Conscription vs professional army

[Tero]

I get a bellyful of Poke- and Digimons at home:

Originally posted by Germanboy:

tero - I think the comparison falls down when you argue that the German system was better, because it probably was not.

I'm still working on it. I just think that the conscription theory works better than the "warrior tradition" one scientifically.

As for it being better or not: that is open to debate. To date I have not seen any sources besides Finnish ones that lists conscription as a criteria for the supposed better proficiency of an army over another(in the Finnish case the supposed better proficiency of the Finnish army over the Soviet Army).

And when we look at the broader picture the armies based on pre-war conscription seem to have faired better in the field against odds the armies based on professional gadre and limited reserve of volunteers could not take. Only after the numerical odds could be stacked higher in their favour did the professional armies start winning.

The Soviet and the Japanese armies are the ones that do not seem to fit this bill. But with enough research I think they too can be fitted in.

Pre-war it was creaking due to the much too rapid expansion of the army (Masson, amongst others, in 'Die deutsche Armee' makes this point quite well). I doubt that my grandfather (conscript 1937-39) did get very good training, but I check with him.

Good is a qualitative term that I think should be fielded with care in this context.

The pre-war training was given to a suit a doctrine. I think the "goodness" is dependant on the fact if doctrine survived first contact in actual combat conditions.

For the Finnish army the pre-war training delivered as the basic doctrine was proven sound even if the tools were inadequate (because of budget cuts). I am seaching the facts concerning this for the other armies.

The British Army Training in 1940-44 does reinforce my initial hunch that there is something in this line of questioning.

[Michael Dorosh]

I would contend that (outside of Finland?) there were no professional armies to fight in Europe during WW II. Perhaps Poland is an exception; they were reputed to have the best trained army and the toughest soldiers in the world.

But the Germans, British, Americans, Russians, Canadians, French - all relied on conscripts, or else volunteers who enlisted after the outbreak of hostilities.

British and Canadian soldiers - as late as May and June of 1940 - practiced digging - and living in - trenches; when the Germans were advancing on Dunkirk, First Canadian Division was on Salisbury Plain practicing trench reliefs.

Everyone thinks the Germans were practicing "blitzkrieg" before WW II, not realizing in many cases that "blitzkrieg" was not a word in German, nor did many German soldiers train with tanks, or even motorized transport.

Many doctrines and tactical approaches used in training before the war, and even during the war, date back to World War One.

I am not sure what the argument is here (refresh me). Just what exactly is the thesis vis-a-vis conscripts versus professionals?

One can argue that the British and Canadians, and the Americans to a lesser degree, were professional armies by D-Day simply because they had been training together for so long.

What is our definition of "professional"? I rate the pre World War One "Old Contemptibles" as professionals. But the war was won in part by Kitchener's Army, Do we consider them professional simply because they won?

And do we put the 1944 British Army in the same league as the Old Contemptibles? Certainly they knew more about how to use machineguns and artillery - but what does that say about the men?

Or does that matter in your definition?

[ 10-19-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[The Commissar]

If you're asking which system is likely to produce better soldiers, I would definately say proffesional army.

Conscription, although a powerful tool in the right hands, has many pitfals. One of the largest is the fact that manual conscription requires people to go get training against their will. If you make someone do something when they dont want to do it, they will not perform totheir full efficiency, nor will they want to do so. They just want to serve their time and get the hell out.

A pro army on the other hand is usually based on volunteers, who actually want to do this. Also, since as previously mentioned, conscription is done against people's will, it means that the govt can't keep people conscripted too long - it will cause major commotion and general dislike of the govt. So countries with conscript armies usually dont have the same standards because they can't keep their men training as much as pro armies can.

Of course, how you use your men, conscript or pro is what really matters.

[The Commissar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Perhaps Poland is an exception; they were reputed to have the best trained army and the toughest soldiers in the world.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heh. Much good that did them, eh?

Would the Nazi war machine be considered a professional force or a conscript one? It is true that the soldiers were conscripted, but it is also true that many other volunteered and were very enthusiastic about serving "the fatherland". They of course also had superb training.

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Commissar:

Heh. Much good that did them, eh?

Would the Nazi war machine be considered a professional force or a conscript one? It is true that the soldiers were conscripted, but it is also true that many other volunteered and were very enthusiastic about serving "the fatherland". They of course also had superb training.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good points about the Germans, and therein lies the conundrum.

As for Poland - why did they lose?

Russia stabbed them in the back, for one (remember them?), and political considerations did not allow them to defend behind river lines - that would have meant abandoning half their country on the first day of the war.

[lcm1947]

I'm no expect but I would assume since Germany had training in the Spanish war they were more of a professional army by War II plus them knowing that they were about to attack Poland they had a head start didn't they?

[Mr. Johnson--]

Why does it have to be one or the other?

Why not train citizens for 2 or 3 years after the end of public school and then let them leave. Some will stay but you can call up those who already know how to clean, load, and fire rifles.

Always group green troops with pros when the crap hitting the fan is immient.

Same thing with officers, do what the Germans did for awhile. Send your good officers back to a staff college that plans for the unexpected and give the generals extra options, but they all have to get rotated to the front. And you could make sure that new officers always started their service assisting an officer who has already spent time at the staff college.

[Triumvir]

Professional soldiers are good for the wars that they fight. In other words, small, limited conflicts that do not affect the homeland. But for large conflicts, there can be no comparison between a conscript army and a professional army; quantity has a quality of its own.

The traditional problem of a professional army -- recruitment from the dregs of society leavened by a few true volunteers -- is never really solvable. The perks involved and the comparatively easy life (against the civilian world) are quite tempting. However, the traditional benefit of a professional army -- the unswerving will and ability to die without flinching -- can't be discounted.

A conscript army simply doesn't have the first problem; by coercing the fitter and brighter part of the polity, it in effect levels out the initial disadvantage of less training. Motivation, though, is a incredibly important part of a conscript army; and it is much harder to develop and nurture such motivation in any war apart from the defence of the homeland.

Napoleon won his wars with the levee en masse; he smashed all opposing professional armies save the British. All the armies in WWII were conscript armies. The North Koreans nearly crushed the American Regular Army in 1950. German troops routinely place ahead or equal with British and Canadian troops in gunnery. And let's not talk about the Israelis, the modern day uber-Finns.

(Incidentally, has anyone ever won an SPII game playing the Arabs against Israelis, apart from 1973 battles?)

As counter examples are the British at Salamanca, and the UN coalition in Korea and the Gulf.

To sum this long rambling post, conscript armies, ceteris paribus, will defeat professional armies because they can recruit from a wider and thus better pool; and shunt the fittest and brightest into combat positions. But in a war fought far from the homeland, the conscript army's will to fight will inevitably diminsh while that of the professional army will stay the same. This can tip the scales enough that the conscript army will lose to the professional one.

[edited for this comment]

Oh, and wasn't it me who first came up with this suggestion? Hoarding this for a long time, eh tero? Naughty naughty uber-Finn... 8)

[ 10-19-2001: Message edited by: Triumvir ]

[Bobbaro]

Too many factors at work for conscript vs professional to tell a tale. There is first the already mentioned attitude of "I'm here to fight" and "Crap lets get this over and go back where the sun smiles." Professional may mean set in ways and patterns that spell defeat as the fixation of the last war encounters the realities of the present one. Professional can mean doing it by the wrong book. Conscript can mean fresh and open to doing it as is obviously necessary unblinded by peace time poopery.

Obviously a professional in fact as well as in the pro forma fulfillment of some admisistrative checklist is going perform as well as committed, trained and ready people can. Professional is too easy a tag to paste onto a person. But what meaning should it possess to mean what we would want in a soldier?

