Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
Is this guy really saying that only 20% of our infantry men fired in combat.

Didn't anyone ever notice that the other 80% weren't doing anything?
11 posted on 11/11/2002 2:40:38 PM PST by chaosagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]


To: chaosagent
I know one thing's for darn sure: draftees in modern warfare are a waste of logistical resources. I had heard a similar stat that 75% were unwilling to kill in WW2, and according to that researcher, that % is still the norm in most countries, but the US is somewhere around 20% now. He 'blamed' it on violent movies. What's to blame? I think it's a good thing.
12 posted on 11/11/2002 2:44:43 PM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: chaosagent
The first assault had failed. The Qaeda soldiers were riled up. Moreover, the grenade explosions had inadvertently started a fire inside the building. This was a problem because a building that was torched courtesy of the Special Forces would not look good on CNN.

Gee. I suppose not. Perception is supposedly everything to our military, right? /sarcasm.

14 posted on 11/11/2002 2:45:41 PM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: chaosagent
Is this guy really saying that only 20% of our infantry men fired in combat.

Well, then, the 20% who fired must have been expert marksment all.

23 posted on 11/11/2002 3:12:45 PM PST by The_Media_never_lie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: chaosagent; *bang_list
Is this guy really saying that only 20% of our infantry men fired in combat.

Didn't anyone ever notice that the other 80% weren't doing anything?

S.L.A. Marshall reported a study of troops in Korea who were found to have not fired their weapons in combat- and those dead troops found in their holes had indeed rarely fired their weapons. Some, of course were killed by overhead mortar or artillery bursts and never even saw an enemy, but there have indeed been cases of soldiers watching an oncoming enemy soldier who take no action to prevent an easy rifle shot or bayonet thrust that finishes them off without a return shot fired.

That may be in part based on a combat trooper's first instinct to take cover [and improve it!] and remain as safe as possible, marksmanhip training of the period that emphasized firing at bullseye [rather than humanoid-shaped] targets at known distances on neatly-manicured ranges, the use of hastily-trained support troops in combat roles in Korea, or the use of the hard-kicking M1 Garand rifle of the period or the lightweight M1 carbine with a notorious repution for not seriously harming those shot with it. Any or all of the above may have been a part of the problem, including biting cold weather and freezing conditions that sapped troop morale- though such things were also a consideration for Finnish troops killing a million Russian invaders during the 4-month *Winter War* of 1939-40, the 101 Airborne at Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge, and the Russians at Stalingrad.

I can only tell you that the situation reported was not the case I observed during my first hitch in the military as an enlisted man, 1966-1970. The problem in that conflict was keeping riflemen supplied with enough ammunition, cleaning supplies and spare rifles and parts as they burned up, shot out and generally sprayed lead in the general direction of any percieved hostile fire coming their way, sometimes actually hitting something. The M16 was easy to shoot and ranges in Vietnam were generally not distant.

It's also true that in any unit, some guys are experienced and agressive, while some rookies are nervous and hesitant, particularly poorly-trained conscripts. But those conscripts want to go home, preferably in one piece, and once they get motivated, they'll kill anything in their way of accomplishing that goal.

-archy-/-

29 posted on 11/11/2002 4:53:57 PM PST by archy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: chaosagent
RE: Is this guy really saying that only 20% of our infantry men fired in combat.

Didn't anyone ever notice that the other 80% weren't doing anything?

If I recall correctly 1/3 (firing) was a bit more accurate and I believe that Marshall stated only about 1/3 would fire at one time, but it's been a few years since I read it.

The 20% firing was on the low side.

31 posted on 11/11/2002 6:14:29 PM PST by The Toad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: chaosagent
It's a true stat and it changed with training techniques before and during Vietnam. I've heard this cited numerous tiem from various sources, none of which was in the context of military bashing.
32 posted on 11/11/2002 7:37:59 PM PST by TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson