On Killing
 

I'm about halfway through the book On Killing by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman. I had to stop reading it for a while in order to get some distance from what the author was talking about and regain my objectivity. I didn't post this in the book section as my question is not about the book so much as some of the statistics and theories he discusses.

The author contends that only 1 or 2 soldiers of ten actually fired thier weapons with an intent to kill the enemy in WWII. This ratio does not reflect support personnel who were not on the front lines. It's 20% of infantrymen on the front lines in a position to fire on the enemy.

In a story about the civil war he writes:

"Author of the Civil War Collector's Enclyopedia F.A. Lord tells that after the battle of Gettysburg, 27,574 muskets were recovered from the battlefield. Of these, nearly 90 percent (twenty-four thousand) were loaded. Twelve thousand of these loaded muskets were found to loaded more than once, and six thousand of the multi load eapons had from three to ten rounds loaded in the barrel. One weapon had been loaded twent-three times."

It's his contention that these soldiers went through the motions of fighting but did not or would not shoot at the enemy.

I guess I've been living under a rock, but the above took me by surprise. Of the folks on this site who have been in combat, is this equally surprising?

ML Rifles
 

One should not put too much though into the "Why" of muzzle loading single shot rifles used in combat. At the time of the civil war soldiers and armies were still trained in stand-up volley fire warfare. That changed as the war progressed but the basic training an entry level soldier got remained the same.

In a general engagement where the firing was hot and heavy a soldier could make a mistake in one of the nine loading steps. Step four comes to mind. Not knowing he had a misfire the soldier would continue to load, stacking more rounds into the barrel.

Instead of using gross numbers of weapons picked up on a battlefield a better study would have been "WHERE" they were found on the battlefield and which units fought in that spot or crossed that ground.

Some commanders gave the order to load but not prime when making an attack. A large attack under such conditions, win or lose, would show a large number of loaded (one round only) weapons on the field in that area. A regiment that was cut off and forced to surrender would also show a lot of loaded weapons in that spot.

A sharp fast attack against a fairly new unit could show a number of weapons with multiple rounds because a new troops might not know he had a misfire.

The Bean Counters of that time didn't care about deeper things, only the condition of things lost and found. Kinda' like it is today.

As a side note - there are a number of first person accounts of where the individual soldier didn't want to shoot a person. He would load and fire but not really aim, just kinda' point it in the same direction everybody else did. Still, 450-1,000 guys pointing their rifles over "there" and pulling the trigger is going to sling a lot of lead.

Just a few thoughts.

Pete

Grossman is a nice guy.

Having said that, he cherry picks statistics, selectively uses history, creates unwarranted hypotheses, and reaches unsupportable conclusions. He is also anti-gun.

I think he had an idea worthy of a small monograph, and has turned it into a post-military career (killogy.com). His writing is monotonous repetition of the same material, proceeded by marginally relevant quotes with minimal scientific analysis.

Just my .02, YMMV.

TR

I have heard a number of times that 90% percent of the killing is is conducted by 10% percent of the soldiers in battle.

SFC W

Possibly, but I have also heard that a fat old man flies around in a sleigh pulled by magic reindeer and climbs down chimneys to deliver all of the presents on Christmas as well.

TR

Relics
 

A little off subject here but my Uncle use to own a Farm in Fredericksburg VA in the 50's. Every year when they plowed their fields they dug up countless Civil War relics. Thankfully he knew the value of these items. To this day he has trunk loads of Civil War relics in his cellar. Enough to fill a Team Room floor to ceiling (Im not exaggerating it's amazing) Every time to this day when I visit his home now in Massachusetts I head straight to his cellar to explore these priceless trunks full of relics. I still have not been thru every Trunk to this day. When I was a kid I noticed many of the Rifle Barrels had several rounds loaded in them. It was years later that I found out the reason for this as stated above. My uncle is very old know, Sick and not able to even care for himself. My Mom (His Sister) has made several requests to have all the Civil War items willed to her so they stay in the family. Our greatest fear is when he passes away his two greedy Sons who are waiting for him to die just for his money. Have no idea or concern for the value of these relics and will put them on eBay for the money. Anyone want to volunteer for a covert Civil War Relic rescue operation in Mass in the future........Just kidding, Thanks for letting me rant some.

