Shooting to kill - how many men can do this?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 лип 2016
- We ask soldiers to shoot people in combat, but how many men find this easy to do? What proportion can pull the trigger?
Support me on Patreon: / lindybeige
Modern techniques of training have enormously increased soldiers' willingness to kill, but the consequences of this success are yet to be fully understood. A man who is not a natural born killer may have a tough time dealing with the fact that his training led him to do things that his natural reluctance would have prevented.
Source for the 75% of VC winners being responsible older siblings: the secretary of the VC and GC Association.
• Video
About 26 minutes 40 seconds into the video.
Buy the music - the music played at the end of my videos is now available here: lindybeige.bandcamp.com/track...
More weapons and armour videos here: • Weapons and armour
Lindybeige: a channel of archaeology, ancient and medieval warfare, rants, swing dance, travelogues, evolution, and whatever else occurs to me to make.
▼ Follow me...
Twitter: / lindybeige I may have some drivel to contribute to the Twittersphere, plus you get notice of uploads.
Facebook: / lindybeige (it's a 'page' and now seems to be working).
Google+: "google.com/+lindybeige"
website: www.LloydianAspects.co.uk
/ user "Lindybeige"
Thats why my teamates are so useless
ThεληgεlGαmεr Gold comment.
thats a good one
rainbow I take it
theawsomegamer 😂
it all makes sense now
So Stormtroopers are actually really deep and emotional beings who don't want to kill anyone!
awesome
The Emperor ordered the Galactic Army to miss intentionally so that the Emperor could make Luke join the dark side of the Force, but failed. Obi wan Kenobi said that the Stormtroopers are THE BEST sharpshooters in the Galactic Empire. So no... They are just soldiers that are doing they're jobs better than any assassin or any other soldier in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE OF STAR WARS. Hope that settles it! Thanks for reading.
So when you look at SW again you realize that the protagonists are the sociopaths, since they shot to kill
Perhaps the protagonists are just aware that the stormtrooper armour disperses the energiy of a blaster hit, turning a lethal hit into a stun.
Mad man genes from both sides. Han Solo offs people while remaining cheeky, Darth Vader chokes people just for the prestige of being a Sith Lord (extra points for looking at their face) .
At least Kylo feels the pull from the Light and only takes his anger out on machinery, barely bullying his officers. Not such a bad guy now, is he?
"In WW2 soldiers didn't want to harm each other"
Meanwhile at Stalingrad...
DIO i wish
@DIO good i am most alpha painting
Meanwhile in the Nanking...
Well, both the Nazis and the Soviets were told the other were beasts, inhuman, and that they didn’t have lives. It’s incredibly easy to kill blindly, that’s why chemical weapons were so often used as it took the guilt away from the murderer. The soldiers were brainwashed to believe the others weren’t human, and that’s why most soldiers struggled to return to life after the war as they were taught people weren’t human.
@@Onyxiate nazies don't gave soviets much of a choice, fight or be enslaved and 💀
As a US Marine veteran of the Second Battle of Fallujah, thank you Lloyd for making this video. We are nowhere near where we need to be to deprogram our soldiers and it is a terrible injustice.
it doesn't even look like govs give a damn :(
@@RomaInvicta202 well they don't. but police are the government, so they are gay or something...
@@jaighter wtf
Exactly, they spend years and tons of money to desensitize you for battlefield and then expect you to go back to civie life the week after your discharge.
Why on earth should we deprogram our soldiers? That'd make them like 80% less effective, lol
This is why in videogames the protagonist can fight countless other enemies without being in much danger. The enemies are shooting without the intention of killing. But the protagonist is a psychopath with reflex-killing installed.
mind=blown
you say that but i've known clinically proven psychopaths to have an issue with this. so the question would be is are the clinical tests wrong, or is it something a bit deeper than not giving a f@k about others lives? besides the protagonist we are supposed to hate and are often more nightmare than potentially realistic. (trying to stay constructive)
He's having a goof.
No it's because it's a video game. Come on use your brain
More like that the player are not able to sense the fear of their enemy, or the game producer(s) didn't really intended to... well basically they don't give a shit
"Trigger finger frostbite" sounds like a punk rock band
Hahaha yes!!
In b4 an anti-war punk band named that
Black pistol fire has a song called Trigger on fire which is close
I call dibs on that name
@@bronillabear4104 damn
After years of training and then deploying, society expects you to turn it off as soon as you return. It doesn't work like a switch. Thank you for this well explained video, Lindybeige.
I reckon it does work like a switch. A normal person can't flip it up but if you kick it with enough force it eventually turns on. The problem is the lever sticking out breaks off in the process
Touching on what we see in film. Usually the bad guys ie: Stormtroopers, the motorcycle gang in Road Warrior, the Orcs all have their faces covered or disfigured which makes them easier to see killed.
When I think back to all the war movies I liked as a kid, like "Where Eagles Dare", "The Guns of Navarrone", "Battle of the Bulge", I notice now that the Germans all conveniently die without utterring a word. They just crumple over dead.
That is very considerate of them! In reality, most of them would not die instantly. They would cry out, begging for aid. And their comrades, their buddies, would risk their own lives to try to save them.
As a viewer...that would make me squirm in my seat. And to have Clint Eastwood smiling as he mows them down as they scream in agony, begging for their pals to rescue them? No. No way in hell I want to watch that.
Because they are "killing" the same stuntmen over and over. A lot of video games you are shooting up zombies or other NON human style bad guys.
Reminds me of Warframe, which is a game and not a movie.
You play as someone who kills literally tens of thousands of enemy soldiers (because its super future, past human race) where half of them are greed strickened (their government that is) and wear rubber suits with a box helmet that completely hides any resemblance of a humanoid face (until you headshot them at least). The other half is a much bigger war mongering faction (lore wise, iirc) that consists of countless clonings upon clonings that their bodies are so frail and terrible looking.
But you still learn that some of those people try to defect from those factions and you sometimes get tasked with saving them.
Even recently you learned about a few characters who were killed because of them wanting to help others.
Its fun playing games like these, but sometimes I really do enjoy the human nature elements that get sprinkled here and there.
@@ashcarrier6606 There is a diary from a Japanese officer at Iwo Jima: "We were told Americans were inhuman monsters, yet you hear them crying for their mothers as they lay dying..."
@@ashcarrier6606 Interestingly, in Wolfenstein, the Germans actually shout when you shoot them, but the shouts are made in a very comical way.
Fighter pilots were told to not shoot to kill. They were told to destroy the vehicle, and often left parachuting enemy pilots alone. I think it's easier for tankers and pilots to kill unintentionally, because they were trying to take out the machine, not the man.
I realize you're likely referring to earlier pilots (WWII), but that's a straight up war crime as outlined in the Geneva Convention.
*****
if you shoot the pilot out of the craft, you don't have to keep shooting, saving ammo, so you can shoot down more. All the vitals of the craft are located near the pilot, including the engine. And it is hard to hit a specific part of a plane when its weaving. Having flown simulators, i cant even take a plane down thats an ai
Strategically, the machine is cheaper to replace than the crew manning it. The necessary logistics and training involved to create a fully fledged fighter pilot or tank crew usually costs more than the aircraft or the tank itself. It also takes more time to produce fighter pilots and tank crews than it takes to construct a fighter jet or a tank.
So from a strategic perspective: killing the crew or the pilot hurts the enemy more than merely destroying the vehicle. Or better yet, maiming and hospitalizing the pilot or crew is the most costly result you can inflict on the enemy and help you win the war faster.
Dead soldiers only need a wooden box and a hole in the ground, which doesn't cost the state that much. Living but injured men on the other hand costs a fortune in required medical care, physical therapy and financial support after they are no longer fit for duty due to their injuries or are able to do any kind of job at all as a civilian.
A state could of course cut financial costs by refusing their injured soldiers proper healthcare, battlefield recovery and financial aid etc. But would then suffer a huge blow in soldier morale because if the soldiers doesn't feel that their government is looking out for them even when they are risking their lives to protect it, they won't perform as well in battle.
+Grand Nagus Zek (Zekki) you are wrong. the fuel tank is the weakest, especially, in a tank (i mean the vehicle), you have at least 3 operators, and you won't win by just killing one of them. but if you take out the fuel tank, instant profit. btw the operator is also harder to hit, because it's relatively small compared to the other weak points, and with a little bit of luck, the operator can dodge any type of non-exploding rounds.
Ever played war thunder? Most of the time, destroying the tank is killing the crew, as destroying the vehicle itself is insanely hard. A tank can still survive with a massive hole in the armor. And since a tank can still kill you if its engines and tracks are destroyed, you have few options. One is to disable it by destroying the gun or the ammo rack, however, there's still the machine gun and tankers do carry small arms. So, you kill the crew. Why? *THE TANK CANNOT FUNCTION WITHOUT ITS CREW*. It can still work without the engine, or even the gun. It cannot work without the people operating it.
So just a correction, psycopaths aren't bad at recognising emotions. If anything they are quite often significantly better than normal people. Its just that they really don't give a shit. "He had some money in his pocket and I wanted a kit-kat so I shot him in the face" rather than "I didn't realise he was scared". They will usually pick up on emotions very well, as well as often being self aware of their own pathology. They will just do anything they feel like without remorse and don't really care about other people's emotions. "He's scared... well he isn't me so why do I care". Thats psychopathy.
this :)
Yeh I watched a documentary on the British SAS all but 2 of them were self proclaimed psychopaths quite frightening really.
Psychopaths are great at reading emotions, but the chief characteristic is that they don't really feel them in the same way, if at all. So they don't just not give a shit, they don't empathize because they don't know what it feels like. They might even feel something else...like pleasure where one would expect to feel pain or concern. This doesn't mean they're dangerous in general, they are still aware about right and wrong and can suppress urges or lack thereof.
I can't see a single reason a psychopath would even join the army, what is there to gain from it? As far as I've understood psychopathy, they are motivated purely by their own needs and wants? Also, a unit of psychopaths would be a bad idea, as I could not possibly see anyone of them putting their lives on the line for the other ie. coming to the aid of his fellow soldier when he is pinned down or something like that (why should I risk my life for someone who isn't me?)...
But I am no expert in this, I've not even read about psychopaths, I just based this of +Olivia Lambert comment and what I've heard about them elsewhere, so I might be very wrong indeed :P
Phelix Kelevra I can't see a single reason they WOULDN'T join the army. What is there to make the army worse for psychopaths than normal people? They care a lot less about killing others so one of the major drawbacks is gone. What do they gain? Well money in an economy where regular jobs are very hard to get. They can use the term military veteran to get easy respect and credibility. They might even find the training fun in the same way sports are fun. Psychopaths have no reason to join the army less than normal people. A unit of psychopaths wouldn't be a great idea, I'd worry about them killing their commanders. Apparently it used to be a regular thing to throw a grenade at a dangerous commander termed "fragging" and that was normal people, a psychopath very well might do that far more often. However having a few psychopaths dotted around regular soldiers wouldn't really be too bad. They know that acting out like that would end badly so its not a huge issue. Also we have to remember that we're talking about the worst psychopaths, most of them aren't remotely this bad and a lot of them can live a fairly normal life and even care about others.
VarietyGamer I'm fairly sure its less about them reading emotions differently and more about them just not caring. It is a well known common thing for psychopaths to be exceptionally good at empathising with others and using that fact to manipulate people. It is incredibly rare for them to find pleasure in hurting people and really only happens when they have another mental disorder as well as psychopathy. Of course combining other mental disorders like that results in an exceptionally dangerous individual but since both psychopathy and sadism are rare having both combined is insanely rare. They haven't experienced some of the emotions first hand but that doesn't stop them from empathising with the similar emotions they have experienced in the same way that I can empathise with motherly love despite not having nor wanting children. And yes they know right or wrong and a lot of them have a good moral compass but here we seem to be more talking about the rare and interesting ones who might have less of a moral compass and be constrained more by the legal system. But yeah, on average they will be significantly better at empathising because it helps them get their way.
Scott Fordham I really wouldn't be surprised if thats true. Not true for everyone of course, but a higher percentage of psychopaths wouldn't be surprising at all. I spoke with an ex-SAS member. He certainly wasn't a psychopath mind. He had severe PTSD. He had alcoholism and was drunk at the time. And even mentioning the name of the well known Iran Embassy fiasco he broke into tears. You could see the pain in his face and you could see he was telling the truth whilst saying he regretted some of the things he did. It wasn't stated outright but it was heavily implied it included multiple episodes of torture. Quite honestly I don't think most non-psychopaths could handle some of the things he was talking about for very long. And the majority of these missions and tortures were done in Ireland against the IRA. A country bordering England, people looking exactly like you speaking your language and could almost be your countrymen. It makes you think they need to be looking for psychopaths just to avoid the psychological torture you're left with when you retire.
"Oh, he's having a shave. There's the other guy. They're laughing, must've been sharing a joke. *pew* There we go, headshot."
Some people just cant take a joke! lol
"Sniper's a good job mate"
Stone cold.
My Dad would sometimes tell me about his experiences in Vietnam, when I was a kid. Usually when he was drinking. Dad was a farm-boy with a pacifist heart, but was conscripted and so to war he went. One day I asked about the scar above his eye, knowing only that he'd gotten in during his tour as a truck driver. He said a VC had crossed the road immediately in front of his truck, and his passenger, referred by Dad as "the gungho idiot," shot through the windshield, hitting the VC, and shattering the glass. A glass shard had hit my Dad's eye, causing the wound.
Dad had been angered that the man had shot from his truck. He said that along this particular route, there had been a sort of detente among the drivers and VC, something informal and organic, but present nonetheless.
A few weeks following, a suicide bomb attack by the VC at a bar, frequented by truckers and considered generally safe, killed several of his friends. He blamed the shooting described above, rightly or wrongly, and still carried animosity towards the shooter, all these years later.
I don't doubt your dad's sincerity but I don't buy the detente story.
The real stories are always the best. Thanks for sharing.
Lol what a load of shit
viet moiws cha nam
@@majungasaurusaaaa you have no basis to believe or disbelieve, do you? It's a shame to insult his father, and more diplomatic ways to ask for others with experience to comment.
the 1947 survey only interviewed troops that had survived the war though. Maybe firing at the enemy gets you killed more often.
Many of those interviewed in the survey were actually fictional, because the author (a journalist, not a social scientist) just made them up to create a better story.
That may be so, but I think there are a couple of interesting factors to throw in.
1) Modern drone pilots are also known for having issues killing their targets because they have full control and zero risk
2) WWII fighter pilots were mostly recruited from prisons because they were known to be capable as ex-murderers
3) back in WWII there were a lot of older people going to the front, today in the middle east it's mostly youngsters.
4) Basic training methodology has changed a lot since the 50s, nowadays it's all about psychologically breaking their minds, it's about turning ordinary ppl into order-obeying psychos. Just like ISIS does so successfully.
If it had been a social scientist all not just some would have been made up.
fairz
Nah, these findings were taken pretty seriously. The US military found they could get around it with different training methods. They also found that soldiers that used crew served weapons such as machine guns are mortars were significantly more likely to fire their weapon. There is a lot of psychology at work here. We simply weren't aware of it during WWII to the extent we are now. You'll find this phenomenon is much less frequent in modern militaries because of the changes to training after WW2.
Notice there's basically no jump cuts in this video. That's a proper talented UA-camr.
Really memorized that script eh
@@raialasio1574 Lmfao. This is from 3 months aho and the video is 3 yesrs old. Gargle razors
I don't think he has a script he sound like a passionate teacher when a student asks a random question about his favorite subject
the script was more like a stamp for what he's gonna talk about. That kind of script, just some few words to get the lessons going.
@@danielrko9895 yeah, he seems like one of those few guy with a genuin knowledeg of what they are takling about.
There must be something in what you say. After 2 years of fighting in North Africa and Italy, my late father-in - law came across a young German soldier in a house not far from the coast in Normandy. He was trying to re-load his rifle and panicking. Richie shouted "Hande hoch" and the German dropped his rifle. He then gestured for him to run away which he did. Richie just couldn't bring himself to shoot a man 10 yards away who couldn't defend himself.
