Author Topic: Shooting to kill  (Read 6920 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Duuring

  • Duuring
  • ***
  • Posts: 12357
  • Free at last
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: Shooting to kill
« Reply #30 on: July 30, 2016, 12:45:12 pm »
I actually don't believe that Dutch troops found themselves in active combat situations against the Serbs in Kosovo, nor that the Serbian army used those tactics. Show me proof.

Offline Riddlez

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4845
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Riddlez
  • Side: Neutral
Re: Shooting to kill
« Reply #31 on: July 30, 2016, 06:02:55 pm »
I actually don't believe that Dutch troops found themselves in active combat situations against the Serbs in Kosovo, nor that the Serbian army used those tactics. Show me proof.

Eye-witness story. Yeah it sounds weak but it's a veteran I've spoken with
Probably one of the very few old-timers here who hasn't been a regimental leader.

Offline Eternal

  • Sergeant Major
  • *
  • Posts: 279
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: Shooting to kill
« Reply #32 on: August 01, 2016, 09:30:37 pm »
So I tried to gather the following into words, hopefully you'll understand. By default, keep in mind that what I will mention below speaks about most cases and that exceptions always exist.

During medieval times it were mostly mercenaries who were fighting for a king/themselves. It was their job, and that's all what they knew. I believe they were paid with salt as it was considered very precious during that time.
Humanity and morals weren't part of their job, and many of them would raid villages and rape people as-well as "victory" treat.
Of course there are some rare/individual cases, but if I am not mistaken that was the cases in most situations on the globe. We talk about the majority here after all.

Things changed especially during Napoleonic times (ignoring the 'heretic' crossbow era for now), when normal regular peasants could enlist and propaganda was used to spread in order encourage more people to enlist to the army - that was a whole new system. They were also fighting for a cause now!
The regular people are now part of the army, and not generation of special soldiers.

And with that, one thing led to another.

And if you go further back in history (and I forgot which historical figure said that), it was accepted that nomads would raid kingdoms and win, just to settle down and become a kingdoms themselves. This would make them content and "relaxed", allowing the next group to aggressively raid and take over them - just to repeat that cycle.

Eh, I guess what I try to say with all that is people who liked violence would practice it better than others and thus would have no problem preforming it and actually turn it into a "business". Today, we can see how brain beats brawn. You still practice a type of violence, but a different one - and this time for a different not selfish cause. People who didn't like violence but would fight for a certain cause would have these moral choices and would deal with it in their own way (and these people make most of the population). That's why in the modern army, you are mentally trained for that. People know the difficulty of shooting to kill, and train others to deal with that dilemma better. Kinda like explained in the video. The consequences he mentioned are the consequences of war, and would always anyway - the soldier who was mentally prepared for that just lives to suffer these consequences. And again, depends on the person, some would need mental help and some wouldn't. And in the past, as already mentioned, those who did that mostly loved doing that and were good at it.

Keep in mind that people you live around also effect you. It's the atmosphere. Thus you will share a lot with the people you live with, which further explains the written above.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2016, 09:47:00 pm by Eternal »

Offline StevenChilton

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 1882
    • View Profile
  • Side: Confederacy
Re: Shooting to kill
« Reply #33 on: August 02, 2016, 06:54:28 am »
I do believe there were instances of soldiers breaking down in ancient and medieval battlefields. However, people those days didn't recognize what it was and took it for cowardice, which is why it is barely recorded. But it has to be said: death was a much more closer thing to people back in the day then it is now. In fact, we live in a society where we dread death and want to push it away, while in the medieval world, people lived very close to it and it was much more common and real to them than to us.

Most Medieval battles often ended fairly quickly due to routs so it was certainly a very common occurrence. You'll usually find that Medieval battles on average have lower casualty rates than those that take place in other periods for this reason. Essentially Medieval armies were fairly prone to panic seeing as they were composed of large numbers of levies rather than professional soldiers, were usually confederations of troops under the command of different lords, there was a general reliance on mercenaries to pad out armies, and so on.

Of course pitched battles in the Medieval period were in themselves quite rare, and most fighting was done via sieges, skirmishes or raids. There are occasions when armies turned up to fight and just stared at each other and then went home as both sides deemed it too risky to fight. Inexperience of pitched battle was therefore probably a major reason for soldiers to flee-time and time again battles are lost due to confusion among the ranks which leads to panic and eventual rout. The feudal system is not ideally suited in producing armies for fighting pitched battles given there could be no uniform command structure (it was hardly the Roman legions).

Offline MaxLam

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 1343
  • Founder of Minisiege, EU_Commander & Mininaval
    • View Profile
    • Napoleonic Wars Public
  • Side: Neutral
Re: Shooting to kill
« Reply #34 on: August 07, 2016, 02:03:37 pm »

Offline Dazzer

  • Donator
  • *
  • Posts: 5690
    • View Profile
  • Side: Union
Re: Shooting to kill
« Reply #35 on: August 07, 2016, 02:06:53 pm »
Well some were nut cases like my grandfather, who had a racial hatred against the Japanese until he passed away.  Could have been ptsd but he was a nut who used to talk about killing them like it was funny.
How is it different than Japs laughing while boiling a dog alive.

Offline Riddlez

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4845
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Riddlez
  • Side: Neutral
Re: Shooting to kill
« Reply #36 on: August 11, 2016, 02:48:37 pm »
Well some were nut cases like my grandfather, who had a racial hatred against the Japanese until he passed away.  Could have been ptsd but he was a nut who used to talk about killing them like it was funny.
How is it different than Japs laughing while boiling a dog alive.

Cuz thats called cooking numnuts
Probably one of the very few old-timers here who hasn't been a regimental leader.

Offline Dazzer

  • Donator
  • *
  • Posts: 5690
    • View Profile
  • Side: Union
Re: Shooting to kill
« Reply #37 on: August 11, 2016, 08:40:32 pm »
Well some were nut cases like my grandfather, who had a racial hatred against the Japanese until he passed away.  Could have been ptsd but he was a nut who used to talk about killing them like it was funny.
How is it different than Japs laughing while boiling a dog alive.

Cuz thats called cooking numnuts
kay