Could you kill...?

[Cdr]

Did anyone see that programme on C4, on Monday night about soldiers on the battlefield and their ability to kill (The Truth About Killing)?

It was extremely interesting (the 2nd part is on next monday). Apparently during the 2nd World War, a study on American* soldiers that had served in the European and Pacific theaters found that only 2% of soldiers had the ability to 'kill'. 1% being total nutcases, and the other 1% being the 'heroes' who are portrayed in the many war films.

It amazed me that the figure was so low. At the time the 'powers that be' put it down to 'battlefield confusion'. But later research suggests that it's an inbuilt inability to kill fellow human beings, harking back to caveman days of 'lets not fight each other, we've got wolves and bears to deal with'.

Studies on weapons found on the Battle of Gettysburg also backs up this theory. One weapon was found to be loaded 26 times, without the user ever firing it. He basically loaded it, aimed, didnt fire, reloaded. As was pointed out in the programme, it's not being a coward, because they didn't run away - when looking in the eyes of the enemy, they just couldnt shoot to kill.

So the question is - are you one of the 2%'ers? Could you shoot to kill?



*Before people say 'wimpy Yanks', studies by the other allied powers found similar results.

 

[Stazbumpa]

Interesting question. Depends on the situtation I was in, I'd like to think that if it was him or me then the survival instinct would take over, but its not something that I'd take pleasure in or sleep easy about later either.

One question; was this study that revealed the 2% figure based on ALL battlefield situations or on the ones when they saw the whites of their eyes so to speak?

 

[Sharma]

I for one, could never bring myself to take the life of another human being.

 

[Cdr]

Interesting question. Depends on the situtation I was in, I'd like to think that if it was him or me then the survival instinct would take over, but its not something that I'd take pleasure in or sleep easy about later either.

One question; was this study that revealed the 2% figure based on ALL battlefield situations or on the ones when they saw the whites of their eyes so to speak?

It was all battlefield situations - from sitting in a foxhole, to storming the beaches at Normandy.

 

[xane]

There is a vast difference between a conscripted soldier and a volunteer. In WW2 a lot of men were really conscripted, under normal circumstances they would have preferred not to join the army.

Do the survey now on the British Army, which is 100% volunteer, and you'll find it a lot higher than 2%

Nowdays, with most battlefield weaponry what it is, you only really need a small percentage of killers anyway to wreak death and destruction to a lot of enemies,.

 

[throdgrain]

Fair question . I think, if I had to, I would to be honest. But how can I tell ? Its unlikely Ill ever be in such a situation, and if I ever do get in one its probably only then that Ill find out
When you watch these war documentarys, like the ones about Dunkirk recently, its interesting that the people when talking about shooting Germans almost always start filling up and thats hardly suprising is it ?
By the way, my grandad was at Tobruk. He was badly injured when involved in a fight with some Germans, but he wasnt shot, they were charging at each other with bayonets. Now how much bollocks does that take ?

 

[Cdr]

There is a vast difference between a conscripted soldier and a volunteer. In WW2 a lot of men were really conscripted, under normal circumstances they would have preferred not to join the army.

Do the survey now on the British Army, which is 100% volunteer, and you'll find it a lot higher than 2%

Nowdays, with most battlefield weaponry what it is, you only really need a small percentage of killers anyway to wreak death and destruction to a lot of enemies,.

While training has certainly increased that percentage (from what I saw at the end of the 1st episode, that figure is now nearer 96%), volunteer or not, just because you 'want' to kill doesnt mean you can.

The study suggested that of the people asked, many of them went with the intention of serving for their country and kill some 'nazi scum' but when it came to the crunch, they couldnt do it.

And yes, modern weaponry is so far removed from the battlefield that the idea of killing has become 'easier'.

 

[Stazbumpa]

More than most are ever going to have Throddy.

I see a possible flaw in the stats of the programme in that if all battlefield scenarios are covered then given the amount of ordnance launched at the enemy, the figure has to be higher than 2%. What about inderect mortar fire from the rear of a position to cover an advance or retreat?
The squaddie who doesn't fire his rifle might get overlooked but a mortar not firing would be far more spottable. Then you have artillery batteries to consider and even from a squad level there is supporting fire when advancing or taken an enemy position.
My point is that I can agree with the figures when toe to toe with the enemy, but when firing in the enemies general direction rather than at someone a few feet away I'm not sure they got it totally right.

