Military Review

"A mercenary army is good when it is necessary to attack the defenseless"

82



Sergei Shoigu’s recent statement that by the 2020, our army will be mainly equipped with contract servicemen, has again initiated an old discussion about what recruitment principle Russia needs.

The well-known analyst Anatoly Wasserman expressed his opinion on this issue to the KM.RU portal.

Hired army is often confused with a contract army.

World experience has long and repeatedly proved: a hired army is very good when it is necessary to attack defenseless people, and very bad when it is necessary to defend oneself from another’s attack. Therefore, there is hardly any sane military specialist protecting such an army. However, a mercenary army is often confused with a contract army, where people go consciously, in order to protect their country. They stay in the ranks of the armed forces for many years in a row and, accordingly, receive the payment necessary for the maintenance of both themselves and those who decide to associate their lives with them.

Contractors are trying to raise awareness of their duty to their country, no less, or even more than the draftees, because more time is spent on education. Therefore, I am not particularly afraid of the moral and political state of our armed forces. I do not think that the contractors will defend the country significantly worse than the draftees.

With the current state of military equipment in general, and the more effective it is, the more difficult it is to maintain and use, we need a significant number of contract servicemen. For many years they must master the technique entrusted to them. True, it seems to me that if an armament designer is to set a goal to simplify the use of it, then they will be able to achieve their goal without a significant deterioration in the tactical and technical characteristics of this technology. But I vouch for this.

So the disputes regarding the ideology of the contract army seem to me less important than a few years ago, when I unconditionally advocated a conscript army. I proceeded then precisely for reasons of its moral stability.

The contract army is very quickly exhausted in a serious war.

However, there is one consideration that indicates that we cannot limit ourselves to a contract army only. The contract army is very quickly exhausted in a serious war. No matter how professional the warriors are, they also perish. A stray bullet can touch even the most dexterous and experienced. When a contract army ends, a country that relied only on such an army remains generally unarmed. Therefore, it is necessary to supplement the contract army conscripts.

The Germans in World War II relied on a relatively small number of fighters of the super high class, but when they gradually spent the fighting, there was no one to replace them. Then I had to throw into battle in a huge number of people who practically could not do anything. They at one time simply did not bother to train seriously. Of course, the Germans had reasons for such a decision. Under the terms of the Versailles Peace, Germany was forbidden to keep a significant army. In addition, they were obliged to hire people under a very long-term contract. This was done so that through a small army it was impossible to miss a large number of people and give them at least basic military training. Therefore, the German decision was not a mistake, but a necessary measure. However, the experience of the Germans, the experience of what happened to a small but very well trained army, shows that no country can limit itself to such an army.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.km.ru/spetsproekty/2014/02/12/armiya-i-oboronosposobnost-rossii/732163-naemnaya-armiya-khorosha-togda-kogd
82 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. The comment was deleted.
  2. Andrey Yuryevich
    Andrey Yuryevich 14 February 2014 06: 44
    +12
    there is a huge difference between a Russian contract soldier in the Russian Armed Forces, from a Mexican who enlisted in the US Armed Forces for the prospect of receiving a "GREEN CARD" ...
    1. CALL.
      CALL. 14 February 2014 09: 32
      +8
      After the British Ministry of Defense granted permission for 15 British soldiers released in Iran to give paid interviews to the media, former prisoners of war literally began to compete among themselves in stories about which of them was more afraid in Iranian captivity. The San newspaper published an interview with the only woman from the captured group, 25-year-old Fay Turni, in which she said that she was afraid of self-abuse and that she would be killed. She also said that the Iranians who were interrogating her asked her about how she - voluntarily enlisted in the military - relates to the possibility of dying for her homeland. Moreover, Terni allegedly heard the sounds of hammered nails in a nearby cell and decided that this was already being prepared for her coffin. She became even stronger in these suspicions after the arrival of the Iranian guard, who took her measurements. Another member of the captured group, 20-year-old Arthur Batchalor, said that he was so scared in an Iranian prison that he "cried like a child." British society, already bewildered by the very fact of capturing - without the slightest hint of resistance - 15 of its armed servicemen, who then sincerely smiled in the television communications of Iranian television, is now forced to listen to the revelations of their army soldiers who willingly and generously admit cowardice, Yes, even earning a lot of money on this. So, Fay Terney, as reported, has already sold “her story” to the British television channel Ai-ti-vi-1 and one of the newspapers for 300 thousand dollars, and the other 14 released are not far behind her. Moreover, as the Times newspaper notes, the “price” of each such story will depend on the number of fears and feelings contained in it, and there can be no doubt that their authors will try to sell “their goods” at a higher price, and, therefore, sentimental confessions and doubtful revelations will be many. “The fact that you, when captured, can earn money equal to your salary in a few years, rather than not being captured and doing your job properly, is a rather strange incentive system,” a British broadcaster said in an interview BBC Corp. Former UK Foreign Secretary Craig Merey. “If you are a soldier, it is your duty to serve your country,” said Selly Wecker, the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq, Eleanor Dlugots, in an interview with The Times. “You must fulfill your duty, and not expect that you will earn money by selling your stories.” “Newspapers will want to get more“ meat ”and the best captive stories, writes The Times. “What can Fay Turni say that it could be estimated at a six-figure sum?”
      1. bda
        bda 14 February 2014 11: 02
        +6
        Quote: Z.O.V.
        Another member of the captured group, 20-year-old Arthur Batchalor, said that he was so scared in an Iranian prison that he "cried like a child."


        I can’t understand one thing: when did the Iranians capture the British military? Maybe we are talking about Iraqis?

        And the article, in my opinion, once again demonstrates that even not being a professional expert in the military field, but only from the point of view of "common sense", dear Anatoly Aleksandrovich, in this matter, looks at the root much better and, most importantly, more honest than the overwhelming most of the leaders who are responsible for our military policy by the nature of public service (I ask you not to take the last remark at your own expense to thousands and thousands of officers, not for fear, but for the conscience of those performing their military duty and suffering from their hearts for both the country and the army).

        Yours faithfully,
        Dmitriy
        1. avg
          avg 14 February 2014 11: 50
          +3
          Quote: bda
          I can’t understand one thing: when did the Iranians capture the British military? Maybe we are talking about Iraqis?

          In the spring of 2007, Iran captured a British patrol boat, accusing them of violating its territorial waters.
          Quote: bda
          Anatoly Aleksandrovich, and in this matter, the root is much better and most importantly - more honest than the vast majority of figures responsible for our military policy

          The vision of this issue by Anatoly Aleksandrovich completely coincides with the government one. yes
          1. bda
            bda 14 February 2014 12: 35
            +5
            I realized about the patrol boat - I take off my hat (it just went on in the text "... the mother of the victim in Iraq ...").
            And by the coincidence of opinions with the government ... seeing our shuffle in the field of military reform (in 1987, as it began, everything continues) and, most importantly, feeling them on yourself, you involuntarily ask yourself: but in general the "big leadership" has a single an opinion as to what they want our Armed Forces to be, based on what tasks and in what ways will they achieve all this? And then - the next change of the Minister of Defense (practically on a domestic basis) and it turns out: everything, it turns out, was done wrong! What a news! Ridiculously - everyone has already lost count of how many times the unfortunate uniform has been changed or changed - except that Lady Gaga has not introduced anything to us from the uniforms (and I still have an officer's pea coat still hanging in my dacha - a lieutenant received and "in business "it was all the allotted time - so the soul rejoices and now the quality of performance, convenience, etc. And there is a colonel received several years ago - it's a shame to go to take out the garbage in it, but how is it in the field ... even without comment) ...
            At one time, one of the German military theorists said (and demonstrated what was said in his own practice of organizing warfare) in the sense that it is better to have a poor strategy and bad plans of military operations, but skillfully and accurately execute them from start to finish than excellent strategy and plans, but completely ineptly implemented. And the worst thing, as he noted (and, I repeat, really took into account in a real war) is to drastically change strategy and plans already during the war - the output will simply be a loss of control, chaos and disaster.
            And how many times have we had to observe: excellent combat-ready units are simply disbanded (or framed). Then they begin to restore them, and people quit, the technology (electronics) has already been increased for precious metals, the positions have turned into dumps, the infrastructure has "died", etc. - and they are again reduced, justifying the new reduction not by the inability to restore (who will sign his own inability!), but by some new conceptual constructions. You can continue indefinitely.
            Emotions of course overwhelm, but this is personal - the stress of endless reform.
            Yours faithfully,
            Dmitry.
            1. avg
              avg 14 February 2014 13: 18
              +1
              Quote: bda
              Emotions of course overwhelm, but this is personal - the stress of endless reform.

              I fully share your emotions.
              But, nevertheless, let's honestly say that those who are responsible for our military policy are the President, the Minister of Defense, and the beg. General Staff, always favored mixed manning.
              1. vladimirZ
                vladimirZ 14 February 2014 14: 11
                +1
                But, nevertheless, let's honestly say that those responsible for our military policy are President, Minister of Defense, beg. General Staff, always expressed for mixed picking.


                Where do you see "mixed picking" if in practice everything is done the other way around:
                - in the "recent statement by Sergei Shoigu that by 2020 our army will be mainly staffed with contract soldiers" (from the article),
                - if the "program for the training of reserve soldiers and sergeants in civilian universities has already been approved and launched since 2015 (in terms of military service), without conscription, which will lead to the fact that more than 75% of young people (those who receive higher education ) will not serve in the conscript army.
                What mixed system are you talking about?
                There is a deliberate complete transfer of the Army to the contract system, which does not suit Russia, based on its geopolitical position in the world and the prevailing military-political confrontation.
      2. CALL.
        CALL. 14 February 2014 12: 10
        0
        Ordinary business Sergey KHABOTIN
    2. nekish
      nekish 14 February 2014 14: 11
      +1
      You cannot work without a green card in the USA. Including in the army.
      1. cdrt
        cdrt 14 February 2014 17: 45
        0
        Quote: nekish
        You cannot work without a green card in the USA. Including in the army.


        +100500

        Do not tear people propaganda-imposed pattern laughing
        I wrote above - there is a link to good, with links to official documents everything is described on the acquisition of the US Armed Forces.
    3. cdrt
      cdrt 14 February 2014 17: 35
      0
      Quote: Andrew Y.
      there is a huge difference between a Russian contract soldier in the Russian Armed Forces, from a Mexican who enlisted in the US Armed Forces for the prospect of receiving a "GREEN CARD" ...


      And you wrote nonsense about who and for what reasons serves in the US Armed Forces based on what?
      Here you have it for information - http://vova-modelist.livejournal.com/70495.html
      very good, with links to official documents, with statistics on losses by ethnic group - in general, a lot of useful things.
      Including that you can only serve if you have a green card or citizenship.
      Well, a curious conclusion - in the military units in the vast majority are US citizens with a higher education level and most are white laughing
      In particular, 76% of the dead are white American citizens ...

      Such is the gap propaganda pattern laughing
    4. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 14 February 2014 19: 49
      0
      Quote: Andrew Y.
      there is a huge difference between a Russian contract soldier in the Russian Armed Forces, from a Mexican who enlisted in the US Armed Forces for the prospect of receiving a "GREEN CARD" ...


      Of course I have. Our cartoons do not need them, they serve at home and they feel good here.
  3. invisibility
    invisibility 14 February 2014 06: 45
    +18
    If you do not go into small details, I agree with Wasserman. I thought and still believe that all talk about a contract army is nothing more than advertising, PR. We have always had "contract soldiers", officers, warrant officers, etc. In Russia, with its vast territory, only a contract army is the collapse of the entire system.
    Historically, we have always been in the ring of enemies, every man must be able to defend his land.
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 14 February 2014 08: 17
      +6
      Quote: invisible
      In Russia, with its vast territory, only the contract army is the collapse of the entire system.
      Historically, we have always been in the ring of enemies, every man must be able to defend his land.

      I agree, but there is a small but! With modern high school education, the knowledge of a school graduate is equated with the knowledge of a student of the 7-8 class of the Soviet school. I suppose I don’t understand how to make a less than normal specialist in the technical troops out of such a conscript in a year? Even a motorized rifle from it will turn out mediocre, not to mention the mechanics of the driver, the radar operator or just a sailor. What is the solution? Introduce 3-5 summer term of urgent service? Conscripts are of course needed, I do not argue, I think that conscripts should serve in territorial training divisions, training units of the Navy, etc. There should also be fees and reservists.
      1. invisibility
        invisibility 14 February 2014 08: 51
        +5
        Yes it is a question! This once again proves that there are no trifles in state policy.
        And regarding the service life, my opinion is that 1 is the year like now, it is LOST time for young people and the worst thing for the country and the army.
        1. Arhj
          Arhj 14 February 2014 11: 18
          0
          Quote: invisible
          Yes it is a question! This once again proves that there are no trifles in state policy.
          And regarding the service life, my opinion is that 1 is the year like now, it is LOST time for young people and the worst thing for the country and the army.

          In today's situation, this is indeed so. For 1 year, it is impossible to train a specialist for most military branches from scratch. But this is real if a fighter enters the army with an initial supply of knowledge. Therefore, it is necessary to make mandatory basic military training at school. And in vocational schools, technical schools and universities, this training should already be specialized with an eye on a specific military specialty.
        2. Raptor75
          Raptor75 14 February 2014 13: 14
          +1
          To build a curriculum that allows for 1 year to lay the basic skills of an ordinary infantry, so that he does not become "cannon fodder" is quite realistic, IMHO.
          1. CALL.
            CALL. 14 February 2014 15: 09
            0
            Quote: Raptor75
            for 1 year to lay the basic skills of ordinary infantry,

            And the anti-aircraft gunner, and the rocket launcher, Tankers, marine specialists and submariners and other specialists?
          2. Zamboy
            Zamboy 15 February 2014 23: 53
            0
            I agree, a simple example: cadets of military schools, at the end of the 1st course, these are already quite good soldiers and junior commanders. And not only in the infantry.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. bda
        bda 14 February 2014 12: 01
        +3
        Quote: Serg65
        I suppose I don’t understand how to make a less than normal specialist in the technical forces out of such a conscript in a year? Even a motorized rifle from it will turn out mediocre, not to mention the mechanics of the driver, the radar operator or just a sailor.


        It’s easy - I did it myself and I can say with all responsibility: if the new recruit really wants to become a normal fighter, then in three months of training 8 hours a day 6 times a week, and from the tractor driver is not Russian blood, and from the student expelled for poor performance humanities, and from yesterday’s schoolboy, who never did go anywhere, and hung out at night clubs until his parents pushed the army further and further from their dreams - an excellent operator of modern air defense systems is made out of all of them, who can perform absolutely any task (air defense - this is in my personal experience - I trained fighters along this profile).
        And immediately on the occasion of "really wants to become a normal fighter" - also from personal experience - everything was done without any money, bonuses, etc. Our motivator was elementary: you pass a 3-month training "excellently", pass all the admissions and put you on alert duty. From this moment on, you are a white man both in the barracks and in the position, and, besides, you are also a man - who really defends the Motherland. If you fill up the change - additional training for two weeks, then another chance. If a fighter is delusional, or really stupid as a tree (such, according to experience, there were 10 percent in total) and fails for the third time, his fate is to rot at household work. It worked almost flawlessly. There were precedents when those who failed three times out of stupidity, then, almost at the end of the service, began to prepare themselves at night, "got" the officers on duty shift with questions, followed the commanders with their tails, so that they would be admitted until the next surrender - already with the next (junior) call and handed over, so that at least under the demobilization on the database to intercede.
        So not everything is so scary.
        Again - the CIA instructors turned Afghan spirits into excellent fighters in the same 3 months. Yes, these basmachi, who could neither read nor write, were armed and equipped with only light means, but the technological level of these means was often not lower, and sometimes higher than that of Soviet soldiers (after the Soviet education system).
        One of the most combat-ready armies in the world (Israeli) is completed with conscripts (a significant part of whom still haven’t forgotten the Russian language). Girls also serve in it (one year) - and they carry out combat missions in full. Even special units that actually conduct operations in other countries (with hidden landings from aircraft, submarines, etc.) are equipped with conscripts (although even in the draft army of the USSR, such units were either purely officer or enlisted officers ) And Israel does this not out of a desire to stand out from other Western countries that prefer contracting professionals, but simply because its leadership and citizens understand that there is no other way out when the country is shot in the ring of enemies and on each border (a situation similar to us with given that Israel also has nuclear weapons, but no neighbors).
        1. invisibility
          invisibility 14 February 2014 16: 18
          0
          He himself served in the air defense, after 3 months no one was allowed to work. I do not question your words, but there is also KMB, combined arms training, physical training (!!!) and a sea of ​​knowledge necessary for a soldier.
          Personally, I am opposed to having specially hired firms feed the soldiers in the army, a soldier must be able to do everything! On the battlefield, any knowledge and skills is only a plus.
        2. The comment was deleted.
      4. cdrt
        cdrt 14 February 2014 17: 51
        0
        Quote: Serg65
        Quote: invisible
        In Russia, with its vast territory, only the contract army is the collapse of the entire system.
        Historically, we have always been in the ring of enemies, every man must be able to defend his land.

        I agree, but there is a small but! With modern high school education, the knowledge of a school graduate is equated with the knowledge of a student of the 7-8 class of the Soviet school. I suppose I don’t understand how to make a less than normal specialist in the technical troops out of such a conscript in a year? Even a motorized rifle from it will turn out mediocre, not to mention the mechanics of the driver, the radar operator or just a sailor. What is the solution? Introduce 3-5 summer term of urgent service? Conscripts are of course needed, I do not argue, I think that conscripts should serve in territorial training divisions, training units of the Navy, etc. There should also be fees and reservists.


        Judging by the IDF with properly constructed training for drugs in 2 years, a highly qualified military specialist (who in their cases serves another 3 years) may well turn out from a conscript.
        How one can teach a tanker-gunner in bulk about the level of the same IDF for half a year (given that at least half a year he should just serve) is unclear.
        Well, it is clear that the same sailors should be professionals - mass mobilization in the fleet in our case is probably not an option in any situation.

        Well ... from the experience of the great wars, it is the draft armies that are most combat-ready (ideally, as in the IDF, the Red Army by 1944 - with a young junior line-up, an average line-up of 28-35 years old and with a senior line-up up to 45 years old) .
  4. Igor39
    Igor39 14 February 2014 06: 46
    +11
    They did it right under the USSR, universal military training, we had a shooting range in our school, 25 meters, a day later I went there to shoot from TOZ 12, many in the army were interested in where I had served, where I studied. Here and school training. smile
    1. Reindeer herder
      Reindeer herder 14 February 2014 09: 57
      +4
      How many SUCH schools with a shooting range were there? You are "lucky", and many soldiers only 9 rounds before the oath. I myself was engaged in shooting at Dynamo, but there were no more than three dozen of us such boys and girls.
      1. s1н7т
        s1н7т 14 February 2014 10: 44
        0
        Quote: Reindeer Herder
        How many SUCH schools with a shooting gallery were there?

        I don’t know for the whole country, but we had a lot of them. Even in mine, with a humanitarian bias, the forces of high school students under the leadership of the military commander equipped a shooting range in the basement. There were not many who wanted to shoot, because 9-10 cells there were only 2 each (although the elementary grades were 9-10 per stream) so you could shoot plenty. Some had a CCM before being drafted into the army. Well, how many nerves to the commanders were saved by our military instructor! laughing
      2. s1н7т
        s1н7т 14 February 2014 10: 44
        +1
        Quote: Reindeer Herder
        How many SUCH schools with a shooting gallery were there?

        I don’t know for the whole country, but we had a lot of them. Even in mine, with a humanitarian bias, the forces of high school students under the leadership of the military commander equipped a shooting range in the basement. There were not many who wanted to shoot, because 9-10 cells there were only 2 each (although the elementary grades were 9-10 per stream) so you could shoot plenty. Some had a CCM before being drafted into the army. Well, how many nerves to the commanders were saved by our military instructor! laughing
        1. Reindeer herder
          Reindeer herder 14 February 2014 14: 30
          0
          If there is a stump with honey mushrooms in the forest, I say that they are in the forest. This is an objective assessment. If I see a stump and say that throughout the forest honey mushrooms are growing, this is a subjective assessment and now it is just a false one.
  5. dark_65
    dark_65 14 February 2014 06: 49
    +2
    There were vigilantes, and there was a militia, but it was vigilantes who, as a rule, went to bed first, giving time to the militia, have the conscience not to blame.
  6. Alex66
    Alex66 14 February 2014 06: 51
    +7
    As always, Anatoly explains the problem succinctly and clearly. One contract army will not be able to cope with a long war; its task is to "stand for a day and hold out for a night." After the exchange of strikes with high-tech weapons, the destruction of production will have to fight with what remains. And it will be very good if the citizens of the country will be able to handle weapons, will be physically and mentally ready to participate in hostilities.
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 14 February 2014 18: 16
      0
      Quote: Alex66
      As always, Anatoly explains the problem succinctly and clearly. One contract army will not be able to cope with a long war; its task is to "stand for a day and hold out for a night." After the exchange of strikes with high-tech weapons, the destruction of production will have to fight with what remains. And it will be very good if the citizens of the country will be able to handle weapons, will be physically and mentally ready to participate in hostilities.


