Russian Air Force Woes - Time to start again?

[Peter Kemp]

Came across an article in Janes Defence Weekly which seems to indicate
that the decline in Russian air arms has reached an uncontrollable
decline (snippets added below) due to ageing pilots, minimal training
and flight hours, and no significant new investment.

"Russia's combat aviation in 'uncontrollable' decline

Nikolai Novichkov JDW Correspondent
Moscow

The official statement that Russia's air combat capability in 2003 was
healthy and improving has come under fire from high-ranking aviation
generals.

Lt Gen Victor Sokerin, commander of the Russian Federation Navy's
(RFN's) Baltic Fleet naval aviation, and Maj Gen Oleg Kolyada, the
Russian Federation Air Force's (RFAF's) chief of flight security, have
described a very different state of capability to the official
'healthy' claims
made by Col Gen Vladimir Mikhailov, RFAF commander (JDW 21 January)."

So at least the claims are coming from knowledgeable sources.

"At present, the age of experienced specialist aircrew in the Baltic
Fleet air force and air defence force has risen by 10-15 years and
keeps
growing. There are no interceptor pilots under 36 and only 2% are
below 40. Only 3% of first- and second-class pilots are under 36 and
just 1%
of interceptor navigators are under 40, while 11% of first- and
second-class navigators are under 36. Sixty per cent of crew
commanders are
over 35, with half of them over 40."

"In five years' time, according to Gen Sokerin, there will be no-one
to carry out combat tasks since all first-class pilots will have
retired. Over the
last 12 years, the number of aircrew in the Baltic Fleet has fallen by
more than a third. The pilots' flying time on the fleet's Sukhoi
fighter/strike
aircraft is a mere five to seven hours per year because only 10% of
the required minimum allocation of aviation fuel is available. Around
50% of
pilots make no more than one flight in a year - and then only to
qualify for the pilot's food ration and a meritorious service record."

There is also comment on the lack of ability in ATC facilities due to
no more than 3-4 flights being in the air at one time - presumably
controlling large air battles or strike packages requires rather more
practise.

For the RFAF average flight time appears to be about 40 hours (also
from teh article).



So, with all that in mind, is there a way back for the RFAF and other
air arms, or are they on their way to the problems India is having
with high accident rates and poor availability - is it time to start
again?

If they opt to begin again then as a straw man I'd suggest......

Rely on the S-300 series to provide border control for the moment, and
withdraw *all* fast jets (including the bombers) to storage (or sell
them), using the O&M cash saved to buy a few regiments (4?) of combat
capable advanced jet trainers (I can't recall the Russian equivalent
of the Mako) with the combat fit being concentrated on ground attack.

Using the relatively old and scarce experienced pilots as Squadron
commanders and instructors, begin to recruit at a sufficicent rate
that within a decade you'll have a dozen regiments of fast jet pilots.

As the new entrants get trained in basic combat techniques buy more
advanced jets of the Typhoon/Rafale/J-10 class to provide a real
capability, adding tankers and AWACS into the mix.

One of the more obvious drawbacks is the destruction of the Russian
aircraft manufacturers, unless you can seal some sweet
research/development/production deals with a few nations (i.e.
India/China) to keep you development ticking over and your engineers
employed.

Also exchanges and training will improve the proficiency faster (DACT
is a *good* thing) .

Any comments or thoughts from those who know a bit about builing an
Air arm from scratch?

Oh, and I'd particularly be interested to hear what Mr. "no one has
ever gone to the moon" Petukhov thinks :-)

Peter Kemp

[Keith Willshaw]

"Peter Kemp" > wrote in message
...


<snip>

>
> Using the relatively old and scarce experienced pilots as Squadron
> commanders and instructors, begin to recruit at a sufficicent rate
> that within a decade you'll have a dozen regiments of fast jet pilots.
>
> As the new entrants get trained in basic combat techniques buy more
> advanced jets of the Typhoon/Rafale/J-10 class to provide a real
> capability, adding tankers and AWACS into the mix.
>

I dont think the problem is the aircraft so much as the training
and recruitment system. I suspect the first thing thats required
is to cut back the establishment to realistic levels and then pay
a salary that attractive to bright young Russian graduates.

I'd agree that using the veteran pilot as instructors and
commanders makes sense but unless you can offer
a career structure thats attractive you wont get the
number of aircrew you need.

This is a problem that cuts across the entire Russian armed
forces, they seem reluctant to embrace the idea that
400,000 well trained , equipped and motivated
professionals will be much more effective than 2 million
conscripts with clapped out weapons.

Of course that would leave a lot of redundant Admirals
and Generals not to mention boosting the youth
unemployment rate.

Keith

[Mike Marron]

>Peter Kemp > wrote:

>Came across an article in Janes Defence Weekly which seems to indicate
>that the decline in Russian air arms has reached an uncontrollable
>decline (snippets added below) due to ageing pilots, minimal training
>and flight hours, and no significant new investment.

>"Russia's combat aviation in 'uncontrollable' decline

[snipped for brevity]

Look at it this way: their loss is our gain! For example, one of
my contacts is Vassili Tarakanov, a 1986 graduate from the Moscow
Aviation Institute (MAI).

Tarakanov used to work on the Su-24, Su-25 and super-maneuverable
(thrust vectoring) Russian Su-37 fighters but he now designs and
manufactures inexpensive and superb flexwing trikes (he calls them
"deltas") for us sport flying enthusiasts.

Unfortunately, despite all the clever engineering, quality control is
an issue since the workers at the factory seem unable to leave their
Vodka at home and some of the aluminum tubing they bought from
Antonov stock has killed a few folks in the U.S. and Canada recently.

[Michael Petukhov]

Peter Kemp > wrote in message >...
>
> Any comments or thoughts from those who know a bit about builing an
> Air arm from scratch?
>
> Oh, and I'd particularly be interested to hear what Mr. "no one has
> ever gone to the moon" Petukhov thinks :-)

Well if you really want to know my opinion I can tell you that
I think the situation in VVS is rather difficult indeed but it would be
untrue to say that VVS must be build from scratch. Pilot training
is indeed the major problem while main part of planes even if
not upgraded are OK more or less for the moment. At least as long
we are not at wor with US.

Strong words of the generals cited (certainly if it is true words)
need very serious attention. the words that "pilots (I guess Baltic
fleet pilots) make no more than one flight in a year - and then only
to qualify for the pilot's food ration and a meritorious service record."
sounds very strange to me. Can you believe that Commander of
that "pilots" who is responsible for the proper training could
say that publicly? I cannot. I know that many journalists often
invent the facts for their stories. remmeber recent scandals
in US press (NY times for instance etc.) Why it cannot happend in
that journal as well? Just because it is highly respectful?
NY Times is also highly respectful.

Also as far as I know there is minimum level of per year flying
experience (around 20h) in order one can be allowed to fly
independently. There was times in 98 when VVS pilots ON AVERAGE
were at that minimal level. Since than they fly 40h on average.
Which is not enough, but still 40h.

I do not know why Baltic fleet pilots could fly only 5h if everybody
else have 40h. There were reports in local TV about increased flying
activity of Baltic fleet aviation and that unlike 35-40 years old
pilots many young pilots had indeed no flying experience to be
qualified for a fighter pilot. And therefore VVS started wide program
to retrain the young pilots indeed almost from scratch.

As for aging pilots, well whatt is age statistics for US pilots, and
its normal retirement age? just to compare with.

Michael


>


>
> Peter Kemp

[Michael Petukhov]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "Peter Kemp" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > Using the relatively old and scarce experienced pilots as Squadron
> > commanders and instructors, begin to recruit at a sufficicent rate
> > that within a decade you'll have a dozen regiments of fast jet pilots.
> >
> > As the new entrants get trained in basic combat techniques buy more
> > advanced jets of the Typhoon/Rafale/J-10 class to provide a real
> > capability, adding tankers and AWACS into the mix.
> >
>
> I dont think the problem is the aircraft so much as the training
> and recruitment system. I suspect the first thing thats required
> is to cut back the establishment to realistic levels and then pay
> a salary that attractive to bright young Russian graduates.
>
> I'd agree that using the veteran pilot as instructors and
> commanders makes sense but unless you can offer
> a career structure thats attractive you wont get the
> number of aircrew you need.
>
> This is a problem that cuts across the entire Russian armed
> forces, they seem reluctant to embrace the idea that
> 400,000 well trained , equipped and motivated
> professionals will be much more effective than 2 million
> conscripts with clapped out weapons.

Keith if we would have your little island to protect only...

But in reality we have 1/8 of earth land to protect against:

1) Europeans who have invaded us countless number of times in past.
2) Muslim south who are in the stage of very aggesive selfdetermination.
3) China, simply by far the most populated country in world with
fastest growing economy.

Note also unfortunately we have no an ocean between us, only land.

If not all this we would have 100,000 army to guard the borders.
In reallity however given all local and global factors the minimal
peace time army (according to our own estimates, which are the
only matters) is around 1,000,000.

An important point also is that USSR had significantly shorter border
to guard. Moreover USSR border had much better geography properties
in terms of guarding, therefore it was much easy and less costly
to guard.

Michael

>
> Of course that would leave a lot of redundant Admirals
> and Generals not to mention boosting the youth
> unemployment rate.
>
> Keith

[Yama]

"Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
om...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...
> > This is a problem that cuts across the entire Russian armed
> > forces, they seem reluctant to embrace the idea that
> > 400,000 well trained , equipped and motivated
> > professionals will be much more effective than 2 million
> > conscripts with clapped out weapons.
>
> Keith if we would have your little island to protect only...
>
> But in reality we have 1/8 of earth land to protect against:
>
> 1) Europeans who have invaded us countless number of times in past.
> 2) Muslim south who are in the stage of very aggesive selfdetermination.
> 3) China, simply by far the most populated country in world with
> fastest growing economy.
>
> Note also unfortunately we have no an ocean between us, only land.
>
> If not all this we would have 100,000 army to guard the borders.
> In reallity however given all local and global factors the minimal
> peace time army (according to our own estimates, which are the
> only matters) is around 1,000,000.

I'd otherwise agree about merits of conscription army, but in this case I
agree with Keith...

1. Russia is second most powerful nuclear power on Earth, nobody in their
sane minds would dare to directly invade Russia

2. Neither does Russia have a pressing need to invade other nations

3. Instead Russia does have pressing need to suppress various freedom
fighters...oops, they are officially terrorists now. Whatever, in such
police operations conscripts tend to be notoriously ineffective.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
om...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Peter Kemp" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >
> > > Using the relatively old and scarce experienced pilots as Squadron
> > > commanders and instructors, begin to recruit at a sufficicent rate
> > > that within a decade you'll have a dozen regiments of fast jet pilots.
> > >
> > > As the new entrants get trained in basic combat techniques buy more
> > > advanced jets of the Typhoon/Rafale/J-10 class to provide a real
> > > capability, adding tankers and AWACS into the mix.
> > >
> >
> > I dont think the problem is the aircraft so much as the training
> > and recruitment system. I suspect the first thing thats required
> > is to cut back the establishment to realistic levels and then pay
> > a salary that attractive to bright young Russian graduates.
> >
> > I'd agree that using the veteran pilot as instructors and
> > commanders makes sense but unless you can offer
> > a career structure thats attractive you wont get the
> > number of aircrew you need.
> >
> > This is a problem that cuts across the entire Russian armed
> > forces, they seem reluctant to embrace the idea that
> > 400,000 well trained , equipped and motivated
> > professionals will be much more effective than 2 million
> > conscripts with clapped out weapons.
>
> Keith if we would have your little island to protect only...
>
> But in reality we have 1/8 of earth land to protect against:
>
> 1) Europeans who have invaded us countless number of times in past.
> 2) Muslim south who are in the stage of very aggesive selfdetermination.
> 3) China, simply by far the most populated country in world with
> fastest growing economy.
>

All the more reason to have an efficient military

> Note also unfortunately we have no an ocean between us, only land.
>
> If not all this we would have 100,000 army to guard the borders.
> In reallity however given all local and global factors the minimal
> peace time army (according to our own estimates, which are the
> only matters) is around 1,000,000.
>

Trouble is this 1 million strong army is inadequately trained and
equipped. Large ill trained and ill equipped conscript armies
have historically done rather badly in combat against smaller
more efficient units

> An important point also is that USSR had significantly shorter border
> to guard. Moreover USSR border had much better geography properties
> in terms of guarding, therefore it was much easy and less costly
> to guard.
>

Which means you have to use the resources you have
to best advantage. The feeling in the British Army which
is committed to rather more than just defense of the UK
is that they dont want conscripts. Modern weapons
and tactics mean you just get the buggers trained and
you lose em.

Keith

[Steve R.]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> [snipped for brevity]
>
> Look at it this way: their loss is our gain! For example, one of
> my contacts is Vassili Tarakanov, a 1986 graduate from the Moscow
> Aviation Institute (MAI).
>
> Tarakanov used to work on the Su-24, Su-25 and super-maneuverable
> (thrust vectoring) Russian Su-37 fighters but he now designs and
> manufactures inexpensive and superb flexwing trikes (he calls them
> "deltas") for us sport flying enthusiasts.
>
> Unfortunately, despite all the clever engineering, quality control is
> an issue since the workers at the factory seem unable to leave their
> Vodka at home and some of the aluminum tubing they bought from
> Antonov stock has killed a few folks in the U.S. and Canada recently.


Kinda hard to get repeat customers that way...
Steve R.

[Yama]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
> "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> > Note also unfortunately we have no an ocean between us, only land.
> >
> > If not all this we would have 100,000 army to guard the borders.
> > In reallity however given all local and global factors the minimal
> > peace time army (according to our own estimates, which are the
> > only matters) is around 1,000,000.
> >
>
> Trouble is this 1 million strong army is inadequately trained and
> equipped. Large ill trained and ill equipped conscript armies
> have historically done rather badly in combat against smaller
> more efficient units
> > An important point also is that USSR had significantly shorter border
> > to guard. Moreover USSR border had much better geography properties
> > in terms of guarding, therefore it was much easy and less costly
> > to guard.
> >
>
> Which means you have to use the resources you have
> to best advantage. The feeling in the British Army which
> is committed to rather more than just defense of the UK
> is that they dont want conscripts. Modern weapons
> and tactics mean you just get the buggers trained and
> you lose em.

I agree with your main point (professional army better for Russia now) but
honestly, couldn't we put this "conscripts no use in modern warfare" crap to
rest? It sort of gets tiresome seeing it repeated everywhere with no basis
whatsoever.

[Michael Petukhov]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Peter Kemp" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Using the relatively old and scarce experienced pilots as Squadron
> > > > commanders and instructors, begin to recruit at a sufficicent rate
> > > > that within a decade you'll have a dozen regiments of fast jet pilots.
> > > >
> > > > As the new entrants get trained in basic combat techniques buy more
> > > > advanced jets of the Typhoon/Rafale/J-10 class to provide a real
> > > > capability, adding tankers and AWACS into the mix.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I dont think the problem is the aircraft so much as the training
> > > and recruitment system. I suspect the first thing thats required
> > > is to cut back the establishment to realistic levels and then pay
> > > a salary that attractive to bright young Russian graduates.
> > >
> > > I'd agree that using the veteran pilot as instructors and
> > > commanders makes sense but unless you can offer
> > > a career structure thats attractive you wont get the
> > > number of aircrew you need.
> > >
> > > This is a problem that cuts across the entire Russian armed
> > > forces, they seem reluctant to embrace the idea that
> > > 400,000 well trained , equipped and motivated
> > > professionals will be much more effective than 2 million
> > > conscripts with clapped out weapons.
> >
> > Keith if we would have your little island to protect only...
> >
> > But in reality we have 1/8 of earth land to protect against:
> >
> > 1) Europeans who have invaded us countless number of times in past.
> > 2) Muslim south who are in the stage of very aggesive selfdetermination.
> > 3) China, simply by far the most populated country in world with
> > fastest growing economy.
> >
>
> All the more reason to have an efficient military

True. Any army needs to be more efficient. Even yours.

>
> > Note also unfortunately we have no an ocean between us, only land.
> >
> > If not all this we would have 100,000 army to guard the borders.
> > In reallity however given all local and global factors the minimal
> > peace time army (according to our own estimates, which are the
> > only matters) is around 1,000,000.
> >
>
> Trouble is this 1 million strong army is inadequately trained and
> equipped.

Generally true for now. But given available resources our military
decided in 1990s to give adequate training and equipment to rather
limited part of army in so called units of permanent readyness (some
100000-130000 service men) at expense of total stopping of
battle training in the rest of army. Many on west wanted to beleive
that whole russian army in a such bad shape. Far from it, my
dear, very far.

> Large ill trained and ill equipped conscript armies
> have historically done rather badly in combat against smaller
> more efficient units

Well it is oversimplification certainly. Mercenary army
are rather good in short local conflict of low intensity
with very limitted goals like that in Yugoslavia and
Iraq in very beginning. In a big long wars for most basic
national interests small mercenary army are completely
useless since full power of the whole nation must be use
to win. conscript armies can be very efficient as well.
Conscript wermarht was very efficient in 39-42 until
its backbone was broken by conscripts of Red Army which
in turn became most efficient army of the world in 44-45.

I agree in a peace time army can me relatively small
and mercenary type. However the its contruction should be
flexiable enough in order to be converted in full scale
national conscript army in a short time where professional
solders will serve as sergants and unterofficiers.

This is what we are building proffesional peace time
army with flow of training 1 year conscripts. But
it cannot be less than 1 mil for russia given its
territory. There will be 500000 professionals in that army
at any given moment.


>
> > An important point also is that USSR had significantly shorter border
> > to guard. Moreover USSR border had much better geography properties
> > in terms of guarding, therefore it was much easy and less costly
> > to guard.
> >
>
> Which means you have to use the resources you have
> to best advantage. The feeling in the British Army which
> is committed to rather more than just defense of the UK

What is that "more" Kieth? grabbing Iraq oil?

> is that they dont want conscripts. Modern weapons
> and tactics mean you just get the buggers trained and
> you lose em.

It does not want conscripts because it though it has no serious
enough enemy. US is already called reservists and is sending
them to Iraq in order to replace tired professionals. why is that?
Right, the war quickly and unexpectedly converts into too serious
all out war against Iraqi people. That's why.

Michael


>
> Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"Yama" > wrote in message
...
>

> >
> > Which means you have to use the resources you have
> > to best advantage. The feeling in the British Army which
> > is committed to rather more than just defense of the UK
> > is that they dont want conscripts. Modern weapons
> > and tactics mean you just get the buggers trained and
> > you lose em.
>
> I agree with your main point (professional army better for Russia now) but
> honestly, couldn't we put this "conscripts no use in modern warfare" crap
to
> rest? It sort of gets tiresome seeing it repeated everywhere with no basis
> whatsoever.
>

Apart from the experience of the last 30 years during which
conscript armies havent done terribly well in combat
in comparison with professional forces.

Conscripts have their place in large scale high intensity warfare
and an active militia with universal service such as that maintained
by the Swiss or Noorwegians may well have its place but its notable
that even those European nations that traditionally used conscription are
tending
to move to a volunteer military. Its particularly difficult to see
how you can maintain the required standard in techinical services
such as the air force or navy.

In any event France ,Portugal,Spain and Italy are all in the process
of abolishing conscription and Germany is reducing the length
of military service.

Keith

[Yama]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
> "Yama" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I agree with your main point (professional army better for Russia now)
but
> > honestly, couldn't we put this "conscripts no use in modern warfare"
crap
> to
> > rest? It sort of gets tiresome seeing it repeated everywhere with no
basis
> > whatsoever.
>
> Apart from the experience of the last 30 years during which
> conscript armies havent done terribly well in combat
> in comparison with professional forces.

And what relevant experience would that be?

I'll hazard a guess that you refer to for example, Desert Storm. Bzzt,
wrong: main combat force of Iraqi army - the Republican Guards - were a
volunteer professional force. That didn't seem to help them.

> Conscripts have their place in large scale high intensity warfare
> and an active militia with universal service such as that maintained
> by the Swiss or Noorwegians may well have its place but its notable
> that even those European nations that traditionally used conscription are
> tending
> to move to a volunteer military. Its particularly difficult to see
> how you can maintain the required standard in techinical services
> such as the air force or navy.

Tasks requiring signifant technical expertise are manned by professional
soldiers in both conscript and professional armies. That situation has not
changed a bit since WW2. This does not mean that conscripts do not have a
place in those services in supporting tasks. Even in all-pro forces, most
mechanics etc actually receive pretty minimal training in any case, so from
skill level point it's totally irrelevant whether one is a draftee or
volunteer.

> In any event France ,Portugal,Spain and Italy are all in the process
> of abolishing conscription and Germany is reducing the length
> of military service.

That's because their requirements have changed, not because of some
fundamental change in nature of warfare. If your requirement is to defend
your nation against unwelcome tourists, a conscript army is generally
better. If your requirement is to subdue natives few thousand km's away from
your homeland, professional force is better.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Yama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Yama" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I agree with your main point (professional army better for Russia now)
> but
> > > honestly, couldn't we put this "conscripts no use in modern warfare"
> crap
> > to
> > > rest? It sort of gets tiresome seeing it repeated everywhere with no
> basis
> > > whatsoever.
> >
> > Apart from the experience of the last 30 years during which
> > conscript armies havent done terribly well in combat
> > in comparison with professional forces.
>
> And what relevant experience would that be?
>
> I'll hazard a guess that you refer to for example, Desert Storm. Bzzt,
> wrong: main combat force of Iraqi army - the Republican Guards - were a
> volunteer professional force. That didn't seem to help them.
>

Incorrect

I was thinking of the Argentines in the Falklands but since
you mention the Republican guard they were in fact
regarded as the main threat and at lest put up a fight.

> > Conscripts have their place in large scale high intensity warfare
> > and an active militia with universal service such as that maintained
> > by the Swiss or Noorwegians may well have its place but its notable
> > that even those European nations that traditionally used conscription
are
> > tending
> > to move to a volunteer military. Its particularly difficult to see
> > how you can maintain the required standard in techinical services
> > such as the air force or navy.
>
> Tasks requiring signifant technical expertise are manned by professional
> soldiers in both conscript and professional armies. That situation has not
> changed a bit since WW2.

This is untrue, during WW2 many of those technical tasks were
done by conscripts, they had to be, the regulars provided the
training and leadership cadres.

> This does not mean that conscripts do not have a
> place in those services in supporting tasks. Even in all-pro forces, most
> mechanics etc actually receive pretty minimal training in any case, so
from
> skill level point it's totally irrelevant whether one is a draftee or
> volunteer.
>

If you join the British Army as a REME Mechanic you'll get
12 weeks of basic training followed by up to 19 weeks
of specialist training to get you to a basic proficiency level

Further courses ranging from 2 to 11 weeks will be available as your carreer
progresses and and senior NCO's may end up on the Military
Plant Foreman course which runs for a year.

For officer entrants a common route is the 46 week Professional
Engineer Training course

> > In any event France ,Portugal,Spain and Italy are all in the process
> > of abolishing conscription and Germany is reducing the length
> > of military service.
>
> That's because their requirements have changed, not because of some
> fundamental change in nature of warfare. If your requirement is to defend
> your nation against unwelcome tourists, a conscript army is generally
> better. If your requirement is to subdue natives few thousand km's away
from
> your homeland, professional force is better.
>

In fact the balance of skills needed HAS changed, while the poor bloody
infantry are still the backbone of any army a regiment made up
of soldiers who are trained to act on their own initiative, have a mix
of skills and are well trained will always have an advantage over
ill trained conscripts. One of the big problems the Argentines hit
in the field was that their soldiers were used to returning
their weapons to the armoury for cleaning and maintenance.
This became a problem when soldiers not only didnt know how
to clean their rifles and clear jams but didnt even have cleaning kits.

Keith

[Tomas By]

"Keith Willshaw" > writes:
> Apart from the experience of the last 30 years during which
> conscript armies havent done terribly well in combat
> in comparison with professional forces.

Vietnam? ;)

The only example that supports your point is the Falklands war.

> [...] its notable that even those European nations that
> traditionally used conscription are tending to move to a volunteer
> military.

Because they (think they) don't need large armies anymore.

When the Strv 103 was new in the seventies, it was evaluated by the
British army (in Munster), and the U.S. army.

(http://home.swipnet.se/~w-42039/COMPTORN.htm)

| A positive effect of these foreign tests was the opportunity to
| compare the Swedish conscript to the proffesional soldier of the
| british army and the US army. Most swedes were surprised to see that
| despite years of experience the foreign proffessionals were unable
| to fulfill the requirements we have on our conscript soldiers
| regarding firing, driving and maintainance. Very few of the
| retrained american and british gunners were able to satisfy the
| requirements in our qualificationfirings. The concript army gives
| excellent opportunity to put the right man in the right spot.

/Tomas

[Yama]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
> "Yama" > wrote in message
> ...
> > And what relevant experience would that be?
> >
> > I'll hazard a guess that you refer to for example, Desert Storm. Bzzt,
> > wrong: main combat force of Iraqi army - the Republican Guards - were a
> > volunteer professional force. That didn't seem to help them.
> >
>
> Incorrect
>
> I was thinking of the Argentines in the Falklands but since
> you mention the Republican guard they were in fact
> regarded as the main threat and at lest put up a fight.

Falklands war was a colonial war, type of conflict where professional armies
perform better. Do you think Brits could have invaded Argentina mainland?
Didn't think so either.

As for Republican Guards putting up a fight, I seem to have missed it. In
more recent war most resistance came from militias. In DS RG was more
involved, but even then their performance was not markedly better than that
of some regular army units.

> > Tasks requiring signifant technical expertise are manned by professional
> > soldiers in both conscript and professional armies. That situation has
not
> > changed a bit since WW2.
>
> This is untrue, during WW2 many of those technical tasks were
> done by conscripts, they had to be, the regulars provided the
> training and leadership cadres.

Scale of the WW2 was such that it was simply impossible to recruit enough
professionals to perform the tasks. Again, this is not in at all against my
point.

> > This does not mean that conscripts do not have a
> > place in those services in supporting tasks. Even in all-pro forces,
most
> > mechanics etc actually receive pretty minimal training in any case, so
> from
> > skill level point it's totally irrelevant whether one is a draftee or
> > volunteer.
>
> If you join the British Army as a REME Mechanic you'll get
> 12 weeks of basic training followed by up to 19 weeks
> of specialist training to get you to a basic proficiency level

In other words, pretty similar training period as what equivalent conscripts
receive.

> > That's because their requirements have changed, not because of some
> > fundamental change in nature of warfare. If your requirement is to
defend
> > your nation against unwelcome tourists, a conscript army is generally
> > better. If your requirement is to subdue natives few thousand km's away
> from
> > your homeland, professional force is better.
>
> In fact the balance of skills needed HAS changed, while the poor bloody
> infantry are still the backbone of any army a regiment made up
> of soldiers who are trained to act on their own initiative, have a mix
> of skills and are well trained will always have an advantage over
> ill trained conscripts.

Where does it say that conscripts have to be ill trained? Have you ever SEEN
an European conscript army? For example, German conscripts routinely used to
win NATO tank crew competitions. IIRC US Army managed to win once.

One of the big problems the Argentines hit
> in the field was that their soldiers were used to returning
> their weapons to the armoury for cleaning and maintenance.
> This became a problem when soldiers not only didnt know how
> to clean their rifles and clear jams but didnt even have cleaning kits.

Um, do you seriously think this is true for all conscript armies? I
certainly know _very well_ how to clean and maintain my rifle and I wasn't
even an infantryman.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Yama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Yama" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > And what relevant experience would that be?
> > >
> > > I'll hazard a guess that you refer to for example, Desert Storm. Bzzt,
> > > wrong: main combat force of Iraqi army - the Republican Guards - were
a
> > > volunteer professional force. That didn't seem to help them.
> > >
> >
> > Incorrect
> >
> > I was thinking of the Argentines in the Falklands but since
> > you mention the Republican guard they were in fact
> > regarded as the main threat and at lest put up a fight.
>
> Falklands war was a colonial war, type of conflict where professional
armies
> perform better. Do you think Brits could have invaded Argentina mainland?
> Didn't think so either.
>

Which is irrelevant, the fact is a small number of professional
British troops defeated a larger conscript force in strong
defensive positions and they did this several thousand miles
from home.

> As for Republican Guards putting up a fight, I seem to have missed it. In
> more recent war most resistance came from militias. In DS RG was more
> involved, but even then their performance was not markedly better than
that
> of some regular army units.
>

They seem to have been somewhat better than the bulk
conscript divisions

> > > Tasks requiring signifant technical expertise are manned by
professional
> > > soldiers in both conscript and professional armies. That situation has
> not
> > > changed a bit since WW2.
> >
> > This is untrue, during WW2 many of those technical tasks were
> > done by conscripts, they had to be, the regulars provided the
> > training and leadership cadres.
>
> Scale of the WW2 was such that it was simply impossible to recruit enough
> professionals to perform the tasks. Again, this is not in at all against
my
> point.
>

Nor mine, I recall agreeing that conscription is necessary
for large scale high intensity conflicts


> > > This does not mean that conscripts do not have a
> > > place in those services in supporting tasks. Even in all-pro forces,
> most
> > > mechanics etc actually receive pretty minimal training in any case, so
> > from
> > > skill level point it's totally irrelevant whether one is a draftee or
> > > volunteer.
> >
> > If you join the British Army as a REME Mechanic you'll get
> > 12 weeks of basic training followed by up to 19 weeks
> > of specialist training to get you to a basic proficiency level
>
> In other words, pretty similar training period as what equivalent
conscripts
> receive.
>

I dont believe many army conscripts get 32 weeks of training but even
assuming
they do thats pretty expensive if the guy is only in the army for a year
or even two.


> > > That's because their requirements have changed, not because of some
> > > fundamental change in nature of warfare. If your requirement is to
> defend
> > > your nation against unwelcome tourists, a conscript army is generally
> > > better. If your requirement is to subdue natives few thousand km's
away
> > from
> > > your homeland, professional force is better.
> >
> > In fact the balance of skills needed HAS changed, while the poor bloody
> > infantry are still the backbone of any army a regiment made up
> > of soldiers who are trained to act on their own initiative, have a mix
> > of skills and are well trained will always have an advantage over
> > ill trained conscripts.
>
> Where does it say that conscripts have to be ill trained? Have you ever
SEEN
> an European conscript army? For example, German conscripts routinely used
to
> win NATO tank crew competitions. IIRC US Army managed to win once.
>

Competitons of course involve all nations putting their best crews
forward, I'd be interested to see what the average performance
looks like.

> One of the big problems the Argentines hit
> > in the field was that their soldiers were used to returning
> > their weapons to the armoury for cleaning and maintenance.
> > This became a problem when soldiers not only didnt know how
> > to clean their rifles and clear jams but didnt even have cleaning kits.
>
> Um, do you seriously think this is true for all conscript armies? I
> certainly know _very well_ how to clean and maintain my rifle and I wasn't
> even an infantryman.
>

Its symptomatic of what happens when an army has to process
more men than it has the resources to train and equip properly.
This was the case in the Argentine forces and from the reports
that have come out I suspect it holds true for the Russian
army today.

Its certainly true that conscript armies CAN be extremely
competent but that doesnt come cheaply. The Swiss
and Scandinavians certainly seem to have good
home defence forces but that is built on around an active
reserve system with the conscription being essentially
viewed as training for the reserves.

In the main the opinion among many military leaders
is that a small professional force is more useful
in todays environment than a larger conscript army.

Keith

[Alan Minyard]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 12:35:25 +0200, "Yama" > wrote:

>
>"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>> "Yama" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > I agree with your main point (professional army better for Russia now)
>but
>> > honestly, couldn't we put this "conscripts no use in modern warfare"
>crap
>> to
>> > rest? It sort of gets tiresome seeing it repeated everywhere with no
>basis
>> > whatsoever.
>>
>> Apart from the experience of the last 30 years during which
>> conscript armies havent done terribly well in combat
>> in comparison with professional forces.
>
>And what relevant experience would that be?
>
>I'll hazard a guess that you refer to for example, Desert Storm. Bzzt,
>wrong: main combat force of Iraqi army - the Republican Guards - were a
>volunteer professional force. That didn't seem to help them.
>
>> Conscripts have their place in large scale high intensity warfare
>> and an active militia with universal service such as that maintained
>> by the Swiss or Noorwegians may well have its place but its notable
>> that even those European nations that traditionally used conscription are
>> tending
>> to move to a volunteer military. Its particularly difficult to see
>> how you can maintain the required standard in techinical services
>> such as the air force or navy.
>
>Tasks requiring signifant technical expertise are manned by professional
>soldiers in both conscript and professional armies. That situation has not
>changed a bit since WW2. This does not mean that conscripts do not have a
>place in those services in supporting tasks. Even in all-pro forces, most
>mechanics etc actually receive pretty minimal training in any case, so from
>skill level point it's totally irrelevant whether one is a draftee or
>volunteer.

In today's US military everyone receives extensive training. Those
"mechanics" that you disparage receive significant training, as
virtually every system is high value/high tech.
>
>> In any event France ,Portugal,Spain and Italy are all in the process
>> of abolishing conscription and Germany is reducing the length
>> of military service.
>
>That's because their requirements have changed, not because of some
>fundamental change in nature of warfare. If your requirement is to defend
>your nation against unwelcome tourists, a conscript army is generally
>better. If your requirement is to subdue natives few thousand km's away from
>your homeland, professional force is better.
>
Wrong. A conscript force will be unable to operate its combat systems. The
days of "cannon fodder" are gone (well, except for Russia).

Al Minyard

[Yama]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
> "Yama" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Falklands war was a colonial war, type of conflict where professional
> armies
> > perform better. Do you think Brits could have invaded Argentina
mainland?
> > Didn't think so either.
> >
>
> Which is irrelevant,

Of course it's not. First off, conscripts hardly can be expected to have a
good morale when dragged to fight over some irrelevant rocky islands.
Second, distant deployment seriously limits conscript army's main
advantage - number.

> > As for Republican Guards putting up a fight, I seem to have missed it.
In
> > more recent war most resistance came from militias. In DS RG was more
> > involved, but even then their performance was not markedly better than
> that
> > of some regular army units.
> >
>
> They seem to have been somewhat better than the bulk
> conscript divisions

But was it because they were professionals or only because they got more
training funds and better equipment because they were politically more
trustworthy?

> > In other words, pretty similar training period as what equivalent
> conscripts
> > receive.
> >
>
> I dont believe many army conscripts get 32 weeks of training but even
> assuming
> they do thats pretty expensive if the guy is only in the army for a year
> or even two.

What do you think conscripts do in the Army? Honestly, 32 weeks is quite
short for conscription time.

> > Where does it say that conscripts have to be ill trained? Have you ever
> SEEN
> > an European conscript army? For example, German conscripts routinely
used
> to
> > win NATO tank crew competitions. IIRC US Army managed to win once.
> >
>
> Competitons of course involve all nations putting their best crews
> forward, I'd be interested to see what the average performance
> looks like.

I know some people who have operated with US and various European
professional forces in Kosovo and Bosnia. Let's just say that they haven't
exactly been in awe about their performance. And this includes such forces
like airborne brigades which are supposed to be more élite.

> > Um, do you seriously think this is true for all conscript armies? I
> > certainly know _very well_ how to clean and maintain my rifle and I
wasn't
> > even an infantryman.
>
> Its symptomatic of what happens when an army has to process
> more men than it has the resources to train and equip properly.

Quite simply, I have a hard time believing the story as true. Taking care of
personal weapon is amongst 2 or 3 first things any soldier is taught.

If this was not done in Argentinan army, then the quality of it's training
must have been truly atrocious.

> Its certainly true that conscript armies CAN be extremely
> competent but that doesnt come cheaply. The Swiss
> and Scandinavians certainly seem to have good
> home defence forces but that is built on around an active
> reserve system with the conscription being essentially
> viewed as training for the reserves.

....so?

"Cheaply" is relative. Having an army equally capable as all-professional
force would cost many times more.

> In the main the opinion among many military leaders
> is that a small professional force is more useful
> in todays environment than a larger conscript army.

