RE: [FH] Dollars to Credits

Then there is the question of training.  National Guard units that
really only
get a few days of training a month and maybe a two week stint once a
year
is not going to compare to the front line units who have constant
training, 
both
physically and mentally.  It's one thing to count bodies, but troop
quality 
stands
for a lot, as evidenced by the Gulf War.

Sure you might field several hundred thousand troops, but how many are
going
to stand up to assault by an armored brigade?  Whereas a line troop
might break
even, it's going to take quite a few reservists to have the same effect,

especially
with second line weapons.

I would think the difference between reservists and line troops is
probably the
same as a green recruit fresh out of bootcamp and veterans who had been
in
action for a few months.  The recruit may know which end of the gun is
dangerous, but the details of survival and effectiveness in the field
and in
action against the enemy are missing.  I would tend to rate such
formations 
made
from reservists as "Green".

--Binhan

-----Original Message-----
From:	Oerjan Ohlson [SMTP:oerjan.ohlson@telia.com]
Sent:	Monday, March 15, 1999 11:22 AM
To:	gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Subject:	Re: [FH] Dollars to Credits

Yup. Not very well equipped - most would be line infantry - but a *lot*
more. As an example, the Swedish army about 10 years ago was supposed
to field approx. half a million men when fully mobilised; Sweden's
population at the time was roughly 8.5 million. Now we've reduced the
army to virtually nothing, but IIRC the Finnish army still has a fully
mobilised strength of several hundred thousand (out of a population of
4-5 million - again IIRC; 'twas over ten years I last saw reliable
figures on Finland's population).

...'course, if your battalions have about 60,000 men each (including
supporting troops) it works out to one battalion per Mpop ;-)

Later,

Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com