Sense and nonsense of the German draft

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

Yep, as you said , a lot have no where else to go. From what I've heard even criminals are now taken in the US army because you can't fill your ranks with other volunteers (I'm not sure whether that is true, but I believe I've read something about that a couple of years back). Those are exactly not the people I want in the armed forces.

Well you have to read into it a little more than that. The standards in the US military are low so they can fill the ranks (not much of a problem, aside from a few occassions). If the standards, training, and pay were higher, they'd attract better volunteers. This is one of the reasons I so heavily favor private involvement in the military. I don't care which contractor you're talking about, they all have the best gear, training, pay, and people.

See above. In Germany you don't have to join the military if you don't want to. You can do an alternative civil service. So everyone who joins the armed forces could choose and chose the military.

Doesn't seem like much of a choice to me. How well does the civil service do? Do they have the same problems? Are they efficient? My guess would be no, but I'd like to find out.

Even with conscription the Bundeswehr is short on GOOD people who want to become professional soldiers. A lot of the professional ones decided to become professionals during their draft time. Remove the draft and you remove also those people who would otherwise not have gotten into contact with the armed forces. You can guess how many good people they will get then.

Or you can look at it from the opposite way and say that if Germany had a more professional fighting force they would attract more non-conscripts. Few things motivate people like money, even Germans. Throw in a dash of Prussian pride in military excellence and you're well on your way to having an elite fighting force.

That's something I forgot to mention. There's a little secret I will tell you Y'know what makes the US Marines so reknowned as a fighting force? It isn't gear or funding or the recruits we get, it's pride. Soldiers who are proud of their service will train, fight, and work many times harder than any otherwise equivalent conscript.

I hope you and Sky don't mind me mentioning it, but I think that this irrational sense of permanent guilt that Germany feels over WW2 has undermined what should be a very proud military tradition. The Wehrmacht was so formidable in WW2 that the US continues to use their tactics and even their gear to this day. Even the new marpat cammies and helmets make us look like Waffen-SS. We don't have a problem with it, why do you?

No, but it indicates that the author is not an insider and so one should take everything he writes with a grain of salt.

Well,I'm an insider and I can totally see this kind of ridiculous behavior going on.

Oh come on, even my grandfather told me about some stupid things they have done when he was a soldier during WWII. Soldiers do stupid things in their spare time.

Which is fine, until they start doing stupid things with important things. That's what I'm talking about. If discipline is lax enough that these kinds of silly games go on, what kind of maintenance is the gear getting? Is everything accounted for? Do we even know what gear we have and where it is?

Yes, they have their personal equipment. But your rifle has to last for roughly 35-40 years before it gets replaced.

And? My old unit still has radios that are fifty years old and they still work.
I've been issued M16's with handguards that fall off and loose magazine catches. My combat M249 had a loose sear pin that almost caused me to shoot my foot off! None of those problems were an excuse for failure. If your weapon is broken, you fix it. If you can't fix it, you figure out something else. It's a mess, but it can't stand in the way of mission accomplishment.

I'm afraid I don't know what a crack shot is

Elite shooter. Expert rifleman. Olympic-class marksman. "Crack" in that context in English means "elite of the elite"

is but you can forget about becoming a squad leader in 9 months in the Bundeswehr.

Stratification problem?

An expert in his speciality? How do you become an expert in aiming a mortar if you can't fire the damn thing a few times? How do you become an expert in driving an IFV if you don't get fuel for driving it frequently? Etc.

Good troops will find a way. You can become an expert rifleman by practicing with a weapon that has no bullets; tape a laser-pointer to the end of the muzzle and snap-in (dry-fire). No armored cars to drive? Drive a regular car with simulated vision slits. No hand grenades? Take turns using a spent flashbang grenade, or even a rock. No bullets for squad exercises? Yell "BANG" (the Corps loves doing that one)

Physical fitness is the only thing I can see them getting for free (even the Bundeswehr can afford new sport shoes).

They have sport shoes? Why don't they run in their boots!? Then they'll have some money for bullets.


You don't get what you pay for in the military, you get what you invest in. Give me a squad of Bundeswehr conscripts and I'll have them bleeding combat excellence in a month. There is no reason why any man eligible for service should be honing his skills in sleeping bag races unless we're training to assault and consolidate a position from a sleeping bag for some unfathomable reason.

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Doesn't seem like much of a choice to me. How well does the civil service do? Do they have the same problems? Are they efficient? My guess would be no, but I'd like to find out.

Actually as far as I know it is. I believe about 50% or more of all possible conscripts choose civil service.

Or you can look at it from the opposite way and say that if Germany had a more professional fighting force they would attract more non-conscripts. Few things motivate people like money, even Germans. Throw in a dash of Prussian pride in military excellence and you're well on your way to having an elite fighting force.

I don't know whether we would get enough people like that. We would definitely need higher wages. We're suffering a lack of pilots and doctors right now.

