>90% of soldiers aim to miss and cant bring themselves to harm the enemy
Who actually believes this dumb fucking meme?
I am assuming you watched the new LindyBeige?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zViyZGmBhvs
>>1390795
Saw it in my suggestions, didn't even realize it was new. I like Lindy though, he has good videos.
>>1390790
I think it depends on the war. American Soldiers in Vietnam who were drafted to fight would be much more likely to miss than French soldiers at Waterloo.
Terrible new video. Its such a stupid meme belief all because of one book that was proven wrong.
People have no problem killing others
>>1390800
Their guns were probably a lot more accurate though.
>middle ages
>soldiers have no problem hacking each other and crushing their skulls
>modern age
>soldiers are too sad to shoot each other from hundreds of yards away :(
fuck lindymeme
>>1392320
>>soldiers have no problem hacking each other and crushing their skulls
Who says they had no problem? I doubt there are any records on how or how not traumatized medieval soldiers were.
We have footage of soldiers pissing on the dead bodies of their enemies. Why would they have any trouble shooting to kill?
>>1392333
Because of the "humans are intrinsically good" meme, anon
>>1392330
but they still did it, nobody says stupid shit like "90% of knights swing to miss"
>>1390800
they didn't miss often considering how many vietnamese people died
>>1392320
>i have to kill this guy that is swinging a sword at me or I die
>i have to shoot a guy 100 meters away that is having a card game with his friend in the trenches
wow 2 very similar contexts
>>1392355
>having a card game with his friend in the trenches
don't kid yourself, they're trying to kill you as well.
there's a video from a helicopter in the middle-east where an American pilot shoots at a van that was picking up wounded. when the ground forces get to the van they tell the pilot that there were children in there, and he says something like "that's what you get for bringing your kids to a war zone". soldiers know they have a job to do and they aren't afraid to do it. also we don't have a draft anymore, people join the army of their own will and they know they're going to have to kill.
>>1392345
There's no data on that. We do however have data on modern wars.
>>1392387
Show me the data that says 90% of soldiers shoot to miss.
>>1392355
Usually they're shooting back
>Japanese and German soldiers massacre thousands of civilians for absolutely no reason or than terror and fun
>lindy claims soldiers cant even shoot people shooting back at them
I dont buy it
>>1392391
It probably comes from soldiers using suppressive fire which some idiot doesn't understand.
>>1392376
im not defending his point, i don't believe the majority of people can't kill in war. I could, i know some friends who also could. I think what he means in the video is that the majority of us while pressing the trigger are thinking "im sorry for killing you maybe if the circumstances were different we would be friends"
>>1392349
He's talking about the useless US troops, not about the air strikes
>>1392407
>are thinking "im sorry for killing you maybe if the circumstances were different we would be friends"
I don't think so, that's what I would think but i have unusually high empathy which is honestly a burden. Most people are cunts. As soon as society breaks down even a little people start killing others for completely petty and non existent reasons. I often think about it. We live in this world where everyone is meant to be a good person yet the very same people hundreds of years ago would be part of a pillaging army living off the land, stealing, murdering and raping the locals with no issues at all.
>>1392376
>invade a country over fallacious pretenses
>purposely target civilian areas and use helicopters to assassinate journalists
>get caught red handed
>"that's what you get for brining kids to a war zone"
I can't wait for the day that I see the US experience karma.
Throughout history, soldiers often shot in the general direction of the enemy without really aiming at someone, but that's not necessarily aiming to miss. Modern combat just requires unloading enormous amounts of ordinance. I don't know exactly how many rounds it was, but I know that in the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions every killed enemy combatant was matched by thousands of expended rounds. That's just a tactical demand. And sometimes people just fire off their guns because they're pissed off, that's an actual thing.
Anyway, the people who first realized that some soldiers have difficulty shooting directly at the enemy also immediately set to work on doing everything they could to encourage soldiers to be able to more kill more callously, and if I remember correctly, they had quite a bit of success over time.
>>1392423
I like to imagine if 9/11 was the other way around
>26 radical USA Christians fly planes into Saudi buildings
>Saudi responds by Invading Canada
>2 years later they accuse Mexico of making nukes, Saudi invades Mexico
>Mexico and Canada are ruined but the USA refuses to accept refugees, which instead flood into Russia
>>1390790
It's not like they aim to miss however automatic weapons are not meant to hit every single round. In most firefight scenarios you fire blindly at what you think is the enemies location.
