"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
"Yama" wrote in message
...
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.
Falklands are islands, so deployment problems remained regardless of
distance.
Again, do you seriously think that British Army and Royal Marines could have
taken Argentinian army on their mainland?
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.
Exactly - volunteer, selected palace guard was obviously better instrument
of power for Saddam than draftees. Their military prowess was not
particularly relevant...
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.
Ah, I see the confusion. Most conscript armies do not have "combat units" in
the sense you talk, because there is no need to deploy them anywhere as we
do not have former, current or future colonies to fight over. Should the
need arise, combat formations are formed either expanding the training units
or from scratch according to mobilization plans.
Currently Finnish conscripts serve 180 to 360 days, depending on their task
or rank. That time is almost wholly spent on training.
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.
Fine, if you don't want to believe then don't. If we go by that route, I
could ask you what are YOUR sources for that dubious "Argies couldn't
maintain their rifles" -story.
If you can read Finnish I can google you some threads from Finnish NG where
some of these people talk about their experiences.
"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.
Not at all. For example, current Finland's wartime field army is 430,000
strong. Having a volunteer force even just half the size would be
outrageously expensive.
The simple fact
is that the lower throughput of a professional army means
that a greater percentage of your force is combat ready.
Of course, but that is not relevant advantage for everyone.
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.
I'm sure that approach has lots of merit for geographically safe and
isolated nations with worldwide interests and committents. FWIW, I think
that those people calling for re-introducing conscription in USA are quite
wrong and it would result to a disaster. However this has nothing to do with
respective fighting performances of pro vs conscription armies in modern
war; it's just a matter of requirements and deployment issues.
|