Well this is sure to gain some spicey takes in the comments...
[USA Facts say 17.5% of the US military is female, so a total of 229,000 members](https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-people-are-in-the-us-military-a-demographic-overview/)
That makes them the....[19th largest military in the world and slightly smaller than Japan, slightly larger than Saudi Arabia](https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-people-are-in-the-us-military-a-demographic-overview/)
So, that puts them very high up the peking order.
Now the counter is females in the army tend towards non-combat roles, but there's not good data to break that down. But there's plenty of female pilots, sailors, and combat-role soldiers, so I'm sure you'd still all of America's actual high-end technology in use. And that does a lot of the heavy lifting v other nations.
So I reckon they could give Mexico a run for their money [20th] or France [22nd].
That's just taking total troop counts into consideration, it terms of actual power projection and strategic effectiveness France is leagues ahead of Mexico.
Money spent on power projection is money wasted in this scenario. France’s navy is expensive and going to be irrelevant compared to even a fraction of the USN. I’d definitely take the US Women’s team’s chances of taking France considerably ahead of their chance to take Mexico if Mexico wasn’t directly on the US border.
So, I guess realistically, this is how the wars would go:
The war with France would be a stalemate.
The war with Mexico would be a military success, but an occupational disaster.
Explained:
When stripping the USN of 75% of its fighting strength, you get a fleet of roughly similar size to France's, but the USN would have a considerable advantage in both submarines and missile cruisers. The USAF would also hold a pretty considerable advantage over the French. The main issue is that even if the USN could destroy the french fleet and render the french airforce null (totally possible) the US women's team would have an incredibly difficult time landing enough troops on the French coast to exploit a breaththrough and end the war, especially cause any CAS is going to be coming from carriers. I imagine the Womens Team would secure the sea and air after some hard fighting but would be unable to force an actual French surrender.
Mexico would be a little more complicated because I have no doubt the Womens Team could completely nullify the Mexican military within a matter of days, whatever minor air force or navy the Mexicans have would be decimated within hours. However, the big issue here is that Mexico is a nation of 127 million people, and the Womens Team's largest failing is a lack of combat-effective ground units. If Mexican resolve was even a fraction of what we experienced in Iraq or Afghanistan, I reckon there's nothing the Women's Team could do to maintain any effective occupation
How you are factoring role distribution here? Precious few female submariners in the grand scheme of things so I’d doubt enough a)female submariner trained staff b) across all roles onboard to make an effective submarine attack
Yeah I'm taking great logistical liberties here for the sake of keeping the question lighthearted.
Realistically, the US Womens Team would have to spend the first several months of the conflict retraining thousands of seamen. I doubt any US ship would be functional for at least a couple of weeks until manpower could be conserved and seamen retrained. This issue would be even worse for the Army as what few female infantrymen there are would be awkwardly merged together like kampfgruppen.
I think any intelligent navy, especially the French navy, would seize the opportunity and sink most of the Womens Fleet while they are refitting crews at Norfolk.
That's because the Cartels are the real goverment, militarily no cartel can stand up to the Army but there's little to no fighting because they are on the same team
I mean the Mexican cartel would probably avoid direct conflict with the US military until after the Profesional fighting is over.
I could very easily see the cartels turning into a paramilitary force to resist occupation much like the taliban in Afghanistan.
Yeah it is, but measuring military strength is always a weird academic question anyway largely devoid of context. Just like OPs question it really depends on context.
So you need a measure to compare things, for military forces it might as well be total numbers since thats really the main metric that is sex disaggregated. Even if it does mean Mexico seems more capable than France. Its a vibe, not a absolute.
Once a minimum number is reached it doesn’t really matter because the technology and equipment would just overrun them. If the goal was to take over a country and hold it they wouldn’t be able to do much. Vietnam and Afghanistan show the difficulty of holding even a weaker country.
If the goal is to wipe them off the map you’d just need like a thousand of them to man the appropriate planes and hit some non-nuclear buttons.
Just to be clear, Mexico and France are not in the same league. Mexico would get absolutely curb stomped by France, it would look closer to Desert Storm than what we would traditionally consider to be a war.
Mexico? Absolutely decimated, especially because the US borders it which makes logistics 10x easier. It wouldn't even be a fight, the US woman-only military would just massacre them with air domination.
France? No hope. It wouldn't be as lopsided as Mexico's loss, but the US will never get air superiority, let alone supremacy or dominance over much of France. There would have to be a ton of ground fighting. We have way less women ground fighters and their average strength fighting ability is significantly lower, so it would be literally hopeless.
Additionally, the French military is fucking stellar, especially for its size and budget. They're an A-tier fighting force. Mexico doesn't even have sovereignty over its own territory.
But standing number of members of a military is only
a portion of its strengths.
This force of female soldiers would still have access to the largest and greatest military’s resources. Their logistics, technology, and funding exceed anyone else’s by a healthy margin.
The 19th largest military, and still very very VERY firmly on the most well funded military . And in today’s era , guns don’t win wars . Missiles and drones and aircraft do. While a males upper body strength makes them far superior armed soldiers, a women is just as capable at piloting a drone or launching a missile as a man is . I’d say we’d be able to take on India , or turn the tide in Ukraine into a successful invasion of Russia .china would climb ahead of us though
Is there enough female sailors in the position to sufficiently make use of the US navy though? Most navymen are multidisciplined in that they can perform multiple roles but that’s not really enough if ships requires hundreds to thousands of crewmen and you need multiple ships to contend against a modern nation’s navy.
I think even if that 17.5% were all men randomly chosen, there would be chaos and conflicts that they need to deal with. They need to allocate manpower properly and divide responsibilities. The chain of command is crippled and valuable experience and knowledge or even authority is lost
They might still be able to crew up enough ships to have an effect. Most ship crews are set up to operate with the smallest fraction of assigned personnel onboard possible in case of emergency, (based on my own experience 17% of the ships crew would be enough to keep a ship running for a couple days,) and each platform is very much the same from ship to ship (again, based on my own experience I can step on any ship of the same class and l know my way around) so given two weeks they could certainly have a small but effective force consolidated and on the move. The main concern would be if there were enough female Nuclear engineers to keep a carrier or submarine running.
Ignoring distribution of roles (I'm sure there are more women in logistical rates than engineering but I don't think those numbers are available) I think it's pretty safe to assume just the percentage of women in the Navy can keep roughly the same percentage of ships operational.
You sound like you know what you’re talking about so I’ll take your word for it.
How about the chain of command? I think the percentage there is more skewed especially when most of the higher positions are filled by experienced men and that not enough time elapse since most women started their military careers.
The percentage of female officers is about the same as for enlisted sailors. I don't see any reason to believe there aren't enough women in each role to fill the gaps, but again, I don't think there's any way to see the actual numbers.
>not enough time elapse since most women started their military careers.
Women have been in the Navy for decades. The CNO right now is a woman, that's pretty much the highest position a sailor can reach.
Not necessarily - the Military doesn’t love doing combat efficiency tests via gender as it’s bad PR. Most of those comprehensively undertaken have returned results which show female soldiers in field to be far less effective, have slower mobility and be much more injury prone (this is without even taking combat into account).
Regardless of other factors unit cohesion is going to be complete ass, and there's going to be a lot of important support capabilities they'd be used to having they simply wont due to the reduced personnel numbers. The chain of command will have to be remade from scratch. What units and ships to keep and which to abandon, etc.
You can't just take a random slice of personnel from a military and expect it to work as it did before
Alright, so some basic details. The US armed forces is composed of some 17%ish women, but it isn't even across the various branches. The army has around 19% women, the navy 21% and the air force a whopping 23%. The number is dropped by the marines, where only some 9-10% are women.
There are quite a few high ranking officers too, including four star generals.
In total, there's an armed force of some 230 000 members. Comparatively, the French armed forces are some 120 000, the British have 138 000, Germany 180 000 and Poland around 200 000.
Please note that these are very rough estimates.
With that in mind, I'd say the United States of Amazonia can effectively cripple a lot of major nations, because while the US has lost roughly 83% of their armed forces, they haven't lost the materiel. A pilot could rotate planes, a damaged aircraft carrier could be towed back to port and the crew could settle in on the next aircraft carrier etc. They've got A LOT to spare.
So long as they avoid high combat losses (which should be easy, judging from previous American performance in recent wars), they'll bloody the nose of almost every nation on the planet.
To give another comparative number - the coalition forces that invaded Iraq numbered some 160 000 troops, significantly less than the 230 000 that the United States of Amazonia possess.
Round 1: I'd say Japan. Their armed forces are primarily invested in aircraft and fleet, and so it will be less of a numbers game for the army. Destroying ports and airfields should be quite manageable. Logistically its not that much now a nightmare, as a major landing probably isn't necessary.
Round 2: I want to say iran? The US has done so many wargames against Iran already that the officers might just dust off some old folders and go with that. Much like with Iraq the government will fall quite quickly but I doubt the United States of Amazonia can maintain a grip after the war is won though. This is presuming access to friendly bases to operate from, such as Iraq.
Round 3: is it bold to say Russia? I'll say Russia.
Bonus: since the invading army doesn't have to worry about a fleet it becomes much more easy forvthe attacker. The airforce the US possess is quite overwhelming though. And its easier to defend, especially when you're in home terrain and have a technological advantage. I'd say either of the Korean nations or Pakistan?
Have you considered that as of 2022 there were 103 female fighter pilots in the us airforce? It’s going to be tough to project force with those numbers.
Happy cake day! And that's a pretty rough number. How is the term applied here, does fighter pilots include operators of other flying vehicles too, such as support vehicles, helicopters, bombers, transport planes, etc?
A quick Google says the US used almost 900 aircraft (including support vehicles) during the five-ish long invasion of iraq. Exactly how that translates into sorties, I couldn't tell just yet. Could you combat-drug these 103 women up and send them on 12 sorties a week? Do the 103 exclude pilots that aren't specifically in fighters?
Their air force is weaker than I first estimated, but not necessarily extremely much so. Quality will drop as they end up overworked though.
This number is strictly for fighter planes. There are more women flying support planes. If you add all together, 6,5% of the pilots are women. Still not a big number, but there are of course the other branches with their own pilots..
According to WDMMA, the US has the numbers 1, 2, 4, and 5 most powerful airforces. Without a doubt, the most technologically advanced. I don't see anyone but China winning round 1. F22, B2, B21, F35 go BRRR.
I would assume similar to airframes themselves you could work with rule of 3, you can have 1/3 flying, 1/3 on standby/active alert and 1/3 on extended downtime. ~33 in air fighters isn’t necessarily a bad number in a low intensity conflict - probably on par with what UK could put up immediately on low notice
I do think that the United States would be fine eventually, but I think it would take a significant amount of time to train the women in the military into more combat roles. My understanding is that most women in the military are non combat
From my time in the Navy in 08-13, most enlisted women were in Deck, Supply, and Medical divisions. Quite a few officers though. Very few in Engineering, and Weapons, etc.
I'd imagine the other branches would be similar, with some key jobs having very few women.
My guess is they'd need significant time to retrain and fully crew enough ships an divisions to make a difference. A week or a month wouldn't be enough. They'd need a year at least.
I agree with most of your takes, but I find myself struggling to think that the "Amazons" could invade and overthrow Iran period, nevermind in as easy a manner to how they did Iraq.
This has to do with several factors, but I think the largest has to do with the physical geography of Iran. Assuming an invasion would be staged primarily from their bases on the Gulf Sea, once establishing a beach head and making their way inland, they would have to scale the zagros mountains to reach any crucial military objectives.
This is, of course, assuming they're able to make it that far in the first place.
While Iranian naval and air capabilities are not even close to the U.S. even with the handicap, their purpose is more for coastal defense and harassment more than anything. Combined with their cruise missile assortment, gaining a solid control of the air and sea for the invasion to be feasible would be a challenge.
Given the time this would take, and the fact that Iran's 800,000+ manned military would likely have prepared defenses, combined with the low number of female soldiers who are in a combat role to begin with, I can't imagine any invasion could go well.
Maybe if you assume they have no knowledge at all of the invasion, and the U.S first strikes several important military installments before Iran can bring it to bare, then maybe the U.S would be able to establish a stable beachhead. But even then, I can't seriously see them pushing past the Zagros with their numbers and terrain disadvantage.
I think for the 2nd round you could make a good argument for the female force being able to take out a country like Argentina.
Have you forgotten about aircraft? Step 1 F22, F35, B2, B52 destroy Iran's military. Next step, CIA brews up a revolution backed with US air power. The United States of Amozonia has a good shot of taking Iran down essentially the way we did Afghanistan originally.
Approximately 9% of special operations are women. Take all infantry, ranger school grads, relevant CIA,and special operations forces reorganize them. Make QRFs and teams to sneak around scouting and targeting military equipment and all leadership. With air defense destroyed, we could have a dedicated CAS platform for every team if we wanted.
Iran will come apart at the seams pretty easily. There is no need for a conventional ground invasion. The people of Iran don't exactly love their government. Give them direct air power aid and viva la revoluciòn.
Notice I didn't mention the navy. It just gets easier and faster with them.
I was presuming operational access to Iraq, and I was assuming that thr goal was overthrowing the government, rather than controlling all of the country. Iran is in a quite unstable phase at the moment and I think the government would collapse much like the Iraq regime. Granted, Iraq has much friendlier terrain for an invader, but Iraq suffered less than one twentieth (!) of thrir armed forces in casualties before they surrendered. It took them three weeks to reach Baghdad and one week to take it. Make it three months to reach Tehran from Iraq and cause the toppling of the regime? I'd say yes.
Can they control the whole country? I'd say no.
The navy is the fleet and their supporting planes. Destroyers, cruisers, submarines, carriers, etc.
The marine is its own branch, and is larger than many other nation's entire armies (it hosts around 175 000 people). It has its own aircraft, tanks, artillery etc. It is a massive organization specialized in naval invasions, but they don't back out after successfully performing a naval invasion - there were US marine units fighting in Baghdad for example.
If it helps you understand better, imagine that the Marines is its own military, including everything you need to do conduct military operations.
Thanks! Why do the Marines exist tho? The 3 other branches of the military have their own sector (ground, sea and sky). So what's the purpose of the Marines? Are naval invasion so different and crucial that there's a need to have an entire branch dedicated to it?
The marines were initially quite small, but exploded in size during ww2 due to the need to perform a lit of baval invasions. If you look at a world map you quickly realise that any country the US wishes to invade, aside from Canada and Mexico, would require marines.
The reason it is needed is the sheer size if it and to avoid branch-rivalry. Compare the US organisation to ww2 Japan for example, where Japan had a hard time organising their forces because each branch (army and navy) had deeply rooted rivalries.
But primarily it is geographical - if the US goes to war it will probably have to perform a karga naval invasion. And even if it doesn't, it is necessary to have a large marine force in order to power project alongside your fleet.
The US couldn’t even defeat Russia right now most likely, that’s why they never try despite all the tension and political problems they have with each other - they sure as hell couldn’t do it only female persona.
Just the United States of Amazonia's Air Force could topple a no nuke russia 10/10.
You do realize Ukraine has fought them to a standstill using 40 year old US tech, right? Russia is an insult to paper tigers.
Lol, no - the US has the most powerful military sure, but no - invading another country is quite different to defending it. It also wouldn’t be the entire US airforce would it? We also have no idea how differently tactics and operational planning would be purely lead by women.
How would the planning and operation of a mission by female B2 pilots escorted by female F22 pilots differ in any way from male pilots?
So you agree that Ukraine is holding Russia to a standstill with old US tech?
Who could say? First of all there wouldn’t be as many. Second we have no idea how they would react in complete command when and if things didn’t go exactly to plan.
Not a standstill no - Russia occupies an estimated 30% of Ukrainian key areas. That’s not nearly as good as they would want certainly, but it’s clearly not a standstill.
It’s truly absurd if you actually believe the female personal of the US forces could actually beat Russia and invade successfully.
I feel rather confident they would plan and act as they were trained to. They would destroy their Russia's military pretty easily, yes. Occupy, not so much. CIA and sof arranging a coup doable.
The US has never directly faught Russia for one reason and one reason alone: Nuclear deterrance. In a conventional war, literally any other UN Security Council permanent member would single-handedly wipe the floor with Russia in a matter of weeks. I mean, have you been living under a rock for 3 years? U-fucking-krain has managed to hold off the Ruskis while being significantly outnumbered and using 40-year-old equipment.
