NationStates Jolt Archive

My army is better than Whittier because I pay each soldier 30,000 instead of the meager 10,000 that Whittier gives them.
Plus my army has more M249s.
And my defense budget is so much bigger than his.

My army is better than Whittier because I pay each soldier 30,000 instead of the meager 10,000 that Whittier gives them.
Plus my army has more M249s.
And my defense budget is so much bigger than his.watch us care :roll:

No. My army is actually better because its an all volunteer force. My people aren't forced to serve at gun point unlike yours.
And history has always shown, that volunteer armies always beat the crap out of conscripted armies.

Whittier is also way bigger than the southpacific.

I agree on that, forced conscripts are the worst fighters and most likely to desert.

Not really. The type of recruiting method can affect the type of soldier you get, but not that much. Conscripts can perhaps WANT to fight for their country. It is the type of person you get that determines whether they are good soldiers or not. Remember, most of Russia's troops during the second world war were conscripts and they really kicked ass.

No. My army is actually better because its an all volunteer force. My people aren't forced to serve at gun point unlike yours.
And history has always shown, that volunteer armies always beat the crap out of conscripted armies.

1st of all: give me an example of a volunteer army that has ever beaten a forced army.

2d af all: forced armies are better because all the intelligent people get in, in volunteer armies the amount of intelligent people is lower(this is in no way meant as an insult and i am sorry if it is, i just wanted to make my point).

Am I wrong when I say that the soviets were slaughtered (see stalingrad), but thet the germans just couldn't handle the extreme coldness?

No. My army is actually better because its an all volunteer force. My people aren't forced to serve at gun point unlike yours.
And history has always shown, that volunteer armies always beat the crap out of conscripted armies.

1st of all: give me an example of a volunteer army that has ever beaten a forced army.

2d af all: forced armies are better because all the intelligent people get in, in volunteer armies the amount of intelligent people is lower(this is in no way meant as an insult and i am sorry if it is, i just wanted to make my point).

Answer on 1: 1302 Battle of 'gulden sporen' (sorry, there are just some sords I can't translate), Flanders footmen kicked the french cavalery's ass.
[And if you ask me, the vietcong has also won (my opinion)]

1st of all: give me an example of a volunteer army that has ever beaten a forced army.

Look at Desert Storm or the current Iraqi War. Now let's not get into a big debate about the war, but when we invaded, most of Sadaam's forces surrendered without putting up a fight. Hell, in Desert Storm, they were surrendering to unmanned reconaissance drones.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

OOC:



(And if you ask me, the vietcong has also won (my opinion)

Actually, the VC (and the NVA) sufferred a devastating tactical loss almost every time they met with US forces. However, due to Rules of Engagement that mimiced the average straight jacket, and the general corruption of the RVN government (installed by the French, btw), coupled with highly successful Red infiltration into America at the time and civil unrest at home, forced the US to bring the war to a relative lull in 1973 and withdrew before either side had a clear victory. Almost immediately after US forces were gone, the NVA broke the terms of the peace treaty signed in Paris in '73 between the warring parties an began a general offensive. Some US Marines still in 'Nam as advisors, and American-trained RVN Marines, were able to blow a whole bunch of key bridges needed by the NVA to get South, and the weakened RVN army was able to hold the Reds off for another 2 years until the NVA captured Saigon in '75. Just before the Reds rolled in, US naval forces still in the vicinity began a massive airlift to remove every resident of a Western nation from Saigon, along with as many RVN citizens that wished to leave as possible. Afterwards, RVN residents began building rickety boats en masse in attempts to leave their conquered homeland by sea. Alas, many perished in the overcrowded, dirty and leaky boats, more were captured by NVA patrol boats and very few managed to get out alive and well. Overall, Vietnam was more lost by political incompetence and micromanagement than won by superior tactics/skill.

Germany's army during WW2 were all drafted/conscripted/forced soldiers....

They still managed to make a big rumble, yes?

OOC:

On a note actually pertaining to the original premise, higher numerical pay doesn't necessarily translate into better pay. After all, if one can buy a deli sandwich for $1 and a house for $5K in Whittier, while the same items cost $8 and $40K in the Southpacific, he's actually paying his troops nearly 3 times better than yours, as the cost of living/consumer price index is so much lower in Whittier. Now, this may or may not be the case, but you get the idea.

Also, arming every one of your troops with an M249 as you seem to imply is a terrible idea. They will be weighed down terribly by the high weight of the weapon and its ammunition, be restricted in what body armor they can be issued, be at a terrible disadvantage in urban terrain/ 'house to house' fighting, have a tendency to burn through vast quantities of ammo with little effect, and be of almost no effectiveness at long range. Thus, you will have to keep your enemies in wide open terrain, yet within short range, while maintaining massive supply lines right up to the front. M249 SAWs were never intended as primary infantry weapons, but rather as a lighter replacement for MMGs to be issued to ~ 1-2 men per squad, depending on size and some other factors.

--EDIT: DOUBLE POST--

We know morale, affected by the method of military service, is a factor in the efficiency of a standing army but we have to take into account tactics and logistics in the battlefield. It is simply too biased to say that either is better, it's just a part of the whole.

The United Socialist States of Zvarinograd?

Our army is weak, compared to our size. We do not have any naval forces. However, our airforce is massive and thoroughly trained albeit our military is conscripted. Billions of dollars are poured into the maintenance and expansion of the infamous Arctic airforce every year. To match my airpower on the battlefield would be suicide.

I'd have to agree that volunteer forces are better because they are more strong willed and far less likely to dissert.

I'd have to agree that volunteer forces are better because they are more strong willed and far less likely to dissert.

I'd have to agree that volunteer forces are better because they are more strong willed and far less likely to dissert.