      And how do you imagine a long war?
      It seems like the intensity of the database and the damage ability of the weapon after WWII only increased.
      And now, in a few days, virtually all the troops of the losing side are destroyed.
      And given the fact that wars go not only between the troops, but also with the destruction of industry and infrastructure, the loser side will not have a capable military industry.
  7. vladsolo56
    vladsolo56 14 February 2014 06: 51
    +7
    As for the exhaustion of contractors in the fighting. How quickly the number of soldiers will decrease depends only on the command. If you thoughtlessly throw them into battle, without detailed reconnaissance, without aviation, missile and art training, then yes, you can put everyone in a day. If used correctly, a professional is a professional, then the losses should be in the ratio of 10: 1. Again, no one denies that reservists should not be trained. For this, the truth does not have to force everyone into the army. It is enough just to create training centers on the basis of DOSAF, to return military training to schools and universities, but not formal, more theatrical, as it was before, but normal, with the study of modern weapons, and with practical firing.
    1. demel2
      demel2 14 February 2014 08: 31
      +1
      I don’t know what theatrical training you have in mind, but it gave me a lot, including practical shooting from small arms. And even then there was an opportunity for those interested to go beyond the school curriculum. I can’t say that it was like that everywhere, but with us there was such an opportunity.
      1. Reindeer herder
        Reindeer herder 14 February 2014 10: 00
        0
        And the army didn’t give me anything in terms of shooting training, on the contrary, it’s degradation, since it practically didn’t shoot. After the army, from the heart, but that's another story.
    2. invisibility
      invisibility 14 February 2014 08: 55
      +2
      Quote: vladsolo56
      but not formal, more theatrical, as it was before

      I don’t know, I don’t know, the training was serious, I was a schoolboy, before the army, I knew the machine gun by the teeth, shot very tolerably, drove the truck. If it's theatrical ...
      1. vladsolo56
        vladsolo56 14 February 2014 09: 01
        +1
        Quote: invisible
        Quote: vladsolo56
        but not formal, more theatrical, as it was before

        I don’t know, I don’t know, the training was serious, I was a schoolboy, before the army, I knew the machine gun by the teeth, shot very tolerably, drove the truck. If it's theatrical ...

        It wasn’t everywhere, I remember when the military instructor just came to expel everyone whose hair was not according to the charter, then they read the charter, they studied the machine automatically, that's all. There was no shooting ever, I studied at a technical school in Kazakhstan.
        1. invisibility
          invisibility 14 February 2014 09: 49
          0
          Then, Vladimir, you're out of luck! In our school there was a shooting range, there was a patronage military unit, they shot, ran a strip, dug trenches, though in the snow smile It was in the north.
        2. invisibility
          invisibility 14 February 2014 09: 49
          -1
          Then, Vladimir, you're out of luck! In our school there was a shooting range, there was a patronage military unit, they shot, ran a strip, dug trenches, though in the snow smile It was in the north.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. Raptor75
      Raptor75 14 February 2014 13: 22
      0
      What you offer in due time has been realized. This undertaking was abandoned, since at enormous cost the units equipped with such fighters had very low combat efficiency.
    5. 222222
      222222 14 February 2014 13: 51
      0
      vladsolo56 (1) RU Today, 06:51 AM New
      "As for the exhaustion of contract soldiers in hostilities. How quickly the number of soldiers will decrease depends only on the command." .. do not forget about the enemy's ravines .. "the enemy is cunning and cunning !!"
      In addition, there is the Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation
      ... http: //news.kremlin.ru/ref_notes/461
      Will the state be able to carry out mobilization deployment of the armed forces in the event of a situation? . And to form new spare parts, connections. associations?
    6. Alekseev
      Alekseev 14 February 2014 14: 18
      +1
      Quote: vladsolo56
      As for the exhaustion of contractors in the fighting. How quickly the number of soldiers will decrease depends only on the command. If you thoughtlessly throw them into battle, without detailed reconnaissance, without aviation, missile and art training, then yes, you can put everyone in a day.
      wink
      You hurry! "How quickly the number of soldiers will decrease", no less than on the command, depends also on ... the enemy, his command and personnel and weapons. And from the soldiers themselves, sergeants, ml. and senior officers. And to a high degree.
      The most amazing thing is that it broadcasts about "aviation and rocket" training, as about God's revelation, because no one else knows about this!
      Many people far from military operations, inclined to platitudes and simplifications, think it is worth, they say, to find a sort of Hindenburg, Napoleon or Brusilov at worst and the "number of soldiers" will not immediately decrease, but will also increase. But only finding Napoleon is completely not enough. Need a simple, at first glance, but very difficult to execute system of training troops and reserves.
      And on the basis of DOSAAF, this is necessary. yes But this is either initial training or the maintenance of already acquired skills.
      And why urgent to serve? And in order to get base, and according to the VUS, and in the matter of moral and psychological, and physical hardening. It’s like an educational institution, like a vocational school. Can I become a master without vocational schools? Can. You can also go from Moscow to St. Petersburg through Vladivostok. wink
      And besides, it’s well known: if you want to get a result, you need to devote your main efforts to achieving it, at least in a certain period of time.
      1. vladsolo56
        vladsolo56 14 February 2014 15: 10
        0
        I wonder why no one, absolutely no one doubts that, for example, special forces should consist of professionals, but the rank and file of the army is not necessary. The main thing is more, well, if the war begins and half a million are killed, due to the mediocrity of the generals, we will still have a couple of millions, it’s not a pity. I don’t understand when the emphasis is on poorly trained conscripts who die in real combat in the first place. Why such a strange doctrine of the so-called experienced military specialists.
    7. EvilLion
      EvilLion 14 February 2014 15: 01
      0
      And where do you come from? How quickly the army will decrease depends not so much on the command as on the strength of the enemy, if you have an army of a million and he has a million, then you’ll at least spin, but the losses will be severe. It is impossible to consider each factor individually, number, technical equipment, qualification, all this is considered only together and it is most difficult to defeat the enemy precisely due to qualification, as Clausewitz wrote about at the beginning of the 19 century, since a high degree of unification was already noted then in organizational structures, weapons and training programs between the armies of different countries.
      1. vladsolo56
        vladsolo56 14 February 2014 18: 10
        0
        Quote: EvilLion
        And where do you come from? How quickly the army will decrease depends not so much on the command as on the strength of the enemy, if you have an army of a million and he has a million, then you’ll at least spin, but the losses will be severe. It is impossible to consider each factor individually, number, technical equipment, qualification, all this is considered only together and it is most difficult to defeat the enemy precisely due to qualification, as Clausewitz wrote about at the beginning of the 19 century, since a high degree of unification was already noted then in organizational structures, weapons and training programs between the armies of different countries.

        Well, do you think the gunner or tanker who is trained theoretically. who during the service fired ten shots, drove a tank for 10 km, is already trained enough to fight. but the tanker who wound 2 thousand km on the tracks, the shooter who shot more than one hundred shells, the army does not need. In your opinion there is no difference between them. Where do you come from?
  8. xorgi
    xorgi 14 February 2014 06: 54
    +4
    Not entirely true, in the thirties the Germans no longer complied with the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, plus they also had civilian militarized organizations, as in the USSR.
  9. Same lech
    Same lech 14 February 2014 06: 56
    +6
    And you consider the psychological portrait of a Mercenary and a contractor.

