Jump to content
lordhedgwich

Russian army under equipped?

Recommended Posts

That sounds really good... But I wonder if that means the support and rear elements become a dumping ground and province of the superbly inept.  I obviously would do the same thing given a choice on who Id prefer to be in the combat roles, just saying Id also want a good professional core still in areas where Id send mostly conscripts.  Im pretty sure if this occurred to me its definitely occurred to the professionals however.

If I was in charge I might add another 6 months across the board to the conscripts time in. IIRC service in Russia for conscripts is short right? Im gonna google that now...

Yeah Im getting a year which is what I had thought but wasnt sure of. It seems like the military is missing out almost on a sweet spot of competency time after training. It IS good for pumping out a MASSIVE number overall of people who are trained and have been in uniform; and now that I think about it I bet thats probably part of why it is a year.

Still 'if I was Stalin' it.d be 2 years. I lied about it only going up 6 months ;)

Edited by Sublime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are still not getting my point. It is not that they dump incompetent people into non-combat roles, it is that they could fill those roles with competent if mediocre people.

Ie for truck drivers you do not need for them to be the top percentile in terms of fitness or eyesight, you need them to be adequate (fit for service in general) and have the relevant driving skills/driving license (which they as a rule would get before being conscripted, via DOSAAF). This allows you to use contract soldiers where military specific complex skills (that people do not get pre-conscription and which require lengthy training) are required and exceptional conscripts (most motivated, in top percentile fitness wise etc) where talent is required (ie special forces), scouting those conscripts for the follow up contracts.

Edited by ikalugin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sublime said:

Whats your feelings on the whole matter? Im glad we dont have conscriptiom in America... :)

I definitely am glad conscription ended just b4 I woulda been eligible.  However...  The cost to society as a whole has been very bad as it eliminated a major opportunity for the social classes to mingle and better understand each other, make friends across class lines etc. which used to  strengthen our society as a whole, mitigating the current ever increasing divide between rich and poor.

One also wonders what "equal opportunity" to get conscripted would do to the drive for gender equality if all the girls were to become eligible for the draft.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sublime said:

Whats your feelings on the whole matter? Im glad we dont have conscriptiom in America... :)

Don't really have any expertise or opinion on this matter. I moved out of Russia before I hit 18, but I am not too sad about missing out on the whole second chechen war and dedovshchina hype.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ikalugin no Im not saying they dump people in those roles and yes I understand completely and also would rather have volunteers in combat etc 

Im just saying as time goes on Id be wary of that end of things to become a sort of dumping ground. I think at this point the Russian military is reorganizing itself so much they probably dont even have a dumping ground they all agree on yet 😛 Ive heard serving on the Kuznetsov is hell though.

Or maybe getting sent to the Far East districts.

No but anyways Ikalugin i understand what youre saying perfectly - you take me too seriously as an American citizen with a casual interest, as I noted Im sure the professionals in the Ru military have it in hand.

Im extremely glad I missed the draft because I was a mess. However if America was run like it was at the end of its draft ironically my misbehavior would probably have ended up with me in the army tryn to get out of legal problems. Nowadays they dont want people like me, and theyre honestly the better off for it Im sure.

If the draft was applied evenly and genuinely, almost like how you saw a willingness to serve from every class in say WW2 Id agree it.d be good for our society. As it ended with Vietnam... You could fix your way out of it if you had means and it wasnt fair. Considering that was where we left it over here and the current state of things I think if it ever was reinstated bar a national crisis it.d be much the same. A place for have nots. (Not the military, the draft pools)

Edited by Sublime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For 10 years of military service, I felt the transition period of the army and all the delights of reforms.

I understand people who are in favor of a professional army. Those whose standard of living is high enough do not want to "lose" time. Those who are timid, afraid of army difficulties. Those who want to find a job more profitable. But I also understand that it is necessary to change something in the soldier's training system. Restoring the initial military training in schools and DOSAAF is a necessary step, but just a step. The state should stimulate young people with a large number of benefits after military service. I don `t know what to offer for soldiers on conscript, I am against conscription, I know that there is money for a fully professional army. But I definitely know what to offer for those who served in the army for 3 years or more.

1) A decent salary for those who are now serving.
2) Such people can be offered a fully paid education in any university in the country.
3) Tax benefits in accordance with the years of service.
4) Free travel in public transport after 5 years of service.
5) Social benefits for the family.


I read here that you discussed the minuses of military service under the contract. Yes, there are many of them.