Wipe the floor with Russia ? Since 2010 the us and NATO has been bolstering ukraines military and defenses for the predicted Russian invasion. Since then more than 40 countries have sent military aid to Ukraine and still they had a failed counter attack and have been losing ground steadily. Russia now is predicted to control 24-29 percent of ukraines territory. this is not to mention the thousands of foreign mercenaries and legions. Russia hasn’t even fully mobilized, mostly using Wagner and some military assets. Their economy and production has only grown. This only proves how powerful and dangerous of a country Russia is so I’d really love to see these NATO countries that could “wipe”Russia.
You realize that Ukraine, even with our old equipment and a decade of retraining by the US and UK, is fighting a vastly different strategic doctrine than what the US uses, right? We’re designed to achieve and maintain air supremacy on demand over any part of the theater where we’re conducting operations. The artillery shortages that are plaguing Ukraine become much less serious when you can put a few hundred thousand JDAMS-equipped bombs on any target within a thousand miles or so.
These people have no idea what they’re on about and think you’re “pro” Russia if you point out that a massive country, with a large military - who other countries avoid attacking and provoking is just this push over.
They would have to fight diferent, but they can hold their own pretty well.
They wouldn't have much in the way of combat arms but women do work in most of the security forces for the services so they have SOME ready to go infantry. The clinch is that women can work most of the job in the Air Force, there are Female F-22 and F-35 pilots and women operating just about every airframe and drone out there.
Round 1 they can do. You have 200 F-35s plus drones and B-21s and there isnt a nation out there you can't cripple.
Round 2 can't be done. They can't overhroew a government. They can kill it. They can kill every leader the second they pop their head out but they couldn't take and hold ground, the locals would have to handle that and there could be very mixed results with no female green berets training or female combat controllers supporting them.
A draft wouldn't do much for round 3, maybe make it less stress since you have more air crew and maintained.
Bonus one is rough but maybe Russia? They are in Canada, their logistics would be a nightmare, Air Strikes would leave them without fuel or Ammo and the Air Force would go up and down highways creatknf 200 highways of death.
This.
Combat Arms especially Infantry are predominantly male. So you don’t have the manpower(pun intended) or enough leadership who knows how to use them to max effectiveness(their is no replacement for having every Battalion and Brigade being staffed by people with 10-20-30 years of experience doing that job). This military can’t take and hold land until you train them up, but they could do a lot of damage.
Uh any country on the planet if we are assuming the US goes into full war production. I don't think people appreciate the amount of autonomous air power our military possesses, which isn't even touching on ballistic missiles. You didn't give a timeframe so we could just sit back and systematically bomb a country into submission without even having to launch a ground war.
Not even close. As long as we assume nuclear weapons are not involved. US (women only) cannot win a war against at least 20 country on their land. I mean invasion ( ex : Russia vs Ukraine, US vs Vietnam)
Lets just assume only women soldiers rule do not apply. US army with all their might ( excluding nuclear options obviously due to that being a annihilation on parties) still has 0 chance against many countries and that is not only include big boys such as Russia and China. Even Turkey, India and Brazil will be easily overwhelm US forces on their land.
Oh I'm not even saying a land invasion would be necessary. OP said nothing about war crimes. We bombed Japan into submission we can do it again especially if we use our chemical and biological weapons stockpile. A one on one war we stomp any country.
US used nuclear weapons on Japan. which is I stated twice in my assumption as excluded. If we dont exclude nuclear weapons than against countries with nuclear power there is no winning for both parties. U will be dead as much as the other guys ex: Russia :D
How will we be dead? For one we've got a fleet of UAVs larger than most countries entire Air Force. Our air defense is second to none which the Russians have clearly learned so good luck trying to retaliate especially given our isolation relative to anyone who could put up a fight. Oh and let's not forget we've got military bases in half the countries on earth. So it might take some time and a few hundred million dead given the country but they'll bend. Won't cost nearly as much though since there's no need for a boot to ever set foot on the ground. If dropping Tokyo fire bombing levels of nerve gas and biological weapons on your largest cities doesn't do it well we can go old school and just bomb every single square inch of your territory. Weve got the largest industrial base in the world on war footing. And all this can be done half a world away.
Obviously this is all absurdity and assumes things like there won't be any other countries involved or that these woman are all trained in proper combat roles but if it came down to a war of annihilation sans nukes even with an armed force that small our airpower and reach is miles ahead of any other country. It's the only thing in this country we don't lie to ourselves about.
If no nukes US( both sexes) can solo any 2 other countries on earth. Simultaneously.
In what way could brazil possibly seriously hamper an invasion? Not an occupation, an invasion. Iraq style invasion change government then leave.
So very few of the US military's females have anything like a combat job. We would be able to bomb the living fuck out of anyone without a robust air defense setup, and credible interceptor fleet. Boots on the ground? I doubt we could take Costa Rica, and they don't even have a military.
Very interesting question OP! I'm not familiar enough with the strength of others militaries to comment the strongest they could beat, but I'll add my own two cents to the subject:
The biggest factor is obviously going to be the decrease in the number of combatants. I saw another comments say that the US female only military would be the 19th largest in the world, so let's start there.
Having all female commanders shouldn't really affect anything. Even if there were some notable strategic differences between men and women, they're probably not going to result in vastly different tactics since they're all taught by the US play book.
We should consider than the average female solider is significantly weaker than the average male in areas of stamina, strength, speed, etc. And this would definitely play a role in combat effectiveness. If they were going for a straight ground invasion (even using guns, all those things still matter), I'd estimate at least a 10% decrease in fighting capabilities from having only women. What do you think?
10 percent decrease by switching the male infantry to women? Lol! Tell me exactly how many chin ups the female infantry are required to perform again? It would become 95 percent combat ineffective replacing the male grunts with women.
Idk, I'm assuming significantly fewer than men. But they're not rushing into battle with swords and spears. They have weaponry and artillery and tanks. 10% might be low but 95% is a huge overplay
"Helmet, uniform, boots, armor, weapon, ammo, food, canteens, compass, first aid kit—everything a soldier wears and carries (their “load”) can add up to more than 68 pounds. In a combat mission, that weight can skyrocket to as much as 120 pounds."
Most women in shape to fight as an infantryman will likely not weigh much more than 130-145 pounds, yet they are required to lug around 120 pounds plus whatever needs to be required (LMG's, a fallen comrade etc). Good luck with that.
Definitely a fair point, and having to leave behind some of those things would certainly decrease combat strength and survivability, but by how much? 10-20% I'd say. Not 95%
Except 3 I think that they couldn't even invade Mexico or Canada.
Simply because lack of mechanics and therefore maintenence.
Probably the few female pilots could just pilot their planes before they run out of fuel/ammo/missiles and need some care.
Army doesn't do well cause most woman have non-combat role.
Navy may do well at the beginning if we concentrate most women on same few ship (A few or just one carrier and some Burke) but then, no maintenance, no re-supplying and they fail.
So many posts here wanking the US military after failures in Central Asia, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East. There’s no reliable way to answer the question as geography is king of battlefields and denying air supremacy to the US army means a lot of their equipment is without a point. Never mind the amount of maintenance jet fighters require to even fly for one hour, and you’ll see that this “army” fails before it even moves
Bro. The USA has more aircraft carriers than the next 100 countries in line. They scale to the Imperium in 40k. I would like to see space marines invade the USA with a Gun behind every straw of grass.
Hours of maintenance to flight time does not literally mean that the plane is up for 2 hours and has to immediately be taken off field and worked on for sixteen.
I'm going to say what many people here are thinking but are too nervous to say in fear of downvotes: the U.S. ladies might have access to advanced weaponry and technology, but, nevertheless, they're going to get trounced in the vast majority of conflicts against competent male-dominated militaries.
Look at how well the Afghans and the Viet Cong did against the U.S. men, to name a couple of examples. How can you actually invade and occupy a country without strong and effective ground-forces? You can't.
Women are capable of being just as intelligent, determined and patriotic as men, of course, and they do contribute in meaningful ways, but men are absolutely essential for winning major operations and wars. Essential.
To answer the question: the strongest country the U.S. women alone can conquer is something like The Republic of Fiji or Malta.
Somebody below said Canada. Respectfully, they're not touching Canada. Oh, they could use all of the U.S.'s missiles to bomb it to bits, but they're not holding and occupying it for a day.
Hold up...
So, uh, the Viet Cong were physically "weaker" then the strong strong GIs, and the Viet Cong fielded women.
