Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 32

Thread: Conscription vs the Draft

  1. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Burning a UN flag in NJ.
    Posts
    2,295

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NicNZ
    Heh, cant believe he suggested the US has a small population. New Zealand has 4 million people and Australia has 18 million people; even the UK 'only' has 80 million people.
    And the population of Luxembourg is less than a half a million. How is that relevant to the fact that the US might get into a war with a country 5 times it's size in potential recruits? And that's just one country.

  2. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,862

    Default

    How would China transport your suggested 10 million man Army to invade the USA

  3. #18
    Clog Boy Haiw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    'Home is where I masturbate...'
    Age
    28
    Posts
    13,878

    Default

    By imaginative boat...

    BTW what does the 'amount of possible recruits' really have to do with anything? Just look at WW2...

  4. #19
    Senior Member OldRecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    With the AG-3 fetish club
    Posts
    2,083

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Sman
    My opinion is that a country that can't defend itself with volunteers deserves to go down the crapper.

    Either the citizens are willing to defend it, or they are willing to lose.
    IDF is a conscript force (though better motivated than most such) and thus by methods of recruitment a "voluntary one". Thus that mean Israel deserves to go down the drain?

    As for voluntary recruitment, problem is when losses in a pro army becomes massive, as with the British "Old contemptibles", then the reserve of trained volunteers is too small and you get Some slaughters with insufficiently trained duration only volunteers instead.
    In todays military environment, with relatively sophisticated equipment, you would need at least a year to train a new volunteer person without previous military experience to an acceptable standard.
    A conscript reservist on the other hand cold do with only 3-5 months "reconditioning".
    If I'm correct the draft was introduced in the States in good time before Pearl Harbour during WW-2. Without those drafts the US army assets in North Africa during 1942-43 would have been pretty meagre and suffered even worse at the hands of the Afrika corps.

    Also for small nations voluntary pro armies are not an option, because you wouldn't recruit enough manpower that way.
    The most ****ounced advantage of a pro soldier over a conscript one is moreover not neccessarily one of better equipent and range of relevant skills. Rather it's a question on the physical condition of the men.
    Physical condition between a conscript recruit undergoing military training and a pro soldier may not be that different. But when the conscript recruit becomes a conscript reservist things divert.
    A pro soldier in a reasonably good pro army get very strong incentives with regards to keeping himself physicaly fit from the environment he lives and work in. A conscript reservist on the other hand is more or less left to his own devices with regards to physical fitness.

    As for draft vs. conscription. Conscription is much better, because draft by nature is a hapazard and unfair method. A system that involves all, is better than a system that only affects some.

  5. #20
    Senior Member Mark Sman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,698

    Default

    IDF is a conscript force (though better motivated than most such) and thus by methods of recruitment a "voluntary one". Thus that mean Israel deserves to go down the drain?
    Its my opinion. You might note the use of the word can't.

    If a country can't find volunteers to defend it, its not worth defending. Basically if a nation's people won't defend it of their own free will, what are the consrcipts defending.

    I don't want anyone on the line who hasn't volunteered.

    When we had the draft in the US, the ranks were full of dopeheads, slackers and people who would have volunteered. When we transitioned to an all volunteer force, it had a dramatic positive effect.

  6. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,862

    Default

    [quote="Mark Sman"]
    When we had the draft in the US, the ranks were full of dopeheads, slackers and people who would have volunteered. When we transitioned to an all volunteer force, it had a dramatic positive effect.
    Were you part of that military? If not who's your expert source?

  7. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Burning a UN flag in NJ.
    Posts
    2,295

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haiw
    By imaginative boat...

    BTW what does the 'amount of possible recruits' really have to do with anything? Just look at WW2...
    China would transport its army by dirigibles, of course.

    Looking at WWII. Hmm, huge excess of human capital eventually overwhelmed much better prepared fighing force with better technology. Thanks for a good example.

  8. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,862

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aartamen
    Looking at WWII. Hmm, huge excess of human capital eventually overwhelmed much better prepared fighing force with better technology. Thanks for a good example.

    German's better technology... Do you classify the M1 Garand as old technology compared to the German 98K's?

    How about the Norden Bomb Sight?

  9. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Burning a UN flag in NJ.
    Posts
    2,295

    Default

    I meant primarily Eastern front. Also I would say that Garand did not make or break the Western front. But massive numbers of rather inferior tanks and fresh conscripts did.

