Of course one must also understand that in many cases fighter pilot tactics were designed to effectively "feed" targets to those superior performers. In this I'm referring to the US practice of having wingmen mainly concerned with keeping lead's backside clear. German tactics were slightly different, but still scaled toward protecting the lead pilot.Originally Posted by jmm99
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
Can't present pro or con re: WWII fighter tactics ....
that's well outside of any expertise I have.
Grossman, in "On Killing" (p.182), offers this "tease bit" - the context is his discussion of the statistic (apparently from Gwynne Dyer) that 1% of Army Air Corps fighter pilots had 40% of the kills:
That piece of hearsay upon hearsay is, of course, consistent with Athens' construct in Violent Encounters. I looked briefly for an AF source, but came up empty.Several senior U.S. Air Force officers have told me that when the U.S. Air Force tried to preselect fighter pilots after World War II, the only common denominator they could find among their World War II aces was that they had been involved in a lot of fights as children.
BTW: Accepting what you say as fact ("feeding" the enemy to selected pilots), two questions: (1) what % of kills came from "feeding" vs individual hunting; and (2) the selected shooters were selected by what criteria ?
More broadly, is the same phenom observed in infantry combat ?
Regards
Mike
Would any light be thrown on the issues under discussion here by looking at HRT-type units and the individuals working within them? Correct me if I am wrong, but I assume that the mix of ability and willingness to unblinkingly kill in the context of a situation where the very purpose is to save the lives of most of the individuals involved must bring certain things to the fore in a pronounced if not necessarily unique fashion.
Last edited by ganulv; 07-30-2011 at 01:47 AM. Reason: wording
If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. – Mark Twain (attributed)
IMHO these guys have a more difficult juggling act (meaning switching on and off) than most soldiers have who go off to war for a period then come back home. These guys do it on an almost daily basis.
In addition their actions need to be more controlled and selective to avoid collateral damage. Adds to the level of stress I'm sure. I couldn't do that stuff. In my war you didn't want to get caught in front of an RLI or SAS assault line (sweep line as we called it) as if anything moved it got "smoked" (don't you just love that American expression).
Why I say this because is because when contact is made that tight spring gets to unwind (for soldiers) but for the police and SWAT etc they can virtually never just "let rip". Their coiled spring remain tight all the time (until they put their weapons back in the armoury).
So these guys have to go home in the evening after a "busy day at the office" and switch off and revert to husband and daddy mode most often without time to "chill out" (as they call it nowdays).
I wonder what the divorce rate in these units is?
Last edited by JMA; 07-30-2011 at 09:17 AM.
Israeli snipers in the Al-Aqsa intifada:
killing, humanity and lived experience
NETA BAR & EYAL BEN-ARI
http://lib.ruppin.ac.il/multimedia/PDF/25258.pdfThis article is an analysis of Israeli military snipers who served
during the Al-Aqsa intifada. It takes issue with the scholarly consensus that, for
such acts to take place, perpetrators have to somehow dehumanise their
enemies. Based on interviews with 30 individuals, it shows that snipers do not
always need to dehumanise their targets and that they experience killing in
conflicting ways, both as pleasurable and as disturbing. The snipers
simultaneously deploy distancing mechanisms aimed at dehumanising enemies
and constantly recognise their basic humanity. The article ends on a cautionary
note: violence should not be seen as only belonging to the realm of the
pathological. Rather we must be aware of rules of legitimate violence, the
culturally specific ideology of violence at work in specific cases. This kind of
ideology may ‘humanse’ enemies but still classify them as opponents against
which violence may be legitimately used.
This is an important contribution, thank you for posting it.
I agree that snipers are a special category. I have noted that they tend to relate more to how their 'kills' are made rather than the mere number. (This seems to differ from the old days when snipers (in the main) used to go after specific individuals.)
One hears of the weapon used, what ammo, what range, (very important to snipers) wind and light conditions etc etc. Then of course a 'Quigley' is really something to brag about. Who gets killed in the end is less of an issue.
But, yes, all their kills are deliberate in the cross-hairs shots. I assume that must have some psychological impact (as in the case study would the crying and wailing of mothers/wives/children as they recover the body).
How does one explain the cognitive dissonance?
Partly because it is normal to have some of that. Despite what was going on inside in my day (30 odd years ago) it was manly to say things like 'the only pain I feel is the recoil of the weapon in my shoulder'. Internally perhaps many had some conflicts (which few if any would admit too).
Also because it is now expected that soldiers should not express any pleasure in killing. It is expected soldiers should be expected to express regret at having to kill another human being. So perhaps these interviews should be very carefully structured (and I am not saying these weren't) to try to filter out when soldiers say what they think they need to say (rather than what they may really feel.
But how to keep the snipers focussed?
The danger is (like with other soldiers) that they may become a little fatigued (by repetition) and maybe pass on a potential kill or aim to wound rather than kill etc etc.
I glean from the study that acts of terrorism that may be prevented through killing these armed men is a motivation. Good to issue them with notebooks with graphic photos of bombed Israeli buses on the inside covers.
In my day the enemy provided a regular supply of such motivation. See the Elim Massacre article in Time magazine of 1978 and from the Rhodesian Ministry of Information during which both the 5 and 4 year old girls were also raped before being murdered.
Show me this photo (and others of that massacre) any day and even now I tend to have an significant emotional response:
Once you understand what is going on in the minds of (in this case) your snipers you are able to 'manage' them better and perhaps even improve your selection criteria.
I wonder how much time is spent on 'motivation' of snipers? Seems to me they more than most soldiers need their batteries charged every so often.
Last edited by JMA; 08-23-2011 at 07:19 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks