Help support TMP


"Norwegian Female SF - Figures?" Topic


7 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2006-present) Message Board



568 hits since 31 Mar 2017
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Whirlwind31 Mar 2017 1:23 p.m. PST

The Norwegian female SF troopers are getting some coverage on the BBC today – link

Anyone make any appropriate figures in 28mm?

Pan Marek Supporting Member of TMP31 Mar 2017 1:37 p.m. PST

Interesting. Its looks freezing in the photos. I wonder why they do not wear hats.

Oberlindes Sol LIC31 Mar 2017 1:52 p.m. PST

A few pictures show the hoods of their jackets, so at least they have that. Interestingly, the picture that points out key equipment does not show a hat.

As I recall from my one trip to Norway 30-odd years ago, the soldiers on exercises in the rain north of the Arctic circle wore blue berets, watch caps, or helmets.

It may not be all that cold. In most of the pictures, the sun is shining, and that makes any Scandinavian at least feel warm.

Great article. Thanks for posting it.

GurKhan01 Apr 2017 1:04 p.m. PST

Of course, I inevitably read that title as "Norwegian Female Science Fiction" – and thought "maybe a new author I haven;t heard of?". Ah well.

Noble713 Inactive Member01 Apr 2017 10:01 p.m. PST

I wonder why they do not wear hats.

It's harder to distinguish male and female service members in full combat gear, with helmets and balaclavas. Wouldn't make for good "Girl POWER!!!" publicity if you couldn't see their ponytails.

There IS an operational need/capability gap for female personnel to interact with women/children in conservative Muslim environments. I think it is totally appropriate to train extremely-high performing females for certain niche roles like this. I just don't think employing them as general-purpose combat infantry, especially in gender-integrated units, is ever going to turn out well against a peer adversary.

PMC31712 Apr 2017 8:56 a.m. PST

Noble – tell that to the YPG/YPJ and SDF. They're doing remarkably well against their local peer adversaries (and the Turks!).

Or the Dahomey.

Or the Scythians.

Or the IDF.

Or the US Marine Corps (or even the SOCOM units that integrated female personnel on operations).

Or… the list goes on.

Noble713 Inactive Member12 Apr 2017 11:26 a.m. PST

Or the Dahomey.

Or the Scythians.

Do you have any primary sources on what sort of march loads their combat females were humping? How long were they conducting sustained high-intensity combat operations? How well their unit cohesion held up under duress in the gender-integrated units? Wiki lacks such details….The Dahomey article mentions the Amazons had rigorous training but fails to provide any baseline training regimen for the male portions of the military for comparison. So….insufficient data.

Re: Scythians. A predominantly-mounted military force, so cavalry, not infantry. That negates the problem of physically overloading the females. Also, ancient armies in general weren't conducting anything like the sort of daily, sustained 24-hour combat operations for 3-6 month stretches that typify high intensity combat WW1->today. Not illustrative for assessing their unit cohesion under such conditions.

tell that to the YPG/YPJ and SDF. They're doing remarkably well against their local peer adversaries (and the Turks!)

Or the IDF.

Both much more relevant modern examples. By peer adversaries, I meant (and should have stated), US peers with first-rate light infantry capable of full-spectrum and high intensity warfare. So US, UK, France, Canada, Russia, ROK Marines, and a smattering of other NATO-standard or similar warfighting organizations. I haven't been that impressed with the Turks, I think the coup really affected their leadership. Their TTPs for tank employment/protection have been pretty shoddy at the tactical level, and I suspect it is only their ability to mass armor for offensives and a decent logistical base that has enabled them to carry the day for their jihadi infantry minions.

I know the Kurds have extremely limited logistical tails so their infantry aren't conducting multi-day patrols/combat ops a significant distance from a firebase, which helps alleviate some problems with overloading their females. It also restricts their tactical and operational flexibility. I've heard third-hand stories of how most of the Kurd females are shagging the dudes they fight in close proximity with, but I have no contacts on the ground to confirm that (wouldn't surprise me), nor any concrete examples of how it has impacted unit cohesion. Based on similar experiences in both the Army and the Marines, I would assume "not well", but that is merely projecting Western issues on another culture.