So his only two choices with that boy was too let him go or shoot him? He couldn't bring himself too shoot the boy, But he could have took him prisoner.
@@timothycook3566 lmao let's see you in that situation
@@itscrono7073 You're right, But I like to think I'd kill the fucking crout, or take his ass prisoner.
@@itscrono7073 No, this is pretty antithetical to everything we're trained for these days. I get that it's different times and different enemies, but a guy who's terrified one second can still find his courage later on and rejoin the fight. In that situation I could understand not shooting him, but you absolutely take the enemy prisoner. Otherwise, one of your fellow soldiers could be killed by him at any point in the future, and then that's on your head. If we were to see that happen these days that soldier in question would be NJP'd at a minimum, if not court martial'd.
And that soldier went on to kill a bunch of actual innocents. Good job.
For those that didn't put it together. The whole "shoot before you think" part of that skinner training, is also part of the reason we had a bit of an issue with Friendly fire. It works fine enough when there is a front, or when the unit is operating all in one stack, but when you break up into groups to clear. If those rooms came together and shooting started, the reaction was the same. Training did shift, to try and minimize this, increasing communication so that teams can expect fire from another room and recognize it as being from a friendly, but it still happens
As a gamer who played a good bunch of milsims, I can confirm completely that after a time where you "get good", you might just turn a corner and light up a guy, and only then realise it was a friendly.
Granted, it's a very different conditioning happening - you aren't actually _killing_ anyone - but the core principles of reward and punishment are the same, so I believe it's a good demonstration of the principle.
@@darth_dan8886 Reminds me of how the very first time I played ARMA, I unloaded a whole magazine into some random guy because I was already so terrified by the idea of some Viet Cong soldier popping out of the jungle I panicked and just started firing.
@@doob195 Yep, sounds about right.
@@darth_dan8886 Uniforms matter a lot, I played nearly a thousand hours of Red Orchestra 2 and 80% of that time I played as the germans. So I got used to surpressing and shooting guys wearing brown, yellow and green colours, while wearing pilotkas and bowl helmets (Soviets), while aiding and not shooting guys wearing gray, white or black colours, while wearing coal scuttle helmets (Germans).
Also Axis soldiers (Germans and Japanese) sprint while holding their weapon on one hand and Allied soldiers (Soviets and Americans) sprint while holding their weapon with both hands, so even if you cannot see their clothes properly, you can distinguish them via their silhouettes... Though most milsims do not have something akin to this.
When you integrate these infos into your reflexes you never shoot friendlies no matter the circumstances of your position. May it be the hard to see envinroments, long distances or pure chaos.
That being said, friendly fire still happens from time to time. But its mainly because of poor positioning. Like a newbie or an idiot running in front of a firing MG or hip-firing with a high fire-rate weapon in close quarters combat with friendlies around.
My old art teacher told us a story about his father or grandfather... can't remember... either way they where a tank operator in WWII. He had to go out for a poo one night, but what he didn't know was there was a sniper watching them. Now shooting a man with his pants down is low but instead of shooting him he shot the bucket he was pooping in.
Apparently covering his back side and making him smell bad.
My teacher would go on saying he was glad the sniper had a sense of humor or he wouldn't be alive.
Who poops into a bucket on the front lines? If I'm somewhere between France and Germany at the edge of a forest I'm simply going to shit wherever I damn please, there is no reason to be sanitary about it.
So... that is your moral of the story?
CheezeWuz we in germany have a term for someone who is scared, that is "Schisser" (Shitter)because it was only allowed to leave you Position, if you had to satisfy your urgent needs.
Same for the Term "sich zu verpissen" (to piss off)
for going away/to flee
He'd have literally been shooting at someone with his pants down.
A bucket gives a person something to sit on. He didn't say it was a bucket they either carried with them or, if they did, use for anything other than a place to take a dump, then dump out. Remember that the English and Americans are used to sitting on a toilet - I don't think that Cheeze's teacher was Asian and, thus, used to stooping.
Can they stoop, or lean against something? Sure - but why would they when they could easily carry a 'shit pail' on the rear of the tank for such uses.
So in short if you want to win a war, recruit a load of psychopaths XD
XXDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
Sivert Heide yeah...
Of course...U don't want to get slaughtered with a bunch of pacifist hippies lol
Sigaby The Mage Gang members, serial killers, murderers and so on.
Did you not watch whole thing? You don't need psychopaths in today's military, you just need conditioning, you need to teach people to pull the trigger without thinking about it. Besides, there are only so many psychopaths in the world, never mind the fact employing them leads to problems down the line.
In fact, I would say a modern military does it all can to avoid psychopaths, they are too unstable, and the lack of emotional bond cuts both ways. Far easier to just train them to kill without thinking about it. US military in WWII only 2% shoot to kill, only half of that 2% were psychopaths, yet today, US military has achieved over 95% shoot to kill ratio. Brain washing is far more effective then psychopaths have ever been!
This is definitely a point backed up by Sebastian Junger's book "Tribe." In that, he confirms that across all available psychological studies of the military, the most traumatizing thing a soldier can experience is watching someone else die, regardless of whether it's an ally or an enemy. The vast majority of soldiers reported that they would much rather be in a situation that endangers their own life, such as taking artillery fire or getting shot at by enemy snipers, than a situation that requires them to kill someone else.
"I'm not killing them i'm putting them too sleep...
Permanently...
With lots of blood loss"
That one soldier
"I once met a soldier who though of his gun as a time machine. He wasn't killing men, he was sending them forward in time to a point where they were no longer alive."
(From Halo: Reach, but I can't remember the name of the character that said it.)
@@mitwhitgaming7722 one of the bazillion marines can say it randomly
@@Gussyboy06 I think it was Emile, I just couldn't think of his name a second ago.
@@mitwhitgaming7722 i am definite that it was a marine
@DIO 🅱️RUH!!
A wise man once said "A soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him".
what was his name?
Originally the quote I saw read anonymous, but upon doing some minor research the original speaker of this quote is Gilbert K. Chesterton, and his version reads "The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him."
gayyyyee
Alternatively because he loves those beside him.
An amazing quote.
So this explains why the bad guys in movies cant aim at all
they are just nice deep inside...
Maybe in the star wars universe they never learned about this part of psychology so all the stormtroopers are just normal guys that don't want to hit anyone
And it's the heroes who are the real monsters! D:
weren't storm troopers basically 6 month old clones?
though i guess it would explain why they where better able to kill off droids
Of course the heroes are the real monsters. Heck they loot everything not nailed down to the floor and slaughter dungeons full of monsters like it was nothing.
poor stormtroopers...
I agree with you that this is a fact. From my own experiences in Iraq, if 3 soldiers in a squad had it in them to pick up their heads and return fire, only 1 was taking aimed shots. The other two were just burning ammo to make noise. Our LT always wanted to know how much ammo was expended in an engagement, and you'd get these kinds of answers: "I fired 2 full mags", "I fired 17 rounds", "I fired 4 rounds"... invariably there'd be four enemy kia.
A bit late to the show here, but the category of killing from love describes Audie Murphy perfectly. The seventh of twelve children born into abject poverty in rural Texas, he provided his family with food by shooting small game; think of pop-up targets. In combat, he went berserk when his best friend Lattie Tipton was killed, and is a good example of the forebrain shutting off and instinct and rage taking over. This concept of killing from love allied when he performed the action that won him the CMOH near Holzwihr in 1945. He sent his men to the rear and continued to fight. Audie, he was plagued by PTSD the rest of his life, and he was a vocal proponent for treatment for vets suffering from it almost before they had a name for it other than "battle fatigue", or "shell shock".
Great video, as all of yours, and I really enjoy them, Lindy. Keep up the great work!
This isn’t a normal Channel. There is actually love and time put into these videos. All respect earned.
Perfectly put sir, i can tell a truth teller when i hear one. Shoot to kill distorts the minds of soldiers. They go back home facing another war waiting for them. And this one is silent. There are many war vets who are mentally disturbed and behave like they are still in the battle field, especially when they encounter an adrenaline rushing situation. You'll hear them yelling "incoming" and going for cover. Soldiers are meant to be non thinking killing machines. But they are not Drones, they have emotions. They go through a frequent terror of emotional shifts, from killing for love to killing out of fear. Wars are inevitable but no man out there likes killing another.
