Very Interesting quote on MG lethality

[ParaBellum]

Originally posted by JMcGuire:

It's really not that complicated.

I wish I could say the same thing. Honestly. And with this I bow out of this discussion.

[edit: yes, sorry didn't read your post carefully enough, got angry too soon!

Please accept my apology.]

Jochen

[ June 28, 2002, 11:35 PM: Message edited by: ParaBellum ]

[ParaBellum]

Thx, The_Capt.

Absolutely agree with what you wrote.

If you ever come to Mannheim I'll buy you a beer.

[edited 'cause I still suck at UBB]

[ June 28, 2002, 11:21 PM: Message edited by: ParaBellum ]

[Traject0ry]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

I'll take someone only as mean and nasty as necessary. (That's _far_ less mean and nasty tthan it's possible to be.) He'll get the job done. He'll try not to "take out" enemy strecher bearers, making it that much less likely that they'll target ours. If it's necessary to shoot some civilians on patrol, he'll do it. Civilians _do_ get killed in war nowdays. Lots of them, it's part of the nature of the conflict. However, I won't have to deal with my "buddy" killing someone just because he fancies thier kit.

I like to think that a professional soldier will kill without hesitation, and be bold, but arrogance, misogyny and _ignoring_ the value of human life are only virtues in a barbarian warrior*, not a professional soldier.

*For example: Most Hun warlords and WWII Japanese officers.

Uhhh, I'm not sure where YOU serve but I think the worst cases do not make it through the selection back here. Still I prefer the company of the nastiest and meanest guy actually passing the selection on the field of combat.

I am glad that your army lets you choose your fights and who to shoot at. Unfortunately us all don't get to pick. Killing for fun is not something that catches my fancy either but serving in the Guerilla type of warfare unit requires a certain type of character. "Brake glass in the event of war". Soldier is a tool necessary to attain certain goals. I'd be glad to do without (I'm also trained in other sort of profession) but as it is there is little reason to deny the fact that practically every conflict produces necessary civilian casualties. I rest my case on killing people talks.

-T

[Traject0ry]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

The next step? How about "strategic" bombing of civilian residences? Both sides in WWII specifically targeted civilians - they both thought it was a good idea at the time, the best way to end the war. That would, of course, pretty much put an end to ALL the deaths, on both sides. (Victorious Nazi post war atrocities being the unfortunate exception, of course.) A soldier has to balance death and destruction among his own, and death and destruction wrecked on the enemy, both civlian and combatant. I think it's understood that the scales are somewhat tipped against the enemy.

BTW, I hope the more "hawkish" will agree that enemy and "friendly" civlians should _not_ be treated differently. Niether should be harmed if possible. Both must be killed if they threaten a "complete at all costs" mission. Eh?

Agreed on all accounts.

-T

[Traject0ry]

Originally posted by ParaBellum:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Traject0ry:

Perhaps they just do not take prisoners or are forced to rely on force in order to get the job done. You guys really need to wake up. There are very little rules in the war.

But where do you draw the line? A single man who could endanger your platoon? Kill him.

A village where someone shoots at your men? OK, order an airstirke!

Reminds me of certain actions of German soldiers when fighting partisans. Take a few hostages and kill them if you don't get information.

Hey, if it's for the mission...

Sorry for the crude examples, but where do you actually draw the line? Is there any?

I've been a soldier (thank god during peacetime), trained as a sniper/sharpshooter and I had lots of discussions with my comrades about these topic.

I'm targeting an enemy soldier 500m away, he's sitting against a tree, smoking a cigarette. No danger for me. Could I kill him cold-blooded?

I'm really glad I never was in a situation where I had to make such decisions.</font>

[Traject0ry]

Originally posted by ParaBellum:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Traject0ry:

Perhaps they just do not take prisoners or are forced to rely on force in order to get the job done. You guys really need to wake up. There are very little rules in the war.

But where do you draw the line? A single man who could endanger your platoon? Kill him.

A village where someone shoots at your men? OK, order an airstirke!