Well, as long as "todays environment" comprises of various bush wars (pardon
the pun) around the globe, I certainly agree. But not all nations have that
sort of requirements...

If just by some weird turn of events Warsaw Pact makes a comeback, you bet
many European nations would go back to conscription.

[Yama]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 12:35:25 +0200, "Yama" >
wrote:
> >Tasks requiring signifant technical expertise are manned by professional
> >soldiers in both conscript and professional armies. That situation has
not
> >changed a bit since WW2. This does not mean that conscripts do not have a
> >place in those services in supporting tasks. Even in all-pro forces, most
> >mechanics etc actually receive pretty minimal training in any case, so
from
> >skill level point it's totally irrelevant whether one is a draftee or
> >volunteer.
>
> In today's US military everyone receives extensive training. Those
> "mechanics" that you disparage receive significant training, as
> virtually every system is high value/high tech.

A Finnish pilot who was in F-18 training in USA told that most USN (I don't
recall whether it was an USN or USMC base) mechanics receive surprisingly
little overall training, by Finnish standards. Basically they have
relatively short course during which they familiriaze with one specific
subsystem of the plane. From our point of view this is awfully wasteful
system, but I guess it suits for all-volunteer military.

> >That's because their requirements have changed, not because of some
> >fundamental change in nature of warfare. If your requirement is to defend
> >your nation against unwelcome tourists, a conscript army is generally
> >better. If your requirement is to subdue natives few thousand km's away
from
> >your homeland, professional force is better.
> >
> Wrong. A conscript force will be unable to operate its combat systems.

And this amazing piece of knowledge comes from...where? Funny, we were
perfectly able to operate all our equipment just fine.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Yama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Yama" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Falklands war was a colonial war, type of conflict where professional
> > armies
> > > perform better. Do you think Brits could have invaded Argentina
> mainland?
> > > Didn't think so either.
> > >
> >
> > Which is irrelevant,
>
> Of course it's not. First off, conscripts hardly can be expected to have a
> good morale when dragged to fight over some irrelevant rocky islands.

Those irrelevant islands were thought important enough
by the masses who demonstrated their fervent nationalism
before the war and who overthrew the government after it.

> Second, distant deployment seriously limits conscript army's main
> advantage - number.
>

Trouble is it was the British army that was deployed 8000 miles
from home, the Falklands are rather closer to Argentina.


> > > As for Republican Guards putting up a fight, I seem to have missed it.
> In
> > > more recent war most resistance came from militias. In DS RG was more
> > > involved, but even then their performance was not markedly better than
> > that
> > > of some regular army units.
> > >
> >
> > They seem to have been somewhat better than the bulk
> > conscript divisions
>
> But was it because they were professionals or only because they got more
> training funds and better equipment because they were politically more
> trustworthy?
>

One tends to go with the other.

> > > In other words, pretty similar training period as what equivalent
> > conscripts
> > > receive.
> > >
> >
> > I dont believe many army conscripts get 32 weeks of training but even
> > assuming
> > they do thats pretty expensive if the guy is only in the army for a year
> > or even two.
>
> What do you think conscripts do in the Army? Honestly, 32 weeks is quite
> short for conscription time.
>

In which army ?

Conscripts only serve around 18 months in Greece and that would mean
training absorbed 1/3 of their time in the army.

In Finland the maximum term of servive eben for specialists was 330
days, if they received 32 weeks of training then that would represent
2/3 rds of their service.

Hungary, France and Germany all have a 10 month period of service.
Its rather expensive to spend 8 months training people who only
serve in combat units for 2 months afterwards.

> > > Where does it say that conscripts have to be ill trained? Have you
ever
> > SEEN
> > > an European conscript army? For example, German conscripts routinely
> used
> > to
> > > win NATO tank crew competitions. IIRC US Army managed to win once.
> > >
> >
> > Competitons of course involve all nations putting their best crews
> > forward, I'd be interested to see what the average performance
> > looks like.
>
> I know some people who have operated with US and various European
> professional forces in Kosovo and Bosnia. Let's just say that they haven't
> exactly been in awe about their performance. And this includes such forces
> like airborne brigades which are supposed to be more élite.
>

Ah mysterious sources only you have access to, how impressive.

> > > Um, do you seriously think this is true for all conscript armies? I
> > > certainly know _very well_ how to clean and maintain my rifle and I
> wasn't
> > > even an infantryman.
> >
> > Its symptomatic of what happens when an army has to process
> > more men than it has the resources to train and equip properly.
>
> Quite simply, I have a hard time believing the story as true. Taking care
of
> personal weapon is amongst 2 or 3 first things any soldier is taught.
>
> If this was not done in Argentinan army, then the quality of it's training
> must have been truly atrocious.
>
> > Its certainly true that conscript armies CAN be extremely
> > competent but that doesnt come cheaply. The Swiss
> > and Scandinavians certainly seem to have good
> > home defence forces but that is built on around an active
> > reserve system with the conscription being essentially
> > viewed as training for the reserves.
>
> ...so?
>
> "Cheaply" is relative. Having an army equally capable as all-professional
> force would cost many times more.
>

Only if you insist on it being the same size. The simple fact
is that the lower throughput of a professional army means
that a greater percentage of your force is combat ready.


> > In the main the opinion among many military leaders
> > is that a small professional force is more useful
> > in todays environment than a larger conscript army.
>
> Well, as long as "todays environment" comprises of various bush wars
(pardon
> the pun) around the globe, I certainly agree. But not all nations have
that
> sort of requirements...
>
> If just by some weird turn of events Warsaw Pact makes a comeback, you bet
> many European nations would go back to conscription.
>

I recall already making the point that high intensity mass warfare does
require conscription, that however is hardly likley in Europe at present.

The traditional British and US approach has been to maintain rather
small but well trained and equipped professional forces expanded
by conscription on those rare occasions it is required. I see no
reason to change that approach and mant other European nations
seem to be at least considering its adoption.

Keith

[Krztalizer]

>
>A Finnish pilot who was in F-18 training in USA told that most USN (I don't
>recall whether it was an USN or USMC base) mechanics receive surprisingly
>little overall training, by Finnish standards.

I think the more likely scenario is that your Finnish pilot friend had very
little exposure to the vast amounts of training that USN mechanics go through -
I seriously doubt if most pilots in any air force are completely up to date on
the training aspects of a junior enlisted person's life. Its like asking a rock
star how much training his limo driver has undergone. My first year in the
Navy, as an "undesignated striker" (lowest of the low), included about a dozen
schools in everything from corrosion control ( a comprehensive course on
dissimilar metals and how to prevent/treat corrosion in a wide variety of
situations) to plane captain school ( familiarize and service every hydraulic
system, run patch tests, etc., take oil samples, process paperwork, inspect
dozens of various subsystems, etc.). Did your pilot friend go through each of
those courses..? If not, then there is no way for him to be familiar with
them, and no reason for him to even be aware that every mech in the USN goes
through them. I was only a mech for two years - in that two years, I was at
sea for 11 months, and in school 11 months. When I returned from that first
cruise, I immediately was sent into a training pipeline (15 months of
schooling) that included six more schools (from 4 weeks long, to a 14 week
course) and I would say that out of twelve years active duty, about half was
spent at sea, and at least half of the remaining time was spent in various
schools.

"Surprisingly little overall training", by any standards, doesn't match what I
saw and experienced. Something tells me that your friend simply didn't hang
out at the Line Shack or Jet Shop with the Plane Captains and Mechs enough to
be aware of the level of training they recieved.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.

