Russian Air Force Woes - Time to start again?

"Yama" wrote in message
...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
"Yama" wrote in message
...
I agree with your main point (professional army better for Russia now)
but
honestly, couldn't we put this "conscripts no use in modern warfare"
crap
to
rest? It sort of gets tiresome seeing it repeated everywhere with no
basis
whatsoever.

Apart from the experience of the last 30 years during which
conscript armies havent done terribly well in combat
in comparison with professional forces.

And what relevant experience would that be?

I'll hazard a guess that you refer to for example, Desert Storm. Bzzt,
wrong: main combat force of Iraqi army - the Republican Guards - were a
volunteer professional force. That didn't seem to help them.


Incorrect

I was thinking of the Argentines in the Falklands but since
you mention the Republican guard they were in fact
regarded as the main threat and at lest put up a fight.

Conscripts have their place in large scale high intensity warfare
and an active militia with universal service such as that maintained
by the Swiss or Noorwegians may well have its place but its notable
that even those European nations that traditionally used conscription
are
tending
to move to a volunteer military. Its particularly difficult to see
how you can maintain the required standard in techinical services
such as the air force or navy.

Tasks requiring signifant technical expertise are manned by professional
soldiers in both conscript and professional armies. That situation has not
changed a bit since WW2.

This is untrue, during WW2 many of those technical tasks were
done by conscripts, they had to be, the regulars provided the
training and leadership cadres.

This does not mean that conscripts do not have a
place in those services in supporting tasks. Even in all-pro forces, most
mechanics etc actually receive pretty minimal training in any case, so
from
skill level point it's totally irrelevant whether one is a draftee or
volunteer.


If you join the British Army as a REME Mechanic you'll get
12 weeks of basic training followed by up to 19 weeks
of specialist training to get you to a basic proficiency level

Further courses ranging from 2 to 11 weeks will be available as your carreer
progresses and and senior NCO's may end up on the Military
Plant Foreman course which runs for a year.

For officer entrants a common route is the 46 week Professional
Engineer Training course

In any event France ,Portugal,Spain and Italy are all in the process
of abolishing conscription and Germany is reducing the length
of military service.

That's because their requirements have changed, not because of some
fundamental change in nature of warfare. If your requirement is to defend
your nation against unwelcome tourists, a conscript army is generally
better. If your requirement is to subdue natives few thousand km's away
from
your homeland, professional force is better.


In fact the balance of skills needed HAS changed, while the poor bloody
infantry are still the backbone of any army a regiment made up
of soldiers who are trained to act on their own initiative, have a mix
of skills and are well trained will always have an advantage over
ill trained conscripts. One of the big problems the Argentines hit
in the field was that their soldiers were used to returning
their weapons to the armoury for cleaning and maintenance.
This became a problem when soldiers not only didnt know how
to clean their rifles and clear jams but didnt even have cleaning kits.

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
"Yama" wrote in message
...
And what relevant experience would that be?

I'll hazard a guess that you refer to for example, Desert Storm. Bzzt,
wrong: main combat force of Iraqi army - the Republican Guards - were a
volunteer professional force. That didn't seem to help them.


Incorrect

I was thinking of the Argentines in the Falklands but since
you mention the Republican guard they were in fact
regarded as the main threat and at lest put up a fight.

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.

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.

Tasks requiring signifant technical expertise are manned by professional
soldiers in both conscript and professional armies. That situation has
not
changed a bit since WW2.

This is untrue, during WW2 many of those technical tasks were
done by conscripts, they had to be, the regulars provided the
training and leadership cadres.

Scale of the WW2 was such that it was simply impossible to recruit enough
professionals to perform the tasks. Again, this is not in at all against my
point.

This does not mean that conscripts do not have a
place in those services in supporting tasks. Even in all-pro forces,
most
mechanics etc actually receive pretty minimal training in any case, so
from
skill level point it's totally irrelevant whether one is a draftee or
volunteer.

