Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
People differ. Armies should hire fewer sensitive souls and more minor sociopaths. It really isn't at all hard to spot those that will work out versus those that won't with 90% or better assurance.

As an aside on the subject of combat related books, there are of course exceptions but generally sensitive souls write and exorcise, sociopaths don't need to do so thus rarely bother.

Recall though that for small wars (or Armies...), while such selectivity can be employed, in larger ones the press for more people dictates mass hiring practices engendering an obvious loss of selectivity and thus the acquisition of more rather than fewer sensitive souls -- most of whom will go forth, do their job and be okay afterwards. Some will write books, a few good, some mediocre and some poor.
I believe I understand where you are coming from but would not use the word sociopath because of the potential for misunderstanding. ( See here )

Yes, when you add conscripts to the mix it gets massively more complicated unless there is an over-riding 'cause' which provides a strong unity of purpose.

See Kiwi doc again:

The New Zealand soldier will readily accept the sacrifice of war provided that he feels the national cause to be just. Belief in the cause may be largely inarticulate, perhaps achieved without a definite process of reasoning but it will underlie the actions of the average soldier and sustain his sense of purpose for the duration of the war. Belief in a common cause provides the initial cohesion among the individuals assembled to form a national army, and grows in time into the team spirit that I indispensable to really first class infantry formations and units.
This may well have been a factor in relation to Vietnam (for some during - "what are we doing here" - and after on return home being shunned by large sections of US citizens and collectively called 'baby killers'). Hard to cope if your support mechanism is not there (as it was for those returning to a heroes welcome from WW2).

In my war then we had little problem with conscripts especially in my unit (RLI) where they had taken a step up and volunteered for service in a unit which promised relentless action.

I would add that there was also a difference between the regular soldiers who had signed up before the war escalated and those who signed up because a nice little shooting war had developed. (Here I would discount those who had become ... shall we say 'fatigued' over time and needed a break.

To make things more complex insurgencies (where the war is generally conducted by small units) require higher levels of initiative and combat leadership skills at lower ranks levels than in more conventional settings were formations are the basic unit (other than special recce of course). By implication the individual skill of each soldier counts. In my war where we used 4-man 'sticks' across the board we could carry a 'passenger' as the 'fourth' man (a buckshee troopie) but in my unit it was rather a new troopie rather than a true 'passenger' who would be blooded in a short timeframe and move up to the position of gunner or stick medic and be replaced by another new troopie (and so on).

I would suggest that your problems in a platoon would be from those who joined the army as employment of last resort. What's that they say about 95% of the problems being caused by 5% of the troopies?

About 'sensitive souls'. In his wonderful book '18 Platoon' Sydney Jary about his time as a platoon commander in WW2 (as quoted here by Chris jM) states:

There is a mathematical formlua: aggression increases the further one goes behind the lines. Opposing infantry, with a few exceptions like the SS, are joined by a bond of mutual compassion which but few of the battlefield aristocracy can understand... Had I been asked at any time before August 1944 to list the personal characteristics which go to make a good infantry soldier, my reply would indeed have been wide of the mark.

Like most I would have suggested only masculine ones like aggression, physical stamina, a hunting instinct and a competitive nature. How wrong I would have been. I would now suggest the following. Firstly sufferance, without which one could not survive. Secondly, a quiet mind which enables a soldier to live in harmony with his fellows through all sorts of difficulties and sometimes under dreadful conditions. As in a closed monastic existence, there is no room for the assertive or acrimonious. Thirdly, but no less important, a sense of the ridiculous which helps a soldier surmount the unacceptable. Add to these a reasonable standard of fitness and a dedicated professional competence, and you have a soldier for all seasons. None of the NCOs or soldiers who made 18 Platoon what it was resembled the characters portrayed in most books and films about war. All were quiet, sensible and unassuming men and some, by any standard, were heroes.

If I now had to select a team for a dangerous mission and my choice was restricted to stars of the sportsfield or poets, I would unhesitatingly recruit from the latter.
These were conscripts and the experience was from D-Day to the end and I suppose they all wanted to survive the WW2.

Of course in a long war where the same soldiers are in it all the time most of your hard chargers would have a pretty restricted life expectancy. (Unlike these days where the Brits say "You pop over to Afghanistan for six months then its home for tea and medals".)

As Desiderata warns us:

"Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexations to the spirit."

This, I have on good authority, is why they have only one sergeant major per infantry company