    Although both would seem to be the same at first glance, there are differences.
    The mercenary is COSMOPOLIT, like POSNERA, well, where they pay.
    THE MERCURY DOES NOT have moral principles saying they would shoot the village if they were to pay, all this was on a LARGE scale in YUGOSLAVIA and KOSOVO (in particular) - it is not surprising that where it is necessary to arrange a grandiose provocation, they hire Mercenaries (it is easier to shoot them later as undesirable witnesses).
    With contractors, such tricks do not work.
    1. cosmos111
      cosmos111 14 February 2014 07: 39
      +5
      Quote: The same LYOKHA
      consider the psychological portrait of the MERCENE and CONTRACTOR.

      once again pleased, Wasserman thinks great (him to the presidency of Russia, move) (((

      contractor-hired worker of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, he is paid money, precisely for the fulfillment of certain obligations stipulated in the contract (((((
      and will he shoot at his people or not, this is his personal right-affair ((((

      the Russian army should be of a mixed type (((
      conscripts -2 years of service and in the Navy, professional ... sergeants (under contract), officers and warrant officers!!!!
      there are no other options((((
      1. Raptor75
        Raptor75 14 February 2014 13: 25
        +1
        +100500. With both hands for ...
  10. major071
    major071 14 February 2014 07: 00
    +17
    I respect Wasserman, the smartest man! I agree that a contract army is needed, but there is no need to refuse the call. It is necessary, at least as a minimum, to teach the handling of weapons, the basics of tactics and warfare over the course of a soldier’s year of service. In principle, you can’t teach anything more in a year. But it is better to spend a year training a fighter than to watch how the knowing militias die. IMHO. hi
  11. vlad.svargin
    vlad.svargin 14 February 2014 07: 02
    +3
    World experience has long and repeatedly proved: a mercenary army is very good when you need to attack the defenseless, and very bad when you need to defend yourself from someone else's attack

    Anatoly Wasserman very aptly noticed that mercenaries were of little use. They only fight for money, but what if the enemy promises them more? This is the whole point - they will "sell" their former "owner". Our officers and super-conscripts are contract soldiers, but they went to the Army out of conviction and out of a sense of patriotism and love for the motherland. Those. They were volunteers who are very different from mercenaries looking for some kind of benefit for themselves.

    The fact is that the volunteer has good will. He goes to fight for his Faith, Motherland, for legal power and for his people, or at least for the interests of his class. A mercenary goes to fight for money, for the prospect of obtaining citizenship, for benefits and the like. A contract army that relies solely on money is a mercenary army.
    It must be said right away that in modern conditions no state wishing to preserve real sovereignty, and even more so to pursue an active foreign policy, can do without a purely mercenary army. In a big war, such an army will immediately lose to both the volunteer and the conscript army. The most powerful mercenary army was the Prussian army of the 18th and early 19th centuries. But she could successfully fight only with the same mercenary armies. Nobody ever wanted to die on the battlefield for money (and now there are no such people) ("Spiritual and moral aspects of military reform" A. V. Arapov, Doctor of Philosophy)
  12. Vadim-Skeptic
    Vadim-Skeptic 14 February 2014 07: 05
    +2
    For mixed manning the army needs sensible draftees, regardless of their state of health. A, because The health of conscripts is one of the key, then, together with the organization of pre-conscription training centers, it is necessary to organize state sports centers in the regions of Russia. All this, in theory, should work under the auspices of the military commissariats. You can not drop the recruits and pre-conscripts living in orphanages. Hence, state control and financing of orphanages is needed. But in our country before that, as far as the moon cancer ...
  13. Owl
    Owl 14 February 2014 07: 20
    +2
    For Russia, currently, mixed manning is needed, units associated with the operation of complex equipment and the implementation of complex and responsible work - up to 75% of the personnel can be contract soldiers (the remaining 25% is a prepared mobilization reserve). The usual units of motorized rifle, tank, artillery and other troops are officers, warrant officers (deputy group commanders, foremen) and contract sergeants. Moreover, sergeants-contractors, in the positions of commanders of departments, tanks, and the calculation of guns and systems, need about 50%, again for the preparation of a mobilization reserve from sergeants of military service. Deputy platoon commanders are better contract servicemen (candidates for warrant officers' schools).
  14. treskoed
    treskoed 14 February 2014 07: 33
    +6
    hardly a sane military specialist

    The Minister of Defense should be a sane MILITARY specialist who has served in the army for half his life and has personally worn more than one pair of footcloths and other military uniforms, and not the philologist, furniture maker, builder whom we have seen at the helm of recent years. And each taxis in their own way, what will happen tomorrow is incomprehensible. Yesterday (under Serdyukov), officers were in sergeant posts and sergeants left schools, today they are training companies, where ordinary is a professor, and you can become an officer walking on Saturdays for some courses for students (without boots and footcloths naturally), and tomorrow .... - I have not enough imagination !!! With this approach to the construction of the Armed Forces, an intelligent and sane person will not want to connect life with the army!
  15. Sour
    Sour 14 February 2014 07: 39
    +2
    In World War II, the Germans relied on a relatively small number of ultra-high class fighters,

    What Wasserman writes about the Germans in World War II is an illiterate nonsense. The Wehrmacht was a massive multi-million dollar army by the beginning of the war, with a high level of combat training. Everyone served with the Germans, including the children of millionaires, it was impossible to get away from the service. Only a narrow circle of specialists from defense enterprises had exemption from conscription. In 2, general military service was introduced in Germany with a 1935-year term of service, and from 1 with a 1936-year term of service. Wasserman is not the first time demonstrating his illiteracy, however, those who call him "the smartest man" are not translated.
  16. Sour
    Sour 14 February 2014 07: 56
    0
    In modern conditions, Russia needs a contract army plus a prepared mobilization reserve. The need for a contract army is not someone's whim, it is dictated by the increasing complexity of weapons and military equipment.
    Wasserman, as always, battered, tore off the applause of his fans and said nothing clever. The difference between a contractor and a mercenary is the same as between a scout and a spy. This is a purely emotional, not semantic difference. In fact, the article is about nothing.
    1. Raptor75
      Raptor75 14 February 2014 13: 33
      0
      Quote: Sour
      plus prepared mobilization reserve

      And where does this reserve come from? To prepare an ordinary infantry you need 2-3 years. Everything else is a waste of time and money.
    2. 11111mail.ru
      11111mail.ru 16 February 2014 09: 48
      0
      Quote: Sour
      The difference between a contractor and a mercenary is the same as between a scout and a spy