Lesedi Ben there always an exception
Except for islamists who go to heaven for killing infidels. Ideological processing also works.
What's an Islamist?
A muslim fanatic.
Roman Soloduhin but doesn't that apply to any armed fanatic regardless of thier beliefs?
Some dead guy said... Out of 100 men
“Out of every one hundred men, ten shouldn't even be there, eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back.”
-Heraclitus
Good quote
@@Holuunderbeere it is .. the history of the US soldiers Marines is proof.
What I love about this channel is that this is both wholesome, yet consistent. When Lindybeige discussed artillery being the main cause of death in both world wars, there is no seeing the person being afraid and its just firing a big gun and only hearing about how it might kill people vs. seeing them. These men don't have to see the enemy, they dont have to aim their gun at an enemy, they're "aiming at a target." while machineguns killed about 15% were machineguns kills in WW2 so that guy holding the trigger down to pin the enemy down and having a flurry of bullets flying towards a target with some flying around and then some hitting a man by chance if not on purpose.
There is an unusual consistency to human behavior established in the findings Lindybeige conveys to us from research on research.
Humans are humans after all.
The same is with bomber crews. You are just dropping bombs you dont see the people who are being killed. There was a really good episode on M.A.S.H. about a pilot dropping bombs and not seeing the damage its doing.
Yeah. With this context, the militaries' fascination with fully automatic weapons and "accuracy by volume" suddenly makes a lot of sense.
Not because it's actually better than a single shot or a short burst, but because it has actual real chance to hit when the shooter isn't quite aiming.
@@darth_dan8886 Not just that but even looking back and wincing at some decisions, seeing how out if touch old men were and still kind of are with an increasingly modern world. Like how the U.S., Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia aimed to get semi automatic rifles standardized, with the Soviets having some developmental problems with the AVS-36 select fire rifle having reliability issues before they made the SVT-38 and then the 40 before having to fall back on the Mosin somewhat due to how easy and cheap it was to produce. Then once they regained elbow room they made the SKS rifle and the RPD machinegun as the first real light machinegun before introducing the AK platform as they went from people who thought cavalry would outlast tanks due to WW1 experiences to making some modern weapons. The idea being "individual soldiers can make a difference, their rifles should give them greater ability to fight" while Germany, by contrast, was very reluctant to do the same and tried making the bolt Mauser the way to go as they believed Machineguns were the real firepower in squads and Mausers supporting them is sufficient. America was weird about automatic weapons and they thought it was wasteful so they would accept machinegun with lower rates of fire and this was reflected in the M16A2 where the U.S. Army decided a 3 shot burst was more sensible than automatic fire. And between WW2 and Vietnam the AK existed and was doing well while the West tried battle rifle as intermediate rounds were thought to be "too weak." Only for Battle Rifles to be largely too unwieldy and having less ammo on each soldier. Like you can tell when a visionary is at the helm of decision making and someone clueless and it pops up far more noticeably than before.
It's incredible
Would be interesting to check if these statistics change when it's a war of survival where defeat can mean the destruction of your nation (independence wars and such)
actually heard about a theory that american casualties in vietnam were that high despite their greater gunpower, not only because of vietkong guerillia positioning and such but also because, contraryly to the vietkong, american soldiers didn't feel a reason to fight and so to kill there.
SuperKarlFriedrich May also explain how Israel managed to defeat all of its surrounding neighbors in 1948
Well check out the winter war.
mr box Like what the Afghan military did when they dropped their guns and ran from IS/ISIS and when France surrendered and collaborated with Nazis Germany? xD
You might find interesting to read about Israel's independence war - especially in the stages where it was losing. However these things already happened in the past, situations where you have no where to run and you know you gonna die. World War 2 is full of such stories, some of which are forgotten.
5:42
*Sees German troops.
"OI, YOU LOT, GET OFF MY BLOODY FRANCE,
GO ON, CLEAR OFF, THE BLEEDIN' LOT OF YOU.
...YOUR MOTHERS WILL BE HEARING ABOUT THIS!!!"
The quiet guy in the platoon: *Loads Sten with murderous intent *
I was involved in trials with Simunition (the 'paintballs' you referred to). The behaviour of soldiers was markedly different from when using the laser weapon simulators. Some became really gung-ho. One guy even jumped out of a first floor window to get at the enemy he was so excited - and broke his ankle and was still on a high. Whilst others f*cked about with their equipment rather than get stuck in during the firefights. I have also been involved in trials with troops using standard paintball guns. They viewed that as more of a game than with Simunition and generally really enjoyed themselves. I think it is to do with knowing the live round capabilities of their weapons (Simunition is used in their standard small arms) that had different connotations than the paintball markers. All in all it was really interesting to see.
My grandfather was in the German Wehrmacht and he always told me that he never fired a single shot at the enemy because he was scared and didn't want to harm anyone... Loads of soldiers said the same. He ended up as POW in France and returned to Germany many years later with a clear conscious not to have killed.
what if he missed a shot on someone who later wiped out his fellow soldiers?
"Himmler in summary - not a nice chap" that sentence made me laugh so hard 😂😂
it's a pretty accurate summary.
I think that's called dry humor
High-n-rish Him-lah
@Nemean Lion german here with a good grip on my country's history. He really wasnt a nice chap.
STRENG GEHEIM
It seems LindyBeige was getting a little emotional when he performed this.
I was told by my Drill Instructor once that modern day soldiers (in the US, at least), are having to be taught NOT to take shots. Their (my) training is so effective that the conditioned response we were given is now so prevalent that even in situations that it isn't ideal, soldiers will take shots just because. I thought he was bs'ing me, until I left the Army, and while I was at work, I had an instinct to attack another person. Not a psychopathic urge, not an angry thought, just a tiny part of my brain that said "finish this, move on," and I went to the bathroom and got a case of the shakes. Not a good time.
Yes, but then most of these studies were of wars where men were often enlisted, with a minimum of training.
+OddballEasyEight you meant to say "conscripted".
thgreatandini Yeah, sorry, I'm swedish. Lost in translation, I guess.
I believe your accounts would go quite well with what was said here. If you have a training that started after WWII that conditions you to go for a kill, that`d become a problem in the future, thus training the men NOT to take shots to counter the initial training. As he said, you get that ball going but don´t have a clear idea of how to stop it.
I hope you have a good long life, I can`t imagine what it´s like to be in your situation.
No, he's correct in saying enlisted; Many WW2 countries didn't perform any conscription at all, but enlistment of healthy men reached an exceedingly high percentage of available numbers. Canada, for instance, only conscripted a few hundred or thousand, and none actually left Canada to go to the Theatre of War.
My brother was a helicopter door gunner in Vietnam. One day, after he had left the Army, he told me a story. His copter was dropping off some Vietnamese dignitaries at a clearing to attend a meeting. As they were lifting off, a message came in over the radio. One of those dignitaries was a North Vietnamese spy, but they didn't know which one of them it was. My brother was ordered to take his M-60 and kill all three of the dignitaries. He didn't say that he shot them, but, of course, he must have. There was a look of distress on his face as he told the story. That was the closest he ever came to telling me that he killed anyone during the war. He seemed a bit odd for several years. I believe he has, after all these years, finally been able to get it out of his mind. I hope so, anyway.
He did good 👍 that's a soldier.
crazy story i would have shot them all too!
Jesus! What a position to be put in. Kill twice as many innocent as guilty, what a burden
Fuck man I'm sorry he had to live with that. I feel like they put the wrong people in those types of positions and it just fucks with them so bad for a long time. Which is completely unfair and a horrible thing to put people through especially conscripts which was most in nam. I often wonder if I should had joined military I didn't because the pay is garbage and the medical aide I hear is a nightmare. Plus honestly the real reason I couldn't qualify because of a wreck I was in when I was 13. That shit FUCKED ME UP lol But if I received an order like that I'm pretty sure I'd feel nothing. I don't know why I'm like this I've always had good friends and family but for some reason I feel absolutely nothing when it comes to doing heinous shit. I hope I'm wrong but I also know myself pretty well. At least there is self control. If there wasn't I would be screwed
As someone who recently went through basic millitary training it was incredibly interesting to learn about the psychology behind it
When I was in high school in the 70’s, a friend’s dad was a conscript in the Wehrmacht during WW2. I am from the generation where many of teachers and parents went through WW2 on the allied side, so we knew enough not to ask veterans “did you kill any Germans?”. Anyway, after a few beers at my friend’s place with his dad, he started talking about his first kill on the Russian Front. Being a product of the Hitlerjugend and ceaseless propaganda, he told us how automatic it all was. He was on the front for just a few days and spotted a Soviet patrol close to their position. He said he raised his Sturmgewehr, lined his sights on the centre of mass of the “man shaped target” as he was taught, and squeezed the trigger like a robot. The Soviet soldier fell immediately. Initially, he felt no remorse mostly because he was brainwashed to think the Soviets were not humans but beasts.
Later once the Soviets retreated, he saw the poor unfortunate Soviet conscript he personally killed. It wasn’t until then he saw that he was indeed a human. He said that he couldn’t describe the horrible feeling he had, and revealed he hopes that we (my friend and myself) never had to do that.
"so we knew enough not to ask veterans “did you kill any Germans?”" What why? The first thing I ever asked my ancestors about wars they have fought in is how affective they where on the battle field.
"he told us how automatic it all was." That is how it is supposed to be, thinking is slow you need to operate on trained instinct and muscule momory.
"He said he raised his Sturmgewehr, lined his sights on the centre of mass of the “man shaped target” as he was taught, and squeezed the trigger like a robot. The Soviet soldier fell immediately." All correct here. Like in the text books and practace.
"Initially, he felt no remorse" What Why?
"he was brainwashed to think the Soviets were not humans but beasts." I highly doubt that.
"It wasn’t until then he saw that he was indeed a human." So what? Did he think he was shooting at something else?
"He said that he couldn’t describe the horrible feeling he had" Why did he have bad feelings, war is war people die.
"he hopes that we (my friend and myself) never had to do that." I guarnte you that the germans born after 2000 will have to fight to survive.
@@gunarsmiezis9321 the guy is just retelling what he heard, cut him some slack.
@@gunarsmiezis9321 "War is war people die" does not equal that killing other people is not horrible. Also why do you think germans are going to war anytime soon?
what an asshole
@@gunarsmiezis9321 Really genuinely curious what you are implying with that last sentence
When I was in the army 20 years ago, they explained to us why we spent endless hours on the shooting range and why the targets looked like the top half of a man. To turn it into a reflex. So you would shot to kill without thinking. They mentioned the statistic from WW2, and they also mentioned something from Vietnam. Something about how many bullets were shot, and how many died. They also showed us many videos of what to expect. Which were basicly propaganda videos about how good field hospitals were. Shot in the face? Missing half a face? Your teeth stuck to your own forehead? No problem.. We will fix it. And we were shown them fair few times. To make us ready for what to expect when the shit hits the fan.
ecabernet THE Army? Which army?
guessing from ww2 and vietnam probably US. could be french though
The statistic about rounds fired per kill in Vietnam doesn't really support Lindy's argument, what it says is twofold.
1: Jungle combat is terrible for accuracy.
2: There are reasons to fire a rifle other than to kill someone (suppression).
actually the rounds fired has more to do with what the AR is capable of, its also why they only let us have 3 round burst now
Your two claims are actually both false:
The AR-15/M16 Platform is an inherently accurate design, far and above what we've had to this point in history. The lockup design on them makes them very repeatable, and means that it's fairly easy to find an AR-15 which will do at least 1 MOA for mechanical accuracy on a bad day for less than $1000. What made the M16 what it was in Vietnam was a combination of bad ammo (different pressure-curve than designed), and a lack of training due to the US Army being mainly draftees. Few people ever get significant exposure to firearms, and we (the US) were drafting them to fight and not giving them enough training. What is more significant is that iron-sighted M16s are less capable than rifles equipped with optical sights which we have now, so there is some credence to your point there. This has led to the standardization of optical sights on US military rifles.
The other claim that we now only have 3 round burst selectors now is also false. The early 1980's saw the adoption of the M16A2 and M4 Carbine rifles, which did feature a S-1-3 selector switch, but the A2 has since been phased out in favor of the M16A4 and the M4A1 Carbine which have gone back to a S-1-F selector layout. The reason we moved to a S-1-3 selector was because of experience in Vietnam with, again, draftees. Draftees never got enough training on proper fire discipline, and were often liable to do mag dumps with their rifles in full-auto. This lead directly to the adoption of the S-1-3 selector layout which has since been phased out now that we have a professional military.
The last minute was absolutely mind-blowing, made a really good point 💯 I really do advise to watch all this vid.
Cheers Lindybeige.👍🏽
Thank you!
Well spoken and true to my experience.
another thing is the psychological use of dehumanizing the enemy. if you see the enemy as a monster rather than a man it is easier to shoot. this can be seen in posters from WWII the Cold War and many others
yes, the idea was definitely taken to a whole new level in that one black mirror ep
+Rundra Which one ?
I think the episodes name was "Men of Steel", second season
and what about the french?
My thoughts exactly. It's kind of hard to not be afraid of Muslims when you're being led to believe any one of them is willing to blow you up in the name of religion.
But since our brains are wired to sense dangers, these are the signals we pick up instead of "he's a human driving a cab" or "she's selling the stocks of her business to become a partner in a climate initiative".
... Actually, that last bit might sound terrifying to some people.
I can concur with this....
As a US Marine, I did two tours in Iraq and left the wire often. I never fired my rifle one time in anger.
Salute
Jesus man!!! What the hell were you doing in combat without the fortitude to pull the damn trigger?
Agron Legioneras I was never in combat is what Im telling you.
LibertarianUSA1982 oh lol
LibertarianUSA1982
Korengal Valley myself. Where were you deployed?
Excellently constructed and delivered piece. Very well done.
I saw the video 5 years ago, 3 years ago I did my final project of a psicology class about it but just with what I remembered, because I couldn’t find the video. Today I stumbled it on my feed, the title was interesting and as soon I clicked, I realized it was THAT video.
Saving it on my favorites and rewatching it again after so many years.
Thanks for the video
I understand its more of a built in biological mechanism not wanting to kill your own kind, but still feel like its a nice thing for humanities sake.
well, i would probably have a lot more problems with killing a dog puppy than i would have with shooting some terrorist douchebag for example
+TWARDY A criminal is a bit different kind of a target than a soldier that's a legit combatant and someone who's in the same position as you are but only on the other side.
TWARDY You say that, but when it comes to actually shooting some one, most people can't shoot, as said in the video, unless your some psycho,its not a show of weakness, just that you are human. I'm sure the US soldiers going to Europe during WW2 thought the same, "I'm gonna kill all the nazis". most did not.
I don't understand why it is so hard to take a life
You wouldnt because youve never done it. Its the same reaction you have when your trying to do something your scared of. You, unwillingly, dont want to do it and have to make yourself do it. Obviously though killing a human is a much harder response to overcome than doing something your scared of.
I knew this old man who as a teenager fought on the Nationalist's side in the Spanish Civil War, he once told me that he allways shot to kill and he allways volunteered for firing squad duty because he reasoned that the more he killed the sooner the war would end. What a sorry species we are...
That is a very natural way to view it.
It must be quite a situation. One of my uncles told my father that once they had to stop a major offensive and at one point he simply got out of his trench exposing himself while holding a heavy machine gun and shooting from the hip in total disregard of what could happen to him, it was pure desperation.
I a weird fucked up way he is kinda right. I guess his logic was the more I kill the less amount of time everybody else will have to suffer.
Please explain how that logic makes us a sorry species... If someone wants to kill me, kill my men, potentially kill everyone I love, or torture them (certain middle eastern terrorist groups would love nothing more than to do that), I would not feel bad about killing them. I would probably just feel a lot of anger and hate if I got into a gun fight with them, but even if they didn't shoot first, I don't see why it would be wrong of me to shoot to kill them, considering they are there purely to kill me and my men.
Mikkel Jørgensen That is very easy to say when you haven't been in a situation where you have the choice to kill someone.
Brilliant video, so very true. Human beings are not the cold blooded killers often claimed, most of the most notorious killers never harmed a fly themselves, but they convinced others to do it.
After almost 20 years in uniform and numerous operational deployments I can hand on heart say that without conditioned training most would never fire at their target, it has to be instinctive.
However, as spoken of, there seems little effort in deprogramming those trained to act not think. It takes a lot of staying power to suppress instincts.
All personnel who have seen combat have PTSD even if they do not realise it.
Your channel is informative and also entertaining. Thanks.
So basically this is why storm troopers keeps missing. The rebels are just a bunch of psychos which makes sense since they blew up the death star which must have had a bunch of civilian engineers and support personnel.
Except, ya know, stormtroopers hit every target they're meant to in the films unless otherwise told by their commanders.
You see the targets that stormtroopers can't hit are protected by this thing called 'plot' armour
Francesco Salem They hit Leia and R2-D2, though.
True
Set blasters to stun!
On the subject of World Wars, would there also not be a huge difference between say an American Soldier, who went half way across the world to participate in a war that they are told to by a bureaucrat in power, versus, say a Polish resistance soldier whose family was killed, home destroyed, and country occupied by the enemy? Perhaps even a difference between the aggressor / invading force vs. those defending their homeland and families?
Volkier Neigh i think your on to something there. as i understand it the resistance groups in france and greece and whatnot were pretty hardcore
You can link this to some of the points in the video. Attackers/Invaders are aggressive and threatening and therefore easier to kill. People defending a home are stationary and you don't want to fight them.
I don't know if Resistance is very effective in killing germans, but I heard that without the informations dealed by the REsistance, Normandy's landing were been very harder, and perhaps impossible. I think Resistance is pretty effective in spy and intelligence ^^
in the revolutionary war it was said that british soldiers often were confused since they were basically fighting their own like a civil war which made them lose morale, as well as fighting for a king rather than an ideal
Israel
Those last 2 sentences are actually very important. Well worth the time to watch, thanks Lindy. Merry Christmas!
Utterly fascinating video, thanks
PTSD is no weakness of soldiers - its the sickness of experience
It's by defnintion a disorder. PTS is often just the normal reaction to a highly abnormal experience.
Who would ever be ignorant enough to claim that PTSD is a weakness of Soldiers?
@@b.l.9764 PTSD is a weakness. Its caused by a soldier living a protected mommas boy life, never being in a fight in his life, and then suddenly going to war and seeing real raw life.
This is exactly why the military tries to screen volunteers: to make sure they are psychologically advanced to withstand the harsh realities of combat
A good example is fishing and hunting. If you've never hunted or fished in your life, your first experience at killing something will be quiet difficult. It will be even more difficult if you had been brought up as a sissy or if you are just not used to getting new experiences.
Artyom Arty I’ve been in the Army for 17 years and have known several Soldiers with some level to severe PTSD. People that were definitely not sissies as you put it or lived mommas boy lives. You are a ridiculous short sighted &$#!, probably incapable of having a half cognitive thought in your limited half empty skull.
@@artyomarty391, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder is caused by trauma-inducing events or experiences: for some this is the horrors of war, for some it happens to be a rough childhood or even a near-death experience, and for survivors like myself it happens to be from abuse.
You are perfectly welcome to call us what you will, but just remember that there's a good portion of us (including myself) who've got a ton of muscle and determination to survive against the odds: and we do Not take kindly to people who think they've got us all figured out.
Next Time, go do some research ya twit.
Damn! Is it any wonder soldiers have trouble adjusting to civilian life when they come back from war?
There's a saying that soldiers at war dream of peace while soldiers at peace dream of war.
Mostly...
It’s those closest to us that have to deal with the problems that such training brings with it. Unfortunately there aren’t enough wives that are strong enough to cope with the fallout, hence I’m eternally grateful for my wife’s understanding and patience. The things she has put up with might find their way into a book that might help the families of veterans in the future, but not quite yet as we have the little issue of my terminal cancer to finish off first.
@@Lord_Ronin_The_Compassionate Sir, I'm sorry for what you had to go through. I can't say anything personal as we are strangers but i hope you find peace.
I wonder what the armourers who filled up planes with 4lb incendiaries night after night thought.
Thank you for this video. It helped me understand some important things.
Great video. Really enjoyed this.
ok this explains why the Storm Troppers in Star Wars always miss
"good guys" don't miss
they did not really flinch to kill anyone...
Well, they could've just cloned men who shoot to kill right?
Apparently the end of the Clone Wars gave them a coscience.
Came here to say this!
You really must recognize he does this is a single cut scene. incredible!
Funny Farmer good point.
director level: Rope
I have learnt so much, thank u Lindybeige
That nagging feeling that the enemy is the person who set you against the other bloke...
I had no personal animosity towards the Vietnamese. I felt that my enemy was Lyndon Baines Johnson and Local Board 112. By the grace of God, and six pounds, I flunked the physical.
"The ones who call the shots won't be among the dead and lame, and on each end of the rifle we're the same."
its not so hard to kill another human being as long as that human being posses a threat to your life. either you kill him or he kills you. killing an innocent civilian is a different matter.
bilal SADIQ well i personally wouldn't find it hard to do.
I think that's what alot of people would say until they are actually in the position where they can
lokustic it's completely different saying i wouldn't find it hard to do and actually looking at someone dying because of you
jesus christ, you're a kid... you have no idea what it's really like to be in that situation
ZeonWatches its not hard to kill with a gun if theres no repercussion and the situation is like what i stated in the beginning.
looks like we need to redistribute fighter jet proficiency from the greedy 1%
lol liberals
anime sucks The pilots have nothing to lose but their chains.
anime sucks underrated comments
amazing hahaha
The pilots have nothing to lose but their planes.
A fascinating and enlightening piece on a very misunderstood subject....Thanks.
Excellent video, Sir.
When I see any other video that is over 15 minutes long I think to myself "man this is way too long, Im not gonna watch it". But when Lindy uploads a 23 minute long video, it's not enough.
I've skipped this video several times because it was too long. But Im glad I did watch.
22:30 to the end is perhaps the MOST important part of this video.
This was by far the best explanation of PTSD due to killing that I have heard.
Yeah possibly the most meaningful minute I spent on youtube
lol. trained killing machine who's been told that killing is wrong after having a nice body count
the answer is never wage war
So interesting. What a great video. Food for thought.
A truly heartening exposition.
“Wired differently upstairs” is a really good insult
Depends on how you view the majority of the population. I would see it as a great compliment
not really. some of us are quite pleased to be "wired differently upstairs" - not in a "let's see how many people we can deconstruct" way. just a bit "off the wall". I don't really like people. I FUCKING LOVE animals & would end humanity rather than see my pet get a runny nose - I mean, I can't. but if I could? farewell Homo Sapien. there are about 25 humans I would keep. the rest, i'd neither help nor hinder their survival or extinction. unless they fell into my "Hated" category in which case i'd like to put them in DEEP fekn hole, douse them with Pitch-oil & throw a burning zippo in. Tell me i'm "WDU", i'm as like to thank you.
Only in England
Amen, man. "Flush out your headgear, New Guy."
@@pfalky2k zippocat zippocat zippocat
Very VERY good video, couldn't stop watching untill the end. A Fantastic job. +1 like
Completely agree with +Metatron. This was a fantastic topic, Lloyd. Enjoyed every minute! Your discussion on VC winners reminded me of Jeremy Clarkson's documentary, The Victoria Cross - For Valour. Highly recommended if you have not seen it already. His other documentary on The Greatest Raid of All is equally good.
Like he said. Ditto
If you are interested in the topic, check out the book On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society. I suspect that is where he got the information discussed in the video.
Exactly! I clicked on this video out of curiosity and had many things to go and do at the time. But without even noticing, I had already finished the whole 23 minute video! That's how you know you have an engaging and well-written discussion or speaker!
