Whats it like to kill a man?

Perhaps so. But, would not the sight and sound of Lancasters and Flying Fortresses running a round-the-clock shuttle between England and Germany have had a negative effect on soldiers morale? Knowing that strategic bombers didn't even open their bays over the German positions as they roared over on their way to Germany? I understand that defeatism was not tolerated, and one had to be discreet, but when the German soldiers assured those on the Homefront that they were doing their best to stop or slow the advance of US, British and Canadian troops is it possible that the folks back home might indicate that every day longer the war was allowed to drag on meant more air attacks on German cities? Didn't the people suffering through air raids just want the war to end?

This is a situation I find really interesting. What is it like to kill a man in war and how does it affect u.?

You say you never actually had a person in your sites and pulled the trigger. But was that not your job? To find those people in your sites and pull the trigger? I know the statistics about how many rounds of bullets per person killed in the War (25 000) and the ratio dropped for vietnam, again for gulf war and modern combat.. Obviously the WW2 soldiers combat training did not prepare them in the way vietnam and modern solders are trained in order to overcome any apprehension when it comes to killing other people.

Some people say they feel nothing when they do the killing in the heat of the moment and only feel remorse when the battle is over. There is this detachment form the whole scenario and others say like you do that they shot but tried not to aim.

I think every one wanted the war to be over and different people reacted in various manners but I also think every one, unless a psychopath did not enjoy killing and still to this day suffer from post traumatic stress due to the war. Perhaps I am wrong, any one able to answer or clear this up?

This is a situation I find really interesting. What is it like to kill a man in a war scenario and how does it affect u.?

You say you never actually had a person in your sites and pulled the trigger. But was that not your job? To find those people in your sites and pull the trigger? I know the statistics about how many rounds of bullets per person killed in the War (25 000) and the ratio dropped for vietnam, again for gulf war and modern combat.. Obviously the WW2 soldiers combat training did not prepare them in the way vietnam and modern solders are trained in order to overcome any apprehension when it comes to killing other people.

Some people say they feel nothing when they do the killing in the heat of the moment and only feel remorse when the battle is over. There is this detachment form the whole scenario and others say like you do that they shot but tried not to aim.

I think every one wanted the war to be over and different people reacted in various manners but I also think every one, unless a psychopath did not enjoy killing and still to this day suffer from post traumatic stress due to the war.

You are right a person could let the hate and fury at past incindents incite them into a rage and just pull the trigger and this is what was the basis for many war crimes and horrific incidences thru out the war. But most peopel are not like that and are unable to cross that line. What is it that makes other people cross that line?

any one able to answer or clear this up?

Never been in combat, just making a conjecture of what it was like in WWII. Ever drive along or walk down the city streets in the morning and see the few people scurrying to work? Look at the ranges to these people, see how small a target they can be at 200 yds, and how little movements change their paths so quickly. Now imagine they were moving in short, quick dashes, or from cover to cover, or on their bellies, and you were trying to sight them in with your bolt action or semi-automatic rifle. All the while you have bullets whining by, and chipping at the dirt and stuff around you, and you may have artillery going off with bits of dirt and dust hitting you and concussion rocking your whole body. Its going to be pretty hard for your average guy to hit anything at only 200 yards. With a Semi-automatic you have the luxury of being able to keep the barrel pointed in the right spot a few more times while you shoot which might range in a round, but the longer you are exposing yourself to fire, the more chances you are taking of getting hit yourself. Who do you shoot at? There are so many figures scurrying about, heading in your direction. If you concentrate on one, the others will get closer. I read in the book 'The Rock of Anzio' (about the 45th ID) that one guy told his men 'When you shoot, shoot off the whole clip' because individual fire was useless. You needed volume of fire. Volume of fire created random hits on the little figures scurrying about in front of you. And when the Machineguns and concentrated rifle fire managed to pin a group of opposing Infantry in one spot. Well, you know what happend. Call in the Artillery or Mortars. Yes, Arty and Mortars did the killing. Infantryman tried to break up the attack, slow it down, make them stop and group up so that shells, shrapnel and concussion could do the real work of killing. Most men didn't want the killing to get any closer than that. An attacker who could wither heavy doses of artillery fire (or mortars which is what the germans used mostly since arty didn't always have enough shells) and reach the defenders lines would normally find the defender gone, since he had proven he was ready to close the killing distance. And what happend when the killing distance was closed? Well, normally, from all accounts, Grenades were always the preferred method of dealing with the enemy. An explosive, scrapnel and concussive killing, just like Arty and Mortars, The thrower was always down and out of the way. Some times it did get closer. An Machine-gun, like MG34 or 42 can't spin about quick enough to deal with every little close in threat, A BAR can, a bolt-action is basically one shot when its that close, a semi gives you several if it doesn't jam or if you aren't empty. Luck helps. your instincts for survival and your natural reflexes help. If you aren't ready to kill then you prepare yourself to die. Bayonets, shovels, clubs are the last and most dreaded resort. One or both of the participants wants to leave, but there is no way out and so they fight. The one with the weaker resolve and bad luck, will die. In most cases, when it gets that close, one or the other guy will flee (to fight again mind you) or surrender. I would have to say, the majority of the time the average WWII infantryman spent hugging the ground and firing quickly at groups of scrambling figures he could barely see and may never have hit. Most hits from small arms fire were probably completely random due to the volume of fire into the area. Artillery called into a cluster or a frozen group was the real killer that broke up advances, that shattered defences, etc. If you got close enough to actually have to kill a man, I imagine those who couldn't do it, for what ever reason, died, and those who could, did it out of the self-preservation reflex. I would imagine the closer you got to killing the other man, the harder it would be for you to stop trembling after it was over, so you were probably useless and volunerable for a little bit.