Reminds me of certain actions of German soldiers when fighting partisans. Take a few hostages and kill them if you don't get information.

Hey, if it's for the mission...

Sorry for the crude examples, but where do you actually draw the line? Is there any?

I've been a soldier (thank god during peacetime), trained as a sniper/sharpshooter and I had lots of discussions with my comrades about these topic.

I'm targeting an enemy soldier 500m away, he's sitting against a tree, smoking a cigarette. No danger for me. Could I kill him cold-blooded?

I'm really glad I never was in a situation where I had to make such decisions.</font>

[jtcm]

I for one am reassured and moved to know that someone who actually served-- a real warrior rather than a wargamer-- thought about these issues and reflected on what it meant to kill someone.

I'm as rah-rah (if vague and incompetent) a wargamer, as zap-bang a military-history reader, as the next man or woman, but I respect what Parabellum had to say.

I've just read Michael Asher, The Real Bravo Two Zero, debunking of the accounts of the famous SAS mission: by talking to locals and travelling over the terrain, Asher reconstructs, not huge firefights accounting for 250 Iraqis, but a ill-prepared patrol discovered quickly by three Bedouins (2 being veterans from Iraqi forces with combat experience), who politely fired a shot above their head to find out if they were hostile or not; a retreat not hounded by Iraqi troops in APCs, but by armed civilians and policemen (not one of which was killed, it seems). It's a good piece of source criticism. Not quite relevant to the present thread, of course. But a very humane piece of writing; will also make the reader wonder about all these war stories she's been reading over the years.

[Traject0ry]

Originally posted by jrcar:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Traject0ry:

Professional soldier sees things through a clear glass. He has a mission which he must complete. The cost might be a few stretcher-bearers or civilians shot.

Good professional soldier is bold, arrogant and has an ability to ignore value of human life when necessary. Civilians, stretcher-bearers and such might become obstacles to his mission in which case he has to deal with them quickly and efficiently.

-T

A professional soldier who thinks this way needs retraining.

Deliberately killing civilians or unarmed combatants is a WARCRIME and anyone doing so should be punished accordingly. I know of no "professional" army who trains their soldiers in any other manner.

As an ex Army officer I have had the occasion to counsel the very rare soldier who has spoken this way. It is against international law and against the law of any country who has signed up to the Geneva Conventions.

I do accept that things things happend in the past, and I can understand the situations that cause it. It still does not make it right.

If the mission requires the delibereate murder of civilians then you need to do it a different way.

Cheers

Rob</font>

[Traject0ry]

Originally posted by The_Capt:

Jeez this thread got deep in a hurry...

Gentlemen,

What makes a good soldier? Very good question. Actually a single minded killer is quite dangerous on the battlefield. A team player who understands and recognizes the implications of his actions on the group as a whole is a far better asset.

A good soldier has a switch on the back of his head and when I flip it he turns into the killer I need and when I switch it off I get the guy in the guard tower I need.

Now as to cold blooded..well now we are talking about the officer corps. A good officer is absolutely lethal. He will kill his own men as well as the enemy. All that matters is the mission. A better officer is one which will get his men killed when neccessary and they love him for it. These are few and far between.

The object in war is too do mare damage to the other side than they do to you. It doesn't get more complicated than that.

Now as to civies and rules of war..well the trick there is to maintain some sort of grip on humanity as the situation around you strips it away.

You will find that after a few months in a combat environment, most soldiers don't give flying frick about human life. It would be like watching porn, 24 hrs a day seven days a week for months. It would get boring and no longer turn you on pretty quick. Same with death and destruction.

Deep in, you get to the point that if your boss says shoot women and children, your main concern is cleaning the weapons afterward. This is no joke. When you get home, then it kicks in and the pain and guilt start but while you are there it is like watching a movie.

Now a leaders job is to keep that morality in his sights and keep it there. Or good lads are raping and pillaging before you know it. No joke. Perfectly sane people become monsters when it all falls apart.

So the officer has to motivate, get the job done while killing his men to do so, and somehow make sure the whole team doesn't step over the edge.

I can assure you that we (Allies) killed, raped and pillaged civies on the Western Front. It happens in that environment. But the good thing about the Allies is that we tried to hold on, while units like the SS surrendered to the "terrible beauty" and slaughtered en masse. Due in large part to the fact there leadership had given in too.

In the end it is all about the mission. If you aren't there to get the job done..go home. The balancing act is to keep the troops disciplined and motivated to do that job and this doesn not involve killing civies or non-combatants. It may happen and often will be swept aside as an isolated incident but an officer will ensure the whole unit doesn't get into it or the whole team falls apart. This in war become the important "call".

The key is too remind them that what they do here will be there for the rest of their lives..very hard with 18 yr olds but then that is why we get the big bucks.

One section answered in time from up to down...

Nice points on the good soldier. Once more my field of service needs strong individuals capable of quick and ruthless action. Team is a tool to them as if they have a good team the job gets done more easily. Thus keeping the team capable of functioning to the very best of performances is a very high thing on the priority list.

Could not find a switch - I must be either "on" or "off" all the time...

Sounds like my idea of a good/better officer gets echoed here...

The objective of the war is to win. The conditions for victory are politics. Soldiers talk about missions and battles. The goal is to complete the orders while keeping your force ready for the next assignment.

There is a clear difference between killing civvies for fun and out of necessity. Rob made a point that soldier should do his best to avoid civilian casualties. He should also make them if the best effort of avoidance falls short in a critical situation.

People do get used to death and dying. Warfare is such a devious contest - knowing your death is one shot away makes the sanest of persons to crack at least a bit.

This is a common condition among veterans. Those saying that killing is a natural thing to modern human are WRONG. It is an extreme act and even when "called for" will cause after effects to most humans.

Officer has a pistol (at least we do) and we also carry a rifle in the very case we run into enemy. The fact is that officer should be made of steel able to control his troops in combat, after it and even prevent all harassment of civilians and such. He should stop his starving men from stealing food, punish them from acts of unnecessary violence against civilians who will sell them to the enemy without a second thought. It is not an easy task. The truth is not here or in the books. It is on the fields.

Nice speech as I can agree to most of it. Still people here seems to think that it is okay in my mind to shoot civilians. It is not. Sad fact is that it is done in every major conflict - out of necessity or just for the heck of it. The guy doing it for a proper reason seeing no alternative is doing his job. The guy doing it for fun belongs to an institution or against the wall.

-T

[Traject0ry]

I hope I made my point. No more posting here by me as the topic gets too hot. If anybody has anything else to say to me directly feel free to e-mail,

traject0ry@hotmail.com

-T

[Tarquelne]

Uhhh, I'm not sure where YOU serve but I think the worst cases do not make it through the

selection back here.

And they don't become "worst cases" during the fighting either? I'm very happy for you, I wish everyone was like that.

Still I prefer the company of the nastiest and meanest guy

I'm no longer sure you know what "nastiest" can actually mean.

I am glad that your army lets you choose your fights and who to shoot at.

And I have no idea where you got that.

as it is there is little reason to deny the fact that practically every conflict produces necessary civilian casualties.

And I never denied that. In fact, I explicitly discussed it.

Guerilla type of warfare unit requires a certain type of character.

Are you refering to your "arrogant" guy who "ignores the value of life." _Ignores_?That's the sort of person who might enjoy some nasty guerilla warfare. I reject the idea, though, that he's the sort you need. Not if you want your forces to be the "Good Guys." If you want to organize a death squad, OTOH, I'd want your arrogant barbarian warriors.

[ June 29, 2002, 11:00 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[Tarquelne]

Still people here seems to think that it is okay in my mind to shoot civilians.

Speaking for myself, I think "ignore value of human life" gives that impression, and saying that a soldier should be "arrogant", not, for instance, "confident", "resolved", or "ruthless" furthers it.

But you seem to have developed a much more moderate position.... just be careful with absolute terms like "nastiest" and "ignore."

[illo]

"The bombing of non-combatant populations violated international and humanitarian laws."

-American protest to Japan about its bombing of China in 1938

"The American Government and the American people have for some time pursued a policy of wholeheartedly condemning the unprovoked bombing and machine-gunning of civilian populations from the air ."

-American President Roosevelt on the Soviet bombing of Helsinki in 1939

"the 1,250,000 people in the city on the night of the raid had been reduced to 368,619 by the time it was over"

"During three waves of attacks, over 1,300 British and U.S. bombers dropped more than 3,300 tons of bombs on Dresden. Many of the bombs were incendiaries.

The incendiaries dropped on the old city center started a firestorm--a huge blaze that sucked the oxygen from the air. Temperatures soared as high as 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit. This had not been seen before in Europe, although U.S. bombing started a firestorm in Tokyo and the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki also set off firestorms.

Low-flying planes machine-gunned the fleeing population along the banks of the Elbe river. A fourth attack on Dresden concentrated its bomb load on the roads used by the fleeing population.

The cultural center of the city was totally destroyed. Meanwhile, the only possible military or economic targets--the barracks in the city's north and the train station where trains carrying reserves for the Eastern Front might depart--were left untouched.

Just to point out that War as a whole sucks, heroism, valor, justice.... that's only in hollywood movies.

[Splinty]

" Just to point out that war as a whole sucks, heroism, valor, justice.... that's only in Hollywood movies."

As a combat veteran myself, I DO agree that war sucks. But the remark about heroism and valor only being Hollywood is complete and utter BS. I have witnessed selfless act of heroism on the part of soldiers in my time and I'm sure other vets here will say the same. War like all forms of large scale crisis brings out both the best AND worst in human beings and you are doing yourself and the human race a disservice by generalizing like that. As for justice, well that's above my level.

(Edited because of bad spelling)

[ June 29, 2002, 09:11 PM: Message edited by: Splinty ]

[The_Capt]

War is a filthy, dirty and unhumane job..BUT somebody has to do it.

Until mankind figures out a better way we will need Dogs of War.

[Phantom Captain]

yeah,

but are the mg's in CM undermodeled or no?

[Vanir Ausf B]

One thing this thread has clearly shown is that bombing of civilians is grossly undermodeled in CM. Let's hope it stays that way.

[Sarge Saunders]

Originally posted by Lord Dragon:

yeah,

but are the mg's in CM undermodeled or no?

They are. Can't wait for CM:BB!

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

One thing this thread has clearly shown is that bombing of civilians is grossly undermodeled in CM. Let's hope it stays that way.

Ditto. Let's keep CM "sanitary". We want to enjoy tactics and fighting. But as we all know too well, war is a nasty business.

-Sarge

[Traject0ry]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Still people here seems to think that it is okay in my mind to shoot civilians.

Speaking for myself, I think "ignore value of human life" gives that impression, and saying that a soldier should be "arrogant", not, for instance, "confident", "resolved", or "ruthless" furthers it.

But you seem to have developed a much more moderate position.... just be careful with absolute terms like "nastiest" and "ignore."</font>

[Traject0ry]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Uhhh, I'm not sure where YOU serve but I think the worst cases do not make it through the

selection back here.

And they don't become "worst cases" during the fighting either? I'm very happy for you, I wish everyone was like that.

Still I prefer the company of the nastiest and meanest guy

I'm no longer sure you know what "nastiest" can actually mean.

I am glad that your army lets you choose your fights and who to shoot at.

And I have no idea where you got that.

as it is there is little reason to deny the fact that practically every conflict produces necessary civilian casualties.

And I never denied that. In fact, I explicitly discussed it.

Guerilla type of warfare unit requires a certain type of character.

Are you refering to your "arrogant" guy who "ignores the value of life." _Ignores_?That's the sort of person who might enjoy some nasty guerilla warfare. I reject the idea, though, that he's the sort you need. Not if you want your forces to be the "Good Guys." If you want to organize a death squad, OTOH, I'd want your arrogant barbarian warriors.</font>

[Gen-x87H]

illo "

Isnt it amazing the hypocrisy?

