Compulsory Army Service.

Yup I'll defend it till I die.

I was searching the web to see if there was any goodies from the high north where I did my time in the 90ies.

I ended up seeing the memorial film from C Coy 2bn, a relative of mine was there.

I immediatly messaged him that the army was going soft.

YouTube - Minnefilm - Tr. 2 - KpC - 2.Bn - Kontigent 07-08

here is a link to what the conscripts are up to these days.
BTW 2bn is a prime recruitment well to our regulars...

 

What are the benefits of compulsory army service?

 

Looks like fun, espcially where they take a dive in the cold water with full field pack !

remind me not to join the Army !

 

Hmmm.
That all men (most) of the nation have military training?

Having all men go through the compulsary service mean that people who didn't think that they would go for a career may find it suitable to them. Meaning that the professionals get to pick from more men. Ie not just the combat junkies and mercs.

To me it is something fundamentally right in that every man should do service for his country.

 

kind of expensive and time consuming for the general population (who mostly do not want to bear arms) though, with the absence of the threat of the next great war isn't it? I understand why it may be necessary for smaller nations, but the Russia has 200 M people, US has 300 M people, China 1.3 B, Indian 1 B..

 

Depends on the country, the British army is one of (I'd say 'the' but I'm biased) the best trained armies in the world, the quality of our soldiers is unsurpassed. If you start chucking in a load of conscripted kids etc it will take away resources from the training of volunteers and generally make the army worse. It just wouldn't work for us.

 

Stefan

But you have to fill the ranks with lads straight out of Barlinnie when the going gets tough.

As for where the funding goes.
Fighting overseas with the professionals cost tons.

And I'm sure that if you ever come across the lads from TMBN you'll find them second to none...

 

I've read that the material heavy Iraq war is costing more than the war in Vietnam, even though far fewer men are being committed.

 

Maybe so Jaeger, I meant no disrespect, but look at the number of trooops you have compared to ours etc. The Norwegian army is (apparently) 16,000 men strong at peacetime strength and can rise to 51,000 if fully mobilised, apologies if these stats aren't correct, Wikipedia was the best I could do at short notice. I also noticed that Telemark Bttn are the only unit not made up mainly of conscripts, so of course they are professional soldiers. The British army has about 100,000 regulars, 3,000 Gurkhas and 34,000 reservists (not including the Marines). That is about 103,000 professional soldiers and 34,000 who are pretty damn close. To put it another way, we have 37 regular infantry battallions, all of which get deployed, as I understand it (and forgive me if I am wrong) even with a conscript army Norway has one.

I think the practical upshot of all this is that without conscription we have a big enough professional army, bigger than most in Europe and certainly able to deal with any reasonable expectations the government may have (note the use of the word reasonable and the fact the army has been overstretched since going into Iraq).

I meant no disrespect to the Norwegian army, I've heard good things from friends of mine who have worked with your folks etc, however I still argue that the British army is one of the best trained in the world and introducing conscription would change that for the worse. It takes 12 weeks to complete basic training, thats before you start trade training, over all it can take up to a year to become a fully trained soldier. If you conscript soldiers for a year you ultimately wind up with a large number of fully trained men who leave the army just before you can deploy them.

I agree entirely that a sense of serving the nation is important, however military service is not a particularly British thing, conscription doesn't fit in with our way of thinking and doing things unless it is in a national emergency.

As you say, using a professional army overseas costs a lot, but what is the alternative? Sending a few semi-professionals out? Maybe, but look at the last couple of decades, Britain has been one of the top two contributors to most NATO led operations, then there was Iraq, really if we are going to keep sending out large numbers of troops to mix it in foreign lands we need to have a large professional army with a decent reserve to support them. Adding a couple of thousand untrained kids into the mix just isn't worth it.

In short then, we don't currently have the money for it, soldiers wouldn't be as well trained as they are now, we have a big enough professional army to do it's job as long as we don't ask too much of it and even without conscripts we have more troops than most other nations, oh, and the idea of conscription doesn't fit in with our way of doing things.

 

The compulsary army training offers a bigger pool for the regulars to choose from.

As for the current we are around the 120,000 mark counting the territorials.

In 1996 we were around 330,000. The government is effectivly trying to put an end to our armed forces. That is what I am ranting about in my first post in the tread.

