Can a person become shell shocked in a modern conflict? especially in the usual skirmish beetween a modern military against a less advanced opposing force?
>>30476284
A conflict when anything could be a bomb is pretty traumatising.
>>30476284
>Can a person become shell shocked in a modern conflict?
As far as I'm aware, "shell shock" is what we now call PTSD.
shell shock is just a form of ptsd that you get when you was in narrow space when you got the disorder.
So yes, it could happen but only if you would fight in a trench or another DFP where you cant get enough stress release by walking around
Shell shock is nothing but the most extreme case of PTSD there is, so yes
>>30476321
Shell shock was a term coined by the theory that shockwaves from shells could damage the brain, causing nervous and mental disorders, the theory was dismissed later as soldiers that hadn't been under shelling also suffered stress-related illnesses.
However the name stuck.
>>30476347
Now its called "blast-induced neurotrauma"
Known a couple of people who got IED'ed and survived, but despite any lasting physical effects they did change a bit as a result and got demob'ed as a result of that and a combination of combat stress related stuff. Which is hard to do when you're their CO and hurts to see good men affected that way.
While we don't get constantly shelled, they do keep us 'in country' for longer than previous conflicts and the effects of that are different again to what the WW1-2 guys would have had.
>>30476427
How often do US troops get leave these days and how often are there days when nothing is being done outside the FOB and no combat is seen?
>>30476451
Dunno, not US
>>30476299
Yup. Sometimes firing an AR-15 can cause temporary PTSD
>>30476498
kek
>>30476498
Well it does sound like a bazooka.
>>30476498
If he'd grown up in my country anyone with the last name 'Kuntzman' would have been bantered to death by the age of 11
>>30476427
>they do keep us 'in country' for longer than previous conflicts and the effects of that are different again to what the WW1-2 guys would have had
>WW1
So you have 4 year tours now?
It's hard to compare today's conflicts with ones in which Britain lost 19,000 men in one afternoon alone and in which guys had to withstand shelling that lasted for weeks before being ordered to run into machine gun fire. But at the same time any life-threatening situation fucks with your brain forever, and any amount of shockwave rolling through your body and brain does damage. Face it, human bodies are not made for dealing with supersonic blasts, period.
>>30476945
Pretty much this. Some autistic people on fortune shit on todays conflict/PTSD because they're not WW1/WW2 in scale. But a year of being at an elevated state of alertness where someone might be trying to kill you around every corner is not good for you psychologically, even if nothing does happen.
>>30476524
Don't be stupid. In most wars they rotated soldiers back from the front quite regularly to rear areas. The average British infantryman in WW1 spent less than half of his time on the front line.
>>30476284
Not on the same level as the ones in WW1. I've meet vets who totally cracked though. The only thing he responds too was the word "Sarge." Once he hears the words he would salute over and over. Apparently he was tortured forced to do the salute over and over.