  10. #25
    Clog Boy Haiw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    'Home is where I masturbate...'
    Age
    28
    Posts
    13,878

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aartamen
    I meant primarily Eastern front. Also I would say that Garand did not make or break the Western front. But massive numbers of rather inferior tanks and fresh conscripts did.
    ... or the fact that the Allies owned the skies...or the fact that the Germans were fighting a war against multiple stronger opponents in different places... Have you ever considered that the only thing that kept the Germans from conquering the USSR was some blunders by Hitler?

  11. #26
    Senior Member Roger Rabbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Here and there
    Posts
    3,192

    Default

    Anyone read this book

    Talks about the US conscripts in Europe WW2. Paints them in quite a bad light in my opinion. A poorly trained mass winning by luck, numbers and German misfortunes. I was quite surprised by what i read in the book and still have my doubts about its authenticity but it makes for different reading.

  12. #27
    Clog Boy Haiw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    'Home is where I masturbate...'
    Age
    28
    Posts
    13,878

    Default

    BTW a better comparison is how Germany attacked the Netherlands, Belgium and France in may 1940...

  13. #28
    Senior Member OldRecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    With the AG-3 fetish club
    Posts
    2,083

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Sman
    IDF is a conscript force (though better motivated than most such) and thus by methods of recruitment a "voluntary one". Thus that mean Israel deserves to go down the drain?
    Its my opinion. You might note the use of the word can't.

    If a country can't find volunteers to defend it, its not worth defending. Basically if a nation's people won't defend it of their own free will, what are the consrcipts defending.

    I don't want anyone on the line who hasn't volunteered.

    When we had the draft in the US, the ranks were full of dopeheads, slackers and people who would have volunteered. When we transitioned to an all volunteer force, it had a dramatic positive effect.
    The Brits would have had a much harder time during the Malayan emergency in the 1950 if they hadn't been able to rely on conscript soldiers filling the ranks. The most successfull Brit infantry battalion in that conflict besides the Gurkhas, a battalion from the Suffolks regiment, was mostly manned by conscripts.
    The battalion from DRW taking part in the last major action involving British troops during the Korean war at "the Hook" was largerly manned by conscripts.
    Some of the RAR battalions taking part in the Vietnam war were mainly staffed with conscript/draftees, yet seem to have done quite well.

    If I've not wrong, before conscription was abolished in Brittain during late 50's early 60's even some of the junior officers were conscripted.

  14. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Burning a UN flag in NJ.
    Posts
    2,295

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haiw
    ... or the fact that the Allies owned the skies...or the fact that the Germans were fighting a war against multiple stronger opponents in different places... Have you ever considered that the only thing that kept the Germans from conquering the USSR was some blunders by Hitler?
    Allies owned the skies due to their massive superiority of manpower. Making those bombers and fighters (they did not exaclt own anything until they got the escorts going) was very labor, not to mention capital expensive. Germany was fighing against a numerically superior alliance. It does not matter how many opponents comprised it.

    There was one, arguable, blunder that could be directly attributed to the Soviets' first success. That was shifting of the impetus of the German drive toward south from Moscow. The Soviets made so many blunders that Germans just must have won, using that logic.

  15. #30
    Senior Member ronin2172's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Japan early 1800's
    Posts
    2,799

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aartamen
    Quote Originally Posted by Haiw
    ... or the fact that the Allies owned the skies...or the fact that the Germans were fighting a war against multiple stronger opponents in different places... Have you ever considered that the only thing that kept the Germans from conquering the USSR was some blunders by Hitler?
    Allies owned the skies due to their massive superiority of manpower. Making those bombers and fighters (they did not exaclt own anything until they got the escorts going) was very labor, not to mention capital expensive. Germany was fighing against a numerically superior alliance. It does not matter how many opponents comprised it.

    There was one, arguable, blunder that could be directly attributed to the Soviets' first success. That was shifting of the impetus of the German drive toward south from Moscow. The Soviets made so many blunders that Germans just must have won, using that logic.
    hell if hitler had waited and finished off the brits (what rommel could have done with another panzer division), u would have had a german army in the mideast with plenty of oil, it is likely turkey would have come in on the german side, creating three possible avenues of attack (not to mention japan taking an interest in matters), and unleash your now free wolfpacks to interdict russian shipping and the the situation would have been dire.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •