Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

You misspelled muscles.

.the shear amount of gear that a solider carries on a daily basis when deployed and men are effected less from the amount of stress all that gear puts on the bodies mussels, joints and spine than women are. Can women hull the same amount of gear, yes they can, however a woman is going to suffer more from in the long run than a man is.

Umm... yeah... about that...

You have that exactly backwards. Women have higher endurance and more musclemass in their legs than men.

 Psienesis wrote:

Umm... yeah... about that...

You have that exactly backwards. Women have higher endurance and more musclemass in their legs than men.

There's evidence to support that women have more endurance than men, but lower body muscle mass? Where did you get that?

 Psienesis wrote:

.the shear amount of gear that a solider carries on a daily basis when deployed and men are effected less from the amount of stress all that gear puts on the bodies mussels, joints and spine than women are. Can women hull the same amount of gear, yes they can, however a woman is going to suffer more from in the long run than a man is.

Umm... yeah... about that...

You have that exactly backwards. Women have higher endurance and more musclemass in their legs than men.

Then why are men always called in to lift the heavy object? I was not talking specifically about endurance or muscelmass i'm talking about the general Physiology and the differences about the basic Musculoskeletal construction of the male body to the female body. If women have strong legs and more endurance then why are men generalized as the hard laborer when it comes to tasks that require physical strength like carrying a heavy amount of weight for long periods of time over long distances.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/04/10/heavy-loads-could-burden-womens-infantry-role.html

women in general have strong legs, but are typically weaker than men in the chest, arms and lower back.

Army reports already have shown that female soldiers, even in training, sustain injuries at a higher rate than men. A study cited in “Musculoskeletal Injuries in Military Women,” noted that cumulative injury incidence among women in basic combat training was 52 percent compared to 26 percent for men. In advanced individual training, it was 30 percent for women and 24 percent for men.

http://thesoldiersload.com/2012/05/24/women-do-not-belong-in-the-infantry/

Most service members will admit that conditioning hikes are grueling exercises in physical and mental endurance. I personally despised them, especially when it was my turn to shoulder a 25 pound machine gun or a 45 pound, .50-caliber receiver. Each hike took all of my effort and physical fitness to complete. Unsurprisingly, during my time at The Basic School no female lieutenant completed a hike of greater than 6 miles with the rest of the 180 or so male lieutenants. Not one. And that’s with the male lieutenants carrying all of the radios and heavy weapons.
[/qote]

Fox-light713 is actually right. Women have very similar cardio-vascular capacity than men. On that scale they are pretty much equal. Men have more muscle mass in their legs than women by about 15%. Muscle repartition in the human body is not symmetrical. Men have much more upper body strength than women (about 25% more), 15% more leg muscle power, 10% more abdominal strength but very comparable back muscle power. Thus, we can say men are stronger, but not in the same fashion than women who have more symmetrical muscle mass. This is one of the three main reasons why female normally have better balance too.

As for women and long trek with extensive field kits (over 30 kilos or 55 pounds if you prefer), this reflect a reality of poor and maladapted training. Everybody who spent more than 5 minutes in a gym with professional trainers knows that there is no such thing as «one size fits all» approach to fitness and strength development. To be efficient and healthy you got to take into account the person age, body type, current level of conditioning, sex and eating habits. The army, in its wisdom and desire to uniform and simple, benefited from decades of experimenting and now train very well in fitness and strength development men of the two most common body types (there is three to four depending on your sources if that interest you). Those two body types are very rare amongst women (those weight lifter of Eastern Europe are probably the most well-known example of these exceptions). This results in women placing themselves in a situation where they are unprepared and undertrained for a specific training exercise, push themselves to the very limit of their capacity in an effort to conform and to prove they have a place in the army which result rather often in injuries. You can also add the fact that most field kits are not very ergonomic and the fact that many soldiers, without taking their sex into account, have terrible lifting and walking habits.

