The man in the system , whether it be an infantryman or weapons
systems
operator is the most critical element in a shooting war.
Read history on warfare & you will know that although
technology can give an edge, it can also be counteracted with new
tactics.
History is replete with examples of highly motivated and skilled
individual warriors who overcome odds to beat a numerically or
technologically superior
opponent. The warrior mentality, in my opinion, is crucial for
success in battle.
Look at the Gurkhas, special forces operatives, guerillas etc.
Combine the warrior mentality with technology, sound & updated
doctrine, organizational & operational excellence and you have
the formula to winning battles and wars.
Conscripts unfortunately do not have a good track record in winning
battles.
No professional armies poorly armed, organized and maintained
don't. Conscripts have lived up to expectations and in many cases,
did better than most professional armies. Most major wars would
involve conscripts anyway.
At any rate, how do you define conscripts? The conscript forces of
Israel, Taiwan, South Korea, for example, can literally 'own' the
professional forces of many countries. Will the conscript forces of
a particular country which are better educated perform better than
one who can barely read? Will the soldiers of a country with a less
than a billion USD dollars in budget perform better than the one
with better budget? Are you a professional soldier if you are
recruited and fight for two years as a professional in the army for
a war your country is engaged in and resign after that? Or were you
a conscript?
As you say, the man in the loop matters most; it is how they are
trained and used which is critical.
Also, when life, land and family are at stake, morale takes a life
of its own.
