Indian Special Forces

[abingdonboy]

Women’s combat roles in Israel Defense Forces exaggerated, military traditionalists say

Military traditionalists say women’s combat roles in the Israel Defense Forces are exaggerated by advocates in the U.S., noting as an example a recent IDF decision to keep Israeli women from serving on main battle tanks.

www.washingtontimes.com

Even a country that has mandatory conscription and that needs all the personnel they can get won’t put women even in direct combat roles like in MBTs or mech infantry but india goes full retard and puts women straight into SOF roles

 

[COLDHEARTED AVIATOR]

Till now only Norway have women SF unitView attachment 185685

In US the women failed badly with only one passout.

 

[COLDHEARTED AVIATOR]

In one test of 9 Para SF trainees are stripped naked and hanged upside down in a room full of mosquitos.

Lets see how does that go.

Equality doesnt mean equal numbers in everything.

 

[abingdonboy]

In one test of 9 Para SF trainees are stripped naked and hanged upside down in a room full of mosquitos.

Lets see how does that go.

Equality doesnt mean equal numbers in everything.

Is that the female Green beret (who definitely wasn’t given extra coaching and diluted standards) that then went into the teams and was kicked out for discharging her weapon negligently?

 

[abingdonboy]

My brother in Satan I gotta ask what experience you have of the military and further more, females in the military?

So we are going to play this game?

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music that you love, upload original content and share it all with friends, family and the world on YouTube.

youtube.com

Yet to see any credible veterans who have actually supported this idea

 

[Blademaster]

An army that can only utilize 50% (even less) of the population is not gonna do well against an army that can utilize 100% of the population in modern times.

Physical strength has become a lower priority in the face of advances of weaponry and armor and vehicles. Armies must learn to adapt to the changing times and challenges that the time of that day brings. Indian military is already struggling with meeting recruiting quota and figuring out how to maintain such a large standing army given the pension and other issues.

 

[Waanar]

An army that can only utilize 50% (even less) of the population is not gonna do well against an army that can utilize 100% of the population in modern times.

Physical strength has become a lower priority in the face of advances of weaponry and armor and vehicles. Armies must learn to adapt to the changing times and challenges that the time of that day brings. Indian military is already struggling with meeting recruiting quota and figuring out how to maintain such a large standing army given the pension and other issues.

Strong militaries boasting much more cutting edge capability are making do with much less population. Idhar, if you can't make do with 600 million men, there's something rotten within the system on a societal level which won't be fixed by experimenting with SJW ideals.

 

[skunk works]

Got it guys. Thanks @Jedi Operator

Hatado bhai koi markhor samajh lega

 

[Anandhu Krishna]

Military got to take a chill pill on woke shi!t. We are too poor to be woke. Wasting resources of an already starving force. Even it this is purely for PR ( I pray to God it is) they are bending to the will of a tiny vocal minority and they are not going to stop at this.

 

[ManhattanProject]

When we start bringing out these female Marcos in International exercises and she struggles to climb a ladder with a combat load or a male operator carries her stuff like those guys carrying their gfs purse in the mall. What will they think? they already dont take us seriously and now this.

 

[Blademaster]

Strong militaries boasting much more cutting edge capability are making do with much less population. Idhar, if you can't make do with 600 million men, there's something rotten within the system on a societal level which won't be fixed by experimenting with SJW ideals.

You are missing my point. An army that can draw recruits from 100% of the population is going to do better than an army that can only draw recruits from 50% of the population.

Study on military advances in the medieval history and upto pre-Industrial Age societies. During that time, you had to be highly trained in archery or certain forms of combat warfare and it was extremely costly and excessive screening took place to find acceptable candidates. Then Napoleon came along and came up with the idea of one million man army that were drafted from the masses with little or no training or skills and yet was able to beat more professional armies that took years to create and train and supply and drew from the upper class of society. The nature of warfare changed at that point.

If you can field an army that can fight tomorrow's battles effectively while drawing recruits from 100% of the population, you will beat an army that can only draw recruits from 50% of the population because your army tend to have more flexibility, more strengths & pros, and greater ability to overcome any adversity.

So yeah female soldiers will have weaker physical strength and stamina than male soldiers. But however if an army has figured out how to minimize that weakness and exploit the strengths of female soldiers and combine it with male soldiers and produce a highly capable force, that army will do very well in tomorrow's conflict.

 

[ManhattanProject]

You are missing my point. An army that can draw recruits from 100% of the population is going to do better than an army that can only draw recruits from 50% of the population.