Comittment to his country, to his cause and to the brotherhood of his fellow soldiers.

Knowledge of his business.

Expertise in methods, tools and uses.

Practice in their application.

An expectation of long service.

A conscript may possess as much comittment as a professional.

A conscript may gain knowledge of his business. Time and application may make it sufficiently wide and deep to accomplish all that the professional can.

A conscript may gain expertise simularly

A conscript may become sufficiently practiced to perform right along with the professional seamlessly.

A conscript may become a professional.

War is full of tales of conscripts, even privates who keep the faith of the soldier when a professionals fail, even officers.

Yet, were my life to depend upon it, and who knows it may, I would prefer to have professionals out there between me and destruction - - provided that that professionalism is not a hollow shell.

Or another way to look at it is that some are conscripted by the government and some are self conscripted. In a sense all are conscripts. War makes professionals of both. Or kills them.

Peace is often the greatest foe a military faces. The politicians rise in rank and the warriors languish. War then rearrives and determines which army has been the most harmed by the peace. Rare men are rare, professional or conscript. They make the difference in the squad or in the general staff.

It is a very great luxury to have a war to fight that can be handled by the professional soldier. That an enemy may provide that luxury by being small or by being confined should be greeted with great appreciation by the conscriptable population. It is not always the case and often security if not survival depends on it.

Often it is not mere conscription that weakens a body of soldiers, but more frequently it is haste, sometimes unavoidable haste, and sadly too often unprofessional professionals failing to prepare their conscripts. A government may fail its military by inadequate support. Even "professional" militaries have their fresh and new faces to bring up to snuff and old ones to keep there. A professional cadre can fail, laying in comfort basking in the warmth of their last success with parades, shows, briefings, splashy training that does not train, pushing M1 pencils over fitness reports, converting barely adequate funding into private luxuries for their personal use and for their own class of soldiers while lower echelons live in straighted circumstances.

"There are no bad soldiers, only bad leaders."

This writting may be a rambling crock, and I am not satisfied that it adds much to the question.

Perhaps the question could be better too. I am not so sure that the conscrip vs. professional question is the best expression of what is at stake. Surely a military requires a professional knowledge and practice at its core. But, when war comes, the dismissal of the conscript may be its costliest mistake. Dismissal of conscription has a likelyhood of converting the sudden need for warm bodies into cold bodies.

The need is for the professionalizing of conscription. A nation owes its young men of warrior age a routine military background

of sufficient professional quality as to make any sudden and compelling need find a body of conscripts already prepared to be soldiers.

In those who face the enemy there is a great likelyhood of being killed, especially in a protracted campaign or especially campaigns. If we suffer as a population for having sent children to war and to die, then surely it is worse for them to die and for the enemy to prevail as well.

Conscription forced by circumstances is far more likely to be rushed and unprofessional; professionalized conscription far better fills the ranks with soldiers with qualities that sometimes are the envy of professionals, if the so called professonals are doing their training jobs.

Professionalism is a practice- and the better question is what is that practice; because, practice does not make perfect, it makes perminant right or wrong.

I think on my company commanders. I never went to war with them. Some were showy and some were quiet. They were all "professionals". But did they measure up. I suspect they were all tested in battle. Surgeons must enter the human body and spill blood in becoming professional. For soldiers there is only battle itself. No experienced tutor standing at their right hand to take up the knife and show how it is done when he hesitates. He is an officer. He is expected to perform. He is a professional without having demonstrated it; at least until dead are buried, the wounded are evacuated, and the living are made ready for the next onslaught. That sergent at his side, who steadied the trimbling hand with his own experienced calm, he may have been a conscript as well as private seeing his first action a month ago, perhaps sooner. By the grace of God, the enemies misfortune, and a little luck we may have qualified a new professional. Now all that training and practicing may be of some use. Give it some time.

Oh, do I dare push the button on this pile?

