"Yama" wrote in message
...

"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.

Those irrelevant islands were thought important enough
by the masses who demonstrated their fervent nationalism
before the war and who overthrew the government after it.

Second, distant deployment seriously limits conscript army's main
advantage - number.


Trouble is it was the British army that was deployed 8000 miles
from home, the Falklands are rather closer to Argentina.


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?


One tends to go with the other.

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.


In which army ?

Conscripts only serve around 18 months in Greece and that would mean
training absorbed 1/3 of their time in the army.

In Finland the maximum term of servive eben for specialists was 330
days, if they received 32 weeks of training then that would represent
2/3 rds of their service.

Hungary, France and Germany all have a 10 month period of service.
Its rather expensive to spend 8 months training people who only
serve in combat units for 2 months afterwards.

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.


Ah mysterious sources only you have access to, how impressive.

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.


Only if you insist on it being the same size. The simple fact
is that the lower throughput of a professional army means
that a greater percentage of your force is combat ready.


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.


I recall already making the point that high intensity mass warfare does
require conscription, that however is hardly likley in Europe at present.

The traditional British and US approach has been to maintain rather
small but well trained and equipped professional forces expanded
by conscription on those rare occasions it is required. I see no
reason to change that approach and mant other European nations
seem to be at least considering its adoption.

Keith