When I was drafted if you passed your medical then you would wind up in some Branch of the Armed forces. There were no ifs and and buts, at some point in your life you would wind up serving your country in some shape or form. The training was the same as the regular army chaps and fought along side them for better or worse, the only difference was they only paid the the people that were drafted into the army just half money they paid a regular soldier. That in my humble opinion was just taking the prevable P1ss. It did not matter what position you help in life or even if your daddy was the PM or an MP you went into the forces and did your two years. Now if you think that you get out of it by spending that two years in Jail or getting your self stuck in a military prison, well when you came out of either you would be recalled to do your two service and this would go on until you had done your two years. I knew one chap who took nearly four years to complete his two year stint pf military service

I agree if you are doing the same job with the same training then you should get the same money, to do any less would just create division.

Originally Posted by AZ_Infantry

100% agree.

The draft was unpopular in the Vietnam era, but when the crap hit the fan protecting your buddy became the #1 priority, and many, many acts of valor and heroism are traced back to draftees (conscripts). While no one wanted to go, once they were there they became the professionals their country needed - up until the politics and civilian populace stopped supporting them, and then they just became drunks and drug addicts. But for a time, it was a successful program, just as it was in Korea, WWII, and etc.

I believe that Australia's national service (conscription) scheme was excellent. When you were drafted it was for 3 years (1 year training, 2 years service) to be served within Australia. If you volunteered to go to Vietnam it was shortened to 2 years (1 year training, 1 year tour of duty), therefore it meant that all conscripts in Vietnam from Australia were there by choice. It's not often recognised within Australia as it hardly gives a very good anti-war message to say that the Nashos were in Vietnam by choice.

I know quite a few Nasho's (5 that I can think of quickly) who discovered that they actually liked being in the Green Machine, and stayed on for long and quite notable careers. One acquaintance ending up a Major another a WO I. None regretted their choice.

I'm sure that they all acquitted themselves quite professionally, and were at least the equal of any volunteer.

Like I said, it depends on the quality of people you draw from.
You can have a bunch of REALLY BAD volunteers too.

There was always a great motivator in the British Army when I was in it, you either learnt your trade quickly or you died in action. The only year that no British soldier was killed in action since the end of WW2 action was 1969. Mind you that is not to say that some died during training

Le - loved your story about your platoon commander - that took a lot of doing, for sure.

Generally, having served in national service times, I can vouch for the fact that most recruits did their stuff to the best of their abilities, without dragging their feet, even if they did grumble; you would not have recognised them from the regular army recruits. In fact on duty or on parade, there was no seperation and loads of conscripts made very good NC0s. I cannot say regarding criminals, because this was not available information, even to someone who maintained records. Of course, criminal behaviour whilst serving was fully recorded and published. ( Part Two Orders).

I agree with those above who found conscripts just as good as volunteers but not in relation to generation X, Y or whatever letter we're up to now.

What was true of "nashos" 30 plus years ago - or even in 1980's is definately not true of those born late 1980's plus. Their mentality, values, resilience, and (lack of) discipline equipts them less to be able to meet commitments and challenges that they do not voluntarily subscribe to. In the past, even if you were forced to do something you didn't want to, most just got on with it, coped fairly well, and lo and behold sometimes actually enjoyed that which they thought they never would - they just needed a push which the National Govt was happy to provide.

Today is different I would argue. If you have trained military recruits in the last five years, as I have, and have different observations I would like to know them.

Padre.............I have been back to my old Regiment a number of times in the last dozen years and have found all the lads younger versions of us. They are more dedicate to their job than we where, even though they still have that daft steak. Now if they can do it then so can the conscripts if the full weight of military disciple is used. In England they made a series about National Service and got about 50 tearaways and young convicts to do what we did in the 1950's. Now when they had got over the initial shock most of them settled down and even started to enjoy and some even signed on in the Army once the they finished the series. Yet there was a very small core who just could not take it and ran away, but there again the same thing happened all those years ago during our training.

Originally Posted by Padre

I agree with those above who found conscripts just as good as volunteers but not in relation to generation X, Y or whatever letter we're up to now.

What was true of "nashos" 30 plus years ago - or even in 1980's is definately not true of those born late 1980's plus. Their mentality, values, resilience, and (lack of) discipline equipts them less to be able to meet commitments and challenges that they do not voluntarily subscribe to. In the past, even if you were forced to do something you didn't want to, most just got on with it, coped fairly well, and lo and behold sometimes actually enjoyed that which they thought they never would - they just needed a push which the National Govt was happy to provide.

Today is different I would argue. If you have trained military recruits in the last five years, as I have, and have different observations I would like to know them.

Agreed, to an extent. I've just come back to commanding a rifle platoon after 2 training postings. I found often that it was the older recruits that were the better recruits, often this was due to them being retreads, but to a degree they would show up the younger diggers. Sure, issues like fitness plagued some of them, but then again, some of these young recruits were pretty unfit as well.