Conscription vs professional army

[Tero]

Originally posted by Jarmo:

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

Isosaari sucked.

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

Of these 9 I'd say ~7 do not even consider the other two options as options.

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

The first case of female conscript NCO misconduct (bullying) was reported recently. Why am I not surprised ?

(OK, I am married with children. But still )

A permanent professional army is being considered for finland, but I don' think that'd be to replace the conscription system.

They bloody politicians think that if we were a part of NATO we'd get all the help we need if the Russians decided to invade us. As if !

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.

Agreed.

The strongest point in favour of conscription has been the fact that our army is an defence force with the sole mission and purpose of defending Finland.

[Skipper]

argie,

I guess my picture on Argentinian military is quite a bit dated.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Affentitten:

I'm not disregarding it.

The remark was not directed at you personally.

Soembody above said that all armies in WW2 were conscript armies and that they always beat the regulars.

Not always (and not even exactly like that either ). Only when the odds were not decisively in favour of the armies based on small scale pre-war professional army backed up by a limited reserve of volunteers.

I cited Australia as proof against.

Hmmmmmmmm......

When did Australian troops enter the fray in serious numbers in earnest ? IIRC not before 1941-42. By then the British (Commonwealth) Army had started mounting up the odds after they had barely survived the initial reverses.

If this is the case then you have actually proven my point.

The army doesn't want it, the politicians don't want it and neither does the public.

The army does not want people in who think for themselves, the politicians want what gets them elected in the next election and the public can not have it both ways: not having anything to do with it AND getting maximum protection against the world ?

[Triumvir]

Are you guys serious? Two exercises in six months? Alas for the uberfinn...

My conscription term was two and a half years, of which I spent one in training and one and a half in a unit. Of that one and a half, we went on a 3-4 day exercise roughly once every week on high readiness, and once every three weeks on low readiness. High readiness was one month, low readiness was two months, interchanging.

My unit had live firing precisely four times in my intake, but we had to go overseas to do that... but I know that the PBI had lots and lots of blanks to fire before firing live ammo.

I do concede the age to you uber-finns, though; to serve till sixty is a long, long time. My term runs out when I'm forty five.

[argie]

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

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 ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You forgot "argie", which is used quite frequently, though not related to WWII

[argie]

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

argie,

I guess my picture on Argentinian military is quite a bit dated. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't be worried, a lot of people right here (edited to add: in Argentina) seems to have the same picture

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

[Tero]

Originally posted by Triumvir:

Are you guys serious? Two exercises in six months? Alas for the uberfinn...

I think those two exercises mean two one week field exercises in special sites. There are a lot of "in house" (=1 day) small unit tactical excersises conducted in the garrison grounds (most garrisons have adjacent training grounds).

I do concede the age to you uber-finns, though; to serve till sixty is a long, long time. My term runs out when I'm forty five.

We are only ~5 million so to keep up the numbers we need every swinging dick we can muster if the feces hits the ventilation. It will wreck our economy but what the heck, it is in ruins already so what do we have to lose ?

[Affentitten]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> When did Australian troops enter the fray in serious numbers in earnest ? IIRC not before 1941-42. By then the British (Commonwealth) Army had started mounting up the odds after they had barely survived the initial reverses.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thew first major engagements were in North Africa against the Italians and Germans and in Palestine/Syria against the Vichy French. (We had a Governor General who was awarded the VC for killing Frenchmen in WW2!)

After North Africa was over our guys were called home to face the Japs. Churchill and Roosevelt actually tried to hijack the Aiussie troopships off to Burma, issuing orders to the Navy without telling the Australian government! But the boys got back in time to fight the Japs in New Guinea, then an Australian territory. Of course, the other big formation of volunteers was the divsion that was sent off to bolster the British garrison in Singapore, only to be ordered to surrender within a few weeks of arrival.

Going back to WW1, as I said, the Aussie forces were all volunteer for the whole war. There was a big referendum on conscription that divided the country, but the NO vote carried. The troops at the front line were quite universal in opposing conscription, since they didn't want to serve alongside unmotivated men.

Another intersting facet is that men who volunteered after the Gallipoli disaster were accorded a huge amount of respect by the existing veterans. They figured that the guys in the "mates battalions" must be made of strong stuff because they offered to come even after seeing how disastrous war could be.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The army does not want people in who think for themselves,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quite wrong. The army doesn't want conscripts because with the tiny budget they get, having to pay for unmotivated people to sit around in a barracks, and for professionals to supervise them would be a ridiculous drain on resources. Not to mention that the Australian army prides itself on being one of the most professional in the world. Conscription would water that down. Let's face it, we in the West (south!)aren't fighting the sort of wars anymore where massed formations of illiterate riflemen are needed to tip the balance.

[kotay]

Actually Tero, if I read between the lines correctly for Triumvir's post, his country only has a population of 3.5 million, only officers serve till 45, other ranks have shorter terms and he's an artillery man 'cos his country's too damn small to shoot a 155 in.

I could be wrong but it just sounds too awfully bloody familiar

Originally posted by Triumvir:

I do concede the age to you uber-finns, though; to serve till sixty is a long, long time. My term runs out when I'm forty five.

Originally posted by Tero:

We are only ~5 million so to keep up the numbers we need every swinging dick we can muster if the feces hits the ventilation. It will wreck our economy but what the heck, it is in ruins already so what do we have to lose ? [/QB]

[Triumvir]

Training to be soldiers, to fight for our land...

Got it in one. Not that I was particularly trying to hide it... Besides, I thought that the reserve age for WOSE was 45? Since I've not served a day of reservist, I wouldn't know... Besides, army was fun. Got to make a _lot_ of big guns go boom...

