I'm pretty surprised about tank crews. I was aware of the fighter pilots and an occasional sniper. I've never been in a tank, but my understanding is that they aren't easy to drive and the people not driving are loading ammo.
Even snipers would be pretty rare. The ability to run away quickly is a real enhancement to survivability, but of course, the fighting was so desperate that maybe that wasn't a top priority.
So I decided to say "electronics" to emphasize that even the crude machines of the pre-electronic era required a fair bit of physical ability to operate, such that most women would not be the best choice. I wasn't even sure about airplanes, but apparently the WWII airplanes didn't require peak strength.
The point is that in the days when combat included a fair likelihood of hand to hand combat, which was certainly true at least until the beginning of the 20th century, it is laughable to suggest that women should have been soldiers. In the 20th century, a few positions opened up where women could have been a good choice. Today, there are more, so we should look to where women can be employed. However, the reason we ought to be doing it must not be "fairness" or "equality" or "equal opportunity". Will the military be able to do the job better by employing women, or transgenders, in those roles? That's the only question worth asking. Everything else is a distraction.
