Conscription vs professional army

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The 1940 German campaign against France and the concept of blitzkrieg have exerted a powerful influence over modern perceptions of warfare. The 1940 campaign is frequently cited in discussions of strategy and operations and in publications about the "Revolution in Military Affairs" (RMA). Proponents of the RMA have argued that blitzkrieg was the product of technological and conceptual advances during the interwar period. They have also claimed that the 1940 campaign demonstrates how such advances can quickly change the conduct of warfare.

Many of the concepts associated with blitzkrieg are actually myths. This is a consequence of poor military history and the preponderance of popular accounts of the 1940 campaign. For example, German doctrinal innovation was due more to the unfavorable situation Germany faced rather than to any "revolution" in technology or concepts of warfare. Their planning the 1940 campaign did not expect a swift, easy defeat of France nor was its success solely attributable to technology, specifically tanks and airpower. Rather, the campaign had modest objectives, German strategy and tactics were extremely important, and the infantry played a critical role in its success

The concept of blitzkrieg as it is now understood was not developed by Hitler and the German General Staff. Rather, it was formulated for public consumption. The term appeared occasionally in the literature between 1936 and 1940 and was the subject of a Time magazine article after France’s defeat. At this time, blitzkrieg simply meant a knockout blow in contrast to the trench warfare of World War I. The Germans, for example, employed the term to refer to a short war. No theorist used it to refer to a combined offensive by armored forces and aircraft to deliver a knockout blow against an adversary.

Rather than a revolution, mobile warfare represented a natural evolution in the conduct of war. The development of methods and equipment necessary for mobile warfare was informed by the experience of World War I. Yet, the evolution of technology and strategy was the subject of considerable debate in Germany. There was a lively discussion in the literature about the proper role of tanks and airpower. The development of mechanized forces was retarded by Hitler’s military and economic policies. The best strategy for the 1940 campaign was not immediately evident to the German high command. Hitler dabbled with strategy and inquired about the possibility of an offensive through the Ardennes before Manstein devised his plan. The German strategy for the attack against France was a desperate operational act ultimately chosen for its risky strategic possibilities.

The German advance in the 1940 campaign is widely perceived to have been a rapid "jaunt" through France with armor and airpower playing the dominant roles in the offensive. This notion is unsubstantiated. Rough terrain hindered the progress of the XIX Panzer Corps. The crossing of the Meuse River was also very difficult and its outcome might have been different were it not for some remarkable successes by a few German forces. The movement of armored units across the river was far slower than anticipated and German commanders submitted false reports about their progress and the vulnerability of the bridgehead. Moreover, infantry played a key role on both sides. German armored forces were led across the Meuse by antitank and engineer units. At the beginning of the campaign German forces encountered stiff resistance from Belgian infantry mounted on bicycles. A single rifle company turned back an assault by a German tank division. Furthermore, a German infantry batallion played a pivotal role in the eventual defeat of this company.

Airpower was important in the 1940 campaign and German ground forces would not have been successful without the air support provided by the Luftwaffe. The Luftwaffe achieved air superiority, established a protective umbrella over advancing German columns, and facilitated the crossing of the Meuse by German forces. German air attacks also confused French commanders about the location of advancing forces and contributed to the collapse of the French 55th Division defending the Meuse. However, German airpower accounted for little of the destruction on the ground nor did its use in the 1940 campaign mark the advent of a fundamentally new way of warfare.

Neither Hitler nor the German high command expected a rapid, easy victory over the French in 1940. They expressed serious concerns about the prospects for success on May 13th and 14th. However, the German forces were victorious because of luck, better leadership, skill and training, superior concentration of forces, and French weaknesses in strategy and tactics. German leaders considered the outcome of the 1940 campaign to be a miracle. Yet, this was soon forgotten as they fell victim to their own propaganda. Seeing themselves in newsreels and movies, the German officer corps became convinced that the myth of blitzkrieg was reality. Confident that blitzkrieg would enable Germany to achieve a swift, easy victory over the Soviet Union, Hitler initiated the invasion of the Soviet Union almost immediately after the 1940 campaign.

Continued British resistance and the expectation that Soviet forces would quickly be defeated led Hitler to pursue an offensive against the Soviet Union in 1941. The British rejected Hitler’s peace overtures following the defeat of France and a German Navy study concluded that an invasion of Great Britain would be extremely difficult. Meanwhile, military options on the eastern front were evaluated. An offensive would seek to crush the Soviet army before it could retreat and to seize enough territory in the east to prevent Soviet air strikes against Germany. Both Hitler and Halder believed that blitzkrieg would enable German forces to deliver such a knockout blow against the Soviet Union. A campaign against the Soviet Union was also expected to be far easier than the invasion of France. With the defeat of the Soviet Union, any remaining British hope of successfully resisting German domination of Europe would be eliminated.

Hitler therefore directed the German army to prepare to crush the Soviet military prior to the defeat of the United Kingdom. The Germans thus sought a "Super Cannae" against the Soviet Union. The invasion of the Soviet Union was widely anticipated to be a short campaign and military planning reflected this expectation. The German high command believed that 80-100 German divisions would easily be able to defeat the 50-75 top Russian divisions. The German economy was not mobilized for the invasion, stockpiles were not accumulated, and the long distances involved in transporting supplies to advancing German forces were ignored. Operation Barbarossa was based to an unprecedented degree on myths and hopes stemming from the successful invasion of France. Intoxicated by the success of the 1940 campaign, Hitler and Halder even envisaged the use of blitzkrieg operations to secure German domination of the Mediterranean and Asia. Such confidence contrasts sharply with the German high command’s far more sober analysis of the successful 1939 attack on Poland, which generated substantial pessimism among military leaders because of the many deficiencies that it had revealed. Instead, concluding that they had devised blitzkrieg to defeat the French, Hitler and the German high command believed it could also be used successfully against the Soviet Union. In the end, such arrogance and poor intelligence led to German failure in the east.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Colonel Robert Doughty

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The term "Blitzkrieg" ("lightening war") was coined by Western newspapermen to convey the rapid and mechanized German attack on Poland.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From the following page:

http://history1900s.about.com/library/holocaust/aa090399.htm

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 17. There is still debate about who coined the term blitzkrieg and what was originally meant by it. See William J. Fanning, Jr., "The Origin of the Term `Blitzkrieg': Another View," The Journal of Military History, 61 (April 1997), 283-302.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/00autumn/johnston.htm

[Michael Dorosh]

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

Despite its' sound, the term "Blitzkrieg" is neither of German or military origin--it was coined by American news reporters who covered the early campaigns. To reporters accustomed to the snail-like pace of the First World War, Hitler's panzers seemed to strike with the speed and fury of a lightening storm, giving rise to the name "Blitzkrieg" or "lightening war."

The Anglo origin of the word did nothing to dissuade Germany's leaders from capitalising on the fears and images the new word provoked. Long before the first shots were fired, Reich Propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels was busy preparing the world stage for the Blitzkrieg's entrance. The whirring cameras of his photographers and film crews captured images of military exercises, reviews and parades, all featuring the shiny new panzerwaffe. At the outbreak of war, the camera crews (Kreigsberichter) most of whom had been members of the press, but had been inducted for service in Propaganda Kompanies, advanced with the forward elements. Casualties were high, but soon the world was learning about the Blitzkrieg in movie houses, on radio and in newspapers and magazines. On thousands of feet of cellulose the troops of the Wehrmact marched in triumphal parades, until the tramp of goose-stepping soldiers was almost synonymous with victory. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.eliteforcesofthethirdreich.com/tactics/blitzkreig.htm

[Iron Chef Sakai]

haha, wow Dorosh can palgerize books, wow your so smart, see most people read more then once source about a subject then draw a conclusion, but not Cliff Notes Dorosh, he just finds somehting he agrees with and copies it to a forum,..........genius

[Michael Dorosh]

I've reported you conduct to battlefront; I'll accept an apology from you if you care to offer one, otherwise I'm hoping you get the ban you richly deserve.

Now, if you want to actually debate the term "blitzkrieg", feel free to present your sources - as I just did.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

Dorosh, i am realy not trying to emberess you, you seem to at least have an interst in this subject, just in generel you need to read more, there is alot to know and you should'nt get all insulted if someone knows something you don't , its called learning. i screwed up a model of stuka that was the tanka buster, it's been ages since i've read on ww2, so i said the ju-87-r was the tank buser with the twin 37mm cannons, since someoen was inquiring if a tank buster version existed, i forgot that it was the g model wich someone else pointed out, and i did not respond with.......yawn, i was glad someone refreshed my memory

[Michael Dorosh]

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

Dorosh, i am realy not trying to emberess you<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, you're trying to waste everyone's time by professing to have a deep knowledge of something you know nothing about and not being able to back any of it up. Most of us come here to learn from others; you obviously come here to be a colossal pain in the arse.

But I'm not playing.

Good night.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

why would i get a ban for pointing out your ignorance and bigoted statements? calling a gemran a jerry is racist, i deserve a ban for bringing this to attention? i'm not going to apologize to you, you should apologize to people of german decent who have to be subjected to the term jerry by you, grow up, and try not to be so ignorant. since you can't defend yourself you have ot try and ban me away? right..........alrighty, feel better now Dorosh?

