I believe that Greece could go to a completely professional army and still meet its defense needs and do so soon.

Here are some reasons:

First, Greece's main threat, Turkey has only limited areas in which to press its main advantage of a large land army. Really, it is Thrace along the Evros River. And even there, the geography is not conducive to armoured operations. Almost half of the width of the front is covered with swamps and areas with woods and few roads. The Greek side has many hills which are great for tanks and attack helicopters to defend. And in the islands, the front line of defense will not be land forces, but the navy and the air force. If attackers can't land, they can't fight and take islands. Even if they land, they must be supplied. And if the navy and air force interdict the movement of supplies, taking the islands will be very difficult if not impossible.

Second, professional forces are much more efficient, which means that 1 professional is worth 3 conscripts.

Third, if the Greek Army had 1/3 the manpower with much improved efficiency, the MoD would probably spend less on training, equipping, and paying such a force than it is spending now on a conscript army.

Fourth, the weapons the Greek Army possesses or has on order would be even more devastating in the hands of professionals. MLRS, Leopard 2s, Pzh 2000s, manned by professionals would be frightening. (I didn't mention AH-64s because they are already manned by career officers, I'm sure.)

What are some thoughts?

however conscripts cost next to notihng to own were s professional soldiers cost hell of alot more in wages. Its about numbers not always quality we do need a reasonable size force and thet requires consripts. :catch:

Conscripts don't get paid nearly what professionals will receive. But they must be given uniforms, food, shelter, transport, equipment, training. The single largest cost for the army each year, about 38% of the budget, goes for personnel costs, and a large part of this is providing these things for the conscripts. Then you talk about maintaining all of the older tanks and APCs that they use, much of which is older than almost anyone who reads and discusses on this forum regularly, and you're talking about a significant portion of the army's annual budget.

You can take the same amount of money spent on conscripts and spend it on 1/3 the number of professionals, with higher pay, better equipment and training, and still achieve a higher force quality and probably be able to trim the budget a bit.

And quantity doesn't matter that much if the quality is so low that they get chewed up in combat quickly anyhow. The Arab-Israeli Wars show this. The Arab armies had a significant quantitative advantage over the Israelis, who had quantity and quality. Look at the casualty figures for 1967 and 1973, and then look at the results.

If Greek army conscripts are receiving only 12 months of training currently, then their efficiency will be lower in combat, which means they will probably become a casualty faster and unit cohesion will break down sooner than would happen with professionals. And if they receive little or no follow-on training after they leave the army, then their value as reservists to fill out units in cadre is of limited value. They'll only keep the corpsmen busy.

So to me, if you want to do it right, you need to go with professionals. Or go with a system like what the Israelis have, where everybody serves for 3 years and then receives 39 days of reserve training each year until they are 41. But that takes much more money than what Greece spends now on defense. Double the current GDP percentage to achieve those results. Fnland does this, but to a lesser extent. They have fewer conscripts called up each year for shorter time periods, and recall about 40,000 reservists a year for 40 days of follow-on training. This creates a higher force quality. In Finland, reservists can expect to be recalled every few years for follow-on training. Even if Greece did something like this, it would increase force quality and trim the defense budget as well.

I don't know for all of Greece, but in Lesvos we would have local reservists come in for training. But yes your avarage Athinean doesn't go for reserve training.

As far as the 3:1 ratio, I don't know where you get that, but I can assure you it's variable as to the quality increase. The systems you mention Leo's, Pzh's etc. are already operated by 5-year proffesionals. They are supported by conscripts.

[/QUOTE]You can take the same amount of money spent on conscripts and spend it on 1/3 the number of professionals, with higher pay, better equipment and training, and still achieve a higher force quality and probably be able to trim the budget a bit.
[QUOTE]

If you reduce the size of our force by 66%, down to 40.000 people. The money you think you will save, you will not. You will have to reduce the duties of the pros, which means hireing others to do the cooking, cleaning, serving, gaurd duties, patrols, etc, that conscripsts now do for next to free. I don't see how you would save money. I'd like to see a cost/benifit analysis before I'd think you would save money.

NTM, I cant see how only an active force of +-40.000 would be enough. We need that for the islands alone...

An added benifit is that in time of crisis, all our men know the basics of warfare, you can throw them a MILAN and in 15 minutes it will all be back, like riding a bike. I would never entrust my country to only 40.000-60.000 people when Turkey is next door. The way it is now, we can have an active full force of 327.000 in less than 14 days. If we only have pros, what is the maximum we could get, 75.000? What is the maximum number of weaponry that 40.000 people can operate?

I actually think we got it right for once and we have already found the best system for us...

Apsolutly right...
1 point that i wanted to add is this...In an possible war...allways the conscript with hes enthousiasm ...Love to the country...(and in specific cases like Island inhabitants) Love to there Homes...will fight to all costs...
The Pros Army have alot of different problems.
Maybe you have an bunch of well equipped and "good" trained soldiers...(I can remember some Professional US Marines in an excercise in really Bad contission back in the 90s...anyway)
My point is this...
Around the whole world who goes to the Army to be an profissenial SOLDIER?..(not officer ) morelikly someone who didnt finshed shool/university etc etc...The most of them are in the styl "dimosios ypallilos" with exception of SF/MBT units...
I cant emagine someone who passes in University as an Architekt for excample living for getting in the Army...?
But excactly those citizens do we need in the Army ...and thats for free....as conscripts...
How ofetn do you think ...an conscript showed for excample an PC use...to an Officer...? or translated to hem something from english etc etc...or builded inside an caserne something important for free...?
Or used an system which he was familiar because of hes job...we will lose all that knowledge from specialist citizens...also the contact to the Army...


OYK you have to know ...Greeks love there Army...we dont have alot of things that we can be proud of...But for shure one of this institusions is the Army...
Because our Sons serve there...
You know in the greek society till now...a man who didnt served hes time for any reason...is locked up like an handycaped...
I just want to see my 2 Sons Serving the Army...Thats why i would like to see an 50% pro army and the rest conscripts...


Regards

Lord, those are all great points. And I know that Greeks love their army and have a lot of respect for it.

One of my concerns is the quality of the training. 12 months of training with little if any follow up training would provide only limited amounts of training. Only someone who served in the Greek Army could know the quality of the training. I'm not a Greek citizen who didn't serve in the Greek Army, so I can't know much about the quality of the training. Can you tell me what you think about the quality of the training?

No doubt that enthusiasm and love for country count for a lot. And conscripts offer lots of benefits that professionals do not. And you get a larger force with conscripts.

But you get a lot of men who died for their country if they aren't trained extensively.

So Lord, will you comment on your impressions of training in the Greek Army? Is it more extensive than I believe it is?

It all comes to the man! Someone with interest is more usefull then some without.
At my time the most seargents and co, from the school for unterofficers, didn't care much for the army!
We had one he was mad because he couldn't get a camp near his birth place!
The seargent who supposed to be weapons specialist didn't new anything about weapons!
Me and one friend of me had to ajust the sights of our weapons alone! And check all the M2HB barrels for beeing properly fit in!
Our training was ABC training waring gas masks while cleaning the WC, carrying out garbage, working at the kitchen and servicing the vehicles, the privete one of the officers included!
How do you want to build a profesional army with people who just want to be "dimosioi ypalliloi"? :gang beat:

We need to change the way of thinking from deep down and up to the top. :shout:

PS: The only exeption was our captain. Ex-OYK, Paraschuter wing, ELDYK and so on! :drink:

Dear friend

Yes indeed the issue training is an big theme...
But of corse i think not only for the greek Army,but around the world.
I could tell you about the training in the SF.
It is among the hardests in the NATO, harsh and specific.(I could
We saw even in the early 90s that there was an differnts among carrier soldiers and officers (knowledge) and the conscripts.
But the officers managed all the time to close the differences.
The Greeks in generall are very quick in learning and very aducated.
You can easily make them enthousiastic,if you know the way.
Something that happens in Sf.(Of corse there it was easy because all the soldiers were volunteers...lol)
Other units which i saw with high training are the MBT units..and this of the Artillery...They know there buisness well.Especially MLRS units for excample...
In units with new weappons you have to know they are very good organized and trained...For excample the whole B Corps is really one of the best...
For regular infantery units i would say that it was allways depanding on the commanding officer...
An other point is that the SF will not accept Conscripts in the near future...nor the MBT units...(something that i support)

The greek army is searching for excample alot of ways to rise the level of training with simiulators...With new training methods which officers are learning in NATO shools...etc etc..

