The shrink guy said in WW2, only %15-20 of the soldiers fired their weapons to kill in firefight when the fate of the world is at stake.
Was he talking about the Allied soldiers?
Did German soldiers who fired their weapons are more than %20?
If `not firing` is a general issue in both sides, could it effect the outcome of a firefight?
Well, it's is commonly known that this was an issue in the civil war. Even to the point that soldiers rifles were found to have several rounds stuffed in the barrel or the soldiers looked away and aimed over the enemies heads. Did that happen in the two world wars? Never heard of it, but it is probably likely.
Modern combat is less about aiming to kill someone as it is about suppression fire. WWII tactics relied heavily upon laying down suppression fire and flanking the enemy. Usually the flankers would be skilled and very likely to kill who they were aiming at, as that was their role.
So the squad leader, Sgt or what have you would know who in their squad would be more likely to do their job and send them to flank, while he kept others laying down suppressing fire which doesn't rely on sharpshooting.
So I believe those stats are "baked in the cake" so to speak, and don't affect the outcome of a firefight, persay. Battles were able to be fought and won, even if everyone wasn't a willing participant. Also you have to remember that in both WW's most people were draftees and didn't want to be there anyway. It is one significant difference between today's all volunteer military and the conscription of the past. It probably also accounts for why there are so many more cases of PTSD in today's military, than the past. These volunteers go and are more willing do their duty and are not prepared for the ramifications of killing someone in close quarters combat.
Of course the diagnosis of PTSD is still a relatively new one. It was called "shell shock" in earlier wars.
"the world's smartest man poses no more threat to me than does its smartest termite." -Dr. Manhattan
reply
share