I'd appreciate any of the people with military experience in my circles telling me if this is bollocks or not.
Summary : (Roughly) pre-20th century, battlefield casualty rates from firearms were far below what the accuracy of the guns would allow. The reason given (which I've heard elsewhere) is that most people, even with that sort of military training, don't naturally shoot to kill. They threaten and posture to get the other side to go away, but (barring conditions of direct, immediate threat to their own lives) they don't actually want to kill them.
In most circumstances only about 2% deliberately shoot to kill when not threatened themselves. Of those, about half are psychopaths who have no empathy for other human beings. The other half do do so out of a sense of familial protection for their troops : they don't want the other side to die so much as the want their own side to live.
During the 20th century, training methods were devised to circumvent the natural desire to leave the other side alone. The most effective is to generate a conditioned response, whereby the instinctive, reflex action of a soldier is to shoot the enemy on sight. They aren't thinking, they're just acting instinctively. Through such techniques the shoot to kill fraction reaches close to 100%. There will, I suppose, be some (small ?) selection effect as to who enlists in the first place.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zViyZGmBhvs
In the US, the military has a very strict protocol about when to fire on people that appears to disagree with that last paragraph above.
ReplyDeleteI haven't had time to watch the video, nor have I ever been in the military, but, I've seen several articles like the one I linked to below talking about US military protocol.
https://www.attn.com/stories/9720/difference-between-police-and-military-firearm-protocol
I have heard this, and it seems plausible.
ReplyDelete(For context, my sources served in armies with universal conscription, where the self-selection effect wouldn't apply.)
ReplyDeleteLindybiege!
ReplyDeleteThis might be a much bigger issue with a conscripted army like in WW2. That said, the proper tactics when advancing on an enemy is to fire on them to keep their heads down to protect your advance.
ReplyDeleteAs for the US Army, there recent military adventures has been more of an occupying force than an all-out war where the ROI would be much different than an all-out war that I was trained for in the 70s
It's definitely not BS. I have no military experience, but I read. During Obama's presidency, drones killed innocent civilians (including women and children) 30:1 over terrorists. So, yeah, they shoot to kill. It's just not as up close and personal as it used to be. Now, they just look at a computer screen and fire when the drone reaches the target. I have an article you need to read. I'll ping you when I find it.
ReplyDeleteI have been in a war, and luckily never in a position to shoot at another person. We had to go, there wasn't a legal choice to avoid it at the time. I'm guessing the story in video is partially true - only a small percentage of us is capable of shooting to kill. Once you remember the number of casualties though - who killed all those people in WWI, poison and canons? Once your life is in danger, my guess is you will shoot to kill no matter what.
ReplyDeleteI originally only pinged Rhys Taylor in a comment under my post regarding just how many millions the US has killed since WWII. However, Ivan Petkovic's comment above inspired me to share the link to my post here:
ReplyDeleteplus.google.com - The US government has killed millions of people in more than three dozen nati...
The ideas in the linked video sounds reasonable. To a certain extent a soldier is like an athlete. Repeat a routine until you can perform it without thinking about it
ReplyDelete