1) The most obvious minus of military service under the contract is the need to risk both your health and your life.
 Many of my acquaintances in the civilian liberal views of the fact that our army nowhere should be at war. The army must fight only when an external enemy attacks our country. I came across some servicemen who do not want on business trips, they say - "I DO NOT WANT, I WILL NOT". At the same time, they do not understand that the contract for military service says nothing about the fact that they have the right to choose their place of service and with whom and when to fight. The state decides where and when to use the army, do not want to fight in Syria, do not sign a contract. Or go to politics and restrict the use of the army abroad.

2) Limitation of personal space and freedom. Not every person is ready to obey orders and unconditionally fulfill the requirements of the command. There is no democracy in the army. For this reason, 20% of people who signed a contract for military service, it is torn in 2-4 months.

3) Not standardized working day.

4) Family. 50% of marriages fell apart due to the fact that the wives did not like the new place of service of her husband. Imagine you are a year where next to a major city in an hour's drive, and then you are told that you are sent to a place where there is not even a mobile Internet.
Luckily, I did not marry for the entire service time.

Edited by HUSKER2142

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely agree with above posters regarding "holes" in the last U.S. selective service conscription methods. When I graduated High School, I was 19 and classified 1A for the draft. I enlisted in the USMC for four years with an aviation guarantee so I wouldn't be drafted into the Army infantry for two years (a ticket straight to Vietnam). After I was in Bootcamp at Parris Island, South Carolina for a few weeks, the Selective Service instituted the new lottery system. My lottery number was 356, which meant I probably wouldn't have been drafted. I ended up serving for 12-years, four regular Air Wing and eight Reserves in the Marine infantry.

i would prefer to see a conscription system like Norway's where EVERYONE, MEN AND WOMEN, who are not physically or mentally incapable of serving, serve a specific period of active duty from the time they leave their secondary education, followed by active Reserves until age 45, and then inactive Reserve until age 65. At the same time, I would eliminate the States National Guards as a an alternative to National service. I would allow those who have completed their active duty obligation to transfer to the State National Guard for their Reserve time. At the same time, I would prohibit the Federal Government from activating State National Guard and deploying it in a combat role outside the U.S. That, in my opinion (my opinion is never humble) is the most fair and effective method of conscription.

As an added note that many may not realize, the States National Guards are actually the Federalized evolution of the militias specified in the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The right to maintain a militia was included in the final version because even then, the states feared a possibly "Tyrannical Federal Government." Who is it that can now activate the National Guard to use as they see fit? 

Edited by Vet 0369

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intersting with Norway as I thought there was a social welfare alternative as a subsitute if folks were disinclined for miliitary service. But it seems there's so few exemptions applied for that they are simply let go. (might have changed as the article is from 2011 and woman have since been conscripted)

https://www.wri-irg.org/en/story/2011/norway-end-substitute-service-conscientious-objectors

Vet 0369 - would you offer alternative of serving instead on social welfare schemes i.e working for benefit of old, infirm, learning difficulties etc. ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On September 24, 2018 at 2:51 PM, BTR said:

I'm absolutely against this. It keeps cost down, mobilization capability up and makes sure the ****ty positions get filled while maintaining fighting units staffed with supposed professionals. 

This was also basically the official position of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) in the 1970's and 80's. Although there could have been a hidden reason in the positions of both countries. Round about 1977, I was discussing reasons with  Gunnery Sergeant of why the U.S. Congress and DoD were making it so undesirable for service members with cuts to benefits and not increasing pay for service members. The Gunny suggested the possibility driving out service members because of fear that if military service was too good of a profession that the allegiance of the service members could transfer from the nation to the service, setting up conditions for a coup. That concept was based in fact. In the 1930's, a group of Officers, including, I believe a Marine General, actually began planning to overthrow the U.S. Government. The plot was discovered, and very quietly, ended and buried.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Russia you can apply to such alternative service, but in practice few choose it, as you need to make an effort to show that you absolutely cannot serve in the regular service.

To be honest I think that the hybrid system is the way to go for Russia, as it:
- allows to fill the non combat roles with mediocre conscripts who do just fine in them.
- allows to scout talent for the contract troops.
- allows to generate reservists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Wicky said:

Intersting with Norway as I thought there was a social welfare alternative as a subsitute if folks were disinclined for miliitary service. But it seems there's so few exemptions applied for that they are simply let go. (might have changed as the article is from 2011 and woman have since been conscripted)

https://www.wri-irg.org/en/story/2011/norway-end-substitute-service-conscientious-objectors

Vet 0369 - would you offer alternative of serving instead on social welfare schemes i.e working for benefit of old, infirm, learning difficulties etc. ?

