LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksUnforunately, there has not been a case of a good professional army against a good conscript army since the end of WWII. The US was a conscript army until the end of the Vietnam War.Originally Posted by USSR
There it is. You can bring out all your stats about this tank vs. that tank and this weapon system against that weapon system, but in the end it all comes down to the soldier fielding the system. And to that end, the professional soldier comes out on top over the conscript.And no matter what may be said, conscripts are nothing but targets. Nothing can compare to the professional soldier, and that is the most expensive item in the modern army, if it is run properly.
Don
Unforunately, there has not been a case of a good professional army against a good conscript army since the end of WWII. The US was a conscript army until the end of the Vietnam War.
Chimo
Desert Storm.
Sw55, i came down on the clown above because he was actually using multiple screen names in order to lend weight to his arguments in another thread where i trounced him like a concscripted peasant. His other screen name was Tinkertoys.
Did the Iraqis qualified as a good army, even a conscript one? The sign of a good conscript army is a strong officer corps. When you have Iraqi officers abandonning their men (resulting in over 75,000 EPWs simply because they don't know what to do), then that is a big failing.
The only conscript army I can think of that would be a match for ODS forces were the Soviet armies.
There has been clashes between professional forces and conscript troops before. The Falklands War came to mind but though the Argentines put up a good fight, they were not on par with the Brits.
Chimo
The Iraqi army was a conscript force that was extensively battle tested and very large(4th in the world at the time).
It's not the best example to go by for sure, but it is the best recent example that history has provided us.
Many people believe erroneously that if an army has been battle-tested, it means they are good. This is not always true. An army can be battle-tested and come out victorious but is not a good army. For example, an army got nowhere with conventional weapons but used a magic bullet to get out of the hole. In the Iraqi case, the magic bullet was chemical warfare. Because the other side was even stupider than the Iraqis in forming massed formations which essentially makes them a sitting easy target for chemical warfare without exploiting the chemical warfare's weaknesses. That's how Iraqi Army got out of the mess.
oh, i'm sorry, did you get the idea that i was dissing philosophers, no, no, that's not my intention
you know what huh_wat, you are correct, many sites state that Russia's expenditure on their military is in the $55-60 billion mark, but in reality, it is closer to what you stated, and specifically, it was $15.1 billion, or 4.3% of their GDP/18.8% of government spending
"Go eat a billy goat Troll."
who?
"Go easy on him. We need sombody to stand up to us every now and then or we will get out of practice in wiping them out! The quality difference in equipment is historically obvious. Every encounter between armor in the last fifty years has been very one sided favoring the western products. Don't misunderstand, the engineering can be amazing in the RUssian/Soviet weapons, but they seem more to impress in parades and statistics than they are to actually win. And no matter what may be said, conscripts are nothing but targets. Nothing can compare to the professional soldier, and that is the most expensive item in the modern army, if it is run properly."
well, you do make a good point, in nearly all armour(spelt differently in Canada) fights within the last 50 years have ended in Western victory, well, that has more to do with the fact that Western nations have almost always had way more support then their enemies, whether it is intelligence through satellites, spies etc. more money(that's the biggest factor) and their tactical prowess has proved to beat the enemy in so many different ways, what about Germany in WW2, they had a conscript force, but it was very well trained and well-funded, a conscript force does not have to be a poorly trained force, in most cases, yes, but that can change, and it will change in Russia
but think about it, you have Russia, almost 18 million square kilometres(nearly 2 times bigger than Canada, 2ed place), do you think you'll want a professional force of a mere 380,000(which is their expectation if they do form a proffessional force) or a conscript army of 1-2.5 million soldiers patrolling the country
"extensively battle tested"
when, they're little experience gained in Kuwait, which involved practically no fighting at all, then they're morale was crushed by a baragge of cruise missiles and air strikes, it wasn't very much the soldiers, it was the head officers, their tactics are modern, while Iraqi, Former Soviet etc tactics are very classical, overwhelming opponents with masive amounts of infantry and tanks, but it just doesn't work anymore, all comes down to tactics, you can use conscripts very efficiently, as long as you think logically and smart, don't waste the soldiers, and support them, outflanking works etc.
i think that a country's military power all depends on the amount of money spent, tactics, combat gear and the training of the soldiers(also supporting them through various means, air support, artillery etc. but that falls into combat gear i guess)
for MOTHER MOLDOVA
"you know what huh_wat, you are correct, many sites state that Russia's expenditure on their military is in the $55-60 billion mark, but in reality, it is closer to what you stated, and specifically, it was $15.1 billion, or 4.3% of their GDP/18.8% of government spending"
May I PLEASE point out again that that is not the Russian military budget. It is the Russian Army Budget.
Battle of 73 Easting was a meeting engagement where an armored Cav troop destroyed an entire Republican Guard BDE dug in a prepared defense. Superior intelligence had nothing to do with that lopsided victory; however, your point about more money (better tank) and tactical prowess (I call it better training in this case) still hold. I wouldn't place too much stock on intel - until the widespread fielding of small UAVs in the past 12 months, real-time intel assets haven't filtered down to the small unit level among conventional units. For the small unit, it is still usually a meeting engagement.
That even a T-80 can beat? Perhaps if the M-1A1 is caught from behind at close range, but other than that... The T-80 is a tank with a lot of flaws, and in a 1 on 1 match with an original M-1 it would die in all but the most extreme circumstances.
What a load of crap. Canada has a 58,000 man professional force. Do the math!
Chimo
Big difference though sir. Canada has a fairly unified population, and while secession may occasionally be an issue, civil war isn't. Russia is far more diverse, with a far greater number of historical enemies. Not to mention the occasional need to keep it's own population down, and the lack two oceans and a friendly US defending the homeland itself. Russia has need of a much larger army than Canada (or the United States for that matter, our Army has only been large for the past 60 years, and the US doesn't actually need a large army... however in order to be the world's superpower, it is necessary to have one).
Russia has a police issue, not a military one.
Chimo
But one that is of a scale far too large for their police to solve (the Russian military had a hard time holding Chechnya). They simply are too divided, and too used to finding violent solutions to internal political problems. Also, the large land borders with occasionally hostile countries is a military issue, not a police one. A difficulty that Canada does not share.
With a proposed ~380,000 man force, Russia has more than ample forces to deal with any foriegn incursion. Chechnya, like Iraq, is only a military issue because the police are insufficent to deal with the insurrection. However, during the USSR days, you will not find the Soviet Army dealing with these issues but the KGB. Thus, it goes counter to your arguement that they need an army to do the job of the police.
Chimo
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: