Russian Air Force Woes - Time to start again?

"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

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)

"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.

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