You are probably correct, my knowledge is from conversations with Norwegians in 1976 when I was in the infantry and participating in a NATO exercise (it turns out we were there as a deterrent because the Soviets had massed troops on their northern border with Norway, and we were the "speed bump").

No, I wouldn't have any exemptions or alternative social welfare program service. Conscientious Objectors would serve in noncombatant roles such as medics. I would suggest say two years in the Army or Marine infantry, and four years in the Navy, Airforce, or Marine or Army Air because of the higher training requirements.

I would not allow women to opt out or be exempted. In the U.S., under the law, no one may be discriminated against because of who or what they are, or what they believe. Exempting women, or allowing them to opt out is discriminatory to the men who would be required to serve. Sorry girls, if you want equality in everything else, you have to have an equal obligation to serve the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All my musing is based on if the U.S. Returned to conscription. I would want it to be as fair as possible, and to limit the ability for certain individuals such as the rich or politically connected offspring of a politician to avoid service as some have ever since the first U.S. conscription during the U.S. Civil War. As it stands now, men must register for selective service at age 18, but women do not. When you fill out an application for a job in the Federal Government, a man must verify that he has registered with the selective service. If he hasn't, he isn't considered for the job. Women are under no such requirement. Discrimination in hiring for Federal jobs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Vet 0369 said:

When you fill out an application for a job in the Federal Government, a man must verify that he has registered with the selective service. If he hasn't, he isn't considered for the job. Women are under no such requirement. Discrimination in hiring for Federal jobs?

Wow.  Did not realize that.  Who should one talk to about that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Erwin said:

Wow.  Did not realize that.  Who should one talk to about that?

I honestly doubt it would do any good to talk to anyone about it. Unless you have been denied a position because you haven't registered, the courts would say "You haven't been harmed, so you have no basis on which to file a complaint." Then they would charge you with failing to register as required by law. No politician is going to vote to change the Selective Service Act because he'd lose all the votes of all the women in his district {I say his because I doubt any female politician would vote to change it}. It's like Qrwell"s "Animal Farm," "All animals are equal, some are just more equal than the rest." Discrimination is discrimination no matter what you call it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Vet 0369 i really appreciate your input.

Im really interested in any other details you have on that coup plot in the 30s here in the US

 

Wow a little google.. Lol but I wouldnt have expected to hear Smedley Butler brought up as a 2x MoH winner and "the fighteningist marine i ever knew" according to Chesty Puller. Its interesting as Butler testified before congress he was to be appointed head to a fascist veterans group.

I guess its probably easy to sling moral mud from 80 or 90 years distance - I can see how with the Bonus Army and the Great Depression the conditions would be right for the Business Plot.  Though some of what Im reading claims it never really was going to happen..

Edited by Sublime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I found @Vet 0369's ideas pretty good. I believe Isreal has a similar system? It's surprising that women serving in the military is still a taboo in America. I remember reading that they cannot be snipers. I remember seeing a picture of some female tankers of the Russian military. If there were more female tankers in America, I can imagine the Abrams' stowage would be much neater, xD.

I am not entirely sure I see much purpose of a conscription army for the USA. USA, like Great Britain, has always relied on fighting on foreign soil. Even now most of the military is deployed outside of the mainland. Unless you need a bunch of people to watch the borders to Canada and Mexico, the only need for conscription is if WW3 happens, or space aliens attack.

In Canada, conscription has a really bad history. It was invoked in WW1 and, eventually, in WW2. The one in WW2 was conditional, as famously put "Conscription if necessary, not necessarily conscription". Granted, nobody likes conscription -- but these were two of the largest crises in our history. It encouraged separatism that is still felt today.

Was this not the case, I'd think Norway's system wouldn't be bad for us. We have similar climates and low population density. Then again, the British system of keeping a small professional army is working adequately. But implementation depends more on internal politics, much more so than any external military threats. Unless the US wants an 1812 rematch, that's not going to change.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Thank you Sublime, I appreciate your comment. I honestly don't know much about the plot. I read a blurb about it in a novel by W.E.B.Griffith. I pulled the following off GOOGLE, If you're interested.

