[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by Skybird

My grandfather, by the background of his war experiences, used to say - and many other historic example are in his favour- : badly trained novices to war are cannon-fodder. After the war he was a pacifist, but he also said: "if you want to maintain an army, then give them the hardest training possible for people to bear".

If there is a war and all you have are professional soldiers you might not be able to replace your losses quickly enough.
With reservists you have people who at least have some basic knowledge about being a soldier. Without those people you would have to start recruiting people who have no idea about warfare at all and whether you can train them in time to be proper soldiers compared to those who already have had some training is questionable at best.
Right no it doesn't look like we'll ever going to have a war here again but remember that the cold war is barely 20 years over.

And I have a hard time to believe that 6 months of basic training with all the restrictions you just mentioned yourself could be enough for significantly more than just learning to clean your personal firearms, learning the insignias for different ranks, and how to salute. You get my point.

I get your point, don't worry. And you are right. The current model with the 6 months doesn't make sense at all. It's just a waste of resources and lifetime for the draftees.

No training for radar maintenance. Commanding and maintaining a tank or operating a self propelled Panzerhaubitze.

I'm not sure about that. From what I hear (and again it's just hearing when I talk to soldiers...whether it's all true might be a different story) our forces are doing quiet well in international exercises. Our tanks are manned with draftees (except the commander), our AAA units have draftees, the infantry has plenty of draftees. So it seems they aren't doing that bad at all (again, if those descriptions are accurate, I have no way to confirm or deny it).

when I started studying in autumn 1989, I became friend with a guy very early on who just had his BW time behind him. He said they were ordered to run around in the forest during a "manouver", yelling "Bam! Bam!", because funding did not allow to train with real or blank cartridges. his grenade training he said they conducted with Coca Cola tin cans that they threw. 80% of the time, he said, they were bored to death.

Funding problem?

then be consistent and train your daftees the way you need to do it. That includes mroe time, and better funding, instead of shopwing them how little they are needed.

Agreed.

what is a reaosnable time frame to give basic military training? We used to think that it was 18 months. And regular trainings every one or two years for the next 20 years afterwards, like the Swiss do.

That sounds like a plan. 18 months might even be too long. If you can spend your time practising and not killing time 9 months can even be enough IMHO.

but if there are unrests in Belarus or the Ukraine, or a new war on the balkans (it's coming I'm sure), or turkey is no longer an ally (it already isn'T that anymore), ansd iran fires ICBMs at europe, then a swarm of badly-trained draftees hardly can be considered to be the trustworthy defenceline against war coming to Germany.

See points above.

It is no defence against ICBMs, and foreign military invasions haunting german landscapes I really cannot imagine - who would and could do it?

Right now pretty much no one. But that can change. I don't say we need to keep an army of the size of what North Korea has. I just think that pretrained reservists can give us the edge if the brown smelly stuff hits the fan. It simply takes to long to train brand new soldiers.

BTW, the British have a smaller army already than Germany, by numbers. Still nobody threatens to invade them, at least militarily.

Not now and not in the foreseeable future. How was that 20 years ago?

If such a need for drafting would appear again and real war is threatening the heartlands of middle Europe again by foreign invasion, nothing speaks against bringing drafts back. Plus massively increased defence spendings.

Would any of our spineless politicians face that? Or would they hide their heads in the sand and pretend that nothing is going on until the enemy knocks at the door, afraid of upsetting the people before the next election? If they finally wake up it's likely too late. (yes, a very hypothetical scenario...I know)

the real reason why the draft is defended is that people fear the conflict about the Zivis and their role in the social service sector.

I think this is actually the biggest reason why our politicians haven't killed the draft yet.

what do you think is the reason the medical criterions are such that most young men must not go to the military by draft? Because they are not needed - that simple.

You don't need to tell me. I have had fellow students who were out-mustered for physical reasons but were taking part in mountain bike contests all over Germany.

I see the draft as the seat belt in a car. Under normal conditions it's very unlikely that you will need it. Yet I feel more comfortable wearing it. Sometimes it's not your own fault that you crash.