Slavery? Draft?

[roo_ster]

Oy.  Let's try again.

Now, without wishing how things ought to be, will you admit that no major war this country has fought has been fought without conscription?  And therefore, this precedent strongly suggests that your thesis is, in fact, incorrect?

We seem tohave been able to do Greneada, Panama, Kosovo, GWI & II (against the "fifth largest army in the world" JUST FINE without conscription.

richyoung, you do your cause no service with responses like the above.

Just what do you expect the USA to do if China & the Norks go hog-wild in the orient?  Will we let Japan, S Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Thailand, Siberia, Guam, & others be, uh, Shanghaied into a new "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere?"  Or do you think we will gin up the draft again, knowing that wars in Asia place a premium on large numbers of infantry?

[roo_ster]

 They were also poorly equipped, ill-led, and badly trained.

Congratulations - you just described most every draftee army....I see the draft didn't save Sadaam's sorry carcass.

Well, most countries on the planet are "poorly equipped, ill-led," etc.

There are quite a few counters to your point:
German armies of Franco-Prussian war, Austro-Prussian War, WWI, WWII
Janissaries (truly slave-soldiers)
Mamluk (true slave-soldiers, again)
US army of Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam
Confederate army of Civil War
Brit army of WWI, WWII
Brit Navy at most times
French army in the Napoleanic era
Japanese army of Russo-Japan war & WWII
Allied armies that finally beat Napolean
I could go on...

The quality of armies is due less to the method by which they are constituted and more to the culture of the society from which they spring.

[MicroBalrog]

will you admit that no major war this country has fought has been fought without conscription?

Rabbi, has you missed my spout-off about the Civil War?

[MicroBalrog]

P.S. Where Washington's men draftees or voluntary enlisted men? I can't find any reference to that in Wikipedia, and Morrison's History of the American People seems to imply they were volunteers, but I'm  uncertain. Anybody who knows better?

[The Rabbi]

will you admit that no major war this country has fought has been fought without conscription?

Rabbi, has you missed my spout-off about the Civil War?

I actually troubled myself to read back through 4 pages of posts to find it.  I did so knowing that it was probably useless.  I was right, sort of.
You admit that even according to your own sources both sides used drafts during the Civil War.  Whether they were significant or not significant (they were significant enough to cause riots among the Irish in NY) is irrelevant.  It actually supports my claim rather than refuting it.
And to have to go back over 140 years to a one-time event for support in any case is bad argumentation.

[richyoung]

 They were also poorly equipped, ill-led, and badly trained.

Congratulations - you just described most every draftee army....I see the draft didn't save Sadaam's sorry carcass.

Well, most countries on the planet are "poorly equipped, ill-led," etc.

There are quite a few counters to your point:
German armies of Franco-Prussian war, Austro-Prussian War, WWI, WWII

The German army of WWI was most certainly poorly led for signifigant portions of that conflict - the only thing masking that is the equally poor leadership of the conscripts fighting on the other side.  Even the mighty WWII version was critically short of such basic items as handguns, tanks, trucks, etc for all of hte war.

Janissaries (truly slave-soldiers)

I'll concede that one, but submit that it is a special case

Mamluk (true slave-soldiers, again)

Don't know about them...

US army of Civil War,

...few to no rifled muskets, and until Grant, poorly led...

WWI,

short of EVERYTHING, but especially handguns, rifles, shotguns, artillery, planes

WWII,

started the war with P-36s and Brewster Buffaloes, B-18 Bolos, short of M-1 Garands, never did field a quality tank until the very end of hostilities (Sherman = "Tommy Cooker")

Korea,

Mustangs and Corsairs (later still inadequate P-80s and F-84s) against Mig-15s, had to rebuild WWII Sherman "Easy Eights" to have tanks at all, bombing with B-29s out of mothballs, and how did that whole "Task Force Smith" thing work out?  Altho I grant Walker was leading them brilliantly - his death and "Bug Out Doug" made sure he never got the credit.

Vietnam

plenty of equipment, but surely you don't submit that they were anything BUT ill led:  McNamara ring any bells?