[Yama]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
> "Yama" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Second, distant deployment seriously limits conscript army's main
> > advantage - number.
> >
>
> Trouble is it was the British army that was deployed 8000 miles
> from home, the Falklands are rather closer to Argentina.

Falklands are islands, so deployment problems remained regardless of
distance.

Again, do you seriously think that British Army and Royal Marines could have
taken Argentinian army on their mainland?

> > But was it because they were professionals or only because they got more
> > training funds and better equipment because they were politically more
> > trustworthy?
> >
>
> One tends to go with the other.

Exactly - volunteer, selected palace guard was obviously better instrument
of power for Saddam than draftees. Their military prowess was not
particularly relevant...

> > What do you think conscripts do in the Army? Honestly, 32 weeks is quite
> > short for conscription time.
> >
>
> In which army ?
>
> Conscripts only serve around 18 months in Greece and that would mean
> training absorbed 1/3 of their time in the army.
>
> In Finland the maximum term of servive eben for specialists was 330
> days, if they received 32 weeks of training then that would represent
> 2/3 rds of their service.
>
> Hungary, France and Germany all have a 10 month period of service.
> Its rather expensive to spend 8 months training people who only
> serve in combat units for 2 months afterwards.

Ah, I see the confusion. Most conscript armies do not have "combat units" in
the sense you talk, because there is no need to deploy them anywhere as we
do not have former, current or future colonies to fight over. Should the
need arise, combat formations are formed either expanding the training units
or from scratch according to mobilization plans.

Currently Finnish conscripts serve 180 to 360 days, depending on their task
or rank. That time is almost wholly spent on training.

> > I know some people who have operated with US and various European
> > professional forces in Kosovo and Bosnia. Let's just say that they
haven't
> > exactly been in awe about their performance. And this includes such
forces
> > like airborne brigades which are supposed to be more élite.
> >
>
> Ah mysterious sources only you have access to, how impressive.

Fine, if you don't want to believe then don't. If we go by that route, I
could ask you what are YOUR sources for that dubious "Argies couldn't
maintain their rifles" -story.

If you can read Finnish I can google you some threads from Finnish NG where
some of these people talk about their experiences.

> > "Cheaply" is relative. Having an army equally capable as
all-professional
> > force would cost many times more.
> >
>
> Only if you insist on it being the same size.

Not at all. For example, current Finland's wartime field army is 430,000
strong. Having a volunteer force even just half the size would be
outrageously expensive.

The simple fact
> is that the lower throughput of a professional army means
> that a greater percentage of your force is combat ready.

Of course, but that is not relevant advantage for everyone.

> I recall already making the point that high intensity mass warfare does
> require conscription, that however is hardly likley in Europe at present.
>
> The traditional British and US approach has been to maintain rather
> small but well trained and equipped professional forces expanded
> by conscription on those rare occasions it is required. I see no
> reason to change that approach and mant other European nations
> seem to be at least considering its adoption.

I'm sure that approach has lots of merit for geographically safe and
isolated nations with worldwide interests and committents. FWIW, I think
that those people calling for re-introducing conscription in USA are quite
wrong and it would result to a disaster. However this has nothing to do with
respective fighting performances of pro vs conscription armies in modern
war; it's just a matter of requirements and deployment issues.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Yama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Yama" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Second, distant deployment seriously limits conscript army's main
> > > advantage - number.
> > >
> >
> > Trouble is it was the British army that was deployed 8000 miles
> > from home, the Falklands are rather closer to Argentina.
>
> Falklands are islands, so deployment problems remained regardless of
> distance.
>

Horse****

Its a hell of alot easier for Britain to deploy troops to the Isle of Wight
than it is for Argentina

> Again, do you seriously think that British Army and Royal Marines could
have
> taken Argentinian army on their mainland?
>

Again NO , but then that wasnt their mission

> > > But was it because they were professionals or only because they got
more
> > > training funds and better equipment because they were politically more
> > > trustworthy?
> > >
> >
> > One tends to go with the other.
>
> Exactly - volunteer, selected palace guard was obviously better instrument
> of power for Saddam than draftees. Their military prowess was not
> particularly relevant...
>

On the contrary it was a core requirement. The politically reliable
force was his last defense against an army revolt.

> > > What do you think conscripts do in the Army? Honestly, 32 weeks is
quite
> > > short for conscription time.
> > >
> >
> > In which army ?
> >
> > Conscripts only serve around 18 months in Greece and that would mean
> > training absorbed 1/3 of their time in the army.
> >
> > In Finland the maximum term of servive eben for specialists was 330
> > days, if they received 32 weeks of training then that would represent
> > 2/3 rds of their service.
> >
> > Hungary, France and Germany all have a 10 month period of service.
> > Its rather expensive to spend 8 months training people who only
> > serve in combat units for 2 months afterwards.
>
> Ah, I see the confusion. Most conscript armies do not have "combat units"
in
> the sense you talk, because there is no need to deploy them anywhere as we
> do not have former, current or future colonies to fight over. Should the
> need arise, combat formations are formed either expanding the training
units
> or from scratch according to mobilization plans.
>

Which is a bit unfortunate if the enemy isnt considerate enough to give you
advanced warning of his plans

> Currently Finnish conscripts serve 180 to 360 days, depending on their
task
> or rank. That time is almost wholly spent on training.
>

Which leaves exactly who guarding the interests of the nation ?

> > > I know some people who have operated with US and various European
> > > professional forces in Kosovo and Bosnia. Let's just say that they
> haven't
> > > exactly been in awe about their performance. And this includes such
> forces
> > > like airborne brigades which are supposed to be more élite.
> > >
> >
> > Ah mysterious sources only you have access to, how impressive.
>
> Fine, if you don't want to believe then don't. If we go by that route, I
> could ask you what are YOUR sources for that dubious "Argies couldn't
> maintain their rifles" -story.
>

Multiple sources , here's just one
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/s2.cfm?id=341922002

"I was 19 when they sent us to the Falklands," he says.
"I had done my military service, but I think I'd only touched
a gun once for about 15 minutes. I didn't have a clue how
to load a rifle."

Keith

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article >,
Keith Willshaw > wrote:
>
>"Yama" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Trouble is it was the British army that was deployed 8000 miles
>> > from home, the Falklands are rather closer to Argentina.
>>
>> Falklands are islands, so deployment problems remained regardless of
>> distance.

Only because the RN was able to seize and maintain sea control while
operating 8000 miles from its base. And because the Fleet Air Arm,
operating from the carriers, were able to maintain at least partial
air control in the face of land-based air opposition.

This could be used as an arguement underlining the virtues of a
professional, volunteer force (the RN, which proved highly effective) and
a force made up of conscripts (the Argentine Navy, which proved
pretty well useless).

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

[Yama]

"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >A Finnish pilot who was in F-18 training in USA told that most USN (I
don't
> >recall whether it was an USN or USMC base) mechanics receive surprisingly
> >little overall training, by Finnish standards.
>
> I think the more likely scenario is that your Finnish pilot friend had
very
> little exposure to the vast amounts of training that USN mechanics go
through -
> I seriously doubt if most pilots in any air force are completely up to
date on
> the training aspects of a junior enlisted person's life.