I agree with xane that the figure would be much higher today anyway, but to me the real heroes are the conscripts of WW2, who did their duty despite being the average Joe in the street. They knew they weren't the best, they knew there was a good chance they'd get killed, but they did it anyway.
Balls of steel

 

[DaGaffer]

I could kill Tom right now.

 

[xane]

The study suggested that of the people asked, many of them went with the intention of serving for their country and kill some 'nazi scum' but when it came to the crunch, they couldnt do it.

That is not the attitude of a professional soldier. Someone who volunteers knows the risks and does so because they are prepared to obey orders whatever the outcome, if they are told to kill, they kill, if they are told to face death, they will do so without reservation. It is not about willingness to kill per se, more of a extreme dedication to the job at hand and that involves killing people.

I'm quite professional and dedicated to my job, but I wouldn't kill someone or be killed over it, not that my job requires me to

 

[RandomBastard]

Fair question . I think, if I had to, I would to be honest. But how can I tell ? Its unlikely Ill ever be in such a situation, and if I ever do get in one its probably only then that Ill find out
When you watch these war documentarys, like the ones about Dunkirk recently, its interesting that the people when talking about shooting Germans almost always start filling up and thats hardly suprising is it ?
By the way, my grandad was at Tobruk. He was badly injured when involved in a fight with some Germans, but he wasnt shot, they were charging at each other with bayonets. Now how much bollocks does that take ?

The point was not about wether the soldiers wanted to kill, you could be the most courageous person on earth and still not be able to kill. The point was about condititioning in the human brain that prevents ordinary people from killing.

 

[tRoG]

If it was a me or him situation, the other bloke would get a bullet in the head. I suppose this would be the situation through most of a war - I don't wanna die, so they'll have to.

Mind you, I can say that, but I won't really know until I'm in that position.

 

[Summo]

I'm a little confused. Are we saying that, for example, 2% of the German army killed around 357,000 British soldiers? That's a lot of work for a relatively low number of people, not to mention the losses they inflicted on the Russians, Americans, Canadians etc.

2% of an army? This is an interesting theory but it sounds like bollocks.

 

[DaGaffer]

I'm a little confused. Are we saying that, for example, 2% of the German army killed around 357,000 British soldiers? That's a lot of work for a relatively low number of people, not to mention the losses they inflicted on the Russians, Americans, Canadians etc.

2% of an army? This is an interesting theory but it sounds like bollocks.

Yeah, I find it a little doubtful, but maybe its 'face to face' killing they're talking about. Tank to Tank, artillery etc. are all 'faceless' and probably make it easier for soldiers to pull the trigger. Of course, if they're saying this statistic is stable over time (and the Gettysburg reference implies that it is) then it must be bollocks or battles like Culloden could never have happened.

 

[Wij]

That figure was specifically for infantry. So they mean blokes with rifles or machine guns. The 2% figure was referring to those who actually lined up a shot with the intention of getting the best chance to kill the enemy. Headshots and stuff

Quite a few more soldiers would fire their guns around the enemy. About 25% but they generally weren't aiming their shots in any more than the general area. Not because they were unable to aim. They were choosing, subconciously perhaps, to scare the enemy rather than killing them.

That's 2 different figures then. 25% would fire their weapons in the enemies general direction. Only 2% really wanted to ensure kills.

 

[DaGaffer]

About 25% but they generally weren't aiming their shots in any more than the general area. .

That would be the Americans then

 

[Deebs]

That would be the Americans then

100% of Americans aim for friends

 

[throdgrain]

Im just in the process of reading a book, a memoir of a bloke in the army involved in the invasion of Germany from late 1944 onwards. The thing that really strikes me about it is just exactly how little "face to face" shooting goes on.
What seems to happen a lot is infantry move forward , get shelled to fuck by the enemy artillary, who are meanwhile getting shelled to fuck by our artillary, then the enemy artillary retreats, and the remanants of our infantry move up to take the places of the enemy artillary. And then it starts again .
Interestingly though, in the one point where his rifle is aimed at two germans, his thought is "shall I just fire in betwwen them ? No one will know."
He doesnt though, and the last he sees of his enemy is his feet, as he's dragged into a doorway by the other German.

Random, sorry I dont understand how my post and yours are related ?

 

[L_Plates]

Id say i could kill yes. I was in the forces for 3 year so i was trained for it. I know as i watched the program not all trained soldiers would be able to but trust me when i was in there i wanted blood.

So deep down i know i could ( If needed )

 

[Tom]

Well, if I see an enemy soldier who is a clear threat, not only to myself but my comrades, then I don't see a problem with shooting him. It doesn't happen these days, but 60 years ago if you didn't follow orders, you were imprisoned or executed.