Has I have stated earlier, modern armies are terrible at training women in a fast and efficient way. Their entire training strategy for women revolves around lowering a bit the minimal standards and offer a bit more time for personal training and all will be just fine (if you look at the stats presented by fox-light713 you will see that stats about injury and personal training between men and women are fairly similar. 6% is not a big statistical difference,). If they fail or underperform, it’s not because we were thoughtless, experimented, incompetent or simply uncaring, but because they are weak and don't belong. After all, there is only one way to make a good soldier, ours! (I caricature in the last segment, but I think you get the point).

With correct training (and gear) women can surpass easily their limitations, but you got to be ready to make the efforts to obtain those results. Field kits need to be disposed in a different way to adapt to a different physiognomy, preparatory training as to be different, you got to teach them how to balance the weight during walk or jogging (Yes women don't even naturally walk like men. Do you think most drill instructors know that?). I will have to return to one of my precedent observation. Our modern army (and to a certain extend our entire culture) is tailored to produce good fighting men, not good fighting women. Fiction like 40K doesn't need to burden itself with our issues and reality. It can (and should sometime) create entire new things with the power of imagination. It's what makes fiction so interesting in the first place in my opinion. I still think that if you had to measure a male soldier trained in an institution like ours and a women trained in an institution with equal qualities than ours but completely tailored for women, most would see the female soldier as a little bit superior or at least equal the men. Training a fighter without taking into account its weakness and under developing its strengths is simply stupid and wrong.

I actually agree with you on that, epronvost. With a good training regime women could potentially join our fighting men as equals.

But, honestly, I don't think much upper body strength is needed in the guard. Cadians, well equipped infantry, are depicted as carrying their rifles, a canteen, a knife and a couple of spare magazines. That's a very light load and given the static fighting that most Guard regiments perform it looks to me that a Guardsman don't have to be in all that good of shape. Sure, they can't be a fatbody but they also don't have to be a Marine.

Considering that there are many military organizations in the world that have female soldiers, including the elite Mossad of Israel, it is certainly not their gender alone.

 Psienesis wrote:
Considering that there are many military organizations in the world that have female soldiers, including the elite Mossad of Israel, it is certainly not their gender alone.

The Mossad is not a military organization, Women are barred from most "serious" combat posts in the Israeli army due to physical limitations and those who are recruited to combat units are posted the farthest from the front as possible.
That includes female fighter pilots being relegated to reconnaissance roles and such, Don't believe what you read

I would add to Khonshu's comment that the Israeli army is the modern army with the largest proportion of females in its rank at around 35% (not that much in a contry prodominantly populated by women), yet all their training technics are based on the US military doctrines like so many others. To be fair thow, with some time and work, the Israeli army could became one of the first post-modern army with actual competent training for women. I doubt that such a thing can happen soon if Israel doesn't realise that good soldiers need good combat experience to become good trainers after.

 Psienesis wrote:
In a galaxy of pure pragmatism, having a society with no women is as equally bad as a society with no men. Cadia's recruitment rate is noted to be equal to its birth rate, but further explains that just over 70% of its population is "under arms". This indicates that the remaining 30% fulfills some non-combat role, which would be all of the civilian jobs, all of the administrative jobs, all of the agricultural jobs and the entire workforce of the foundries.

No. No it doesn't, lol.

Here's how demographics actually work.

17.6% of the modern UK is Age 14 or under. 11.8% is over 70. That's 29.4%

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I actually agree with you on that, epronvost. With a good training regime women could potentially join our fighting men as equals.

But, honestly, I don't think much upper body strength is needed in the guard. Cadians, well equipped infantry, are depicted as carrying their rifles, a canteen, a knife and a couple of spare magazines. That's a very light load and given the static fighting that most Guard regiments perform it looks to me that a Guardsman don't have to be in all that good of shape. Sure, they can't be a fatbody but they also don't have to be a Marine.

If available to you check out the standard kit of most regiments in the guard. Even for Catachans it is a ridiculous amount of stuff.

But honestly after 38,000 years and thousands of planets I wouldn't be surprised if human physiology changed completely in the 40k verse. Also Space Marine had the female Cadian lieutenant.

Nobody talking about black people in 40k now.

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
If available to you check out the standard kit of most regiments in the guard

Compared to modern gear, that gear is really light. Full body flak armor like that worn by Cadians weighs less than merely the VEST of modern soldiers.

The Mossad is a SOG, which is a military organization, it is simply not a line-infantry organization.

 Psienesis wrote:
The Mossad is a SOG, which is a military organization, it is simply not a line-infantry organization.

The Mossad is not connected or lead or falls under military jurisdiction, It does not even cooperate with the military, That's Aman or Shabak, I know because I served with members of said organizations.

So the Mossad is solely a special operations group, women have better muscle endurance than men, and a 72% military service rate in a society with a 100% conscription rate means that the other 28% must do all the rest of the jobs...


(source for those without American commercials)

@Veteran Sergeant

You seem a bit confuse about the Cadian thing. Let me explain you that non-sense and keep in mind that GW author are not familiar with military history or organisation. They are authors and edditors. The 72% military service in a population with 100% level of conscription explain the folllowing phenomenon. The 28% unaccounted for is made of children too young to be enlisted yet and Cadians so old that they can't remain in active service in their own field (you can add to that crippled soldiers, handicap persons or mental patient and criminals if they are not all killed). Of the 72%, it represent any person in active service in the military structure of Cadia. It includes all logistical personnel (who would have ranks and uniforms just like combat personnel). You can add to that medical and training personnel and even high command. Cadia is not an isolated planet. It doesn't need to make cloathing, food or even weapons (I do think many Cadians are part-time soldiers, part-time worker which still makes them soldiers in the stats of the planet). Most of its food, clothing and other products of first necessity like that are probably imported from nearby agri and factory world. Cadia is close to the beating heart of the Imperium and in a very stable region of the Warp so travelling there is easy and quick for most navigator and ships.

For the Mossad thing I can't help you (I thought it was a more or less legal paramilitary organisation who specilised in sabotage, murder and theft with a terrible reputation.). For women and soldiers jobs, I have already exposed my opinion and my basic argument and I am not to hot on exposing all the details of them for it would take several pages and I am lazy tonight (sorry).

How exactly are you explaining exactly what I said two pages ago?

I'm just having a laugh because Psienesis has said all three of those things in the last two pages, and all three of them are hilariously wrong. The first from watching too many movies, the second from reading blurb fitness articles and allowing confirmation bias to let them tell you what you want to hear rather than what they actually say and the last from not understanding demographics and socioeconomics. Hence the "That's not how it works" meme.

The other amusing comment equating the term "under arms" with "combat arms", when "under arms" is just a military term for readied soldiers in service (as opposed to potential conscripts), not specifically combat arms soldiers like infantry. Again, back to talking about allowing a lack of contextual understanding to feed a confirmation bias. You're correct in that troops "under arms" would include all logistical, administrative, medical, maintenance, and other service-support personnel. But again, I explained this on page 9 and earlier on this page.

Either way, even with offworld production taken into account (something that seems like it would be all but a necessity), there still has to be an on-world system in place to transport and distribute food, maintain basic services, and raise/educate children (who on Cadia could represent 20% or more of the population). Since we know that essentially 99-100% of the workforce is conscripted and serving at any given time, that means the military handles all of those things.

As far as the Mossad goes, it is Israel's national foreign intelligence agency, akin to the CIA. And just like the CIA, you have a tiny special operations group, a small network of field agents and a metric crud-ton of analysts and other desk jockeys. And, like the CIA's SAD/SOG, the Mossad's Kidon is recruiting from tier one Israeli military units like the Sayeret Matkal, not grooming people off the street like the movies might suggest. Mossad agents are much more Jessica Chastain in Zero Dark Thirty than they are Archer or Jason Bourne. That's not to say they don't have some shady covert ops and other direct action hitters on the payroll. They just aren't training them on a farm with Tom Brady's ex-girlfriend like Colin Farrell.

epronovost wrote:
@Veteran Sergeant

You seem a bit confuse about the Cadian thing. Let me explain you that non-sense and keep in mind that GW author are not familiar with military history or organisation. They are authors and edditors. The 72% military service in a population with 100% level of conscription explain the folllowing phenomenon. The 28% unaccounted for is made of children too young to be enlisted yet and Cadians so old that they can't remain in active service in their own field (you can add to that crippled soldiers, handicap persons or mental patient and criminals if they are not all killed). Of the 72%, it represent any person in active service in the military structure of Cadia. It includes all logistical personnel (who would have ranks and uniforms just like combat personnel). You can add to that medical and training personnel and even high command. Cadia is not an isolated planet. It doesn't need to make cloathing, food or even weapons (I do think many Cadians are part-time soldiers, part-time worker which still makes them soldiers in the stats of the planet). Most of its food, clothing and other products of first necessity like that are probably imported from nearby agri and factory world. Cadia is close to the beating heart of the Imperium and in a very stable region of the Warp so travelling there is easy and quick for most navigator and ships.

For the Mossad thing I can't help you (I thought it was a more or less legal paramilitary organisation who specilised in sabotage, murder and theft with a terrible reputation.). For women and soldiers jobs, I have already exposed my opinion and my basic argument and I am not to hot on exposing all the details of them for it would take several pages and I am lazy tonight (sorry).

If I were you I wouldn't try to argue with Veteran Sergeant. He is merely beyond reason.

For your points theiy are fairly valid.

@Veterant Sergeant

My mistake, I confused you with another guy. You are probably on the numbers of Cadia being wrong and inflated in some way unless the definition of «under arm» includes part time workers of some sort like I have mentionned earlier (and even then). Remember that these numbers were put up for a fictional univers in which people with fused rib-cage can breath and don't suffer of overheating just like turtle who do intense physical effort. Let's take all of this with a grain of salt from time to time. Considering the fact that Cadia is set in the far future, the population numbers don't take into account servitors, drones or other cyborgs of the sort that seems to be doing most maintenance and dirty jobs in the 40K univers (there could be ten million of themewith auto-repair team active on Cadia for all we know). The only book in which I have seen Cadia describe was the second installement of the Eisenhorn trilogie. In it you learn that there is tourists and migrant worker on Cadia (you can tell the difference by the kind of camo they have on their uniforms). Are they counted in the population and recruitement rate of the planet? I woudn't think so, but who knows how the Imperium makes its surveys and census (probably not the modern first world contry way and neither the Ancient Roman way) and from where it gets its statistics. It might also warp our vision of the thing. It's verylikely that these numbers are completly wrong and completly implosible despite the setting in which it's set (big surprise). But, it still present no excuse as why are there is no women and black people in cadians army. For black people you can make an excuse for it by saying that all cadians are white and we would have to accept it even if it's stupid and rather boring for it's still rather reasonnable to think so, but women, I don't think so.

I do not think the lasgun + body armour is that heavy, though...

By DH's (and its supplements) numbers (so take with appropriate amount of Morton's):

Lasgun: 4 kg
Lasgun powerpack: 0.4kg (ea)
Frag Grenade: 0.5kg (ea)
Combat Knife: 0.5kg (ea)

Guard Flak Armor: 11kg (includes helmet)

Backpack: 1kg
Tactical Webbing Vest*: 2kg
Re-breather: 1kg
Canteen (2L full): 2kg
Ration Pack*: 0.2kg (ea)
E-tool*: 1kg
Lamp-pack: 1kg

*= though not specifically listed, inferred from other items of similar purpose, size and function

So the average Guardsman, fully kitted, is looking at about 40-50kg of gear (including a week's rations, 10 powercells for the lasgun, copy of the Uplifting Primer, etc.)

That's easily manageable by anyone of a generally-fit physique.

 Psienesis wrote:
By DH's (and its supplements) numbers (so take with appropriate amount of Morton's):

Spoiler:

Lasgun: 4 kg
Lasgun powerpack: 0.4kg (ea)
Frag Grenade: 0.5kg (ea)
Combat Knife: 0.5kg (ea)

Guard Flak Armor: 11kg (includes helmet)

Backpack: 1kg
Tactical Webbing Vest*: 2kg
Re-breather: 1kg
Canteen (2L full): 2kg
Ration Pack*: 0.2kg (ea)
E-tool*: 1kg
Lamp-pack: 1kg

*= though not specifically listed, inferred from other items of similar purpose, size and function

So the average Guardsman, fully kitted, is looking at about 40-50kg of gear (including a week's rations, 10 powercells for the lasgun, copy of the Uplifting Primer, etc.)