My memory is fuzzy so I dug out the original article. Person in question was
not a pilot but a Finnish mechanic. Here's his exact words (my translation):
"In Finnish Air Force mechanics need a long and throught training, but in
USA much of the technical work is done by recruit with a couple of weeks
theoretic training. -Maybe that's why Americans sometimes had hard time to
grasp that we at rank of Lieutenant still actually do something to the
aircraft." Obviously I cannot personally verify how accurate his description
is.

[Yama]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
> "Yama" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Falklands are islands, so deployment problems remained regardless of
> > distance.
> >
>
> Horse****
>
> Its a hell of alot easier for Britain to deploy troops to the Isle of
Wight
> than it is for Argentina

Obviously yes, but it still much more difficult than moving them by trains
or road.

> > Again, do you seriously think that British Army and Royal Marines could
> have
> > taken Argentinian army on their mainland?
>
> Again NO ,

Why not? I thought they were much more effective than ill-trained Argentinan
military?

> > Exactly - volunteer, selected palace guard was obviously better
instrument
> > of power for Saddam than draftees. Their military prowess was not
> > particularly relevant...
> >
>
> On the contrary it was a core requirement. The politically reliable
> force was his last defense against an army revolt.

....which is why they were given better equipment and more resources.

> > Ah, I see the confusion. Most conscript armies do not have "combat
units"
> in
> > the sense you talk, because there is no need to deploy them anywhere as
we
> > do not have former, current or future colonies to fight over. Should the
> > need arise, combat formations are formed either expanding the training
> units
> > or from scratch according to mobilization plans.
> >
>
> Which is a bit unfortunate if the enemy isnt considerate enough to give
you
> advanced warning of his plans

For most countries, it's rather unlikely that someone just invades them out
of blue sky. If such threat exists, it can be dealt with longer conscription
time or keeping separate high-readiness units.

> > Currently Finnish conscripts serve 180 to 360 days, depending on their
> task
> > or rank. That time is almost wholly spent on training.
> >
>
> Which leaves exactly who guarding the interests of the nation ?

Like what interests?

> > Fine, if you don't want to believe then don't. If we go by that route, I
> > could ask you what are YOUR sources for that dubious "Argies couldn't
> > maintain their rifles" -story.
> >
>
> Multiple sources , here's just one
> http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/s2.cfm?id=341922002
>
> "I was 19 when they sent us to the Falklands," he says.
> "I had done my military service, but I think I'd only touched
> a gun once for about 15 minutes. I didn't have a clue how
> to load a rifle."

Then Argentinian military training has been truly atrocious and tells
absolutely nothing about actual battle performance of a proper conscript
army. If anything, with that sort of training it's surprising they managed
to put up even that much resistance.

[Krztalizer]

>"In Finnish Air Force mechanics need a long and throught training, but in
>USA much of the technical work is done by recruit with a couple of weeks
>theoretic training. -

I think the Finnish mechanic was confusing plane captains with jet mechanics -
PCs did tend to fall into the category of "welcome to the Navy, now get to
work", but actual jet engine mechanics became so after comprehensive training
on the particular aircraft propulsion system their intended squadron and
aircraft type used. The various schools that taught jet engine mechanics, such
as at NATC Memphis, had an entire field of hack aircraft to draw from, for
classroom studies. We tore down and rebuilt APUs, disassembled TF-34s and
T-58s and it wasn't theoretical studies, we were in there busting knuckles.
The author of the article was a Lt, so I believe my contention that he wouldn't
be spending much time hanging out among the junior enlisted 'mechs' remains a
valid comment - mechs in squadrons I flew in had experience levels from 2
months to 33 years and the median level of experience was probably about 3-4
years and at about the E-4 or E-5 level. Plane Captains did match the profile
he stated in his article - most are under 20, have less than 6 months of
aviation-oriented schooling, but they are not expected to complete their tasks
in a vaccuum; there was always an old hand available to assist, and a big set
of boots around to kick your butt for getting caught being stupid.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.

[Pete]

"Yama" > wrote
>
> My memory is fuzzy so I dug out the original article. Person in question
was
> not a pilot but a Finnish mechanic. Here's his exact words (my
translation):
> "In Finnish Air Force mechanics need a long and throught training, but in
> USA much of the technical work is done by recruit with a couple of weeks
> theoretic training. -Maybe that's why Americans sometimes had hard time to
> grasp that we at rank of Lieutenant still actually do something to the
> aircraft." Obviously I cannot personally verify how accurate his
description
> is.

If the LT's are fixing the jets, what are the lower level NCO's and
privates/airmen doing?

Pete

[WaltBJ]

40 hours a year? Heaven help them, and keep the weather away from
them. Flying is one sphere where there is absolutely no substitute for
skill and practice.
Looks like the average guy gets about 3 one hour (plus a few minutes)
flights per month. Wonder what shape the airplanes are in? Bet there's
a bunch of hangar queens, too. As for proficiency - in WW2 100 German
pilots shot down over 10,000 airplanes. Skill counts!
Walt BJ

[Yama]

"Pete" > wrote in message
...
> "Yama" > wrote
> > My memory is fuzzy so I dug out the original article. Person in question
> was
> > not a pilot but a Finnish mechanic. Here's his exact words (my
> translation):
> > "In Finnish Air Force mechanics need a long and throught training, but
in
> > USA much of the technical work is done by recruit with a couple of weeks
> > theoretic training. -Maybe that's why Americans sometimes had hard time
to
> > grasp that we at rank of Lieutenant still actually do something to the
> > aircraft." Obviously I cannot personally verify how accurate his
> description
> > is.
>
> If the LT's are fixing the jets, what are the lower level NCO's and
> privates/airmen doing?

They're helping them, doing all the kind of stuff which does not require
special expertise (hauling ordnance, fueling etc).
Reportedly it was difficult to position Finnish mechanics to USN training
programs, as they were used to totally different sharing of tasks.

[Urban Fredriksson]

In article >,
WaltBJ > wrote:

>40 hours a year?

>Looks like the average guy gets about 3 one hour (plus a few minutes)
>flights per month.

I don't think so. Compare with the unit where 50% fly once
per year and the average is 7-8 h/year.

To me, this indicates that there is no meaningful average
number. 1/3:rd fly 120 h/year and 2/3 don't is probably
closer to the truth. Don't know about 2003, but in 2001
that's very much how it was.
--
Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
1) What is happening will continue to happen
2) Consider the obvious seriously
3) Consider the consequences - Asimov's "Three Laws of Futurics", F&SF, Oct 74

[Peter Kemp]

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 23:08:04 +0200, "Yama" >
wrote:

>"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>> "Yama" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Again, do you seriously think that British Army and Royal Marines could
>> have
>> > taken Argentinian army on their mainland?
>>
>> Again NO ,
>
>Why not? I thought they were much more effective than ill-trained Argentinan
>military?

Are you trying to be obtuse? The RN in 1982 (and now), does not have
the amphibious transports to land a divisional sized force in fighting
order on a hostile shore. The fighting has nothing to do with it, it's
the getting there.

If on the other hand 1Div had magically arrived in Argentina, then
they probably would have done pretty damn well against the Argentine
forces.
Chieftains (probably one of the two best tanks in the world in 1982),
supported by TOW armed Lynxes, who had been training to fight the best
Soviet Guards armies versus what the Argentines would be likely to
have at the time (I'm afraid Google let me down on the OOB in 1982
except for the forces sent to the Falklands). It'd be slaughter.

Can anyone help out with the OOB for 1982 in Argentina (and the UK
come to that)?

Peter Kemp