Richmond Times-Dispatch; Jan-June 1908

[Carthaginian]

Carthaginian,

The situation 100 years ago was much different. Today, for medium-scale overseas war like Vietnam/Korea/Iraq, professional soldiers are much better. Due to the sophisticated equipment used today, high education levels are desirable. To use a rifle, you don't need much pre-existing education. And I could find three examples of exeptional conscript armies from the top of my head - Wehrmacht, Finland and Israel.

The average soldier has very little 'sophisticated equipment,' P³D.
Professional (one 6 year enlistment or more) NCO's are the lowest level troops that operate what could be called 'sophisticated' equipment (more in depth than a GPS or cell phone). Radios are programed by specialists, but the general soldier does little more with them than his WWII counterpart- he pushes a button to talk and looks up a commo specialist when the radio don't talk back. An aircraft mechanic might be working on a more advanced piece of equipment than his WWI counterpart, but his education is far in excess of the guy working on the SPAD as well; thus, the advances in sophistication in the military equipment is compensated for by the degree of civilian education that even the average person on the street has.

In general, all US Army equipment is (no shit, guys) designed to be operated by a person with a SIXTH-GRADE EDUCATION! All 'Dash 10' manuals (Army parlance for basic operators manuals) are written so that the average 12 year old can understand them and use the equipment detailed within.

And Israel largely uses the same equipment that the US military does...
I mean, after all, we build most of their planes, and taught them how to build tanks and APC's by giving them our old ones and letting them improve on the designs as they saw fit. Hell, some of Israel's equipment is better and more advanced than ours!
Additionally, though the average Israeli soldier is conscripted, the average Israeli soldier has a different mindset about conscription and service than the average American/European. OUr homes and hearths have been safe from real challenge for 50+ years. We do not fear for our day-to-day survival and understand the only thing standing between us and oblivion are the men with guns that watch over us.
Israel is much closer to the danger, and thus their population sees a POV much closer to the truth.
They are conscripted, but are also willing and proud to do their part.

Show me an American that would have that POV, and I'll show you someone that could have easily been convinced to volunteer if properly asked.

The big difference IMHO is the quality of the officer corps. Or, even more importantly, is their number is large enough to fill positions in the fully mobilized army, in time?
Severe war losses in the professional cadre hindered the performance of several armies in WWI (AH and UK).

The US military is so top-heavy that 50% of the officers could die at a stroke, the positions be filled with civilians and the whole works would suffer not one bit.
I mean, how many Equal Opportunity officers and PX officers and Recreation officers does one army need?
Most of our officers are useless POGs that never see a rifle unless they watch a formation of real soldiers march by on the way to weapon practice.

In both World Wars, the US addressed the issue with a huge training effort, taking about a year until the first large-scale land operations.

In both cases, there couldn't have been enough volunteers to fill the ranks.
Hell, there are barely enough now.
That still doesn't change the fact that volunteers that desire to be in uniform will always outperform conscripts that do not wish to be there. The problem that prevents me from properly illustrating my point is that I could never find a volunteer force large enough to take on jobs of the scale which conscript armies have had to face to produce the miraculous results seen in WWI and WWII.

[P3D]

If you want top-heavy army, check the Hungarian. More generals than tanks IIRC.

[Carthaginian]

If you want top-heavy army, check the Hungarian. More generals than tanks IIRC.

To parphprase Johnny Rico: "What kind of army has more sergeants than privates? An army that looses wars."

[Korpen]

The volunteer has one innate advantage over the conscript- he WISHES to be there.
The conscript will have somewhere else he would rather be than where he is.
The volunteer may wish he was elsewhere at times, but always comes back to the fact that he is satisfied enough with his situation to remain there.

Having heard tales of men who served under both systems during the Vietnam war and it's aftermath, and having served in a volunteer force alongside conscripted forces myself... I'll always take an empty file left by a lack of volunteers over a soldier pressed into service and thinking about all the other things he'd rather be doing besides watching my back.

99% of all conscripts also wishes to be there, very few in a conscripted country are there only because they have to. So I think the basis for your argument is flawed.

But a conscription army is much more politically sensitive, making it worse for aggressive or expansionistic policies, or in wars that are perceived as unjust or none of their concern.
This means that full timers are most likely better for "small wars" and irregular conflicts far from the homeland, of the type the US have engaged in since Korea.
One thing that makes me cautions about using the US as a example of conscript vs. volunteer is that it have never in modern time faced a threat to its homeland of the type that pretty every country in the rest of the world, an enemy across a land border.

For fighting a all-out war there is no difference in motivation between a volunteer and a conscript, if anything I would think the conscript is more motivate as he is integrated into society in a way a "mercenary" is not.
On top of that in a mobilized unit the conscripts bring in significant amount of civilian skill that are lacking in a full-time force.

[P3D]

The major argument against conscription is its being unfair by the unlucky. Unless you allow no exemption, also making sure that those failing the psych/physical fitness tests won't enjoy civilian life meanwhile. The worst is IMO when a fraction of a given age bracket is needed to fill up the conscript TOEs (at least that's my experience).

[Borys]

If you want top-heavy army, check the Hungarian. More generals than tanks IIRC.

Sadly the Polish army is heading that way. And all those generals had once sworn to uphold Socialism and the alliance with the Soviet Union.
Hmm, the oath was changed c. 1990. So maybe the youngest onmes hadn't.
But I'd still discharge anybody who reached the rank of Major before 1989.
But I'm the looney right, so ...
Having been subject to conscription (ended up as a sweepr in a hospital) in a country with an unpopular gov't, and with each age cohort being twice the necessary size, corruption of recruitment offciers and doctors was rampant. I agree that either call up all, or nobody. Or, those who had served get perks in civilian life - aka Wilhelmine Germany. You could not get certain jobs if you hadn't done service. And certain jobs were reserved foir 12 year servicemen, for instance.
Borys

[Borys]

The US military is so top-heavy that 50% of the officers could die at a stroke, the positions be filled with civilians and the whole works would suffer not one bit.