 

[Deadmanwalking]

Well, if I see an enemy soldier who is a clear threat, not only to myself but my comrades, then I don't see a problem with shooting him. It doesn't happen these days, but 60 years ago if you didn't follow orders, you were imprisoned or executed.

Eh, they are going on about soldiers who would shoot for a kill. And it showed that most of them would still fire. But not to kill.

What that exacly has to do with orders. As they rarely ever gave an order "Shoot the german on the right".

Added to the fact that the actual top brass rarely saw front line combat. That was for the lower ranked officers and NCOs. And i am willing to bet that they wouldn't report/punish one of their men for not ensuring a kill.

 

[Scooba da Bass]

I doubt I could but who knows until you're put in that situation.

I'm friends with an American policeman and I remember a few years ago he had to shoot a suspect that he thought was armed after a robbery. Turned out the guy was and had a history, had been in and out of jail and had a few firearms offences, my friend was totally in the right to do so and yet it still tore him up. He had to take 3 months off and still to this day he has problems with it.

 

[Frizz]

I'm friends with an American policeman and I remember a few years ago he had to shoot a suspect that he thought was armed after a robbery. Turned out the guy was and had a history, had been in and out of jail and had a few firearms offences, my friend was totally in the right to do so and yet it still tore him up. He had to take 3 months off and still to this day he has problems with it.

Yeah, if i was in that situation, i don't think i'd be too fussed. The way i'd see it, was that i did society a favour, by taking out a known criminal.

"On the battlefield, you don't think about what's next". And on that note, if being fired upon, i'd shoot to kill.

 

[old.user4556]

It's hard to imagine, but there are two situations that I feel that i could.

1) to defend my own life (kill or be killed).
2) if someone murdered my girlfriend, my life would be devestated anyway. I could and would retire someone for that.

You might have guessed i'm fiercely defensive of my person and my significant other.

G

 

[GekuL]

I doubt I could line up a shot a purposefully kill someone I didn't know if I could get away with it. I couldn't say for sure unless I'd been in that situation, no one can.

 

[Wij]

What they said on the program is that it almost impossible for most people to look someone in the face and kill them. If you can see their face you feel empathy. It's not that hard to shoot someone in the back but up front, real hard. Your primative brain that you can't control in battle situations by the frontal lobe (because it hands over control) doesn't want to kill humans. It would rather scare them away. That's the normal way most male animals compete. Show force and make the other back down. Not kill.

Was quite interesting. Shall watch next week Not sure I agree with all the theories it puts forward but it's better than rotting your brain with soaps

 

[Driwen]

Well, if I see an enemy soldier who is a clear threat, not only to myself but my comrades, then I don't see a problem with shooting him.

Most agree that killing an enemy soldier isnt wrong, but ending someones life isnt something most people take lightly. But I dont see the reason why you want the average soldier to kill other soldiers, you want the enemy captured or taken out and killing is an effective way. However a wound in the belly or in both arms will also do that or scaring him.

I dont know wether i could actually kill an enemy soldier and I dont think most people will till faced with the choice.

 

[Stazbumpa]

I still stick with the adage that it depends on the situation. If someones going to kill you then the survival instinct would kick in. If it doesn't, or you're missing that instinct entirely, then you're dead basically.

However, I think we're asking th wrong question. It isn't a case of "can you kill?" but more "are you ok with it?" and thats where the normal people aspect comes in.
A normal person would quite possibly be able to kill in life or death situations, but whether they are ok with is another matter. Normal people don't want to kill anybody, thats the point.
Not can they, but do they want to?
I could kill someone trying to kill me, or a family member, but I wouldn't want to do it. Like the cop mentioned earlier. It was needed, but he didn't wanted to do it.

 

[Wile E. Coyote]

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.
- Voltaire

 

[Mofo8]

My own limited military experience has only been two years in the TA (Royal Engineers), and 1 year in the Royal Marines Reserve. I would say I could pretty easily fire a rifle at a person 100m - 200m away, aiming to hit them. No bother. Put that same person one or two metres away and it might be a different story. When I was in the RMR, we shared the mess one night with some veterans, from D-Day through to Korea. One veteran marine told us a story about Korea, and it made all of us think a bit. He was in a foxhole, sticking his head up from time to time and shooting in the general direction of the enemy. He happened to stick his head up at the same time as a North Korean soldier, who was about 2 metres away in another foxhole. They made eye contact, nodded to each other and promptly sat back down again.