Mass armies with vast numbers of vbbadly trained men, mostly poor shots and hugely vulnerable targets is really an obsolete concept in modern warfare. The Germans spearheaded this concept in the last war, the idea of super trained, super motivated and super equipped men able to hold back vastly more numerous, but less efficient opponents. The germans failed in the finish, but not because the concept was faulty. they failed for other reasons.
In fact the Prussian-German (French, Isreali etc.) army pioneered the concept of a reservist mass army (developed by Prussian Scharnhorst) of compulsory service demonstrated that conscription and professionalism does not rule each other out. The vast majority of the German army was always drafted, save a few services like U-boot. They were
not super trained, super equipped, but sufficiently armed, still highly motivated and well lead both on tactical (NCO) and strategic (staff officier) level. Lessons learned on the battlefields were learned and employed. The composition was balanced - there was no weak spots to exploit for the enemy.
Contrary to this concept, the Red Army demonstrated that vastly more numerous, but less efficient opponents can defeat a qualitatively superior army by maximum exploiting of superior numbers and the strategic opportunities presented thereof - exploiting them the same way revolutionary France and Napoleon did.
Both concepts of quality and quantity are therefore valid and were always were. But what was demonstrated since the French revolution over and over again is that a smaller, standing professional army cannot withstand the numbers of the
levee en masse.
When you want to fight big wars, there is no alternative for a conscript army for maximum military effiency. When you want to fight small/unpopular wars, a professional army will ensure sufficient military hitting power with bearable political costs.
That's fine...I was just thinking that, in the context of this discussion, the US should take a much greater interest in how the armed forces of allied nations are organized. If the US wants the rest of the world to shoulder more of the burden of international peacemaking/keeping, then it's in America's interest that the countries who seek to support that agenda are capable of doing so. The last thing you want is a situation where American lives are threatened because weak allies can't adequately complete their missions. There's no point the US deploying world-beating force if allies on the flanks aren't doing their jobs properly because the soldiers of that allied nation are conscripts and hence less likely to undertake robust patrolling action. We saw hints of that sort of thing during NATO's engagement in the Balkans and it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that similar issues are encountered in Afghanistan today.
In fact none of the allied soldiers deployed on foreign missions are "concripts" - they are voluntary professionals seeking military career opportunities. They do not lack in training, motivation, or hardware, especially compared to their opponents. What is lacking is the political backing and willingness to apply force for fear of political backfire, resulting in uncertainity in military leaders, in command and weird tactics and a surrealistic ROEs (from military POV).
BTW practically all "conscript" armies of today are very much like that of the US - except that in addition to the professional soldiers who form the core, every other male and sometimes, female citizen receives a short military training and and can be called upon on short notice to boost the ranks quickly for a major war. The effectiveness of the force is not as much dependent on employing this system, but on how serious military service is taken for society. Look up the Swiss or Isreali armies for positive examples. I doubt any "professional" army would cherish the tought of meeting them in armed conflict. The Swiss conscripts go through compulsory re-training every six months or so, have their rifle and ammunition at home at ready, and small home bunker along with foodstuff. Isreali "conscripts" used to serve
SIX years, chicks
FOUR years.