If you join the British Army as a REME Mechanic you'll get
12 weeks of basic training followed by up to 19 weeks
of specialist training to get you to a basic proficiency level

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

That's because their requirements have changed, not because of some
fundamental change in nature of warfare. If your requirement is to
defend
your nation against unwelcome tourists, a conscript army is generally
better. If your requirement is to subdue natives few thousand km's away
from
your homeland, professional force is better.

In fact the balance of skills needed HAS changed, while the poor bloody
infantry are still the backbone of any army a regiment made up
of soldiers who are trained to act on their own initiative, have a mix
of skills and are well trained will always have an advantage over
ill trained conscripts.

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.

One of the big problems the Argentines hit
in the field was that their soldiers were used to returning
their weapons to the armoury for cleaning and maintenance.
This became a problem when soldiers not only didnt know how
to clean their rifles and clear jams but didnt even have cleaning kits.

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.

"Yama" wrote in message
...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
"Yama" wrote in message
...
And what relevant experience would that be?

I'll hazard a guess that you refer to for example, Desert Storm. Bzzt,
wrong: main combat force of Iraqi army - the Republican Guards - were
a
volunteer professional force. That didn't seem to help them.


Incorrect

I was thinking of the Argentines in the Falklands but since
you mention the Republican guard they were in fact
regarded as the main threat and at lest put up a fight.

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, the fact is a small number of professional
British troops defeated a larger conscript force in strong
defensive positions and they did this several thousand miles
from home.

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

Tasks requiring signifant technical expertise are manned by
professional
soldiers in both conscript and professional armies. That situation has
not
changed a bit since WW2.

This is untrue, during WW2 many of those technical tasks were
done by conscripts, they had to be, the regulars provided the
training and leadership cadres.

Scale of the WW2 was such that it was simply impossible to recruit enough
professionals to perform the tasks. Again, this is not in at all against
my
point.


Nor mine, I recall agreeing that conscription is necessary
for large scale high intensity conflicts


This does not mean that conscripts do not have a
place in those services in supporting tasks. Even in all-pro forces,
most
mechanics etc actually receive pretty minimal training in any case, so
from
skill level point it's totally irrelevant whether one is a draftee or
volunteer.

If you join the British Army as a REME Mechanic you'll get
12 weeks of basic training followed by up to 19 weeks
of specialist training to get you to a basic proficiency level

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.


That's because their requirements have changed, not because of some
fundamental change in nature of warfare. If your requirement is to
defend
your nation against unwelcome tourists, a conscript army is generally
better. If your requirement is to subdue natives few thousand km's
away
from
your homeland, professional force is better.

In fact the balance of skills needed HAS changed, while the poor bloody
infantry are still the backbone of any army a regiment made up
of soldiers who are trained to act on their own initiative, have a mix
of skills and are well trained will always have an advantage over
ill trained conscripts.

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.

One of the big problems the Argentines hit
in the field was that their soldiers were used to returning
their weapons to the armoury for cleaning and maintenance.
This became a problem when soldiers not only didnt know how
to clean their rifles and clear jams but didnt even have cleaning kits.

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.
This was the case in the Argentine forces and from the reports
that have come out I suspect it holds true for the Russian
army today.

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.

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.

Keith

"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.

"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

"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.

"Yama" wrote in message
...

"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.


Horse****

Its a hell of alot easier for Britain to deploy troops to the Isle of Wight
than it is for Argentina

Again, do you seriously think that British Army and Royal Marines could
have
taken Argentinian army on their mainland?


Again NO , but then that wasnt their mission

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...


On the contrary it was a core requirement. The politically reliable
force was his last defense against an army revolt.

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.


Which is a bit unfortunate if the enemy isnt considerate enough to give you
advanced warning of his plans

Currently Finnish conscripts serve 180 to 360 days, depending on their
task
or rank. That time is almost wholly spent on training.


Which leaves exactly who guarding the interests of the nation ?

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.


Multiple sources , here's just one
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/s2.cfm?id=341922002

"I was 19 when they sent us to the Falklands," he says.
"I had done my military service, but I think I'd only touched
a gun once for about 15 minutes. I didn't have a clue how
to load a rifle."

Keith