MilitaryForums.co.uk

Statistics can prove almost any thing you want them to rather like opion polls. You load the questions so that a person can only answer a certain way. You can also affect the out come on the the areas and type of people you choose to ask the questions. Now when they that 95% stated that they would not shoot enemy, well just how many of that 95% had been in a battle, or had they just asked the armed forces in general?.
Now if they include the RAF in that then 95% spend all there time getting the other 5% in the air to do the fighting. In the Royal Navy very few ever get to take a shot at the enemy, the greater part or shore based and of those on the ships most of those are employed to keep the ships going.
Even in the Army about half of it never see's action. Now just where did they find these people who had been shot, shelled, motared seen there mates killed and they were just to nice to shoot back even to save their lives, do they think we are mad are is ever one else touched. It may make a good programme for the bulk of the population who have never seen a shot fired in anger, but for any one who has seen combat to take this seriously would suprise me.

indeed redeye, leaving asid where they got the statistics from a guy I once talked to said to me that "the best tactic when leading conscripts is to run away before they do"...generally people will fight better if they're professionals who see soldiering more as a job than some matter of national pride (though that does creep in I suppose, but take my example-a mick who has no qualms about fighting for the "great oppressors of my nation" because I view soldiering as a job). Its easy to go flag waving but when the s**t hits the fan you might be more likely to say "ah f**k the queen, you won't see her out here until the mass burials...".

Conscripts throughout history have generally fared off worse when compared to professional soldiers-even during WW1+2 if you were to take for instance the volunteers from neutral nations such as the USA during most of WW1, or Ireland during WW2 then you'd find that they would fight better than conscripted lads. I think we can all agree that for one reason or another small professional armies tend to fare better than even the largest conscript armies and chances are part of this is the willingness to kill.

As for those we would generally class as "sick minded" in civilian life, well perhaps they're just the sort you need in the military-the idea of armies, wars and having a shiney SA-80 in your hands is to commit what is viewed in civilian life as the greatest of henious acts, and not only do you get to shoot shell and bomb the feckers but at times you get to do it with your bare hands-surely thats not something you wanna train half your population over 18 to do.

Krupp

Well most of the wars that Britain fought during the 20 Century were fought by conscripts, and I was one of them. Apart from WW1 and 2
there was Malaya, Korea, Kenya, Cyprus, Suez 51/54 again in 56.Cyprus. Palenstine, Israel, Greece, French Indo China, India, they stood and fought and did their duty and you try and prove that they didn't. Also most of the British forces during WW2 where drafted, and not volunteers.

I don't think it's conscripts themsleves, it's more to do with if you want to fight or not, sound's obvious but the right answers usually are. Conscripts usually get the stick for being worse because they have a larger percentage of people who aren't willing to be there. People forget that there's a middle ground in the world, some don't want to, some do, but then there's the rest who don't want to but they will if they have to.

Aldo

I think it as simple of you shooting them before than can shoot you, if you don't then you don't go home.

I was just talking about the general quality and perseption of conscripts, probably should have mentioned that . But yeah I agree about shooting someone who's shooting at you. It's just natural instinct to react, it's the same principal (in my opinion) as putting your hand infront of your face when you fall, it's all just survival instinct. Though I'm in no real place to talk sice I've not been shot at before.

Wouldn't the natural reaction to someone firing at you be to try and find cover?

WO is correct,you go down,crawl to cover, observe to see where the b'stard is who did the shooting, then you go for the kill, and you don't hesitate to do so, given the chance, 'cos he wont.


Aye Owdun

Good point WO. I guess that's when the training kicks in. I still can't agree with the sociopaths (sp?) %, I mean that would make half of the VC winners mental and I can't believe that.

Instead of chewing the dirt, the best thing is to get in amongst them.

The thing I don't get with the sociopath thing* is that if someone isn't bothered by killing why do they bother to do it? You wouldn't have anything that could stop you, morally, but that would also mean that you'd have nothing that could "inspire" you to do it either. Surely if you have no "respect" for human life then that would have to include your own? I think there are some evil sods about who do it cos it gives them a thrill, equally there are others who will kill because it is the right thing to do in that place, at that time, and under the those circumstances.




*scientific term.

it doesen't matter to the state if they do it for the thrill or some great ideaolism, just so long as they do it.


And I'm not saying all conscripts are useless sods, I'm saying they're generally of poorer quality than your average professiona soldier and while Britains history with national servicemen has generally been good there have been spectacular cases throughout history of large forces of conscripts being oblitorated by smaller forces of professional soldiers.