Psychology of Combat, a little off topic

[Drifter Bob]

Those world war II numbers are contraversial, though I think they were probably pretty close to the truth.  There have since been some articles 'debunking' the book that much of this idea is based on.

You can get an idea of the contraversy here:

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/armies/chapter2.aspx

However, having looked into this, I think there is truth to the original claims.  I believe this is due to two factors, and possibly a third.  

#1 the training, which incidentally I think still could use a lot of improvement, even in the Marines.  (I do love WMA but don't get the point of all that pike drill / parade marching which I spent something like half my time in bootcamp doing... meanwhile we never did learn to dig foxholes while under artillery fire as I read that the germans taught their troops in WW II)

It's also been speculated that the improvements in training since Korea and Vietnam era (human shaped pop up target silhouetes etc.) have led to a massive increase in the numbers of psychotic

#2 is the nature of combat in WW II.  Think about the role of infantry.  This isn't like some tom clancy video game.  These guys were mainly meant to huddle in a building or some patch of woods somewhere and sit there.  Firing at the the enemy would often be scuicidal.  Their job was to stay where they were and not run away when the artillery started falling.  If enemy forces got near enough to shoot at , it was likely ether an outnumbered enemy force that they could easily slaughter with only 25% of the guys firing, or it was an overwhelming enemy force which was going to wipe them out as soon as they were detected anyway.

There is no point in firing your rifle at a tank, or in the general direction of an unseen artillery spotter.

Generally, U.S. Infantry in World War II had good reasons to cower and hide in their fox holes.  Most US combat divisions had around 250% casualty rates from D-Day to VE day, and that would be the units which weren't wiped out (reduced) in combat.  

I think machine gunners fired more because they could do more damage, (especially with those ubiquitous .50 cals) and also, heck, it's just fun to shoot a machine gun!

The possible third factor is booze.  Russian and German armies issued booze to their troops.  Maybe thats why they convinced them to die in so much greater numbers than us, or the brits, or the canadians.

Booze has been an important part of warfare going way, way back.   Like the youthfull madness of being 18 years old, it helps 'motivate'

DB

[Drifter Bob]

from the point of view of implementing something about this in a game, I actually think it's an intriguing idea.  I've been tinkering with the idea of some morale rules loosely based on the concept of morale as in the old Squad Leader / Advaned Squad leader game.  

I thought the players wouldn't like it, but I had a good reactoin in the first few tests.  It's another way to make your character feel heroic, if he can stand up to the threat of a fight.

I thought I'd spice it up a bit with some personality archetypes, but thats where I got bogged down.

DB

[Gideon13]

The possible third factor is booze. Russian and German armies issued booze to their troops. Maybe thats why they convinced them to die in so much greater numbers than us, or the brits, or the canadians.

Actually, a major Soviet motivator was shooting anyone who retreated or who didn't advance quickly enough.  The film "Enemy at the Gates" captured this quite well.

There were many other armies that didn't go quite as far, but which did keep NCOs to the rear to kill with anyone trying to run away.  For example, the British dressed their troops in red coats during the Revolution to make defectors easy to spot by their own officers!  Definitely a motivator.

[Drifter Bob]

The possible third factor is booze. Russian and German armies issued booze to their troops. Maybe thats why they convinced them to die in so much greater numbers than us, or the brits, or the canadians.

Actually, a major Soviet motivator was shooting anyone who retreated or who didn't advance quickly enough.  The film "Enemy at the Gates" captured this quite well.

Well lets be honest, shooting unmotivated or squeamish soldiers isn't unique to the Russians.  in pretty much any WW II Army (maybe not the Italian?) in WW II, you were basically going to be killed if you deserted or refused to attack in combat.  The German army was damn quick to shoot deserters and combat refusals.  The US Army certainly shot deserters.  And all armies also had punishment units, either officially as in the German and Russian armies or unoficialy as in the U.S. .  

In U.S. film and media these are often glorified as in "the dirty dozen', as rag tag "rough and tumble" outfits who were so much better than the regulars.  In reality there were certain units which were disliked, who got assigned all the screw-ups, and were given the dangerous, often suicidal frontal attack missions which basically ensured their rapid liquidation.

As far as movies go, you can see good portrayals of this in the German film Stalingrad (punishment battalion) and the excellent When Trumpets Fade about the Hurtgen forest.

In reality, an assignment to an active front line combat unit in World War II was tantamount to a death sentance.  You got a few appeals, certainly many survived, but the percentage of those who survived was low.  Your best bet statistically was to get captured or maimed.

Some stats: average loss rate for 8th Airforce flight crews in WW II was about 10% per mission (much higher in the beginning of the bombing, as much as 20%, down to around 5% by the very ened).  Thats one out of ten missions.  The lowest number of missions required to finish a tour was 25, and it went up from there, sometimes to as high as 50.  You can do the math.

Needless to say, for ground troops it was even worse.  According to Paul Fussel's "Wartime", US and British infantry divisions fighting between D-Day and Jan 1 1945, had on average replaced twice their original number of second luitennants.  Most units had between 150% and 250% casualty rates.  And it was even worse if you were a replacement.

This kind of reality can get hard to accept.  Thats why the Russians issued as much as a liter of vodka a day even when they couldn't get ammunition to the front line.  British troops in North Africa could sometimes anticipate German assaults when they smelled the schnapps in the breeze...

DB

[Tash]

Yeah, the stuff the troops went through in WWII on all sides was pretty difficult to fathom.  As I just said in another thread my wife's uncle was in the Signal Corps and served with the Marines in the Pacific.  He's told me some stuff that I wouldn't belive if it weren't for the fact that I doubt anyone could make it.  Stuff like how he got into the wrong landing craft and got seperated from his assigned squand...only to see every one of them ripped apart by a direct hit from a Japanese shell...