Something that i didnt liked in my time...was that we for excample haid alot of change to shoot with our rifles...and guns.
The infantery conscript didnt haid this change...because of economical reasons...This changed the last years...

and alot of other things...that i would cladly talk about...


Regards

Lord, thanks for responding.

I'm glad to read that you regard the training of the tank crews and artillery as pretty high. Those two corps. have almost all professionals now, I suppose. It's the infantry I would worry about, because those guys have it the toughest. Because being an infantryman is so tough, I would think that training for them would have to be very demanding so that they can withstand the pressures of combat.

What Chris says is worrisome, because in combat, which is what those guys are there to train for, their training is what could get them out alive and successful. If they are receiving improper training, then that's a real problem that will show up in the number of casualties if war ever comes. Hopefully never again, but that's what those guys are there for: to train for the possibility of having to defend the country.

Yes, Lord, I would like to know more about the Greek Army's training, if you have time to share what you know.

Well,some things have to change in the army.Better sooner than later.If they want to keep the conscripts they should start paying them.Today a conscript in Greece gets 8 euro/month! :Angry:

Cam ...i dont think that payement will rise the level of quality in training...no?
Its the messures and the fantasy that we have to rise...
As i wrote above...alot of things changed...i will search for some english sources about training...if o dont found anything i will add the greek articels that i have...which are very positive...even about infantery... ;)

Regards

ChrisCRTS is correct to say that it depends on the sodier, but it also depends on the Administrator and the number of recruits at the battalion. My training was quite good, not exceptional, but someone else that served at the same battalion as me got better/harder training because of a different Admin and smaller line (less personel).

The short aswer to your question, OYK1, is that if the soldier is willing and he is based on a border location, he will get at the minimum good training. But as far as protective and communication gear... Let's just say we need to put LOTS of Euro's there...

I agree that Greece needs to train up and maintain a professional force, but they should not completely do away with conscription. Full-time professionals aside, when it comes to the crunch, you'd rather have a trained conscript (albeit with limited experience) in your fighting ranks than an untrained civilian with a gun to back you up.

You get that in a conscript force, and these are usually the exception rather than the norm. I was an infantry conscript (a machine gunner), and I knew I wasn't going to do it as a career, yet I made the most of the time I was in there - trying to learn as much as I could, and so did the majority of my fellow soldiers; and for the most part they did feel a pride in having served.

Full-time professionals are one thing, but I've found that "professional reservists" are somewhat lacking in ability and motivation. A few acquaintances of mine have served in the Australian Army Reserve - Infantry, and they had nowhere near the amount of training and "real life" experience as I did in the Greek Army. After Basic, they were called up one weekend each month for a refresher... and that's it (and most of that was parade and barracks duty, with the occasional excursion into the countryside).

Putting a conscript through 6-12 months of continuous training on the Aegean islands, or on the Turkish, Bulgarian or Albanian frontier, I believe, creates a much more effective, and motivated, soldier (than a Professional Reservist).

I served in the Greek-Turkish border. I saw seargents going on patrol on the river having their magazines removed from the punch and replased them with FM radios!

But i was on Patra too. (Technikal training). They had civilians doing the cooking, and teaching us! The soldier just had to learn, or keep guard once in a week!

I tell you. We need civilians to do the non vital things. So you have "more" batlle worthy soldiers and you can trained them propebly.