      Your comparison is incorrect. Consul Guy Marius created the CONTRACT Army of the Roman Republic. Hence its combat effectiveness. The legions of Crassus "made" the troops of Spartacus at the expense of "times", since they were professionals. Subsequently, the Roman Empire switched to mercenarism, attracting the most combat-ready tribal armed formations into the ranks of its troops. The result is known.
  17. Per se.
    Per se. 14 February 2014 08: 20
    +2
    To talk on this topic, you first need to immediately understand the fundamental difference between the officer corps, and, directly, the "contractor" as such. To be an officer in our army has always been a CALL, this is a service for life, and not to earn extra money for a certain term of the contract. Being officers for some mercantile considerations is generally nonsense, grandmothers went to other places and without the risk of "not sparing their belly" for the Fatherland. This time. Secondly, the concept of "contract soldier" and "extra-conscript" is not the same thing, the former can now go from scratch, the latter remained in the army after the term. It must be understood that a contract army is not a synonym for a professional army, our army has always been professional, not an amateur or "partisan" one. England and the United States, in recruiting the army, just reflect their essence of world parasites that robbed and rob the whole world, sitting across the English Channel and the Atlantic. Who are we looking at here ?! In the same Israel, conscripts serve, but we need to follow the example of the Yankees and the Britons! ... There was no need to freeze stupidity, at first they did not want to solve some problems, with hazing and deviators, they made a favor, - a year of service, created another problem, year, this is not enough for normal preparation. Now, all hope is for contractors who are not mercenaries. What's the difference, guys, if you don’t bend your heart? There is only one motivation, pay good money, and for the "living wage" and the salary of workers in factories, look for fools ... Simply, we understand a mercenary as a citizen of a foreign country, but a mercenary is someone who sells his services for money, this is the main motivation, not the constitutional duty, honor, conscience and vocation to defend the Motherland. Therefore, think a hundred and a thousand times what is best for the Fatherland. If we need contract soldiers, do not expect that only they will solve all the problems, and that this is the only correct solution for Russia. Is it good to produce, if not commercialism in some, then dependence in the moods of others (let them serve, whom they pay, and I pay taxes). There are a lot of examples of conscription, for other, and not at all weak armies, there are traditions, and if we need contract soldiers, as such, let's use them competently, and not to the detriment of the country's overall defense capability, both physical and moral, spiritual ...
    1. Vadim-Skeptic
      Vadim-Skeptic 14 February 2014 09: 11
      0
      # You have to understand, a contract army is not a synonym for a professional army, our army has always been professional, #
      You confuse the concepts of a competent specialist and a professional. The concept of a professional implies that a person works for money
      http://www.onlinedics.ru/slovar/fil/p/professional.html
      Thus, a professional and a contractor are identical concepts.
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 14 February 2014 10: 13
        +1
        Quote: Vadim the Skeptic
        You confuse the concepts of a competent specialist and a professional.
        In general, a professional is a person who has made a certain occupation in his profession (not necessarily for money, it can be a hobby, charity, and so on), who has become a highly qualified specialist in his field. The concept of "contractor", more laconic and mercantile, is a person working or serving under a contract on the terms specified in the contract. So, dear Vadim, you can be a professional without a contract (and without work for money) and have a contract (be a contractor) without being a professional. From this, a professional and a contractor are by no means identical concepts, although, undoubtedly, one can find something that will make these concepts related, as a professional activity. Nevertheless, it is not very correct to compare officers with contractors, just as contractors are considered professionals for the mere fact of concluding a contract for a limited term.
  18. Refugee from Kazakhstan
    Refugee from Kazakhstan 14 February 2014 08: 37
    +2
    And the draft for the defense? Seriously, in 1993, when contract service was just introduced in the Russian army, there was a saying: "the homeland pretends that it pays us, but we pretend that we are serving!" Of course, a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then, but how will the contract servicemen (with the exception of officers) behave in the event of a prolonged defeat and persistent wage and benefits arrears?
    1. vladsolo56
      vladsolo56 14 February 2014 09: 03
      0
      Quote: Refugee from RK
      And the draft for the defense? Seriously, in 1993, when contract service was just introduced in the Russian army, there was a saying: "the homeland pretends that it pays us, but we pretend that we are serving!" Of course, a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then, but how will the contract servicemen (with the exception of officers) behave in the event of a prolonged defeat and persistent wage and benefits arrears?

      How will conscripts behave? or do you think draftees from another society are drafted?
      1. Refugee from Kazakhstan
        Refugee from Kazakhstan 14 February 2014 10: 48
        +2
        You are a master of rhetorical questions! There are a lot of you here.
        1. vladsolo56
          vladsolo56 14 February 2014 13: 14
          0
          Quote: Refugee from RK
          You are a master of rhetorical questions! There are a lot of you here.

          why rhetorical? how is my question different from my opponent? or there are convenient questions, but there are uncomfortable ones that do not fit in the right direction.
          1. Refugee from Kazakhstan
            Refugee from Kazakhstan 14 February 2014 14: 45
            +2
            Then tell me how the contract soldiers will behave in the conditions of a protracted war with long-term losses and with stable arrears of wages and benefits! Just do not answer the question with the question of how you do it! No demagoguery, just answer!
            1. vladsolo56
              vladsolo56 14 February 2014 15: 26
              0
              War is war. During the war, no commercial calculations work, let alone a protracted war. Usually, money is not needed at the front; therefore, during the war, wives, parents or any other proxies receive money. No government will delay the payment of such allowance, well, except for the fact that power is completely without brains, but then with such power, no army will save. Because all your claims to a professional army, an empty ring. do not twist
              1. Refugee from Kazakhstan
                Refugee from Kazakhstan 14 February 2014 16: 47
                +1
                Anyway, a fully contracted army is wrong!
                1. novobranets
                  novobranets 14 February 2014 17: 55
                  +1
                  Quote: RK refugee
                  Anyway, a fully contracted army is wrong!

                  In addition, unfeasible. Double basses are not born in cabbage, but you do not think that anyone from the street can be hired and entrusted with complex and expensive equipment. People who have served an emergency, who have received at least an initial idea of ​​the service and basic skills in handling weapons and equipment, go to contract soldiers. The contract is a contract, and an urgent one is refused.
                  1. vladsolo56
                    vladsolo56 14 February 2014 18: 13
                    0
                    Quote: novobranets
                    Quote: RK refugee
                    Anyway, a fully contracted army is wrong!

                    In addition, unfeasible. Double basses are not born in cabbage, but you do not think that anyone from the street can be hired and entrusted with complex and expensive equipment. People who have served an emergency, who have received at least an initial idea of ​​the service and basic skills in handling weapons and equipment, go to contract soldiers. The contract is a contract, and an urgent one is refused.

                    Of course, you should not take contract soldiers from the street, but you can join the urgent army, is that what you think?
                    1. novobranets
                      novobranets 14 February 2014 18: 32
                      0
                      People come to the urgent to get basic skills. Learn the most necessary things. But, a soldier to call a person who has served a year can be a baaalsh stretch. The main stake is not on the "years", as we said, but on the grandfathers, who closer to two years already could do something. Or have I misunderstood the question?
              2. s1н7т
                s1н7т 15 February 2014 11: 49
                0
                Quote: vladsolo56
                Usually, money is not needed at the front; therefore, during the war, wives, parents or any other proxies receive money.

                Hm. And from somewhere I know that, for example, in the Second World War, soldiers quite got their money at the front.
                1. vladsolo56
                  vladsolo56 15 February 2014 12: 44
                  0
                  Quote: c1n7
                  Quote: vladsolo56
                  Usually, money is not needed at the front; therefore, during the war, wives, parents or any other proxies receive money.

                  Hm. And from somewhere I know that, for example, in the Second World War, soldiers quite got their money at the front.

                  Well, yes, but a car shop came to the front line, selling Coca-Cola, chips and condoms.
  19. assam4
    assam4 14 February 2014 08: 44
    +3
    [quoThe Germans served everything, including the children of millionaires] [/ quote] with us, while some endure hardships and deprivations of service, others and peers drive expensive foreign cars, have fun with girls, live for their pleasure. This is one of the reasons for the lack of prestige of the conscription service. Over the past two decades, among many representatives of the younger generation, the stereotype has been strengthened that losers are joining the army.
  20. Magadan
    Magadan 14 February 2014 09: 13
    +2
    Bravo Anatoly! Cool put everything on the shelves! But it turns out that if everything is one size fits all, then the officer then automatically becomes a "mercenary", since he did not go to the Army on call.
    But, in any case, the conscripts are needed as well as the contract soldiers, and for all this we also need to prepare the militia! It would be nice to re-create irregular troops from the same Cossacks, who once a year must undergo training, getting a small monthly fee for this, well, or there are tax benefits plus assistance in acquiring housing.
    1. novobranets
      novobranets 14 February 2014 18: 43
      0
      Quote: Magadan
      For all this, the militia also needs to be prepared!

