no reason women would perform any better in asymmetrical warfare, either.
>>334028
I guess I just don't think "combat footage" is very important. Most people in actual combat focus on shooting, not filming.
>>333884
"common sense" is not proof at all.
>>333884
Your "common sense" is nothing but an opinion. Actually post something to back up your claims.
>Shown video proof
>Hurr it's just propaganda
>Shown historical proof
>Hurr it's all fake
>What proof do you have?
>Duhh common sense
Either you're a moron or a troll. Which is it?
>>333884
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
>>334070
she's really pretty while somehow being very plain at the same time
>>332423
this desu senpai
"On 16 January 1945 Shanina wrote in her combat diary: "What I've actually done? No more than I have to as a Soviet man, having stood up to defend the motherland."[11] She also wrote, "The essence of my happiness is fighting for the happiness of others. It's strange, why is it that in grammar, the word "happiness" can only be singular? That is counter to its meaning, after all. ... If it turns necessary to die for the common happiness, then I'm braced to.""
DDDD':
>>332442
Egalitarianism makes me retch.
>>334309
>"On 16 January 1945 Shanina wrote in her combat diary: "What I've actually done? No more than I have to as a Soviet man, having stood up to defend the motherland."
>tfw you will never be mercilessly raped by a qt female Soviet sniper
>>334364
Can you prove that all historical proof is propaganda?
From Japan to Africa to the Americas. There were accounts of women fighting before the Soviet union was even a thing.
>b-but no videos
So what're you saying is cultures for thousands of years just made up women fighting for no real reason? Just on a whim they said you know what'd he cool? If Brynhildr over there carried a spear and started fighting with us.
It's all just dude fanfiction yes?
>>330292
>this far down
>no Milunka Savic
Glory to Serbia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milunka_Savi%C4%87
>>334364
Here's the thing, I totally agree with you that most of the "successful" female soldiers in combat roles are really just propaganda or exaggeration. I just think it's dumb to say they don't exist at all, especially nowadays. Sometimes you have limited options and you just can't be picky about who you use.
>>334385
>From Japan to Africa to the Americas. There were accounts of women fighting before the Soviet union was even a thing.
No there wasn't. Japan never used women. They never claimed to have used women. The Dahomey Amazons also have one guy who wrote a book serving as the source for literally all discussion.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/dahomeys-women-warriors-88286072/
>Stanley Alpern, author of the only full-length Engish-language study of them
His book "Amazons of Black Sparta: The Women Warriors of Dahomey" is the only real study on them and it just happens to be released in 2011? I smell feminist bullshit. You are living in a dream world. There is absolutely no real evidence of women ever fighting. Oh wait, there is one I remember, the IDF, and they got absolutely annihilated.
>It's all just dude fanfiction yes?
Guys and their bonners, eh?
>>333554
>It's psychological
>>333762
Ok but what stops the military from giving doping and other substances to increase performance to soldiers.
This thread is why ''burden of proof'' is a fallacy.
>>334642
From "The Psychology of Entertainment Media" by L. J. Shrum:
>The images created by the entertainment media, whether encountered in a darkened movie theatre or in sitcoms, soaps, news reports, and advertising, do appear to blur the lines between reality and what we perceive it to be. These images can have a persisting influence on people’s attitudes, beliefs, and behavior in ways that we have only recently begun to uncover. O’Guinn and Shrum (1997) paint a compelling picture of the consequences of excessive television viewing. They find that heavy viewers of television are more likely than infrequent viewers to overestimate the frequency with which individuals drive luxury cars, have swimming pools in their backyards, or manifest other characteristics of an affluent lifestyle (see Shrum, Burroughs, & Rindfleish, this volume). These effects occur in part because people are typically unmotivated or unable to identify the sources of information they have acquired (Hasher, Goldstein, & Toppin, 1977; Jacoby, Kelley, Brown, & Jasechko, 1989; Johnson, Hashtroudi, & Lindsay, 1993).
Quit being a faggot. You are out of touch with reality. Women are not physically or mentally capable human beings. It doesn't matter how many times whatever bullshit you watch shows women acting courageously, it's not real and never will be.
>>334725
>psychology
.
>>334739
Keep basing your reality off of comic books and the Hunger Games. Isn't it funny how you don't have any real memories of women acting intellectually or athletically competent? Isn't it funny that the things you believe are fantastical garbage that you have somehow managed to conflate with reality?
>>334747
Listen, faggot, women never have fought in combat. If you really think women are going to lug around equipment and fight full grown men, you may have bought some feminist bullshit. Think of the first 10 women in your life, now think of the first 10 men: who do you think is going to win? It's not going to be fucking close and reality obviously and undeniably bears that out. If won't happen now, and it sure as hell wasn't going to happen when you needed to swing a 40 pound sword around.
>>334797
Actually I'm here just to mock your use of psychology.
That ''study'' is kek-worthy, it's literally one dude making shit up without even following the scientifical method. Literally pseudo-science.
Also saying ''it never happened because I say so'' is laughable, but I'm not gonna take part of this stupid discussion.
>>334797
Nobody is saying that women make good soldiers. They're physically inferior to men in every way that matters. But female soldiers obviously exist, for better or worse.
