SERTORIOSertorio wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:13 am
Not really. Most American military join the armed forces because they have no jobs, they have little education and need a steady source of income. They don't join to die for the fatherland. That's why drug abuse is so widespread among soldiers in action. Professional soldiers want to stay alive for the duration of their contract and therefore tend not to take too many risks. Which will tend to lead to defeat if fighting a major war with lots of casualties. The fact that they are asked to fight overseas, very far from home, and thus are not fighting for their homes and their families, will make them extra cautious and less than fully motivated. Russian soldiers, on the other hand, if they are once more asked to fight a major war, will be fighting close to home or on their own soil. They will fight a lot harder and are more likely to defeat the aggressor.
Are you aware that a typical rank and file Russian soldier of today is a CONSCRIPT? This is to say a young adult doing compulsory national service.
Conscripts, regardless of nationality, are never willing risk takers whenever they have any choice in the matter.
My father was an officer promoted out of the ranks during the Second World War. His own observation was that conscripts (even when these are Australian) are "not worth a cracker" as fighting men. The only soldiers who fought well as a rule were the wartime volunteers and the professionals (i.e. the few who had managed to make a career out of soldiering before the WW2 conflict started).
During World War One and over most of World War Two Australian infantrymen earned themselves a very high reputation for gallantry on the battlefield. A big part of the reason I am now convinced was that our armed forces until mid 1943 was made up entirely of wartime volunteers who were by and large motivated by a sense of patriotism.
Are you aware that the rank and file of the Russian army is made up largely of conscript young national servicemen? Conditions in the Russian army are quite brutal and doing national service is very unpopular. In a conventional war few if any would likely put their lives at risk - unless the alternatives were too horrible to contemplate.
During the Second World War (the great Patriotic War against Fascism to Russians) the Red Army was also made up of wartime conscripts. Predominantly of farm boys from the collectives. Their morale was normally so bad that Stalin had to send elite NKVD troops to line up behind them in order to shoot them down should these retreat against Stalin's orders. Had the Nazis be willing to abide by the Geneva convention on the treatment of prisoners of war in the treatment of Soviet captives (instead of sending them to the death camps) I feel very sure that these would have surrendered to the german side in droves. Just like Mussolini's Italian conscripts surrendering en-masse to British commonwealth forces in North Africa during 1940-41.
So much for the "patriotic" fighting spirit of Russian soldiers.
The USA has not had conscripts in its army since the Vietnam War - and we all know how that turned out for the Americans. So give the contemporary US armed forces their due.