Soldiers lacking the 'killer instinct'

[Mr. Kobayashi]

I can't remember where I read this, but I've heard that in combat certain soldiers - no matter what their prior disposition or technical proficiency displayed in training - will when first confronted with the enemy be unable to pull the trigger.

How common is this? What does the army do to counter this? Assuming the soldier survives his encounter, what does the army do with him?

[griffin1977]

This idea was proposed by SLA Marshall who claimed that 75% of WW2 Infantry men he studied never attempted to kill the enemy (either not firing or deliberately mis-aiming) , even in situations where their life was directly threatened.

He was very influential and modern infantry training has been carefully designed to overcome this bias against killing. However in recent years some scientific doubt has been cast on his studies.

[toofs]

Upham, AMMO!

[Mr. Kobayashi]

Originally Posted by griffin1977

This idea was proposed by SLA Marshall who claimed that 75% of WW2 Infantry men he studied never attempted to kill the enemy (either not firing or deliberately mis-aiming) , even in situations where their life was directly threatened.

He was very influential and modern infantry training has been carefully designed to overcome this bias against killing. However in recent years some scientific doubt has been cast on his studies.

I think that might have been where I read it originally, I can't quite remember. What aspects of infantry training could be effective against this rather knotty problem - since even in training you're not expected to kill anyone there and then?

[griffin1977]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kobayashi

I think that might have been where I read it originally, I can't quite remember. What aspects of infantry training could be effective against this rather knotty problem - since even in training you're not expected to kill anyone there and then?

I believe the changes were things like replacing target practice on static round targets, with moving targets shaped like human silhouettes. So that it becomes second nature to shoot at human-like shapes that pop into view momentarily, without giving you time to think "oh I'm shooting someone".

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by griffin1977

I believe the changes were things like replacing target practice on static round targets, with moving targets shaped like human silhouettes. So that it becomes second nature to shoot at human-like shapes that pop into view momentarily, without giving you time to think "oh I'm shooting someone".

There's also a simple and open emphasis on killing that's drilled into modern armies that was perhaps not done as much before. In basic, we were told a lot about how fun it would be to kill enemies.

[Iridescent Orb]

Griffin1977 is correct - knock-down silhouette targets came into use after WWII to help overcome soldiers' resistance to shooting human targets. As mentioned, the shape and movement helped train soldiers to shoot at human targets, while the knock-down aspect immunized soldiers to the consequences of actually hitting their target. (Knock-down targets fall over when hit.)

According to Marshall, this helped increase the percent of soldiers who actually shot at the enemy from 20% in WWII to 55% in the Korean War to 90% in the Vietnam War. (Source: Men Against Fire: The Problem of Battle Command, S. L. A. Marshall.)

I cannot comment on the accuracy of his figures, though.

[pravnik]

If you have time to read it, On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society by Lt. Col. David Grossman deals with this exact topic.

[friedo]

Originally Posted by pravnik

If you have time to read it, On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society by Lt. Col. David Grossman deals with this exact topic.

This is the same guy who refers to video games as "murder simulators."

[Daerlyn]

Originally Posted by friedo

This is the same guy who refers to video games as "murder simulators."

Since the US army is now using a video game called America's Army as a recruitment and training tool, his statement might not be totally whacko. I was recommended his book by a friend who is a real gung-ho ex-military type. I haven't read it yet, but I'm given the impression that people who've served think he has something worthwhile to say.

[Blake]

Originally Posted by Daerlyn

Since the US army is now using a video game called America's Army as a recruitment and training tool, his statement might not be totally whacko.

I really think you need to clear up what you mean here.

You seem to be implying that the US Army recruits and train people to commit murder.

Because if that isn't what you are implying, how do the recruitment and training tools of the US Army in any way support as statement that said tools are "Murder simulators"?

[Daerlyn]

The US army uses the game to recruit and train people whose primary function is to kill the enemy. I agree the term 'murder simulator' is unnecessarily emotionally charged, but it is being used as a killing simulator. I haven't yet read his book, as I said, so I haven't seen the context in which he puts the statement. Hence my intentionally qualified statement of 'might not be totally whacko'. I meant no disrespect to any current or former military personnel; killing an enemy in combat is not the same thing as murder.

[smithsb]

The soldiers "kill" during training besides just plunking at targets. The MILES (Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System) lets them fire blanks and laser beams at opposing forces and vehicles with instant hit feedback. Urban training now includes firing paint/ink marker rounds when clearing compounds, buildings, and rooms of bad guys.

Training now isn't designed just to reduce the psycological implications of shooting someone, also included is the live fire and sound component to get the soldier more acclimated to the combat environment.