I hope you and Sky don't mind me mentioning it, but I think that this irrational sense of permanent guilt that Germany feels over WW2 has undermined what should be a very proud military tradition. The Wehrmacht was so formidable in WW2 that the US continues to use their tactics and even their gear to this day. Even the new marpat cammies and helmets make us look like Waffen-SS. We don't have a problem with it, why do you?

While this is still some issue, I don't think it still plays a major part in today's
Bundeswehr.

Which is fine, until they start doing stupid things with important things. That's what I'm talking about. If discipline is lax enough that these kinds of silly games go on, what kind of maintenance is the gear getting?

The NCOs can't have there eyers everywhere. If people do that **** after 16:30 then most soldiers are off duty and sometimes not even to be found inside the barracks (in Germany the families of the military staff does not live inside the barracks, so most soldiers go home to their families outside the barracks after their shift is done). So there are places and times where no one will see such BS happen.

Is everything accounted for? Do we even know what gear we have and where it is?

On your final day you have to give back all the stuff you were issued (well most of it, you can keep your boots, shoes and t-shirts). If it'S damaged you're in trouble.

And? My old unit still has radios that are fifty years old and they still work.
I've been issued M16's with handguards that fall off and loose magazine catches. My combat M249 had a loose sear pin that almost caused me to shoot my foot off! None of those problems were an excuse for failure.

It's an excuse for not letting people out with it here. If people get injured because of faulty equipment then all (leagl) hell will break loose.

Elite shooter. Expert rifleman. Olympic-class marksman. "Crack" in that context in English means "elite of the elite"

Thanks for explaining that.
I already thought it would be something like that. i still don't see how anyone can become a crack shot without using the rifle frequently on the firing range.

Stratification problem?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean with that.
You simply don't get any training for being a squad leader if you only serve 9 (or nowadays 6) months.

You can become an expert rifleman by practicing with a weapon that has no bullets; tape a laser-pointer to the end of the muzzle and snap-in (dry-fire).

We do something like that in exercises when we simulate fights (the system is called AGDUS). However it doesn't teach you calculate wind into your aim, distance etc.

No armored cars to drive? Drive a regular car with simulated vision slits.

Not even non armored cars for you.

No hand grenades? Take turns using a spent flashbang grenade, or even a rock. No bullets for squad exercises? Yell "BANG" (the Corps loves doing that one)

We use exercise hand grenades (or so I'm told as I never used them, no reason to train an office clerk in that stuff) and the laser stuff (though I believe that needs blank cartridges to work properly).

They have sport shoes? Why don't they run in their boots!? Then they'll have some money for bullets.

We have a sport suit (or two I believe) in addition to our normal camo uniforms. The sport suit comes with indoor and outdoor shoes.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

Actually as far as I know it is. I believe about 50% or more of all possible conscripts choose civil service.

That's still only two choices. In my experience people tend to do better when divided into more than two specializations (broadly speaking, of course)

I don't know whether we would get enough people like that. We would definitely need higher wages. We're suffering a lack of pilots and doctors right now.

If you pay, they will come.

The NCOs can't have there eyers everywhere.So there are places and times where no one will see such BS happen.

A good NCO doesn't have to watch his troops all the time. They will do what is right because they are motivated and have respect for the military. Good leadership starts at the bottom, not the top.

On your final day you have to give back all the stuff you were issued (well most of it, you can keep your boots, shoes and t-shirts). If it'S damaged you're in trouble.

Everyone does that. I was referring more to gear that isn't personally assigned to you.

It's an excuse for not letting people out with it here. If people get injured because of faulty equipment then all (leagl) hell will break loose.

Silent enim leges inter arma. The military should know this above all.

I already thought it would be something like that. i still don't see how anyone can become a crack shot without using the rifle frequently on the firing range. ''
We do something like that in exercises when we simulate fights (the system is called AGDUS). However it doesn't teach you calculate wind into your aim, distance etc.

Most combat takes places at ranges under 300m, where windage isn't really a factor. Even if it was, you don't have time to adjust your sights. The trickiest part of combat marksmanship is adopting the proper firing stance, shooting quickly, and keeping the weapon straight. After that it's just a matter of luck and the number of bullets you can put downrange.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean with that.
You simply don't get any training for being a squad leader if you only serve 9 (or nowadays 6) months.

I mean the system is too rigid. There is no reason why a person cannot be become a squad leader and an elite soldier-recruit in that timeframe. It just takes dedicated training and good leadership.

We use exercise hand grenades (or so I'm told as I never used them, no reason to train an office clerk in that stuff) and the laser stuff (though I believe that needs blank cartridges to work properly).