White racism needs to be stopped. Black supremacy is the only solution to stop white privilege.
i was having a conversation with my friends about whether they could kill someone and they seemed taken aback about how quickly i said yes. i'm older brother with 4 younger siblings and no dad and yes you absolutely get this father like love for your siblings feeling like you need to protect them.
As the Oldest Brother who's dad had to work jobs away from home a lot, I agree with your sentiment.
I actually have a fear that I would hesitate in a scenario that would require me to kill someone.
The Idea of my siblings, family, friends, or even people around me getting hurt or even killed because I failed or hesitated is terrifying to me.
Profound and informative. Thank you.
Hello Lindybeige! I've translated the video to Polish... don't ask me how many hours I've spent o.O :D But it's worth it, I think (unless you won't accept my work) :S Have a look in your free time, please.
Greetings from Poland! :)
People like you are awesome :). I don’t speak polish as I am American (Although I do know quite a few Americans who do, as they are ethnically Polish), but I love that you took your time to do that.
it's a very good translation thuogh
Janusz! Janusz!
You're awesome for doing that! It made it in the video.
@@castlehill6717 kielbasa and bigos!
You mad lad 👏🏽
"the rifle is only a tool it is the hard heart that kills" Gunnery Sergeant Hartman
I think another thing that’s worth mentioning - and I’m going to preface this by saying I’m an avid gamer and in no way do I oppose FPS games or advocate their censorship - is that modern soldiers have been growing up playing video games that have been putting them in heavily sanitised combat conditions for decades. Effectively, the conditioning began as children, then got dialled up to full blast when they enlisted.
Was feeling quite depressed. This made me feel a bit better. Thank you mate
My grandfather fought in ww2 for all of its duration, he was in the Scotts guards. And he quite openly told me if he didn’t have to kill someone he didn’t but then that all changed when there was a German solider he didn’t shoot because he told me he looked like a teenager and reminded him of his brother (my grandad was in his early 20s) and about 40 minutes later there was a massive explosion. The person he didn’t shoot ended up blowing up a British tank crew in there tank. He told me from then on he didn’t think of them as men he saw them and possibilities. Possibly they could kill someone he knew later on in the war. He told me he killed 8 German men and 4 Italian. He had it scratched on his lee Enfield Which we still have today on our wall above the fire place. Edit: Just thought I’d leave this comment here. I’m so upset people are comparing my grandfathers story to fury. That film is one of the worst war films I’ve scene. Pearl harbour is number 1 most hated war film if anyone was wondering. I’m close to becoming an alcoholic because of these fury comments. If I was going to make a story up I’d choose a good film/story such as saving private Ryan, band of brothers or a bridge to far. You can call me a lair but I know my grandfather was a war hero and I respect him so much. When UA-cam allows photos to be posted in the comments is the day I post the war records, his rifle, his medals and his personal letter to his wife talking about the incidents he was in. Thank you all for reading my comment. I have flikr If anyone would like to see the photos, have a good day
Casey Jack what an interesting story. Thanks for sharing it with us.
I wonder how many grandpa stories are actually real.
Kristina Petrov I don’t know what you are trying to imply but my story is 100% truth. he’s my idol and I wouldn’t make up lies just to get a couple of likes on UA-cam.
Casey Jack I think he's trying to say that he wonders how many stories from grandfathers are embellished. I don't think it was a personal insult to your grandfather, but it is an acknowledgement that human memory is fickle and oftentimes those kinds of stories are mistold later on?
Cliche Guevara yeah
It's also worth noting that just shooting under stress is a lot harder than shooting on a flat range. Law Enforcement Officers have about an 18% hit rate in the field, even though they hit the target 100% on the flat range. When adrenaline is surging, your shaky hands turn a 7-yard target into a 21-yard target.
Every actual police shooting ive ever seen has been a ridiculous mag dump as fast as possible.
US LEO "training" is typically poor and many enthusiasts are far better shots. Our educational requirements are lax too with a few exceptions. Note that many EU police carry SMGs yet don't have near the use of force problems the US does. America has more vanity than professionalism and it shows.
@@obfuscated3090 Going on tangent, but not changing to the metric system just to be different is peak vanity.
Why shouldn't the law enforcement officers also be subject to the lack of desire to kill? This test broadly agrees with that musket test Lindy mentioned.
@@obfuscated3090 or maybe it's because in most European countries we have nowhere near as much problems with gang crime etc where there are deadly encounters with suspects. Police officers in the us operate in a much more dangerous environment than here in Germany
I'm pretty sure most of our German police officers would do worse in deadly encounters than American police officers while I think they are better at everything else that is police related because most training is talking etc and not so much to fight but I think that is the big weakness of our police if they'd ever be in a deadly encounter
Excellent video. What you refer to as "Skinnerian Psychology" is actually called Behaviorism . Skinner was the grandfather of Behaviorism. His works, especially Beyond Reason and Dignity, are equal parts genuis and insanity.
Great video!
So, perhaps this is part of why PTSD is more common for modern soldiers than it used to be?
It isn't more common, we just don't sweep it under the rug as much. Many, many, many veterans of WW1 and the US Civil War had PTSD.
"Shell shock" "Combat fatigue" "Yellow belly". All pretty much PTSD.
It may be simultaneously more common than it used to be AND also less frequently swept under the rug because it's slightly better understood or at least more researched.
The last point to me isn't so much about PTSD as that you have instilled a conditioned reflex into a man to shoot to kill a threat. Then he now has to live with an internal conflict that has left him unstable. When that instability manifests "going postal" as they say they still retain that conditioned reflex to shoot to kill, kill without making the reasoned decision to kill or not to kill.
And as my own addition. In the United States at least many ex military find jobs in police departments, or such departments also train with such conditioning where that conditioned reflex can trigger and lead to shootings such as Philando Castile.
It's true that any number of soldiers from any number of wars, conflicts, "police actions," etc. suffer(ed) from PTSD; however, there IS a correlative link between rates/severity of suffering and actually, personally, DIRECTLY killing other human beings. That's not to suggest that the causes of PTSD aren't many and complex; modern warfare is MUCH different in type, scale, and continuity of direct combat involvement from any other type of warfare in human history. However, because modern training methods are geared toward making more soldiers actually, personally, DIRECTLY kill other people, modern soldiers DO experience PTSD at higher rates and to greater degrees.Yes, some of that is because of higher rates of reporting, but ONLY some of it. The best source I'm aware of that explains this in all its complexity is Lt. Colonel Dave Grossman's "On Killing."
Well an important difference to keep in mind is the fact that in ww1 and ww2 we had a draft but since then we've become an entirely volunteer army. You have to choose to join. I think that makes a big difference
While there is a difference people recruited are often manipulated into it by various techniques.
Made zero difference. The training aspect is what was needed. The major difference between ww2 and Vietnam training was the military killed green pop men that would fall. Vs a circle target on paper
Fantastic work.
Why is this man so interesting to listen to? I'm new here in this channel and I'm binge watching.
My grandfather was in WWII and told me that he didn't shoot to kill. I just now begin to understand why. War is horrible and innocent men were in it on both sides.
Just to add something, this phenomenon has also been documented on new hunters that can't shoot the deer in the crosshair.
Not if the enemy think like you...:)
+iNsaneMilesy When you get shot you don't keep fighting the same if you injure them it's almost the same effect as killing
I think this would allways depend from the situation and the outcome will be anytime a different...So yes, injuries will not (allways) kept people from fighting furthermore...
+iNsaneMilesy it all depends on how you are injured. If you take one through your lung you won't go far or a 7.62x39 through your femur you won't go far either.
For some reason i always stumble upon your videos minutes after they are uploaded
Illumibeige.
+Imhornydadcomeinside Ok. That was funny.
Lloyd sense
Then u should state that fact by announcingthat you're FIRST
*****
Ah shit, a wice guy.
Excellent video
Fascinating stuff !
This restored my faith in humanity a bit
Same, but it made me sad learning how people are trained to kill.
Rob Lecheler yeah me too ;(
I was going to say exactly the same thing.
Truly we really have improve our kill counts you can thank quick shooter games for that.
