Sense and nonsense of the German draft

[TLAM Strike]

Troops are bored? Simple solution... two letters: P T...

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Troops are bored? Simple solution... two letters: P T...

Two words: Foxtrot Uniform

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Weiss Pinguin

God forbid they get their hands on some of the videos floating around of US troopers in their spare time, who knows what they might do with that

Last time that happened I think they called it "Tailhook"...

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Two words: Foxtrot Uniform

Touche...

[Skybird]

Either you need draftees, or you don'T. If you need them, funding is not tzhe problem, for they will see work enough anyway. If you do not need them, additional funding just leads to "Beschäftigungstherapie" (=ergotherapy?) where they do things that are not needed to get done.

It seems to me that the problem has grown from year to year, coinciding with falling service times (from 15 to 12 then 9 and now 6 months) and financial stress for the defence sector. From all feedback I ever got from people who were in the milutary, not that batallion in the arzicle is the exception from the rule, but Schroeder's experience maybe is. How many years is it that you were there? If it is just 4 or 6 years, that already could make a difference again.

And next question to be asked: what military competences could be trained in just 6 months (some even want 4 months now...)? Zeitsoldaten (=professionals) tend to look down on draftees anyway, and not taking them too serious. I know two pros of medium and higher ranks personally since many years now, who both have been to the Afghanistan field, who say that they do not know any professional wanting to go into combat mission, (Heer or Marine) with a troops of draftees serving for 6 months, nor that they would want to do that themselves.

This draft system must go, even more since it is very injust now, because only a small faction of every year's young men get drafted anyway. and for a modern mission-oriented intervention army that the Bundeswehr is de facto being turned into, you do not want and do not need draftees, but professionals with some more training and experience. 6 months, or maybe even 4, simply is a foul compromise doing nothing good for anybody.

Some days ago, a paper got leaked with inernal plannings by the Bundeswehr for the future size of the german forces. The scenario with the smallest number of personell saw cuts in the navy to less than 9000 (all in all!), combat troops not more than 29,000, and a massive reduction from the current overall personell (all weapons branches, combat as well as supply units) level of 250,000 to something below 150,000. Up to 4 billion should be saved that way.

I undersztand and agree that with debt levels as we have them in the West, we cannot act anymore as if we can spend as before and just making more and more debts, if we cannot afford the size of the military we currently have, then we have to accept that. But what they plan in personell reduction now, is too much. Training and technology can compensate for numerical inferiority only to a certain level - and not more. we better cut expensive hightech systems (becasue a highteczh enemy is not in sight for us), but maintain a basic personell level and a sufficient logistic capacity that ensures that combat operations on the ground and via drones can be maintained, becasue our main enemy in the present and forseeable future will be an enemy fighting asymmetric wars with relatively "primitive" weapons that he buys cheap and in masses. the problem of modern hightech armies is that they have become too expensive, needing higher and higher investements to acchieve smaller and smaller amounts of superiority - if not only: compansation . That islamic terror and guerilaly-style enemies force us to make these investements for less and lesser gains in effect is what founds their military, economical, financial success. compared by the ivestements we make and they make, we are loosing all of the latest wars, and we loose them by a huge margin. we need to make the fighting cheaper, and the killing of enemies available on a less-technology-intensive basis. Else we end up with launching one killer satellite per enemy guerilla fighter with a pre-WWII rifle in his hand and an RPG in his rucksack.

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Either you need draftees, or you don'T. If you need them, funding is not tzhe problem, for they will see work enough anyway. If you do not need them, additional funding just leads to "Beschäftigungstherapie" (=ergotherapy?) where they do things that are not needed to get done.

I think in my unit the professionals would have loved to do more with the recruits but there was always the "too expensive" argument.

From all feedback I ever got from people who were in the milutary, not that batallion in the arzicle is the exception from the rule, but Schroeder's experience maybe is.

This might be the case. I've been in one of the very few units were recruits still got kicked in the rear (not literally) if they didn't perform well. Something I've never heard of in any other unit (my brother in law was with the "Heeresflieger" (I believe they are called army aviators in English) and his basic training was a kindergarten compared to ours.)
The unit I was in doesn't even exist anymore (not that I'm too unhappy about that).

How many years is it that you were there? If it is just 4 or 6 years, that already could make a difference again.

