Conscription vs professional army

[RMC]

I think tero's premise is one worth exploring in the narrow way that he defined it.

These debates about conscription and professional armies are current even today. The Netherlands and France have recently eliminated conscription in their armies and the Germans are mulling over the change right now.

I think most people would agree that a professional soldier with several years experience is more valuable than a conscript with very little service time. This seems to be an unstated assumption in most discussions: the professional has experience whereas the conscript just got off the truck yesterday. But is there really any difference between a soldier of two-years experience in either system as far as skill is concerned (the professional will usually be better fed, housed and equipped)?

Tero's idea:

"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."

One reason why a conscript army would offer advantages in the total war scenario of the second world war immediately pops to mind. Conscription can maintain a larger trained reserve force: either one that is regulated and requires regular call ups for refresher training or one that is a passive list of men who had previously been trained. Both would allow a more rapid and larger expansion of the existing cadre with trained personnel. In contrast the professional army might have been able to draw on established reserves but not nearly as many and in order to expand to the same size requires more personnel who had had no training at all before.

Another potential advantage is the incorporation of men from varied social strata into the ranks and the skills that they may bring. There is an advantage to be gained in capitalizing on the skills conscripts bring to the force. It is easier to train an automotive mechanic to fix tanks than someone who has had no such skill on the outside. This depends on the demographics of the target group. This advantage is reduced if you only conscript 18-year olds.

Some have already referred to a perceived motivational difference between volunteers and conscripts. This may be true generally but I would not consider it absolute. Some volunteers have no idea of what they are getting into and react badly. Likewise some conscripts find that they adapt well to military life and stay beyond their intial requirement. These guys become part of the professional cadre of the conscript army. Today the attrition rate amongst 1st time enlistees (volunteers all!) in the US Army runs somewhere around 30%. Some are soldiers elminated for judicial reasons, some are pregancies but a large portion is soldiers "failing to adapt."

[Skipper]

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

As for Poland - why did they lose?

Russia stabbed them in the back<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought they were completely crushed by the Germans first, then Russia entered the fray. Do you know something that I don't?

[Tero]

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

I thought they were completely crushed by the Germans first, then Russia entered the fray. Do you know something that I don't?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Before that, when they went and signed the non-aggression pact with it's secret allocation of speheres of influence.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Sergei:

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

None of them. And all of them.

The question is really about the infrastructure from which the armies could wage war, not the experience levels or other current CM abstractions and approximations as such.

When the war started the masses in both sides were green. Only the conscript armies had a broader base from which to draw pre-trained replacements and form new shake and bake formations to swell up the army into war footing.

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).

In WWII terms they would be the resistance fighters or partisans.

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.

Quite. But the few selected specialist military trades are exceptions and uniform in all armies. It is the cannon fodder that is at the core of my premis.

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.

Agreed. But the cadre officers and NCO do not form the entire army.

Does it really matter that much, dunno.

That is what I am trying to find out.

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

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

[Tero]

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

Dobler.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I promise for my part to keep this a non-chauvinist scientific debate. The intention is to quantitify the unquantifiable. This time from what I think is a scientifically quantifiable POV.

Come on, I know you want to chip in.

[Skipper]

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

Before that, when they went and signed the non-aggression pact with it's secret allocation of speheres of influence.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but let's say that in the context of this here argument (professional vs conscription), Poland lost utterly enough without soviet help. Even though professional army is theoretically better prepared for the early stages of war.

Someone (dont remember who) said that germans did not practice blitz-krioeg in training. Let me disagree. Certainly, they did not practice it in soldiers training - on the tactical level it doesn't matter that much (shooting, throwing grenades, moving, digging in and other fieldcraft remains the same). But on the operational level they practiced it an awful lot. Read Guderian for reference. That's how they won in Poland and France - even though on tactical level there were all sorts of funny problems. When they went to Russia - at that time they were the most battle-hardened army in the world.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Skipper:

Yes, but let's say that in the context of this here argument (professional vs conscription), Poland lost utterly enough without soviet help.

True.

Even though professional army is theoretically better prepared for the early stages of war.

I have seen claims that early Polish mobilization would perhaps altered the chain of events. Theoretically speaking a truly professional army should not have to mobilize to be able to conduct limited combat operations.