The Plot to Sieze the White House by Jules Archer

Hawthorn Books: New York
244 pp.

I did a Google search foe Smedly Butler, and located an article that referenced the above book and a PBS series on the Depression. I see the real tragedy in how the U.S. Government treated the marchers. Not only did the U.S. Army  burn their camp on the Capitol Mall, the Commander of the soldiers, a recipient of the Medal of Honor himself, ordered his machine gunners to open fire on the marchers. That Commander's name was Douglas McArthur.

One of Butler's famous quotes (paraphrased) is that he saw only two times for war; in defense of the Country, and in defense of the Bill of Rights.

as a side note, if you're still in Boston, we're neighbors. I'm on the Northshore.

Edited by Vet 0369

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, DerKommissar said:

Yeah, I found @Vet 0369's ideas pretty good. I believe Isreal has a similar system? It's surprising that women serving in the military is still a taboo in America. I remember reading that they cannot be snipers. I remember seeing a picture of some female tankers of the Russian military. If there were more female tankers in America, I can imagine the Abrams' stowage would be much neater, xD.

I am not entirely sure I see much purpose of a conscription army for the USA. USA, like Great Britain, has always relied on fighting on foreign soil. Even now most of the military is deployed outside of the mainland. Unless you need a bunch of people to watch the borders to Canada and Mexico, the only need for conscription is if WW3 happens, or space aliens attack.

In Canada, conscription has a really bad history. It was invoked in WW1 and, eventually, in WW2. The one in WW2 was conditional, as famously put "Conscription if necessary, not necessarily conscription". Granted, nobody likes conscription -- but these were two of the largest crises in our history. It encouraged separatism that is still felt today.

Was this not the case, I'd think Norway's system wouldn't be bad for us. We have similar climates and low population density. Then again, the British system of keeping a small professional army is working adequately. But implementation depends more on internal politics, much more so than any external military threats. Unless the US wants an 1812 rematch, that's not going to change.

 

For all the vile rhetoric from the politicians on both sides, I don't see the U.S. and Canada going at it. We have too much in common. In fact, since you mentioned the War of 1812, during that war, the town of Calais, Maine wanted to celebrate Independence Day, but didn't have enough black powder to make fireworks, so the Canadians in St. Johnsbury, New Brunswick gave them powder so Calais could celebrate. Canada and U.S. share the longest unfenced and undefended border in the world, and the War of 1812 was between the U.S. and Great Britain, not the U.S. and Canada.

Edited by Vet 0369

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, women are fully integrated into the U.S. military. They are Navy and Air Force fighter pilots, helicopter pilots in all services, and are even being integrated into the Infantry, Armor, and Artillery. Since there are no longer any restrictions, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't have the same six-year obligation to serve that men have. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vet 0369 said:

For all the vile rhetoric from the politicians on both sides, I don't see the U.S. and Canada going at it. We have too much in common. In fact, since you mentioned the War of 1812, during that war, the town of Calais, Maine wanted to celebrate Independence Day, but didn't have enough black powder to make fireworks, so the Canadians in St. Johnsbury, New Brunswick gave them powder so Calais could celebrate. Canada and U.S. share the longest unfenced and undefended border in the world, and the War of 1812 was between the U.S. and Great Britain, not the U.S. and Canada.

It's actually funny because Canada did what the South States tried to do, but had a lucky star when it came to Confederation. If it were not for Confederation, Canada would be a series of British territories. The current Ontario and Quebec was cut into Upper Canada and Lower Canada, prior. While the US was fighting a GB proxy down South, GB colonies up north decided to band together against a potential US invasion.

The irony being that Canada and the US have the warmest relations now, while both states were founded on mutual distrust. 1812 got the Canada ball rolling, as it demanded centralization and also drew a distinction between Canadian domestic doctrine and British imperial doctrine. A lot of revolts occurred soon after, for the same reasons the American revolution did. There was a guy called William Lyon McKenzie that tried to overthrow Upper Canada (in 1830s, prior to civil war/confederation) and make it an American style Republic -- and got pretty far, too.

