Evolution of Human Aggression.

[Blind groper]

BG, the figures for random- or non-firing troops were extremely soft and based on impressions in most cases. The WWII figure was based on the number of bullets fired versus numbers of enemies killed.

That is not how I read the report. The report clearly said that the information was gained by interviewing the soldiers soon after the battle.

Nor was that the only source. The book on killing (summary here - http://www.military-sf.com/Killing.htm) describes several other situations where most soldiers did not fire, including the Battle of Gettysberg. WWII fighter pilots where 1% of pilots shot down 30 to 40% of enemy kills. It is well known that in battle, most kills come from artillery, or bombing, not from individual soldiers shooting. Viet Nam may be an exception, since the soldiers sent there received special training to overcome the reluctance to kill.

I remember some years ago reading a report in a science journal about research on American Civil War casualties. The researchers were puzzled, because they dug up so many bullets that they calculated that each square inch of an advancing army front should have received one bullet on average. There should have been no survivors amongst the attackers. It makes sense only if you realise most of the defenders were not firing at the enemy.

I know this is counter-intuitive. Most of us naturally think that when the enemy is attacking, we will shoot back. But it is apparently not so, unless the soldiers have first had intensive training to 'brainwash' them into automatically shooting back.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Everybody around me fought, or we shipped their asses out. Simple system.

[Blind groper]

And how did you determine which of the people around you were deliberately firing to miss?

52,000 bullets fired for every hit on an enemy.
And that from soldiers intensively trained to hit their targets.
Even with a portion of the bullets fired as intimidation, that is a pretty poor ratio.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

And how did you determine which of the people around you were deliberately firing to miss?

By the fact that I survived.

[Blind groper]

By the fact that I survived.

You can probably thank that survival on the fact that most of your enemy were not firing or firing to miss.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

By the fact that I survived.

You can probably thank that survival on the fact that most of your enemy were not firing or firing to miss.

[Blind groper]

Gawdzilla

The principle works both ways. Most soldiers on both sides do not fire or fire to miss, unless 'brainwashed' by special training.

In the case Viet Nam, the American soldiers received special training to overcome the reluctance to kill. To the best of my knowledge, the North Vietnamese soldiers did not.

Bear in mind that the USA lost a little over 50,000 soldiers. Viet Nam lost over 2 million, total deaths. Many of those deaths were due to extraneous factors, and many due to bombs and artillery. But the disparity is so great that it is not unreasonable to suppose that the North Vietnamese were not as focused on killing.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Has anyone else here ever heard a "tweee" as a bullet goes past their head, and THEN heard the "bang" of a rifle? You have utterly no chance to duck, you don't even know it's inbound. It's a sphincter test.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

B.G., I like that you worship that principle, despite the fact that its crap.

[Blind groper]

Gawdzilla

The principle may, indeed, be crap. But all the evidence I have seen so far, apart from your bland assertions, is that it is real.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Well, I hope you two will be happy together.

[mistermack]

I think it would all depend on the circumstances of the war.

If I'd been conscripted to fight in Vietnam, it wouldn't have made ANY difference if they HAD intensively trained me to kill.
I would have been firing to miss. Unless I was in a real hole, surrounded by the enemy.
But if I was Vietnamese, I would do anything to kill the foreigners.

If I was a conscript in the first WW, I wouldn't be aiming to kill either. Unless it was one of my own officers. Because it was an unnecessary war, caused by squabbling royal families. I can't see myself killing for them and I would resent being conscripted.
Your opinion of the war, and whether you volunteered, is bound to play a big part.

[Tyrannical]

Chimps are vicious little demonic killers too among their own kind in the wild. If only they had bigger brains
Human aggression far pre-dates modern humans and probably existed in apes.

[Hermit]

Human aggression far pre-dates modern humans and probably existed in apes.

Like the bonobos.

[Tyrannical]

Human aggression far pre-dates modern humans and probably existed in apes.

Like the bonobos.

Yes. Some of their attack tales are not so unlike some uncivilized Amazonian tribes.