Was the Polish army a professional army, really ?

Someone (dont remember who) said that germans did not practice blitz-krioeg in training. Let me disagree. Certainly, they did not practice it in soldiers training - on the tactical level it doesn't matter that much (shooting, throwing grenades, moving, digging in and other fieldcraft remains the same). But on the operational level they practiced it an awful lot. Read Guderian for reference. That's how they won in Poland and France - even though on tactical level there were all sorts of funny problems. When they went to Russia - at that time they were the most battle-hardened army in the world.

I have to agree with you: how does an entire army train large scale operations for a new form of warfare that is supposed be a secret ? They had trained in Soviet soil with the Red Army but I think that was only the administrative side or the orchestration side of the Blitzkrieg they were practising there. The small unit battle drill and other essentials had to be done elsewhere.

I'd say they had the basic unit battle drill and tactical training integration between branches down good.

[argie]

I'm the living proof that conscription worths nothing

[Tero]

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

I'm the living proof that conscription worths nothing <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, we speak Finnish here in Finland today thanks to conscription.

The last war our army fought was NOT against Sweden over the outcome of the icehockey world championship or the traditional yearly athletics match.

[Gyrene]

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

That has been true of most militaries with the need to fill technical positions. I'd be hard pressed to think of exceptions. Btw, special forces types are not exceptions, as intelligence is a high requirement. Even today in the US military (And I'd suspect most others) Test score requirements for infantry are among the lowest of all available positions. Make of that what you will, it's just the way it is.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Can you verify if they were indeed career (=professional) servicemen ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tero, yes actually. Back in those days the military was seen as a long term lifestyle or career and not as a way to get ahead in the civilian world. It followed the trends of the time with apprenticeships being the way to learn a trade and a considerable time investment. People tended to stick with a line of work longer then than now. the military was no exception.

Whether long-serving personnel were up to any given standards of proficency it's debatable.

Gyrene

[argie]

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

Well, we speak Finnish here in Finland today thanks to conscription.

The last war our army fought was NOT against Sweden over the outcome of the icehockey world championship or the traditional yearly athletics match. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Damn! I must have missed the foreign languages classes!

[Iron Chef Sakai]

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

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Iron Chef Sakai]

Dorosh, i would have hope you would have at least known that the soviet union did not enter poland on the first day of the war. the polish were trounced before the soviet invasion. it is comparable to the italian invasion of france. pretty cheap in my opinion merely adding insult to a country taking in it's last breath. the polish lost the war because of the blitzkrieg, wich had nothing to do with ww1 tactics. and as far as the germans training with world war 1 tactics, well thats just plain wrong. the rest of the world was, not germany. they tested out alot of weapons and stratgeies honing thier skills in the spanish civil war before world war 2 kicked off. the polish had a worthless airforce, though there pilots proved well flying in the raf later in the war. their airplanes were not exaclty state of the art. their tanks well...if you need a laugh check them out, pick any book, they did have the best calvary in the world. amoung the many things the german army made obsolete, amoung the front runners was calvary. their soliders fought well considering there what they were up against, the best army in the wolrd, facing tactics never used prior to the battle of poland.

[Affentitten]

Tero's points:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Can you say how the Aussie troops rated the conscript German and Japanese troops they were fighting against ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really. A lot of the early fighting in North Africa was done against the Italians, and I think the universal opinion of them as soldiers was pretty low. I gather that the Germans were respected a lot more and seen more as equals, thus making victory over them something to be relished. I dare say that the Aussies had more respect for the Germans than they did for the Brits!

As for the Japs, Australians were basically indoctrinated about the Yellow Peril, and that all Japenese soldiers were a sub-human, short-sighted, barbarous type of monster. Fighting the Japs was far more personal because of the level of cruelty perpetrated by the Japanese on Allied POWs.

And as my grandfather said: "They was heathens."

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

By what measure? Morally? Quality?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> (On conscription to Vietnam) That is interesting. Can you give any reasons why did you go to conscription (in case you indeed did migrate to conscription)?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't really. I guess they just needed to fill the ranks for a war that was never hugely popular. The politicians in charge would have been guys who served in WW2, and I guess there was a sense of "It never did me any harm." <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not disregarding it. Soembody above said that all armies in WW2 were conscript armies and that they always beat the regulars. I cited Australia as proof against.