Or how he spent most of the war armed only with a camera and a 1911 and wasn't even issued extra clips for the pistol because the SC guys only intended to use one round...they knew how the Japanese treated POWs and had no intention of becoming one!

Crazy stuff that I can't imagine ever doing myself, I have no end of respect for these guys.

[Andrew Mure]

There were many other armies that didn't go quite as far, but which did keep NCOs to the rear to kill with anyone trying to run away.  For example, the British dressed their troops in red coats during the Revolution to make defectors easy to spot by their own officers!  Definitely a motivator.

Actually the red coat being the traditional uniform of the British army goes back way before the American revolution. Its origins go back to the English Civil War in 1640s between Parliament and King Charles I when in 1644 the parliamentary side decided to reform and retrain their various militias into a professional force known as the New Model Army. This was the first modern state army of paid soldiers since the Romans and the red coat was adopted as its uniform. The New Model Army under Sir Thomas Fairfax and Oliver Cromwell went on to decisively defeat the King's forces at Naseby in 1645 and established the only republic in British history from 1649 to 1660 following the execution of King Charles. This is a prime example of a better motivated force winning!

Though the monarchy would be restored, the New Model Army was kept up and is the precursor of every modern armed force today. Incidently British soldiers wore red into battle up until 1898 it was replaced in favour of khaki which is the current battledress, red remains the ceremonial uniform as anyone who's tried to make a Coldstream guard blink at Buckingham Palace will know!

As for the claim that red coats meant that defectors could be spotted, one must also remember that Washington and his cronies dressed their troops in royal blue with red insets while his french allies wore white. Neither of which is any less apparent on a battlefield than red! May I suggest the main reason for colourful uniforms on battlefields was so troops could distinquise their comrades from the enemy, perhaps?

[Vagabond Elf]

Not so much the troops telling who was who, but the generals.  In these pre-radio days, the only way to tell units apart was by the colour of their coats, and the flags they were carrying.

[Salamander]

Incidently British soldiers wore red into battle up until 1898 it was replaced in favour of khaki which is the current battledress, red remains the ceremonial uniform as anyone who's tried to make a Coldstream guard blink at Buckingham Palace will know!

Actually the current Battle Order Dress in the British Army is a relevant camouflage. The Khaki is worn for garrison and office duty. Red is still used in the Army for Guards/Parade Dress & Dinner Jackets.

[Drifter Bob]

Not so much the troops telling who was who, but the generals.  In these pre-radio days, the only way to tell units apart was by the colour of their coats, and the flags they were carrying.

I think the bright colors were to help troops and officers alike to distinguish friend and foe on the battlefield which was often covered in the thick smoke of black powder.  These uniforms became more of a hazard than an advantage when smokeless powder became extant.

DB

[toli]

Not so much the troops telling who was who, but the generals.  In these pre-radio days, the only way to tell units apart was by the colour of their coats, and the flags they were carrying.

I think the bright colors were to help troops and officers alike to distinguish friend and foe on the battlefield which was often covered in the thick smoke of black powder.  These uniforms became more of a hazard than an advantage when smokeless powder became extant.

DB

Both are probably the case.  I have certainly heard the fist explanation regarding generals.  Bright colors like the English red coats were preferred because they were easily recognizable from a long distance.

[gloomhound]

Brigadier General SLA Marshall is the gentalman who did the study in question.

http://www.warchronicle.com/us/combat_historians_wwii/marshallfire.htm

[bottleneck]

Bright colors like the English red coats were preferred because they were easily recognizable from a long distance.

I always thought (read somewhere...) that one advantage of red over white was that you couldn't see the blood so easily - which might be good for morale. (I imagine the white french uniforms rapidly becoming blood-stained and looking bad while the brits seem to be in good condition).

But sure - the generals certainly preferred to know which side was winning, go bright colors!

[Tash]

In high school I had a friend who worked as a tour guide at Ft William Henry in NY.  He had to dress up in a late 18th century British uniform and fire muskets and cannon and such, great fun all told.

One day at work he slipped on a staircase, fell and managed to impale himself on his bayonet (which he kept sharp in brilliant defiance of OSHA regs).  I saw his uniform when I was driving him home from the ER, no trouble spotting the bloodstains at all.

I do recall reading somewhere that during the French and Indian (Seven Years War to non-americans) War the red coat became a huge liability because, for the first time, the British army was facing and enemy willing to use concealment, ambush and other "dishonorable" tactics against them.  However commanders still insisted they were necessary to maintain coordination and discipline.  That doesn't strike me as an acceptable trade off since the terrain (dense forrest for the most part) made any kind of large formation fighting impossible.
No surprise that irregular units, such as Roger's Rangers (often called the first "Special Forces" unit in history), adopted different  colors that made them less visible.

[Vagabond Elf]

The coat was a bit of a problem fighting irregulars, but not a huge one.  Afterall, if the foliage is thick it doesn't matter how bright coloured your coat is.

The biggest challenge was that a smoothbore musket is not accurate, and the only way to get reliable hits was to use volley fire to saturate the target, which meant keeping your troops in large, very visible formations.  The natives & canadiens hiding in the trees were using rifles, much more accurate but much slower to reload.  The rifles were capable of doing useful damage with single shots.

Of course, at the end of the day the British won...

[Tash]

Actually the British made extensive use of both native and irregular troops, the unit I mentioned being the most famous.

In the end the British won largely due to political unrest in France and the superiority of the British navy.

As to the accuracy of the firearms, niether side posses a clear advantage in this regard really.  Rifles were more common on the British side, but real marksmen were extremely scarce in either force.