Understanding our wartime experiences...

[JMA]

JMA:

I have to get my copy and re-read those chapters, but I am interested in your opinion on two things.

First, in the account of the troopie you cited he seemed to have been troubled by the shattered bodies. Do you think young men who have previously worked with livestock and had been exposed to shattered bodies of animals would be less troubled on first exposure to shattered bodies of humans? If that were true, could that be incorporated into training?

Carl, I grew up as a city boy and had no experience of human death, never saw a dead person. Saw some road kill and then a few times on my uncles farm saw incidences of chickens, ducks, sheep getting slaughtered (but not much). So one could say I was wholly unprepared for death on the battlefield.

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 hear what Stan says below and tend to go along with that (in the absence of other opinion) and would see the logistics of exposing recruits to death, blood and gore by walking them through a morgue or slaughterhouse for big armies would be daunting.

That troopie was a conscript and no more than a troopie throughout his service (who now is a senior teacher at a high school in New Zealand) would not have realized then or even now (perhaps) that what was important to us was that he reacted as taught in contact even when our side had taken casualties - his school mates - and done well. We had no training geared to prepare the leaders or troopies for the debris of battle they saw. They just got on with it, they had to, we had to.

Is there any effort anywhere to prepare troopies for this?

I suggest we each carry our own memories in this regard and some handle them better than others. The difficult times are when we need to deal with our own dead and wounded. My unit worked mainly with close chopper support so were able - which was good for morale - to get the wounded CASEVAC'd in minutes and secondly we had great depth in medical training where every troopie was repeatedly required to insert a drip, give an injection of sterile water (for morphine) and seal off a sucking chest wound and of course all the minor stuff. We had few MA3 medics (equivalent to your corpsmen I believe) but many lesser trained medics to the extent that we went down to one per stick of four and he carried a decent medic pack and could use it. And while waiting for call outs we trained, trained, trained (and not only for medical). Later when the Brits went to the Falklands I was horrified that the troopies went into battle armed only with a FFD (First Field Dressing) in their pockets and only the most rudimentary 1st aid training (couldn't call it medical).

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.

Also, have you read Red Badge of Courage? That was written by a guy who wasn't there. Do you think that particular book has some value in the way that Marlantes' and Moran's books do?

Read it so long ago I can't remember it clearly.

As a novel it aims to entertain and maybe if a skilled instructor is able to extract parts from it for a structured discussion then it would have instructional/academic value beyond being merely entertaining. (Like has been done with the movie 'Twelve O'Clock High')

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).