I just got promoted...

[Provost Harrison]

Thats Real Boris lol i think yous just trollin'

I think some strange spammer with one post has just been expunged from the history of the forum...there was definitely someone else inbetween mine and Boris's post...

[Al B. Sure!]

My grandparents and great uncles of that generation were there, and I heard it from them. They fought in those wars. I'll take their word on their jungle war stories.

That's not what Boris is referring to. He is referring to your other statement about English walking and shooting. That was WW1, not WW2.

[ZEE]

.

[Zoetstofzoetje]

I'm pretty sure it did, and you're mistaken about the war.

My grandparents and great uncles of that generation were there, and I heard it from them. They fought in those wars. I'll take their word on their jungle war stories.

[Provost Harrison]

And who are you, strange newbie?

[Boris Godunov]

I'm pretty sure it did, and you're mistaken about the war.

[Zoetstofzoetje]

Knowledge doesn't always transfer from veterans to the grunts, apparently..

[Boris Godunov]

During WW2 English commanders were still thinking old-school-orderly firing, where armies would walk towards each other calmly and then shoot in turns. So these commanders ordered their men to walk and shoot rather than run for cover and THEN shoot. Too bad when you're facing a machine gun.

Funny, you'd think the English would have learned that lesson during WWI.

[Zoetstofzoetje]

It's also funny how cultures' tendencies translate into army casualties, particularly for the English.

During WW2 English commanders were still thinking old-school-orderly firing, where armies would walk towards each other calmly and then shoot in turns. So these commanders ordered their men to walk and shoot rather than run for cover and THEN shoot. Too bad when you're facing a machine gun.

Same goes for fighting in the jungle. When the English and the Dutch were fighting a war in Asia, the English would parade their troops through the jungle in the middle of the road. The Dutch, with centuries of jungle fighting experience, would creep along the edge of the road so they could hide quickly should they see an enemy. You can guess which army had a better survival rate...

[MikeH]

I'm not disputing that.

[Boris Godunov]

Very different war as well. Very short range intense jungle battles where if you don't kill the other guy they'll kill you.

I believe one of the more curious points Marshall made is that soldiers saw their comrades in Europe actually get killed by refusing to fire at the enemy. They knew they were in lethal danger, but would still not shoot at the German soldiers.

Again, there has been some questioning of Marshall's methods and conclusions, although his study was pretty much accepted at face value by the U.S. military. But I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that most people, even soldiers, don't want to kill another person under almost any circumstances.

[MikeH]

Very different war as well. Very short range intense jungle battles where if you don't kill the other guy they'll kill you.

[Boris Godunov]

Lots of reasons why they might not have fired though.

I think what's being referenced is SLA Marshall's study about his interviews with over over 400 platoons in WWII:

http://www.amazon.com/Men-Against-Fire-Problem-Command/dp/0806132809

The conclusion was that only 25% of American soldiers who engaged in combat in the European theater actually fired their weapons at the enemy, because most just didn't want to kill another human being. Many would even intentionally fire wide to avoid hitting their target.

A similar study done during Vietnam found the combat fire rate at about 90%, though. While this was probably due in large part to the changes in training that occurred precisely because of Marshall's work, it also might have been because Marshall's study wasn't very precise. It was probably easier to dehumanize the Vietnamese as well, given the more alien culture.

[MikeH]

Actually, wargames were initially sponsored by the U.S. MinDef when they discovered later on that a lot of soldiers on the beaches of Normandy had not fired a single shot. So the population had to be mentally prepared to kill.

Lots of reasons why they might not have fired though.

Many were killed before they could fire a shot.

Much of the defences were armoured machine gun nests, which standard infantry weaponry was useless against.

The most important thing was to keep moving up the beach, and the soldiers were encouraged to do so, and not stop and shoot.

But militaries do spend a lot of time training soldiers to be able to pull the trigger if they have to, and militaries always have spent time doing that. WWII troops didn't always get the length of training you'd really want.

And War Games were around long before WWII, just not on computers. I am sure there is some guy at the Pentagon who sponsored war sims to help train troops, not sure I'd buy that that the entire war game industry on computers is due to the US military. Computer power wasn't capable of doing stuff like that until at least 40 years after the end of WWII anyway.

[Aeson]

Why do these spammers keep popping up?

Asher has been posting here for years, he was hardly "popping up"