That's easily manageable by anyone of a generally-fit physique.

That would be 88-110 Lbs. Which is essentially the same amount of weight a current US GI. carries today. In 40k I would think it would be 1/2 to 3/4 of averages today. Though from what i've looked up the guard flak armor is lighter than a US GI's body armor.

@Psienesis

In fact, it can be very very hard to trek for more than just two hours in a hard terrain like a mountain forest for exemple or an arid wasteland with such a burden. 40 to 50 kilos of gear is a bit more than 2/3 of the weigth of a fit women. It's a the limit of what a fit person can carry for about 16 kilometers per day (in a wilderness setting of course, on a road its about 2 to 4 kilometer more). Of course the most important factor is not weigth or anything like that, but the ergonomical disposition of it (all that weigth in one big camping bag and it's going to be a killer for most women and a lot of men too). Quality of the boots and socks are not to be underestimated too (I wouldn't like to be Vostroyan, their boots look as comfortable than tin cans). For the record, an average ethiopian women (far from being anything close to a well fed, well trained soldier of any sex) can carry on it's head a weigth of up to 40 kilos for over 5 kilometers every day, from age 10 to 50 with the help of a special bag, hat and neckless without any muscular problem. I wonder why the technic has never been studied by the army? The neck is one of the strongest muscle group in the human body (with the heart and ass as the strongests). I just think that the idea of a bunch of Mordians with big straw bag on their head is hilarious (it's also probably why the army never pondered on the question).

Apparently, they are capable of carrying it, since the stack of books on various IG regiments indicates that they are. Perhaps the people of M40 are of a hardier breed than we of M3.

@Psienesis

Of course they can and they don't need to be stronger than the average modern soldier (no mather the sex or the ethnic group). I said it was close to the limit of a certain group of person not over. They can do it and even more if they have good equipment and technics (just look at my exemple for an exemple). But we are getting ever further away from the original subject of that thread and I am in no small part due to me... My apologies.

I painted half my grots blue, is that racist?

Blue Grots

I don't hink the Blue Man Group can be considered a race. They are cool and numerous, but not enough to be their own ethnic group, so no it's not. Thow I have met a man who mentionned the entire concept of gretchin and goblins is racist (the typical goblin face and personnality has a lot to inherit from anti-jews propaganda). In a certain sense it is, but this is a fallacy of equivocation in my opinion.

I think your mate could have had an argument if GW had sculpted goblins in kippahs. Otherwise I think he is talking out of his @rse.

 Ashiraya wrote:
I do not think the lasgun + body armour is that heavy, though...

According to Dark Heresy 2nd edition, the lasgun is 4kg in weight, and full on Cadian flak armor (as shown here; helmet, shoulders, vest front and back, boots, and flakweave in the uniform itself) is 12kg, translating to a total of ~35lbs. This is the standard setup for "line" or "siege" infantry, and is basically a heavy setup. Add in a few more items like water and such, and it would get up to ~40lbs.

Using an equivalent set of "heavy" gear, a fully equipped Improved Outer Tactical Vest is over 30 pounds on its own. The M16 used by the USMC is over 8 pounds. The Advanced Combat Helmet is about 3-3.5 pounds. Add in extra ammo, other parts of the uniform, water, some rations, and other equipment, and you have about 50+ pounds of gear.

Now, assuming a lighter patrol outfit, going by the 1st edition Dark Heresy rules (the second edition's rules on weight for individual parts I can't quickly find), it assumes armor is generally taken as a whole set), the lascarbine is 3kg, a light flak coat is 4kg (a heavier jacket is 6kg), a helmet is 2kg, a total of 9-11kg or 20-24lbs. Add in extra gear, and you have about 30lbs of stuff.

From what I've read, standard patrol weight in the US army are 30-35lbs, using lighter armor htan the fully equipped IOTV.

Based on this, I'd say that Imperial soldiers use gear either of equivalent weight but superior protection/firepower, or equivalent protection/firepower but lighter weight.

Though as noted above, Dark Heresy's rules about weight are a bit odd, as they don't seem to do very well with fractional weights.