I don't remember the exact numbers so don't quote me on this but I belive a frontline soldier with a automatic/semi automati rifle hit a target in about 30-60 more rounds than a marksman unit.
>>1392433
Even in Napoleonic Warfare it was something like 10,000 bullets per hit on an enemy
It's not because soldiers dont aim, they just fire a lot when there isnt much chance to hit
>>1390790
Modern and future wars are and will continue to be fought through increasing levels of abstraction. If the meme is true that soldiers shoot to miss, it will not be true for long, one can only feel so much sympathy for a blotch of pixels on a computer screen or numbers on a chart.
>>1392393
Qualifying your first statement with references to Japanese and German troops implies that allied armies didn't do the same shit.
>>1392419
I have quite a bit of empathy too, but if I were involved in a conflict that I thought was morally justified, I think I could just accept the notion that the killing conducted at that time was needed to accomplish whatever the goal was and aim to kill. If I had a gun and some Daesh fucker down the other end of the barrel, I don't think I'd have any moral qualms ending their life. It's a simple necessity.
>>1392439
The claim is that soldiers specifically aim to miss because they don't like killing.
>>1392460
>Qualifying your first statement with references to Japanese and German troops implies that allied armies didn't do the same shit.
Never implied that anywhere. They are just the biggest offenders.
Though i have a lot of empathy, i want to live, if soldiers are shooting at me, i will shoot at them. If they put down their arms, so will i.
Not that I'd go to war if a major one broke out, I'd just refuse to fight, I dont see why i should go kill a man i've never met because two governments can't get along.
>>1392449
That's under the umbrella of what I meant. I'm not saying soldiers don't aim, they just probably going to aim wherever they think firing will advantage them and their battle buddies the most. I don't think it would be unreasonable to assume that troops probably fire at positions which enemy fire is coming from even if they know they won't score a hit, simply because dumping lead in that direction will make it harder for the enemy to operate effectively.
>>1392476
>I don't think it would be unreasonable to assume that troops probably fire at positions which enemy fire is coming from even if they know they won't score a hit, simply because dumping lead in that direction will make it harder for the enemy to operate effectively.
That's quite literally military procedure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressive_fire
>>1392474
Yeah, if we went to war over some pointless geopolitical bullshit, it would be hard to justify killing some other poor fuck who's fighting with just as little reason as you are. And I guess I wasn't necessarily saying you meant allies didn't commit atrocities too, it just seems to fall into the established line that the allied troops didn't do all the terrible shit which they did.
>>1392483
I know that, I don't know why I'm going on about it.
>>1392463
I understand but I think it might not be cause of intentional empathy.
If the chances are already high that you will miss you might not put in extra effort to hit.
I don't think a majority try to miss I think they might not put in extra effort to hit when that effort might not make the difference anyway when the odds are low.
>>1392391
Look at the original study the thread was made to talk about.
> be soldier
> have a shit aim
> miss 90% of shots
> anon what the fuck!?
> why are you so bad at shooting?
> we all really tired of your shit here.
> em... actually... I am aim to miss!
>people actually watch that faggot lindybiege and not educated people like based Metatron or KnyghtErrant
>>1392437
toppest of keks
>>1390800
I haven't watched his move but I had a professor in psychology that also worked at the a national defence college. Mostly they develop and refine personality tests and tools to force proper group dynamics, leadership during extreme distress, among other stuff.
Anyway a report apparently claimed that something that always makes it harder to kill someone is watching them pissing and shitting, supposedly since you're vulnerable while doing something very human.
>>1392320
>middle ages
>close quarter combat where the slightest margin of error meant death and the fights lasted only seconds with the winner being the person who dealt the first blow
>Modern ages
>standing behind cover with the knowledge that the man you shoot could be a father or husband
just pointing that out...
>>1392615
>>close quarter combat where the slightest margin of error meant death and the fights lasted only seconds with the winner being the person who dealt the first blow
This is wrong. Melee combat was incredibly brutal and fairly long, humans are not easy creatures to kill. It isn't like in movies where one generic swipe across the chest murders a man. If you want to outright kill someone you're probably going to have to smash his skull in, which is why the majority of skeletons discovered of melee combat had fatal head wounds, alongside a shit load of body wounds sometimes up to 30 which happened in the same day. Which just goes to show they took one hell of a beating before finally being killed, we can only imagine the violence and brutality of it.
Also in what way was anybody not a husband or father before guns?
>>1392297
>because of one book that was proven wrong
People here keep saying this and never provide any source
>>1392634
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Killing
He also now claims video games make people violent, just for perspective.
>>1390795
>those amount of upvotes on the vid
this can't be what people really believe, right?
>>1392330
this. I would be pretty scared shitless for life if I had to beat a guy to death with a mace. And then do it again and again.
>>1392662
If its contrary to popular belief it must be true!
>>1392437
Saudi Arabia has a fuckton of refugees, they have a sense of decency and call them citizens though.
Go back to Breitbart.
>>1392402
this, it seems like someone saw the statistics showing a large majority of all rounds fire miss their targets and then filled the blanks with a romantic fantasy instead of digging deeper and finding out that most rounds are not aimed at a specific target but instead are suppresive
this thread needs some fucking sources
>implying soldiers have emotional thoughts in the heat of battle
>implying they don't act according to training and survival instincts
![footbal_3148045b[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/WRTX7KN.jpg "footbal_3148045b[1].jpg")
>>1390790
never heard this shit, but there were place where this really happened like the trenches in ww1
>pic very related: they had a tacit agreement to miss as much as possible
>>1392823
>Implying training a survival instincts don't frequently conflict
>Implying natural aversion to killing isn't the definition of instinctual.
None of the popular atheists know Scripture well enouh to settle debates; neither do I follow the popular nor do your deluded retarded memes apply to me. My post was antitheist. I somewhat doubt your kind can learn new proper words.
>>1392631
>Also in what way was anybody not a husband or father before guns?
What they're implying is that in modern combat where you spend a lot of time sitting behind cover, you have time to think about the fact that your enemies might be fathers or husbands.
>>1392867
>natural aversion to killing
lol
>>1392871
What makes you think soldiers are spending time sympathizing with the enemy while they sit behind cover hoping not to be killed by them?
Let me clear up some misconceptions.
1. OP is a fag.
Done. Now let me quote an actual US veteran, Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman, who writes about this subject:
>Based on his post-combat interviews, Marshall concluded in his book Men Against Fire (1946, 1978) that only 15 to 20 percent of the individual riflemen in World War II fired their own weapons at an exposed enemy soldier.
>By 1946, the US Army had accepted Marshall's conclusions, and the Human Resources Research Office of the US Army subsequently pioneered a revolution in combat training, which eventually replaced firing at targets with deeply ingrained conditioning, using realistic, man-shaped pop-up targets that fall when hit.
>Psychologists assert that this kind of powerful operant conditioning is the only technique that will reliably influence the primitive, midbrain processing of a frightened human being. Fire drills condition schoolchildren to respond properly even when terrified during a fire. Conditioning in flight simulators enables pilots to respond reflexively to emergency situations even when frightened. And similar application and perfection of basic conditioning techniques increased the rate of fire to approximately 55 percent in Korea and around 95 percent in Vietnam.
>>1392912
A Canadian military researcher disagrees somewhat.
http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo9/no2/16-engen-eng.asp
>>1392643
>He also now claims video games make people vilent
You've got to be fucking kidding me
Where did he say that?
>>1393192
*violent
>>1392333
>"if psychopats are real, how can humanity exist"
>>1390800
Surely it must come down to this. WW2 eastern front? A war for survival and where the conditions are so grim that ppl don't see the enemy as human anymore. Something like the Iraq war/Vietnam? Not really a fight for survival of your home.
>>1392516
Too bad metatron can't video production quality for shit. He sounds so fucking terrible, I can't even watch him.
The only based God is Matt Easton on Scholagladiatoria
>>1390795
>its a "this is what I do while LARPing so its what people in history did" episode
>>1392376
Im glad I have to pay for that faggot to get pay his whole life because he decided to go shoot sandniggers.
>>1392423
I don't understand why I should feel bad for soldiers, I never asked them to go to war.
>>1392760
>no sources
they've taken in 0, also
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35686104
>imblying the definition of an invasion isn't an organized group using siege equipment
to forcefully enter territories
>>1392423
The United States is God's retribution on the rest of the world.
>>1393787
"But anon, the soldiers are defending your Freedom of speech!"
>>1390800
>American Soldiers in Vietnam who were drafted to fight would be much more likely to miss than French soldiers at Waterloo.
French soldiers at Waterloo were also drafted to fight.
>>1392743
I have to say, I would rather use a blunt object to kill someone as a sharp one. I just can't handle the idea of that. Too messy and bloody.
But a mace getting stuck into the skull is another nasty thing.
>>1394814
u wot
Killing with a bladed weapon is far less messier than bludgeoning someone to death with a blunt object.
>>1393192
Grossman further argues that violence in television, movies and video games contributes to real-life violence by a similar process of training and desensitization.
