Women in close combat British military
- Home
- Board: /pol/ - Politically Incorrect
- Reading: Women in close combat British military
News today
>https://web.archive.org/web/20160708140713/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36746917
Last April
>https://web.archive.org/web/20160403191542/http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3521538/Army-fitness-tests-written-make-sure-female-soldiers-qualify-line-duty.html
Wew lads.
>>80240593
there is literally nothing wrong with women in combat roles
guns kill people no matter how strong you are physically
they are an equalizer
>>80240593
Source: http://www.army.mod.uk/documents/general/ptbooklet.pdf
>>80240593
>Armored regiments
>danjeroos close combat
???
don't they enlist manlets already for that?
>>80240817
True, but having a physically and mentally weaker comrade that's entrusted with your life (and the lives of others) is only detrimental to the health of the entire unit.
Why do women want to kill? I thought they were nurturers not killers.
It will cause carnage to team morale. Units are not as efficient when you introduce women, men behave very differently when they are alone. They fight for each other instead of competing. Something vital in an army, something that has been encouraged and hind to perfection over millennia of fighting. We are throwing away knowledge our ancestors knew as fundamental. Anyone who has read the way of men knows this. The last thing you need is things flarin up over women.
Expect a lot more of this bullshit at the minimum:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36027148
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36418185
As long as combat training is the same than it is good.
Made sense with a sword and when we needed more people. You get to kill women too which is alright
It's so there is more people on the field when ww3 starts
is there a country more cuckd's than Britain? LMAOOOOO
>>80240822
lol
presumably these are for the roles where women are currently allowed
all of a sudden they'll stop doing this for the frontline roles?