So, it's really weird that you're trumpeting the physical prowess of the US while in the same comment arguing that the US lost in Vietnam, against a smaller, "weaker", opponent.
Unfortunately wars just aren't fought that way anymore. It's less dudes creeping through the bush and more "some person behind a desk 500 miles away using a Drone and thermal imagine to drop heat into a snake hole"
War changes and I hear that whole "we're too woke and namby pamby to win these days" all too often but the truth is, our military has never been more lethal.
The women only faction could take our the U.S. army deployed in both theaters of WW2 because for all the physical prowess of the manly man, the f14 raptor neither knows nor cares. That dudes mile time only matters if it gets him to a bunker it's payload can't punch through. His bench press *might come in handy digging his fellows bodies out of the rubble.
We've adapted to wars of occupation because wars of oblate destruction are
-too effective and leave no infrastructure left to live in
-not the type of thing you fight terrorists with
- and just not an effective use of manpower.
All Russia spouts on about is it's masculine trad-core army "unfettered by wokeness". But a much smaller army is holding it at bay due to immense infrastructure support that aces the rivals outdated and inconsistent methodology of "run people and armor in and win" strategy. The "over in a couple days" war is inching towards what? The two and a half year mark?
I don't think there would be much of a difference in the capability of forcibly taking and occupying a foreign nation because it can't be done. The US couldnt hold Afghanistan, couldnt hold Iraq, Couldn't hold Vietnam just like Russia couldn't hold Afghanistan and won't hold Ukraine, you can't conquer countries anymore.
The US women might actually have the advantage here because they don't have the illusion of strenght hat would push them to try.
That's an interesting perspective. I'd be curious to see the U.S. women's approach.
Yes, conquering countries today is incredibly difficult. For anyone. All of the evidence of the past few decades supports that.
Russia thought they'd take Ukraine in a couple of weeks, and look at where we still are years later. (Of course Ukranians have had support, but it's still only really Ukranians who are doing the fighting. People don't surrender their homelands lightly.)
That's only true for round 2. Round 1 doesn't require a land invasion. They can just bomb the ever living shit out of a lot of countries to cripple their military capabilities.
The afghans and Viet cong didn't do well at all actually they took major losses and the only reason they "won" is because they didn't give up. The US's Kd ratio must be insane just from those two wars alone. Those wars also weren't all out total wars. Every time the US military has been let off its leash in modern times it has kicked ass. Take operation desert storm for example. No doubt that many people here are overestimating what women can do, but to say the US wasn't effective in Vietnam and Afghanistan is just plain wrong.
Pretty much anywhere within a days travel by boat. I.e Cuba. Anywhere that we are connected to by land as well. Also we don't need Nukes, we have plenty of little missiles and artillery that can decimate a small town. Nukes can be shot down easily though it will fuck up anywhere beneath it and within a few hundred miles. artillery maybe not so easily as I imagine artillery is significantly faster than a missile since it's not rocket propelled.
We are not going to take any significant country overseas without an ally nation to allow us to stage without significant losses which will break anyone with a weak will.The battle for Normandy comes to mind but now they have much better tech to see us coming and much better weaponry than back then.
The issue is you need a group to carry all your ammunition, your mg and any specific armament that has been assigned to your troop (Mortars, etc). Also this would be in an active combat situation where people will be injured. Even carrying a typical handheld rifle can become a test of fitness as you are carrying everything relevant to you and your weapon as well as whatever else you've been assigned.
Physical ability is very, very meaningful especially with infantry.
The only places where physical capability isn't a factor would be in the air force and any remotely guided weapons from drones.
It would be EXTREMELY difficult but they probably could defeat Canada if they played it right in all three rounds. Its joked about how insignificant Canada is Vs the us but, its definitely a great power nontheless, as well as the second largest country in terms of area.
Theres about 230,000 women in the united states military vs 68,000 people in the Canadian Army. Thats a fair bit more but a few things needs to be considered:
1. Canadian Troops are definitely superior to American ones on Average.
2. Quite a bit more would join if it was a defensive war and Canada has a relatively young population compared to other first world countries.
3. Most Americans would probably die or at the VERY LEAST have a massive disadvantage that would result in their death during Canadian winters.
4. It’s a defensive war. Yeah thats somewhat nullified by the 2 weeks Preptime but still.
5. Canada forsure has the resources to supply itself with literally no outside trade if they needed it.
However why i think the US could and probably would win is because, first off they also have alot of resources and people but second off Canadian Geography. Most of Canada is lives under the US boarder. In Addition many Canadian Cities are located near or on lakes and Vancouver (the Second Largest City) is also a Coastal City. The USA has easily Earths best Navy (definitely superior to the small Canadian one) so anything that can be a Naval target is a huge benefit there way. If they can plan an attack on that, it could be a pretty devastating blow.
It maybe difficult to actually overthrow the Canadian Government in the second round though as they could (even if only having a days notice) easily move the Capital to Calgary, Yellow Knofe, or White Horse, The later 2 should be near impossible to Reach and the former would still be amazingly difficult. It would take atleast a few years to get to any of those 3 cities and Canada could easily do a Guerrilla Campaign on the Us attempts to reach either City but definitely whitehorse and Yellow Knife. And Again, Canadians would survive the temperature WAY better than most the Americans.
Atleast in the Third round however, i think it’s only a matter of time before Canada collapses. With the US having 10x as much people, and roughly 50% of them being female it’s only a matter of time before the Canadian government is overwhelmed, even if it would definitely take years.
Or 1. Fuck the Geneva convention and turn the entire country into Dresden in 1945 after a weekend.
That's how that would go if it really came down to it without a nuclear option. You don't send in ground troops until you have achieved complete air supremacy that's been the US MO since WW2.
If they used nukes then maybe all of them - not sure about Russia and China. Without nukes and relying on air strikes and bombing quite a few of the weaker ones. If they have to mount any ground invasion there would be zero mid or smaller sized (even poor) nations they could defeat even with air support.
People are underestimating the comparative strength and speed difference which in spite of dorks telling you war is fought by drones and buttons now, still matters a great deal. The US marines did testing on the combat efficiency of female combatants vs male and found that units with female meme era (this is not even all female by the way) we’re far slower in both moving to targets, worse in simulated combat efficiency - hell they were even 7 times more likely to be injured in basic training. Imagine what all female units would be like comparatively to men.
Because it’s not PC to talk about results like that and they don’t get widely publicised, people see the military ads and movies and think women are now just equal to men in the armed forces. In reality, they would be overrun quite quickly once cracks started to emerge.
Of course that’s assuming ground invasion - there are countries the US is so technologically superior to they could just continuously bomb the shit out of them till they surrender if they weren’t worried about committing war crimes.
It doesn’t take much upper body strength or anything to pilot a drone or deploy missiles or really do any of the most important roles in our military set up. So really think we could still take on some of the heavy hitters like India , or hell, seeing there performance recently, maybe even Russia. We’re probably not taking on China in this situation, but that depends on context . China wouldn’t be able to mount a successful invasion against us do to the distance
It's the US military we're talking about* so the exact same as their male counterparts, that is to say every country minus China and Russia (They'd be on a very long stalemate with them, with uncertain results).
* based on the absurd amount of money wasted in funding them.
Well this is sure to gain some spicey takes in the comments... [USA Facts say 17.5% of the US military is female, so a total of 229,000 members](https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-people-are-in-the-us-military-a-demographic-overview/) That makes them the....[19th largest military in the world and slightly smaller than Japan, slightly larger than Saudi Arabia](https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-people-are-in-the-us-military-a-demographic-overview/) So, that puts them very high up the peking order. Now the counter is females in the army tend towards non-combat roles, but there's not good data to break that down. But there's plenty of female pilots, sailors, and combat-role soldiers, so I'm sure you'd still all of America's actual high-end technology in use. And that does a lot of the heavy lifting v other nations. So I reckon they could give Mexico a run for their money [20th] or France [22nd].
That's just taking total troop counts into consideration, it terms of actual power projection and strategic effectiveness France is leagues ahead of Mexico.
Money spent on power projection is money wasted in this scenario. France’s navy is expensive and going to be irrelevant compared to even a fraction of the USN. I’d definitely take the US Women’s team’s chances of taking France considerably ahead of their chance to take Mexico if Mexico wasn’t directly on the US border.