Having live ammo or sim ammo isn't the most important thing, though it sure helps. The most essential part of field excercises is to teach the important part of fire and maneuver. A good squad leader's squad will not be seen until it is too late, and just as the enemy identifies the target...they get hit in the rear

Making that happen on a consistent basis isn't easy, but it can be done, even without the proper gear. Technically you don't even need weapons; it's just a tactical game of hide-and-seek; teamwork; communications; fire and maneuver; flank and envelop; retreat and ambush, etc...etc...

To me, the BW's problem sounds like one of motivation brought on by an improper system, not by a budget failure.

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

That's still only two choices. In my experience people tend to do better when divided into more than two specializations (broadly speaking, of course)

It's actually more. You can do differnt things as civil service from working in old peoples homes to working in youth hostels to joining a volunteer fire brigade. There are lots of different options to choose from.

If you pay, they will come.

I heard Australia can't even crew one submarine....is their pay so lousy?

A good NCO doesn't have to watch his troops all the time. They will do what is right because they are motivated and have respect for the military.

That could be from a draft flyer. Does the reality look like that in the US armed forces?

Everyone does that. I was referring more to gear that isn't personally assigned to you.

Depends on the individual. Some treat it carefully other's don't give a...you know what.

Silent enim leges inter arma. The military should know this above all.

Hey, I'm the smart ass here!!!!
The military is NOT above the law here (and neither in the States).
They have to respect safety rules just as any other company has to as long as they aren't in a war.

I mean the system is too rigid. There is no reason why a person cannot be become a squad leader and an elite soldier-recruit in that timeframe. It just takes dedicated training and good leadership.

Simple, if you single out one individual from the group to become their squad leader, he will be hated by the rest of the group (who have just as much service time and experience as that guy).
However I forgot that one can become an assistant trainer and help training recruits. Though I believe that was only for soldiers who had decided to serve longer than just nine months.

Having live ammo or sim ammo isn't the most important thing, though it sure helps. The most essential part of field excercises is to teach the important part of fire and maneuver. A good squad leader's squad will not be seen until it is too late, and just as the enemy identifies the target...they get hit in the rear

True.

To me, the BW's problem sounds like one of motivation brought on by an improper system, not by a budget failure.

It's a bit of both. I won't deny that motivation is a factor.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

It's actually more. You can do differnt things as civil service from working in old peoples homes to working in youth hostels to joining a volunteer fire brigade. There are lots of different options to choose from.

That's why I said "broadly" but as long as the system works that's all that matters.

I heard Australia can't even crew one submarine....is their pay so lousy?

I had to look it up and I found this: http://forums.military.com/eve/forum.../4270044522001

The article points out a number of issues besides pay, which appears to be good, esp for the cooks. Not sure why they have so much trouble exactly, but if a PMC can do it, the RAN should be able to as well.

That could be from a draft flyer. Does the reality look like that in the US armed forces?

Sometimes. We have good and bad NCOs and officers. The good ones lead by example and lead from the front, and their men follow them and take initiative on their behalf because they don't want to disappoint a good leader.

Poor leaders are constantly being stabbed in the back by their troops. The men will slack off or find some kind of mischief to cause just to get back at a bad leader.

Then we have lazy leaders, who lead by example, but use a poor example, and the men follow it.

The military is NOT above the law here (and neither in the States).
They have to respect safety rules just as any other company has to as long as they aren't in a war.

All I said was "laws are silent in times of war". The military is, of course, somewhat liable for training accidents, but since you sign what is in part a consent form when you enlist, lawsuits over faulty equipment are limited. Our main problem here is field-grade officers coming up with ridiculous safety precautions to safe-guard their own careers, or in some cases, out of an exaggerated sense of concern for the men. I can't really blame them for the latter, I suppose, I did the same thing.

Simple, if you single out one individual from the group to become their squad leader, he will be hated by the rest of the group (who have just as much service time and experience as that guy). However I forgot that one can become an assistant trainer and help training recruits. Though I believe that was only for soldiers who had decided to serve longer than just nine months.

Well yeah, if he's not the right guy. I remember during recruit training that we went through about 5 "guides" (platoon leaders) who were universally despised before settling on my friend, recruit Gafford (now an officer). The guy had it all, best in PT, good on the range, motivated and motivating. We all looked up to him and followed his example as best we could. As a result (along with some other factors) we were Kilo company's top platoon for most of the training cycle.

Finding a leader, even in a conscript platoon, is easy enough. There will always be one or two guys the rest like and look up to anyways. Get those guys in shape, give 'em some training and you've got yourself a good prospective NCO. He may well decide to stay if treated like that. My suspicion, based on what you mentioned above, is that the BW is doing it backwards. Selecting leadership, good or bad, simply because someone is a career soldier is going to generate resentment no matter how you slice it, and that's even if there's no inter-service rivalry between conscripts and regulars.

It's a bit of both. I won't deny that motivation is a factor.

And I won't deny that funding is a factor. All I'm saying is that the first recourse should not be to throw money at the problem.