I also am a FPS player. I’ve learned plenty of tactics while playing (suppressing fire, defilade, tandem movement). But I have no clue how to operate a real-life firearm. Even if the game used realistic weaponry (instead of, say, rockets), I doubt I’d vicariously become comfortable with the real thing.
Shooter games are nothing more than the ultimate version of cops & robbers, cowboys & indians. I used to play war in the backyard with sticks for guns. I dreamed of the day I could play in concrete fortresses with guns that shoot and enemies that fight back.
And you know what: If was drafted into the army today, I could not bring myself to shoot an enemy in the face, the way I do in the game. So much for operant conditioning.
I’ve been digging about for some time, but can’t find the references today, so…
AIR:
In WWII, there were several thousand bullets fired for each actually hit person.
About 10% of the soldiers did about 80% of the killing, the rest simply kept the enemy’s heads down while the killers did their work.
Artillery was far more effective than rifle fire for killing.
While the Germans were individually more likely to ‘shoot-to-kill’, there were fewer Germans in the field, and they were rolled-under by sheer weight of firepower.
Current military training deliberately works to overcome the human reluctance to kill by working the soldier through a ‘kill’ scenario over and over again. As the drill is repeated, the soldiers become increasingly more exhausted, and their rational thinking gives way to more basic levels of function, eventually bypassing the ‘don’t kill’ inhabition. Bayonet training was supposed to have done the same thing, but never was applied in a scientific manner, and, again AIR, modern methods require that you practice with a living, breathing person. This is why USMC still teaches basic hand-to-hand combat: Not because it’s an efficient way to kill (albeit sometimes still d*mned necessary), but because it’s an efficient way to teach soldiers to kill.
Again, sorry for the lack of cites, I’ve missplaced the list. I’ll post them when I find them.
DISCLAIMER:
While I post these cites for your edification and debate, they are only a small sample. I may, or may not, agree with the various authors.
That said, here you go:
At the Battle of First Bull Run or Manassas, between 8,000 and 10,000 bullets were fired for every man killed or wounded: http://www.19thalabama.org/cwlosses.html
Estimates vary, but this astonishing statistic from the Vietnam War is generally accepted: for every 50,000 bullets fired by regular troops, there was one confirmed kill. There was one kill for every ten rounds fired from sniper rifles: http://www.snipersparadise.com/articles/Invisible.htm
General Patton gave clear instructions for advancing into enemy territory: “Marching Fire–The proper way to advance is to utilize marching fire and keep moving. One round should be fired every two or three paces. The whistle of the bullets, the scream of the ricochet, and the dust, twigs, and branches which are knocked form the ground and trees have such an effect on the enemy that his small-arms fire becomes negligible. Keep walking forward. Furthermore, the fact that you are shooting adds to your self-confidence, because you feel that you are doing something, and are not sitting like a duck in a bathtub being shot at.”: http://www.apostolic.edu/patton/tactics.htm
How the military increases the killing rate of soldiers in combat is instructive, because our culture today is doing the same thing to our children. The training methods militaries use are brutalization, classical conditioning, operant conditioning, and role modeling: http://www.uscatholic.org/1999/06/kidviol.htm
One major modern revelation in the field of military psychology is the observation that this resistance to killing one’s own species is also a key factor in human combat. Brigadier General S.L.A. Marshall first observed this during his work as the Official U.S. Historian of the European Theater of Operations in World War II. Based on his post-combat interviews, Marshall concluded in his book, Men Against Fire, (1946, 1978), that only 15 to 20 percent of the individual riflemen in World War II fired their weapons at an exposed enemy soldier. Key weapons, such as a flame thrower, usually fired. Crew served weapons, such as a machine gun, almost always fired. And firing would increase greatly if a nearby leader demanded that the soldier fire. But, when left to their own devices, the great majority of individual combatants throughout history appear to have been unable or unwilling to kill: http://www.killology.com/art_onkilling_resistance.htm
There’s a lot more where these came from, but this should be sufficent fuel for the fire.
(LGOPs = Little Groups Of Paratroopers)
After the demise of the best airborne plan,
A most terrifying effect occurs on the battlefield.
This effect is known as the “Rule of LGOPs”.
This is, in its purest form, a small group of
“Pissed-Off American Paratroopers”.
They are well trained, armed to the teeth,
And lack serious supervision. They
Collectively remember the Commander’s Intent as
“March to the sound of guns, and kill anyone
who isn’t dressed like you…” or something like that.
Happily they go about the day’s work! http://www.paratrooper.net/aotw/ABNSpirit/LGOPs.asp
Reading all the posts here are quite humorus. I just have to tell you that in war time fire fights, nearly everyone is firing…but mostly at nothing. Weapons are pointed in the direction of enemy fire but believe me there is no such thing as aimed fire except in a few rare circumstances. The point being made is that in those rare circumstances where a soldier has the opportunity to aim his weapon at a living human enemy target (actully place his body in the crosshairs) the percentage of soldiers that would actually pull the trigger has dramatically increased since WWII due to the changes made in training. AND that modern video games of shootem and killem mimick the same military training (conditioning) that has been credited for improving soldiers indifferance to killing enemy soldiers.
“that modern video games of shootem and killem mimick the same military training (conditioning) that has been credited for improving soldiers indifferance to killing enemy soldiers.”
I knew I went to the wrong post for training. All that time in the field, on the rifle range, grenade range, 203 range, M-60 range,live fire exercises and all that damn walking! We could have just loaded Quake3 up, 2 weeks later we would have been good to go. Fort living room would have beat Ft. Benning in the summer anyday.
" I just have to tell you that in war time fire fights, nearly everyone is firing…but mostly at nothing. Weapons are pointed in the direction of enemy fire but believe me there is no such thing as aimed fire except in a few rare circumstances. "
"I knew I went to the wrong post for training. All that time in the field, on the rifle range, grenade range, 203 range, M-60 range,live fire exercises and all that damn walking! We could have just loaded Quake3 up, 2 weeks later we would have been good to go. Fort living room would have beat Ft. Benning in the summer anyday. "
Do you think training exercises in the military have adapted and changed since WWII and if so to what degree and for what purpose…since your a vet
I once accidentally wandered into the local gaming room when it had a Pokemon League Night.
The place was filled to the brim with screaming kids, and the noise was literally deafening. It was like being in a rock concert, you had to yell at the top of your voice to be heard.
And just to clear things up (or make them more muddled) the author I quoted in the OP isn’t recommending the banning of video games that be postulates are a problem.
He is recommending that the rating system, that the industry has already voluntarily put in place, be enforced.
Personally, I don’t want some clerk at my local video game store saddled with the responsibility of checking IDs to make sure you’re old enough to buy the game. I think that’s the parent’s responsibility.
Marshall’s findings, as well as similar findings about police officers are observations (I’ll leave the question of whether they’re accurate observations to others). The part about human nature assigns a reason for those observations. Is any evidence offered to support that reason?
The problem with General S.L.A. Marshall’s figures is that they are of EXTREMELY dubious veracity. Marshall based his figures entirely on interviews of infantrymen after the war ended and his list of interviewees was very short and not randomly based.
His figures simply aren’t consistent with the zillions of eyewitness reports from the front, nor are they consistent with any other study, nor are they consistent with common freakin’ sense. Given that his claims are largely subjective and without any supporting evidence, why believe them in particular?
I for one do believe that FPS (at least one in particular) have made me much more comfortable with killing others. I cannot tell you how many thousand people I have imagined myself killing in gory detail as I walk down the street or sit in a boring meeting. Perhaps you will argue that I would not be able to do it in a real senario, but I highly doubt it. I know myself pretty well and have a good idea of what I am capable of. I never got into online FPS (actually, I don’t think I have ever played an online FPS) and I consider the quake series of games to be some of the most boring games ever created. The games I played were single player and I enjoyed the thrill of killing someone that never even knew I was there (hard to do in those cruddy quake games). I don’t play first person shooters much anymore, but my level of comfort with the idea of killing others has never left me. I will admit that my views on death make me an outlier to any study on the topic as I have no moral restrictions on killing others. Law regulates my behavior. My experience is probably quite rare however as I am sure that I would be declared clinically insane if I ever went to a head doctor and answered his questions honestly. But no matter, I am still proof that video games can have the effect stated in the article.
P.S. Don’t ask if I am joking for I assure you that what I say is real.
Well, I can tell you that now the military is making training even more realistic by using MILES gear (essentially laser tag) to simulate combat. So when you’re blazing away with your rifle you’re actually shooting at living targets. The only difference is that instead of screaming, bleeding and dying, they swear and sit down when you hit them. Still, pretty effective stuff. We did still play ‘video games’ and I found they did make my reactions to fire more instinctive. For my money though, the field training was a much better way of training soldiers than the simulators. Whether that’s bad or good is up to y’all though…
I work at a comic book store in Dallas and as a matter of company policy we won’t sell certain things to people under the age of 16. And if I’m ever caught selling glue to a minor it is a 1,000 dollar fine for me, 5,000 for the store, and a pink slip for me.
I have wondered what life would be like under such a drug. Up to this point in my life, I have refrained from using all drugs except for the ones that help with common health ailments (such as headaches and colds). I have never smoked, done any illegal drugs, or even consumed alcohol (and, for a frame of reference, I am past the legal drinking age for United States citizens and I went to college so you can imagine how easy alcohol was to come by). I wouldn’t trust myself with mind alterning drugs. I am one of the safest people you could ever be around only because I posses more self-control than anyone I know. And I am talking about true self-control, not just the self-restraint that most people are referring to when they say self-control. Self-restraint is only half of self-control. When you stop yourself from hitting someone you are really mad at, that is self-restraint, a form of self-control. When you look deep into your lover’s eyes, ponder how much you care for them and how horrible it would be to live without them, and then take out a gun and kill them even though every fiber of your being tells you not to, THAT is self-control. Doing things you really don’t want to do is the hardest half of self-control. Self-restraint is the lazy half. You want to do something, but you just convince yourself to be lazy instead. Making yourself do things you don’t want to do is much harder.
Absolutely true, RickJay, except for one point - the Army did believe him and instituted new training techniques based on his study. The result was that “shoot to kill” ratios went up considerably in Korea and Vietnam. (And yes, I’m assuming the studies in Korea and Vietnam were valid).
In addition, Marshall didn’t “discover” this inhibition. Armies have been “dehumanizing” their enemy throughout recorded history. Why do that? To make it more acceptable to kill them.
I believe this is the same gentleman I saw on TV in the aftermath of one of the school shootings. What I remember most clearly was his idea that the school shooters were remarkably accurate in shooting their victims in the head with one shot. and the like. He felt that constant use of video games had trained hand-eye coordination to new levels and allowed for more efficient killing by these kids.
he’s right. Those kids should have been spending more time outside, playing baseball.
As to “dehumanizing the enemy”: if you have time to think about the enemy at all - as anything other than a target - while you’re advancing under fire, then you’re doing something wrong. Soldiers aren’t trained to dehumanize, they’re trained to focus, to think of nothing but the task at hand. And frankly, when you’re under the effects of an adrenaline rush, that’s not as hard as it sounds.
