[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

It's not a silly idea. It happens to be true. The only times that professional soldiers get defeated on the field is when they are swamped by overwhelmingly superior numbers (hence Stalin's famous remark about quantity having a quality all its own), or when generals make really stupid mistakes.

If that was true, you would still live under the British flag and sing "god save the queen" (something I would dislike greatly) or the French would have been defeated at Austerlitz. I would agree, however, about what you said on generals but this is only one component. On the other hand, I have not writen that conscript armies are superior to professional ones, I stated that conscript armies organized around a core of highly professional soldiers are largely superior. One of the main reason being effectively the fact that you can, then, send more troops to the field. Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan would not have been possible without US national guards.

Something else, I suspect that this silly idea is not shared through most politician circles. To date, conscription have only been suspended and not suppressed in most countries.

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

Due to bad strategy & bad tactics by the Allies. And the Germans were an entirely volunteer, professional army, the best in the world at that time, which doubly refutes your assertion.

What was essential was the lack of centralized command on the Franco-British side (therefore strategy). When it comes to the tactical level they were often defeated as in Narvik, Amien (by the British), or Abbeville (4th DCR). The Wermacht for its part was in no way a volunteer army. It was a conscript one organized around a very strong professional element which was composed of corporals, sergeants and highly skilled officers trained during the inter-war period and on the battlefields in Spain and Poland. When it comes to tanks, their equipments were largely inferior and remained inferior all war long. Infantry units (in Belgium) often had one rifle for two soldiers. The Luftwaffe sustained so many losses during the battle of France that they had to postpone the invasion of UK (and later cancel it). They started to loose when the core of experienced soldiers began to disappear (on the eastern front but also in northern Africa) while the number of experienced soldiers grew among their ennemies.

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

The Arab armies at that time were not professionals, they were mostly conscript. They lost mostly due to bad leadership and bad planning. The Israelis had better, more experienced officers. The Arab armies were defeated in detail. Had the attacks been better coordinated and pressed more aggressively, the Israelis would have lost. They came very close to losing.

I have not said they were professionals, I have said they were more professional than the jews and better equipped. When the British withdrew the Jews didn't even have one man with any kind of experience with tanks. They were, however highgly motivated and proved capable of using the various talents at hand to the best results. What the Arabs failed to do.

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

Ever heard of the NKVD (forerunner to the KGB)? The conscript armies were "motivated" by having NKVD artillery battalions behind each division, whose sole purpose was to fire on any troops that considered retreating. When you're told go fight the enemy or you will be shot, you take your chances with the enemy as you know the alternative is a certain death.

The idea that it made them move forward is a legend. This is, nevertheless, true as at Stalingrad (It had not been true at Leningrad or Moscow, however). Then, they only started to win when political officers (among which Krutschov) changed that and chose to motivate the troops instead of shooting them from the back. Moreover, if you read standard russian military procedure for 1941, you quickly realize that their losses during the first months of the war were integrated into their defensive views. At all times, Russia's defense has been based on a core of highly trained troops which had never grown over 400,000. The remnants relies on a mass of much lightly trained conscripts. Then, Russian military procedure states that the lightly trained troops have to be sent first in order to slow down the attacker as much as possible. It's only when the invading army is exhausted that the most experience troops are engaged. The only exception had been that of the Soviet forces in East Germany.

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

They aren't all "heroes". They have no choice. Heroes choose to fight. Sane people, whether professional or conscript, follow the instinct to preserve their skins.

In the mind of people who are remaining behind the lines. I have rarely heard a former soldier describing himself to be a hero. However, their entire families, the society, the politician see or depict them as such. Most of the time, professional soldiers are considered to be doing their job or worse they are considered mercenaries.

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

Tactically, the professional Germans repeatedly cut through the considerably larger conscript armies of Stalin. It was bad leadership (by Hitler) that lost the Germans the war. The Coalition forces cut through larger opposing Iraqi forces in the Gulf War with even more ease. Given a choice, conscripts surrender rather than fight. Happened in 1941, and 50 years later in 1991. Both the Russians and Iraqis had a "strong core of professionals reinforced by a mass of conscript". And they lost. Such armies only win when the other side is incompetent.

The russian won and had no core of professionals to begin with (They had been killed during the purges, 3 years before). Moreover, the development of tanks and tank tactics had ceased. Then, by october 1941, Stalin was smart enough to give back the initiative to its officers. The Iraqi lost obviously. I said that conscript should be properly motivated. Normal people don't fight for a regime or a political party. In 1991, the Iraqi had no reason to fight. Especially, as they had been defeated only 2 years earlier by a conscripted iranian army (at that time the Iraqi had received the most advanced equipements). Add to this, that Saddam was the worse military leader ever.
About the Soviet, in 1918, the situation had been even worse and they were able to build one of the most skilled army from scratch (Thanks to Trotsky and to a fair number of Officers who had served under the Tsar). By 1921, they had the most experienced and well trained cavalry in the world. Between 1919 and 1921 these men had defeated all of their oponents. Still they were defeated by a ragtag Polish army supported by the French. A defeat that put an end to the Bolchevik idea of exporting their revolution.