Killing People In Wars

[The Aviator]

Last week here there was a TV show on the History Channel on Foxtel about the percentage of soldiers who actually killed enemy soldiers during the Second World War.
It said that during that conflict, only 12% of soldiers deliberately aimed at the enemy and only 2% of soldiers in combat deliberately tried to aim at the enemy in places that would kill.
It said that most soldiers just fired their weapons in the general direction of the enemy.

It went on to say that since the Second World War, the military had learnt to use targets that were in the shape of humans so that soldiers became accustomed to shooting at people not targets.

It makes me think of that part in "Band of Brothers" where Dick Winters deliberately shot that young German in the field at point blank range. He couldn't get it out of his mind and it still haunts him today.

That is what we are talking about.

[51highland]

Where do they get the figures from? Does not add up in my mind. If a company was reduced in strength to say 60 riflemen, which happened at times, they are saying that of 4 companies, in round figures, 5 men are aiming to kill.!!! Rubbish.
I can understand people not wanting to kill initially, but once you and your mates lives are on the line, well fear is great motivator.

[The Aviator]

Don't know Highland it was just a History channel show. Maybe the figures are reflected in the total men under arms. Many soldiers didn't even see action let alone fire a rifle in anger.

I am going to add here a true story.
A few years ago I was on a bus trip overseas. I got talking to the old chap next to me and he told me that he had been a Mosquito pilot in the Mediterranean theatre of ops.
I asked him about his experiences and he said that in the three years of active service flying on ops, he never once fired his guns at an enemy aircraft. I asked why and he said that it was because he never saw one the whole war.

and cheers Adam. Hope you find it.

[von Poop]

This seems to spring from a wartime study under the auspices of General Marshall that found not enough men were actually shooting at the enemy, and attempted to improve marksmanship in general with a program instituted in the US army in 1950.
There's several books on the psychology of killing but I'm sure I've read something by Keegan referring to it.

Looks like it's been a very controversial suggestion from day one, there's a Richard Holmes book that appears to refute it but there also seem to be many followers of the theory, who while conceding that the report was flawed seem to have a reasonable case for suggesting that, other than in really extreme situations (whatever that may mean in warfare), it has some validity.

I'll try and find the study itself so we can have a proper shufti, It's proving rather elusive at the moment though.

Cheers,
Adam.

[4th wilts]

my old mate told me he shot ss men in normandy, and his friends did.he told me they did the same.bloody animals he told me over our lunchtime pint.yours very sincerely,lee

[Owen]

It said that most soldiers just fired their weapons in the general direction of the enemy.

Not surprising as half the time they couldn't even see eachother.
Surpressing fire can be quite effective anyway.

[Slipdigit]

This is certainly no comparison to the real thing, but it does me give some idea of what the study was talking about.

When I first started playing paintball back in 1988, the first several times I drew an aim on someone, I had to really think about it because of all those year of being taught to never point a weapon at someone. Now, granted, a paintball gun is not a deadly weapon and we were playing game, but still, a change in habits is required.

When you get down to it, most people really don't want to kill another. My uncle told me he held no malice toward the individual Japanese soldier, but he knew that when the time came, he had to do it.

[Capt.Sensible]

'I'll try and find the study itself so we can have a proper shufti, It's proving rather elusive at the moment though.'

Adam,

It's almost certainly this -

SLA Marshal 1947 Men Against Fire.

Originally publihsed in a US military journal, and re-published several time since then, latest would be 2002. It was (and probably still is) a very influential text, the results of which shaped US tactical doctrine for the latter part of the 20th century. I did find a partial copy as a pdf on the internerd but have lost the link..pooh.

The Keagon book sounds like the Face of Battle but he has done a few others over the years so perhaps I am out of date.

H

[von Poop]

Aha, cheers, H, so not a study as such, possibly more a piece of journalism?
One interesting article on current thinking about 'Men against fire' from the US military history institute here:
http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/P...n/chambers.pdf

This is interesting too, though the site has a firm agenda:
S.L.A. Marshall's Ratio of Fire

Analysis here:
http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~vr32/Me...ERSION%20B.doc

Still digging for an ebook of the original text, must be one out there somewhere.

[jacobtowne]

There may be some substance to the study as far as the European Theater, but it most certainly does not pertain to the Pacific, where much of the land fighting was at point blank range.

JT