>
> 80% of the American military in WW2 were draftees. So
> clearly, draftees can kick some serious butt, too. And
> although there are no statistics, probably 90% of the Russian
> army in that conflict were draftees, too, and they did pretty
> well, both on the offensive and the defensive!
>
The economic juggernaut of the day (USA) and the insanity of the
military leader
of the reich probably had more to do with it.

> 30% of the American soldiers in Korea were draftees. Many
> decisive battles in that war, offensive and defensive, were
> fought and won purely by draftee units, sometimes of division
> strength. So clearly, draftees can effectively both defend and attack.
>
Yep. And they were motivated to defend the world against "communist
aggression."

> Continuing the declining trend, only 25% of the American
> soldiers in Vietnam were draftees. So quite clearly
> professionals don't always carry the day, although we will
> admittedly never know whether the outcome would have been
> different if they had all been draftees. But we certainly do
> know which side was more motivated!
>
The outcome would only have been different if the military had been
allowed to
wage war instead of being directed by politicians. Yes Virginia, I had
already taken
the physical when the lottery system was instituted and I drew a high
number and
thus never had to go.  Had I drawn a low number I am not sure what I
would have done.
Might have enlisted in the Navy but equally well might have run off to
Canada.

> History is thin on opportunities to compare *defensive*
> modern-day performance of conscripts vs. draftees, at least
> in democratic countries (no, I don't want to discuss what a
> democracy is, you know what I mean!). In fact, in that
> respect, Israel pretty much constitutes the entire body of
> material that I can think of. And their draftees still kick ass.
>
Against which well armed well organized army?  The
Syrians/Egyptians/Jordanians?

> I say modern-day, because the dynamics have changed
> significantly from our fathers' and grandfathers' wars, with
> superior technology playing a much, much bigger role than it
> used to. And that trend is only going to continue. That
> development favors neither conscript nor draftee, it merely
> changes the profile of the ideal recruit, volunteer or not.
>
That is true/

> The US change from a draftee army to one of conscripts was
> borne firstly of political considerations (drafts are
> immensely unpopular), and secondly of military considerations
> (wars erupt faster and faster, requiring shortened
> mobilization time). Not of any demonstrable fighting
> superiority of one over the other.
>
And modern arms require a much more intelligent soldier to operate them.
It is no longer
enough to be able to pull a trigger.  Many of the draftees in the
Vietnam era were dropouts and
semi-literate. It was shortly after that when a high school education
became preferred/required.
There are still trigger pulling opportunities just as there are brooms
to fit every size hand but
the number of these is getting smaller.
CH