Basic rifle marksmanship

Hmmm, if I have divined Cricket's gripe about "don't tell the infantry that" to refer to the reluctance to kill a human while the artillery and tankers and fighter pilots just whale away as somehow impugning the infantry, that's not the case. The point Marshal made was that soldiers were reluctant to kill in the very personal way of the infantryman, whereas people with weapons (like artillery and bombs) who didn't see their targets directly, or like tankers and fighter pilots, who shoot at "things" like tanks and aircraft and are thus able to disassociate themeselves from the act. Machinegunners, because they could 'area fire' he perceived to be less prone to this reluctance as well. Subsequent investigation (which led to automatic weapons for everyone) modified the conclusion - many infantrymen were doing a trade-off analysis... trying to do aimed fire against fleeting targets, while exposing yourself to return fire, especially when you weren't sure you were hitting your target, was deemed to be a larger factor in infantrymen's reluctance to shoot - and that, like machinegunners, who could 'walk' their bullets on target and get the positive feedback, were more willing to accept the risk of the return fire, as they could see a payoff that matched or exceeded the risk. Plus, the discussion is about Marshal's examination of WWII experiences. There is ample evidence in the current conflict that the troops are shooting - and they may well be shooting precisely because of the changes implemented due to Marshal's conclusions, however flawed they in fact are. Does that answer your concern, Cricket?

And yes, it seemed that the foxholes were sort of left over from WW2. Sort of impractical in sand. But I did read your answer thoroughly. Thank you for being clear. In the combat they do face, isn't there some sort of protected position they can build to fire from, in spite of the obsolesence of the foxhole?

So, wouldn't the fluid nature of the firefight sort of damp down the reluctance to return fire? Especially if you are not as well protected except by the skills you gain in training and implementation? I just don't buy the screed that infantry personnel are brutal louts. They are shooting at people who are shooting at them. I have only had my life directly threatened ONCE and it was enough to convince me that the second amendment was a vital rule since people with guns and the know how to use them stood between me and the perp who was trying to get into my room. I am more worried about their skills and protection being up to date for what they are being asked to do. Maybe I am being too hard nosed about it, because I have not been in a firefight. Thoughts?

"I just don't buy the screed that infantry personnel are brutal louts." The only time grunts are well-behaved is when the cavalry is watching them. As far as the contention that other combat branches (tankers, gunners) have fewer inhibitions against killing because they are more detached (less direct and personal), I would suggest that the contender lacks sufficient knowledge of those branches. Cheers JMH

I don't buy Dave Grossman's theory one bit. Humans have no instinct NOT to kill one another. Humans have a long history of doing so untrained and unprovoked, and in many cases, very effectively. The formation of society has given us rules that we pass on from generation to generation that killing is 'wrong'. It is most certainly not an instinct. Fight or Flight will overrule it every time, and I know myself, if some dirtbag is trying to kill me, I will require no training or conditioning whatsoever to respond in kind. Marshall's research is not directly applicable to the subject of interpersonal violence. Being ordered to kill someone in another military force is entirely different from trying to kill in self defense, or even proactively when someone has angered you, that you can see and touch and come to grips with. If humans truly had an instinct NOT to kill, the world would be a very different place. Remember we are talking about INSTINCT, like a wolf knowing that a deer is edible. Not a social tendency.

Both my step-fathers had lots of war-related nightmares, the former marine the worst of them. My former Navy corpsman father-in-law had WWII and Korean War related nightmares for most of the time my wife lived at home. When I lived in the barracks in the early-to-late 70's, I shared rooms with Vietnam vets, lots of them. More times than I can remember, I was wakened in the middle of the night by someone screaming or by some commotion in the hall outside some room where one of the guys had just woken to a night-terror memory. I knew guys who would cry every time we went to the rifle range, and others who got just a bit hysterically over the edge with it. I knew people who were so messed up in so many ways that I didn't even know that wasn't normal for Army people until I grew up a bit and more of them ETS'd or retired. You ever sat in a room full of people who hear a loud explosion and all of them dive for the floor, and one of them starts bawling as soon as he realizes it was just a m80? I heard or saw more TINS horror stories than I ever heard funny ones, like the guy whose forearm was 'finned' by a 4.2" mortar round, and they didn't have anything to stitch him with so a buddy used commo wire to sew his arm back up, his arm had huge Frankenstein scars on it. Or the guy who had two holes in his skull (I felt them), one where a 51 cal bullet had stuck half-way in, and the other where a smaller caliber bullet had gone in, but not far enough. Or my friend who still has a bullet in his neck, just behind the jugular, where the doctors left it because they were afraid they might kill him if they removed it. The first time I went to the Vietnam War Memorial I cried like my dad had just died again--and I had never been there and didn't know anyone whose name is on the wall. I just knew a WHOLE lot of people who were really messed up by it all--many of them had become my friends. I'm still not sure why I reacted the way I did, but it sure had been building a long time, I suppose. I've never known a soul who wasn't in some way deeply affected by having been to war and having to kill people--for whatever the reason. I've never known a person who'd been to war who wasn't just a bit beyond my reach. I don't ever want to share that experience, but I certainly feel my lack of "qualifications" when I talk with folks who've been. As for a person's inclination to kill, I suspect the difficulty for Americans lies in the notion that it is not the normal "accepted" way to do business. I've mentioned a few times recently that I just finished reading An Army at Dawn. In that book, the recurring theme is that Americans were not nearly angry enough, or rather, not prone to violence enough to be good at war. It took a LOT of death and destruction to make American soldiers into the war winning army they became. It's a good book, and may provide some insight into the whys and wherefores of Americans at war... As for Grossman, he has a clue, from what a lot of people who've known him and what he's written have said. He came to the place I worked last year, and among the folks who met him and spoke with him and listened to his speech were people who I ASSURE you know what it's like to kill people and to do so one-at-a-time with purpose and on purpose. Almost to a man (and woman, actually) they said Grossman very much had a clue. I wasn't able to attend the lecture so I can't say personally. And by the way, a wolf doesn't instinctively know that a deer is edible anymore than a human knows that a tuna is edible. The cub learns what's food from older wolves, and that tied with the instinct to eat stuff works out to meals, so to speak. Otherwise, I imagine a wolf would try to eat a skunk, a rattler, a spider, or anything else--at least once. I mean, that's what people do...

1) I can't speak to the game-playing issues, I just know that Grossman's "On-killing" and his lecture about same was very well recieved by people who knew what he was talking about. 2) I wasn't calling you on anything, just observing and giving my own experiences. 3) Eisenhower may have been the most well organized president we've had in 60 years, and if he had a flaw, it was that he took too little credit for the front end, and liked to work things too much from the back end. I recently read a very good book summarizing the presidents from Roosevelt to Clinton, and their leadership styles, etc. Carter was the worst (can you imagine?), but Johnson and Nixon were also not well organized; Eisenhower was the most well organized, and left Kennedy a fine system for white house operations, but Kennedy abandoned it in favor of a more self-reliant decision making method. Basically, I've never seen anything written about Eisenhower that suggested he was "tormented" by his wartime experiences. In fact, he had no real combat experience when he took over the Army in Africa & Europe, which was his first assignment as a combat commander. Prior to that he'd primarily been a staff officer. Info here: http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/mil/html/ml_016600_eisenhowerdw.htm

It can be tough getting it through some troops skulls that 20 rifles firing at one target isn't, doctrinaly anway, massing fire. 20 rifles firing at 20 separate targets is, doctrinally, massing fire. Achieving this is a matter of leadership, from the fire team leader on up. Making sure Pvt Smith fires at the target(s) in his sector, no matter how tempting the target(s) in Pvt Jones' sector are.

Oh, and yeah, I did know that Ike was never a field commander in war time. He'd been spotted by George Marshall as a superior logistician(his work at the Staff college back when in was in John's neck of the woods) and groomed by Marshall for the post that Ike eventually got. Don't get me wrong Sanger--I Like Ike!. It's just that some people look back and play 'what if', like the recent spat about Yalta, and Ike's got a few(the Spring Thaw where the USSR rolled tanks to stop a rebellion. That could've been a causes belli for 'Roll Back' of the USSR) 'what ifs' on his watch. I like Ike. I wish we had more like him.