Anti-history Redux

One of Grossman’s premises is that generally a species doesn’t kill it’s own species, with rare exception.

In the Civil War, as most wars afterwards until Vietnam and later, men did NOT want to kill OTHER men. So it was posture and submission. This rule, however, does NOT apply to crew served weapons - so artillery and machine guns - and interestingly snipers, whose targets were far enough away not to look human. It is not for no reason that Sherman said he’d rather have one Napoleon than a battalion of infantry.

3 Likes

I recall reading that surveys were done after WWII of combat infantry, and these found that roughly 25% of these men ever fired their rifles in battle. Bear in mind that these were men who had been in combat. There were changes to training to make the men more willing for fight/kill. So I think your point is correct.

I’ll have to find the book that cited these figures.

2 Likes

The original work was done by SLA Marshall. He collated results from both European and Pacific theatres, plus later did his studies on Korea. He was excoriated for his findings, but the Arrmy (of all people) changed their training to what they called “Two shot Quick kill”. It incorporated standing in a trench in full battle-rattle and having silhouettes pop up. You fired two shots at each. If you HIT them, they fell back; otherwise they slid back down. Extra liberty was granted to those who did well. Studies of RVN showed the same 5-15% of serious shooters EXCEPT in the Army, where shooting was about 92%. HUGE change from before. It too is in Grossman’s book.

5 Likes

As Lee said at Fredericksberg: It is fitting that war is so terrible, for we might grow to love it so.

2 Likes

“We” were never conceived as combatants in “wars”. That’s why we have the 2nd Amendment. We were conceived as a nation of traders, who may from time to time, be called upon to defend the nation. THAT is why the 2A is the basis of both the overall right to BE armed but to also have the right to self defense; it’s the same idea but on the one hand individual, and on the other collective… So in 1812, an unpopular war because the people didn’t really see a reason to be fighting with the Brits, when the Redcoats landed they pretty easily took DC and burned it. BUT when they decided to take Baltimore, the locals - a bunch of Quakers, for goodness sakes - decided it ain’t gonna happen - and soundly defeated a superior Redcoat force, probably the finest infantry of the time. Likewise in NO, Old Hickory similarly mutilated a far superior Redcoat force, with very few losses on his side.

6 Likes