Now, I'll try to prevent this thread from turning into the North American 19th Century History Thread. A friend of mine told me about his cousin in Russia, who flunked out of Uni and then managed to BS his way past conscription. Then I remember reading that most young men eligible for conscription can "opt" out via bribes/medical simulation. When able guys can easily dodge the draft, who remains?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who remain are those who feel that they have an obligation to repay their country for the rights and privileges they have received. That doesn't mean they need to blindly support stupid decisions by their governments (mine included). I enlisted, not only to avoid being drafted, but because I felt an obligation to pay back what I've received. My family has served in the militias and regular military since one ancestor was granted a Royal charter here in the 1630's. I respect every one of those who served, including those who were loyalists and fought against the rebels from 1775 and on. I personally don't feel that conscription should be necessary except in extraordinary circumstances. Perhaps a good system would be like that in "Starship Troopers" by Robert Heinlin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Vet 0369 said:

Thank you Sublime, I appreciate your comment. I honestly don't know much about the plot. I read a blurb about it in a novel by W.E.B.Griffith. I pulled the following off GOOGLE, If you're interested.

The Plot to Sieze the White House by Jules Archer

Hawthorn Books: New York
244 pp.

I did a Google search foe Smedly Butler, and located an article that referenced the above book and a PBS series on the Depression. I see the real tragedy in how the U.S. Government treated the marchers. Not only did the U.S. Army  burn their camp on the Capitol Mall, the Commander of the soldiers, a recipient of the Medal of Honor himself, ordered his machine gunners to open fire on the marchers. That Commander's name was Douglas McArthur.

One of Butler's famous quotes (paraphrased) is that he saw only two times for war; in defense of the Country, and in defense of the Bill of Rights.

as a side note, if you're still in Boston, we're neighbors. I'm on the Northshore.

Thanks yes I was reading the wiki as well.

Yes I always am here.. Even when Im not I get sucked right back into it.

Technically I live in Revere ( so closer neighbors than you think, and Im honored, not being sarcastic ) and work in Boston. My son still lives over in Southie too but I want to get him out of there, living in the D st pjs. Sigh. Ok sorry for the derailment.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On September 30, 2018 at 2:09 AM, HUSKER2142 said:

For 10 years of military service, I felt the transition period of the army and all the delights of reforms.I read here that you discussed the minuses of military service under the contract. Yes, there are many of them.

1) The most obvious minus of military service under the contract is the need to risk both your health and your life.
 Many of my acquaintances in the civilian liberal views of the fact that our army nowhere should be at war. The army must fight only when an external enemy attacks our country. I came across some servicemen who do not want on business trips, they say - "I DO NOT WANT, I WILL NOT". At the same time, they do not understand that the contract for military service says nothing about the fact that they have the right to choose their place of service and with whom and when to fight. The state decides where and when to use the army, do not want to fight in Syria, do not sign a contract. Or go to politics and restrict the use of the army abroad.

2) Limitation of personal space and freedom. Not every person is ready to obey orders and unconditionally fulfill the requirements of the command. There is no democracy in the army. For this reason, 20% of people who signed a contract for military service, it is torn in 2-4 months.

3) Not standardized working day.

4) Family. 50% of marriages fell apart due to the fact that the wives did not like the new place of service of her husband. Imagine you are a year where next to a major city in an hour's drive, and then you are told that you are sent to a place where there is not even a mobile Internet.
Luckily, I did not marry for the entire service time.

From your descriptions, it seems that our peoples have much more in common than differences. I would equate your military "contract" after concription as the same as "re-enlisting" after our time expired after being drafted (conscripted).

Point 1. When we re-enlist, it is usually for a period of two or four years. During that enlistment period, you live under the same rules as you did under your "conscripted time." A person in the military is not protected by the Constitution of the United States. Instead, you are protected be the "Uniform Code of Military Justice" which closely, but not completely follows the same protections as the Constitution.

Point 2. If you re-enlisted, the only way you got out af that contract is by a Medical Discharge (for wounds or injuries, or mental issues) or by a Bad Conduct or Dishonorable Discharge (depending on the severity of your infractions), usually after serving prison time. If you have a Dishonorable Discharge, you are never again allowed to vote.

Point 3. I think we were promised 2 1/2 hours sleep and one hot meal per day, but I never saw that written any where.

Point 4. I also didn't marry during my regular service. When the son of family friends was just commissioned a 2nd LT. In the Marines said he was getting married, I counciled him to not marry. I told him deployments were much harder on spouses than on the Marine who was deployed. He married anyway, and was divorced within two years.

I believe there are very few reasons for our military to get involved in operations  outside this country. I'm not an isolationist, but I believe my government and yours both feel they must get involved for the same reasons. The only way the "common man" can change that is through using their votes.

As I said at the start, I believe we have much more in common than in differences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×