As an advocate of equality for women, this question has always intrigued me. We all know of the Russian experience. The Soviets used their women in a variety of different roles. But, in the west, we are still hamstrung by tradition to seriously consider large scale recriutment of girls, especially into their own units. With the case for their inclusion, I would list several factors in their favour to suggest that women will, in time, make far a far better miltary unit(s)...the case for includes... 1/ The obvious higher pain thresholds. This is not common to all women, but the ones that are blessed with this attribute, (like my Maori wife), could concievably continue to operate despite injury. She would not cry out if wounded and give away her position. She would be more effective when a wound comes along, enabling more time between wounding and treatment, lowering casualty rates. 2/ Women's sence of sisterhood to other members of their sex would mean that their units would be less likely to surrender, and more likely to come to eachother's aid in a tight spot. 3/ Ferocity; Every man knows the ferocity of an angry woman. Just threaten her family or her baby and see what happens. With their greater sense of family unity, women of countries that were the victims of aggression would rise to the national call with far more ferocity and committment than the average Joe, (One remembers one of Spike Milligan's artillery unit claiming that he volunteered, saying "anything to get away from the bleedin' wife..." These are my thoughts. Wonder what the rest of the Rogues believe. We, in the West, are on the threshold of discovering exactly what women soldiers, sailors and airmen can achieve in straight combat roles.... What do you all think?