True or false: "Soldiers tend to intentionally fire over the enemy's head, or not to fire at all."

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@obbn

You know I recall a WWII vet’s reply to Marshall. He said "what a load of horseshit. Does he think we clubbed the Germans to death? "

Ahem. We know.

@obbn

It’s getting late so I haven’t read every response, so if what I say had already been covered I apologize. I recall an interview with a WWII Vet and he was asked about the Marshall claim that only 15% of soldiers fired their weapons. He chucked a bit and then said that, in his experience, was hogwash. Then he said “What, do you think we clubbed the Germans to death?”.

[Jim_in_PA]

@Loach

**Bear_Nenno **

Your BiL is full of shit. People who talk like that are usually the ones who had desk jobs. No one has ever been taught to wound and not kill. 99.9% of people could never get that kind of skill in shooting in a combat situation. You are taught to shoot center mass. The largest part of the body. Because hitting something is better than missing.

The myth of the drugged out Viet Nam draftee surrounded by other draftees getting high in the jungle is just that, a myth. Soldiers in Viet Nam were mostly professionals and volunteers. About 30% were draftees. There were of course drug problems (just like there were alcohol problems in WWII). But the Hollywood fueled version of Viet Nam (and Viet Nam vets) is about as historically accurate as Tropic Thunder.

Sorry about kicking the old thread, I just wandered in here and I had two pennies I wanted to get rid of - here’s my two cents.

I was infantry in Vietnam. This was fairly late in the war, 1970/71. I CERTAINLY agree with the comment quoted above. We were trained to aim at ‘center mass.’ That’s probably because of two things - if you’re off a bit, it can still be a fatal or very serious shot. Second, often, we don’t really SEE the people we’re shooting at - at least in terms of ‘let me shoot him in the left kneecap…’ OK, Annie Oakley, you go right ahead. Also, (remember that I was there late in the war and the drug problem was worse then) NO ONE smoked dope in the field. It simply wasn’t acceptable - and the odor is strong enough that we would have known.

In terms of the overall thread here, a friend (Marine officer) in my vet’s group says that he checked the weapons of his troops after a firefight, looking for cold barrels. He wanted to make sure that everyone was at least firing.

I was Army. In my first firefight, I did NOT initially fire. I was looking for a target - I didn’t see anyone, anything (e.g. muzzle flashes, moving brush) to shoot at. Although it seemed longer at the time, I think that lasted only about five seconds and then I started firing into the brush at places that LOOKED like they might make OK hiding places. I was firing semi-automatic and emptied two magazines (36 shots, as we put only 18 into the 20 round clip). Then the firing quieted down and I also stopped shooting.

Later when I actually SAW an enemy soldier, I did not hesitate to shoot him aiming for center mass. He died immediately. I can’t speak for others,but my opinion would be that after you see friendlies killed or wounded, you shoot to kill. My ‘ghosts’ from the war relate to friendly casualties and NOT to dead enemy. I’m not trying to convince anyone (including me) that I’m a hard ass. It was more that shooting the enemy was what I was there for - it was my job. It didn’t take any/much effort for me to just shoot them. But the people I knew who were killed or wounded - that still haunts me.