As for overseas service we have had 54,000 semiskilled troops serving in the Gaza/Lebanon area alone.

And yes we have different needs as countries. You live on an island nation and the Army is not the what the defence of britain pivots on.

We have to have an army that is capable of defneding our soil. And now we don't. The politicians think that beeing a NATO member is all we need. NATO will recue us. Who will NATO send? The US and British forces are otherwise engaged, and to be frank our theatre is not your cup of tea. The Germans or French are the nations that can provide capabilities that we need, but they are short of forces too.

In short we are back to April 9th 1940.

So sorry for stamping on your toes laddie, I should be shouting at the parliament.

 

No worries Jaeger, it's horses for courses, we don't need a large group of conscripts we can mobilise in a hurry, we need a small professional army we can use to pursue policy (how very 19th Century). As for being an island, keep in mind that to get to us most enemies would have to come through all of you lot too

As for our cup of tea, I don't know, we used to have loads of soldiers trained to fight in Norway, then the cold war ended and we realised that it wasn't great preparation for the desert.

 

You still have soldiers training up here. I dunno if there are any tommies coming for Cold response 09, but I have trained with them before.

 

I'd like to add my point of view here gentlemen. For years I was a die hard "bring back the draft" type, since I had already spent 3 years with the regular army. I came home from my hitch with my "high and tight" haircut under my maroon beret, spit-shined jump boots, silver parachute wings, and was appalled to see my friends and contemporaries with their long hair, smoking dope, popping pills and riding around in air-conditioned cars blasting disco music. Yes, the draft would fix all this I thought.

My service era was classified as the "Post Vietnam Era" as far as veteran's benefits were concerned. That "Vietnam" part of the name sort of summed it up for us here in the states. There was so much opposition the the draft and the Vietnam War that no political party dared to seriously consider it. So we had no option but to go to the all volunteer military in 1975 when the draft was ended. After a lot of ups and downs, the all volunteer force seems to be working. I have friends in the services up to the rank of full colonel who sternly opposes a return to the draft at this time. We have debated this point over many pints and cigars. I have since changed my position to something along the lines of a national service. Everyone has to report for service starting at 18 years of age, and no later than 23 or 24. A hitch in the army or marines could be for 2 or 3 years, and some sort of alternate service, such as the old CCC or the Peace Corps (for domestic service too) for up to 4 years. I know, short hitches dilutes the strength of units with longer serving members, but hopefully, more than a few would stay for longer. It would give us a large pool of trained manpower to draw on if needed. I know something like this wouldn't fly, but if implemented properly, it just might work in place of an all-out draft. And no deferrments for the rich and powerful (yeah, right). Who knows.

 

Australia has on paper 21 divisions that is 1 division for every 1 million but can barely fill a division and i'll explain why.

In Australia when i went to join up the Army take the best of the recruits at around 3% of all applicants that is a very low number, but what is an astonishing oversight of the Australian Military System, once you are rejected for whatever reason you're exempt for any further call up so that means that during war time those who are rejected in the past like me are exempt from service even in time of war.

Thousands and thousands of potential recruits are therefor going to waste.

v.R

 

A-58: I would have to agree with you about the National Service. Something like Germany has today. I know a few people over in Germany who enjoyed their Naitonal Service time, and they say it helped them Mature and become better people. What Unit were you with while you were wearing the bloody Beret? I am with the 82nd right now. 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment.

 

Check your pm's. Answer to follow.

 

If it is taken seriously by the nation and leadership it is an excellent "rite of passage" for boys to become men. It makes you grow up. Sadly, Western society is becoming more and more feminized and such rituals for men in many forms have either been shunned or outright made illegal. The West is raising more and more effeminite men as a result. The other outcome is far more gang and criminal activity as boys take up this culture in the vacuum of a positive male one.

 

I can agree with this.

I'm not sure how increasing criminal and gang activity is a product of a more effeminate culture.

 

TA supposes that the gang culture replaces manly behavior in our less-than-manly-more pc-society that we are forced to endure these days. I never thought of it that way, but due to a lack of another viable viewpoint backed up by reliable socio-demographic studies, I have to agree with his position. We do have a lot of pansies these days amongst us....

I don't know if our friends in Europe have this problem too. How about it across the pond? What's it like over there?

 

It's ok, rains from time to time