MajorBooBoo Posted February 7, 2002 Share Posted February 7, 2002 I guess the overhead MG fire desensitized you to the rifle fire. You bacame veteran or elite immediately. Your post, of course, brings up some questions. Were you closer to the MG or the rifleman? Does this sort of thing happen often? If someone were firing ANY weapon, friendly or not, over my head, I would have crawled as fast as I could to get the hell away from there. I think that your experience is more typical of civilians than any military individuals. Most soldiers leave the wife at home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 7, 2002 Share Posted February 7, 2002 [ July 24, 2002, 09:08 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MajorBooBoo Posted February 7, 2002 Share Posted February 7, 2002 What does bravery have to do with calling anyone? It would be no more braver than calling someone a name online. If the british would have given phones to the tommys in WWI, would it have mattered? Can I call collect? 1 800 collect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Capt Posted February 7, 2002 Share Posted February 7, 2002 Originally posted by nijis: Re green/conscript troops under fire, about a year ago I'm fairly sure that my wife and I were shot at a fellow firing a semi-automatic rifle from a hundred yards away or so. At the same time there was machinegun fire from an armored vehicle passing over our heads, which we knew was not aimed at us and which we'd gotten used to. When we realised someone was actually shooting at us we both stood around stupidly for quite a number of seconds before walking, not running, to the other side of the street, and the adrenaline didn't kick in until some time later. Neither of us had any military training, needless to say. Hitting the pavement I think would have seemed to us more dangerous - the risk of bruised elbows and what - than staying standing up. I wouldn't think that humans have any sort of instinctive reaction to gunfire. I know that one guy with one rifle isn't anything like a machinegun, but the stories of WWI troops walking blithely into gunfire because they can't think of anything else to do I find believable.That is definitely the reaction of Green troops. It isn't bravery but ignorance. I am quite sure if you had someones head explode in front of you, your reaction may be different next time. Reaction to MG fire is a learned response, it normally is just noise until someone gets hit then it takes on a life of it's own. WWI, though very well spelled out by Micheal is a very poor example. You really had no choice, if you dropped into a crater you would probably be brought up on charges for cowardice. That and a healthy dose of "group-think" in the opposite direction. "Nobody else is dropping for cover, except them dead guys..I guess I won't either". WWI is also a bad example when sighting the effectivness of MGs in CMBO. The casuality rates don't measure up. The MGs in CM do not have the lethality of their RL counterparts. Steve has just outlined the problems and proposed solutions on another MG thread. http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=023409 Take a look. I am really looking forward to CMBB and to see just how much it changes the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MajorBooBoo Posted February 7, 2002 Share Posted February 7, 2002 Reaction to MG fire is a learned response, it normally is just noise until someone gets hit then it takes on a life of it's own. Reaction to MG fire is a learned response that can be measured in milliseconds. I dont know all the details of the street battle above, but full auto 7.62mm powered MGs like the M60, fired over ones head makes a very disconcerting CRACK_CRACK_CRACK bup bup bup noise. Thats the supersonic copper jacketed slugs whipping (as in bullwhip CRACK) the air (which can be felt) followed by the sound of the MGs report catching up to the bullets. The impact of these bullets near you lets you know that danger is close and powerful.I would say the gentleman showed a conscript type reaction. Any military training usually includes familiarity with weapons, especially during wartime. Perhaps the couple were very close to the firing MG and could not hear anything. Sort of in the noise umbrella that the MG put out. I must admit, its the oddest story that I have heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASL Veteran Posted February 7, 2002 Share Posted February 7, 2002 Well, my reaction would be to stand around if I heard gunshots in my hometown - mostly because I wouldn't be expecting to be shot at. I actually might not even identify the sound as gunshot sounds for a few seconds - and even then I might wonder about it. As a civilian I just wouldn't expect gunfire to be going off in my direction so my reaction would be more of "what the hell?" I think most soldiers realize that they may be the target of hostile fire and would doubtless react more quickly than a civilian would. [ February 06, 2002, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: ASL Veteran ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nijis Posted February 7, 2002 Share Posted February 7, 2002 The point was that even if you know that combat is going on, and even if you can hear rounds passing overhead - we could hear the machinegun rounds if not necessarily the rifle shots - I'm not sure that going to ground is a natural reaction. Admittedly, it might have been different had there been explosions, or had we seen someone get hit. As I understand it, mobs who are fired upon might run for cover, or run away, or sometimes in rare cases even attack, but don't lie down. Irregular troops, as I understand it, also sometimes don't go to ground. I recall that point being made in an account of how Afghani mujahideen fought that was quite widely circulated back in October, including on the board here. This is just a guess, but I'd imagine that going to ground is something that soldiers learn either in the kind of training that you'd get in today's basic, such as by crawling through wire with machineguns firing overhead, or you'd learn from the veterans in your squad. I'd not sure if you'd get that kind of training in WW1 or even WW2, but then I'm just guessing. [ February 07, 2002, 09:20 AM: Message edited by: nijis ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 7, 2002 Share Posted February 7, 2002 [ July 24, 2002, 09:08 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 7, 2002 Share Posted February 7, 2002 Originally posted by The_Capt: WWI, though very well spelled out by Micheal is a very poor example. You really had no choice, if you dropped into a crater you would probably be brought up on charges for cowardice. That and a healthy dose of "group-think" in the opposite direction. "Nobody else is dropping for cover, except them dead guys..I guess I won't either". WWI is also a bad example when sighting the effectivness of MGs in CMBO. The casuality rates don't measure up. The MGs in CM do not have the lethality of their RL counterparts.I agree completely; as I mentioned I didn't mean to discuss WW I with any kind of intent to rationalize WW II, MGs in CM, or any other subject. I intended to discuss it for its own sake, and I was able to resolve my questions/differences of opinions and consider the matter closed. No need to continue discussion of WW I in this thread, we have moved that over to the General Forum where it belongs. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MajorBooBoo Posted February 7, 2002 Share Posted February 7, 2002 Someone please explain 1 800 collect to dorosh over in the general forum also. Where it also belongs. Dorosh, your posturing and snippy remarks to people, have they gotten you very far in life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenophile Posted July 25, 2002 Share Posted July 25, 2002 Unless soldiers in the 20th century were very different to men in the 19th, perhaps this may be of some use. "Near that spot (La Haye Sainte crossroads) they formed columns of companies and stood, occasionally having to form square, until the general advance was ordered over four hours later. During these four hours, over 450 of the regiment's 750 officers and men were killed or wounded, in almost every case by the fire of cannon several hundred yards distant or by [...] French skirmishers in concealed positons." Admittedly, these are men exhausted by previous fighting and marching, men who slept through the early hours of the battle. "...many Battalions had nevertheless to spend their day under direct fire." "...the Enniskillings, who stood their ground, drew their wounded into the square, threw their dead out and closed their ranks, were destroyed." I too find this account almost unbelievable. Men stand for over four hours in the open while their unit is bombarded by guns within their sight and sniped at by enemies even closer; two-thirds of their comrades are killed or injured; and they stand. This not a WW1 assault lasting a fraction of an hour behind an artillery barrage and with the promise of victory - this is BEING A TARGET for hours. How can anyone can doubt that green troops can advance into MG fire without breaking or seeking cover, if men can endure this more terrifying ordeal a hundred years before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted July 25, 2002 Share Posted July 25, 2002 Gin (or vodka, brandy, wine, etc) and the rod explain a lot of behaviour by Napoleonic troops of all nations. Keegan's "The face of battle" makes quite a bit of the barrles of Gin being a buttress of bravery in the British infantry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shosties Posted July 25, 2002 Share Posted July 25, 2002 Xenophile, OK, La Haye Sainte, that's 450 killed or wounded over four hours, or 240 minutes. Let's do the math: it averages out to 1.875 casualties per minute for the *whole* regiment (something like a 0.25% chance of being a casualty within a minute at the outset... certianly not as bad as Russian roulette). At that rate, some booze and a rather fearsome gent that was the British NCO in those "scum of the earth" days could keep a man on his feet and in formation. Also, men back then knew that when formation was broken, cavalry would have their field day with them. Keegan (good reference to bring up, BTW, Mike!) points out that the most dangerous time for an army of the day was in retreat! OK, try this out on the "iron men": park several well-sited and tended water-cooled machineguns in front of the regiment. Add indirect shelling from breech loading artillery firing fragmenting shells with HE-filler instead of direct fire solid shot (maybe some cannister) from muzzle loading guns. The casualty rate will soar by orders of magnitude and I doubt the booze, the threatening, and fear of men on horseback will keep them standing in squares for very long. [ July 24, 2002, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: Shosties4th ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts