German draft likely to be abolished

[Skybird]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...3548-2,00.html

I used to be against conscription these days, but Gen a.D. Naumann, former chief of staff and one of NATO's highest respected generals in his active time, made at least some remarks defending it that have left a footnote in my mind.

I know from first hand sources that Naumann enjoyed huge respect and trust in the German military.

Some of the planned cuts in defence nevertheless are worrying to me. For example to cut the number of main battle tanks to 150. On the other hand i wonder if maybe I am just sticking to a dinosaur by habit, much like the navies in WWII sticked to battleships although they were proven to be outdated by the new aircraft carrier weapon.

Bad timing that would be if it is true for tanks, too. Russia seems to be set to present its new mysterious wondertank T-95 Black Eagle to the public this year. If only half of the rumours on it are true, it would be a really nasty beast.

[Schroeder]

Not just the tanks. The fighterbombers are also getting drastically reduced. No need for airpower on a modern battlefield...
The draft can't be upheld if only a handful of people really get drafted. It's unfair. However I don't see how an army without the draft could grow to sufficient numbers quickly enough if the brown stuff should ever hit the fan again.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

Not just the tanks. The fighterbombers are also getting drastically reduced. No need for airpower on a modern battlefield...
The draft can't be upheld if only a handful of people really get drafted. It's unfair. However I don't see how an army without the draft could grow to sufficient numbers quickly enough if the brown stuff should ever hit the fan again.

But Naumann has some good arguments in defense of drafting. I was not aware that such a big ammount of pros were recruited from conscripts, for example - that means to raise a personell pool much easier and economically than the expensive recruiting efforts certain propfessijanl armies must conduct. what he said on the need that a CO cannot afford to rely on his stars, but must earn the trust of his subordinates newly every time new draftees are coming, also made sense to me.

[Schroeder]

@Skybird
I'm actually for the draft. I think it's the only way from keeping us from having to take everyone who volunteers for whatever reasons. I don't like the idea of getting American conditions here, where recruiters go to social hotspots to seek for desperate people who they can persuade to join the armed forces. I don't think that this improves neither the overall performance of an Army nor the reputation it has (and this being a big factor in my opinion).
But since only a handful of people get drafted these days it's simply an unjust system. You either take them all or no one. When I began to study I had a fellow student who was 19... I spend my 20th birthday on an exercise ground of the Army.... He came fresh from school. He was "unfit for service" (ausgemustert) due to "weak sinews"....or so the doctors said .... that left a somehow bitter taste in my mouth since that guy was taking part in semi professional mountain-bike races on a federal level.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Are we the Chinese? Western regimes cannot afford to have high losses, else the voters get uneasy very quickly.

I was speaking in general terms. Then again if say some nation nuked a city in the west the public would suddenly become accepting of losses in a war that eliminated those responsible.

On the other hand, supoerior technology can compensate for inferior numbers only to some degree, and not beyond. This also works the other way around, if you have too few units, sooner or later a numercially superior and determined enemy can "flood" there area and overwhelm them. you need good technology - and suffiocient numbers. Numbers must be such that even taking losses do not endanger the operational integrity of the army . And this is where my greatest concern is.

Two words: .

But seriously as MacArthur said: "You don't attack where the enemy is, you attack where he ain't."

Using the correct combination of technology you can maneuver you units away from the enemy's strongest forces while drawing him in to the sights of your most powerful weapons. The trick is to use the correct combination of high technology to totally negate the enemy's advantages.

Now consider how realistic that is. If you need help to beef up your fantasy, play one or two matches of SBP. If being trained well and having the right warhead, every dwarf with a Panzerfaust-style of weapon can take out a Leopard-2A6.

Well that is a case of being on the wrong side of the weapon-countermeasure game. That dwarf with a Panzerfaust would be next to useless against an Apache gunship, or a F-16, or a Scout-Sniper with a M82. One advantage of going the high technology is being able to invest in combined arms.

Although when you mention the a "well trained well equipped Dwarf" you do point out a middle ground between the High Tech and Human Wave camps- the Elite Unit camp. That is a corps of well trained troops with just the standard equipment. I guess this is the German way of thought on war for the most part. Its like WWII:

You got the Germans with the highly trained troops with mostly standard level weapons.

You got the Soviets with an unlimited supply of poorly trained troops with sub-par weapons.

Finally you got the Americans with average troops all equipped with the best weapons.

Utilized competently by all sides everything tends to even out.

Originally Posted by Schroeder

@Skybird
I'm actually for the draft. I think it's the only way from keeping us from having to take everyone who volunteers for whatever reasons.

The army dosn't have to accept anyone who volunteers. Do you thing the All Volunteer USMC accepts anyone who wants to join? No way!

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

I was speaking in general terms. Then again if say some nation nuked a city in the west the public would suddenly become accepting of losses in a war that eliminated those responsible.

You forget the power of those saying "But violence cannot be the answer!" They are VERY influential over here.