The IDF has never utilized the predominantly-female Caracal battalion in a major combat operation. In the last thread I broke down the Caracals training exercises and they never conduct a movement with anything approaching the sort of loads Marine infantrymen hike with.

Or the US Marine Corps

I don't work with too many grunts anymore, mostly a few Master Sergeants and Majors or above. The general consensus is a muttered "terrible idea"….followed by spouting the party line about "Well, if they can meet the standard." Since we're mired in this Marines United scandal, guys are walking on eggshells with regards to how they talk about female Marines. One female logistics Captain I worked with was just sent to an infantry battalion to act as a "mother hen" for the incoming female enlisted infantry Marines….I'll email her….I'd love to get a no-BS scoop on the impact on discipline, as well as how the battalion performs at ITX.

But hey don't take my word for it, the Corps tried to collect data: ( link )

The only reason the Corps is pursuing gender integration is because it is FORCED to by civilian leadership with a political agenda, not because the Corps has internally identified any potential lethality improvement via this course of action. Hell, it can barely call it a lethality sustainment.

and some of the flaws pointed out here are BS: ( link )

1. One critique is the teams were randomized for every task, so there was no opportunity to build unit cohesion. If anything, this is a control measure, as it appears both the all male and gender-mixed teams operated under the same restriction.

2. "The women had not trained to meet the top male standard and it showed, according to the Marine source."…..Uhh, *did the men*? If both were only required to meet the same minimum standard, this is another control. Not to mention that if they screened the females for ones who could get a First Class MALE PFT, it'd be much harder to scrape together 100 women for the testing in the first place (not impossible, just much harder).

(from the link above) "For example, when negotiating the wall obstacle, male Marines threw their packs to the top of the wall, whereas female Marines required regular assistance in getting their packs to the top," the summary states.

^Obvious lack of upper body strength is obvious.

(or even the SOCOM units that integrated female personnel on operations)

Which is….exactly what I said was a useful niche for PT-stud females? Searching/interrogating women/children on raids. Raids are often short duration, so endurance is less of a factor. Plus raids are usually heliborne or at least via MRAP/vehicle convoy. I doubt anyone is tasking them with humping a mortar up and down mountains for 6 months.


I think I've linked this paper by Maj Alderman in the last "women in the infantry" thread:
( link )

Some quotes:

In her book Women in War, Shelly Saywell interviewed thirty Russian women that served in Soviet direct combat units during World War II. Those women interviewed stated that women often had to throw away equipment, leave equipment
behind, or get some of the men in their units to help carry it.
An analysis of the consequences of this behavior would infer that these mixed direct combat units were less cohesive. The loss of equipment within a unit would lead to a loss of system bonding.

The Red Army's experiences regarding women serving in direct combat assignments showed women performed well when given specific tasks that required individual skill but not excessive physical strength or endurance. Their acceptable performance as snipers and pilots and their admittedly inadequate physical performance as infantry supports this conclusion.

Which is why Kurds, who carry little more than a chest rig and an AK, perform adequately at the small unit level…but humping 100-140lbs of gear the way first-rate Western infantry do, or doing 12-hour combat patrols with ~60lbs of gear, including some very rapid and aggressive close assaults, is just going to break women and exasperate their male companions.

We had a petite blonde (like 5'1"…if that) in my platoon at The Basic School. Former Air Force. Guys in her squad, especially a friend of mine who was banging her, would alternate carrying her (often only partially loaded) pack on hikes. This engendered an endless stream of resentment from the rest of the platoon. (who's gonna carry her load in Afghanistan, when lives matter?!? Screw her and screw 1st squad for enabling her weakness, etc…). File that as an additional data point under "why gender integration undermines unit cohesion…".

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.