Besides, I think we actually outnumber the uberFinns in terms of reserves.

Wasn't it a bit expensive buying CM? Not to mention the wait in shipping...

[kotay]

Originally posted by Triumvir:

Training to be soldiers, to fight for our land...

Once in our lives, a few years of our time ...

Besides, I thought that the reserve age for WOSE was 45? Since I've not served a day of reservist, I wouldn't know...

You're right on that one, though you know and I know that they'll keep calling you up till they can't find a use for you - 45 yrs be damned

Into my 6th cycle this year, it's still fun, if you treat it as a kind of break from work ... paid holiday and all that.

Besides, I think we actually outnumber the uberFinns in terms of reserves.

Would any Finns care to comment on that? (pls note that this is not an attempt to start a pissing contest). If 3.5 million serving till 45 gives 350,000 total mobilised, how many does 6 million @ 60yrs? Or if you put them end to end (once you stop them swinging), how many times around the globe is that

[Jarmo]

I believe the figure for finns is an army of 500 000. Or so i've heard. Could be old news from the days of 5 million finns.

The 60 yrs is the "last ditch" figure, with also the lowest class mobilized.

[Blenheim]

Wasn't Ancient Rome a profesional army?

(I regard them as the finest war machine ever build... )

[Stoffel]

I joined Dutch army in 86 till 89

Started as a conscript,in an armoured infantry batallion.

Our training was tough and we were away most of the time on shootingexercises,NATO exercises,small company

exercises,guardduty,parades and on marching was done once or twice a week if we had to go to a parade.

Most guys that joined than did not want to but when they left after 14 months they were formed into a tough unit.

Our army was made up of conscripts untill 1995 now it is a small voluntary army

Because politicians decided we could save money.

The NCO's are in a way happy with the new system.

Many of them had to learn basic stuff to conscripts each year again,which most felt was not a usefull way to work

Many of our conscript units won the annual Catshoots in Germany.

An exercise between tankunits,and there were the best units most NATo armies could present!

A lot of profis like US(M1) and British troops(Challengers)

[Triumvir]

Which Ancient Rome are you talking about? The days of the Republic, or the days of the Emperors? Before Caesar, the legions were made up of the Roman people, with all members of society serving. Much like how in the Greek poleis, the hoplites were basically a crosssection of the entire male population of the city.

As for the professional legions, well, they inevitably with time turned into Praetorians, and with even more time, turned into the same legions that lost to the Bulgars outside Constantinople. Certainly not the "finest military machine in the world" by then.

Obviously not all professional armies follow that route; look at the British during the Napoleonic Wars, whose conscription was mostly limited to the Navy, not the Army (but that navy was the finest in the world; _Shannon_ smashed _Chesapeake_ in fifteen minutes with a pressed crew.)

For kotay, it's definitely a few years of our time! Though when inside, we would only sing "two years of our time" -- the other was just too depressing. Anyway, not only have I never served a day of reservist, I haven't even got a unit. I left two months after ORD and haven't been back except for vacation since. Five year anniversary just passed by... damn, I feel old.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Colonel Robert Doughty<hr></blockquote>

i aggree and disagree dorosh. the blitz into the soviet union initialy proved very sucessful. the ukranians saw the germans as liberators and a vast majority were willing ot fight for the germans, instead death squads were set up behind the front to murder and starve and loot them. the germans also forgot to bring winter cloths with them, wich here is the part i agree with you dorosh, it was expected to be a short war. i beleive hitler was quoated as saying all you have to do is kick in the front door and the whole rotten fram will come crashing down, refering to the soviet union. Mussolini's ill fated attempt into the balkans and greece detoured large german forces into the area to bail out the italians. the germans had no intention of invading those countries at that time and hitler was actualy angry at mussolini for invading without letting him know. so the german conquest of the balkans, greece and then crete, greatly delayed the start of operation barbarossa by months. the operation was supposed ot start in april , where if it did, would have left the germans at the gate of moscow in august, where ther army wo7uld not be at the mercy of the elements. and another point is if the germans were geared for winter combat and not left freezing to death in soviet steppes it would have turned out different. i could go on for hours, but i am trying to be concise as possible. another valid point is that Hitler himself lost that war, Stalin learned the hard way to let his generals do their jobs. Hitler luckily for us, did not. he would not let his army retreat, he only let Manstien get his way once wich resulted in the re capturing of kharkov, wich was a brilliant operation. none of the german high command.the german high command had it's hands tied on the eastern front, and Hitler was planning the ill fated conquest of soviet russia. so the germans were not doomed to lose a unwinnable war against the soviet union, the war was quite winable, it's just that poor commanding by hitler made it impossible to win. the gernals were allowed to do their jobs, the war would have been an axis victory

[ASL Veteran]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Triumvir:

Obviously not all professional armies follow that route; look at the British during the Napoleonic Wars, whose conscription was mostly limited to the Navy, not the Army (but that navy was the finest in the world; _Shannon_ smashed _Chesapeake_ in fifteen minutes with a pressed crew.)[/QB]<hr></blockquote>

Opening up a wonderful opportunity for patriotic Americans to discuss their early naval exploits. Looking at that particular battle does prove to be interesting though since the crew of the Chesapeake was unmotivated (not having been paid in a while) and hadn't been to sea in a long time. Even though the crew of the Chesapeake was crewed with volunteers - they weren't exactly in tip top shape either. How did those British fare against the USS Constitution BTW ?

I don't think that the status of being either a volunteer or a conscript in and of itself is going to be a deciding factor. In WW1 in East Africa many British settlers formed up into volunteer units to fight the "Jerries", but one time into combat and their enthusiasm cooled considerably. Their training wasn't up to snuff either - they were more like a social gathering than an actual military unit.