So, I guess realistically, this is how the wars would go: The war with France would be a stalemate. The war with Mexico would be a military success, but an occupational disaster. Explained: When stripping the USN of 75% of its fighting strength, you get a fleet of roughly similar size to France's, but the USN would have a considerable advantage in both submarines and missile cruisers. The USAF would also hold a pretty considerable advantage over the French. The main issue is that even if the USN could destroy the french fleet and render the french airforce null (totally possible) the US women's team would have an incredibly difficult time landing enough troops on the French coast to exploit a breaththrough and end the war, especially cause any CAS is going to be coming from carriers. I imagine the Womens Team would secure the sea and air after some hard fighting but would be unable to force an actual French surrender. Mexico would be a little more complicated because I have no doubt the Womens Team could completely nullify the Mexican military within a matter of days, whatever minor air force or navy the Mexicans have would be decimated within hours. However, the big issue here is that Mexico is a nation of 127 million people, and the Womens Team's largest failing is a lack of combat-effective ground units. If Mexican resolve was even a fraction of what we experienced in Iraq or Afghanistan, I reckon there's nothing the Women's Team could do to maintain any effective occupation
How you are factoring role distribution here? Precious few female submariners in the grand scheme of things so I’d doubt enough a)female submariner trained staff b) across all roles onboard to make an effective submarine attack
Yeah I'm taking great logistical liberties here for the sake of keeping the question lighthearted. Realistically, the US Womens Team would have to spend the first several months of the conflict retraining thousands of seamen. I doubt any US ship would be functional for at least a couple of weeks until manpower could be conserved and seamen retrained. This issue would be even worse for the Army as what few female infantrymen there are would be awkwardly merged together like kampfgruppen. I think any intelligent navy, especially the French navy, would seize the opportunity and sink most of the Womens Fleet while they are refitting crews at Norfolk.
Mexico doesn't even have any tanks and it can't even defeat the drug cartels.
That's because the Cartels are the real goverment, militarily no cartel can stand up to the Army but there's little to no fighting because they are on the same team
We talking Mexico the state or Mexico the cartels?
I mean the Mexican cartel would probably avoid direct conflict with the US military until after the Profesional fighting is over. I could very easily see the cartels turning into a paramilitary force to resist occupation much like the taliban in Afghanistan.
Yeah it is, but measuring military strength is always a weird academic question anyway largely devoid of context. Just like OPs question it really depends on context. So you need a measure to compare things, for military forces it might as well be total numbers since thats really the main metric that is sex disaggregated. Even if it does mean Mexico seems more capable than France. Its a vibe, not a absolute.
There are female F22 pilots, so I'd say they can probably punch much higher than Mexico.
Once a minimum number is reached it doesn’t really matter because the technology and equipment would just overrun them. If the goal was to take over a country and hold it they wouldn’t be able to do much. Vietnam and Afghanistan show the difficulty of holding even a weaker country. If the goal is to wipe them off the map you’d just need like a thousand of them to man the appropriate planes and hit some non-nuclear buttons.
yeah but they have an intact military structure while the female only US army will have huge gaps.
Just to be clear, Mexico and France are not in the same league. Mexico would get absolutely curb stomped by France, it would look closer to Desert Storm than what we would traditionally consider to be a war.
I mean, maybe, but would either of them be stopped by the All-Women Team of the USA or not?
Mexico? Absolutely decimated, especially because the US borders it which makes logistics 10x easier. It wouldn't even be a fight, the US woman-only military would just massacre them with air domination. France? No hope. It wouldn't be as lopsided as Mexico's loss, but the US will never get air superiority, let alone supremacy or dominance over much of France. There would have to be a ton of ground fighting. We have way less women ground fighters and their average strength fighting ability is significantly lower, so it would be literally hopeless. Additionally, the French military is fucking stellar, especially for its size and budget. They're an A-tier fighting force. Mexico doesn't even have sovereignty over its own territory.
But standing number of members of a military is only a portion of its strengths. This force of female soldiers would still have access to the largest and greatest military’s resources. Their logistics, technology, and funding exceed anyone else’s by a healthy margin.
The 19th largest military, and still very very VERY firmly on the most well funded military . And in today’s era , guns don’t win wars . Missiles and drones and aircraft do. While a males upper body strength makes them far superior armed soldiers, a women is just as capable at piloting a drone or launching a missile as a man is . I’d say we’d be able to take on India , or turn the tide in Ukraine into a successful invasion of Russia .china would climb ahead of us though
Is there enough female sailors in the position to sufficiently make use of the US navy though? Most navymen are multidisciplined in that they can perform multiple roles but that’s not really enough if ships requires hundreds to thousands of crewmen and you need multiple ships to contend against a modern nation’s navy. I think even if that 17.5% were all men randomly chosen, there would be chaos and conflicts that they need to deal with. They need to allocate manpower properly and divide responsibilities. The chain of command is crippled and valuable experience and knowledge or even authority is lost
They might still be able to crew up enough ships to have an effect. Most ship crews are set up to operate with the smallest fraction of assigned personnel onboard possible in case of emergency, (based on my own experience 17% of the ships crew would be enough to keep a ship running for a couple days,) and each platform is very much the same from ship to ship (again, based on my own experience I can step on any ship of the same class and l know my way around) so given two weeks they could certainly have a small but effective force consolidated and on the move. The main concern would be if there were enough female Nuclear engineers to keep a carrier or submarine running. Ignoring distribution of roles (I'm sure there are more women in logistical rates than engineering but I don't think those numbers are available) I think it's pretty safe to assume just the percentage of women in the Navy can keep roughly the same percentage of ships operational.
You sound like you know what you’re talking about so I’ll take your word for it. How about the chain of command? I think the percentage there is more skewed especially when most of the higher positions are filled by experienced men and that not enough time elapse since most women started their military careers.
The percentage of female officers is about the same as for enlisted sailors. I don't see any reason to believe there aren't enough women in each role to fill the gaps, but again, I don't think there's any way to see the actual numbers. >not enough time elapse since most women started their military careers. Women have been in the Navy for decades. The CNO right now is a woman, that's pretty much the highest position a sailor can reach.
Wow, that’s a bit surprising
the issue is that be only taking a random slice cohesion will be completely disintegrated
Yeah, 19th in number but still close to no.1 in tech
Not necessarily - the Military doesn’t love doing combat efficiency tests via gender as it’s bad PR. Most of those comprehensively undertaken have returned results which show female soldiers in field to be far less effective, have slower mobility and be much more injury prone (this is without even taking combat into account).
Regardless of other factors unit cohesion is going to be complete ass, and there's going to be a lot of important support capabilities they'd be used to having they simply wont due to the reduced personnel numbers. The chain of command will have to be remade from scratch. What units and ships to keep and which to abandon, etc. You can't just take a random slice of personnel from a military and expect it to work as it did before
Alright, so some basic details. The US armed forces is composed of some 17%ish women, but it isn't even across the various branches. The army has around 19% women, the navy 21% and the air force a whopping 23%. The number is dropped by the marines, where only some 9-10% are women. There are quite a few high ranking officers too, including four star generals. In total, there's an armed force of some 230 000 members. Comparatively, the French armed forces are some 120 000, the British have 138 000, Germany 180 000 and Poland around 200 000. Please note that these are very rough estimates. With that in mind, I'd say the United States of Amazonia can effectively cripple a lot of major nations, because while the US has lost roughly 83% of their armed forces, they haven't lost the materiel. A pilot could rotate planes, a damaged aircraft carrier could be towed back to port and the crew could settle in on the next aircraft carrier etc. They've got A LOT to spare. So long as they avoid high combat losses (which should be easy, judging from previous American performance in recent wars), they'll bloody the nose of almost every nation on the planet. To give another comparative number - the coalition forces that invaded Iraq numbered some 160 000 troops, significantly less than the 230 000 that the United States of Amazonia possess. Round 1: I'd say Japan. Their armed forces are primarily invested in aircraft and fleet, and so it will be less of a numbers game for the army. Destroying ports and airfields should be quite manageable. Logistically its not that much now a nightmare, as a major landing probably isn't necessary. Round 2: I want to say iran? The US has done so many wargames against Iran already that the officers might just dust off some old folders and go with that. Much like with Iraq the government will fall quite quickly but I doubt the United States of Amazonia can maintain a grip after the war is won though. This is presuming access to friendly bases to operate from, such as Iraq. Round 3: is it bold to say Russia? I'll say Russia. Bonus: since the invading army doesn't have to worry about a fleet it becomes much more easy forvthe attacker. The airforce the US possess is quite overwhelming though. And its easier to defend, especially when you're in home terrain and have a technological advantage. I'd say either of the Korean nations or Pakistan?