8 years.

And next question to be asked: what military competences could be trained in just 6 months (some even want 4 months now...)?

One exact answer would be: Nothing!
That's why I'm strongly against reducing the time to six months as it will really render the draft completely useless (but I think that's the plan anyway and then they can say: "See, told ya so. Completely useless , now let's abolish the whole thing altogether."

Zeitsoldaten (=professionals) tend to look down on draftees anyway, and not taking them too serious. I know two pros of medium and higher ranks personally since many years now, who both have been to the Afghanistan field, who say that they do not know any professional wanting to go into combat mission, (Heer or Marine) with a troops of draftees serving for 6 months, nor that they would want to do that themselves.

Of course not. Draftees are needed to have reserves in case of a war. Ask your friends whether they would rather face an enemy with draftees and therefore in equal numbers, or all alone.

This draft system must go, even more since it is very injust now, because only a small faction of every year's young men get drafted anyway. and for a modern mission-oriented intervention army that the Bundeswehr is de facto being turned into, you do not want and do not need draftees, but professionals with some more training and experience.

It is unjust for sure and definitely needs to be worked over. Can you look into the future? I can't. If you abolish the draft you will likely never be able to reinstall it. What will be in 20 years? Will Iran be peaceful, will Turkey still be an ally? Will the Balkan stay stable? Will Belarus and Ukraine stay stable? Could we handle any threat of those with only a handful of professional soldiers without the means to increase the size of the army quickly or compensate possible losses?

6 months, or maybe even 4, simply is a foul compromise doing nothing good for anybody.

Agreed.

Some days ago, a paper got leaked with inernal plannings by the Bundeswehr for the future size of the german forces. The scenario with the smallest number of personell saw cuts in the navy to less than 9000 (all in all!), combat troops not more than 29,000, and a massive reduction from the current overall personell (all weapons branches, combat as well as supply units) level of 250,000 to something below 150,000. Up to 4 billion should be saved that way.

Read my manager comment in my previous post.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

Of course not. Draftees are needed to have reserves in case of a war. Ask your friends whether they would rather face an enemy with draftees and therefore in equal numbers, or all alone.

Against what bordering enemy? Denmark? Poland? Russia? I see chances for conventional wars inEurope - but these will result from social unrest and resulting civil wars. and that is a scenario for more unconventinal infantry-war or asymmetric war again, not hightech wars with fleets of eurofighters battling against waves of Flankers and tanks engage on the ground by the hundreds and thousands.

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".

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. You don't get special forces training for civil amateurs from zero to max in 6 months,. No training for radar maintenance. Commanding and maintaining a tank or operating a self propelled Panzerhaubitze. 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.

It is unjust for sure and definitely needs to be worked over. Can you look into the future? I can't. If you abolish the draft you will likely never be able to reinstall it. What will be in 20 years? Will Iran be peaceful, will Turkey still be an ally? Will the Balkan stay stable? Will Belarus and Ukraine stay stable? Could we handle any threat of those with only a handful of professional soldiers without the means to increase the size of the army quickly or compensate possible losses?

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. 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. 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. It is no defence against ICBMs, and foreign military invasions haunting german landscapes I really cannot imagine - who would and could do it? BTW, the British have a smaller army already than Germany, by numbers. Still nobody threatens to invade them, at least militarily.

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.

Until then, we need to mark priorities that we fincially can afford. the draft is not such a priority. And it only causes costs and produces personell that nowhere is needed and in oversea combat missions is not wanted.

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.

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. Draftees currently are a "lästiges Übel" for the BW. Politicians want them, the BW does not need them, they cost money and must get entertained.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Against what bordering enemy? Denmark? Poland? Russia? I see chances for conventional wars inEurope - but these will result from social unrest and resulting civil wars. and that is a scenario for more unconventinal infantry-war or asymmetric war again, not hightech wars with fleets of eurofighters battling against waves of Flankers and tanks engage on the ground by the hundreds and thousands.

Couldn't a civil war in a European nation result in a conventional battle? Couldn't military hardware of a nation's army fall in to the hands of an anti-government faction should sufficient numbers of their troops be persuaded by the ideology of said faction? Were their not air, armor and artillery battles in during the break up of Yugoslavia?

[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.