> why do you think that is?  logically, by them taking in more men than they're losing. that'd be impossible if they lost 700k men over the last three years, since the math wouldn't add up with their prewar army size and recruitment intake since then. and yeah, a nation at war wants more soldiers.    they raised the age range for the annual one-year conscription from 18-27 to 18-30. as seen in picrelated, it caused a small bump from previous conscription waves but wouldn't account for those 700k and especially not for a total size increase in spite of 700k losses.    mormons, you know.    > again ignoring the soldiers purloined from other branches we've been talking about the total military size, not just the army.  > as well as the fact that many were not drafted but are contract soldiers. many? the only one that comes to mind is wagner.
United States