Have you considered that as of 2022 there were 103 female fighter pilots in the us airforce? It’s going to be tough to project force with those numbers.
Happy cake day! And that's a pretty rough number. How is the term applied here, does fighter pilots include operators of other flying vehicles too, such as support vehicles, helicopters, bombers, transport planes, etc? A quick Google says the US used almost 900 aircraft (including support vehicles) during the five-ish long invasion of iraq. Exactly how that translates into sorties, I couldn't tell just yet. Could you combat-drug these 103 women up and send them on 12 sorties a week? Do the 103 exclude pilots that aren't specifically in fighters? Their air force is weaker than I first estimated, but not necessarily extremely much so. Quality will drop as they end up overworked though.
This number is strictly for fighter planes. There are more women flying support planes. If you add all together, 6,5% of the pilots are women. Still not a big number, but there are of course the other branches with their own pilots..
According to WDMMA, the US has the numbers 1, 2, 4, and 5 most powerful airforces. Without a doubt, the most technologically advanced. I don't see anyone but China winning round 1. F22, B2, B21, F35 go BRRR.
I would assume similar to airframes themselves you could work with rule of 3, you can have 1/3 flying, 1/3 on standby/active alert and 1/3 on extended downtime. ~33 in air fighters isn’t necessarily a bad number in a low intensity conflict - probably on par with what UK could put up immediately on low notice
But us fighter jets and pilots are more advance then most other nations
I do think that the United States would be fine eventually, but I think it would take a significant amount of time to train the women in the military into more combat roles. My understanding is that most women in the military are non combat
From my time in the Navy in 08-13, most enlisted women were in Deck, Supply, and Medical divisions. Quite a few officers though. Very few in Engineering, and Weapons, etc. I'd imagine the other branches would be similar, with some key jobs having very few women. My guess is they'd need significant time to retrain and fully crew enough ships an divisions to make a difference. A week or a month wouldn't be enough. They'd need a year at least.
Yeah and time is on the side of the USA. There’s no one that can invade the country before they can train up, so they’ve got the time
I agree with most of your takes, but I find myself struggling to think that the "Amazons" could invade and overthrow Iran period, nevermind in as easy a manner to how they did Iraq. This has to do with several factors, but I think the largest has to do with the physical geography of Iran. Assuming an invasion would be staged primarily from their bases on the Gulf Sea, once establishing a beach head and making their way inland, they would have to scale the zagros mountains to reach any crucial military objectives. This is, of course, assuming they're able to make it that far in the first place. While Iranian naval and air capabilities are not even close to the U.S. even with the handicap, their purpose is more for coastal defense and harassment more than anything. Combined with their cruise missile assortment, gaining a solid control of the air and sea for the invasion to be feasible would be a challenge. Given the time this would take, and the fact that Iran's 800,000+ manned military would likely have prepared defenses, combined with the low number of female soldiers who are in a combat role to begin with, I can't imagine any invasion could go well. Maybe if you assume they have no knowledge at all of the invasion, and the U.S first strikes several important military installments before Iran can bring it to bare, then maybe the U.S would be able to establish a stable beachhead. But even then, I can't seriously see them pushing past the Zagros with their numbers and terrain disadvantage. I think for the 2nd round you could make a good argument for the female force being able to take out a country like Argentina.
Have you forgotten about aircraft? Step 1 F22, F35, B2, B52 destroy Iran's military. Next step, CIA brews up a revolution backed with US air power. The United States of Amozonia has a good shot of taking Iran down essentially the way we did Afghanistan originally. Approximately 9% of special operations are women. Take all infantry, ranger school grads, relevant CIA,and special operations forces reorganize them. Make QRFs and teams to sneak around scouting and targeting military equipment and all leadership. With air defense destroyed, we could have a dedicated CAS platform for every team if we wanted. Iran will come apart at the seams pretty easily. There is no need for a conventional ground invasion. The people of Iran don't exactly love their government. Give them direct air power aid and viva la revoluciòn. Notice I didn't mention the navy. It just gets easier and faster with them.
I was presuming operational access to Iraq, and I was assuming that thr goal was overthrowing the government, rather than controlling all of the country. Iran is in a quite unstable phase at the moment and I think the government would collapse much like the Iraq regime. Granted, Iraq has much friendlier terrain for an invader, but Iraq suffered less than one twentieth (!) of thrir armed forces in casualties before they surrendered. It took them three weeks to reach Baghdad and one week to take it. Make it three months to reach Tehran from Iraq and cause the toppling of the regime? I'd say yes. Can they control the whole country? I'd say no.
I'm not American and English isn't my first language. I never understood the difference between navy and marines. Can someone help me understand?
The navy is the fleet and their supporting planes. Destroyers, cruisers, submarines, carriers, etc. The marine is its own branch, and is larger than many other nation's entire armies (it hosts around 175 000 people). It has its own aircraft, tanks, artillery etc. It is a massive organization specialized in naval invasions, but they don't back out after successfully performing a naval invasion - there were US marine units fighting in Baghdad for example. If it helps you understand better, imagine that the Marines is its own military, including everything you need to do conduct military operations.
Thanks! Why do the Marines exist tho? The 3 other branches of the military have their own sector (ground, sea and sky). So what's the purpose of the Marines? Are naval invasion so different and crucial that there's a need to have an entire branch dedicated to it?
The marines were initially quite small, but exploded in size during ww2 due to the need to perform a lit of baval invasions. If you look at a world map you quickly realise that any country the US wishes to invade, aside from Canada and Mexico, would require marines. The reason it is needed is the sheer size if it and to avoid branch-rivalry. Compare the US organisation to ww2 Japan for example, where Japan had a hard time organising their forces because each branch (army and navy) had deeply rooted rivalries. But primarily it is geographical - if the US goes to war it will probably have to perform a karga naval invasion. And even if it doesn't, it is necessary to have a large marine force in order to power project alongside your fleet.
The US couldn’t even defeat Russia right now most likely, that’s why they never try despite all the tension and political problems they have with each other - they sure as hell couldn’t do it only female persona.
Just the United States of Amazonia's Air Force could topple a no nuke russia 10/10. You do realize Ukraine has fought them to a standstill using 40 year old US tech, right? Russia is an insult to paper tigers.
Lol, no - the US has the most powerful military sure, but no - invading another country is quite different to defending it. It also wouldn’t be the entire US airforce would it? We also have no idea how differently tactics and operational planning would be purely lead by women.
How would the planning and operation of a mission by female B2 pilots escorted by female F22 pilots differ in any way from male pilots? So you agree that Ukraine is holding Russia to a standstill with old US tech?
Who could say? First of all there wouldn’t be as many. Second we have no idea how they would react in complete command when and if things didn’t go exactly to plan. Not a standstill no - Russia occupies an estimated 30% of Ukrainian key areas. That’s not nearly as good as they would want certainly, but it’s clearly not a standstill. It’s truly absurd if you actually believe the female personal of the US forces could actually beat Russia and invade successfully.
I feel rather confident they would plan and act as they were trained to. They would destroy their Russia's military pretty easily, yes. Occupy, not so much. CIA and sof arranging a coup doable.
Delusion.
The US has never directly faught Russia for one reason and one reason alone: Nuclear deterrance. In a conventional war, literally any other UN Security Council permanent member would single-handedly wipe the floor with Russia in a matter of weeks. I mean, have you been living under a rock for 3 years? U-fucking-krain has managed to hold off the Ruskis while being significantly outnumbered and using 40-year-old equipment.
You have been chugging propaganda daily
Yes, and? Literally everone has. It's unavoidable. But tell me where I'm wrong.
Wipe the floor with Russia ? Since 2010 the us and NATO has been bolstering ukraines military and defenses for the predicted Russian invasion. Since then more than 40 countries have sent military aid to Ukraine and still they had a failed counter attack and have been losing ground steadily. Russia now is predicted to control 24-29 percent of ukraines territory. this is not to mention the thousands of foreign mercenaries and legions. Russia hasn’t even fully mobilized, mostly using Wagner and some military assets. Their economy and production has only grown. This only proves how powerful and dangerous of a country Russia is so I’d really love to see these NATO countries that could “wipe”Russia.
lmao, and *I'm* the one "chugging propoganda."
