Rating the Combatants

[LTCMTS]

Actually funding for training is only one of many factors as I indicated in my previous posts. And you are right,, you can probably afford 5-6 Turkish conscripts for each Danish one. The numbers, however, are the best I can do at stripping away personnel and equipment procurement costs. Within the US Army, you can actually identify the dollars dedicated to individual and collective training, though it is spread through a number of accounts. What is interesting about this list is that in actual numbers, the first three countries fund their training per capita (per soldier) at 25% above no.4. As I said it is only one factor, but it is interesting that the three armies US, Canada and the UK) using volunteers only and with a reputation for consistent performance are also the three highest in dedicated training funding. Antway here's a second factor: length of basic training for individual soldiers:

1. Canada
2. UK, Turkey
3. US, Greece
4. FRG, Spain, Portugal
5. Netherlands, France, Norway
6. Denmark, Italy
7. Belgium, USSR

[LTCMTS]

In many cases, German Territorial Army light infantry units were to be attached to US Army CS/CSS units at Corps and above to augment rear area security assets and base defense clusters.

[LTCMTS]

Reading Ogorkiewicz, he seems to imply that slope has little or no effect on penetration by HEAT or APDSFS. I'm not sure he's saying this, or that the slope has no other effect than to increase the actual amount of protective material in the path of the HEAT plasma jet or the APDSFS (or in some cases damage the shape of the HEAT charge and deforming the jet). In this case, the actual versus the effective increase in thickness would be 200% at 60 degrees against HEAT and APDSFS and 350% against APC, APHE, HVAP/APCR and APDS. Comments, anyone?

[Dagfinn]

Originally posted by LTCMTS
Antway here's a second factor: length of basic training for individual soldiers:

1. Canada
2. UK, Turkey
3. US, Greece
4. FRG, Spain, Portugal
5. Netherlands, France, Norway
6. Denmark, Italy
7. Belgium, USSR

This would ofcourse lead us to discuss what eatch nation puts into its "basic training"

Im not so sure extensivley basic training is better than "real unit" training...

[Black Cat]

" your saying ratings are based on funding ? " Yes indeed.

An example would be found in:

" Dragons At War 2-34th. Infantry in the Mojave "
Daniel P. Bolger
Presido
1986
ISBN #0-89141-246-8

Among other things It`s the story of the best Motor Rifle Regiment in the World

[LTCMTS]

Yes, and I would also recommend "The Defense of Hill 781", McDonough, James R., Presidio, 1988. Not only one of the best "lessons learned" books I've read, in the class of "The Defense of Duffy's Drift" but an accurate portrayal of the learning curve that the US Army's combat brigades' had already experienced.

Basic training provides the integration of the soldier into his "new " culture, provides him/her with the basic skills to survive and learn as a soldier and is essential to any training process. It goes back to the Romans, who conducted six months of individual basic combat training. Even now, I can remember my experiences at Fort Knox in the winter of '75-'76 as a recruit private in the last Vietnam era eight weeks basic course. Then it was airborne school, the best 4 weeks I ever spent in the US Army (we had an extra week up front) and rigger school, the worst 12 weeks in spent in the Army as an EM.
Advanced individual training provides the soldier with his/her necessary skills to functions as an individual with a small group/unit environment.
Without these phases, a recruit is worse than useless wjhen collective skills (ie. unit) training is conducted. Imagine the confusion in a mechanized fire team when one of the team cannot use his individual weapon, find cover and concealment or even obey simple orders?

[Golf33]

Agree on basic training with LTCMTS et al. We noticed an immediate decline in the useability of new soldiers in our arty unit, caused by the reduction of time for basic training by about 60%. Because the arty IET is a fairly technical course, the recruits were not picking up the missed parts of basic training (discipline, toughness, fieldcraft, basic military skills like weapons and navigation) until they got to a unit. Moreover, they weren't absorbing the technical training as well as recruits with a longer basic course either, possibly due to the 'culture shock' continuing after basic training instead of being worked through during it.

Training time isn't the only factor, obviously what and how it is taught matter too. However, time is a minimum requirement without which you can't achieve anything else.

33