| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
shifty
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 2:34 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Many White South Africans are of farming stock (though hardly anymore)and took naturally to the army life. If you will, you could compare them to the Germans, with similar aptitude for the military.
One should remember also that we were getting into a more and more precarious situation and it was better to sacrifice some in order to get an effective military capability.
This did allow the numbers of 'problem people' to be suppressed and it was hard to know where and how many were falling through the cracks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
schwa
Joined: 18 Jan 2003
Location: Yap
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 2:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| This thread still has potential to be an interesting discussion about the life of conscripts in Korea, as intended, if shifty would kindly shut up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shifty
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Conscription is the same wherever you go. With that in mind I believe I have been providing some insights into the life of conscripts in South Korea. After all, there won't ever be many posts from Korean conscripts on Daves, now will there?
But I will give shutting up a bash. Certainly can't guarantee anything.
Last edited by shifty on Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:58 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nukeday
Joined: 13 May 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The OP was about asking a Korean conscript. You can wax poetic about your year in the South African army in your own thread... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
schwa
Joined: 18 Jan 2003
Location: Yap
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have a question for the OP.
I go on base twice a week to teach english to the recruits. I was given no particular mandate beyond teaching survival english. The group I meet ranges from the academically challenged to some with near-perfect toeic scores. Attendance mandatory.
If this were your base, how do you think the guys would regard this kind of activity? I'm fishing here. I've been teaching them random stuff I think might be relevant to them & they're all gradually getting more conversational. I'm wondering if I should try to be more systematic, but every month a couple guys leave & fresh conscripts replace them.
Any insight or suggestions? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Died By Bear
Joined: 13 Jul 2010
Location: On the big lake they call Gitche Gumee
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't mind shifty's springbok stories. He's the first ex-Rhodesian soldier I've ever seen write about his time in the army. Or was he SA, and just referring to the Rhodesians? Doesn't matter, let him speak...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shifty
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 7:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Died By Bear wrote: |
| I don't mind shifty's springbok stories. He's the first ex-Rhodesian soldier I've ever seen write about his time in the army. Or was he SA, and just referring to the Rhodesians? Doesn't matter, let him speak... |
Thanks Bear. Just referring to the Rhodesians.
Army experiences are universal. I fancy the OP would slot right in anywhere if he had to.
But since Schwa wants hints on how to teach Korean troops English, I think the thread should now be moved to 'job forum'. Mods? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
silkhighway
Joined: 24 Oct 2010
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 8:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Conscripts are mostly a joke and are only used because they don't cost anything. But effective? Give me a platoon of professional soldiers over a battalion of conscripts any day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shifty
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 8:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| silkhighway wrote: |
| Conscripts are mostly a joke and are only used because they don't cost anything. But effective? Give me a platoon of professional soldiers over a battalion of conscripts any day. |
I'm inclined to agree with you in principle, but it has the makings of an eternal dilemma.
If there is a guerrilla type onslaught where they, the terrs, hold initiative of when and where to strike, it's difficult to hold a thin line with pro troops. They can't ever be used to their maximum for a decisive blow..
I'm sure in the day, the resident experts looked at it from all angles and I would bow to their conclusions.
I think, though, that Korea should alter to a dedicated force. But they would know if that was truly the case. . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
silkhighway
Joined: 24 Oct 2010
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 9:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| shifty wrote: |
| silkhighway wrote: |
| Conscripts are mostly a joke and are only used because they don't cost anything. But effective? Give me a platoon of professional soldiers over a battalion of conscripts any day. |
I'm inclined to agree with you in principle, but it has the makings of an eternal dilemma.
If there is a guerrilla type onslaught where they, the terrs, hold initiative of when and where to strike, it's difficult to hold a thin line with pro troops. They can't ever be used to their maximum for a decisive blow..
I'm sure in the day, the resident experts looked at it from all angles and I would bow to their conclusions.
I think, though, that Korea should alter to a dedicated force. But they would know if that was truly the case. . |
I suspect the reason Korea doesn't alter to a dedicated force is because it would be too expensive. Conscripts may be mostly ineffective but they're cheap and plentiful and no investment is needed in them. If you need bodies to 'hold the line' then you're right, a country is probably better off with them.
Another thing too about a dedicated force, you don't see the kind of abuse you do with conscripts. There are always a-holes of course, but for the most part, the soldiers are treated with dignity.