ChrisCRTS,

I never experienced or saw anything to that extent, but I did hear about similar attitudes and behaviour from friends and relatives of mine who also served. In contrast, our training was very hard and relentless (at both battalions in which I served), and our officers and our NCOs were capable soldiers.

What you've described shows that standards in the Greek Army (training and quality) differ quite dramatically from unit to unit. Maybe GES should concentrate on not only increasing the standards of training, but also on setting and maintaining some kind of uniformity (in everything) across the board in Army.

***

@Lord/thermopyles

Did you experience anything like what ChrisCRTS described during your time in the Army?

Dragases

No...at all...we didnt walked in the basis camp...we runned...even smoking was forbidden except in the ÊØÌ...nor could i emagine anyone using an Transistor on hes guard...something like that would cost hem hes neck...
I cant tell about any other Unit except that ones that i served...or that one that i visited...(and they were alot)
Chris isnt saying any thing wrong or false...but as someone mention..its allways depending on the Commanding officer of an unit how...he will fill the programm...
The standards set by the GES...are high...and for an Army like ours...very good...but of corse exceptions are allways there...Thank God they are only exceptions...

It would be nice to know how many days an soldier gets jail if hes catched with an radio on duty...20 days its from the commmander...+ 10 from hes captain...
If hes catched sleeping...20 days...and it depence on the commander about sending hem to courtmarshal...
Unshaved...5 days...
to long hairs 5 days...second time...20 days...
spitting on ground...10 days...
smoking...10-20 days....depending were...
etc etc....

Regards

My opinion is focused on the following:

a. Entrance of candidates into the military schools via national written exams. FOR GOD'S SAKE, who was the moron that decided such a measure... Any kid next door that has nothing to do with the army, in a way not to stay unemployed but still has the ability to be an excellent student, decides to be an officer. But if you see him, hear his voice or justify its character you'll wonder, how the hell he's gonna lead troops or how he's gonna have them disciplined

b. Professional army means steady income. Have you ever wondered (except those that witnessed things while in service) why the hell most of the "professional" guys and am talking especially about the lower level staff like corporals and others, behave like employees in a public organization? Because such a job is the last resort for them since they are incapable of doing anything else, damned lazy people. I wish I had the chance for a month to be in charge of some of these guys, they would really know what running means...

c. Ok, civilians can handle side tasks like cooking, cleaning, or even repairing, but that doesn't mean that soldiers or officers should not have a clue about these stuff. You don't expect a civilian coming at the "front" and cooking for you, do you? (unless you call him back in arms, hahaha).

d. This damned country goes ahead based on the true love some of its citizens have for it, each one of them from own position... The soldiers or the officers going on duty with a magazine or the radio in pocket, or the soldiers that sleep while on duty, or the officers that discuss about football teams on systems' radio while on exercise, aren't the real ones to blaim. The head of the fish stinks, not the tail, consequently we need rapid and and real measures to change the attitude in some parts of our military force...

But Lord you served in S.F. I served in Airforce, things there are totally different, not to say opposite... :(

@Lord

I can tell you it's 10 days for not saluting a Colonel! :lol:

:hahaha: Wraios!


@Dragases

No, there was not much "loufa" (lazyness/on your balls) at my post. The only loufa there was from a group of 8-12 guys that didn't give a sh!t, and each ended up with 100-180 day in jail for it... We were just short of 400 people, so we were good size and by far most of the soldiers there took it quite seriously. Our Admin and 2nd in charge were VERY serious and compitent, and so was our Captain. I remember when the new line would come in and didn't know what to expect, every morning we would spend 1 1/2-2 hours with all the people that had been brought for "anafora" (trial?) while they were all sentanced to their time. After a couple of weeks it would only take 15-30 minutes :rolleyes:

Guard duty was 3-4 days every week, and there was NO sleeping, radios, or smoking, and that was stricktly enforced. Actually, the climate there was very proffesional, and our Dioikitis (Admin) would always give out "timitiki adia" (honourable time off?) to the best soldiers after a sussesfull excersize. That was great motivation!!! (I managed 7 days of this, once for putting all our depos/warehouses in order for the visit of the Taksiarxos (Colonel?), and once for getting the top (almost perfect) score with a HK11 at 300m).


