PDA

View Full Version : Up to 85% of combat soldiers unwilling to kill in WWII



georgeo76
08-08-2007, 05:03 AM
"A resistance so strong that, in many circumstances, soldiers on the battlefield will die before they can overcome it." (http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/greatergood/current_issue/grossman.html)

georgeo76
08-08-2007, 05:03 AM
"A resistance so strong that, in many circumstances, soldiers on the battlefield will die before they can overcome it." (http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/greatergood/current_issue/grossman.html)

PikeBishop
08-08-2007, 05:34 AM
Dear All,
This is an interesting article which sheds doubt on the motives of people shooting people in peacetime. Methinks that if 80% of men are reluctant to kill in wartime, those that do must have a strong drive to survive or a weak respect for human (or animal) life.
Now in peacetime (generally) you have not the threat of someone trying to kill you. If you consider the spate of killings by police in recent times in London, particularly the incidents at Stockwell station and Sevenoaks, it would seem that those particular people should be the last ones to bear firearms as they must have a weak respect for human life in particular, considering that the rules of engagement demand that you challenge the suspect first. I must admit that this does worry me a little since these people on EVERY occasion have been supported by their superiors to the point of never having to face prosecution or admitting to errors of judgment on their part. I hope that after such an incident that they are never allowed to bear arms again as the next time it will be even easier for them to kill again.
Best regards,
SLP

joeap
08-08-2007, 05:49 AM
Well I have my doubts, do these figures apply to other nationalites? Do we have stats for other nationalites? How do we know these were deliberate misses and not just suppresion fire type shooting? Were the hardnose guys chosen to man the machine guns?

WTE_Ibis
08-08-2007, 05:52 AM
The idea then PB would be to have police that are part of the 80% to protect you.

.

joeap
08-08-2007, 05:58 AM
Police unwilling to kill vs. criminals willing.

Something wrong there.

Oh and I still want answers to my previous post, Georgeo??

ViktorViktor
08-08-2007, 06:05 AM
Only 15-20% willing to kill ? Well that would explain why there were so few aces during the war.

I don't agree, though. I tend to believe that peer pressure (fear of being regarded as cowardly by the rest) would eventually force most to start 'shooting to kill'. Also, one becomes ennured (spelled OK ?) to things over time, and that includes death and killing.

If it's true, then the militaries of the world should do their utmost to find the 15-20% of their soldiers willing to kill, and take away the ammunition from the the other 85%. That, or just outright discharge the 85%. What a waste of ammo (and money) !!

NAFP_supah
08-08-2007, 06:13 AM
Did you people just not read the article or did you fail to comprehend it completely?

georgeo76
08-08-2007, 06:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
Oh and I still want answers to my previous post, Georgeo?? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read the article. Then you will know just as much as I.

IMO, nationality probably has nothing to do with it. When I took social psychology, I learned that the stronger the situation, the fewer differences in one person to the next. Normally dominant factors like race, nationality, ideology, upbringing, education, and sex tend to disappear. You may have fifty different kinds of people at a garden party, but throw in a few hand grenades and your going to be dealing w/ about 3 different kinds of people.

Breeze147
08-08-2007, 06:31 AM
As a Vietnam combat veteran, I will testify that the tendency is to just shoot, actually aiming to be quite secondary to personal survival. I read stories about Medal Of Honor winners and I cannot in any way, shape or form see myself performing those acts.

NAFP_supah
08-08-2007, 06:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Breeze147:
As a Vietnam combat veteran, I will testify that the tendency is to just shoot, actually aiming to be quite secondary to personal survival. I read stories about Medal Of Honor winners and I cannot in any way, shape or form see myself performing those acts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you don't mind me asking, how was your experience returning to civilian life?

GAU-8
08-08-2007, 07:03 AM
its interesting that this subject came up...

i found this quote from another chap at the BIS- O.F.P./ARMA forums. i was going to bring this up here, but looks like someone beat me to the punch.. im not saying its exact, but it is interesting..

from here http://www.military-sf.com/Killing.htm

"In World War Two, it is a fact that only 15-20 percent of the soldiers fired at the enemy. That is one in five soldiers actually shooting at a Nazi when he sees one. While this rate may have increased in desperate situations, in most combat situations soldiers were reluctant to kill each other. The Civil War was not dramatically different or any previous wars.

In WW2 only one percent of the pilots accounted for thirty to forty percent of enemy fighters shot down in the air. Some pilots didn't shoot down a single enemy plane.

In Korea, the rate of soldiers unwilling to fire on the enemy decreased and fifty five percent of the soldiers fired at the enemy. In Vietnam, this rate increased to about ninety five percent but this doesn't mean they were trying to hit the target. In fact it usually took around fifty-two thousand bullets to score one kill in regular infantry units! It may be interesting to not that when Special Forces kills are recorded and monitored this often includes kills scored by calling in artillery or close air support. In this way SF type units could score very high kill ratios like fifty to a hundred for every SF trooper killed. This is not to say these elite troops didn't score a large number of bullet type kills. It is interesting to note that most kills in war are from artillery or other mass destruction type weapons."

"If one studies history and is able to cut through the hype, one will find that man is often unwilling to kill his fellow man and the fighter finds it very traumatic when he has to do so. On the battlefield the stress of being killed and injured is not always the main fear."


i read somewhere else that the numbers for "killers" in the world is QUITE higher than what we expect.. that many more people, can kill/think about killing without remorse, but due to societies they have learned/been trained socially that it is "wrong". THESE are the people that the armed forces want really want. training them is easier, compared to someone who doesnt want to kill in the first place, and is looking for college money/career ops,and deal with the emotional and human aspect of it. they dont want "pychotic" killers, either...only those when trained properly, and have a "right time/place/action" mentality.

not saying i completely believe it, but the basics though make sense...

foxyboy1964
08-08-2007, 07:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
Were the hardnose guys chosen to man the machine guns? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My grandfather was a machine gunner in the British army, Highland Light Infantry, during the First World War. I remember him as a very gentle, quietly spoken man. Before the war he regularly attended church. After the war he never set foot in a church again.

mortoma
08-08-2007, 07:22 AM
I can't say whether or not I'd actually try to kill somebody in war. Unless I ever go to war, I'll never know. But at my age that is highly unlikely. I have killed my share of animals in my time though. I just remarked in another thread how I have killed hundreds, if not thousands of Starlings ( a type of disgusting bird introduced to the US from Europe ) after someone remarked that he thought they were beautiful. All I know is after I shot so many, the population of truly beautiful birds around my house increased dramatically!! Especially Bluebirds and Wood******s.

joeap
08-08-2007, 07:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NAFP_supah:
Did you people just not read the article or did you fail to comprehend it completely? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No need to be snooty.

Anyway, I gotta say this may be another reason mortars and artillery were real killers, partly casue the guys shooting those didn't see who they were shooting at. Locked in a tank would be different, as well as shooting at a tank.

I am not so sure that applies to air combat, or naval combat, destroying machines is not the same as killing, I know I have no problem watching vids of folks blasting cars or targets with live ammo and would love to try it myself. Against a person though...

T_O_A_D
08-08-2007, 08:15 AM
Good read TY, makes you wonder if the war could of been shortened by any substantial amount if the 80% would of used thier weapons properly.

Also wonder if thedeath causulty would of really changed aswell.

Lots of questions actually, too many to actually start listing.

jimDG
08-08-2007, 08:22 AM
This is a recurring topic on these boards. Have seen it twice before.

raaaid
08-08-2007, 08:52 AM
if it wasnt for that 20% there would be no wars

as usual a few are screwing everybody

Breeze147
08-08-2007, 08:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NAFP_supah:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Breeze147:
As a Vietnam combat veteran, I will testify that the tendency is to just shoot, actually aiming to be quite secondary to personal survival. I read stories about Medal Of Honor winners and I cannot in any way, shape or form see myself performing those acts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you don't mind me asking, how was your experience returning to civilian life? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was definitely a period of readjustment. Sirens and backfires (remember backfires?) would set me off. What stunned me more than anything was coming back to the "world" and seeing people just living normal lives. I would say that after 5 years it was pretty much out of my system. I still to this day feel different from other people. I still sometimes see slide shows in my head of different events. The jitters are long, long gone, though.

Friendly_flyer
08-08-2007, 10:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by georgeo76:
You may have fifty different kinds of people at a garden party, but throw in a few hand grenades and your going to be dealing w/ about 3 different kinds of people. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's quite a way of saying it. I got to remember this one.

danjama
08-08-2007, 11:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by georgeo76:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
Oh and I still want answers to my previous post, Georgeo?? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read the article. Then you will know just as much as I.

IMO, nationality probably has nothing to do with it. When I took social psychology, I learned that the stronger the situation, the fewer differences in one person to the next. Normally dominant factors like race, nationality, ideology, upbringing, education, and sex tend to disappear. You may have fifty different kinds of people at a garden party, but throw in a few hand grenades and your going to be dealing w/ about 3 different kinds of people. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

great post!

SeaFireLIV
08-08-2007, 11:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by georgeo76:
You may have fifty different kinds of people at a garden party, but throw in a few hand grenades and your going to be dealing w/ about 3 different kinds of people. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice one georgio, and probably true.

The article is no surprise to me. We, with no knowledge of war, hearing about it, reading it and playing it probably think every real soldier out there leaps into the fray. the reality is surely very different.

Soldiers are just as scared as you or I, but just try their best to do what they have to do... many fail. We just don`t hear much about the failures.

WhtBoy
08-08-2007, 12:57 PM
My family, a former neighbor, and I are glad that I'm in the 15%.

--Outlaw.

leitmotiv
08-08-2007, 01:37 PM
There is also the more extensive research about the firepower generated by various nationalities' military units done by Trevor N. Dupuy much more systematically than Marshall's research and over many more years:

http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/about.htm

One, of course, has to apply correct anthropological/historical technique to this subject. There are famous examples which would seem to refute the thesis as a broad application to all of humanity such as the case in the Battle of Austerlitz in 1805 when a high-grade French regiment faced-off with a high-grade Russian regiment and they nearly annihilated each other (as I recall, the casualties were around 80% for each, and this was from musket fire [musket fire was so inaccurate even at 50 yards it was done as area fire, not aimed fire---except in the British Army] alone, not from artillery, or the bayonet). I'd wager a 1914 Prussian Guards or 1914 British Guards company would be more inclined to shoot to kill than an ordinary infantry company. Same goes for a 1941-era SS unit on the E. Front. As for the author's contention that propaganda is a new phenomenon---tosh. The tabloid John Bull in WWI referred to the Germans as "Germ-Huns" and stirred up a hornets' nest of anti-German hatred in the UK. Film was a powerful means of producing fear/hatred of the enemy in WWI, and the Allies used it masterfully. Napoleon was declared to be the Antichrist from the pulpits of Christian Europe. Rousing soldiers to fury is as old as war.

This article is in a University of California, Berkeley, publication (I attended UCB). A school which is the West Coast's bastion of ultra-Left ideology. Obviously this thesis would be popular there because it supports the strongly-held belief of those of the Left that war is unnatural and soldiering is unnatural. Unfortunately, the long history of the species well demonstrates both contentions are completely false. Even Jane Goodall discovered her beloved chimps prosecuted brutal wars on their neighbors, and utterly exterminated the losers.

ploughman
08-08-2007, 02:37 PM
"We can see the discrepancy in dozens of modern conflicts, including in Somalia, where 18 trapped U.S. troops killed an estimated 364 Somali fighters"

Bit lazy of the author to say that 18 US soldiers trapped in Mogadishu killed over 350 Somali militia. The number of US Rangers and Special Forces types in combat on October 3rd, 1993, and onwards was approximately 150. If I recall correctly, and with the greatest respect, 18 was the number of US KIA, with 80+ wounded, a still relevant to the thesis K/D ratio and considering the circumstances a testament to the abilities of the soldiers, but such slackness really does undermines the credibility of the author.

Airmail109
08-08-2007, 02:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by georgeo76:
You may have fifty different kinds of people at a garden party, but throw in a few hand grenades and your going to be dealing w/ about 3 different kinds of people. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice one georgio, and probably true.

The article is no surprise to me. We, with no knowledge of war, hearing about it, reading it and playing it probably think every real soldier out there leaps into the fray. the reality is surely very different.

Soldiers are just as scared as you or I, but just try their best to do what they have to do... many fail. We just don`t hear much about the failures. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1) Those that run like nancies
2) Those that sieze up with fear
3) Those that pick the grenade up and throw it back

?????????

T_O_A_D
08-08-2007, 03:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by georgeo76:
You may have fifty different kinds of people at a garden party, but throw in a few hand grenades and your going to be dealing w/ about 3 different kinds of people. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice one georgio, and probably true.

The article is no surprise to me. We, with no knowledge of war, hearing about it, reading it and playing it probably think every real soldier out there leaps into the fray. the reality is surely very different.

Soldiers are just as scared as you or I, but just try their best to do what they have to do... many fail. We just don`t hear much about the failures. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1) Those that run like nancies
2) Those that sieze up with fear
3) Those that pick the grenade up and throw it back

????????? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was going to say
1) those that ran
2) those that frose and died
3) possible the one who died throwing his body over it to save ther rest of the folks.

So there is 4 the one willing to chance toss it back before laying on it.

joeap
08-08-2007, 03:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
There is also the more extensive research about the firepower generated by various nationalities' military units done by Trevor N. Dupuy much more systematically than Marshall's research and over many more years:

http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/about.htm

One, of course, has to apply correct anthropological/historical technique to this subject. There are famous examples which would seem to refute the thesis as a broad application to all of humanity such as the case in the Battle of Austerlitz in 1805 when a high-grade French regiment faced-off with a high-grade Russian regiment and they nearly annihilated each other (as I recall, the casualties were around 80% for each, and this was from musket fire [musket fire was so inaccurate even at 50 yards it was done as area fire, not aimed fire---except in the British Army] alone, not from artillery, or the bayonet). I'd wager a 1914 Prussian Guards or 1914 British Guards company would be more inclined to shoot to kill than an ordinary infantry company. Same goes for a 1941-era SS unit on the E. Front. As for the author's contention that propaganda is a new phenomenon---tosh. The tabloid John Bull in WWI referred to the Germans as "Germ-Huns" and stirred up a hornets' nest of anti-German hatred in the UK. Film was a powerful means of producing fear/hatred of the enemy in WWI, and the Allies used it masterfully. Napoleon was declared to be the Antichrist from the pulpits of Christian Europe. Rousing soldiers to fury is as old as war.

This article is in a University of California, Berkeley, publication (I attended UCB). A school which is the West Coast's bastion of ultra-Left ideology. Obviously this thesis would be popular there because it supports the strongly-held belief of those of the Left that war is unnatural and soldiering is unnatural. Unfortunately, the long history of the species well demonstrates both contentions are completely false. Even Jane Goodall discovered her beloved chimps prosecuted brutal wars on their neighbors, and utterly exterminated the losers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent link leitmotiv, that's the one I was looking for as a critique of the OP's article. A bit sad so many were ready to accept it as gospel truth without some kind of debate or serious study. The example from Austerlitz is telling indeed.

Rammjaeger
08-08-2007, 03:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by georgeo76:
"A resistance so strong that, in many circumstances, soldiers on the battlefield will die before they can overcome it." (http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/greatergood/current_issue/grossman.html) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've recently seen a 2-hour-long documentary about infantry combat that discussed this study heavily. The military officers and historians interviewed seemed to agree that the 85% figure you mentioned was mainly the result of insufficient training. They mentioned that there was, as the article also says, a dramatic improvement in infantry training in the US after 1945. The 85% figure has been steadily decreasing ever since and this 'problem' has practically ceased to exist by the time the 2003 Gulf War has begun.

GAU-8
08-08-2007, 03:54 PM
in all honesty, i guess it depends on WHERE the grenade is from ones proximity. and how long did it "cook" before being thrown.

depending on those two parts, the same person could be a screaming "nancy", a living hero, or posthumously awarded hero.

SeaFireLIV
08-08-2007, 04:23 PM
Georgio is making a general comment about the similarity of ALL Humans in extreme situations. By picking the comment to pieces with exactly who would do what at a party is completely missing the main point! And it don`t make you guys look too clever.

MEGILE
08-08-2007, 04:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Same goes for a 1941-era SS unit on the E. Front. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Honestly I was on this train of thought just looking at the title of this thread.

Good post leit

leitmotiv
08-08-2007, 04:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Georgio is making a general comment about the similarity of ALL Humans in extreme situations. By picking the comment to pieces with exactly who would do what at a party is completely missing the main point! And it don`t make you guys look too clever. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank God we are not all the same. That's what anthropology and history teaches despite what rock and rollers say.

joeap
08-08-2007, 04:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Georgio is making a general comment about the similarity of ALL Humans in extreme situations. By picking the comment to pieces with exactly who would do what at a party is completely missing the main point! And it don`t make you guys look too clever. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Err how is bringing up a scientific very well documented study making somebody not look clever? Training and different cultures do count.

leitmotiv
08-08-2007, 05:41 PM
Egg-zactly!

Blutarski2004
08-08-2007, 08:00 PM
I've read Grossman's book "On Killing", as well as Du Picq, Dupuy, a wide array of SLA Marshall's writing, and a number of other related works. I broadly agree with Goodman's argument

Some thoughts and observations drawn from that reading -

Grossman makes the point that, statistically speaking, about one in twenty males displays symptoms of sociopathy/psychopathy. Such individuals are far more willing by an order of magnitude to kill and actually account for most of the active killing on the battlefield. Leader personalities, particularly non-coms, were often the active fighters in the squad.

The act of intentional killing implies the coolness to take deliberate aim and pull the trigger. Many men, perhaps most men, are unable to maintain such coolness under the stress and fear reactions of battle. If they do fire, they do so randomly and without aim.

Relevant to Grossman's observation about many soldiers being willing to help but not to actually kill, many reference exist in the historical record of the horse and musket period of a soldier firing in rotation a succession of different muskets being loaded for him by his comrades.

Crew-served weapons, whether they be direct fire artillery of the horse and musket period or the squad MG display a far greater level of active fire, perhaps in line with the "killer and his helpers" scenario discussed above or because of certain group dynamics at work.