Shall discretion make me wiser and protect me from the hellish flames of scorning distain? Or shall this find a kindly word to warm a quaking gut? Or is this muddled opinion of such little importance that winds of praise or damnation alter the slightest ambiant breath not a whit? That conviences me. I submit the damned thing. It was a satisfaction to say it, so not making any difference is beside my point and your point is if you have read it; you deserve it. Sensible people quit reading much sooner.

[Affentitten]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> To sum this long rambling post, conscript armies, ceteris paribus, will defeat professional armies because they can recruit from a wider and thus better pool; and shunt the fittest and brightest into combat positions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that one of the biggest problems that the US Army had in WW2 was that the fittest and brightest were almost anywhere BUT in combat positions. Nearly all of the college grads and men with a modicum of ability had found themselves positions in the staff, administratation or the technical branches. Huge swathes of talented people were also siphoned off into the Army Air Force. The guys left in the rifle companies were generally the ones with limited abilities and without the initiatiave to find themselves a safer occupation.

That was the whole point of why the US had to abandon its officer program for college students and ship them off piecemeal as grunts to fill places on the front line.

As to the performance of conscripts versus volunteers in a mass battlefield situation, let's take Australia as an example. We didn't have conscription in WW1 (though there were two referenda over it), but Aussie troops performed pretty admirably and usually outstripped the British draftees they fought alongside. The Aussies also didn't have the death penalty for desertion, yet their rates for going AWOL were paltry compared to the Brits.

I'm not certain, but I also believe we didn't have conscription in WW2, yet again, Aussies did pretty well in the battles the fought. (With the exception of Crete, but we can blame the Kiwi general for that one!)

We DID have conscription in Vietnam, and suffered the same social upheaval over it as the USA did. As far as I know, a compromise was established that although conscription continued, only conscripts who volunteered once in the Army were sent to Nam. Otherwise they were used for support duties back home. Once again, this voluntary theory paid off in that Australian combat performance in Vietnam was proportionately better than that of the American units made up more heavily of "against their will" levees.

[Gyrene]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> By Michael Dorosh: One can argue that the British and Canadians, and the Americans to a lesser degree, were professional armies by D-Day simply because they had been training together for so long. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We'll here I go again with my USMC-centric observations, but the Corps at least had a strong core of Officers and NCO's who had quite a bit of field experience by 1941 in Central America, China & several others. Granted the USMC was but a fly speck by 1944 standards, that experienced core made a huge difference in holding their units together in the early battles.

I had the privilege of having a 32 year Army Air Corps/Air Force veteran as an instructor a couple of years back, and as him having joined the Army in 1937 he had a lot of very interesting observations about the US Army of before & after 1941.

His comments do support the notion that the US Army was rather laid back and not to serious about training in those days, budgets were VERY short. (This is not meant as a dig at the Army by excluding the USMC & USN from these comments, it's just that both of those 2 serrvices had a very similar ops tempos in peace as in war)

While the USA has always had a professional Army this century, remember that the US Army was still practicing armor manuevers on trucks with the word "Tank" painted on the side as late as 1938. The will was there, but the money was not.

Gyrene

[Gyrene]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that one of the biggest problems that the US Army had in WW2 was that the fittest and brightest were almost anywhere BUT in combat positions. Nearly all of the college grads and men with a modicum of ability had found themselves positions in the staff, administratation or the technical branches. Huge swathes of talented people were also siphoned off into the Army Air Force. The guys left in the rifle companies were generally the ones with limited abilities and without the initiatiave to find themselves a safer occupation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is not exactly true...The USA was still just coming off the Great Depression and the great drive for higher education in America was not on yet...It would be fueled by the GI Bill after WWII. Most of the "good jobs" were working on government funded projects like Hoover Dam & the like.

The pre-war US Military was considered a good career choice, but it had far more applicants than positions and could afford to be picky. After Pearl Harbor it was flooded by millions of eager applicants, and it could then afford to be VERY picky, this pickyness wore off as the need for men rose as the war went on.

