Comparison of Conscript and Volunteer Armies

[Ciaran Byrne]

I have been reading a lot recently of the BEF during the opening stages of WWI and it has been quoted as the finest and most capable British army that ever went to war. Their musketry skills were second to none and the first time German forces engaged the British their rifle fire was so rapid and effective the Germans thought they were equipped with machine guns. In all a totally professional and effective fighting force.
The reason for this they say was that the army was entirely made up from volunteers.
I was just wondering what peoples views on what type of army was the most effective conscript armies or volunteer armies.
I for one do not subscribe to the notion that volunteer armies will always be better than conscript - it all depends on training and leadership but in general what do you reckon. You can quote any period of history.

[Commissar D, the Evil]

Well, the line isn't always as clear as that, since you can have conscription and volunteers at the same time. That was certainly the case in WWII and WWI.

Cheers,
~D

[Tom Houlihan]

As David said, I don't think you can really draw a clear demarcation line. However, from my own experience, I think that in some cases (this is gonna piss some people off!) you get a lesser quality recruit with an all volunteer force. This is due to the fact that some people who can't find gainful or meaningful employment are going to fall back on the military. The Army always needs grunts, the Navy always needs paint chippers, and the Air Force always needs wing washers.
WIth conscription, I think you're more likely to bring in a higher percentage of the "better" people (for lack of ability to think of a better descriptor!).
Before anyone who volunteered gets too worked up, I too was part of the 'all volunteer' US military!!

<taking cover under desk>

[Firebomb Fritz]

I agree with Tom that having a All volunteer army would have more lower quality recruits then say a military that has both conscription and volunteer like that of the Bundeswehr (stupid Wehrdienst...gotta be 25 to become a German citzen...most dodge the draft :P). It would bring in a better mix of soldiers. In more western nations I believe that the conscripts are trained jsut as well as the regualars so in combat its the training taking over.

[Dackelstaffel]

It depends for what for. Indeed, in peace time the public opinion will not accept that conscript troops die for a far country in a war that noboby cares of( remeber Somalia and Bosnia). The better is a volunteer, well trained and skilled soldier. But all volunteers would not become this one, only a few of them. In the beginning of the WWI, the english rifle men are surely the best shooters but they were too few. In war time, everyone is needed, volunteer or not.
Among Tom :you get a lesser quality recruit with an all volunteer force. This is due to the fact that some people who can't find gainful or meaningful employment are going to fall back on the military. The Army always needs grunts, the Navy always needs paint chippers, and the Air Force always needs wing washers.
I'am agree with that when I look at the french army. in 1995, the french army became professionnal so it lost all the skilled people coming from schools and university ( engineers, doctors, computer programer..) but it has now a lot of "gonfleurs d'hélice" and "biffins" ( wing washers and grunts) engaged to avoid unemployement.

[Qvist]

The question is very difficult to answer in general terms. Historically and presently, you will find conscript armies that were and are better than most volunteer forces (such as the Wehrmacht or the IDF), though this is not the rule.

The main thing would be the amount of training and level of motivation. Usually, it is easier to achieve high levels of both in a force of long-serving volunteers than in a conscript army, but it is far from impossible to solve these issues well in conscript armies either. Tom has a good point in that you get a different selection of people in a volunteer army - if and how much of a problem that would be depends on many things, such as the size of the population from which you are recruiting, the prestige and profitability of military service, admission criteria and the general job market.

So, no valid universal truths here I think. I would think though that by and large, and duly noting the considerable potential for excpetions, a professional army would tend to be a more effective force than a conscript one.


cheers