Confederate army of Civil War

chronically under-equipped - short of such basics as rifles, shoes, railway rolling stock.  For the most part brilliantly led: the unfortunate truth is they had to be PERFECTLY led, and they weren't.

Brit army of WWI,

Surely you don;t mean to count the trench meatgrinder of Europe AND Gallipolli as anything other than "ill led"?

WWII

...singapore, north Africa until Monty gets there, the BEF and the debacle at Dunkirk,...

Brit Navy at most times

...Task Force Z, sending battlecruisers to fight battlships against the Bismark AND the Battle of Jutland, losing Glorius off of Norway, & getting their tails kicked almost all the time they went up against the US Navy.

French army in the Napoleanic era

How did that whole Russian campaign work out for them?

Japanese army of Russo-Japan war & WWII

The WWII version proved capable of defeating ONLY the Chinese  - and not even that in the long term.  How did this might army do when General Zhukov was sent to stop their foray into Russia?  Or against Brits and Americans on anyting like even terms?  Seems to me they fell "like cherry blossoms" every where they went...and I blame the entire Japanese attitude for draftees for that - they were called "One and a half Sen" - literallyt the cost of the postage to send them their draft notice.  And they were squandered as if that was all they cost.

[Perd Hapley]

I'm pretty sure the draft was not used by the American side in the Revolution - the states routinely failed to supply money or supplies for the military, so I doubt they could have supplied men.  What does this mean to you, Balrog?  

Some have commented on the poor leadership of drafted armies.  What level of leadership are you talking about?  NCO's, small unit commanders, generals?  How is leadership affected by the draft?

[richyoung]

Some have commented on the poor leadership of drafted armies.  What level of leadership are you talking about?  NCO's, small unit commanders, generals?  How is leadership affected by the draft?

Generals.

When you don't have to actually PAY any more than a token amount for your manpower, and you can get practically unlimited replacements for the cost of a penny (or 1.5 sen) postcard, you tend not to worry about squandering them so much, or properly equipping them, or feeding them, or evacuating them, etc.  This makes WWI trench warfare, Gallipolli, Normandy invasion, abandoning the Phillipines, "hold this island/city/river to the last man", etc not only possible, but more likely.  If you have to CONVINCE people to VOLUNTARILY fight (that read the newspapers), and PAY them, things like that tend not to happen, as it tends to hurt recruiting.  Its a simple maxim - you value what you have to sacrifice for, and not so much what you don't.  Which teen wrecks their car first - the one that saved up his money from his part-time job to buy it, or the one that is just given it?  That's kind of how generals are with troops.

[The Rabbi]

Which teen wrecks their car first - the one that saved up his money from his part-time job to buy it, or the one that is just given it?  That's kind of how generals are with troops.

What an incredibly specious comparison.

The teen who has saved his money has *already* proven his responsibility.  Nor is it certain that the kid who was given the car is actually irresponsible.  And generals are accountable ultimately to public opinion.  Or have you forgotten about Vietnam?

[roo_ster]

richyoung:

Given your criteria, no army that has every tread land has been well-equipped and well-led; be they conscript, voluntary, slave, or a product of spontaneous generation.  According to you, since Napolean got shellacced in Russia, he was a poor leader?  It seems that "good" in richyoungese can be translated into the English as "unblemished perfection."

These things are pretty relative to time and place.  What a soldier & officer would consider an embarassment of materiel and epitome of brilliance in one t&p is considered the height of suck & stupidity in another.  I see you applying a 2006 standard to armies of the past, which is not what I would consider objective or even rational.

Also, I question the whole premise: that conscript armies are ill-equipped & poorly led in ways volunteer armies are not.  

The leadership of most conscript armies is not conscripted and neither are those who produce & plan for war materiel.  It just has no bearing or validity.  

The attitudes of the leadership toward the private soldier are more a function of their society, military culture, and tradition than the means by which the private soldier got in the ranks.  For instance, we now have a volunteer military, yet the leadership is prone to treating the volunteers as the conscripts were treated in the past.  Throw a bunch of personnel at a problem rahter than invest in capital or find a more effective use of the men under their command.  Instead of well-trained killers we end up with driven janitors and landscape maintainers.  BTDT.  


