What percentage of U.S. soldiers actually fired their weapons at an enemy target in combat in WWII?
If you can dig that up, can you summon up a similar figure for the Vietnam conflict?
S.L.A. Marshall did a study on this some years ago. I believe his numbers for WWII were around 10-20% of people in combat actually did something useful. Those operating crew served weapons had higher rates. I’ve seen numbers for Vietnam, but I’ll be danged if I can remember them. I do know that the numbers have been increasing.
Now to see the comments from folks that have the references handy, and not tucked away in their storage unit.
–Patch
I think he may be asking how many soldiers saw combat, as a percentage, rather than how many of them actually partook actively in combat once engaged.
As an aside read today a guy got a Purple Heart because he cut his finger on some glass in international waters while on duty & during military conflict. This was in the LA Times, not the Star, so it has a little credibility. And yes 10-20%, with20% at the high end rings a bell.
Not quite answering the OP with respect to actually firing weapons, but in WWII there were 1.7 support people per combat person. See table half way down here. That would give 37% as combat troops.
It is worth noting that S.L.A.M. was a hellva a nice guy. Chief Historian for the US Army during your World War II, told greeat stories about his time with Blackjack Pershing.
He was most probably a liar.
Several scholars have come forward saying they cannot backup the “How many fired their weapons” number from his data. He seems to have exagerated for effect.
No cite. Sorry.
OTOH I would love to see some modern reseach on this subject.
No, I’m not asking about combat v. support troop ratios. The question is pretty straightforward. What percentage of U.S. WWII soldiers actually squeezed off a round* in the general direction of live enemy troops?
I don’t understand how they could come up with a seasonably accurate number. It’s not like you kept a log of ammo issued and fired, and by whom.
As per Paul’s comments, S.L.A. Marshall’s claims that only 20% of soldiers in combat fire their weapons, while the other 80% never pull a trigger, are not supported by any other observation, objective evidence, or common sense. Virtually all soldiers who have seen combat, and I’ve known some of them, fire their weapons and the one I’ve spoken to assure me everyone else does too.
patch: Every Soldier’s job is “something useful.”
I guess it may have been Marshall’s statements that I had run across in the past. I dimly remembered a study based on interviews with the troops that claimed a surprisingly low number actually fired their weapons. I’m having zip luck searching, but I have looked at a lot of photos of M-1s and BARs this afternoon.
OK, found some stuff; Marshall’s book is Men Against Fire.
His best book is A Soldier’s Load and the Mobility of the Nation. I doubt some of the ideas he presents as fact there too.
Also of course he wrote The River and the Gauntlet.
While Marshall’s data are subject to question and criticism, the man did cause a significant change in the way the Army teaches recruits to shoot. In the old days a soldier was trained on a known distance range with bull’s eye targets. The soldier was also taught that wasting ammo was a major sin. From Marshall’s reports it was concluded that soldiers were not firing because they did not have a clear target and were afraid to waste ammo. The new system trained soldiers on “train-fire” ranges with pop up targets. The idea was to get a soldier to ID a target quickly and fire at it right now and to forget the Sergeant York model of musketry.
Thank you, Monty. You got to him before I did.
Every soldier’s job may be “something useful”, but that doesn’t mean they’re doing it. My job is “something useful”, but I’m certainly not doing it now.
If you’re a rifleman in combat, and you’re sitting behind a tree, watching what’s going on and not firing at the enemy, you’re not doing something useful.
If you’re a rifleman in combat, and you’re cowering in your foxhole and not firing at the enemy, you’re not doing something useful.
If you’re a rifleman in combat, and you’re putting rounds blindly downrange, your usefulness is questionable.
If you’re a rifleman in combat, and you’re taking aim at enemy positions and firing your weapon, you’re doing something useful.
There are other ways to be useful, but I think the point is made.
Paul in Saudi’s comments ring a bell, but I’ve never seen it expanded upon other than something along the lines of “he’s wrong”. I would like to see more on this issue as well. For now, Marshall’s work is all I have as a reference.
Hmmm… mebee time for a web search when I get home tonight.
–Patch
You’re welcome, Jman.
Patch: You are incredibly mistaken in your view of what a Soldier’s “job” is. I say this as both a former US Army Sergeant and as a retired US Navy Petty Officer First Class: Part of the “job” of a member of the Armed Forces is to be prepared. If you’re not keeping yourself prepared, then perhaps you’ve made the wrong career choice?
In his book On Killing, Lt. Col Dave Grossman states that the percentage of combat soldiers actually willing to shoot at and kill the enemy has traditionally been very low, 15-20% (quoting Marshall). This he compares to a 15-20% literacy rate among proofreaders. By Vietnam, our Armed Forces developed specialized training designed to increase this percentage through conditioning, and got it up closer to 95%, although the psychological cost on the soldiers increased as well.
Yes, pravnik, but the problem is that Marshall’s 15-20% claim is probably nonsense.
Yeah, I included that he was quoting Marshall because I didn’t want anyone to mistake him for an independent source. Plus, although intelligent, qualified (former Army Ranger, West Point Psych professor), and an interesting guy, Grossman is very firmly in the “Quake and Doom are the direct causes of Columbine, etc., television and video games cause murder” camp, so make of him what you will.