I wonder if this story is true if anybody on the allied side was even tried for the obvious sluaghters of hundreds of thousands of civilians?

Chances are the bastards who did this got off scott free. It almost sickens me to think we could do this. I always pictured us(british\American) above atrocities that our allies(soviet union) would commit.

If your story is true that debunks my thought and makes me very sad.

Gen

[sambourg2000]

Originally posted by Traject0ry:

I am honestly apologizing my extreme language. I am also admitting that I let it get to me that people here would actually be so upset about shooting unarmed enemies in a combat situation. I am also quite happy to see that most people agree on the fact that shooting civilians is a thing to be avoided if possible. I am also defending (in court martial if ever necessary) those guys who get the job done even if it takes more than they would be willing to give. I am not going to defend a man who has wasted a perfectly good civilian life without any obvious reason. The only sad thing is that in the end it is a personal call if things are actually "necessary". Your view and mine could differ greatly.

But now the question is what is this "job" to be done ? Usually it is defined by the politicians, but does this remove all the responsibility from the soldiers ? If the soldiers are ordered on a mission that requires killing unarmed civilians and commiting war crimes, can they just hide behind the "job had to be done" phrase ? Wehrmacht officers tried this in Nuremberg and the result was that "doing the job" was no excuse for war crimes in the Eastern front. Following orders does not remove responsibility from the soldiers.

I was taught in the army training that an illegal order is not to be fulfilled. I see this as such that if not killing civilians results in failure in mission, then failure it will be. What kind of society would I be defending, if it allowed killing civilians ? Would the society that I was sent to defend, be any better than that of the enemy, if it asked for killing innocent civilians in order to survive ?

Interestingly, the question of war crimes is at the moment very actual as the International Criminal Court starts functioning from this day (July 1st). Unfortunately, for some reason, the USA sees itself above other democratic countries and is not going to join even though it signed the treaty in 2000. Even such countries as Iran, Yugoslavia and even Israel are joining.

[sambourg2000]

Originally posted by Gen-x87H:

Isnt it amazing the hypocrisy?

To me, not amazing at all. It happened then and continues to happen to this day.

I wonder if this story is true if anybody on the allied side was even tried for the obvious sluaghters of hundreds of thousands of civilians?

Of course not, "Bomber" Harris was a big war hero. It would have been politically impossible to try any allied commander, East or West. No British court would have convicted a war hero. No Soviet court would have either. As long as Milosevic was in power in Yugoslavia, no Yugoslavian court would have tried him. That's why the founding of International Criminal Court (starts today), is profoundly different. It is above politics. It is independent of any state.

Chances are the bastards who did this got off scott free. It almost sickens me to think we could do this. I always pictured us(british\American) above atrocities that our allies(soviet union) would commit.

Of course we have to remember that the definition of an attrocity has changed some since WWII. Bombing cities to "break the moral" of the people was considered acceptable way to make war. It is no more.

[Traject0ry]

Originally posted by sambourg2000:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Traject0ry:

I am honestly apologizing my extreme language. I am also admitting that I let it get to me that people here would actually be so upset about shooting unarmed enemies in a combat situation. I am also quite happy to see that most people agree on the fact that shooting civilians is a thing to be avoided if possible. I am also defending (in court martial if ever necessary) those guys who get the job done even if it takes more than they would be willing to give. I am not going to defend a man who has wasted a perfectly good civilian life without any obvious reason. The only sad thing is that in the end it is a personal call if things are actually "necessary". Your view and mine could differ greatly.

But now the question is what is this "job" to be done ? Usually it is defined by the politicians, but does this remove all the responsibility from the soldiers ? If the soldiers are ordered on a mission that requires killing unarmed civilians and commiting war crimes, can they just hide behind the "job had to be done" phrase ? Wehrmacht officers tried this in Nuremberg and the result was that "doing the job" was no excuse for war crimes in the Eastern front. Following orders does not remove responsibility from the soldiers.