Gyrene

[Brian Rock]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Triumvir:

(Incidentally, has anyone ever won an SPII game playing the Arabs against Israelis, apart from 1973 battles?)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, yes, in the 1967 scenario. I was playing a guy who was so delighted to be the Israelis he just couldn't resist chasing after my rapidly withdrawing Egyptians.

Seems he'd never heard of the battle of Cannae, because he was absolutely gob-smacked when his lead brigade, which had advanced beyond all supporting brigades, was suddenly surrounded and attacked by a pile of weaker Egyptian units. I rolled enough to force him to retreat, and as he was surrounded the unit disbanded.

Then I did it to the next unit. It died too.

Then I counterattacked.

I've never seen a player resign in such total disgust before. Best boardgame win I've ever had.

[/brag]

[Tero]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I would contend that (outside of Finland?) there were no professional armies to fight in Europe during WW II.

My premise does not even beging to try to state that. The premise applies to pre-war conditions. And the question is how they affected the course of the war.

Perhaps Poland is an exception; they were reputed to have the best trained army and the toughest soldiers in the world.

What about the French ?

Seriously, it just occured to me that it would be useful to get some intel on their pre-war practises too.

But the Germans, British, Americans, Russians, Canadians, French - all relied on conscripts, or else volunteers who enlisted after the outbreak of hostilities.

The Germans and the Russians had a pre-war conscription system. The British and the Americans had a pre-war professional system.

Finland had (still has) a conscript system and the only true volunteers in Finland were those who wanted to joing up before they became of age and were called up in their turn.

Everyone thinks the Germans were practicing "blitzkrieg" before WW II, not realizing in many cases that "blitzkrieg" was not a word in German, nor did many German soldiers train with tanks, or even motorized transport.

Indeed. But this is not the main issue here. The main issue is the differences in the systems and how they prepared a nation and its army to war.

Many doctrines and tactical approaches used in training before the war, and even during the war, date back to World War One.

Yes. But again this is a side issue.

I am not sure what the argument is here (refresh me). Just what exactly is the thesis vis-a-vis conscripts versus professionals?

The Thesis (unrefined):

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

When we look at the broader picture the armies based on pre-war conscription seem to have faired better in the field against odds the armies based on professional gadre and limited reserve of volunteers could not take. Only after the numerical odds could be stacked higher in their favour did the professional armies start winning. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is only a draft copy filled with all sorts of holes and bugged by all kinds of caveats.

- How did the respective systems prepare the army as a whole to war ?

- How could the systems respond to changing needs at the outbreak of the war and later on when the situations fluctuated ?

- Some armies seem to have transcended the barriers: the Japanese and the Soviet armies in particular spring to mind.

One can argue that the British and Canadians, and the Americans to a lesser degree, were professional armies by D-Day simply because they had been training together for so long.

So that does not apply to armies whose men had fought together for so long ?

What is our definition of "professional"? I rate the pre World War One "Old Contemptibles" as professionals. But the war was won in part by Kitchener's Army, Do we consider them professional simply because they won?

No, the term "professionals" should apply only to that personel who joined up received a sallary. A professional army was an army made out of paid government employees.

And do we put the 1944 British Army in the same league as the Old Contemptibles?

No.

Or does that matter in your definition?

Not really. All armies evolved during the course of the war. My premise deals with the conditions the armies worked in pre-war years and how that affected their overall performance at various stages of the war.

[ 10-19-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by The Commissar:

If you're asking which system is likely to produce better soldiers, I would definately say proffesional army.

You have to define what makes a soldier better. The pre-war professional British army failed to produce better soldiers.

One of the largest is the fact that manual conscription requires people to go get training against their will.

That is why you have to make sure the motivation to serve remains high.

By comparison the professional army can suffer from the lack of suitable raw materiel due to unappealing circumstances surrounding the service.