A couple of points:
I surmise you have no objection to describing the German armies of the Franco & Austro-Prussian wars as well equipped & well led?  Let the whole world rejoice that one combination of leadership & supply meets richyoung's exacting standards!

The Union supplied its troops pretty well, especially relative to the rebels.  If I recall, Stonewall Jackson was killed by his own troops.  This was known because the projectile dug from his flesh was a smoothbore musket ball & SBMs were in use only by one Confederate unit in the area and by no Unioin troops (the Minie ball+rifled percussion musket being the military state of the art at the time).  To put it anohter way, the Union was good-to-go with rifles & other materiel...especially relative to Johnny Reb.

I learned something about the Brit army of WWI: it was a totally volunteer force from before the war up until January, 1916, when conscription was introduced.  So, all that trench warfare before the first conscripts were integrated sometime later in 1916 was the result of a volunteer army with, presumably, good leadership and overstuffed supply depots.  Of course, it was all downhill after the first conscripts joined the ranks.  :/  The Battle of Gallipoli, which occurred from April 1915 to January 1916, was fought with the volunteer Brit army.

In WWII, all armies save the US Army were primarily horse-drawn affairs.  Probably the most valuable support we gave to the Soviets was their entire fleet of transport trucks.  These trucks allowed them to not only get supplies to their boys, but allowed them to bring in the harvest so thier soldiers could be fed.

American & Brit WWII planners had to make a decision: go with the Sherman, which could be produced RIGHT NOW and in large numbers, or go with the superior follow-on?  So, maybe ill-equipped is correct in that the Sherman wasn't the best that could be produced.  But, there were enough to go 'round: we armed ourselves, the Brits, the Free French, and Free Poles with sufficient Shermans to get the job done.  (Say, hypothetically, you have a police force.  You can hold out in the hope of tacticool HK semi-autos and ninja outfits, or you can equip your boys RIGHT NOW with S&W M10 revos and old-school police uniforms...funny brimmed hat & all.  Which is the right answer?)

The Russo-Jap War was considered a military victory for Japan (though the negot afterwards were less favorable).  It is remarkable as one of the few times in modernity that a non-western power handed a western power its *expletive deleted*ss.  SPecifically, see how the Japanese tore up hte russian navy.

[richyoung]

A couple of points:
I surmise you have no objection to describing the German armies of the Franco & Austro-Prussian wars as well equipped & well led?  Let the whole world rejoice that one combination of leadership & supply meets richyoung's exacting standards!

They kicked booty.  Of course, twas FRENCH booty, so the quality of the opposition may have had soimehting to do with it...

The Union supplied its troops pretty well, especially relative to the rebels.  If I recall, Stonewall Jackson was killed by his own troops.  This was known because the projectile dug from his flesh was a smoothbore musket ball & SBMs were in use only by one Confederate unit in the area and by no Unioin troops (the Minie ball+rifled percussion musket being the military state of the art at the time).  To put it anohter way, the Union was good-to-go with rifles & other materiel...especially relative to Johnny Reb.

I take you aren't familiar with recent archelogical research that shows many Union units were equipped only with smoothbores loaded with "buck and ball" even quite late in the conflict?

I learned something about the Brit army of WWI: it was a totally volunteer force from before the war up until January, 1916, when conscription was introduced.  So, all that trench warfare before the first conscripts were integrated sometime later in 1916 was the result of a volunteer army with, presumably, good leadership and overstuffed supply depots.  Of course, it was all downhill after the first conscripts joined the ranks.  :/  The Battle of Gallipoli, which occurred from April 1915 to January 1916, was fought with the volunteer Brit army.

Would these battles have been fought in the same way, or at all, without the knowledge that the losses can be "drafted" up?

The Russo-Jap War was considered a military victory for Japan (though the negot afterwards were less favorable).  It is remarkable as one of the few times in modernity that a non-western power handed a western power its *expletive deleted*ss.  SPecifically, see how the Japanese tore up hte russian navy.

Yeah, there's something about steaming around the world to fight, under an incompetent commander, AND painting yor stacks "shoot me in low-viz gold" that will get you killed.  But how did things turn out when Jpan tried to rumble with Stalin's army?  WHo's "*expletive deleted*ss" got handed to whom then?