      It seems in vain canceled retraining. I was in the "partisans" twice, it was fun.
  21. Dart2027
    Dart2027 14 February 2014 09: 19
    +4
    Contractors need to fully staff the troops requiring technical training - missilemen, navy, and so on. Not a year or two will give a truly good specialist, and the technical complexity will not allow riveting the same S-400 or Yaseny in case of anything, so that a mobilization reserve is not particularly needed here. In addition, all junior command personnel of any troops must be professional. Conscripts are privates in units of the motorized infantry level, that is, they do not require special knowledge.
  22. Arbatov
    Arbatov 14 February 2014 09: 26
    +2
    Onotole is definitely very good. smart, but he knows, like each of us, not everything. The Germans had their own "general education". Before military service, every young man was necessarily sent to the labor army (or labor detachments) for six months or a year. The structure was similar to the army: discipline, subordination, special ranks, the study of weapons, the basics of tactics, etc. They lived in barracks, not necessarily in their small homeland. By the way, the girls were also obliged to serve in the labor army, regardless of the prospects of being sent to the troops.
  23. My address
    My address 14 February 2014 09: 36
    +3
    70-s. Tank forces. The commander of the T-62 was obtained in a year only from a graduate of a technical school. And it became good after a year and a half. The current youth is not more stupid (another thing, what the mind is directed at), but the T-90 is a completely different machine.

    Under our territories, the prepared reserve should be what, then it will be calmer. I think that to increase the service of conscription to one and a half years and to increase the army to one and a half million. And who served the benefits in housing, only to them in the civil service, budget places in universities.
    Regarding hazing. A friend of his wife says that her son had a komrota before the end soldier conducts the construction of soldiers in shorts. Who has a bruise - an immediate debriefing.

    Well, the rhetorical question:
    - Why is the government almost no vassermans hi ?
    1. The comment was deleted.
  24. Gomunkul
    Gomunkul 14 February 2014 09: 56
    0
    They must master the technology entrusted to them for many years.
    Probably A. Wasserman undertook to discuss on a topic that he does not fully know. I don’t think that all contract soldiers are slow-witted in order to master the equipment entrusted to them for many years (one might think that conscripts manage to master it in a year of service). hi
    1. novobranets
      novobranets 14 February 2014 18: 04
      0
      Quote: Gomunkul
      They must master the technology entrusted to them for many years.

      Depending on the complexity, the technique can be mastered in 1-3 years, but to learn how to use it masterfully is the entire service life. This is called honing mastery. Or in another way, live a century, learn a century. There will always be something new, some sort of special maneuver or technique that will help at a crucial moment.
  25. polkovnik manuch
    polkovnik manuch 14 February 2014 10: 32
    +2
    Yesterday I already expressed my opinion on this issue. Reserve officers should be trained in universities according to a multi-stage system (at military departments, training centers of the Ministry of Defense) according to the principle: 1-2 course - soldier, 3-4 - course - sergeant, 5 (6) - lieutenant of the reserve, subject to passing state exams in the studied military discipline. Urgently introduce the CWP course in schools from the 8th to the 11th grade; - with the obligatory passing of the state exam. The army should be completed according to a mixed principle (50 to 50), service life is necessary increase to one and a half to two years. Reserve officers and "partisans" should be drafted at least for a month or two once every three years in training and assigned units. The role of DOSAAF in training a future soldier should increase significantly! the command and teaching staff can (and are able to) recruit from reserve officers, retirees in the profile that the school requires.
  26. Alexey M
    Alexey M 14 February 2014 11: 14
    +1
    And what's wrong with serving man Homeland Is it bad that a competent specialist will drive a tank for 5 lyam bucks? Is it bad that guys who are not torn off their boobs yesterday but experienced fighters will go into reconnaissance? The year of service is nothing more than now when the dust is blown away from the soldiers.
  27. Duke
    Duke 14 February 2014 11: 47
    +1
    Thanks to Anatoly Wasserman for a brief and as always thoughtful analysis.
  28. Corsair5912
    Corsair5912 14 February 2014 11: 50
    0
    The Germans in World War II relied on a relatively small number of super-high class fighters, but when they spent a little on the battlefield, there was no one to replace them. Then I had to throw into battle in a huge number of people who know almost nothing. They at one time simply did not bother to seriously train

    This is not so, in fact the Germans cleverly circumvented the ban on the maintenance of a large army, there was no mistake in their actions.
    In the relatively small Reichswehr, there were no ordinary soldiers, each “private” had the training of a non-commissioned officer, which allowed the Germans, after mobilization, to quickly deploy and train a large army.
    In the Red Army, too, there were personnel regiments and divisions, it was they who broke the blitzkrieg and grind the German shock divisions, showing strong resistance to the enemy, who had, in the direction of the main blow, 3-4 a multiple superiority in numbers and equipment.
    Due to the enormous losses in the personnel of the Red Army, in the early years of the war there was a huge shortage of well-trained junior and middle command personnel.
    Contractors are needed in troops requiring high qualifications and experience, in armored, in the air force, in the navy, in the strategic missile forces, in air defense and to a lesser extent in the infantry. But universal military training is still necessary; the contractor must have initial military training.
  29. s1н7т
    s1н7т 14 February 2014 11: 54
    +2
    From zhezh, this Wasserman! Each time, radically changing the point of view, he will justify so beautifully that I want to believe him! laughing But seriously, who should and should know exactly what kind of army and why we need it. But there is also a political conjuncture (Wasserman's throwings here clearly show its changes), which, alas, dictates conditions regardless of the opinion of experts. Back in the 80s, I was faced with the fact that, for example, in sighting platoons, conscripts performed the functions of drivers, etc., the rest - crickets and ensign; in the tank regiments of the 8th Guards TA on 80s, tank commanders - ensign, conscripts - mech.waters and gunners; air defense regiment on the S-300 - mostly crickets and ensign. I want to say that everything was invented long before Wasserman. If not for perestroika and collapse, it is difficult to say what our army would be like now. The need for change was so strong that it was understood even at the company level. Example. The company had 78 people. (6 RSHG and 3 GSN), every half-year about 15 people went to demobilization, of which 3 to 6 people asked to stay. The commander attached them after the "school of gladiators" somewhere near us - some in the "secret", some in the warehouses, etc. I’m not saying that all the regular posts of ensigns and crickets were occupied exclusively by “their own”. So, like some serious teachings or some kind of "Evil", all these people joined the ranks of the company. And we had under 30-40% in the company, and in groups - at least 50% of scouts with 3-5 years of service experience, and this is a completely different song, you must agree! Well, then we were disbanded. "Graduates" as part of different units have gone through everything that was possible in the vastness of the former Soviet Union, have a fair "iconostasis". And one at all - on a colonel's post was recently (after the corresponding university, of course, but once to us for "correction" under demobilization was transferred). So the future belongs to professionals in key positions and specialties, and conscripts will be picked up by specialists and in positions that allow them to master some of the basics of military affairs in the shortest possible time. Messy, but somehow so soldier And even those who appoint the MoD would understand this - there, too, I want to see a professional military man, and not a manager like a crisis manager laughing
  30. Stinger
    Stinger 14 February 2014 12: 02
    +3
    An intelligent person cannot speak nonsense. I agree with all points. No one has any questions regarding officers. But they are, by definition, contract soldiers. So why raise questions if other categories of military personnel will serve on the same conditions? If the state has opportunities, it is simply necessary to implement it. By the way, the training of reservists, with proper organization, will only improve.
  31. Raptor75
    Raptor75 14 February 2014 13: 57
    +1
    With our size and "friendly" neighbors, only a mixed principle of manning the army is suitable. "Geography is a verdict" - one cannot say more precisely about Russia. The defense of their homeland is the business of all citizens. The presence of a prepared personnel reserve will make a potential adversary think about whether it is worth contacting us.
    A purely professional army is good for peacetime and war with a knowingly weak adversary.
  32. Setrac
    Setrac 14 February 2014 14: 05
    +3
    The draft army is not only a tool for protecting the state, but also a tool for educating young people.
    1. Refugee from Kazakhstan
      Refugee from Kazakhstan 14 February 2014 14: 52
      +1
      Here is 100% agree! And besides, in conditions of war, the general mobilization of the male population, among which the vast majority do not know how to hold weapons in their hands (because they were not heavier than a spoon and a computer mouse) is a collapse! Contractors are good, of course, but putting all your eggs in one basket is not worth it.
  33. Leshka
    Leshka 14 February 2014 14: 36
    0
    the contract army is good in that the soldiers in it become professionals
  34. EdwardTich68
    EdwardTich68 14 February 2014 14: 45
    +2
    Some people still cannot understand that in connection with the development of military equipment and thought, in the army
    professionals are needed, not stupid conscripts. The war is not like the 1st and 2nd World War, there will be no fronts.
    1. Refugee from Kazakhstan
      Refugee from Kazakhstan 14 February 2014 15: 10
      +1
      Immediately I will make a reservation in a single country "N" with huge distances and human resources! Let's say the aggressor is highly technological and as a result of high-precision non-nuclear strikes, the command is decapitated: even the militia will not have anyone to assemble, since the warriors only held a machine gun in a computer game!
      1. Sour
        Sour 14 February 2014 15: 36
        0
        Quote: RK refugee
        since the warriors kept the machine only in a computer game!

        I agree, but this is not critical.
        In Afghanistan, until 1979, practically no one was holding an automatic machine in their hands, but the need forced them - and they learned. The same garbage was in the USSR before the war. The bulk of the combat-ready population in the army did not serve (for example, both my front-line grandfathers first took up arms in 1942, when they were already over thirty). But immediately soldiers and partisans appeared. Initial weapon skills are, of course, important. But their absence is not fatal.
        1. novobranets
          novobranets 14 February 2014 18: 19
          0
          Quote: Sour
          But their absence is not fatal.

          Deadly ignorance of the basic techniques of battle. Even an inept dash can be the first and last. If you run in a straight line, you will get a bullet from the enemy, by stupidity you will take a lot to the side, you will get into someone else's sector, you will get a bullet in the back.
    2. Zamboy
      Zamboy 16 February 2014 00: 01
      0
      And why are the recruits stupid and the "professionals" smart? Are they born like that? Moreover, it is obvious that the overall quality of the conscript contingent (in the case of a general conscription) is naturally higher than the quality of the contingent recruited "by ad."
      1. EdwardTich68
        EdwardTich68 16 February 2014 12: 34
        0
        Why is the conscript stupid and the professional smart? The conscript does not know anything, absolutely nothing. When they enter the service, they are even unable to do so.
        1. Zamboy
          Zamboy 17 February 2014 13: 15
          0
          That is, the contractor already knows everything when he enters the service? Or does the conscript who signs the contract suddenly turn from a fool into a smart one?
  35. Sour
    Sour 14 February 2014 15: 32
    +2
    The need for a contract army was understood back in the USSR.
    Already then there were tank units, where the commanders of the tanks were warrant officers (on the 9th rank), and not conscripts. I served in the GSVG in the mid-80s, through the fence from our regiment there was just such a tank battalion. Even then, the generals understood that it was difficult for conscripts to master the T-64 and T-80, especially with sophisticated weapons such as ATGMs. The contract army is not the result of a change in the social system, but simply the result of the increasing complexity of combat training. Technological progress inevitably enhances the professionalization of the army.
    1. novobranets
      novobranets 14 February 2014 18: 38
      0
      Quote: Sour
      Technological progress inevitably enhances the professionalization of the army.

      That's for sure. The technique is getting harder and harder. To master it, some basic knowledge is already needed.
  36. Refugee from Kazakhstan
    Refugee from Kazakhstan 14 February 2014 16: 45
    +1
    Quote: Setrac
    The draft army is not only a tool for protecting the state, but also a tool for educating young people.
    This is the first!
    From now on, contract soldiers should have initial military training in the end! This is the second!
  37. Clueless
    Clueless 14 February 2014 17: 54
    +1
    the call can later be replaced by various courses of military training, etc. - if they are carried out with a good approach, then the level of the average conscript can be obtained - provided that they are carried out normally, and not in order to wash the loot - this is one of the options

    even served at the call of 98-00, well, the ass was, but it was not boring and informative :)))
  38. novobranets
    novobranets 14 February 2014 18: 24
    0
    Quote: Bad
    the average conscript level can be obtained - provided that they are carried out normally

    But, with compulsory practical exercises. By myself, I know that what appears to be one in a classroom looks different in the field.
  39. bda
    bda 18 February 2014 15: 33
    0
    Quote: invisible
    He himself served in the air defense, after 3 months no one was allowed to work. I do not question your words, but there is also KMB, combined arms training, physical training (!!!) and a sea of ​​knowledge necessary for a soldier.
    Personally, I am opposed to having specially hired firms feed the soldiers in the army, a soldier must be able to do everything! On the battlefield, any knowledge and skills is only a plus.


    KMB, of course, was "before" - for daily (except Sunday) classes "on equipment" the soldier always came after KMB and the oath.
    I understand that the situation I cited was not quite typical - it was about the so-called "special purpose unit" - in many other units, unfortunately, I had to observe that by the end of the service, the soldier did not become a normal operator, conducting almost all the time, sometimes at any construction site, sometimes in outfits, etc. The fact of the matter is that most people associate the concept of "conscript army" with just such bedlam. And this is not the fault of these soldiers and their commanders from the "ordinary" units - they are no stupider and no worse in all respects, just in some cases (when the "top" really wanted to), it was possible to create normal conditions for training in the draft army , and not to carry it out according to the residual principle (this is what we should strive for), and in others - it started to flow, simply due to a lack of appropriate resources.
    And three months of intensive training in a one-year service - is it a lot or a little?
    Imagine two situations:
    1. A young man who does not know how to drive finishes ordinary driving courses (traffic rules, driving up a hill, driving into a garage - in general, everything is according to the program). After that he gets into the car once a week (on Sundays), drives to the nearest supermarket "Auchan" and back. Evaluate his driving experience one year after starting the course.
    2. A young man who does not know how to drive is engaged in auto training with experienced instructors for three months every day for 8 hours (theory and practice - from simple "driving off" to elements and skills of "extreme driving" in various road and weather conditions). After that, every day he really works as a driver all day, periodically continuing to attend instructor classes (for "deepening and expanding"). Evaluate his driving experience one year after starting the training.
    So it is with combat training - you can make a conscript, if not Rimbaud, then a normal "combat" soldier for sure, or you can achieve nothing in a few years - unfortunately this is also typical for the so-called "professional" contract army - if you allocate 12 rounds a year for live fire, then in three years this contract soldier will be a professional only on paper.

    Yours faithfully,
    Dmitry.