Using the correct combination of technology you can maneuver you units away from the enemy's strongest forces while drawing him in to the sights of your most powerful weapons. The trick is to use the correct combination of high technology to totally negate the enemy's advantages.

Like in Afghanistan...?

Well that is a case of being on the wrong side of the weapon-countermeasure game. That dwarf with a Panzerfaust would be next to useless against an Apache gunship, or a F-16, or a Scout-Sniper with a M82. One advantage of going the high technology is being able to invest in combined arms.

that is the text-book ideal, a variation of stone-scissor-paper. Something tells me that in the real world it just is not that simple. And with limited forces, the loss of one unit can easily threaten the whole network you just have created to carefully.

Although when you mention the a "well trained well equipped Dwarf" you do point out a middle ground between the High Tech and Human Wave camps- the Elite Unit camp. That is a corps of well trained troops with just the standard equipment. I guess this is the German way of thought on war for the most part. Its like WWII:

You got the Germans with the highly trained troops with mostly standard level weapons.

You got the Soviets with an unlimited supply of poorly trained troops with sub-par weapons.

Finally you got the Americans with average troops all equipped with the best weapons.

Utilized competently by all sides everything tends to even out.

The army dosn't have to accept anyone who volunteers. Do you thing the All Volunteer USMC accepts anyone who wants to join? No way!

I know that the criterions have been lowered in order to compensate for the lacking interest in the military when combat operations turned to become more and more danegrous in the past 8 years. Recruiters have bigger problems today to find interest youngster, than they had after let's say 91. The ned for specialist peronaslle like poilots is even more pressing, since due to poor payment and better chances in the private sector many pilots have quit in the past 6 years or so, having brought the pilot pool of the air force to dangerous low levels. at least at times. Last time I read on this is one year ago, maybe even longer.

In Germany, the General in the interview has pointed out that due to the demograohic chnage it is becoming increasingly difficult to satisfy the military's need for new recruits. The abolishing of the draft for the most is a reaction to financial needs, but to some degree also to the aging and shrinking of the German population.

[Schroeder]

I heard that the Australian Navy can't even crew a single submarine with volunteers.
I don't think it would be that desperate here but still. We've even now, with the draft, a problem of getting enough high quality Officers and NCOs. Without the draft this number will even be more reduced so that the armed forces will be desperately looking for personnel. That usually doesn't increase the quality of the people. A dangerous Job with a rather low income is usually not very attractive for people with enough education to get other jobs..

[TLAM Strike]

Well you can cut the troops or cut the heavy weapons (armor and jets). If you cut both you lose capabilities since the heavy weapons can do the work of many foot soldiers and vice versa.

If you are running a big conscript army then don't invest in all those fancy tanks and planes, your numbers make up for it.

If you are running a small professional standing army then stick all those troops in some kind of technological terror, since you can't afford to lose any.

who cares? Germany hasn't/can't contribute to world security anyway.

If the US removed our commitment, Germany would have to man up. Which would make the French, Russians and Brits very nervous.

[Schroeder]

Care to elaborate?

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

who cares? Germany hasn't/can't contribute to world security anyway.

These 217 men might see it differently.

To the Bundeswehr's KIA, MIA and WIA from America.

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

These 217 men might see it differently.

To the Bundeswehr's KIA, MIA and WIA from America.

Although a tragedy for their families, which i don't want to diminish, 217 out of a population of 87 millions is not exactly a major sacrifice.

[Morts]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

Although a tragedy for their families, which i don't want to diminish, 217 out of a population of 87 millions is not exactly a major sacrifice.

wow....just...wow

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

Although a tragedy for their families, which i don't want to diminish, 217 out of a population of 87 millions is not exactly a major sacrifice.

Who is to say what those dead might have accomplished had they lived.

"This Ryan better be worth it. He better go home and cure some disease, or invent a longer-lasting light bulb, or something."
- Captain John H. Miller

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Well you can cut the troops or cut the heavy weapons (armor and jets). If you cut both you lose capabilities since the heavy weapons can do the work of many foot soldiers and vice versa.

If you are running a big conscript army then don't invest in all those fancy tanks and planes, your numbers make up for it.

Are we the Chinese? Western regimes cannot afford to have high losses, else the voters get uneasy very quickly. On the other hand, supoerior technology can compensate for inferior numbers only to some degree, and not beyond. This also works the other way around, if you have too few units, sooner or later a numercially superior and determined enemy can "flood" there area and overwhelm them. you need good technology - and suffiocient numbers. Numbers must be such that even taking losses do not endanger the operational integrity of the army . And this is where my greatest concern is.

the other is the lack of logistical capacity of the Germans. They want to act internationally, but one must see it realistic: in principle the Germans lack the capability to shift robust combat forces around the globe.

If you are running a small professional standing army then stick all those troops in some kind of technological terror, since you can't afford to lose any.

Yes, right that: you cannot afford to lose any.

Now consider how realistic that is. If you need help to beef up your fantasy, play one or two matches of SBP. If being trained well and having the right warhead, every dwarf with a Panzerfaust-style of weapon can take out a Leopard-2A6.