Women in non front line is absolutely fine

For the most part there is no real difference

If they're deployed into an enviroment where supplies could become an issue, then no.

The 'homefront' is where women should serve.

That's it.

For example, a drone pilot at an RAF base really doesnt affect the supply lines

Artillery are so far back it also doesnt matter

for example

Not to mention the post war recovery, if you have lost 50% of your male population then no big deal, you can bounce back in a generation or two. If you lose 50% of your female population though you are up shits creak.

Cooks

Armourers

We're already up shits creak @4SidedTriangle

Engineers

Etc

All fine

All roles which can require front-line service

Artillary also.

Front-lines are dynamic and often change

I speak from a little experience here

You are SOLDIERS first, then your appointed role

Last ditch only

Every person in the military is trained as a soldier.

That's their primary role.

Applies to Navy, Airforce, Army.

Well yes, however stop a second

Devils advocate here, what about women in front line rolls in the TA with no overseas deployment?

Listen, the primary issue is during intense front line situations.

And the issue is, the front-line moves.

A cook is incredibly unlikely to enter that situation

Therefore they are also required to meet a lower physical standard

Male or female

Nope, they have the same requirements.

No they dont

The only reason they're cooks, is because they scored shit on the entry tests

TA? @4SidedTriangle

Terrirtorial army

they are called the reserves now

Ooh hard one

Probably the same

territorial army

Since the reserves can be called up and put into active service