Percentage of soldiers drafted in WWII vs. Vietnam

Factual Questions
21

“… then you would have to have a draft number that was of those selected, much less than the total”

At the peak of the Vietnam war, they were taking just about everybody. I registered at 18 and was in the army before I was 20.

“Then you would have to pass your physical…”

It was hard to fail a physical. Unless you had something obvious wrong with you (e.g., missing limb) they were likely to keep you overnight to reexamine you and if you failed again they could call you back again a month or two later and repeat the process again, and again.

“…and [pass] basic training.” It was hard (or, at least, dangerous) to fail basic training. The DIs were intimidating enough that I remember one guy who peed in his pants. I don’t know that they ever actually beat anyone up but I do know that they (and the company commander) would punish a whole platoon if one guy gave them trouble. Then they would encourage the platoon to solve it’s problem by holding a blanket party for the troublesome recruit.

“Then you would have to select”

Select?!?!?! There was no selection for draftees. Among the guys I went through basic training with, at least half (including anyone who had been to college) were sent on to Advanced Infantry Training at Ft. Polk and the rest were sent to learn to be cooks, truck drivers, etc.

“And then you would have to be stationed in Vietnam, which was not likely, as then as now the majority of soldiers are stationed in the US and Europe.”

It was highly likely. Ft. Polk was on the way to Vietnam. Europe and Korea were filled with guys who enlisted or reenlisted (probably to avoid Vietnam).

“Even you would probably not be sent to a “hot” combat area.”

Fat chance. Damn near the whole country was “hot.”

“…and only if there was a ‘slot’ available”

There was no shortage of slots. Besides guys being wounded or killed, they rotated out every year.

I’d have to say, in contrast to your experience, that in my experience the chances of a healthy, non-deferred, 19 year old American being sent into combat in Vietnam in 1968 was probably over 50%. Why do you think W joined the Guard?

22

Same reason Dan Quail did?

23

Well, let me ask you this. What percentage of conscripts ended up as infantrymen, stationed in Vietnam, engaging in combat on a regular basis?

What about the percentage of enlisted men? Officers?

If you say that the percentages were the same, I have no reason to doubt you.

But my instinct is that they don’t draft people to shuffle papers in the Pentagon.

24

Ah, I see what you are getting at. I misunderstood your question. I took it to be: In actual combat did conscripts get the most dangerous jobs?

It seems to be pretty much a consensus that the poorer and less educated among the population were disproportionately represented in the combat units in Vietnam. They had fewer resources with which to get draft deferments on the basis of going to college, skilled jobs, etc., but I don’t have any figures. If they are available on the net, you can find them as easily as I can.

Well, I think they do. Support of combat units by logistic, communication, transportation, supply and all the other paraphernalia of military operations is vital.

25

As far as Wendell Wagner’s contention that he didn’t believe the story, thats fine, but those kinds of things did happen. I had a professor relate to our class memories of protesting on campus and how one professor during class required everyone to go out and protest or they failed. Another said they couldn’t protest and he would actually go to protest rallies to see if he recognized any of his students and if he did, you failed.

Keep in mind that at this time professors had a lot more power to do what they wanted to as far as grading went. Its only after the 60’s that the universities started really watch professors. Now that wouldn’t happen because of oversight by administration but also because you’d get sued. One of my professors was sued by a student who failed the final exam because the professor used “negative numbers” and this was unfair because the student couldn’t handle negatives very well. The student lost, but the point was that she did sue him.

26

The point here is that we need to do something about preventing such stupid litagation.

27

First some figures:
(Note that the following is for the Army only)

1968 -
Draftees = 42% of total, 58% of casualties.

1969 -
Draftees = 38% of total, 61% of casualties.

1970 -
Draftees = 39% of total, 65% of casualties.

Note that about 60% of all deaths occured in these three years.

That may well be the consensus, but this site suggests that deaths were much more evenly spread over the economic spectrum than is usually suggested:

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/1992/sep30/26972.html

28

Interesting cite. If the report described is correct, then maybe the received opinion is wrong. It wouldn’t be the first time that something that “everybody knows” turns out to be without foundation.

I never thought of it at the time, but during WWII you could be instantly identified as either a volunteer enlistee or a draftee by your army serial number. Volunteer serial numbers began with 1 and draftees with 3. Some ASNs also began with 2 but I’ve forgotten what that meant. I now wonder why the different number designations and what effect it had. I didn’t feel any discrimination but then I wouldn’t have, if the previous poster’s suspiscion about dangerous jobs to conscripts held water, because my ASN was 17112159. I understand that now the serial no. is your Social Security No.

29

Galrion writes:

> As far as Wendell Wagner’s contention that he didn’t believe
> the story, thats fine, but those kinds of things did happen. I
> had a professor relate to our class memories of protesting on
> campus and how one professor during class required everyone
> to go out and protest or they failed. Another said they couldn’t
> protest and he would actually go to protest rallies to see if he
> recognized any of his students and if he did, you failed.

I still don’t entirely believe this story. I went to college in the early '70’s at a notoriously liberal college. No professor would ever think of even asking a student what his views on the Vietnam War were (and they certainly did have strong views, since many of my classmates were worried about whether they would be drafted). Did you consider the possibility that this professor was making up colorful stories about his college days to deceive you? Did the professor explain to you how the attitudes of these two professors of his didn’t mean that everyone flunked out, since everyone either did or didn’t go to protest rallies and either way flunked a course?

kniz writes:

> The point here is that we need to do something about
> preventing such stupid litagation.

How exactly do you propose to eliminate stupid litigation without eliminating all litigation?

30

There is no statical or documentary support for what I am about to say here. It is base on my observations and in the nature of a WAG.

David S.'s figures on casualties rates for inductees and the numbers quoted for the portion of the whole force that was drafted make perfect sense to me. It was made very clear to everyone involved that a person who was drafted would end up with a very unpleasant job, but if the person volunteered (enlisted) there was a fair chance that they could not only enlist for a safer and cleaner job but would get a job that minimized the chance of being shot at. As a consequence the draftees tended to get the jobs no one wanted in the rifle companies and in the combat engineer battalions.

While there was no place in Vietnam that could be regarded as absolutely safe, there were places that were safer than others and there were some jobs that were flat perilous. Draftees tended to end up in the perilous jobs. Enlistees had some chance to avoid them. There were few jobs that were more dangerous than ordinary rifleman in an infantry unit. A disproportionately high number of the guys at the pointed end of the spear were draftees and a disproportionately high number of guys in the rear echelon were enlistees.

The perfect answer was to enlist in the Air Force or Navy where the chances of getting shot were minimal unless you actually went looking for trouble. The trouble was that both the Air Force and Navy had more people clamoring to get in than they needed and so could be pretty selective about who they accepted and who they rejected. It is my recollection that the USMC was not taking draftees, either. The other services could quietly sit back and gather the cream of the people fleeing the Army.

When I was a Ft. Leonard Wood, MO, in '67 and '68 we were training combat engineers, truck drivers, cooks and clerks. I think we were sending 80% of our engineers to Vietnam straight out of AIT but only some 30% of the truck drivers, clerks and cooks.

31

Musicat and Gelding have valid points here. A lot of guys volunteered for service under the promise (not always honored) that they’d get postings to places other than Vietnam, or at least MOS’s (assingments) other than combat infantry. The cite on the draftee/casualty rates, if accurate, tends to confirm this.

As an aside, I knows guys who were drafted and spent their time in Germany while others who volunteered had their MOS’s “temporarily” reassigned due to “shortages” and suddenly found themselves in Asian combat instead of Stateside or Europe.