From: Michael Wiik (mwiik@messagenet.com)
Date: Wed Sep 04 2002 - 10:50:26 MDT
dehede011@aol.com wrote:
> I think what I have said before is that it is inside of you, or it
> isn't. Apparently about 4% are warriors. A larger percentage will fight
> under more or less the same circumstances as York. Some just don't feel it
> at all.
Oh, I do understand this. I've been reading about this since my teens.
There are a number of people who are 'natural' fighters. As in (using a
movie as an example), the characters Barnes and Elias in 'Platoon'. Both
are presented as natural fighters, even though they have quite different
outlooks on life.
I've read an old book by Ardant du Picque (sp?) and more recently, a
book on killing by an author I don't recall at the moment. In any case
both books described how a good percentage of troops in battle will seek
cover instead of proceeding with the attack. The latter book went as far
to proclaim that (for example) the reason that some American Civil War
battles were so bloody was that they were so long. The actual kill rate
by a line of musketmen was far less than what was expected given testing
done on plywood forms substituting for an enemy line. (The author's
theory was that many soldiers would intentionally miss, as they had no
desire to kill, *even though* they were being shot at. The author goes
on to discuss killing at various 'ranges', beginning with what he termed
'sexual range' (thinking here of the knifing scene in 'Saving Private
Ryan') to hand-to-hand range, pistol/grenade range, rifle range,
artillery range on to bombers and missiles, the basic idea being that
killing becomes easier as the range increases.)
I also understand that the US Army has done extensive programs to
identify such natural fighters and increase their percentage in combat
units. This seems logical to me. Further, I've read studies that
indicate that giving someone an automatic weapon (especially a machine
gun) will make him far more likely to shoot than someone with a
semiautomatic or bolt-action rifle.
While my memory may be iffy, I understand that German WWII combat
tactics at the fire team level involved the riflemen supporting the
soldier with the MG or SMG. I understand the Soviets equipped entire
divisions with SMG's or automatic rifles and that this tactic really
disturbed the Germans, especially as the Soviet ARs had a much longer
range than the German SMG's.
Brian D Williams wrote:
> Somethings have to be experienced rather than explained, no one can
> explain them very well, words can't do every job. This is what Zen
> is all about.
I have no issues with that, and can understand the Zen analogy. I only
have issues with what *seems to me* your idea that veterans (in general)
should be accorded some extra status. Perhaps like Barnes in the
'Platoon' movie. He didn't think killing the civilian woman was such a
big deal. I don't mean to suggest that you would kill civilians, only
that it *seems to me* you share (at some level) some measure of contempt
for non-veterans.
> I would recommend if you are serious about this to start with
> Heinleins book "Starship Troopers". It's the book that led to my
> decision.
I've read it, and said so in a previous post. I hope this post helps you
understand that while I'm not a vet, and agree that I can never fully
understand what you went thru in your service, that I am not totally
100% ignorant of the realities of warfare. (Though I admit I am less
informed about modern warfare).
Thanks,
-Mike
--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:42 MST