>Easy Company was stood up as a new Ranger battalion, a new type of unit, >so they had to train for a while to get into the proper shape and learn >the new tactics that they will need to use to fight. Today's Rangers are >in training for up to a year before they get to wear the tab. I doubt a >lot of draftees are going to want to be a Ranger, although some will and >that is fine. And you are comparing apples to oranges. >What I was referring to was soldiers that need to be trained for >armored, infantry or cavalry operations. This training is far less >demanding than Ranger training and a lot shorter.
Agreed, but its not an overnight thing. From what I remember of my own military training, it was 6 weeks basic, then another 6 weeks for the RCIC course (Royal Canadian Infantry Corps) - basic and advanced infantry courses) then other cross training but command and OTC. All in all at least 12-16 weeks to train an rifleman in a Canadian infantry unit plus whatever else is required - armour, uptraining on the LAV-III etc. Anyhow while the training could be done in a shorter time period, I suspect that the performance of those going through the shortened course would be worse. I'd much rather have soldiers that have gone through the full 12-16 weeks rather than work with a group of speed bumps. > >And forcing people to serve is not a reflection of whether or not this >country is worth defending, it is a matter of ensuring that we have >enough people in place to defend her. And you can compare volunteers to >draftees. Many men and women who were drafted performed brilliantly in >combat, all the way back to WWII. There are plenty of people around who >will perform whatever task if offered them to the best of their ability, >even being forced into the military. You're arguing individual cases/exceptions rather than the group or average performance. There was a very good study called The American Soldier - a four volume detailed study of the US soldier in the 2nd World War, (see http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3719/is_199907/ai_n8850053). I'll have to dig up the specific reference but on the average, draftees did not perform nearly as well as volunteers. Other examples would be from non-American military establishments, ie the Canadian military in ww2 (draftees performed much worse than the volunteers) or in Vietnam (again the average draftee showed a much lower performance than those who volunteered). If you need mass armies, ie cannon fodder, then have mass conscription, give them 3 weeks training. Tell them to fix bayonets and march to glory, if they don't run away first. That's about all you'll get from them. Myself I'd rather work with well trained and committed volunteers who know what they're getting into and still go through with it. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;192386516;25150098;k Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:258178 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
