Crazylikeafox: Yes pretty much every country in WW2 used women to run the factories back home and keep the supplies running. And yes, without that strength any side could have lost.
Orpheus: My point was that you can never have too much "Brute strength" in an army, even if it is a large reserve of it.
Also, I didnt mean to down women about being able to become soldiers, I simply meant that MOST women would not be able to hack it (can you picture a cheer leader in a trench?). In the same way that a lot of men would not be able to endure warfare, a lot of women simply wouldnt have the "blood lust" or the Primal instinct that Men have for war.
The fact of the matter is that Males have been waging wars since the year dot. Its a tried and tested system - We know that men can fight wars.
While I have no doubt that some where allong the line women have fought and won battles their achivements are 'brutally' overpowered by the number of Men who have waged and won battles.
I'm not saying "OMG women suck, they can't fight, Men FTW!", I'm saying Men are built to wage war, and we know how to use Men to wage war. Somone who made an army of women would have to over come an array of problems that simply haven't been encountered by other armies before (armies made of men).
When it comes down to it maybe it is a little bit of predajist on the side of all millitarys but I think the general outline is somthing like this;
Men are war machines/ Hunters.
Women are babie factories.
Yes, I know, thats very wrong of me to say. But thats the way nature intended.