Over in a thread discussing the resurrection of the venerable Garand rifle, The Amazing Hanna argues that it was “[a] bit too lethal,” because “modern military doctrine says it’s better to grievously wound an enemy than to kill him outright. A wounded enemy takes others out of the battle to care for him.”
I’ve heard this story before lots of times as an explanation for lots of things–jacketed bullets and the shift toward .22 caliber projectiles such as the 5.56 and 5.45 rounds both come to mind. Over at snopes, someone’s heard that the .45ACP M1911 pistol was developed because the M1892 in .38LC had been designed to wound rather than kill.
I’ve always thought that this particular bit of ‘military doctrine’ was a myth. It doesn’t make a lot of sense from an individual soldier’s point of view: a wounded enemy is an enemy that can still kill you, and it’s a lot easier to aim center of mass than to try to wound anyone. And it’s one of those things that people repeat with perfect authority, but never seem to question or offer a source for. On the other hand, I don’t have a cite for the opposing proposition–that everyone from the brass on down wants to see the other side killed, not just wounded.
Anyone here able to put this one to rest once and for all, either way?
There was a South African pilot Adolph Malan in the RAF during the Battle of Britain who deliberately let his bomber victims get away once badly damaged and full of dead and wounded crew, on the theory that a crippled plane limping home with a dying crew caused more damage (morale and physical) to the Luftwaffe than a plane that just didn’t come back.
It’s also the theory behind pretty much every Anti-personnel mine out there. Blow the leg off a soldier and he becomes an instant burden to his squadmates, ties up enemy logistics in caring for him and is a constant reminder of the cost of the war back home.
All things being equal, a wounded guy is more of a burden than a body, but I’ve never heard anyone think it was gospel truth.
The .45 was adopted because the .38LC wouldn’t stop the Moro guerrillas who took drugs to lessen pain and shock. The Army quickly put some .45 revolvers into the mix and evened the odds, then started looking for a new gun, with the requirement that it be no lesser caliber than .45. The Army required their new sidearm be for killin’, not for woundin’. But this begs the question: if the doctrine is to wound rather than kill, why wouldn’t they stick with the .38?
The 5.56 NATO round, well that will probably evolve into a hot debate, but there was some history behind it too. My feeling has always been that it was chosen because it was good enough and it made sense at the time to go with a good enough round than go back to the drawing board.
I think you be working under the assumption that most wounds are instantly fatal. They are not. Even a person shot through the heart remains capable of fighting for several seconds to a minute before they collapse. The only wounds that cause near instant fatalities are wounds to the brain or wounds that sever major blood vessels. Brain inuries aren’t going to be affected much by calibre because the skull is such a marvellously enclosed box that any high speed round is gonna do the same amount of damage. Wounds that sever major blood vessels are rare.
The rest of the time a wound will only incapacitate some time after it is inflicted. Broken bones, abdominal injuries, punctured lungs etc all still leave the soldier capable of of fighting for some time regardless of the calibre of the bullet.
However large calibre bullets, in theory at least, do more damage. A small bullet will go clean through a body, a larger bullet will tear it up and often stop inside. What that means is that *after *the victim is incapacitated, they bleed to death or die from other injuries. The larger bullet may incapacitate a fraction of a second earlier, but not enough to make the trade off for having two other soldier incapable of shooting back for *days *as they carry a wounded man out of combat.
So from the individual soldier’s viewpoint wounding is still the most sensible option.
Under normal circumstances, nobody in combat tries to wound. Nor does anybody aside from a marksman try to kill. A soldier tries to stop the enemy from shooting at him and his buddies as fast as possible. That is all. If they can do that by suppressing fire they will. If they can do it by hitting the enemy anywhere at all, they will.
Aiming centre of mass is standard of course, but that is not because anybody is trying to kill. They are trying to stop the enemy from shooting back, nothing more. In the modern world centre of mass shots are almost never fatal provided the victim can make it to medical care within an hour. A large bullet will be more likely to prove fatal within an hour than a small bullet. Therefore large bullets are more fatal.
Nobody is trying to wound. Nobody is aiming anywhere but centre of mass. It’s just an effect of the physics of the bullet, not a conscious choice on the part of the soldier.
It’s doubtful you will find anything with an officer’s signature on it. The Geneva Accords outlawed weapons designed to cause wounds, so I suspect that any officer admitting to issuing a weapon designed to do such a thing would be on shaky grounds legally.
The same reason the English stuck with their .45s.
First off handguns are close quarters weapons and only used as an act of desperation. Under those circumstances the extra fraction of a second that it might take to incapacitate someone becomes crucial. At 200 yards, much less so.
Secondly handguns have much lower velocities than rifles. As such they are unlikely to pass though a body without imparting most of their energy. That is true regardless of calibre. That makes it damn near impossible to produce a handgun that is capable of wounding while retaining any ability at all to incapacitate. IOW for handguns the choice is between something like a 22LR that has limited ability to wound and limited ability to incapacitate, and a .45 that has limited ability to wound but good ability to incapacitate. The choice for rifles is between a 22LR that has limited ability to wound and limited ability to incapacitate, and .22 high velocity that has good ability to wound and fair ability to incapacitate and a .30 calibre that has fair ability to wound but good ability to incapacitate.