Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
I started off as a troopie and my first dead enemy were two who were dispatched by the lead tracker with two pairs of double-taps when he walked into them filling their water bottles from a stream. As the junior troopie on that day I had pull them out of the water (getting my legs wet) while the others waited dry on the bank. I remember at first just staring at the first body - he had two in the chest, eyes open, mouth open and the slow moving water was red with his bleed out - until the 'older' troopie gently said something like 'lets get on with it' and got me to pass him the arms so he could pull the body out of the water. The corporal was less understanding and told me to 'get your ass into gear'. It the first one was washed 'clean' the second had had the top of his head lifted off (7.62 NATO does that) and was an a more ugly sight. I had a more gentle introduction to death than the troopie I quoted above (and compared to some in other wars we both had a gentle intro as the bits of bodies and the 'crispy critters' were to come later for me). ...

I mention the medical training for two reasons being that it was good for morale that the troopies knew help and CASEVAC was close at hand should they get hit. This for the regular soldiers who were around for years was especially important as it was just a matter of time before their number came up and they would need help from their mates. Second because we needed the wounded to be 'stabilized' and cleared from the scene quickly and effectively so we could get on with the fight and while waiting it is better for their mates to be in a position to help rather than just hold his hand and maybe pray. (A lot of people tend to volunteer to stay with the wounded) Also a wounded man with his wounds neatly dressed waiting for the chopper in comfort is also a lot better for morale than the chaos one sees on some of that war footage out of Vietnam (looking more like scenes from Napoleons retreat from Moscow).

A long reply but perhaps it should be considered that during the post contact drills when the contact area is being cleared and the bodies and equipment sorted out the troopies are coming down from the high of battle and perhaps they are hyper aware of what they are doing at that time - dragging bodies around - this is better than having the new troopies out on the perimeter thinking too much about what just happened. Strange thoughts tend to enter idle minds... so keep them busy. Officers and NCOs will be kept busy organising others. We need to watch the 'others' (as some get the post contact shakes) and always put the troopies out in pairs - new with old, never two NFGs together... where in the best Brit tradition they can brew up (make tea) and come down gently.

I will say that all armies must be aware that full brain development - control of reasoning and impulses - only is achieved by age 25. As wars progress the age of those doing the actual fighting declines - Marlantes notes that at 22 he was the second oldest in his Marine company in Vietnam (the company commander being 23). To be brutally honest we need to keep it simple (KISS) and clear for this age group in training. This why my whole thrust or argument (in other threads) has been for the academic training to take place at the Capt/Major level for officers (and not directly out of school). This issue is seldom taken into account.

While Moran and Marlantes talk about different things what they do comes from personal experience. They are both highly educational. Marlantes is more of my age group and while I don't agree with all Marlantes relates he helps us to make better sense of our war experiences... and if serving soldiers can do so they will be in a improved position to better prepare the next generation for war (in the psychological and emotional senses).
Your post from which I extracted these paragraphs was all good but to a civilian these are especially good. They cover human factors that would never have occurred to me but when pointed out, they are actually the little things that would seem to make a big difference between a unit going on effectively or faltering, especially the observation about the importance of everybody having good medical training on the morale of the soldiers who had been around longer.

Churchill observed in The Malakand Field Force that ideally the British at the time would have preferred all their soldiers to be older than 25. I know ideal is impracticable but would you agree or disagree?

I read a book by an Israeli armor general about the '73 war and he had a similar observation about volunteering to stay with the wounded. Until he put a stop to it, 3 tanks would take one wounded man back to aid, the tank he was in and two others to escort that one.