>>334797
>Isn't it funny how you don't have any real memories of women acting intellectually
but I do
also athletically I could point out the fact most sports have female divisions but they don't count according to you because they perform worse than men
it's like saying that since humans can't run as fast as tigers than humans just can't run at all
>>334836
>psychology
>empirical
More like anecdotal, top kek
>>334836
It happens all the time.
>>334867
obviously propaganda, amirite?
holy shit it's amazing how he just can't admit he's in the wrong, especially considering how we actually agree with the fact that women aren't good in combat
is this how /pol/ is like? is this shit regular over there?
>no Boudicca
Fucking roman degenerates
>>334875
Well I mean, it's not really surprising that a thread on a topic related to women would draw /r9k/ shitposters. Honestly it'd be more surprising if it didn't.
>>334930
Nah this is not /r9k/ as it's not really a misoginystic discussion, this is just /pol/ retardation.
>>334840
>but I do
No you don't. Women have contributed literally nothing to any intellectual field (Mary Currie's husband just happened to be in the same field as her). The best they can attain is familiarizing themselves with a subject enough to parrot the content dogmatically. It's like a cult with them. They have zero critical thinking skills.
>also athletically I could point out the fact most sports have female divisions but they don't count according to you because they perform worse than men
Let's use football as the example. How do you think a male vs. female football game would go? That's what war would look like.
>>334867
Except it doesn't.
>>334875
>holy shit it's amazing how he just can't admit he's in the wrong, especially considering how we actually agree with the fact that women aren't good in combat
There is no middle ground here. The Soviet woman and the Dahomey Amazons were alleged to be better than male fighters. We know from the IDF debacle that woman fighters are vastly inferior to men by every metric. They were lying, plain and simple. They obviously weren't better than men, that's asinine.
>>334644
Germans did it in WWII. They gave the men Pervitin so they'd preform better on the battlefield. There were reports of German soldiers getting shot four times by a .50 and still running at the crew. The Nazis were high on some sort of drug a majority of the time, anyways. Hitler himself took Eukodal and many animal hormones.
>>335015
By lying, I mean they weren't even fighting. It's not just a matter of hyping their performance.
>The Soviet woman
Woman=women * typo
>>335015
That girl in your class that you like turned you down for prom, didn't she?
>>335036
I love the women in my life. I love women. They exist solely to propagate, nurture, and support. They are intellectually and athletically inferior to us by every metric.
>>335029
>they weren't even fighting.
I assume you have some proof of this.
>>335072
Like I said >>334573 , nobody even knew who the Dahomey Amazons were until recently. Now all of the sudden they were great warriors because of one guy's research. The Soviets were also known liars. You have to assume everything they said was false, unless you can prove it true beyond a shadow of a doubt.
>>335094
Unlike your statements which are all well-verified and backed up with ample proof.
>>333358
Horse shit. Peshmerga is all dudes but the PKK/YPG use pleny of women.
>>335094
I never said shit about the "Dahomey Amazons" and frankly I don't care about them. Never even heard the phrase until you said it.
You made an absurd claim and now you're trying to change the subject.
>>335109
Show me the combat footage. Hell no, I don't believe you.
>>335116
There are women in many armies. None of them see combat. Showing a woman with face paint doesn't change that.
>>335120
>There are women in many armies.
You said that there were NO female soldiers. Clearly, you were wrong.
>>335144
No women fight. There are obviously hundreds of thousands of women in the U.S. army right now.
>>335144
You said that there were NO female soldiers. And now that you've been proven wrong, you're trying to change the subject.
the best use of female soldiers is noncom administration and propaganda, as evidenced itt
'Girls of the JIDF' is entirely dedicated to posting pictures of attractive women in uniform in order to garner support for israel
men like seeing women in armor. femme fatal characters have been popular throughout history. this isn't just modern PC stuff, guys love the idea
>>335015
>No you don't.
lol k
>The best they can attain is familiarizing themselves with a subject enough to parrot the content dogmatically. It's like a cult with them. They have zero critical thinking skills.
Oh it's pseudo-science time I see.
Dude, psychology isn't to be taken seriously, it's nothing but anecdotal evidence.
>Let's use football as the example. How do you think a male vs. female football game would go? That's what war would look like.
Holy shit are you fucking dense? That's besides the fucking point. Learn to read.
Do we have to spell it to you?
Yes, women are worse than men in combat, but that doesn't mean they have never fought. This is what people have been trying to say the whole time.
You get it now? Or is it too hard for you?
>>330693
>>332423
>>334253
Why does everybody say this? Have any of you read her trial transcripts? She said that she preferred to carry her banner into battle over her sword because she didn't like to kill people, but a knight testified that she was skilled with a lance and personally lead a couple of charges. And he testified that she was a masterful tactician. She also defeated and disarmed a Burgundian knight in singe combat outside of Paris.
The context of her saying "I never killed anyone." was after she was accused of murder because she allowed some peasants to hang a brigand without a fair trial.
>>336242
it's a meme ya dip
>>332407
Not really. Male vision is more adjusted to long distance and depth perception. Female vision has a much larger angle and better perception on short distances.