@chrisCRTS

What years did you serve? Was it infantry? My cousin was in the Navy and he has similar stories to yours, and my koumbaros (RIP) was a Black Berret and his stories were of very serious training...

@Hades: Well in case of war they would be a mobilitation right? The civilians would becaume soldiers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The examples i gave were the worst. As i saim my captain was very good ex S.F.. There were also captains who go to far and "burn" their soldiers as they tried to impresed our Major and take a promotion.

There are hundrends of stories of good and bad. That's why i said it comes to the people.

There are few good, few bad and sadly many neutral.

When i go to service i planed to sign for five years but after two months i changed my mind.

There has to be a radical change. First in the way of thinking. The army sould stop beeing the "safety" for some people who didn't make it to lawer scool etc. And it must made clear to those who get in the importance of their position as soldiers.

Guys, we all know the service can be a pain in the ass, not just the service, but the way will/can interrupt plans... We should never stop looking at ways to improuve our forces, but besides my belief that a full pro army simply won't work for our situation, I think all Greeks should take pride in our warrior history, and continue our ancestors traditions and honour thier sacrifices by training themselfes for the defence of our nation.

Or, think of it this way: If you're a civilian and there is a war and you have been called up, would you rather have 12-18 good months of training uder your belt, or nothing, before someone hands you a weapon and tells your company to defend a position? How confident will a civilian be, and how confidant will a veteran be?

But this will be very hard. The service cannot compete with the private sector, so when seeking a pro army, these are the people we will attract. Look at how big and rich the US is. Sure they get many educated people there, but still your avarage grunt is there because its the "safety" option... But still a better option that nothing... It will be VERY expensive to retain the size force we need, and provide enough incentives to recruit university grads or equivillant... Now, these university grads serve anyway, and contribute their own specialty. I remember at my battalion, there was a group of construction workers, and they got out of regular training because they built a small church for us, and made repairs around the base, for free. Medical grads did their time at our anarotirio (clinic?), etc, etc...

Don't forget the most of profetional Soldiers of the US are "latinos" trying to becaume US citizens, or poor people who go to the army because the Army pays their studies and those who look "safety".

Those who are "pride" etc are mostly the volunteers in national guard and few profetionals in the army. The soldiers not the officers!

Good point, Chris. So could we draw the conclusion that Albanians would join our army, if it was for pros, to get citizenship? But more importanly, would we NEED them to do so because we wouldn't have enough of our own?

Yeah, let us follow the path (small "professional" mercenary armies composed of non-Hellenes) that sealed the fate for the Byzantine empire. We need another 400 years of occupation to wake up I think!

All I'm concerned about is the quality of training for soldiers. And as conscripts tend to be less willing to endure tougher training than volunteers or professionals, it seems to me that a professional force would be more reliable. Besides, in every society, there are people who are born to be soldiers. Not everyone is made to be a soldier.

Here in the United States, you have a lot of Latinos and blacks in the military. But what you have a lot of also are people from small towns and the country in the military. These people make good soldiers because of their rural backgrounds, and for many it is an opportunity they might not get elsewhere to make a profession. That's not a bad thing. Every country has people who look at the military as one of their main opportunities to make a profession, and that's okay. Why not have volunteers and put them through more thorough training, and let those go who don't really want to be there but do it because they have to, then slack off and don't take it seriously?

Sure, understood, but that much easier to say when you have 300mil people and your Turkey isn't 7 times bigger than you.

All of you have very good points there...really

@OYK
The professional soldiers in the greek Army...can cancel there contract after one year...I thing about 11% do so...so the remaining man i suppose are soldiers that like to stay in the Army...

My opinion...Gents ?... about having some "other" nationalitys in our Army because of the citizenship...(ala US) YOU DONT WANT TO KNOW...
Greece didnt haid any Foreign Legion...in our hystory...and we do not need any...

Lets focus on the main "body" of the Army Forces...and not to some exceptions...(which could be some 10-15%)
The rest does have an good training...which is rising by each day (new training fasilitys/possibilitys/methodes officers etc etc)

Regards

I said what the situation in US army is, NOT what we should do to the greek army!
I just wanted to tell you that the US army, that you took as an example of profetional army, is not what Greece need! gun2

@ Chris

I know bro! I was supporting your argument with the Albanian example!

Ok then!

National Guard/Professional Core Dogma as in US -> Good.
Multicultural Army as in US -> Bad.

Whether we like it or not, want it or not, Greece is not a multicultural country and history teach us that it will perhaps never be.

Good discussion, people. Sorry I've been gone so long. Graduate work, work, family. Not enough time.

There's another angle I would like to look at this from: Several wars the last 30 years or so have shown several trends that lead away from massive numbers of infantry and tanks as the main means of defending your nation.

1) 1973 Yom Kippur War: tremendous expenditure of material in a short amount of time shows that modern conventional weapons, even in the early '70s, are very destructive and that warfare takes on an even faster pace than in WWII.

2) 1991 Persian Gulf War: Coalition air power got most of the press, but what people sometimes overlook is the fact that the 7th Corps. that advanced when the ground war began did so behind a frightening bombardment from MLRS, M109s, and AH-64s that tore gaping holes in the Iraqi front lines. The point is, conventional rockets and artillery still do most of the killing in modern war, and even more rapidly than ever in any past conflict.

The fact is: Firepower from artillery and aircraft kills many more troops and vehicles than infantry and armor, the classic model for ground combat.

3) 2003 Persian Gulf War: reinforced and refined every trend from Gulf War I. Air power and artillery did most of the killing and destruction of enemy ground forces, not tanks and infantry.

4) Falklands War: Roughly 20,000 professional British Royal Marines, paratroopers, light infantry, and SAS, defeated over twice as many Argentinian army 18-20 year old conscripts. Air superiority and firepower dominance from the British made their professional ground troops even more powerful.

My point is, the trends in the destructiveness of ordnance, whether dropped from aircraft or delivered by artillery, lead to the fact that massing ground troops and their combat vehicles, tanks, IFVs, APCs, etc., will only lead to the rapid destruction of combat units and either stalemate or defeat.

Greece is going in the direction of a more modern form of warfare that relies on delivery of massive amounts of smart or area weapons from standoff ranges.

In other words, in modern war, defeat of enemy ground forces comes from massive firepower delivered from great distances, not from close combat and direct fire from tanks and infantry. This trend began all the way back in WWI, improved in WWII, and the technology today means that we don't talk of a battlefield, but a battle area.

So large ground forces are not only necessary, but targets for destruction.

What I'm looking at anymore is not how many tanks, infantry, and APCs or IFVs each side has, but how much cannon and rocket artillery each side has, and what types of shells they have stocked and can manufacture. Attack helicopters, combat aircraft and the ordnance they drop, and how they drop them. Assault rifles are cool, but they and their carriers, infantry, don't do most of the destruction in modern war.

For Greece and Turkey, if you look closely, Turkey has significant advantages in tanks, infantry, and combat vehicles. But look at artillery, attack helicopters, and combat aircraft. And even warships. The numbers are a bit more balanced. And look at the PGM numbers for the air forces. Greece will have more PGMs than Turkey after the JDAMs and Longshots are delivered.

Greece has more rocket launchers, especially the most deadly in the world, the M270 MLRS. 4 of those can unload all 12 rockets in 1 minute and wipe out an entire battalion massed for an attack! And don't forget the RM-70s, 1 battalion of 18 that has enough firepower with its AGAT rockets to wipe out 2 massed battalions for an attack.

In cannon artillery, Greece is receiving SMArt 155 shells, each with 2 sensor fuzed munitions. Greece manufactures its own cargo shells, the GRM49 and the GRM49 Extended Range Base Bleed shell, as well as the GRM20 mortar bomb for the 107mm mortars.

And M107 HE has been found in US Army tests and Gulf War analysis to do more destruction than given credit.