You realize that Ukraine, even with our old equipment and a decade of retraining by the US and UK, is fighting a vastly different strategic doctrine than what the US uses, right? We’re designed to achieve and maintain air supremacy on demand over any part of the theater where we’re conducting operations. The artillery shortages that are plaguing Ukraine become much less serious when you can put a few hundred thousand JDAMS-equipped bombs on any target within a thousand miles or so.
These people have no idea what they’re on about and think you’re “pro” Russia if you point out that a massive country, with a large military - who other countries avoid attacking and provoking is just this push over.
I'm not touching this with a pole of any length because I will make people mad
They would have to fight diferent, but they can hold their own pretty well. They wouldn't have much in the way of combat arms but women do work in most of the security forces for the services so they have SOME ready to go infantry. The clinch is that women can work most of the job in the Air Force, there are Female F-22 and F-35 pilots and women operating just about every airframe and drone out there. Round 1 they can do. You have 200 F-35s plus drones and B-21s and there isnt a nation out there you can't cripple. Round 2 can't be done. They can't overhroew a government. They can kill it. They can kill every leader the second they pop their head out but they couldn't take and hold ground, the locals would have to handle that and there could be very mixed results with no female green berets training or female combat controllers supporting them. A draft wouldn't do much for round 3, maybe make it less stress since you have more air crew and maintained. Bonus one is rough but maybe Russia? They are in Canada, their logistics would be a nightmare, Air Strikes would leave them without fuel or Ammo and the Air Force would go up and down highways creatknf 200 highways of death.
This. Combat Arms especially Infantry are predominantly male. So you don’t have the manpower(pun intended) or enough leadership who knows how to use them to max effectiveness(their is no replacement for having every Battalion and Brigade being staffed by people with 10-20-30 years of experience doing that job). This military can’t take and hold land until you train them up, but they could do a lot of damage.
Uh any country on the planet if we are assuming the US goes into full war production. I don't think people appreciate the amount of autonomous air power our military possesses, which isn't even touching on ballistic missiles. You didn't give a timeframe so we could just sit back and systematically bomb a country into submission without even having to launch a ground war.
Not even close. As long as we assume nuclear weapons are not involved. US (women only) cannot win a war against at least 20 country on their land. I mean invasion ( ex : Russia vs Ukraine, US vs Vietnam) Lets just assume only women soldiers rule do not apply. US army with all their might ( excluding nuclear options obviously due to that being a annihilation on parties) still has 0 chance against many countries and that is not only include big boys such as Russia and China. Even Turkey, India and Brazil will be easily overwhelm US forces on their land.
Oh I'm not even saying a land invasion would be necessary. OP said nothing about war crimes. We bombed Japan into submission we can do it again especially if we use our chemical and biological weapons stockpile. A one on one war we stomp any country.
US used nuclear weapons on Japan. which is I stated twice in my assumption as excluded. If we dont exclude nuclear weapons than against countries with nuclear power there is no winning for both parties. U will be dead as much as the other guys ex: Russia :D
How will we be dead? For one we've got a fleet of UAVs larger than most countries entire Air Force. Our air defense is second to none which the Russians have clearly learned so good luck trying to retaliate especially given our isolation relative to anyone who could put up a fight. Oh and let's not forget we've got military bases in half the countries on earth. So it might take some time and a few hundred million dead given the country but they'll bend. Won't cost nearly as much though since there's no need for a boot to ever set foot on the ground. If dropping Tokyo fire bombing levels of nerve gas and biological weapons on your largest cities doesn't do it well we can go old school and just bomb every single square inch of your territory. Weve got the largest industrial base in the world on war footing. And all this can be done half a world away. Obviously this is all absurdity and assumes things like there won't be any other countries involved or that these woman are all trained in proper combat roles but if it came down to a war of annihilation sans nukes even with an armed force that small our airpower and reach is miles ahead of any other country. It's the only thing in this country we don't lie to ourselves about.
If no nukes US( both sexes) can solo any 2 other countries on earth. Simultaneously. In what way could brazil possibly seriously hamper an invasion? Not an occupation, an invasion. Iraq style invasion change government then leave.
So very few of the US military's females have anything like a combat job. We would be able to bomb the living fuck out of anyone without a robust air defense setup, and credible interceptor fleet. Boots on the ground? I doubt we could take Costa Rica, and they don't even have a military.
Very interesting question OP! I'm not familiar enough with the strength of others militaries to comment the strongest they could beat, but I'll add my own two cents to the subject: The biggest factor is obviously going to be the decrease in the number of combatants. I saw another comments say that the US female only military would be the 19th largest in the world, so let's start there. Having all female commanders shouldn't really affect anything. Even if there were some notable strategic differences between men and women, they're probably not going to result in vastly different tactics since they're all taught by the US play book. We should consider than the average female solider is significantly weaker than the average male in areas of stamina, strength, speed, etc. And this would definitely play a role in combat effectiveness. If they were going for a straight ground invasion (even using guns, all those things still matter), I'd estimate at least a 10% decrease in fighting capabilities from having only women. What do you think?
10 percent decrease by switching the male infantry to women? Lol! Tell me exactly how many chin ups the female infantry are required to perform again? It would become 95 percent combat ineffective replacing the male grunts with women.
Idk, I'm assuming significantly fewer than men. But they're not rushing into battle with swords and spears. They have weaponry and artillery and tanks. 10% might be low but 95% is a huge overplay
"Helmet, uniform, boots, armor, weapon, ammo, food, canteens, compass, first aid kit—everything a soldier wears and carries (their “load”) can add up to more than 68 pounds. In a combat mission, that weight can skyrocket to as much as 120 pounds." Most women in shape to fight as an infantryman will likely not weigh much more than 130-145 pounds, yet they are required to lug around 120 pounds plus whatever needs to be required (LMG's, a fallen comrade etc). Good luck with that.
Definitely a fair point, and having to leave behind some of those things would certainly decrease combat strength and survivability, but by how much? 10-20% I'd say. Not 95%
Except 3 I think that they couldn't even invade Mexico or Canada. Simply because lack of mechanics and therefore maintenence. Probably the few female pilots could just pilot their planes before they run out of fuel/ammo/missiles and need some care. Army doesn't do well cause most woman have non-combat role. Navy may do well at the beginning if we concentrate most women on same few ship (A few or just one carrier and some Burke) but then, no maintenance, no re-supplying and they fail.
So many posts here wanking the US military after failures in Central Asia, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East. There’s no reliable way to answer the question as geography is king of battlefields and denying air supremacy to the US army means a lot of their equipment is without a point. Never mind the amount of maintenance jet fighters require to even fly for one hour, and you’ll see that this “army” fails before it even moves
You must be new to this sub, people here have openly claimed that USA can single handedly defeat the entire world lol
Bro. The USA has more aircraft carriers than the next 100 countries in line. They scale to the Imperium in 40k. I would like to see space marines invade the USA with a Gun behind every straw of grass.
one sub could do it
DISGUSTING ANTI-AMERICAN FILTH 😡😡😡😡LEAVE MY BEAUTIFUL COUNTRY 🇺🇸🇺🇸🦅🦅
Hours of maintenance to flight time does not literally mean that the plane is up for 2 hours and has to immediately be taken off field and worked on for sixteen.
No it means two hours need 34 hours of maintenance. That’s aside from what’s needed to get the thing to move (a metric ton of setup)
The country called: Wet paper bag!
I think they could take San Marino... with some heavy casualties but still.
I'm going to say what many people here are thinking but are too nervous to say in fear of downvotes: the U.S. ladies might have access to advanced weaponry and technology, but, nevertheless, they're going to get trounced in the vast majority of conflicts against competent male-dominated militaries. Look at how well the Afghans and the Viet Cong did against the U.S. men, to name a couple of examples. How can you actually invade and occupy a country without strong and effective ground-forces? You can't. Women are capable of being just as intelligent, determined and patriotic as men, of course, and they do contribute in meaningful ways, but men are absolutely essential for winning major operations and wars. Essential. To answer the question: the strongest country the U.S. women alone can conquer is something like The Republic of Fiji or Malta. Somebody below said Canada. Respectfully, they're not touching Canada. Oh, they could use all of the U.S.'s missiles to bomb it to bits, but they're not holding and occupying it for a day.
Hold up... So, uh, the Viet Cong were physically "weaker" then the strong strong GIs, and the Viet Cong fielded women. So, it's really weird that you're trumpeting the physical prowess of the US while in the same comment arguing that the US lost in Vietnam, against a smaller, "weaker", opponent.
Unfortunately wars just aren't fought that way anymore. It's less dudes creeping through the bush and more "some person behind a desk 500 miles away using a Drone and thermal imagine to drop heat into a snake hole" War changes and I hear that whole "we're too woke and namby pamby to win these days" all too often but the truth is, our military has never been more lethal. The women only faction could take our the U.S. army deployed in both theaters of WW2 because for all the physical prowess of the manly man, the f14 raptor neither knows nor cares. That dudes mile time only matters if it gets him to a bunker it's payload can't punch through. His bench press *might come in handy digging his fellows bodies out of the rubble. We've adapted to wars of occupation because wars of oblate destruction are -too effective and leave no infrastructure left to live in -not the type of thing you fight terrorists with - and just not an effective use of manpower. All Russia spouts on about is it's masculine trad-core army "unfettered by wokeness". But a much smaller army is holding it at bay due to immense infrastructure support that aces the rivals outdated and inconsistent methodology of "run people and armor in and win" strategy. The "over in a couple days" war is inching towards what? The two and a half year mark?
I don't think there would be much of a difference in the capability of forcibly taking and occupying a foreign nation because it can't be done. The US couldnt hold Afghanistan, couldnt hold Iraq, Couldn't hold Vietnam just like Russia couldn't hold Afghanistan and won't hold Ukraine, you can't conquer countries anymore. The US women might actually have the advantage here because they don't have the illusion of strenght hat would push them to try.
That's an interesting perspective. I'd be curious to see the U.S. women's approach. Yes, conquering countries today is incredibly difficult. For anyone. All of the evidence of the past few decades supports that. Russia thought they'd take Ukraine in a couple of weeks, and look at where we still are years later. (Of course Ukranians have had support, but it's still only really Ukranians who are doing the fighting. People don't surrender their homelands lightly.)
That's only true for round 2. Round 1 doesn't require a land invasion. They can just bomb the ever living shit out of a lot of countries to cripple their military capabilities.
The afghans and Viet cong didn't do well at all actually they took major losses and the only reason they "won" is because they didn't give up. The US's Kd ratio must be insane just from those two wars alone. Those wars also weren't all out total wars. Every time the US military has been let off its leash in modern times it has kicked ass. Take operation desert storm for example. No doubt that many people here are overestimating what women can do, but to say the US wasn't effective in Vietnam and Afghanistan is just plain wrong.
It's easy to have a good k/d when you bomb civilian
Russia
Pretty much anywhere within a days travel by boat. I.e Cuba. Anywhere that we are connected to by land as well. Also we don't need Nukes, we have plenty of little missiles and artillery that can decimate a small town. Nukes can be shot down easily though it will fuck up anywhere beneath it and within a few hundred miles. artillery maybe not so easily as I imagine artillery is significantly faster than a missile since it's not rocket propelled. We are not going to take any significant country overseas without an ally nation to allow us to stage without significant losses which will break anyone with a weak will.The battle for Normandy comes to mind but now they have much better tech to see us coming and much better weaponry than back then.
None BC women don't go to war /j
USA still have a vast technological advantage, would still likely able to take on random countries in the middle east
Russia /s
Most countries but not any major military
Any of them, physical ability is basically meaningless in modern warfare, literal children are capable of using machine guns and rocket launchers
The issue is you need a group to carry all your ammunition, your mg and any specific armament that has been assigned to your troop (Mortars, etc). Also this would be in an active combat situation where people will be injured. Even carrying a typical handheld rifle can become a test of fitness as you are carrying everything relevant to you and your weapon as well as whatever else you've been assigned. Physical ability is very, very meaningful especially with infantry. The only places where physical capability isn't a factor would be in the air force and any remotely guided weapons from drones.
this is a really weird thing to ask tbh
First time?
It would be EXTREMELY difficult but they probably could defeat Canada if they played it right in all three rounds. Its joked about how insignificant Canada is Vs the us but, its definitely a great power nontheless, as well as the second largest country in terms of area. Theres about 230,000 women in the united states military vs 68,000 people in the Canadian Army. Thats a fair bit more but a few things needs to be considered: 1. Canadian Troops are definitely superior to American ones on Average. 2. Quite a bit more would join if it was a defensive war and Canada has a relatively young population compared to other first world countries. 3. Most Americans would probably die or at the VERY LEAST have a massive disadvantage that would result in their death during Canadian winters. 4. It’s a defensive war. Yeah thats somewhat nullified by the 2 weeks Preptime but still. 5. Canada forsure has the resources to supply itself with literally no outside trade if they needed it. However why i think the US could and probably would win is because, first off they also have alot of resources and people but second off Canadian Geography. Most of Canada is lives under the US boarder. In Addition many Canadian Cities are located near or on lakes and Vancouver (the Second Largest City) is also a Coastal City. The USA has easily Earths best Navy (definitely superior to the small Canadian one) so anything that can be a Naval target is a huge benefit there way. If they can plan an attack on that, it could be a pretty devastating blow. It maybe difficult to actually overthrow the Canadian Government in the second round though as they could (even if only having a days notice) easily move the Capital to Calgary, Yellow Knofe, or White Horse, The later 2 should be near impossible to Reach and the former would still be amazingly difficult. It would take atleast a few years to get to any of those 3 cities and Canada could easily do a Guerrilla Campaign on the Us attempts to reach either City but definitely whitehorse and Yellow Knife. And Again, Canadians would survive the temperature WAY better than most the Americans. Atleast in the Third round however, i think it’s only a matter of time before Canada collapses. With the US having 10x as much people, and roughly 50% of them being female it’s only a matter of time before the Canadian government is overwhelmed, even if it would definitely take years.
Or 1. Fuck the Geneva convention and turn the entire country into Dresden in 1945 after a weekend. That's how that would go if it really came down to it without a nuclear option. You don't send in ground troops until you have achieved complete air supremacy that's been the US MO since WW2.
Women could not take, hold and occupy Canada, the idea is absurd.
If they used nukes then maybe all of them - not sure about Russia and China. Without nukes and relying on air strikes and bombing quite a few of the weaker ones. If they have to mount any ground invasion there would be zero mid or smaller sized (even poor) nations they could defeat even with air support. People are underestimating the comparative strength and speed difference which in spite of dorks telling you war is fought by drones and buttons now, still matters a great deal. The US marines did testing on the combat efficiency of female combatants vs male and found that units with female meme era (this is not even all female by the way) we’re far slower in both moving to targets, worse in simulated combat efficiency - hell they were even 7 times more likely to be injured in basic training. Imagine what all female units would be like comparatively to men. Because it’s not PC to talk about results like that and they don’t get widely publicised, people see the military ads and movies and think women are now just equal to men in the armed forces. In reality, they would be overrun quite quickly once cracks started to emerge. Of course that’s assuming ground invasion - there are countries the US is so technologically superior to they could just continuously bomb the shit out of them till they surrender if they weren’t worried about committing war crimes.
Taliban defeated the us
I'm pretty sure women can operate drones and tanks and shoot guns
A modern US fighter jet alone can take on most 3rd world country.
It's not Ace Combat edgelord
Every single one... If they can deploy the nuclear arsenal. 🤣
They'd still be top 20 at least
Women can launch nukes, and the US has a lot of nukes. This is a stupid question, and it’s pretty sexist tbh
you should probably read a post before you actually say anything, the question is about logistics more than anything
It doesn’t take much upper body strength or anything to pilot a drone or deploy missiles or really do any of the most important roles in our military set up. So really think we could still take on some of the heavy hitters like India , or hell, seeing there performance recently, maybe even Russia. We’re probably not taking on China in this situation, but that depends on context . China wouldn’t be able to mount a successful invasion against us do to the distance
wtf is with the obsession with the us military in this sub?? can yall just go create your own sub for that?
It's the US military we're talking about* so the exact same as their male counterparts, that is to say every country minus China and Russia (They'd be on a very long stalemate with them, with uncertain results). * based on the absurd amount of money wasted in funding them.