To be honest, if you are a soldier, its your job to kill to protect your comrades and your countrymen.
WW1 = "I couldn't shoot or bayonet someone". WW2= "If I had to perhaps".
Gulf War = "Wow! This is like a video game Wooo Hooo!"
Martin Van Luyn i kinda doubt that it was so hard to kill someone in the past. How do you explain our history with swords bows and spears. You looked an enemy in his eyes while fighting them. But its hard to shoot someone shooting at you?
The study is btw being refuted by many other scientists.
Altough i love to think we were made evil. But its in our brain to kill enemies or atleast wound em severly if necessary.
Look at chimps absolutely destroying their enemies.
We are no better then chimps. Weve been killing each other since the beginning of time.
107598 I 100% agree with this guy
You forget the threatend part, two guys with swords have at it, they are booth in very personal mortal danger by someone in front of them, very personal. With guns there is no in the face danger, you point an stick and boom, and there are bullets wizzing by who are quite dangerous, but they are not connected to an personal threat. There is distance involved, it is not another guy behind an sword aiming for your head.
With the technology and precision guns today have one would expect bodies piling up everywhere today in wars but compared to ammo used up... not so much happens (even accounting for supressive fire)
An friend of mine was soldier in jugoslavia war and they did the "shoot in the general direction to drive them off" thing, they where not very keen on doing actual killing (and the opposition not either).
Next to all of the body count was generated by very few people on the many sides this war had.
In ww1 and ww2 most of the body count was generated by artillery, and that is "shoot shells at f34g11" and offcourse "yessir!", and why? I think for an big part because you shot stuff at an angle and in a certain direction, but nothing much personal you see? (some described that they avoided visiting places they shelled after having seen such a place the first time)
Normal people are simple not wired to kill outright for killing sake, it is true every human has the potential to kill, but that applies only for strong emotional reasons, personal hate (or the to protect loved ones example)
The big majority of murders are personal reasons between people knowing each other, very few are about someone killing strangers and we consider them.. abnormal, while in cases where people killing people they know closer are not approved in general but not considerd that strongly "abnormal", people often think up reasons that "excuse" why there was murder, rather more so than with "why did this guy run around shooting random people? He had to be nuts!
While with "personal" murder it is often in interview "I can not understand what happen, Joe was such a NICE guy", there is even in media less of an "he had to be nuts" implications, people are sad it happend, but the fomaing at the mouth part is not that much stressed.
I went rather paramedics than army because i really cannot imagine killing someone i have no personal beef with, and who probably is not really into it either (very few people are)
107598 Also don't forget, there are two pretty significant(plenty of others too) differences. The pre-modern societies were brought up significantly more communalistic than modern ones. Individualism increases the value we put on human life, making it harder to take that life from another human being. The other, more impactful difference, is that the pre-modern warrior was not drafted out of massive population centers as in the modern day(and even Victorian-era onwards). This means that the average pre-modern soldier was either A. More willing to fight and die(like say, a knight) or B. Levy fodder anyways.
Also, this video by Shadiversity might interest you on comparing modern day views on violence and warfare to those of the past.
ua-cam.com/video/Ut1-IgyfVU8/v-deo.html
The majority if not every single gulf war veteran would disagree with this sentiment.
Dear Lindy Beige: Nothing beige about you sir. Your videos are fascinating and your style is wonderful. Keep up the great work!
Hey Fella, I just became aware of your channel. Really good stuff!
The shoot-to-kill training has another downside, and that is, more likely to cause friendly-fire and more civilian casualties if either appears suddenly.
and is at odds with most modern conflicts where there is no obvious enemy, just some guy who may or may not have a gun.
In an urban environment, that is going to happen a lot.
+Misha Griffith This reminds me of the Paratroopers on Bloody Sunday. Apparently one of them thought he heard someone shooting at them a d returned fire.
i went paintballing once with someone who was an ex soldier, and while he had seen very little combat, his reactions were "someone, shoot. someone, shoot". i just couldnt do that becuse i didnt ahve the training. i couldnt confirm if they were on ourside or not. he just would shoot.
No, Friendly fire or accidental civilian casualties are caused by badly trained troops/bad situational awareness. teaching soldiers to NOT shoot to kill is totally counterproductive.
Soldiers are soldiers, peacekeeping should be left to others like policemen or specially trained troops.
“Every Soldier Has Two Families. Those You Raise, and Those You Raise Hell With” - Brothers in Arms
Wish that game got more attention
played it but i don't remeber this quote. maybe it was Brothers in Arms 2
never expected even 20 likes on this comment. Thanks guys!
"those your'e raised with. And those you raise hell with"
Stupid lol
Nice analysis
What a splendid channel
I wonder how this applies to ancient and medieval warfare? How many soldiers in a phalanx were willing and able to kill? In a legion? How many were just there holding up their shields being pushed by the back ranks, while they stabbed blindly under or over their shield with a spear or gladius?
It could also explain why the Spartans were so superior as a fighting unit to other soldiers - they killed Helots as part of their upbringing. They almost certainly would have been desensitized in battle to a degree which their neighbors weren't. Aside from the physical conditioning, the Spartan mystique might have been as simple as the fact that they were willing to "shoot to kill", as it were, at a rate most of their opponents were not.
He's touched on it before and I was inclined to agree with him. Modern warfare is far more terrifying an event to the individual soldier. In centuries past, close combat provided a scenario where it was kill or be killed. They would also have felt a sense of fellowship that would have urged them on to protect their friends that was logistically impossible to maintain in later conflicts. Your example of the Spartans represent an entire society dedicated to warfare to the absolute extreme, were in it was amazingly even more traumatic not killing your enemy or dying in the attempt.
I suspect it's easier to kill when the guy is within spitting distance and actively trying to kill you. Like the guy charging with the bayonet Lindybeige mentioned. Our instincts just haven't evolved to feel like a guy shaving or telling a joke 200 yards away, or even shooting at us that far away, is actively threatening us the way a screaming guy charging with an axe 10 feet away is.
There's a lot of culture that goes into to it as well, though. The Spartans were relentlessly socialized to kill. Romans weren't, but their training was as professional and systematic as ours is, which is what made the legions such brutally effective killing machines.
It's easier to FIGHT when someone's within arm's reach and trying to fight with or (at least apparently) kill you; actually KILLING, though, remains quite difficult as long as you and your opponent are looking directly at one another. Lindy's point about Che and others of his ilk who LIKE killing still have certain instinct-level problems with killing someone face-to-face, probably because, when we see FACES, we see PEOPLE.
As supporting evidence, I offer the fact that, throughout human history, most (land) battle casualties, by a HUGE margin, occurred after the enemy broke and ran, even in cases of disciplined, professional forces like the legions against undisciplined, non-professional hordes like the Goths or the Germans. You would EXPECT a legion to cut its way through a mob, killing as they come, in a trice, but the historical, archaeological evidence shows that that simply didn't happen. Yes, it's physically simpler to stab a running man in the back than to stab a resisting man in the front, but there's no WAY the individual skill levels were anything like the same when legion fought barbarian.
It would be easier for them to fight close up because the enemy are a direct threat.
fighting hand to hand is fighting for your life. it's you or him.
This could also explain the increase in PTSD since WW2.
id imagine "finger trigger frostbite" has gotten more naturally prevalent these days since were now all more or less connected by the internet thus making it much easier to humanize someone
Couldn't you also argue against that since in the earlier periods (WW2, Civil War) it was people with cultural similarities and so it's a lot easier to humanise them, compared to today where a lot of wars are overseas in foreign cultures.
RegosAwesome well ww2 to the usa was a over seas war taking place in europe,africa, and the pacific
Nah, a higher percentage of US soldiers actually took the shoot when fighting against the Japanese, then when fighting against Italy/Germany. It was pretty obvious that the US soldiers found it easier to humanize the people with cultural similarities, then the Japanese.
Also, they had a direct reason to hate the japanese military.
Nice video! Anyway I would love to see some sources because what you read surely is interesting!
Remarkably good video. I wonder how many of us, who knew about conditioned reflexes, also knew about Skinner the psychologist. Every time I listen to Lindybeige I learn something new.