"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
"Yama" wrote in message
...
Falklands war was a colonial war, type of conflict where professional
armies
perform better. Do you think Brits could have invaded Argentina
mainland?
Didn't think so either.


Which is irrelevant,

Of course it's not. First off, conscripts hardly can be expected to have a
good morale when dragged to fight over some irrelevant rocky islands.
Second, distant deployment seriously limits conscript army's main
advantage - number.

As for Republican Guards putting up a fight, I seem to have missed it.
In
more recent war most resistance came from militias. In DS RG was more
involved, but even then their performance was not markedly better than
that
of some regular army units.


They seem to have been somewhat better than the bulk
conscript divisions

But was it because they were professionals or only because they got more
training funds and better equipment because they were politically more
trustworthy?

In other words, pretty similar training period as what equivalent
conscripts
receive.


I dont believe many army conscripts get 32 weeks of training but even
assuming
they do thats pretty expensive if the guy is only in the army for a year
or even two.

What do you think conscripts do in the Army? Honestly, 32 weeks is quite
short for conscription time.

Where does it say that conscripts have to be ill trained? Have you ever
SEEN
an European conscript army? For example, German conscripts routinely
used
to
win NATO tank crew competitions. IIRC US Army managed to win once.


Competitons of course involve all nations putting their best crews
forward, I'd be interested to see what the average performance
looks like.

I know some people who have operated with US and various European
professional forces in Kosovo and Bosnia. Let's just say that they haven't
exactly been in awe about their performance. And this includes such forces
like airborne brigades which are supposed to be more élite.

Um, do you seriously think this is true for all conscript armies? I
certainly know _very well_ how to clean and maintain my rifle and I
wasn't
even an infantryman.

Its symptomatic of what happens when an army has to process
more men than it has the resources to train and equip properly.

Quite simply, I have a hard time believing the story as true. Taking care of
personal weapon is amongst 2 or 3 first things any soldier is taught.

If this was not done in Argentinan army, then the quality of it's training
must have been truly atrocious.

Its certainly true that conscript armies CAN be extremely
competent but that doesnt come cheaply. The Swiss
and Scandinavians certainly seem to have good
home defence forces but that is built on around an active
reserve system with the conscription being essentially
viewed as training for the reserves.

....so?

"Cheaply" is relative. Having an army equally capable as all-professional
force would cost many times more.

In the main the opinion among many military leaders
is that a small professional force is more useful
in todays environment than a larger conscript army.

Well, as long as "todays environment" comprises of various bush wars (pardon
the pun) around the globe, I certainly agree. But not all nations have that
sort of requirements...

If just by some weird turn of events Warsaw Pact makes a comeback, you bet
many European nations would go back to conscription.