Sincerely, kurt bowker

I happen to be reading and have nearly finished 'On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society' by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman (ISBN 0-316-33011-6).

Grossman is 'a former army Ranger and paratrooper, taught psychology at West Point and is currently the Professor of Military Science at Arkansas State University'.

He is very organised, uses hundreds of clear examples, and seemingly has done exhaustive research into other psychologists' work on this subject and into written accounts by veterans, not to mention conducting personal interviews with countless other veterans.

Grossman, using documents and research assembled by SLA Marshall and many others, says that 98% of the soldiers who are in a continuous combat situation for 60 days will suffer psyhcological damage, breakdown, exhaustion or what have you. They basically go insane. He goes on to say that the other 2% of the soldiers, the ones not affected, were mostly insane to begin with in terms of modern psyhcology, already having shown 'agressive psychopathic tendencies'.

He quotes research that says only 20% to 25% of the soldiers in WWII were aiming their weapons to kill or even fire upon their battlefield opponents. He says the USAAF found out that 1% of its fighter pilots accounted for about 40% of the kills in air combat.

This figure of soldiers aiming their weapons to kill increased to 50% in Korea and 90% to 95% in Vietnam due to modern training techniques.

Grossman quotes further research to say that the Germans consistently killed 50% more Americans and British in combat than the Americans and British killed Germans. He says one reason for this is that the more rigorous training applied to the Germans prepared them better for the battlefield hate they would encounter, allowing them to overcome the extreme reluctance to kill other human beings. They were inoculated with hate. Another reason they were better prepared to kill was Hitler's conditioning that was applied on a national level: if in the minds of the German soldier he was a member of the Master Race, then everyone else was less than human and, therefore, easier to kill.

However, Grossman says the German soldier still had to overcome a tremendous desire not to kill. Otherwise, the number of German kills over the British and American kills would have been HUNDREDS of times higher.

You ask:

Again according to Grossman, combat is one of the most horrible situations a human being can endure. However, non-combatants exposed to combat suffer only a tiny fraction of the psychological problems that plague 98% of all soldiers. Why? Because soldiers have the responsibility of killing others.

The psychological cost of killing for soldier is tremendous.

Cheers

Hello, Darrin Regarding these references:

<snip> This figure of soldiers aiming their weapons to kill increased to 50% in Recent historians are taking SLA Marshall to task for the nature of his research. Essentially, he is accused of faking or misreporting interviews, and some have gone so far as to attempt to prove that he did not have even have time to interview as many soldiers as he claimed. Marshall was an icon in his time and few, especially within the army, would dare question his assertions about how many soldiers fired their weapons in combat.

My recent readings of WWII vet memoirs and anthologies tend to make me personally believe that WWII GI's fired their weapons at darn near any opportunity that arose, once they's made an initial adjustment to the situation...which would vary from minutes to days, depending upon the individual. This hesitation could be deadly, of course, but apparently most surviving GI's overcame their reluctance or fear and took to their job as combat soldiers well enough to go on to win the war. Their practical, irreverent, anti-regular-army take on warfighting infuriated the West Pointers, like Marshall, but it may account for Marshall's apparent contempt for line GI's, other than those he personally nominated to heroic stature.

I used to beleive Marshall's every word, but now I am one of the semi- skeptics. I'd like to hear what others say about this topic.

Regards,

True. Grossman is a recent author that, while using Marshall's work, also does his own.

Firing one's weapon is not trying to kill. Evidence from the US civil war tells us that there were MANY cases of soldiers trying NOT to kill. They would load, aim, mimick firing, then do it some more. In the confusion, it looked like they were participating. Later, they'd pick up a weapn from a guy that got his early on.

<*> V-Man A Knight is sworn to Valor His Heart knows only Virtue His Blade defends the Weak His Word speaks only Truth His Wrath undoes the Wicked

Delete the '.CanDo' from my addy to reply!