If you make someone do something when they dont want to do it, they will not perform totheir full efficiency, nor will they want to do so. They just want to serve their time and get the hell out.

This is a classic pro-professional army argument. What prevents the professional army from going on strike if they do not get what they need ?

A pro army on the other hand is usually based on volunteers, who actually want to do this.

This being kill, maim and learn a few cool moves to impress your friends ?

Also, since as previously mentioned, conscription is done against people's will, it means that the govt can't keep people conscripted too long - it will cause major commotion and general dislike of the govt.

Really ? Can you name any examples outside USA (which was engaged in an unpopular war at the time) ?

So countries with conscript armies usually dont have the same standards because they can't keep their men training as much as pro armies can.

What makes you think so ? Which army would be hit the hardes if, due to a recession, the military budget is cut ? A conscript army can cut down the time in service by cutting corners in the training schedule and concentrating to what they think is essential . The Finnish army did that in the 30's. The overall number of trained men was/is kept the same or even increased.

If a professional army winds up in a similar situation they have to resort to methods that endanger the efficiency of the army.

Of course, how you use your men, conscript or pro is what really matters.

Yes. But the "infrastructure" laid down by pre-war events is what determines what you can expect of your army.

[ 10-19-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[Tero]

By Commissar

Would the Nazi war machine be considered a professional force or a conscript one? It is true that the soldiers were conscripted, but it is also true that many other volunteered and were very enthusiastic about serving "the fatherland".

Were the German conscripts less enthusiastically involved in the serving of the Fatherland than the foreign volunteers ?

They of course also had superb training.

So that would make the German army a professional army and not a conscript army ?

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

As for Poland - why did they lose?

Russia stabbed them in the back, for one (remember them?), and political considerations did not allow them to defend behind river lines - that would have meant abandoning half their country on the first day of the war.

They also failed to mobilize early when all indications were pointing towards war. That would have negated some of the importance of the rivers as defensive barriers.

[Tero]

Originally posted by lcm1947:

I'm no expect but I would assume since Germany had training in the Spanish war they were more of a professional army by War II

The Spanish war was OJT and doctrinal trial runs made by cadre "volunteers", mostly from services which are by and large manned by cadre in all armies anyway (airforce etc), be it professional or conscript.

By the same token the Red Army would be a professional army since they too had "volunteers" fighting in Spain.

plus them knowing that they were about to attack Poland they had a head start didn't they?

Strategic initiative does not really fall under the issue being debated here.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Mr. Johnson-<THC>-:

Why does it have to be one or the other?

In fact it isn't. Even the conscript armies have a cadre of career military.

Why not train citizens for 2 or 3 years after the end of public school and then let them leave. Some will stay but you can call up those who already know how to clean, load, and fire rifles.

Exactly. With a little refresher training they are ready for action.

Always group green troops with pros when the crap hitting the fan is immient.

Not always necessary.

I have been reading a (Finnish) study on troop morale and "warrior" types and there was a some ink spilled over the age, maritial status and the like and how it affects troop performance. It would appear that older reservists tend to be calmer under fire even if they do not have any combat experience.

Same thing with officers, do what the Germans did for awhile. Send your good officers back to a staff college that plans for the unexpected and give the generals extra options, but they all have to get rotated to the front. And you could make sure that new officers always started their service assisting an officer who has already spent time at the staff college.

I think the British did that. In their military and other colleges they had a working system where the new boys would be given to older boys for training and indoctrination.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Triumvir:

Professional soldiers are good for the wars that they fight. In other words, small, limited conflicts that do not affect the homeland.

Agreed.

But for large conflicts, there can be no comparison between a conscript army and a professional army; quantity has a quality of its own.

The only thing is nowadays the effect of information warfare can produce results neither side anticipate.

However, the traditional benefit of a professional army -- the unswerving will and ability to die without flinching -- can't be discounted.

Then again in the olden days you could win your opponent by simply paying his mercenaries enough to sit it out.

A conscript army simply doesn't have the first problem; by coercing the fitter and brighter part of the polity, it in effect levels out the initial disadvantage of less training.

Does less training automatically and/or necessarily translate into worse training ?

Motivation, though, is a incredibly important part of a conscript army; and it is much harder to develop and nurture such motivation in any war apart from the defence of the homeland.

That is why they are mostly called defence forces these days.

All the armies in WWII were conscript armies.

I would hesitate to break up the continuum that should run from the -30's straight past Sept. 1939 and beyond.

This perculiarly Anglo-American practise of arbitrarily chopping off the history into seemingly disjointed entities is very annoying when trying to build up a big picture that runs contrary to the "established" dogma.

The North Koreans nearly crushed the American Regular Army in 1950. German troops routinely place ahead or equal with British and Canadian troops in gunnery.

That is why it would be nice to be able to establish quantifiable "force specific" parameters.

And let's not talk about the Israelis, the modern day uber-Finns.

Why not.

(Incidentally, has anyone ever won an SPII game playing the Arabs against Israelis, apart from 1973 battles?)

1967 the Arabs got thermal sights so low LOS engagements against regular Israeli tanks is winnable (if they do not have those damned Panhards ).

As counter examples are the British at Salamanca, and the UN coalition in Korea and the Gulf.

Korea does not count IMO as the Chinese forced a stale mate. They could have sweapt the UN forces right into the sea (right before the first nukes were dropped).

To sum this long rambling post, conscript armies, ceteris paribus, will defeat professional armies because they can recruit from a wider and thus better pool; and shunt the fittest and brightest into combat positions.

This is why the recent wars have been so short. In any prolonged conflict the professional army just lack the stamina as they are dependant on the political aspect of the conflict more than a conscript army is.

But in a war fought far from the homeland, the conscript army's will to fight will inevitably diminsh while that of the professional army will stay the same.

The überFinns started refusing to go any further once they had crossed the old borders as the justification for the agression had been met.

This can tip the scales enough that the conscript army will lose to the professional one.

True.

Oh, and wasn't it me who first came up with this suggestion? Hoarding this for a long time, eh tero?

You and others.

Naughty naughty uber-Finn... 8)

Nobody prevented you from posting this. I will not admit any large scale plagiarism.

And we überFinns are famous for our ability to turn trivial household items and other unlikely objects into lethal weapons. :cool:

[Tero]

Originally posted by Bobbaro:

This writting may be a rambling crock, and I am not satisfied that it adds much to the question.

To conscript or use a professional force, that is the question ?

Your contibution is valuable.

Perhaps the question could be better too. I am not so sure that the conscrip vs. professional question is the best expression of what is at stake.

Indeed. I try to steer clear of the metaphysical side and adhere to the historical aspects pertaining WWII. I have read many a book and debated many a time over "force specific" qualities. This pre-war conscription vs pre-was professional army is the only angle so far that has been accessible without going into chauvinistic arguments. Verily a first time when the un-quantifiable can at least be put in some sort of frame of reference.

My thesis may not be perfect and my questions not so well put but least they are a decent enough start.

Surely a military requires a professional knowledge and practice at its core.

Agreed. A concript army with elan but no workable doctrine does not last long.

A nation owes its young men of warrior age a routine military background

of sufficient professional quality as to make any sudden and compelling need find a body of conscripts already prepared to be soldiers.

In Finland the majority is still willing to serve. IIRC those who would be willing to take up arms in defence of the country is still 70-90% (depending on the gender and age).

If we suffer as a population for having sent children to war and to die, then surely it is worse for them to die and for the enemy to prevail as well.

Sometimes that is not an option.

I submit the damned thing. It was a satisfaction to say it, so not making any difference is beside my point and your point is if you have read it; you deserve it. Sensible people quit reading much sooner.

It is not everyday you run into a poet in these boards.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Affentitten:

As to the performance of conscripts versus volunteers in a mass battlefield situation,......