Study on military advances in the medieval history and upto pre-Industrial Age societies. During that time, you had to be highly trained in archery or certain forms of combat warfare and it was extremely costly and excessive screening took place to find acceptable candidates. Then Napoleon came along and came up with the idea of one million man army that were drafted from the masses with little or no training or skills and yet was able to beat more professional armies that took years to create and train and supply and drew from the upper class of society. The nature of warfare changed at that point.

If you can field an army that can fight tomorrow's battles effectively while drawing recruits from 100% of the population, you will beat an army that can only draw recruits from 50% of the population because your army tend to have more flexibility, more strengths & pros, and greater ability to overcome any adversity.

So yeah female soldiers will have weaker physical strength and stamina than male soldiers. But however if an army has figured out how to minimize that weakness and exploit the strengths of female soldiers and combine it with male soldiers and produce a highly capable force, that army will do very well in tomorrow's conflict.

no

 

[Meal Team 6]

You are missing my point. An army that can draw recruits from 100% of the population is going to do better than an army that can only draw recruits from 50% of the population.

Study on military advances in the medieval history and upto pre-Industrial Age societies. During that time, you had to be highly trained in archery or certain forms of combat warfare and it was extremely costly and excessive screening took place to find acceptable candidates. Then Napoleon came along and came up with the idea of one million man army that were drafted from the masses with little or no training or skills and yet was able to beat more professional armies that took years to create and train and supply and drew from the upper class of society. The nature of warfare changed at that point.

If you can field an army that can fight tomorrow's battles effectively while drawing recruits from 100% of the population, you will beat an army that can only draw recruits from 50% of the population because your army tend to have more flexibility, more strengths & pros, and greater ability to overcome any adversity.

So yeah female soldiers will have weaker physical strength and stamina than male soldiers. But however if an army has figured out how to minimize that weakness and exploit the strengths of female soldiers and combine it with male soldiers and produce a highly capable force, that army will do very well in tomorrow's conflict.

Your rant is meaningless as your base argument is military should not close door to women, last time I checked Women are still joining services as officers and soldiers/sailors etc,No one is talking against women aviators or women in intel or women in logistics, Its about women in combat specifically sof, how are you going to minimize weakness or exploit strength when you are assaulting a mountain feature with a ruck that weighs more than you, stop with this woke shit, women can be used in military in non-combat or aviation role and anything else is a no go, tell me one nation who has successfully employed women in combat.

""if an army has figured out how to minimize that weakness and exploit the strengths of female soldiers and combine it with male soldiers and produce a highly capable force, that army will do very well in tomorrow's conflict.""

No army has figure out how to do it because its not possible for now.
Acc to you more people= better military,
Why dont we start making child soldiers , India has a young population ,

Your whole argument is flawed to its core

 

[Blademaster]

Your rant is meaningless as your base argument is military should not close door to women, last time I checked Women are still joining services as officers and soldiers/sailors etc,No one is talking against women aviators or women in intel or women in logistics, Its about women in combat specifically sof, how are you going to minimize weakness or exploit strength when you are assaulting a mountain feature with a ruck that weighs more than you, stop with this woke shit, women can be used in military in non-combat or aviation role and anything else is a no go, tell me one nation who has successfully employed women in combat.

""if an army has figured out how to minimize that weakness and exploit the strengths of female soldiers and combine it with male soldiers and produce a highly capable force, that army will do very well in tomorrow's conflict.""

No army has figure out how to do it because its not possible for now.
Acc to you more people= better military,
Why dont we start making child soldiers , India has a young population ,

Your whole argument is flawed to its core

You 're getting triggered. My post is the farthest away from being woke. I am not really enamored of the idea of females and gays serving in the military. However, looking at from a holistic point of view and industrial warfare point of view, you cannot deny that an army that has figured out to utilize 100% of its populaton as an combat effective fighting force will be given statistically the most probablistic forecasts of victory over an army that only utilizes 50% of its population. I am not sorry if my post offends your sensibilities. Think about it. What does it mean if an army can utilized 100% of its population. It means that it has figured out how to resolve human physical weaknesses and rendered them moot. It has come upon technology that allows any citizen of its population regardless of their physical strength to serve as an effective fighting soldier. That means its technological edge will be far superior to that other army who can only utilized 50% of its population.

That is something no military planner can ignore.

 

[Meal Team 6]

You 're getting triggered. My post is the farthest away from being woke. I am not really enamored of the idea of females and gays serving in the military. However, looking at from a holistic point of view and industrial warfare point of view, you cannot deny that an army that has figured out to utilize 100% of its populaton as an combat effective fighting force will be given statistically the most probablistic forecasts of victory over an army that only utilizes 50% of its population. I am not sorry if my post offends your sensibilities. Think about it. What does it mean if an army can utilized 100% of its population. It means that it has figured out how to resolve human physical weaknesses and rendered them moot. It has come upon technology that allows any citizen of its population regardless of their physical strength to serve as an effective fighting soldier. That means its technological edge will be far superior to that other army who can only utilized 50% of its population.

