• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Should women go to war?"

Collapse

  • AtW
    replied
    Originally posted by Gold Dalek
    I understand that - most of the existing SAM technology is known and has specific counter-measures.
    Its not so easy for helicopters: missile can be shot very closely to it and no time to use counter-measures unless you do them all the time, which was often done during take off and landing, but you can't do it full time.

    Originally posted by Gold Dalek
    Trusting anti SAM technology or praying the RPG launcher isn't that good
    I think the answer is in change of tactics after a cargo plane was shot down with SAMs: after that pilots were ordered to fly low as risks of doing so were judged to be much less than pretty certain death from SAM many of which disappeared and certainly in hands of the enemy.

    So as I said, with SAM its the pilot who needs to be lucky, but with RPG its the shooter - the balance was changed, which is why helicopters don't get shot down every day.

    Leave a comment:


  • DaveB
    replied
    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.

    Mailman

    Nope, definately not. The Brits are the low level flying experts and the yanks are changing tactics to match.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gold Dalek
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Dundeegeorge
    replied
    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)

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • ALM
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • Gold Dalek
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mailman
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • DaveB
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • sasguru
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gold Dalek
    started a topic Should women go to war?

    Should women go to war?

    Basra crash victims named by MoD

    The first British servicewoman to die in action in Iraq was among five military personnel killed in Saturday's helicopter crash in Basra.
    Flt Lt Sarah Mulvihill died in the crash with Wing Commander John Coxen, Lt Commander Darren Chapman, Captain David Dobson, and Marine Paul Collins.

    The 40-year-old was married with three children

    I always thought it best to leave the women behind so your baby factories were still there to repopulate should there be slaughter on the scale of WW1. Also the imagination runs riot with the thought of women prisoners.

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