Interesting parallels.

Can you say how the Aussie troops rated the conscript German and Japanese troops they were fighting against ?

...and usually outstripped the British draftees they fought alongside.

In your opinion, is there any difference in being involuntarily drafted in a time of war and being subject to a conscript system already before the war and then being called up from the reserves to active duty ?

(With the exception of Crete, but we can blame the Kiwi general for that one!)

That is between you and the Kiwis.

I'm not certain, but I also believe we didn't have conscription in WW2,.....

We DID have conscription in Vietnam, and suffered the same social upheaval over it as the USA did.

That is interesting. Can you give any reasons why did you go to conscription (in case you indeed did migrate to conscription)?

Once again, this voluntary theory paid off in that Australian combat performance in Vietnam was proportionately better than that of the American units made up more heavily of "against their will" levees.

I think examples like Vietnam when talking about conscription are very localized and affect the opinions of the people who "suffered" from it.

While your arguments against concription seem valid they are based on highly isolated cases (in the global scale). Ever since Vietnam the US military has been trying to polish its shield and clean up its reputation and therein lies the seed of rather selfserving scorn of conscription.

Wars of aggression have been very hard on conscript armies. Especially unpopular lost wars. But still that does not warrant the wholesale disregard of conscription as a viable military option.

[ 10-19-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by Gyrene:

We'll here I go again with my USMC-centric observations, but the Corps at least had a strong core of Officers and NCO's who had quite a bit of field experience by 1941 in Central America, China & several others. Granted the USMC was but a fly speck by 1944 standards, that experienced core made a huge difference in holding their units together in the early battles.

Can you verify if they were indeed career (=professional) servicemen ?

While the USA has always had a professional Army this century, remember that the US Army was still practicing armor manuevers on trucks with the word "Tank" painted on the side as late as 1938. The will was there, but the money was not.

This brings up a rather important point: if a conscript army on a shoestring budged did the same type of training how many men would they be able to train in a year compared to a professional army ? And I am talking about the rank and file, not cadre officers and NCO's.

[ 10-19-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[Enoch]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gyrene:

That is not exactly true...The USA was still just coming off the Great Depression and the great drive for higher education in America was not on yet...It would be fueled by the GI Bill after WWII. Most of the "good jobs" were working on government funded projects like Hoover Dam & the like.

The pre-war US Military was considered a good career choice, but it had far more applicants than positions and could afford to be picky. After Pearl Harbor it was flooded by millions of eager applicants, and it could then afford to be VERY picky, this pickyness wore off as the need for men rose as the war went on.

Gyrene<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gyrene,

I think Affentitten's point was that from 1942 on that in the US most people who joined the Army and scored high on their tests went into either the Army Air Corps or Artillery or some other technical branch. The infantry was left with the leftovers. As the war progressed and there was a greater need for infantry replacements this changed. Early war though, the infantry got the low end of the scale.

I think Doubler or Mansoor talk about this in their books. I can't remember which one off the top of my head.

[Andreas]

Dobler.

[Sergei]

Well,

there are green pro's and veteran pro's, and then there are green conscripts and veteran conscripts. Which do you want to compare?

Also, do you people think that an army of volunteers (like the jolly Afghan coalitions) is a conscript or a professional army? Maybe it doesn't attract people in the same level as a forced conscription does, but neither is it a "career" or "job" like in professional armies: even the most patriotic guerillas usually plan to return to their pre-war occupation. Also, the warriors might be more dedicated to the cause than conscripts (slaves) or professionals (mercenaries).

I suppose any army in the world does have some traces of professionalism, excepting a few guerilla bunches which might happily dismiss themselves when the fight is over. I mean, in every army there are officers and some expensive-to-train folks like fighter jockeys, who are there not because of a must but because of a want.

In my view, conscription has a better chance of attracting good men to army, because otherwise many potential officers would just go to study and civil work. Does it really matter that much, dunno.