If memory serves, the British Army did a series of tests to prove the
obvious, to shut up the stupid fuckers at the EOC.

If memory serves, I think it concluded a regular British army soldier
after basic training, averages three times the upper body strength of a
woman. Lower strength, ie, legs are only about 70% more.

There were two other considerations. Because women care about their
appearance, and weight, and because they plain and simply have a
different physiology, they don't eat way enough meat, or drink anywhere
near enough milk to build strong enough bones to be able to withstand
combat training. Nearly half of all women would be invalided out of the
army, just by having to take part in a real intfantry field battle,
just through the running about, and jumping into ditches etc.

This is why when female soldiers do basic training, it's more like
camping in the Algarve.

In field tests, (although the judgemental side of the report was
subdued by feminists in the media,) I believe there was a test which
involved picking up an incapacitated soldier, and carrying him out of
trouble. So far as I could work out, not a single British Army female
solider could pick up a typical injured man, meaning that if you were
out with a woman, and got shot, you then died, hence the typical
british soldier's view that women are useless, and don't want to have
to work with them.



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/22/05 9:50:05 AM ---