>>1394824
I remember it badly, but in a book from Andy McNab he talked how kinetic energy resulted in a nice clean death.
But I do not have personal experiences with killing people, so it might be a false memory or just plain ignorance.
The only experience I had was killing young rats with a stone and hearing their skulls crack.
>>1392760
>Saudi Arabia has a fuckton of refugees
im pretty sure in the video he says that the study was done ages ago, and new training methods have been developed since then to deal with this phenomenon
did you people even watch the video
>>1392320
>>1392345
This has to do with the presence of officers. In pre-firearm warfare, composed mainly of pitched battles and sieges, soldiers were more or less constantly under the direct supervision of superior officers. This was most decidedly NOT the case as warfare became more irregular in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Just because you don't want to believe the claim doesn't mean we *don't* have the interviews with and personal writings from soldiers to corroborate it. We do.
>>1392376
Please tell me this faggot got executed
>>1395087
For what?
>>1395087
Soldiers are rarely executed in the west anymore.
>>1395133
Not him, but 99% sure that firing on medics intentionally is a war crime.
>>1395177
For that to apply they have to have something visibly identifying them as medics.
>>1395196
Collecting the wounded would seem to be visibly identifying them.
Certainly, they didn't seem to be acting as combatants.
>>1390790
In modern warfare missing is part of strategy. Enemies are worth more alive than dead because they have information. The idea is to pin them down behind cover with heavy fire while someone comes in from the flanks and captures them.
IDK about all that nonsense though, I've never heard anyone say 90% of people miss out of empathy. I'm an incredibly empathetic person who doesn't wish to fight or kill ever, but you better believe if I'm at war I'm gonna kill to survive.
>>1395037
This is just my speculation btw
Could Religion have something to do with it? The belief that what you are doing is for your deity, especially in a time when the entire culture was based around worshipping a certain God, would the thought of God override the instinct of "this is wrong, i shouldn't kill them"?
For example I am sure you have seen those people in the middle east that cut themselves on their back with machetes and such, creating huge gashes for Religion, when someone would think "that's stupid and wrong, why do that?", but to them its a religious and ritualistic thing.
Religion persuades I suppose.
>>1392867
>Natural aversion to killing
>>1392452
The Lindybeige video did say there are psychological methods to get soldiers to shoot at enemies and not to miss. In the video it is stated that the method is quite and effective and nowadays above 80% of soldiers will at one point shoot to kill.
>>1395017
I would say many did not watch the video. But that's just my take of the situation.
>>1395224
I believe Obama gave the roe an extension to include those who render non combat assistance to hostile forces to okay to engage. So the gray area of engaging them is now a okay.
>>1392743
>mace
>>1395242
>In modern warfare missing is part of strategy. Enemies are worth more alive than dead because they have information. The idea is to pin them down behind cover with heavy fire while someone comes in from the flanks and captures them.
You cannot be serious
>>1395503
>mace
>>1395017
The point is the phenomenon doesn't exist in the first place.
Soldiers have no problem taking lives.
>>1395519
The only people who "have no problem taking lives" are sociopaths. Even without logic, the act internally affects your world view and your view of yourself. The dutiful will remain dutiful, but it's very rare anyone "sees no problem with it".
>>1392423
But he is right, fuckinga muds put people in perilous situations (e.g. put their operational HQs next to a fucking hospital or school) then people complain when the crossfire hits innocents too.
It's bull.
Also no fucking source on the shit story and yet everyone jumps on the antiamerican bandwagon.
As a non-american, go fucking kill yourself.
>>1395532
The historical record seems to disagree though, people become quick to kill as soon as society breaks down even a little
>>1395701
>Also no fucking source on the shit story
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0
>shoot civilians and journalists
>van with children comes to pick up the wounded
>kill them as well
I believe the shooter was arrested in this case
>>1392573
>apparently claimed that something that always makes it harder to kill someone is watching them pissing and shitting, supposedly since you're vulnerable while doing something very human.
That actually makes a lot of sense.
90% of shots are probably missed. That doesn't mean the soldiers aim to miss them
>>1392912
http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/articles/03autumn/chambers.pdf
Nevertheless, unlike the recollection of the Army captain who accompanied Marshall in Europe in World War II that he could not recall Marshall ever asking who had fired his weapon, Brennan does recall the journalist occasionally asking that question directly in his interviews in Korea.
It seems most probable that Marshall, writing as a journalist rather than as a historian, exaggerated the problem and arbitrarily decided on the one-quarter figure because he believed that he needed a dramatic statistic to give added weight to his argument.