That is something no military planner can ignore.

Dont worry my brother, I am not getting triggered,just putting my pov, I can understand what you are trying to convey , all I am saying is at this point of time there is no way for army to utilize whole serviceable population and doing so instantaneously will only reduce the effectiveness of our forces, its something that has to be achieved from trial and error method over long period of time and using well-established component for this trial and error will only create weaknesses and loopholes in our defence apparatus , different element has to be carved out for sake of these experiments,
The whole discussion was about women in sof , taking a well established spec-ops unit and conducting experiments on it can yield very bad results , you go from bottom to top and not the opposite, you figure out how to reduce physical deficiencies of women in combat and then try if it will work in sf by carving different element but instead what we are doing is throwing women in spec-ops and hoping the result will come out magically by itself.
So putting women in combat role (infantry or sf) should be done after addressing issues of their physical inferiority.

 

[vampyrbladez]

Exactly the point. SRR is like G squadron of Delta, a dedicated recon unit. NOT an assault force or SOF

India has no equivalent so these clowns will get commissioned as full badged SF troops, then what? They will either have to sit at base depleting the unit of strength or go into the field and be a liability there

third world nation/military importing first world ideologies

Given the way India works, they will create a mahila (female) company attached to Para SF battalion and there will be mahila (female) squads created for Garuds and MARCOS.

This looks like a PR grandstanding exercise.

 

[SwordOfDarkness]

You 're getting triggered. My post is the farthest away from being woke. I am not really enamored of the idea of females and gays serving in the military. However, looking at from a holistic point of view and industrial warfare point of view, you cannot deny that an army that has figured out to utilize 100% of its populaton as an combat effective fighting force will be given statistically the most probablistic forecasts of victory over an army that only utilizes 50% of its population. I am not sorry if my post offends your sensibilities. Think about it. What does it mean if an army can utilized 100% of its population. It means that it has figured out how to resolve human physical weaknesses and rendered them moot. It has come upon technology that allows any citizen of its population regardless of their physical strength to serve as an effective fighting soldier. That means its technological edge will be far superior to that other army who can only utilized 50% of its population.

That is something no military planner can ignore.

The fallacy here is, we dont recruit from 50% or 100%. The difference is recruiting from 25% and 26%. You cant recruit troops who arent fit for combat - And that requires a high level of fitness. In general population, the fraction of women compared to the fraction of men who would qualify is miniscule. I support recruitment of women into the navy and airforce, where physical requirements are minimal and the combat is mainly technical. However, in the army, or in SF units, or in general wherever units see frontline combat requiring physical vigour, the fraction of women will be low enough that the logistical issues that come with them are just ot worth the miniscule increase in numbers.

Plus, while your argument may be fine for western countries, in India, there is no shortage of men fit and willing to fight - Unlike countries where they need women to fill the ranks due to shortage of troops. Practically speaking, we have more men we can pull into service than we can actually equip or supply.

 

[thefewthefearless]

you gotta be kidding me
i agree with all points @abingdonboy and @Meal Team 6 made. indian ain't got no different sqdrns having different roles. all of them are assaulters. we ain't america lol.

not sure if nda has different recruitment pipeline for female cadets. but i know that there are females in intel. why the hell they need to be in the teams??? this commando tag is going to become joke wth. bc reservation ne har jagah ki aisi taisi kar rkhi hai.

 

[thefewthefearless]

Given the way India works, they will create a mahila (female) company attached to Para SF battalion and there will be mahila (female) squads created for Garuds and MARCOS.

This looks like a PR grandstanding exercise.

i hope they don't get them operating alongside men.
instead of wasting money on women. it would've been better to provide better gear for the units.

 

[thefewthefearless]

The fallacy here is, we dont recruit from 50% or 100%. The difference is recruiting from 25% and 26%. You cant recruit troops who arent fit for combat - And that requires a high level of fitness. In general population, the fraction of women compared to the fraction of men who would qualify is miniscule. I support recruitment of women into the navy and airforce, where physical requirements are minimal and the combat is mainly technical. However, in the army, or in SF units, or in general wherever units see frontline combat requiring physical vigour, the fraction of women will be low enough that the logistical issues that come with them are just ot worth the miniscule increase in numbers.

Plus, while your argument may be fine for western countries, in India, there is no shortage of men fit and willing to fight - Unlike countries where they need women to fill the ranks due to shortage of troops. Practically speaking, we have more men we can pull into service than we can actually equip or supply.

comeon, when are we going to say that most female co and seniors are real pain in the ass.