A positive impression I have of the US military is that if 50% of officers dissapear, their lack would pass unnoticed. However, if 50% of NCOs and Warrant Officers dissapeared, the Army would fall part. Is this correct? Or did I form a false image by reading too many discussion boards on the web?

I mean, how many Equal Opportunity officers and PX officers and Recreation officers does one army need?

Zero?
Borys

[Carthaginian]

The volunteer has one innate advantage over the conscript- he WISHES to be there.

99% of all conscripts also wishes to be there, very few in a conscripted country are there only because they have to. So I think the basis for your argument is flawed.

This is no longer the case in the US or Canada, or the UK even, for that matter.
Very few nations still have that kind of nationalistic drive, Korpen.
The S. Koreans were the only ones that I met who actually seemed happy to have been drafted.

[Carthaginian]

[qu
A positive impression I have of the US military is that if 50% of officers dissapear, their lack would pass unnoticed. However, if 50% of NCOs and Warrant Officers dissapeared, the Army would fall part. Is this correct? Or did I form a false image by reading too many discussion boards on the web?

Any military that looses 50% of their NCO Corps may as well hang it up.
You can make a passing fair lieutenant out of a civilian in a training course, and you can make most any fool into a private, but a sergeant must be cultivated.

The Soviet Army tried 'instant sergeants'... I'm sure you know how well that concept worked out.

[Korpen]

[qu
A positive impression I have of the US military is that if 50% of officers dissapear, their lack would pass unnoticed. However, if 50% of NCOs and Warrant Officers dissapeared, the Army would fall part. Is this correct? Or did I form a false image by reading too many discussion boards on the web?

Any military that looses 50% of their NCO Corps may as well hang it up.
You can make a passing fair lieutenant out of a civilian in a training course, and you can make most any fool into a private, but a sergeant must be cultivated.

The Soviet Army tried 'instant sergeants'... I'm sure you know how well that concept worked out.

Different way of operating, most conscription armies place much less weight on NCO and more on junior officers. On the other hand all officers have served as privates and all the way up.

[Carthaginian]

Different way of operating, most conscription armies place much less weight on NCO and more on junior officers. On the other hand all officers have served as privates and all the way up.

Yeah... but what good does that do if the training is inadequate to the task of making an officer- or private, for that matter? I find it interesting that the best Soviet commanders were the ones that came up during the Tsarist period under procurement strategies similar to ours. The Soviet officer training program was as faulty as the NCO training, IMO (and that of all the literature that I've been exposed to).




Anyway, new news as soon as I get through studying this next bit of school material!

[Korpen]

Different way of operating, most conscription armies place much less weight on NCO and more on junior officers. On the other hand all officers have served as privates and all the way up.

Yeah... but what good does that do if the training is inadequate to the task of making an officer- or private, for that matter? I find it interesting that the best Soviet commanders were the ones that came up during the Tsarist period under procurement strategies similar to ours. The Soviet officer training program was as faulty as the NCO training, IMO (and that of all the literature that I've been exposed to).

Sure, but bad training have nothing to do with volonteers vs conscripts, after all I rate the israeli or Swedish army far higher then the Nigerian one...

[Korpen]

The volunteer has one innate advantage over the conscript- he WISHES to be there.

99% of all conscripts also wishes to be there, very few in a conscripted country are there only because they have to. So I think the basis for your argument is flawed.

This is no longer the case in the US or Canada, or the UK even, for that matter.
Very few nations still have that kind of nationalistic drive, Korpen.
The S. Koreans were the only ones that I met who actually seemed happy to have been drafted.

Being happy with it is another thing then being content with it.
But a conscript soldier is much more a part of the society then a professional one, so if you got lots of corruption in society in general, you will get lots of it in the army as well. But the opposite is also true, in a country with low lever of corruption, the conscription sustem is unlikely to be.
A major factor in this is how the sytem treats it soldiers, in a country such as Russia, were violence against and between soldiers are common, and standards of living are low, there is much less imputus to do service. On the other hand, in countries were conscripts feel like they are still respected, and get to do something meaningful, the level of motivation to do service is far higher.

[Borys]

Different way of operating, most conscription armies place much less weight on NCO and more on junior officers. On the other hand all officers have served as privates and all the way up.

The "all officers have served as privates" is not found in Soviet style armies. The officers do not care for the men, and leave them to the NCOs -  the longest serving of the conscripts - who savagely and brutaly overlord over the rest. Between 5PM and 7AM the barracks function in a manner similar to a prison. Unless somebody is killed or seriuosy injured the officers DO NOT INTERVENE.

Borys

[maddox]

In the N-verse France, there is already made a reference to the feminists, and the drive to "equality".

In a very primitive society, females were seen as the leaders (behind the scenes or not), the ones that organise everything not directly involving hunting and warfare.

In a more modern society, females became mothers, the reason why an empire could grow.  To be sheltered and protected, so more babies could be born.

It's when the standard of living gets high enough, the acceptation of women in harder/more dangerous roles of life (not that being a farmers wife ever was easy or light) can start, but only if the females demand it;

The only exception is "political urgency".  The best example is the difference between Nazi Germany and the Allies.  Even at the worst moments for Nazi Germany, the women were "held" at their traditional values, when Rosie the Rivetter was propaganda issue in the US.

For the N-verse France, The Suffragettes are demanding free acces to the army and navy for females that want such a carreer.