[Iron Chef Sakai]

also, this is not even your thread Dorosh, so you've reported me to battlefront because we have differing opinions? are you sure your not a facist or something? if you are that anal, well that is your problem, if you start your own thread and do not want me positng on it with a different opinion or facts then you, simply say so and i dont have a problem with that, you used bigoted terms and i didnt report you or whatever you did, and if "everybody" elected you as their spokesman, where are their complaints? you mean.......you elected yourself as their spokesman without their vote?.......doesnt sound very democratic to me there Dorosh

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

haha, wow Dorosh can palgerize books, wow your so smart, see most people read more then once source about a subject then draw a conclusion, but not Cliff Notes Dorosh, he just finds somehting he agrees with and copies it to a forum,..........genius<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um, it would only be plagiarism if he tried to pass off the work of others as his own. As he clearly cited his sources, it was not in any way plagiarism.

Do you actually have a source that contradicts his?

[ 10-22-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Madmatt]

Iron Chef, Please limit your posts to the topic at hand and do not abuse any other member. The tone of your posts are getting a little bit more and more aggresive and insulting with each one and I don't like to see that. If you want to debate Mr. Dorosh's points than do it, but don't be so insulting.

Michael, your initial reply (the yawning) to Mr. Sakai was also a little rude, so watch yourself as well.

Lets get back to debating points and not attacking people.

Madmatt

[Jarmo]

Conscription vs Professionals.

Well, it depends on what kind of conscription system is used and what the professionals do to be professionals.

Getting paid doesn't make you a better soldier. Training does.

In finland, the mandatory service period has been shortened to 6 months for a regular infantryman. Of this, maybe a couple of months are spent actually training. Of the remaining time, most is spent in the cafeteria eating doughnuts and drinking Pepsi. Then there is some marching.

During my 285 day service, we went parade marching about 50 times. Combat training in the forest about 5 times. Shooting two times. This because of budget cuts, marching is free, the rest costs extra.

On the contrast, most(?) of the finnish professionals (the officers) spend their time eating doughnuts and drinking vodka. Twenty years of that don't make them much better than conscripts. They are more likely to get a heart attack, but that doesnt really help.

My point of view is that training makes a difference. Getting paid does not. And the training has to be combat training, closely resembling actual combat situations.

[Skipper]

Back to the topic. My grandmother (and hence, myself) are a living proof that conscription works. Soviet regular army was destroyed in early months of the war. By the tim of Stalingrad, having one cadre officer in an infantry regiment was not always. On battalion level it was rare.

IMHO, if you don't expect to fight any major conflicts (total war style ones), or you are prepared to give up in such a conflict, then professional army is a good bet.

USA is a good case in point - being an island, they always have an option to avoid any major conflict until entering it suits them. The only war USA did not enter of their own will was the war with Japan; and it was not a major conflict in the above context. So, relatively small professional army capable of stunts such as Desert Storm is a very sensible choice.

Take Russia. Right now I can't think of a single major war that Russia entered of own will; small scale foreign expeditions don't count. WWI, perhaps...

The country is huge, continental, and had to keep in mind potential security threats from two or three directions. Nukes aside, it needed conscription - no other sensible choice. When nuclear arsenal was fully developed (late 70s), the standing army probably could (and should) have been cut in size. However, such things take initiative and foresight that Politburo sadly lacked.

But even now, I think, conscription for Russia is a sensible choice.

Hi-tech units are a separate story. They should be professional by necessity.

Argie, sorry for saying that, but your experience with Argentinian military is not a good case. In the modern world any military that is a direct force in the country's internal politics, imho, sucks always; whether they are conscript or 'professional' is largely irrelevant.

PS. This board is under a teenage-mutant-ninja-turtles onslaught of lately...

[Affentitten]

In reference to the post regarding the joys of being a conscript in Finland, I thought I'd add some more experiences.

My bro-in-law did his 18 months (?) in the French army. They went on combat training ONCE. That was a two or three day affair. The rest of the time him and his peers basically sat around in a barracks. My brother-in-law, being a blacksmith and machinist by trade, got the special additional duty of being the base locksmith. At least then he got to amuse himself in the machine shop and made me a really nice hunting knife :cool:

When I lived in Germany, I lived with a guy who told me about his conscript days in the German marines. He spent all his time sitting in a fristy barracks on the North Sea. Occasionally they would "borrow" a Zodiac and mount unauthorised forays onto the nearest Dutch islands. Sometimes they would have a bit of a brawl with the equally bored Dutch soldiers, other times they would be allowed to make duty free beer purchases at the Dutch army PX.

