Sense and nonsense of the German draft

[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.

[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?

[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.

[krashkart]

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

What could a journalist possibly find wrong with what our troopers do? It's not like there's anything wrong with...

Throwing expired camel spiders at each other.




Trying to mimic camel spiders.




Playing the X-Games.





Ahhh. The sweet sight of our tax dollars hard at work. (At least somebody got it right)



And remember, it's only fun until somebody gets hurt.

[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.

UnderseaLcpl,

I agree with you a professional crew of a military would have many benefits including: higher motivation then enlisted, improved legal situation (not having to force people into difficult tasks because obviously volunteer troops will volunteer for anything, right? Right?!), an overall improved unit cohesion, professionality and effectiveness due to higher motivation/morale/etc., the ability to gel together well with high tech gizmo-type weaponsystems that enlisted men cannot fathom, less fatties, etc.

So a lot of things in favour of an all pro military. However, at least here where still around ~70 % of men still goes to the military service (the figures are falling though due to the x-boxification of the western youth) the military says there are other benefits that outweigh the pros of an all pro military.

The military says that the military service is supposed to 'weld' the people together, it creates a kind of national ethos among the men, it's 'the last chance' for the society to meddle with the men of certain age group and give them vaccinations etc. (as if this couldn't be done any other way) and that it's supposedly cheaper. Now how exactly the price is calculated by the military is a bit unclear to me because for some reason they don't calculate the costs from time lost from the young men's lives in studying and/or work. There is also the equlity between sexes issue with women being able to choose freely whether or not to go to the military service or not.

So overall, I would be in favour of an all pro military for us but with incentives for, say, young men to complete a short military service so they could be used as military reserve if needed.

[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.