Hi, i remember some time ago, reading an article which said that after the second world war, hundreds of allied troops were interviewed and asked wether they had shot at the enemy with intent to kill in close combat. I cant recall the actual statistics, but the bottom line was that maybe only 15 - 20 percent of the troops interviewed said that they had shot to kill. Apparantly the rest would just fire in the general direction of the enemy (if at all).
Anyway, does anyone know if anything similair was ever done with german troops after the war??
hope to hear from someone on this....
cheers
Close Combat Question
Yes, i saw once on TV documentary about soldiers that shoot over enemy in close combat. This situation was noticed first time due american civil war 1861-1865. Officers noticed that almost 80% shoots missed target. Most enemy soldiers were wounded or killed then they break down lines and run away.
In this movie was also talk about WWI, WWII and Korea, but i don't remember numbers.
In this movie was also talk about WWI, WWII and Korea, but i don't remember numbers.
amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas
SLA Marshal's study (Men Against Fire)
see http://warchronicle.com/us/combat_histo ... llfire.htm
Jeff
see http://warchronicle.com/us/combat_histo ... llfire.htm
Jeff
He misread the data (at best). American troops had been trained to shoot when they had a target. It was difficult to get them to do area fire or marching fire as a result since their instinct was not to shoot except at an identifed target.
Wasn't about moral qualms.
I'm unaware of any other armed force about whom this question has even been raised. Americans aren't such saints that we'd be the only ones if this phenomen were true.
cheers
Reb
Wasn't about moral qualms.
I'm unaware of any other armed force about whom this question has even been raised. Americans aren't such saints that we'd be the only ones if this phenomen were true.
cheers
Reb
- Commissar D, the Evil
- Moderator
- Posts: 4823
- Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 7:22 pm
- Location: New Jersey
I have to agree with Reb to an extent and add this: Americans will shoot at any enemy. Marshall's study was more about the nature of warfare than about the nature of any nation's particular soldiers.
By the way, by WWII, everyone knew that an MG team was more efficient than an ordinary rifleman, one of the points Marshall made in his study. Crew-fired weapons are usually more deadly than some poor isolated sod with a weapon who has to seek cover for his survival.
Beyond the studies, if you truly want to understand S.L.A. Marshall's take on the American Army, read, "The River and the Guantlet", it is his classic story of the American Fighting Man, although it details a defeat.
Best,
David
By the way, by WWII, everyone knew that an MG team was more efficient than an ordinary rifleman, one of the points Marshall made in his study. Crew-fired weapons are usually more deadly than some poor isolated sod with a weapon who has to seek cover for his survival.
Beyond the studies, if you truly want to understand S.L.A. Marshall's take on the American Army, read, "The River and the Guantlet", it is his classic story of the American Fighting Man, although it details a defeat.
Best,
David
Death is lighter than a Feather, Duty is heavier than a Mountain....
Here is a link to a US Army article which discusses Marshall's work and his errors.
http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Para ... ambers.pdf
http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Para ... ambers.pdf