Interestingly enough, conscription is agin being bandied about here to fill the ranks for the current world "conflict". But it'll never happen. The army doesn't want it, the politicians don't want it and neither does the public.

If anyone is interested in the Australian experience of war in the last 100 years, take a look at this site that I (with my company) worked on over the last couple of years:

Australians At War

[ 10-21-2001: Message edited by: Affentitten ]

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

Dorosh, i would have hope you would have at least known that the soviet union did not enter poland on the first day of the war. the polish were trounced before the soviet invasion. it is comparable to the italian invasion of france. pretty cheap in my opinion merely adding insult to a country taking in it's last breath. the polish lost the war because of the blitzkrieg, wich had nothing to do with ww1 tactics. and as far as the germans training with world war 1 tactics, well thats just plain wrong. the rest of the world was, not germany. they tested out alot of weapons and stratgeies honing thier skills in the spanish civil war before world war 2 kicked off. the polish had a worthless airforce, though there pilots proved well flying in the raf later in the war. their airplanes were not exaclty state of the art. their tanks well...if you need a laugh check them out, pick any book, they did have the best calvary in the world. amoung the many things the german army made obsolete, amoung the front runners was calvary. their soliders fought well considering there what they were up against, the best army in the wolrd, facing tactics never used prior to the battle of poland.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yaaaawwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

[Iron Chef Sakai]

i see Dorosh is having an alergic reaction to knowledge once again, his tiny exscuse for an ego is collapsing around him because, gasp, someone is actualy corecting the "facts" that he daydreams to be true. awwww poor baby i'm sorry, here have some warm milk muffin

[ASL Veteran]

German infantry tactics in WW2 were a direct descendant of the "Stosstruppen" tactics practiced in 1918 - and developed in 1915 - 1918. Obviously German armor tactics were developed between the wars as the Germans only had about 7 tanks in WW1 (plus a bunch of captured ones). I am pretty confident that the term "Blitzkrieg" was applied by non Germans, but the "revolution" was not in the infantry tactics, but in the integration of armor, the coordination between all arms (armor, infantry, artillery, air force), along with the adjustment in operational thinking that allowed the Germans to combine all the elements successfully.

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

German infantry tactics in WW2 were a direct descendant of the "Stosstruppen" tactics practiced in 1918 - and developed in 1915 - 1918. Obviously German armor tactics were developed between the wars as the Germans only had about 7 tanks in WW1 (plus a bunch of captured ones). I am pretty confident that the term "Blitzkrieg" was applied by non Germans, but the "revolution" was not in the infantry tactics, but in the integration of armor, the coordination between all arms (armor, infantry, artillery, air force), along with the adjustment in operational thinking that allowed the Germans to combine all the elements successfully.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. Canadians used storm troop tactics at Vimy Ridge also, so the Allies were learning these lessons as early as 1917 - even, dare I say, earlier than the Germans? I have no doubt the Aussies were doing similar things also.

Blitzkrieg was a term coined by a western Allied reporter; the Germans never used it. They simply applied the tools at hand (tanks) to the concept of schwerpunkt.

[ASL Veteran]

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

Exactly. Canadians used storm troop tactics at Vimy Ridge also, so the Allies were learning these lessons as early as 1917 - even, dare I say, earlier than the Germans? I have no doubt the Aussies were doing similar things also.

Blitzkrieg was a term coined by a western Allied reporter; the Germans never used it. They simply applied the tools at hand (tanks) to the concept of schwerpunkt.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As much as I know you Canadians enjoy beating your chests and singing your praises , (my goodness, it is almost as bad as those darn Aussies and Finns) I think it is safe to assume that the Germans first developed the so called Stormtrupper tactics. The first recognized experimentation was on 30 December 1914 by the elite "Garde - Schutzen" battalion in the Vosges. The Garde Schutzen was the premier Jager battalion in the German army and the Fifth Army authorized this battalion to develop new offensive tactics. Colonel Bauer, the German General Staff's siege warfare expert, wanted to give the battalion a 37mm light gun to play with, but Major Calsow was never able to use it to advantage, so he was sacked. A Captain Rohr was then placed in command and the battalion was turned into a hybrid Jager/Pioniere battalion equipped with a machine gun platoon, a mortar platoon (which the Germans invented BTW), and a flamethrower platoon (which the Germans invented), along with a bunch of infantry who viewed the new grenade (which the Germans also used first) as the primary offensive weapon rather than the rifle. This unit was then titled "Sturmbattalion Rohr" and was the official German test bed for new and innovative infantry tactics. :cool:

[Michael Dorosh]

Yes, I jumped the gun there

How widely used were storm troop tactics before 1918 however? I will give Jerry full credit for pioneering it, but I am sincerely unaware of how often they were employed until the Spring Offensives.

[Spook]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

As much as I know you Canadians enjoy beating your chests and singing your praises , (my goodness, it is almost as bad as those darn Aussies and Finns) I think it is safe to assume that the Germans first developed the so called Stormtrupper tactics. The first recognized experimentation was on 30 December 1914 by the elite "Garde - Schutzen" battalion in the Vosges. The Garde Schutzen was the premier Jager battalion in the German army and the Fifth Army authorized this battalion to develop new offensive tactics. Colonel Bauer, the German General Staff's siege warfare expert, wanted to give the battalion a 37mm light gun to play with, but Major Calsow was never able to use it to advantage, so he was sacked. A Captain Rohr was then placed in command and the battalion was turned into a hybrid Jager/Pioniere battalion equipped with a machine gun platoon, a mortar platoon (which the Germans invented BTW), and a flamethrower platoon (which the Germans invented), along with a bunch of infantry who viewed the new grenade (which the Germans also used first) as the primary offensive weapon rather than the rifle. This unit was then titled "Sturmbattalion Rohr" and was the official German test bed for new and innovative infantry tactics. :cool:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess you could call that the first "experiment" in which the concept was able to catch on later.

BUT.....one prior experimentation of the "stormtrooper" concept actually happened before WWI. Ironically, it was near the end of the ACW: the Confederate assault on Fort Stedman, 25 Mar 1865. But in that case, the lessons weren't learned or "developed" on afterwards.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

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

Exactly. Canadians used storm troop tactics at Vimy Ridge also, so the Allies were learning these lessons as early as 1917 - even, dare I say, earlier than the Germans? I have no doubt the Aussies were doing similar things also.

Blitzkrieg was a term coined by a western Allied reporter; the Germans never used it. They simply applied the tools at hand (tanks) to the concept of schwerpunkt.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>realy? the germans never coined the term blitzkrieg as lighting war? even though it's their own language? Dorosh just makes up stuff as he goes along, yes your right Hienze Guderian and all the other german high command had no title for their new tactics, they never coinded it blitzkrieg, Dorosh, do you read anything other then comic books dude? i'm waiting for you to actualy make sense and i have a feeling it will be a long time, Dorosh is talking about things from an alternate universe i guess.

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

[QB]realy? etc.[QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmmm...how many German books have you read from the 1930s? I defy you to point out one single reference, in any language, in any medium, in which "blitzkrieg" is clearly used by a German military person.

It's not a German military term.

Luckily for me, any serious historian already knows this.

Anyway, since you're wasting everyone's time, how about getting back on track - and instead of looking to snipe at everything I say, how about contributing something to the ongoing discussion of conscription, CM or stormtroop tactics?

[Michael Dorosh]

http://web.mit.edu/ssp/fall98/doughty.htm

Good article there about THE MYTH OF BLITZKRIEG

[Iron Chef Sakai]

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

Yes, I jumped the gun there

How widely used were storm troop tactics before 1918 however? I will give Jerry full credit for pioneering it, but I am sincerely unaware of how often they were employed until the Spring Offensives.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

right,....jerry? this does not proved your biassed or ignorant at all Dorosh, do you hear other people refering to the french as frogs on here? or the brits as limey's? ect.....ok so your a bigot but your warped ignorant outlook does not change history,yes i think its pretty basic that nazi's were not nice people, but as far as refering to germans as jerry's? i'm not even german and i find this ignorant, i'm not going to cry about it or anything but it just proves how biased your opinions are, your next post should be how france won in 1940, vive le france!