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?
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.
Upham, AMMO!
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”.
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.
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. 
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.”
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.
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. :dubious:
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”?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.