Are snipers and recon still valid in infantry battalions?

[Fuchs]

It takes about half a year to train an infantryman fully, including short-range scouting. Make that 9 months in peacetime due to weekends and lower intensity.

The problem with conscript armies is that the army leaders want to use conscripts as active force personnel, they don't consider conscripts to be men who get a training and then leave. As a result, conscript training is cut down to press at least some months of reduced effectiveness active service out of them - and many conscripts are being mis-used as cheap forced labour to be used on the most stupid jobs with minimal training.

The political leadership can force the military leadership to consider conscripts as men to be trained for war, and nothing else. That, after all, is the purpose of conscription in wartime, true to Scharnhorst's idea.

Allow the top brass in uniform to consider conscripts as cheap unfree labour that's available no matter how attractive the service is and you'll end up with a ####ty for of conscription.
Force them to train the conscripts and then release them - you will end up with a huge pool of trained reservists when the #### hits the fan.

[Firn]

The problem with conscript armies is that the army leaders want to use conscripts as active force personnel, they don't consider conscripts to be men who get a training and then leave. As a result, conscript training is cut down to press at least some months of reduced effectiveness active service out of them - and many conscripts are being mis-used as cheap forced labour to be used on the most stupid jobs with minimal training.

The political leadership can force the military leadership to consider conscripts as men to be trained for war, and nothing else. That, after all, is the purpose of conscription in wartime, true to Scharnhorst's idea.

Allow the top brass in uniform to consider conscripts as cheap unfree labour that's available no matter how attractive the service is and you'll end up with a ####ty for of conscription.
Force them to train the conscripts and then release them - you will end up with a huge pool of trained reservists when the #### hits the fan.

I do think you really hit the nail on the head with that post, and have really nothing to add to the intent of it.

[OT:

Having followed the debates in quite some European countries in the last ten years, the most important argument for conscription seems to have been that without it you can not offer civil service as an alternative to it, thus loosing a very important work force for the social sector. So now we finally know the true idea behind conscription, it is a legal move to force young males to work in the social sector for almost nothing.

:end the OT part]

[Fuchs]

There were three more major reasons in Germany:

# A national myth about how conscription ensures that the military is loyal to the democracy (sure, as if Hitler had not re-introduced democracy...).

# The fact that the conservatives fought hard for it in the 50's (it was Germany's first major payment for the Western integration) and treated it as a great party accomplishment.

# The fact that the military is totally inept at recruiting and enlisted soldiers job experience in the military is not really attractive. That, of course, was caused by the fact that military leadership mis-used the almost for free conscripts for decades - and especially so in the last decade of conscription with its very short service period.


There were also some low opinions about foreign professional troops (especially French and British soldiers, who were often characterised as pub brawlers) and their high fiscal cost (especially U.S. troops).
An economist can of course easily point out that conscription has a lot of otherwise avoidable hidden costs (especially the loss of freedom).


Eventually, conscription became so dysfunctional in Germany and conventional warfare defence was lost so much out of sight that conscription went away - without a proper reserve pool generating replacement.

[jps2]

My two cents about conscription and markmanship :

I made my 'National Service' during the end 80's; Main thread was called RED; We were supposed to slow then enough by conventional means to allow NATO strength (US & CAN) avoiding nuke use.
The conscription was, for me, the better way to mix people : farmers and urbans, low and high educated. Social mixing, each with his background to reach a same goal. I'm not naive, even if one tenth of a class was really motivated, these 1/10 could be more than useful as reserve if a major threat happens. Politicians forget that particular conscription's goal, and for electoral and economical (not my point of view) reasons switch to professional army.
We were not, after 12 month, really skilled as today professionals can be, but physical & intellectual requirements wasn't so high as today : 90% were good enough for the job.
Today, with unemployment rates between 8 and 10% (especially for youngs), teaching discipline and community's life will not be a waste of money and time for many young men (an perhaps women).
The loss of freedom is part of living together, "my rights finishes where other's rights began". Nowadays, everyone is focused on his/her rights, none on his duties. Conscription was a way to learn / remember that.

Marksmanship can be learned before enrolling, basics can be acquired with a 22lr between 50 and 200m.
It is a school of self control and mental strength. It does not require some specific physical skills.
Marksmanship is one of the ways to reduce ammunition consumption, improving fire support.