Yes, ordnance, not infantry and tanks, do the most damage and destruction to enemy forces. So in my opinion, large numbers of tanks and infantry are not necessary. So what infantry and tanks you do have can be professionals if you don't need a lot of them.

OYK1: NO.
Forget the US Gulf wars! The Irak was weak after 8 years war with Iran and weapons embargo that deminiced his Air Force and air defence.

On the other side you had the most modern Air force of the world with allies who also had great air forces.

In the Falklands Argentina didn't expectet that GB would react that way and so they didn't really send airplanes in the islands, Pucaras don't count, and the bases in Argentina were to far away.

In the case of Greece-Turkey you have two almost equal air forces, in quality and quantity.
The tanks and the infantry would have to do a lot of work to do in a war.

@ OYK

While I find your analysis correct, I don't find it applicable. Your definition of "large" amounts of troops is not and would never be the case for Greece. If you consider 115.000 troops against Turkey a "large" force, then oh well :sbof:

I'll also point out that not all countries have the resources to militarize as you say, and have to apply the proper dogma for themselfes... For example, you havent seen what a good infantry can do, but if you want the best example, look at the Chechnyans against the Russians. The Russians bombarded Grozney to the ground with air and arty, but good Chechen infantry kicked their asses... And that was only good infantry. Very good infantry is almost indestructible.

Sorry for the late reply.

Chechans in Grozny, an urban battle area reduced to rubble by Russian artillery and aircraft. Perfect conditions for infantry. Mechanized warfare is greatly limited in such a combat environment. Just ask any Germans who may have survived Stalingrad and the POW camps in Siberia.

Gulf War I: No doubt there was a great mismatch there. I was talking about the destructiveness of the artillery. Everyone knows about the airpower results. But few pay as much attention to the artillery. MLRS and M109s rapidly wiped out large areas of the Iraqi defenses before the VII Corps advance. No where for anyone to hide when a battery of MLRS are unloading on you!

Fact is, modern conventional weapons are extremely destructive. The modern battle area is much more empty than ever before in history. Fewer troops can deliver much more destructive firepower than ever before in history.

My point is that Turkey has a large army of infantry and vehicles. If those vehicles are massed at any one spot for an attack, the Greek army will try to stop them and have much more rapid success if they use lethal fires from MLRS, RM-70, M109s Pzh 2000s, and AH-64s rather than with large numbers of infantry and tanks.

Between the munitions they have already (M26 rockets, GRM49, SMArt 155, etc.) along with more advanced communications suites (WISPR, WISPR Wireless LAN, etc.) along with target acquisition sensors (Sperwer, TPQ-37m ARTHUR, etc.), the Greek Army will be able to deliver large volumes of firepower against a ground force very rapidly.

The Intelligent Battle Management System can network battalions, thus making them more efficient. So fewer ground troops and tanks are needed because they don't do most of the effort to defeat enemy ground forces, and they have to be more dispersed to avoid destruction.

And British professional light infantry took the Argentinian conscripts to school in the Falklands War, hands down.

Yes Turkey had great mases of soldiers etc. But don't underestimate their modern warfare capabilities. ;)

At the end the well trained infantry is the most reliable force.
No airforce, artieliery etc can hold a hill. ;)

Yes, less can do more today. that is why infantry is a defensive/support weapon rather than the main operator. But Greece plans defensive warfare for infarty. If you ask me to defend a village, I would happily take a loxo (platoon?) of well-equipped (good PPE (personal protective equipment), good comm, good optics) infantry armed with mortars, MANPADS and MANPATS and HK 11's over an AH-64 or MLRS in an instant.

It's alway just a matter of time, but occupation will inevetably come down to infantry, so we have to make sure they are well protected, armed, supported, capable and trained.

The difference to the falklands, iraq etc. is that Turkey has the same systems like Greece. There are marginal difference in the equipment. So when Greece can use these system Turkey can do it also...and who can more afford to lose a entire battalion ? Turkey or Greece ?

No one... :doubt: