I just posted a very good article by Dr. Simon Ng. Knowing that most of you live exclusively within the walls of this forum, I'd thought I'd tell you about it.

If you've ever been confronted by someone who thinks playing a military sim is sick because it's about killing, then you must read this article.

Here's the intro from the from the main page:

In this new, regular column entitled "Military Thinkers, Military Thoughts," Dr. Simon Ng embarks on a journey into the thoughts and motivations of the great military thinkers. He begins with an analysis of Lt. Col. Dave Grossman's seminal work On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society.

Feature: Military Thinkers, Military Thoughts

--------------------

Looks very interesting.

Z

--------------------

I figure an old campaigner like you will like this article. Just so you know, there'll be more where that came from

--------------------

How many of us, inspite of gung-ho attitude and bravado, really could pull the trigger on another humane, especially if eye contact is made. It’s hard to imagine what goes on in the mind of the ancient soldiers that killed and died at a range where you could smell his breathe or notice his acne. And interesting to note that even the modern army, only a small percentage of them actually fire there weapons with a target actually in his sights. In the ancient army, very few had blood on their swords. Killing is very hard and traumatic. Interesting to note in the article, that civilians being bombed suffer much less than the soldier who has to kill.

Hollywood does have a bad habit of representing humans in a bad light. However, some of those movies (Saving Private Ryan) and TV shows (M.A.S.H.) do remind us that we’re not supposed to be evil. The very best of them always have a strong anti-war anti-killing sentiment/message.

Even when I’m simming, I find my satisfaction higher if I try to let my imagination get more real. I am not a killer by nature (I was temporarily insane in the McVeigh thread awhile back). When I open fire on a target, I do feel differently if he explodes guaranteeing a real virtual death to the pilot than if I hit him hard enough to put him smoking and out of action only. Well, ok, there are some real tactical advantages to severe maiming rather than total destruction, but the feeling is definitely different.

Thanx Doug. S!

--------------------

"What we do in life, echoes in Eternity"

"Strength and Honour"

A lot of the conclusions drawn, about the fact that many soldiers break from the stress of killing not from the fear of being killed is something I've run across in (admittedly few) other books as well. I don't have the books here right beside me right now so I can't give the author's names but "Roll Me Over" which is a book written by an infantryman whe served in France, Germany and Czechoslovakia from his wartime journal goes into this a bit. After he'd gone from regular dogface to squad leader he really noticed that some of his men just would not fire on the enemy with their rifles. He didn't make them out to be cowards either in the accepted gung-ho reactions that a lot of soldier turned authors did which I thought was refreshing. His unit was a federalized Guard unit which meant that a lot of the men were married, older and many had more education than your average infantry unit. His reaction on finding that a lot of his squad (then platoon when he was promoted again to acting platoon leader) didn't like killing the enemy was to simply say if they met contact to fire their weapons, put on a show, use suppressive fire and try to scare the enemy off if killing them was beyond that soldier's ability/morality. His opinion was that as long as the man didn't run away and infect the unit with fear that someone would take care of the enemy, but that every individual didn't have it in him to actually drop the hammer on another man himself. I don't know how common this attitude was with the US Army infantry in WWII, the realisation that some men simply could not kill but to "put on a show" but it seemed to work for his squad. Interestingly he also mentioned that the Germans often seemed to be doing the same thing. When it was infantry on infantry there tended to be a lot of posturing, a lot of supressive type fire and very little actual killer agression. At the same time he also said that some of the most timid and mild of men would occassionaly go all out and do everything they could to kill an enemy soldier. Even one that the rest of the squad pretty much by unspoken agreement had decided to leave alone. There was a section about a German straggler and them seeming consumed with the desire to put him down that was telling. I won't spoil the book and that isn't the overriding theme but it meshes with what the article says about men in combat and the book "On Killing".

Another book which mentions, in part, similiar themes is one of my old ROTC required texts that I consider to be minor gospel on Infantry tactics in WWII, "Closing With the Enemy". In it the author describes how crew served weapons are much more effective at inflicting actual casualties on the enemy than an individual infantryman's rifle. Not only are machineguns more capable of doing damage to many more men in a period of time but the reassurance of having another man in close proximity to you as well as working together seemed to make these weapons more effective at killing the enemy.

