Logistically Viable Weapons AtE

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Even if you assume that 9/10 (or whatever) of the shooters have Reluctant Killer and are just suppressing, you still need to ride hundreds of yards through a kill zone, with all that entails. If either the rider or the horse panics, that entire element is hors d'combat.

And the same logic applies equally to the calvarymen too, 9/10 of them (or whatever) should have problems with delivering effective attacks if they do make it through.

IIRC even Marshall allowed for the fact that his theory would have applied more to shooting at distant figures than melee combat where the repercussions for not going for the kill are rather more immediate (and more importantly psychologically immediate).

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by acrosome

Also, before it is brought up (because it always is), freezing is not being psychologically incapable of killing. Being terrified beyond the ability to function is not being psychologically incapable of killing. Not quite being able to believe that the guy from the alley is actually about to shoot you is not being psychologically incapable of defending yourself. Getting PTSD afterwards is not being psychologically incapable of killing. Not wanting to kill is not being psychologically incapable of killing. And so on.

A friend and workmate of my fathers was not quite old enough to serve in WWII. However, as a Dutchman, he got to serve as a conscript in that bit of unpleasantness in what was then the Dutch East Indies. My father once asked him how he felt about shooting at other people. His reply was that before he went there he was sure he wouldn't be able to, not being a particularly aggressive guy. Once there he found that when the bullets come past and you realise that you're being shot at, it's real easy to bring yourself to shoot back, and mean it.

Bob was a really nice guy, and I reckon if someone like him finds it 'easy', if not pleasant, most people will.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

And the same logic applies equally to the calvarymen too, 9/10 of them (or whatever) should have problems with delivering effective attacks if they do make it through.

Well, vs. infantry just getting the horse to ram their formation is an effective attack (and even if the horse get spitted on a bayonet it'll have the momentum to smash a hole in the infantry's line), assuming a dense infantry formation. Also, melee attacks be massed units tend to have a lot of peer pressure 'assisting' them be effective - the guys on either side of you will know if you're not at least trying, and that gets right at people's general unwillingness to be seen letting their close circle of team-mates down.

Originally Posted by Anthony

That depends heavily on my priorities. Reality is, most of the time turning the other guy dead is in the 'nice to have' category, not the primary objective (which is likely something like "make him stop shooting at me and vacate the objective").

That's probably what the official orders say. The actual objective of most infantry I've been in or worked with is to permanently stop the shooting and to take the objective. The enemy vacating it, unless they flee so hard you never see them again (something you can't tell in the moment) is actually an impediment to stopping them from inconveniencing you further. Best that they die in place. Note though that almost all my experience is with soldiers trained in low-intensity and 'bush' warfare, and small groups of harassers are a constant of such environments and are really annoying. Successfully pinning such a team down and eliminating them is a popular (and usually tricky) goal.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Rupert

....
That's probably what the official orders say. The actual objective of most infantry I've been in or worked with is to permanently stop the shooting and to take the objective. The enemy vacating it, unless they flee so hard you never see them again (something you can't tell in the moment) is actually an impediment to stopping them from inconveniencing you further. Best that they die in place. Note though that almost all my experience is with soldiers trained in low-intensity and 'bush' warfare, and small groups of harassers are a constant of such environments and are really annoying. Successfully pinning such a team down and eliminating them is a popular (and usually tricky) goal.

Chase him off today and he may be shooting at you again tomorrow, kill him today and well he won't shoot at you for the rest of your life,



I do get the original point, sometimes your objectives are not primarily kill the other chaps, and sometime killing the other chaps might even be low down on the priority list or even counter to the main objectives. And yeah missions sometimes have several objectives.

However "degrading the opposition's long term ability to fulfill its objectives" has got to be on most mission objective lists somewhere I'm guessing!

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

However "degrading the opposition's long term ability to fulfill its objectives" has got to be on most mission objective lists somewhere I'm guessing!

The overall mission objectives are usually secondary for grunts without lots of training. One of the things that makes highly-trained troops so effective is that they usually keep the mission in mind.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by johndallman

The overall mission objectives are usually secondary for grunts without lots of training. One of the things that makes highly-trained troops so effective is that they usually keep the mission in mind.

Well to be fair I think it's more secondary to "those ***** are shooting me, and I'd quite like then to stop" rather than grunts not being able to keep the mission in mind. Also I think it's not so much they forget the mission but the ongoing situation makes the mission less tenable, or forces an alternative solution to be found "no plan survives contact with enemy" after all.

(now yeah OK maybe elite highly trained troops are more able to keep the mission objectives in mind, or achievable as originally* conceived, while getting shot at)



*that said I always thought one of the hallmarks of such units (and good training in general) was flexibility and adaptability to an ongoing situation


P.S. "degrading the opposition's long term ability to fulfill its objectives" = killing chaps, in the context of the post

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

IIRC even Marshall allowed for the fact that his theory would have applied more to shooting at distant figures than melee combat where the repercussions for not going for the kill are rather more immediate (and more importantly psychologically immediate).

Are we talking about Men Against Fire or On Killing here? I don't recall Grossman making any distinction for melee.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Are we talking about Men Under Fire or On Killing here? I don't recall Grossman making any distinction for melee.

I was thinking of Marshall's Men Against Fire (but it's been long time so I may be miss-remembering what he wrote)

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Rupert

A friend and workmate of my fathers was not quite old enough to serve in WWII. However, as a Dutchman, he got to serve as a conscript in that bit of unpleasantness in what was then the Dutch East Indies. My father once asked him how he felt about shooting at other people. His reply was that before he went there he was sure he wouldn't be able to, not being a particularly aggressive guy. Once there he found that when the bullets come past and you realise that you're being shot at, it's real easy to bring yourself to shoot back, and mean it.

Bob was a really nice guy, and I reckon if someone like him finds it 'easy', if not pleasant, most people will.

Though I imagine there would be a few opposites. People that before were certain they could shoot at people, but when push came to shove, just couldn't. I think they're a tiny fraction of the numbers for your friend's group. But I have no proof either way.

[safisher]

Originally Posted by acrosome

Ah, yet another victim of Dave Grossman!

If you go here and see his vitae, you'll see that he presents year after year, month after month to professionals in the military and in law enforcement. You may disagree with him, and there are those that do. But that doesn't mean listening to Grossman is being a "victim."

https://www.killology.com/copy-of-vitae

Just a random sample:
SOCSOUTH, Homestead, FL, 5 Dec 2014
10th Mountain Division, Fort Drum, NY, 24 Nov 2014
Australian Military tele-presentation, 26 Oct 2014
Virginia Military Institute, Lexington, VA 20 Oct 2014
Air Force Combat Control Unit, Panama City, FL, 6 Sep 2014
Australian Army, Tele-Presentation, 11 Aug 2014
Lackland AFB, San Antonio, TX, 24 Jul 2014
USMC MCAS, Cherry Point, NC, 17 Jun 2014
10th Sustainment Brigade, Fort Drum, NY, 9 Jun 2014
3rd Brigade 101st Airport, Fort Campbell, KY, 12-13 May 2014
US Navy SEALs, Little Creek, VA, 10 Mar 2014
US Navy SEALs, San Diego, CA, 20 Feb 2014
USCG Maritime Force Protection Unit, Silverdale, WA, 7 Feb 2014
US Coast Guard, Camp LeJeune, NC, 18 Jan 2014
US Navy SEALs, San Diego, CA, 5 Nov 2013
Special Operations Forces, Tampa, FL, 17 Dec 2013
Navy Seals, Norfolk, VA, 23 Sept 2013.
US Coast Guard, Camp LeJeune, NC, 24 Aug 2013.
Scott AFB, Scott AFB, IL, 1 Aug 2013.
US Border Patrol, Tucson, AZ, 21 June 2013.
Marine Expeditionary Warfare School, Quantico, VA, 1 May 2013.
USAF AFMC 72 ABW/HC, Tinker AFB, OK, 5 Apr 2013.
Joint Maritime Training Center, Camp LeJeune, NC, 1 Apr 2013.
7/20th STG, Hurlbert Field, FL, 26 Mar 2013.