Should women go to war?

**AtW** · 8 May 2006, 12:34

Originally posted by Gold Dalek

But then I see the sucess of women combatants in Russia during WW2

You should check casualty figures of USSR.

**sasguru** · 8 May 2006, 13:07

Well the Germans refused to allow female combatants, but when the Russians got into Germany, the females suffered anyway - some estimate that the rapes were in the hundreds of thousands or millions.
So I say let those who want to fight- there is a long tradition of tough female warriors, and it is well known in medical circles that women can bear pain more than men.

**DaveB** · 8 May 2006, 13:25

The British armed forces have had women serving in combat zones since before the 1st gulf war. They dont currently serve in frontline infantry roles but do act in the support roles, such as transport pilots, that this woman was doing.

From what I've seen it was a transport flight that was lost, not a combat operation. The army uses helicopters as regular transport because it's currently safer than using ground vehicles.

They usually fly very fast and very low, to avoid ground fire, so this was almost certainly an accident. Although that remains to be confirmed.

On a side note, the Americans insist on flying at a higher altitude to avoid hazards such as pylons, overhead cables and local geography, but have a much higher rate of attrition for their aircraft since they are easier to spot and track with small arms fire.

**Mailman** · 8 May 2006, 13:39

Im sure you have it around the other way Dave. The americans like to fly low and fast while the poms fly high and fast because if they lose a helo and some civilians end up getting killed the Pilot in Command will get charged with their murder.

Mailman

**Gold Dalek** · 8 May 2006, 13:43

So the Hercules & now a helicopter shot down during low level flights apparently both from "lucky RPG shots" what is the percieved threat from flying high?

**ALM** · 8 May 2006, 13:44

Originally posted by Mailman

Im sure you have it around the other way Dave. The americans like to fly low and fast while the poms fly high and fast because if they lose a helo and some civilians end up getting killed the Pilot in Command will get charged with their murder.

That's just unforgivable Mailman. How dare you!

**AtW** · 8 May 2006, 13:49

Originally posted by Gold Dalek

So the Hercules & now a helicopter shot down during low level flights apparently both from "lucky RPG shots" what is the percieved threat from flying high?

If you fly high then you are a very good target for surface-to-air missiles and then its the helicopter pilot who needs to be lucky, when flying low its the guy who wants to shoot helicopter down needs luck: low flying means that you don't see helicopter until its very close to you and it quickly passes by, however this seems to have happened fairly near base - very vulnerable part of the route.

**Dundeegeorge** · 8 May 2006, 13:50

Women! Go to war?

WTF are they doing outside the kitchen?
That universal suffrage is more trouble than it's worth, if you ask me.

(DG in 'as rational as chico' mode)

**Gold Dalek** · 8 May 2006, 13:58

Originally posted by AtW

If you fly high then you are a very good target for surface-to-air missiles and then its the helicopter pilot who needs to be lucky, when flying low its the guy who wants to shoot helicopter down needs luck: low flying means that you don't see helicopter until its very close to you and it quickly passes by, however this seems to have happened fairly near base - very vulnerable part of the route.

I understand that - most of the existing SAM technology is known and has specific counter-measures.

I don't know how good the CM technology is, but which is the lesser of the threat - Trusting anti SAM technology or praying the RPG launcher isn't that good

Should women go to war?