T_O_A_D
08-08-2007, 08:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Georgio is making a general comment about the similarity of ALL Humans in extreme situations. By picking the comment to pieces with exactly who would do what at a party is completely missing the main point! And it don`t make you guys look too clever. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Hmm http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif who doesn't look smart http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

leitmotiv
08-08-2007, 08:21 PM
That's rich. So a mild-mannered farmboy like Audie Murphy, who is suffering from "combat fatigue," and who, after seeing a friend cut down by enemy fire, goes berserk and annihilates a number of Germans in entrenched positions, should be considered a sociopath or psychopath? What a steaming pot of *****. That's really good. So active fighters are all psychotic? Clearly the author of such twaddle has never been in a fight or in battle. So a brilliant writer like Ernst Junger, who has written probably the best books on infantry fighting in the modern era, is a psychotic? I come from a family of psychologists, and I can say with complete confidence: baloney, hooey, twaddle, nonsense, bilge, ridiculous beyond consideration.

georgeo76
08-08-2007, 08:36 PM
Thanks for the strawman, but I've already got a complete set. The article supports the humanistic view that people are essentially good. If your going to impeach my motives then please assign the correct ones to me. I'm left to assume you have an alternate position. Would you please share it with the class?

The article dose come from California. California universitys are famous for being liberal. So all articles coming from Berkeley are liberal? Would you clarify this argument? Why did you question the place it was written and not the author who wrote it?

What the heck dose Jane Goodall have to do with any of this? Are you using chimps as an example because they are so closely related to humans?

You are correct that the Marshall study has a poor sample group. This is often the case when sample groups are so specialized or rare. (what the heck would you use for a control group)? But what about the supporting correlation between training and killing frequency? Your own examples seem to (anecdotally) support this.

I never really thought about whether soldering is natural or not, guess that depends on what you mean by natural. However, since you brought it up: If soldering is so natural, then why is so much training necessary?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This article is in a University of California, Berkeley, publication (I attended UCB). A school which is the West Coast's bastion of ultra-Left ideology. Obviously this thesis would be popular there because it supports the strongly-held belief of those of the Left that war is unnatural and soldiering is unnatural. Unfortunately, the long history of the species well demonstrates both contentions are completely false. Even Jane Goodall discovered her beloved chimps prosecuted brutal wars on their neighbors, and utterly exterminated the losers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

leitmotiv
08-08-2007, 08:57 PM
Impeach your motives? Who are you? I was addressing the article. And, I decline a subcaliber mixup. Later gator.

f.ip2
08-08-2007, 09:10 PM
Interesting points. I know my grandfather never talked about WWII. What he experienced in Russia he took with him into his grave.

In the recent years there were many exhibition uncovering the German Wehrmachts crimes. While the ordinary soldier was well just a peasant, the SS were the more cruel one.

The difference as pointed out here in a different area is difference in training, but mainly difference in ideological brain wash.

In case all Nazis were killers than there were not attempt to assassinate Hitler. However that man managed to establish such a fear system, like Stalin that many just backed down.

Many of the population new that the war was wrong and the people were killed in the camps.

Mainly the dumb and uneducated were those who were straight against Jews.


It is all about ideology and brainwash. Look at the kid soldiers in Africa? Do the kids want to kill? The being set on drugs, extreme pressure, raped, punished, and given the power to kill. After so much suffer they have the power to pay back, just to the wrong people.


What was Japan? A woman killing herself and her kid so that the Husband was allowed to fly a suicide plane.


How crazy is that?


I think Vietnam was quite different to all that. Without the images war was fun - also at that time America was loving the idea of the honorable soldier, the Hero like in Post WWI time. You have a uniform and you will be respected.

There is a funny play "Der Hauptman von Koepenick". A thief finds a discarded uniform and through wearing it everybody obeyed him.
He let soldiers arrest the major while he stole the Cities money before they caught him.

Than when the images were shown of the real face of war peoples mind changed in America.

This is also the point to my knowledge when less and less wanted to enlist.


When Iraq started even great Brain heavy people like Bruce Willies wanted to do his duty. After realizing that the fantasy of quick in and win wasn't going to work and more and more US soldiers with superior weapons were badly blown into pieces among all the Iraq troops supporting them the mind here started to change again.

Till the fall of Republicans and the raise of the Democrats those channels like CNN followed the Bush administrations rule not to show any dead soldier on the news. The did not want to repeat the mistake during Vietnam. However after the fall of the Republicans finally those lame papers like NY Times and CNN started to show real footage and not fake setup material like that female rescued POW Soldier from a hospital which was needed to increase morality.

Those real footage I saw make me stop eating. Bagdat emergency hospital. Well that leg goes, your hand, well we need to cut it off, ... Next chopper comes clean up the floor and remove the body parts ...

But yet real serious footage is still not shown. Maybe it is better, because it would only make you feel sick to your stomach.


Having studied history over more than 15 years, it is sad to see that the tricks the Nazis pulled, are the same the US government pulls.

A question I often heard was why the Germans followed Hitler. I have no answer for that. But the Americans followed Bush to find WMD. They fall for the same tricks. Even the UN fell for the fake setup of evidences as Colin Powell admitted later.

If you compare Nazi propaganda with Allied propaganda you will find one scary fact. There is no difference. The Allied disfigured the Japs like Nazis disfigured the Jews. Furthermore did the early Allied comics with super heros utilize nothing else than elements of fascism on their own.


How many movies are out there discussing the prison project which needed to be canceled because people went berserk? And that was not during war time.

I guess it is just how we are and how our environment nurtures us.

Right now do you think it is fair to a kid to train it to be a suicide killer with a bomb belt in Palestine? It is ideology again. The uneducated always follow faster. It is just, this time took a even more terrible face.


Leitmotive:

well I am not sure about how many did not shoot. According to the numbers of death there must have been many shooting. I think in technical terms a good soldier is not a psychopath but somebody who is able to emotionally disconnect. Killing/defending is a job. This is not a job like making a bread.

Badsight-
08-08-2007, 09:37 PM
during the american civil war , & WW1 - many rifles were found with multiple rounds stuffed & charged

theory is that men holding these rifles just pretended to shoot & then re-loaded

AFAIK , the percentage was high but not near 85% . killing isnt natural

FritzGryphon
08-08-2007, 09:50 PM
Re: The small number of pilots getting the majority of the kills.

I'd guess this is just due to the high degree of training and skill needed to pilot and airplane and shoot targets. To most who have never seen an airplane before, a few months of training would be inadequate for them to be proficient enough to fight.

The fact that a pilot shoots at an airplane rather than a person leads me to believe that most would be willing to shoot the enemy, if they actually had a chance to do so. The machinery adds a layer of separation between the soldier and the enemy. There's also nothing to say the enemy pilot won't just bail out.

The exception might be defenseless targets. High scoring aces were perfectly willing to shoot airplanes, but would often refuse to shoot people in parachutes, or even those in damaged planes.

f.ip2
08-08-2007, 09:52 PM
Fritz

I think I agree here. Wasn't the US flight school developed to cope with the better planes in Early Vietnam war?

To my knowledge the US had Air Superiority because of their advanced training resulting in much better pilots than on the North Vietnamese side.

Ruy Horta
08-09-2007, 04:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WhtBoy:
My family, a former neighbor, and I are glad that I'm in the 15%.

--Outlaw. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can understand the statement, but there is a fine line in ability and pride. My father was SF in a dirty little african war, he killed, but he never expressed in pride in his doing so. He was proud that he served with a SF unit though.

Blutarski2004
08-09-2007, 05:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by T_O_A_D:
Hmm http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif who doesn't look smart http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Sorry you feel that way. It's a topic I've been interested in for quite a long time and I simply wanted to share my thoughts. If you find that a problem, just put me on "ignore". That ought to solve your problem, whatever it is.

Friendly_flyer
08-09-2007, 05:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
during the american civil war , & WW1 - many rifles were found with multiple rounds stuffed & charged </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That could hardly have been the Great War, it was typically fought with cartridge rifles, making stuffing multiple rounds in the barrel impossible. It may have happened in the Napoleonic wars, Crimea or the Danish-Prussian wars of 1848-51 and 1864.

I do a bit of Napoleonic re-enactment (yes, I'm really nerdy), and it's very easy to overstuff muzzle-loaders in the heat of battle. You don't always feel if your gun has gone of or not (even with full load and ball) amidst the deafening thundering of guns, jolting of the tightly packed lines and acrid gun-smoke. The result is that even in peacetime re-enactment guns sometimes get loaded with multiple shots. I can only imagine what it might have been like at Waterloo or Gettysburg.

Interestingly, Napoleonic drills don't require soldiers to fire directly at each other. The smoothbore muskets weren't that precise anyway. The idea was to point the guns in the general direction of the enemy and fire of a volley. It was hoped that the hail of bullets would kill at least some in the opposing line. Modern day analysis shows that only 3-5% would be hit in the opposing line. In the heat of the battle no-one would know who actually hit someone, no-one feel directly responsible for killing. In a way it seems Napoleonic drills where more in line with general human nature.

I most say it is very, very comforting knowing that the great majority of humans don't want to kill others.

Rammjaeger
08-09-2007, 05:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
I most say it is very, very comforting knowing that the great majority of humans don't want to kill others. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can look at things from different angles. If more soldiers had been willing to kill, wars would have probably been much shorter, although bloodier as well.

Blutarski2004
08-09-2007, 06:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Originally posted by leitmotiv:
That's rich. So a mild-mannered farmboy like Audie Murphy, who is suffering from "combat fatigue," and who, after seeing a friend cut down by enemy fire, goes berserk and annihilates a number of Germans in entrenched positions, should be considered a sociopath or psychopath? What a steaming pot of *****. That's really good. So active fighters are all psychotic? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... That's not what Goodman wrote. He wrote that most of the killing was done by the 5 pct of soldiers who displayed sociopathic/psychopathic symptoms, i.e. - they were far more prone to be willing to kill compared to their comrades. He does not describe them as outright psychopaths - there is a distinction. Nor does Goodman claim that they were the sole participants in killing.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Clearly the author of such twaddle has never been in a fight or in battle. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... I don't know if Goodman ever actually saw action, but, according to his biographical notes, he did serve 23 years in the Army.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I come from a family of psychologists, and I can say with complete confidence: baloney, hooey, twaddle, nonsense, bilge, ridiculous beyond consideration. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... Interestingly enough, Goodman himself is a psychologist.

jasonbirder
08-09-2007, 06:52 AM
These results tally very nicely wih the observation that it is the crew served weapons that really cause the casualties in war...Artillery, Mortars, machine guns whereas infantry with rifles were at best a blunt instrument.
Perhaps thats why German infantry units with their high distribution of MG34s/MG42 were so effective for so long...

f.ip2
08-09-2007, 06:59 AM
so what is up with house to house battle?

Breeze147
08-09-2007, 07:09 AM
I'm glad to see that as usual, most of you have decided to ignore my testimony as someone who has actually done what you all so snootily theorize about. 85% not killing is dead accurate and the comment that the NCO's did most of the killing is absolutely true. If this gets me banned, so be it. I'm on my morning caffeine buzz, so I get a little mouthy.

85% probably also works as the percentage of people on this board who don't know jack about reality. When a 122mm rocket impacts 10 feet away from you and you realize you don't have a scratch on you after the shock passes, come back and tell me about it. We were firing at muzzle flashes and areas we saw tracers coming from and ducking behind sand bags and 3/4" steel plate as best we could. Dying for your country fades very quickly as an ideal when real rounds start buzzing past your head. At least I took some sort of action. I saw many a guy pull a spare flak vest over him and then a poncho over that and simply hide in the corner. Some guys were so stoned that they got a kick out of seeing all the pretty lights or simply did not know where they were.

And another thing, I NEVER saw an officer any where near a fire fight. Every last one of them had urgent business at the Command Center as soon as sh*t started happening.

Today's G.I.'s are vastly better trained and motivated. I would not want to be in Iraq or Afghanistan. If these guys (and girls) can kill in close quarters without hesitation, then more power to them. I do not think that I could.

AKA_TAGERT
08-09-2007, 07:12 AM
85% aye?

Well thank god for the 15% that were willing!

Breeze147
08-09-2007, 07:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
85% aye?

Well thank god for the 15% that were willing! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, and thanks to 100% of the politicians that were willing to kill everybody.

DKoor
08-09-2007, 07:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by georgeo76:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
Oh and I still want answers to my previous post, Georgeo?? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read the article. Then you will know just as much as I.

IMO, nationality probably has nothing to do with it. When I took social psychology, I learned that the stronger the situation, the fewer differences in one person to the next. Normally dominant factors like race, nationality, ideology, upbringing, education, and sex tend to disappear. You may have fifty different kinds of people at a garden party, but throw in a few hand grenades and your going to be dealing w/ about 3 different kinds of people. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

great post! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>+1 very interesting opinion. Or observation............... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Up to 85% of combat soldiers unwilling to kill in WWII </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That doesn't surprise me at all.

raaaid
08-09-2007, 07:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WhtBoy:
My family, a former neighbor, and I are glad that I'm in the 15%.

--Outlaw. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

im glad you dont like me WHITE boy

AKA_TAGERT
08-09-2007, 07:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Breeze147:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
85% aye?

Well thank god for the 15% that were willing! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, and thanks to 100% of the politicians that were willing to kill everybody. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%

I only wish that was still the case toay

huggy87
08-09-2007, 07:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Breeze147:
I'm glad to see that as usual, most of you have decided to ignore my testimony as someone who has actually done what you all so snootily theorize about. 85% not killing is dead accurate and the comment that the NCO's did most of the killing is absolutely true. If this gets me banned, so be it. I'm on my morning caffeine buzz, so I get a little mouthy.

85% probably also works as the percentage of people on this board who don't know jack about reality. When a 122mm rocket impacts 10 feet away from you and you realize you don't have a scratch on you after the shock passes, come back and tell me about it. We were firing at muzzle flashes and areas we saw tracers coming from and ducking behind sand bags and 3/4" steel plate as best we could. Dying for your country fades very quickly as an ideal when real rounds start buzzing past your head. At least I took some sort of action. I saw many a guy pull a spare flak vest over him and then a poncho over that and simply hide in the corner. Some guys were so stoned that they got a kick out of seeing all the pretty lights or simply did not know where they were.

And another thing, I NEVER saw an officer any where near a fire fight. Every last one of them had urgent business at the Command Center as soon as sh*t started happening.

Today's G.I.'s are vastly better trained and motivated. I would not want to be in Iraq or Afghanistan. If these guys (and girls) can kill in close quarters without hesitation, then more power to them. I do not think that I could. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Breeze, thank you for your service.

One comment on your post, in defense of officers, is that in WW2 Junior Officers had the highest mortality rate of any group in the US Army. I'm not sure if that was true for Vietnam as well. Certainly not the officers you knew anyway.

I know this is apples and oranges, but in the Navy, Officers have been doing most of the front line fighting since WW2. With the exception of Special Forces and Corpsman, we have been the only ones getting shot at.

leitmotiv
08-09-2007, 09:31 AM
I'd be willing to kill for Rose McGowan, and I wager her firepower at decisive range would cause death (in the Elizabethan sense) 100% of the time. Thus, she is more lethal than a battalion of Marines.

http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s261/G6AS/RoseMcGowan.jpg

Blutarski2004
08-09-2007, 11:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
I'd be willing to kill for Rose McGowan, and I wager her firepower at decisive range would cause death (in the Elizabethan sense) 100% of the time. Thus, she is more lethal than a battalion of Marines.

http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s261/G6AS/RoseMcGowan.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Judging from the photo, I'd be willing to die (in the Elizabethan sense) for her as well.

MEGILE
08-09-2007, 11:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
I'd be willing to kill for Rose McGowan, and I wager her firepower at decisive range would cause death (in the Elizabethan sense) 100% of the time. Thus, she is more lethal than a battalion of Marines.

http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s261/G6AS/RoseMcGowan.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

T_O_A_D
08-09-2007, 11:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by T_O_A_D:
Hmm http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif who doesn't look smart http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Sorry you feel that way. It's a topic I've been interested in for quite a long time and I simply wanted to share my thoughts. If you find that a problem, just put me on "ignore". That ought to solve your problem, whatever it is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Boy sorry I have to explain, you were not the target poster here. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

I guess I should of quoted the first time.

I'll go make an edit.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Georgio is making a general comment about the similarity of ALL Humans in extreme situations. By picking the comment to pieces with exactly who would do what at a party is completely missing the main point! And it don`t make you guys look too clever. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Blutarski2004
08-09-2007, 11:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by T_O_A_D:
you were not the target poster here. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Toad, allow me to apologize. My mistake.

Friendly_flyer
08-09-2007, 03:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Breeze147:
We were firing at muzzle flashes and areas we saw tracers coming from and ducking behind sand bags and 3/4" steel plate as best we could. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have never seen real action (thankfully!), but what you say sounds familiar. When I where in the army, even blanks where fired in the "general direction" of the enemy (who usually happened to be the very nice lads from the B-company) rather than carefully aimed shots. I would say that 95% of the blanks I fired where to "keep the enemies head down", firing after muzzle flashes, flashes of helmets, obvious entrenchments etc.

raaaid
08-10-2007, 04:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
I'd be willing to kill for Rose McGowan, and I wager her firepower at decisive range would cause death (in the Elizabethan sense) 100% of the time. Thus, she is more lethal than a battalion of Marines.

http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s261/G6AS/RoseMcGowan.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Judging from the photo, I'd be willing to die (in the Elizabethan sense) for her as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

im curious what does in the elizabethan sense mean?

charm is a cool show shame is intended just for girls

WhtBoy
08-10-2007, 08:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WhtBoy:
My family, a former neighbor, and I are glad that I'm in the 15%.

--Outlaw. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

im glad you dont like me WHITE boy </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What you should be glad about is that, if I saw that your life was in danger from an attacker and if, in my best judgement, saw it was unwarranted, I would place my own life in danger to help you.

Also, give up on the racist cr@p you are trying to put on me. If you want to complain about my nickname, PM me and I'll send you the contact info for Isadore, the BLACK guy that gave me the nickname. When you contact him, bring up your displeasure with his nickname which is "Spot". He came up with that one too since he was the only black guy in our crowd of "white boys". We thought "Dot" was better since it's a girl's name also but, he's about 245 lbs of solid muscle and a mean drunk so, "Spot" it was (and is to this day).

Maybe you should question your own motives/feelings since you seem to read racism into just about everything.

--Outlaw.

Blutarski2004
08-10-2007, 08:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
im curious what does in the elizabethan sense mean? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... The climax of a sexual congress. That's about as delicately as I can put it.

;-]

raaaid
08-10-2007, 01:05 PM
all right outlaw thats nice from you so i apologize