PS I agree that experiences of conscripts are probably mostly universal. The army is the army. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fermentation
Joined: 22 Jun 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Paddycakes wrote: |
Question for the OP:
What do they do with the guys who are just totally and absolutely unable to hack even basic training?
Maybe I'm thinking of westerners, but there are a lot of guys out there who could not hack 8 weeks of what you just described... they just couldn't do it... their personalities are so non-average or mainstream conventional that they'd never fit in the system no matter how hard you tried.
What happens to these guys? Do they just skip basic and do something else? |
Yes there are plenty of guys who are uncapable of even basic training (its not that hard). One of the problems with conscription is that you get guys that should really have no business being in the military. I've seen guys are too fat or mentally unstable. But "fortunately" for them, the bar isn't set very high. Basic training is catered for kids who have never exercised in their life. You gather points during basic and if you don't meet the quota by the end, you have to do it again. But the quota isn't high. You can skip on some of the marches or not even hit the required 12 or 10 targets during marksmanship to pass. There was one guy in my platoon who couldn't hit the side of a barn so they had him fire like 100 rounds yet he still failed, so they just gave up and passed him anyway. You have to be messed up(physically or mentally) in a really big way in order to be deemed unfit for military life. Guys who are unfit mentally are sent to a special camp to get counseling and "fixed." If they can't get fixed, they are discharged. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fermentation
Joined: 22 Jun 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| schwa wrote: |
I have a question for the OP.
I go on base twice a week to teach english to the recruits. I was given no particular mandate beyond teaching survival english. The group I meet ranges from the academically challenged to some with near-perfect toeic scores. Attendance mandatory.
If this were your base, how do you think the guys would regard this kind of activity? I'm fishing here. I've been teaching them random stuff I think might be relevant to them & they're all gradually getting more conversational. I'm wondering if I should try to be more systematic, but every month a couple guys leave & fresh conscripts replace them.
Any insight or suggestions? |
Every unit is different. I'm not sure what type of unit you teach, but I'm guessing it's a combat unit considering the mix of educated and non-educated types. My unit has mostly college-educated guys and a few fluent English speakers. My guys would welcome it and many would be thrilled. Most guys would be interested in increasing their TOEIC/TOEFL scores and being prepared for their college courses and job interviews. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fermentation
Joined: 22 Jun 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| silkhighway wrote: |
I suspect the reason Korea doesn't alter to a dedicated force is because it would be too expensive. Conscripts may be mostly ineffective but they're cheap and plentiful and no investment is needed in them. If you need bodies to 'hold the line' then you're right, a country is probably better off with them.
Another thing too about a dedicated force, you don't see the kind of abuse you do with conscripts. There are always a-holes of course, but for the most part, the soldiers are treated with dignity.
PS I agree that experiences of conscripts are probably mostly universal. The army is the army. |
It is too expensive. Or at least that's the reason we are always given. We're bombarded with propaganda how Korea is such a large economy, an advanced democracy and technological power house. Yet for all this talk of how we value freedom and have a ton of money, we're still too poor to protect ourselves without sacrificing the freedoms of our citizens.
we do have to take into account the force to space ratio in a defensive war, but I believe having a smaller professional force is better for Korea's defense in the long run. We're putting our national security on the hands of ill-trained slaves who want nothing better than to quit their jobs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jvalmer
Joined: 06 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fermentation wrote: |
| we do have to take into account the force to space ratio in a defensive war, but I believe having a smaller professional force is better for Korea's defense in the long run. We're putting our national security on the hands of ill-trained slaves who want nothing better than to quit their jobs. |
If Korea went with a professional army, I would figure they'd get 100,000 soldiers tops. Realistically probably in the 50,000 to 80,000. In the event of something happening with NK (most likely scenario being the absorption of NK), you'll still need boots on the ground to do mundane things like directing traffic until NK is securely under control. That's where the 500,000 SK conscripts come in handy.
Also considering NK has over 1 million troops, who are probably equally undisciplined, you don't want to be too badly outnumbered. Until Korea is unified, a professional army is unwise (unless I totally underestimate Koreans signing up for a volunteer army) and the SK army would be outnumbered 20 to 1. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
realworldexperience
Joined: 02 Dec 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 12:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| hey fermentation check your pm! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