I was taught in the army training that an illegal order is not to be fulfilled. I see this as such that if not killing civilians results in failure in mission, then failure it will be. What kind of society would I be defending, if it allowed killing civilians ? Would the society that I was sent to defend, be any better than that of the enemy, if it asked for killing innocent civilians in order to survive ?

Interestingly, the question of war crimes is at the moment very actual as the International Criminal Court starts functioning from this day (July 1st). Unfortunately, for some reason, the USA sees itself above other democratic countries and is not going to join even though it signed the treaty in 2000. Even such countries as Iran, Yugoslavia and even Israel are joining.</font>

[sambourg2000]

Originally posted by Traject0ry:

I think that most German officers tried after the war had committed "warcrimes". The question is that if a soldier is forced to kill a civilian in order to protect his squad from ending up in enemy hands is he committing a war crime? The answer is no as his immediate superior is responsible for either giving him the order or for failing to prevent the act.

This is exactly what the Wehrmacht officers up to generals said. They were given an order. My point was that an order to kill civilians if that is seen necessary does not in any way remove the responsibility from the person who executes such an order. And this was the significant result in the Nuremberg trial.

The German guys ordered large groups of civilians to be killed without any other than racial excuse. They got what they asked for. Had they declined from such actions they might have ended up dead anyway, still I personally might have tried to survive the court martial instead of burning loads of people locked inside a village church. To understand these men even partly the obvious reason for them to be able to excuse these acts was their view of the Russian civilians produced by the Nazi propaganda machine.

Regardless of what was the motivation behind the killing of civilians, it's still killing of civilians. The Geneva Convention does not make exceptions to this. If they had justified the burning of people in the church by saying that some of them were partisans, but it was impossible to tell who, it would have still been a war crime.

Of course the defending army is responsible to take care of the evacuation of civilians away from military targets, but this does not mean that if there is a single military hq in a city, then leveling the entire city with nukes would be ok. This did not happen for instance in Bagdad in 1991, but it did happen in WWII.

Lifelong indoctrination does leave a certain impression. The fact that these guys were condemned was that the world had to be shown that such acts of violence should not go unpunished. If every allied or axis soldier causing civilian deaths would have been tried after the war most of us would not be here.

Why not ? You don't need to execute every one found guilty. For instance, the War Crime Tribunal in Hague isn't even allowed give death penalty to Mladic, Karadiz or Milosevic.

The point of condemning people who killed civilians would be to show that this is wrong. This is something you cannot do to win the war.

It is a crime, still failing the mission could mean that a great number of men get killed for your failure. It is easy to say "I could find another way to handle it". A helicopter pilot transporting special forces knows that if they are stranded behind enemy lines he has to ditch for it by himself. The guys have a job to do and the pilot DOES NOT WANT TO KNOW what might happen if he gets in the way. Now he is a soldier but still on the same side. He knows the risks.

The point is that you don't even send men to a mission where they have to meet unevacuated civilians. Or if you do, then you take the risk that the mission is a failure because of the civilians.

The idea is that as civilians are there they have become part of the war. Like a plane crash a war is a catastrophy. People get killed for just being there.

No no no. There is a BIG difference between a war and a plane crash. A war is always a deliberate act. All wars from Hitler attacking Poland in 1939 to the US bombing Afganistan just a few months ago were all results from decisions. They didn't just happen by accident.

Shooting civilians without a purpose is lunacy. Blowing up an enemy field HQ and killing some local population is an act of war you get decorated for. Shooting someone on the way in order to achieve this grand goal is murder you get shot for when you get back?

Yes, if it's an unopposing and unarmed civilian, who had no way to get out of the warzone, it is a murder. I don't understand were you get the idea that all war criminals should be shot, but yes, some convivtion should be a result of such a deed.

That blowing up of the HQ is not a war crime, because it's the responsibility of the HQ personel to warn the people living nearby that this is a danger area and that they should move away.

Ok, this is now so far from CM that I stop here. Or maybe the CMBB could be used to model partisan warfare and then these issues would come into play.