I think the most imaginative use of conscript training though goes to a guy who was in the German news when I first arrived. He'd broken into an army depot and stolen an APC, which he'd learnt to drive during national service. He drove it to the local jail and used the 20mm cannon to blow the **** out of the front door. His buddy, who was doing time, then ran out and they both made a clean getaway.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

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

Iron Chef, Please limit your posts to the topic at hand and do not abuse any other member. The tone of your posts are getting a little bit more and more aggresive and insulting with each one and I don't like to see that. If you want to debate Mr. Dorosh's points than do it, but don't be so insulting. i see your point, makes sense to me

Michael, your initial reply (the yawning) to Mr. Sakai was also a little rude, so watch yourself as well.

Lets get back to debating points and not attacking people.

Madmatt<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[argie]

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

Argie, sorry for saying that, but your experience with Argentinian military is not a good case. In the modern world any military that is a direct force in the country's internal politics, imho, sucks always; whether they are conscript or 'professional' is largely irrelevant.

PS. This board is under a teenage-mutant-ninja-turtles onslaught of lately...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL

I was kidding!

Now, in Argentina, we have a very nice and poor full professional army

We have the lowest Defense expenditure in the Subcontinent, related to GDP, and the military is anything but a political choice. They are happy being the most important force in Peace Missions for the UN (I read that somewhere. Have any one actual data on UN Peace Forces?)

In our case, reconstructing our relationships with our neighbours and making an strategic alliance with USA worked a lot better than conscription.

Though, conscription with adequate training has proven to be the best choice if you are a country with a permanent menace of war. The best example to date is Israel. I have somewhere the estimated time of deployment of Israel's reserves in a war... Is something which the RVGK can only have wet dreams, Skipper

I have something on RVGK too... I have to put some order in this room

BTW, I did my mandatory service, 8 months as Engineer, they give me a status that I think is equivalent to PFC, and made me something like Reservist NCO. Right now, Argentina lacks a law on Reserves... So, if someone here is planning to take over Argentina, no better time than this... Though the Armed Forces seems to have a better doctrine than before.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

makes sense to me Matt, i tried to add your quote to this reply but screwed it up earlier

[Gyrene]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> By Jarmo:Getting paid doesn't make you a better soldier. Training does. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True. But wanting to be there does a lot to, and the will to be in the service to begin with goes in hand with the notion of a professional military.

It is also true that in conscript armies there is the chance to volunteeer for extra training and admission to more "professional" units, even though you are still a conscript, you are also a volunteer in that case.

Conscript doesn't always mean "highjacked", "pressganged" or "shanghai'd"; which is probably your point, and I agree.

Gyrene

[Gyrene]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>By Iron Chef Sakai: 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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Germans have been attributed with naming all sorts of things they didn't. Take the USMC's "Devil Dog" for example, it was held to be given to the Marines by the German defenders at Belleau Wood but "Teufel Hund" from all I've read & heard is bad grammar in German. The Marines were reported in German documents as "shock troops" & such, but the American made name "Devil Dog" stuck. Mike Dorosh seems to have presented pretty good evidence that "Blitzkrieg" was not coined by the Germans, but readily adopted none the less.

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

The terms Jerry, Limey & Frog do get tossed around in jest here quite a bit, so do Yank, Kraut , Canuck & others. It's never been meant with malice, BTS would not put up with it. Ask around about the guy from South Africa in this forum a while back with particular views about black people. See how long he lasted.

--Edited to include "canuck" to the bad names list

Gyrene

[ 10-22-2001: Message edited by: Gyrene ]

[Juha Keratar]

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

[QB]In finland, the mandatory service period has been shortened to 6 months for a regular infantryman. Of this, maybe a couple of months are spent actually training. Of the remaining time, most is spent in the cafeteria eating doughnuts and drinking Pepsi. Then there is some marching.

During my 285 day service, we went parade marching about 50 times. Combat training in the forest about 5 times. Shooting two times. This because of budget cuts, marching is free, the rest costs extra.[QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It really depends on where you serve, and when. My platoon (and our company) had a pretty active six months, with plenty of combat training, shooting and stuff like that. I served my year as a platoon leader up in Sodankylä, honest infantry stuff.

On the other hand, my cousin is there at the moment, and their combat trainings are shortened - because of the budget cuts. As you said, they do matter a lot in a country as small as Finland. The decision to buy transport helicopters cut their forest time down somewhat.

"On maamme köydä ja siksi jää"

I bet that if I had been ie. driver or medic, I would have spent a lot more time drinking pepsi and eating doughnuts though. Can't really comment on how intensive the training would be outside Sodankylä and Hamina.

-Lunael

[Jarmo]

Yeah. My viewpoint is certainly affected by me serving in an island garrison...

On the conscript vs volunteer issue. While finland does have a conscript system, the service is still voluntary. Kind of.

You can also opt for civilian service, but that's 13 months (is it?) compared to 6-12 months (depending on training) in infantry. And you might be sent to asylum for diaper changing duty. If neither option pleases you, there's always the possibility of spending some time in jail.

Something like 9 out of 10 choose the easy/short way, the armed service.

Actually, the only purely volunteers (in addition to the staff officers) in finnish army are the women.

A permanent professional army is being considered for finland, but I don' think that'd be to replace the conscription system. That'd be for the EU "peace missions". I believe about 95% of finns would opt for the civilian service if there'd be a chance of conscripts being sent to war in Afganistan or some other such place.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Jarmo:

Getting paid doesn't make you a better soldier. Training does.

True. But is the training the conscripts get always inferior to the training the professionals get ?

In finland, the mandatory service period has been shortened to 6 months for a regular infantryman.

It used to be 8 months (I myself did 11 months). The cut was made due to budget and the lack of meaningful service.

Of this, maybe a couple of months are spent actually training.

Which is actually 30-50% of the 6 month service. Sounds a bit different if you say it in this way.

You should perhaps tell the "official" curriculum to the others before going general as the system is not known to the foreigners.

The year 2000 edition of the Taistelijan Käsikirja (Warriors manual) states that basic training is 8 weeks and it is the same to all. After this the curriculum gets separated according to the "line": The shortest (180 days) is Combat Infantry specialist training is 9 weeks followed by 9 weeks of "unit training" aimed at reaching some proficiency in acting as a part of a unit. After that they get discharged. Other specialist serve 270 days and they receive up to 35 weeks of specialist training. The reservist NCO training takes 16 weeks, the reservist officer training takes 21 weeks. This is followed by 23-28 weeks of service as a troop leader during the basic training period of the next batch of conscipts. The last 9 weeks is unit training. The leaders serve 362 days.

Of the remaining time, most is spent in the cafeteria eating doughnuts and drinking Pepsi.

At least you guys got most of the weekends off. In my time it was 2 out 1 in. At best.

Did you get to seit in the cafeteria all they long, without any service whatsoever ? Where did you serve ?

Then there is some marching.

Which is mentioned in the curriculum as being a part of the PT programme.

During my 285 day service, we went parade marching about 50 times. Combat training in the forest about 5 times.

Parade march how many hours at a time ? Combat training : hours, days, weeks ?

Shooting two times.

How many shots ?

Does this include dummy, non-live ammo ?

This because of budget cuts, marching is free, the rest costs extra.

Marching is also a form of PT. Luckily the Finnish army sargeants do not march up and down the square like they depict the British army sargeants in that Monthy Python movie.

On the contrast, most(?) of the finnish professionals (the officers) spend their time eating doughnuts and drinking vodka. Twenty years of that don't make them much better than conscripts. They are more likely to get a heart attack, but that doesnt really help.

Concur. But in all fairness I have to say that the standing army cadre is only what, 5 -10 000 men (of them I dare say not all are drunks) while the fully mobilized army can reach from 300 000 to 500 000 men. Most of these will be older reservists who will also be highly motivated in their quest to defend the country. You will stay in the reserve until you are 60 years old.

BTW: have you seen the latest NATO poll ? Only 16% support joining NATO, the number used to be higher.

My point of view is that training makes a difference. Getting paid does not. And the training has to be combat training, closely resembling actual combat situations.

So, was the training you received like that or not ?

[ 10-22-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[Slapdragon]

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

haha, wow Dorosh can palgerize books, wow your so smart, see most people read more then once source about a subject then draw a conclusion, but not Cliff Notes Dorosh, he just finds somehting he agrees with and copies it to a forum,..........genius<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Iron Chef -- you need to look up the word plagiarize. What Micheal is doing is called citation of a secondary source, and it is more valid that just spouting a meaningless opinion gained from Saturday morning cartoons. Plagiarization would be stealing other peoples works for his own, or using a major piece of said work so that its commercial or intllectual value is diminished. If Micheal had posted 10,000 words he may have plagiarized.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Juha Keratar:

"On maamme köydä ja siksi jää"

Our country is poor, hence the ice.

I bet that if I had been ie. driver or medic, I would have spent a lot more time drinking pepsi and eating doughnuts though.

When I served the most "demoralized" people were the ones who had nothing meaningful to do.