I have had to stand in front of my CO (heels locked) on more than one occasion, attempting
to explain why my windshield had mud on it...The obvious answer was that I had to fly that close to the target to eliminate it.

Hope that made sense.

Terry

Sir,
That is an amazing story. Best of luck with what has been found and collected.
Count me and (I'll volunteer him) The Reaper in for the rescue and recovery.

There sure was a record amount of killing during the Civil War for all those numbers who supposedly didn't want to fight.
That's a kind of not disputable fact.

HAHAHAHAHAHA:D

I'm facinated with Civil War relics as well as the history. Good luck on keeping those treasures.

The author's contention was that most of the killing was done by artillery. The further away you are. the easier it is. However, he said the percentages of folks who were actively shooting at the enemy in vietnam and Iraq( both wars) were dramtically higher. He attributes this to training methods.

As TR mentioned, he may be cherry picking statistics to skew the results or drawing premature conclusions. Some of the stuff was fascinating, some seemed to be the result of narrow interpetation.

For instance, in the battle of Cold Harbor, he said the great number of casualties in the Union army was strickly related to artillery. However, in Douglas Southall Freeman's volumes related to R. E. Lee he talks about a 19in. diameter tree being cut in half by small arms fire.

Probably the most interesting item I've read so far is the correlation he makes between combat stress and killing the enemy. He contends that folks in war who do not shoot at the enemy have very little post war stress problems; whereas those who did suffer the most.

Many people have said that there were a lot of fake fights during the civil war, often times because you may have had relatives fighting for both sides. Who wants to kill their brother, uncle, or cousin?


SH 21-76 Ranger Handbook Page 14-6 CQC -- Dated April 2000

"Note: Research has determined, that on average, only three individuals out of ten actually fire their weapons when confronted by an enemy during room clearing operations."

There is no note as to whose research, or when and where it was conducted, but it does seem a little off to me.


Wait, my wife reminded me that tonight when we were watching Off to War on the Discovery Times channel, (its a documentary of a NG unit going to Iraq), their convoy got ambushed. They were taking RPG's and small arms fire. The gunner on the Humvee with the 240B never returned fire, he just ducked down into the vehicle and did a terrific job of looking scared shitless. I guess he's one of the seven.


S

Stakk4,

I take it you've been shot at? 126th Finance BN got into a lot of fights in Iraq I hear.....

My suggestion, unless you have walked the walk STFU. Got it?

Team Sergeant

I am reading the book now. I am not at all sure this contention is correct. During my time in SF, I had the priviledge to serve with some people I have little doubt KIAd a buttload of people. They were stable, well-adjusted family men. Of course one never knows for sure what goes on in the deep recesses of the hard drive, but I didn't get the impression that they suffered from anything more serious than a complete lack of tolerance for fools and amateurs.

I would suspect that in reality, quite a bit of "post war stress problems" are more prevelant in other than those directly engaged. I also suspect quite a bit of it, while real, is self-induced to some degree - like most stress.

Combat soldiers I have known, including Little People, tend to be very pragmatic and realistic.

I also have no doubt that one can convince one's self that one has PTSD so thoroughly that one actually "gets" it.

Not making a blanket statement or belittling or accusing anyone. Just making the observation that actually shooting people that are shooting at you can be a significant stress release.

Try this read.

http://www.theppsc.org/Grossman/Main-R.htm

TR

There were sure a lot of casualties for such little shooting.:rolleyes:

I will admit that in a fire fight the up close and personal/look him in the eye shot may be rare and be disturbing to some. The tendancy in Vietnam was to "hose the area down" and create a "killing zone". Defensive positions were devised with interlocking fields of fire. The principle was to fire at an angle and not actually see the enemy approaching your position. He was taken care of by fire from another position. These positions were named for the inventor. CRS his name but DePugh comes to mind. I think he commanded the Americal Div. Don't hold me to that.

OTOH< I never gave it any thought, I once looked an NVA right in the eye as I greased him. I haven't lost any sleep yet!:D