TL;DR the 'study' was unscientific, non-peer reviewed, and never repeated. The conclusions are also highly suspect based on the fact that the person who put them forward also lied about other events in the pursuit of a good story.
>>1390790
Lindybeige
>>1392508
It seems fishy that this study was the result of qualitative interviews made by a non-researcher, in 1947. I haven't read the book, but I can definitely hypothesize some ways into which the results may have been skewed. For example, does the 95% include soldiers who hesitated before they shot? Does it include soldiers who shot, but felt bad about it? Does it perhaps include soldiers who had terrible aim, or did not see any direct close combat? How did he phrase the question? Were there factors influencing the manner in which people responded? How did he define people did not shoot to kill? Are the results affected by the respondents being American, who enjoyed a different status/context than other participants in the war?
Lindy specifically mentions that the general's book is controversial, which means that the opinions within it are not shared by the overwhelming majority, yet the rest of the video assumes its conclusions are true and concerns itself with the "why?".
>>1395701
>But he is right, fuckinga muds put people in perilous situations
The Americans are the ones who invaded, you dipshit.
I'd understand aiming to miss if you were part of a firing squad shooting an unarmed guy tied to a post, but not an enemy combatant who is trying to kill you. A basic sense of self-preservation would stop you from missing intentionally.
>>1395868
That's pretty thoroughly fucked.
This is old knowledge. In the civil war soldiers would repeatedly reload their rifle without ever firing because they just couldn't do it. They would end up with their barrel filled with shots. Apparently on d-day there was one british soldier that pretty much did the work for the whole company because they rest couldn't catch up with him or didn't actually fire at the enemy. Then there's also that iconic picture of the hilarious british officer charging with his sabre ahead of his troops.
There was a pretty good documentary on youtube. Apparently a few people are born with the ability to shut out reluctance to kill, not because they're psychos, although some are, but they just have the ability to kill or do dangerous tasks without hesitating too much. It's quite unique.
What lindybeige touches on is, but this strictly speaking isn't news. The 1% carries the rest mostly
Also, ever wondered why people who were hanged are veiled? It's not for them, but for the spectators and the executioners. Some of you are really contrarian just dismissing it instantly. It's harder to kill people by looking at their face. Whether the figure is "90% shoot to miss"-meme or not isn't that relevant, it's true for the most part
![wbc4[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/b5ritfR.jpg "wbc4[1].jpg")
>>1392355
>>1392615
The majority of deaths in most medieval battles occurred during the losing side's retreat, after the other side had ceased being an immediate threat to the safety of the soldiers.
>>1396929
This. Most people don't get that medieval battles were a slugfest lasting hours upon hours until one side breaks and retreats. There was that one battle in the wars of the roses where most of the deaths were from the retreat over a river. Most of the dead found have clear wounds to to the head too, and the evidence pointed to a element of visciousness. It's not like they were killed with one clean pragmatic stab to the brain, no, they had their skulls bashed in and multiple unnecessary stabs that were just overkill
>>1390800
So you believe that a soldiers determination to kill or be killed varies from war to war? Does that not sound like absolute nonsense? Then, to further prove your point you choose vietnam? What??
>>1396879
I w a s in war. Not I, or anyone in my company ever felt remorse for what we did. Hell, the mercenaries were killing kids, over there. It was one big free for all, and it was awesome.
>>1396972
>So you believe that a soldiers determination to kill or be killed varies from war to war? Does that not sound like absolute nonsense? Then, to further prove your point you choose vietnam? What??
Not him but I fully believe it.
WW1 seems like one of those wars where you've been drafted and don't even wanna be there anyway.
I've had dozens of buddies, family friends, and family serve in Iraq or Afghanistan.
I'm at a senior military academy because I want to go over.
If anything most people I know who've been over there have a "fuck them they aren't even human" feeling towards it.
My fiance's father was infantry and said he loved doing it.
My father was an MP and when I criticized the number of people the US has killed over there as "collateral damage" he said
>It's hard to see Arabs as human after you've seen them place bombs under piles of soccer balls and set them off on little kids
If anything modern military culture is hyper-aggressive.
Some of the more high-speed guys I know that went to airborne/air assault schools have come back saying they can't wait to "stack bodies" and things like that.
Not saying that's a good thing whatsoever, but it definitely detracts from the idea that any American soldier in a modern war would "aim to miss".
>>1397012
If you don't feel anything, in that there was a free for all killing, you might consider a little counseling.