[Son of a Rich]

Originally Posted by RickJay

In basic, we were told a lot about how fun it would be to kill enemies.

Really? When/where was this?

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by Son of a Rich

Really? When/where was this?

Canadian Armed Forces GMT, 1989.

Emphasis on killing other human beings has been pretty stock in Western armies for decades now.

]And the (U.S. Marine Corps) recruits grunt loudy with enthusiasm (at a lecture about how wonderful and important it is to kill enemies with land mines) as they have been taught, although most of them would vomit or faint if they were suddenly confronted with someone whose genitals had been blown off by a mine. Most of the language used in Parris Island to describe the joys of killing people is bloodthirsty but meaningless hyperbole, and the recruits realize that even as they enjoy it. Nevertheless, it does help to desensitize them to the suffering of the "enemy," and at the same time they are being indoctrinated in the most explicit fashion - as previous generations of soldiers were not - with the notion that their purpose is not just to be brave or to fight well; it is to kill people.

- Gwynne Dyer, War

[Duckster]

Originally Posted by RickJay

- Gwynne Dyer, War

If you find the book, buy it. If you can find the 1983 miniseries that aired in the US on PBS, buy it.

IIRC, there is a report that said US soldiers in Vietnam fired 250,000 rounds for every enemy soldier they actually killed by gunfire.

[Spavined Gelding]

Duckster, a quarter million rounds per kill or casualty is no surprise when you consider how profligate with ammunition we were and the tactical situation in Vietnam . A bit of noise on a night time perimeter resulted in a regular mad minute with everyone blindly firing into the darkness along their predetermined final defensive fire alleys until they got bored. A patrol would then go out and find either nothing or a shot up water buffalo. A mortar shell would provoke the same reaction.

The point was that no one had a definite target. They were just laying down suppressing fire in response to a real or perceived threat. It was a situation that the switch over to the light weight, soft recoil M-16 just exacerbated. You could hold an M-16 up in the air over your head and rip off 20 rounds in less time than it takes tell about it. The M-14, not so much. There seemed to always be plenty of ammunition and not much worry about fire discipline..

[dropzone]

Originally Posted by Spavined Gelding

You could hold an M-16 up in the air over your head and rip off 20 rounds in less time than it takes tell about it. The M-14, not so much.

I've seen the "spray and pray" films. "Suppressing fire" is apt because, as inaccurate as it is, I'm not showing my head. OTOH, with an M-14 a clip of .308 Winchester would tear your arm off and endanger any overflying ducks more than anybody on the ground.

[Snite]

From my own personal experience I haven't seen any soldiers hesitating to pull the trigger, but as others said this has a lot to do with indoctrination and training.

When training the point is to do it over and over and over again until it becomes muscle memory. After kicking in a door and shooting every human silouhette with a picture of a gun attached to it 100 times, it becomes your reflex action. And if you've been trained to scream your head off while doing it, then the emotional charge behind that scream removes all hesitation.

Thinking back, there's so much that goes into our training and our verbage that indoctrinates the person into becoming a soldier.

[R. P. McMurphy]

CMIIW, but I seem to remember that there was a significant number of soldiers that would not try to mortally wound the enemy in a gunfight. Those that chose not to do so mostly cowered. IIRC, there was an account of this in the excellent book "We Were Soldiers Once, And Young." (Don't see the movie, read the book.)

However, I thought that the percentage of soldiers that refused to shoot to kill was more in the 20-30% range, not a 70% range. Again, CMIIW.

Part of Marine training was to overcome that reticence. The Marines could be much more relied on the shoot to kill than the Army regulars. Thus, the Marine lore.

[glaeken]

I have always thought any empathy for not wanting to kill the enemy would disappear fairly quickly when they are activity trying to kill you. I don't buy that original 75% figure at all. It might have been around that figure when people initially got into combat but I am sure it would change pretty quickly if you survive long enough in a combat situation. I just don’t see if people are shooting at you for long enough you are going to not start shooting back at them.

[Tixenfleaz]

As noted, SLA Marshall's works have been controversial, to say the least.

This is is a pretty concise article addressing Marshall's claims on lack of aggression amongst U.S. infantrymen. His studies were apparently very far from scientific.

[Frylock]

Originally Posted by glaeken

I have always thought any empathy for not wanting to kill the enemy would disappear fairly quickly when they are activity trying to kill you. I don't buy that original 75% figure at all. It might have been around that figure when people initially got into combat but I am sure it would change pretty quickly if you survive long enough in a combat situation. I just don’t see if people are shooting at you for long enough you are going to not start shooting back at them.

I'm pretty sure I'd have a hard time firing back.

On the other hand, it would never even occur to me to join the army.

On the other other hand back then people were drafted so...

[Machine Elf]

An article here by Eric Raymond posits that human beings, for the most part, are inherently reluctant to kill other human beings. He refers to an article written by a Major David Pierson, which I found here. Pierson claims the existence of "natural killers" who are immediately capable of taking a life without further conditioning, but suggests they are a small minority.

I can accept the claim that it is difficult for most people to take a human life, even when their own life is threatened. I once saw dashboard-cam video of a police officer involved in a one-sided shootout with a gun-wielding perp. The perp repeatedly shot at the officer, but the officer simply could not bring himself to fire his gun - not once, not even in self-defense. Perp finally disabled the officer with a shot, then walked over and shot him to death.

[StusBlues]

Originally Posted by Tixenfleaz

As noted, SLA Marshall's works have been controversial, to say the least.

This is is a pretty concise article addressing Marshall's claims on lack of aggression amongst U.S. infantrymen. His studies were apparently very far from scientific.

Roger Spiller, who is quoted in the article above, addressed a military history seminar I took in grad school. Essentially, his findings were that much of Marshall's work was fabricated outright. Spiller interviewed several of Marshall's associates (a particular one that sticks in my mind was Marshall's driver, who I believe is the aide quoted in the hnn article), and found compelling evidence that Marshall did not conduct the interviews that he claimed as justification for his theses. In sum, everything about Marshall's work that was subject to scrutiny proved invalid, according to Spiller.

It should be noted that Spiller was one of the most respected experts on combat psychology in the field at the time. He concluded his discussion of Marshall by citing an anecdote from Vietnam where a young soldier whose company had just been ambushed jumped up and started firing. After being knocked to the ground by his sargeant, he protested that his instructors had told him to put as much fire downrange as possible because three out of four soldiers wouldn't pull the trigger. Integrating bad studies into training gets soldiers killed.

[kaltkalt]

I read somewhere that when firing at the enemy for the first time, up to 40% of soldiers "fire high" to miss. I think this was in reference to the "old days" where armies would line up and fire at each other in an open field, like the American Revolution and certain battles of the Civil War. Regardless, soldiers are just human beings. Once they've been injured or lost some close comrades, then they are more willing to aim to kill.

[wei ji]

What your commentors are saying about SLA Marshal and today's training emphasis on instinctive shooting to hit "targets" is pretty much what I've read. There is a lot out there about the average human response to killing in war by some fine writers and historical researchers.

Here's a sketch from life:

A friend of mine was highly aggressive as we grew up, extremely competitive in sports and successful at all competition due to an innate ruthlessness in taking advantage of any weakness. When he was working his mouth as part of the psychology of a competition he claimed to have the "killer instinct."

He was entirely different sitting in his bedroom at home after his Vietnam tour telling me of his experience as part of an ad hoc, night reaction force of clerks pushing up a road towards the overrun defense line of a major base in Vietnam, against an unknown number of elite Vietcong sappers. Two bunkers were knocked out, and a jeep had been ambushed and its occupants killed. My friend missed being ambushed by a 1 in 3 chance of sheer stupid luck, and lay in a ditch all night with bullets going overhead while helicopter gunships and regular combat troops finished off the pinned-down sappers. The next day he was sent out with his fellows to drag the Vietcong bodies up to the road. He had a thousand yard stare and spoke softly, using vivid snapshot images, as he told me this story, particularly when he passed me the psychological warfare flyers in English found in the pockets of the dead sappers: "There is no hatred between Vietnamese and Americans, so why are you killing us?" He got over it, serving in the National Guard for 20 years, including time as a squad leader, and at age 59 in Iraq as public relations specialist going out with the troops and writing news stories. Still, he found the actual experience of war quite sobering. The "killer instinct" was the first casualty.

On the other hand, another of our mutual friends, the nicest Irish Catholic teenager you'd ever want to meet, was a helicopter crew chief in Vietnam at the same time. He killed many, many enemy from the air using his M60, even landing to check bodies so they could claim them as legitimate "kills" under the rules of the day. He was awarded the Soldiers' Medal for one bit of desperate heroism, flying an LOH full of wounded home with the pilot and himself also wounded: one had to steer with the pedals, the other had to handle the collective and stick. When his tour was over, he returned to normal civilian life, showed no signs of any stress I've ever heard of, married, had kids, fine member of the community, and was again the nicest guy you'd ever want to meet, working as an airport maintenance manager. He even won a national award for innovation in snow clearing.

[mac_bolan00]

a war can change the human psyche, even before that person is drafted and sent to the front. you know the old adage "boys grow up fast in times of war?"