I have a couple hypothesis on some of the tactical doctrine shift that was covered in "Closing With the Enemy" myself so here it goes.

At the beginning of WWII the US Army insisted that each round fired by an infantryman was to be an aimed shot with the intent to put down the target. This goes back to the whole "minuteman mythos" of the American Revolution where a mythology of riflemen using well aimed fire defeated the British who relied on mass of fire. This sort of thinking has prevailed in US military thought for almost 2 centuries and stressed almost range style shooting in a combat situation. In WWII this resulted in many men who were not inclined to killing to not fire their personal weapons in combat at all because they were drilled in basic traning that each shot should be a killing shot. Later the Army shifted unofficially to a doctrine of firepower, this was made easier since the M1 rifle had a huge fire weight advantage over most of the personal weapons of the Germans and Japaneseinfantry. It seemed with this shift that the whole Army became more effective, my guess is that by allowing the infantryman to open fire at any suspected enemy position allowed more men that were disinclined to take aimed fire at an enemy soldier and watch him drop to open fire with their weapons because it was not as personal, not looking Bambi in the eye so to speak. When this shift occurred the Army became much more effective, to the point that it became standard if unofficial doctrine at the Infantry Division's "refresher courses" for new replacements in Europe.

Another theory I have is how this disinclination to kill and the psychological effects on a soldier may have been realised by the Germans at an early point and actually be the cause for some of their tactical successes. The US Army initially believed that every rifleman should be a sharpshooter and that this was how success would be achieved on the battlefield, the German army on the other hand always believed in the weight of fire theory. Reading or watching any interview with Allied infantry about German infantry one usually hears something along the lines of "They had so many machineguns, it was crazy." This could point to the fact that the Germans realised that crew served weapons were the really effective ones from an early point. I've read in many books that the German infantry squad was considered to be support for their MG-34/42 and not the other way arround. I've read interviews with German infantry who said their biggest role on the battlefield was to make sure the MG wasn't flanked and to carry spare ammunition and barrels for the weapons moreso than to actually use their rifles. The introduction of the MP-43/StG-44 also seems to reflect the realiseation of the supressive power of weight of fire more than the accuracy of rifles as well. The German infantry in general appeared to have a greater reluctance also to engage in close combat than many Allied armies. This is reflected in the fact that the Germans introduced assault and close combat badges to show distinction in this area. I read that hypothesis somewhere that the introduction of these badges was taken by the Allied armies to show that the German infantryman did not want to get "up close and personal" and in general, this seems to be borne out by what I have read. They certainly were not as inclined as many Brittish Commonwealth (especically the Australians) to want to go bayonette to bayonette with the enemy. The US Army seemed to be somewhere in between the 2 poles for most of the war.

Umm, sorry for the long post, the article was excellent and got me thinking a lot on these lines so I babbled.

--------------------

Coincidentally last night on CBC's "Forbidden Places" (great programme) the subject was peacekeeping, specifically the Canadian brigade stationed on the Croatian/Krijian border. It was mentioned that sometimes a show of force was necessary to keep the two sides apart.

If a bunker decided to take pot shots at the other side once too often then a "demonstration" would be in order. They would mass as much firepower together as possible (mostly heavy mg's) and just smack the bunker hard, but not to kill. That usually was enough.

If one side got their mits on a bit of armour, the the Canadians would invite the leaders for a little show on the effectiveness of the TOW.

Damn, just got called for dinner. I was just getting started.

--------------------

"What we do in life, echoes in Eternity"

"Strength and Honour"

Judging from your post, check out (if you haven't already) Keegan's 'The Face of Battle' and John Ellis' 'The Sharp End: The Fighting Man in World War II'. You'll find both books provide some really good insight into what happens to people in the heat of battle.

Z

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Admin:
Zhukie,

I figure an old campaigner like you will like this article. Just so you know, there'll be more where that came from

---

Yes, definitely keep them coming.

Zhukov

--------------------