Combat fatigue
Bruce Rennie
this episode one of the officers succumbs to "combat fatigue" after
watching a couple of his buddies get wounded in an artillery attack.
Anyway, it got me to thinking: this guy has cracked after 6 months
fighting. What must it have been like for a Soviet or German grunt who
saw years of fighting?
I was reading an account of the fighting around Tilly last week and it
mentioned an episode where Canadian troops attacking after a barrage
passed slit trenches full of gibbering Germans completely disarmed by
the bombardment. These weren't green troops either, but 1 SS LAH. You
would think, after almost 6 years of war the Germans could have built
divisions out of combat fatigue cases.
Has anyone seen studies concerning combat fatigue and how they
affected each army? Or simply studies about how each army reacted in
combat? I remember the old Squad Leader generalizations that had
regular American squads break easily, but rally just as easily. Was
there a kernel of truth behind this?
Pointers appreciated.
Thanks,
/bruce
Nockston
Bruce,
In this vein of thinking, I had an eye-opening revelation when I was dating,
back in college, a girl who had come from German immigrants. This would be
1983-84 right in there. Anyways, I was invited to attend her family reunion.
Ok .. well, whatever. So, I go and here is a bunch of older men sitting
under an umbrella on the veranda. They are speaking in thick German accents
and laughing so .. I kinda eavesdrop on them. They were telling war stories.
Which I had heard from my grandfather and great uncles my entire life. So, I
didn't pay much attention after identifying the subject matter. But then,
after I heard a couple of odd statements ... I walked a little closer to see
if what I heard was correct. They were, in fact, telling war stories .. but
I never made the connection that they were telling stories about World War
II .... about being a German soldier.
Now this was rather mind-melting because I had hear 1,845 stories of World
War II ... but never from the other side.
The most revealing thing to me was that there was a gentleman who served on
The Russian Front. He drove a truck that carried fuel. Petroleum, as far as
I could tell. Anyways, he was going on and on about how far he had to drive
from the depot to the lines he was deliver it to. So, with regular occasion,
he would just stop in a Russian .. sorry, Soviet .. village and SELL the
petrol to the Soviet people in that town. Little by little, he made quite a
bit a money like this, I gathered. He said many times he arrived at the
front with no fuel in his truck. He explained to the officers that he was
accosted by Soviet partisans who stole all the oil. They sent him back to
get more. And the cycle continued.
At the end of the war, he said, he had gathered enough money to move his
family to America and start a business. Which he did and was very
successful.
This took me totally off-guard because I always had this image of all of the
Wermacht as SS Stormtroopers, these monsters of evil. I thought of the
entire German Armed Forces that way. But it really made me realize that
these guys from the other side were not brainwashed robots. They were just
trying to survive and the higher political thinking was left to politicians
with outrageous, maniacal political agendas. These guys were just trying to
survive. At least, that's the impression I got when I listened to these
German war stories first hand without an historical writer conveying those
stories for dramtic effect to get more viewers/sell more books. It was very
pedestrian and human. One man was in The Battle of the Bulge and received
his orders the morning before the offensive was to begin. He said that most
of his company, who had received orders to ATTACK WEST, looked around at
each other and said "Oh .. this is insanity. This is suicide". So, this guy
said he simply drove west, as instructed, until he came upon an American
platoon, laid down his rifle and put up his hands. As did a majority of his
platoon, according to him. They simply considered the offensive in The
Ardennes to be an idiotic order directly from a now-obviously insane Hitler
who had certainly lost his power to motivate the normal German soldier to
die in a kamikaze-like offensive. At that point, after being driven all the
way across France and with some stationed inside Germany, and getting bombed
to the n'th degree day and night, they had simply considered that the war
was over and they weren't about to die for a hopeless cause.
I don't know if this helps your question or adds to your comments but it was
an experience in my life that was absolutely perspective shifting for
myself.
I do not deny, nor advocate what the Germans did, but it allowed me to
realize that not all German soldiers in World War II were maniacal
Jew-baking fanatics that I belived they were before that day.
They were just guys in Germany caught up in a moment that they couldn't get
out of.
..
henri Arsenault
bre...@home.com (Bruce Rennie) wrote:
> Anyway, it got me to thinking: this guy has cracked after 6 months
> fighting. What must it have been like for a Soviet or German grunt who
> saw years of fighting?
>
It was called "the thousand-yard stare"... for a good idea of what it felt
like, read "The Forgotten Soldier". After a while, one just felt that one
would soon die, and one just kept plodding on without too much thinking.
Henri
Scott D. Orr
Keegan's _The_Face_of_Battle_ has a nice discussion on battle fatigue,
though I'm not sure if it would have enough stats for you. One thing
he notes that is that more experienced soldiers (in terms of actual
combat experience, not training) are generally more vulnerable to
it--that is, each person seems to have a limit for that sort of
stress, and once he's reached it, he simply can't take any more.
Scott Orr
Major H
> affected each army?
James Dunnigan said in his book 'How To Make War' ...
During WWII, the U.S. Army had three combat fatigue cases for every two
combat wounded troops. For every 100 men killed, 125 were discharged
because of mental breakdown.
Once in combat, a soldier is effective for about 200 days of action. After
that point if he hasn't become a physical casualty, he will be a
psychological one.
Best regards, Major H.
tac...@mac.com
http://www.battlefront.com/
Nockston
"Adam Kippes" <adam....@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:iberruc4iqaes82lp...@4ax.com...
> In <CKdv9.152234$Cz.15...@twister.neo.rr.com>, Nockston wrote:
>
> On the morning of 16 December? I don't think so. He would likely have
> been recaptured by his own side a few minutes later.
Well, he likely wasn't, according to him, the man it happened to, the man IN
the war. If I recall correctly, he said he was taken to the rear to a camp
with little security. In fact, I remember him commenting that the German
officers also captured were more strict than the American guards who were
unconcerned.
I'm just telling you what the guy said. This isn't read from some book or
isn't a theory. It's just me sitting and listening to some old men tell what
happened to them.
I don't believe he commented on what the rest of his platoon did. Or I don't
remember it.
See .. this isn't an opinion or philosophy that the all-consuming "I don't
think so" applies to. That's for philospophical discussions when you are
quite sure of your superiority in your own mind.
..
Vincenzo Beretta
> think so" applies to. That's for philospophical discussions when you are
> quite sure of your superiority in your own mind.
Never a good start for philosophy anyway :o)
Rotwang
There is a famous pic of a German soldier captured during operation
Goodwood, just after the massive bombardment. It's clear the lights are on
but there is nobody home. It's a great image, very powerful.
Rotwang
> have been shown numerous times in TV programmes over here. There are
> some very disturbing ones. Soldiers that just sit and stare are less
> disturbing than some that fall flat on the ground and shake at the
> sight of an officers cap or that simply shake all over constantly.
Yeah, those were pretty scary.
I heard a story about Belgian Soldiers who ended up at Dunkirk during the
retreat and during a heavy bombardment they saw a guy who was fishing in a
dock with bombs going off in all directions.
Perhaps even worse was the movie they made about the people who were
mutilated during WWI. Now that was truly unbearable, saw it a good 15+
years ago.
john graesser
"S Ross" <not....@inreply.net> wrote in message
news:Xns92B6B51...@140.99.99.130...
> "Rotwang" <Rotwang(del)@pandora.be> wrote in
> news:SPtv9.9747$QT2.191...@hestia.telenet-ops.be:
>
> >
> >> I was watching the "Foy" episode of Band of Brothers last night.
> >> In this episode one of the officers succumbs to "combat fatigue"
> >> after watching a couple of his buddies get wounded in an
> >> artillery attack.
> >>
> >> Anyway, it got me to thinking: this guy has cracked after 6
> >> months fighting. What must it have been like for a Soviet or
> >> German grunt who saw years of fighting?
The ones who served years didn't get near the fighting, even with their
reletively short time in the line US divisions could easily have a 3-1
turnover in combat troops. One quote I remember is that a division was
really three divisions - one in the field, one in the hospital and one in
the ground.
Only the US had the reputation of coddling troops who claimed combat
fatigue, a similar claim in the German or Soviet armies would have been a
quick route to a penal battalion or summary execution.
Shell shock was another matter entirely, when bombed hard enough that blood
was coming your ears, you tended to space out.
thanks, John.
Maddog
An amazing statistic. Is that 200 continuous days? In other words can a
man be in combat a 100 days or so then be out of it for 20 or 30 and the
clock starts over or is the effect cumulative.
Where did Dunnigan get those statistics from?
Maddog
Jerry Steiger
news:ab8530e1.0210...@posting.google.com...
> Has anyone seen studies concerning combat fatigue and how they
> affected each army? Or simply studies about how each army reacted in
> combat? I remember the old Squad Leader generalizations that had
> regular American squads break easily, but rally just as easily. Was
> there a kernel of truth behind this?
Bruce,
Anthony Kellet's _Combat Motivation: The Behavior of Soldiers in Battle_ has
quite a bit of discussion, but not a lot of actual data. His references
might have the studies you're looking for. Richard Holmes' _Acts of War: The
Behavior of Men in Battle_ has a chart taken from one of those studies and
a good discussion. John Ellis' _The Sharp End: The Fighting Man in World War
II_ is referenced in both of the others and has quite a long discussion with
a lot of interesting quotations. I don't remember any source with
comparative data for Axis and Allies and didn't see any in a quick skim
through the above.
Jerry Steiger
Jerry Steiger
news:CKdv9.152234$Cz.15...@twister.neo.rr.com...
> They
were telling war stories.
> They were just guys in Germany caught up in a moment that they couldn't
get
> out of.
I've worked for many years with a tooling engineer who was a child in
Germany during WWII. One time he mentioned that, very late in the war, his
father, who was older, was drafted into the Volks something or other. He and
a couple of young boys were given uniforms and rifles and told to defend a
bridge to the death against the oncoming Russians. The officer left. My
friends father and the boys threw the rifles under the bridge and went home.
Jerry Steiger
John Pancoast
"Jerry Steiger" <gwst...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:P9Jv9.158050$md1.34326@sccrnsc03...
Yeah, it's amazing how anti-war they got when it was a lost cause, eh ?
Wonder if they would have done the same thing on the French or Polish
borders in '39-40...............
I doubt it.
John
>
Nockston
> One time he mentioned that, very late in the war, his
> father, who was older, ..
That was fortunate.
>My friends father and the boys threw the rifles under the bridge and went
home.
>
> Jerry Steiger
Yeah, that was a side I was trying to respond to in the original topic of
the post. The side of a soldier that is human, not a cardboard piece, or
miniature or pixels on a screen. The side of a soldier that doesn't know,
nor care, a damn bit about expanding an empire or ethnic cleansing or any
other abstract political agenda. The side of a soldier that says "Fuck this
.. " Basically. And I would suppose that as the days drag on in combat
instead of The Thousand Yard Stare, the side of a soldier that engages in
The Thousand Step Walk ... away. Not possible sometimes, it's a death
sentence .. if caught. But there were officers, as you pointed out, that
were very human too. After playing wargames for five or six years and the
Nazis in their black cloaks of doom on stages of dramatic and sweeping
carnage, I actually met real humans that were on the other side.
The reality was simply stunning.
..
Spaller
> affected each army? Or simply studies about how each army reacted in
> combat? I remember the old Squad Leader generalizations that had
> regular American squads break easily, but rally just as easily. Was
> there a kernel of truth behind this?
>
PRE - WORLD WAR II
Bolus, P.R. "Some Notes on Shell Shock." Canadian Defence 12 (Apr 1935):
pp. 347-54. Per.
Eder, Montague D. War Shock: The Psycho-Neuroses in War Psychology and
Treatment. London: Heinemann, 1917. 154 p. RC550E3.
Smith, G. Elliot. Shell Shock and Its Lessons. NY: Longmans, Green, 1917.
135 p. RC550S55.
WORLD WAR II
Chermol, Brian H. "Wounds Without Scars: Treatment of Battle Fatigue in
the U.S. Armed Forces in the Second World War." Mil Affairs (Jan 1985):
pp. 9-12. Per.
Copp, Terry, & McAndrew Bill. Battle Exhaustion: Soldiers and
Psychiatrists in the Canadian Army, 1939-45. Buffalo: McGill-Queen's U,
1990. 249 p. D807C2C66.
Cowdrey, Albert E. Fighting for Life: American Military Medicine in WWII.
NY: Macmillan, 1994. 392 p. D807U6C685.
See Chap 7.
Grinker, Roy R., & Spiegel, John P. Men Under Stress. Phila: Blakiston,
1945. pp. 83-117. RC550G7.
Shell Shock p.2
Hanes, Edward L. The Minds and Nerves of Soldiers. n.p.: Login, 1941.
RC343H23.
Kent, Irwin M. "Combat Fatigue." Inf Jrnl 56 (May 1945): pp. 42-43. Per.
Levy, Norman A. Personality Disturbances in Combat Fliers. NY: Macy,
1945. 89 p. RC1085.L48.
Sturdevant, Charles O. "Residuals of Combat Induced Anxiety." Amer Jrnl
Psychiatry (Jul 1946): pp. 55-59. Extract, BibFiles(Veterans).
Delayed-stress syndrome?
"Therapy for Battle Exhaustion." Mil Rev 25 (Apr 1945): p. 128. Per.
U.S. Army Forces in the European Theater. General Board. Combat
Exhaustion. Study No 91,
Bad Nauheim, Ger, 1945-46. 13 p. D769A5no91.
SINCE 1945
Belenky, Gregory L., et al. "Battle Stress: The Israeli Experience." Mil
Rev 65 (Jul 1985):
pp. 28-37. Per.
, et al. Israeli Battle Shock Casualties: 1973 and 1982.
Report, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, 1983. 38 p. DS128.154B44.
Camp, Norman M., et al. Stress, Strain, and Vietnam: An Annotated
Bibliography of Two Decades of Psychiatric and Social Sciences Literature
Reflecting the Effect of the War on the American Soldier. NY: Greenwood,
1988. 315 p. Z3226C35.
Davis, S.W., & Taylor, J.G. Stress in Infantry Combat. Study, Opns Rsrch
Off, Johns Hopkins, 1954. 103 p. U22.3D38.
Davis, Stanley, et al. A Study of Combat Stress, Korea, 1952. ORO study,
Tokyo, Dec 1952.
204 p. DS921.5P78S78.
. Stress in Infantry Combat. ORO Study, Chevy Chase, MD, Sep
1954. 103 p. U22.3D38.
Fatigue and Stress Symposium, 24-26 January 1952. Opns Rsrch Off, Johns
Hopkins, 1952. 139 p. U22.3F37.
Figley, Charles R., ed. Stress Disorders Among Vietnam Veterans: Theory,
Research and Treatment. NY: Brunner/Mazel, 1978. 326 p. RC550S75.
See index.
Shell Shock p.3
Gabriel, Richard A. Soviet Military Psychiatry: The Theory and Practice of
Coping With Battle Stress. NY: Greenwood, 1986. 171 p. UM415G33.
Lindy, Jacob D., et al. Vietnam: A Casebook. NY: Brunner/Mazel, 1987.
353 p. DS557.7P7L56.
Aimed at the practicing psycho-therapist; explains the author's
treatment.
Psychotherapy of the Combat Veteran. NY: Spectrum, 1984. 315 p.
UM415P87.
Taylor, Jean G., comp. Symposium on the Role of Stress in Military
Operations, 1 and 2 May 1953. Presentation & discussion, Op Rsrch Off, Apr
1954. 56 p. U22.3T39.
U.S. Dept of Army. Military Psychiatry. Tech Manual 8-244, Aug 1957. 110
p. TM.
See Chap 6.
spaller
--
...
Jeff Urs
> Yeah, it's amazing how anti-war they got when it was a lost cause, eh ?
> Wonder if they would have done the same thing on the French or Polish
> borders in '39-40...............
>
> I doubt it.
Leaving alone the 60- and 12-year-old cannon fodder, who I'd guess
would indeed have done the same thing in 1939, I think you probably
ought to read some _Catch_22_ and _All_Quiet_on_the_Western_Front_ and
the like, and consider that the grunts don't really want to be there
in any war, at any time. They do it because they believe the guys who
tell them that their country will be destroyed if they don't, and to
keep their buddies alive. When enough of their buddies buy it, and it
becomes obvious that their country has no further hope, as often happens
to one of the sides at the end of a war, self-preservation tends to
kick in.
Regards,
Jeff
Martin Rapier
> Haven't you seen the early films from WWI of "shell shock" cases? They
> have been shown numerous times in TV programmes over here. There are
> some very disturbing ones. Soldiers that just sit and stare are less
> disturbing than some that fall flat on the ground and shake at the
> sight of an officers cap or that simply shake all over constantly.
There are two different things happening here, for want of better terms,
'shell shock' and 'combat fatigue' are quite different things.
Shell shock - this is the result of prolonged bombardment which even if it
doesn't inflict many casualties on well dug in troops, eventually causes
them to become psychological casualties as they are literally numbed into
submission by the fear, noise, concussion etc. The amount of continuous
shell fire on a position required to produce this effect seems to vary from
two to four hours continuous fire, heavy bombing attacks produce this effect
in rather less time.
Combat Fatigue - this is individuals reaching their breaking point after
prolonged exposure to stress. In John Ellis' 'The Sharp End of War'
individuals were described as having a finite pool of courage which was
gradually used up, and once it was gone, it was gone - many veterans
described their rather gloomy prospects of getting out of combat as being
one of killed, maimed or breaking.
Cheers
Martin
Martin Rapier
{snip Major H says...}
> > Once in combat, a soldier is effective for about 200 days of action.
After
> > that point if he hasn't become a physical casualty, he will be a
{snip}
> An amazing statistic. Is that 200 continuous days? In other words can a
> man be in combat a 100 days or so then be out of it for 20 or 30 and the
> clock starts over or is the effect cumulative.
Cumulative, some individuals last longer, others last less time.
> Where did Dunnigan get those statistics from?
'Studies have shown....' - it is a figure I've seen in a number of books.
I'd have to check the cites for the original studies.
Cheers
Martin
Bruce Rennie
> "S Ross" <not....@inreply.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns92B6B51...@140.99.99.130...
> > "Rotwang" <Rotwang(del)@pandora.be> wrote in
> > news:SPtv9.9747$QT2.191...@hestia.telenet-ops.be:
> >
> > >
> > >> I was watching the "Foy" episode of Band of Brothers last night.
> > >> In this episode one of the officers succumbs to "combat fatigue"
> > >> after watching a couple of his buddies get wounded in an
> > >> artillery attack.
> > >>
> > >> Anyway, it got me to thinking: this guy has cracked after 6
> > >> months fighting. What must it have been like for a Soviet or
> > >> German grunt who saw years of fighting?
>
> The ones who served years didn't get near the fighting, even with their
> reletively short time in the line US divisions could easily have a 3-1
> turnover in combat troops. One quote I remember is that a division was
> really three divisions - one in the field, one in the hospital and one in
> the ground.
You're most likely right about those who served years. On the other
hand, there was a picture in this Tilly book of a squad of germans who
were captured by a Canadian outfit. At least half the squad had an
Iron Cross of some flavor and they all had a look of long service
about them.
One other aspect that is interesting is what effect "losing" or
"winning" has on combat fatigue. Are you more or less likely to
succumb to combat fatigue when your side is obviously winning a
campaign. Or is there no correlation whatsoever?
/bruce
Bruce Rennie
> > Haven't you seen the early films from WWI of "shell shock" cases? They
> > have been shown numerous times in TV programmes over here. There are
> > some very disturbing ones. Soldiers that just sit and stare are less
> > disturbing than some that fall flat on the ground and shake at the
> > sight of an officers cap or that simply shake all over constantly.
>
> Yeah, those were pretty scary.
>
> I heard a story about Belgian Soldiers who ended up at Dunkirk during the
> retreat and during a heavy bombardment they saw a guy who was fishing in a
> dock with bombs going off in all directions.
>
One episode a tank officer related during Operation Tractable (or
Totalize, can't remember exactly) was an observation of the extreme
exhaustion that could be seen in the infantry.
This officers unit was to support a battalion attack. When the start
time arrived the officer noticed the infantry were not moving. He got
out of his tank and checked out the nearest infantry unit. They were
all sitting in their slit trenches, not sleeping, but totally imobile,
staring in a zombie like state.
He was unable to get them to move but found that if started his tanks
moving forward the infantry would follow and so he had to lead them up
to their objective instead of providing support from the rear.
/bruce
John Pancoast
"Jeff Urs" <sta...@A010-0026.LXTN.splitrock.net> wrote in message
news:jbMv9.4386$ER6....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
Thanks, I read both those books in the '70's. My statement wasn't a
question actually :)
John
Scott D. Orr
wrote:
>Only the US had the reputation of coddling troops who claimed combat
>fatigue, a similar claim in the German or Soviet armies would have been a
>quick route to a penal battalion or summary execution.
It's not "coddling"--you honestly don't want those guys in combat.
>
>Shell shock was another matter entirely, when bombed hard enough that blood
>was coming your ears, you tended to space out.
>thanks, John.
>
"Shell shock" and "battle fatigue" (or "combat fatigue") are generally
two terms for the same condition--the former used during WWI and the
latter during WWII. The modern term is "post-traumatic stress
disorder" (PTSD).
Scott Orr
David Garvin
r
>
> Yeah, it's amazing how anti-war they got when it was a lost cause, eh ?
> Wonder if they would have done the same thing on the French or Polish
> borders in '39-40...............
>
> I doubt it.
>
> John
line. Despite all post-war propoganda contrary to the fact, it remains
true that the everyday Joe (Fritz?) in Germany had roughly the same view
on the war as those in other countries.
--
David Garvin
Oromocto, NB
John Pancoast
who make these kind of statements were all for the war when the going was
good, but when the tide turned, when it was convenient to say the right
things after war, to the right people.................
Iow, I'd disagree about the average Joe in Germany. Some sure, but not
the majority, not even close. The war didn't start by itself. But at least
the Germans have come to terms with that era, unlike the Japanese.
John
"David Garvin" <ken...@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:3DC09D3E...@nbnet.nb.ca...
David Garvin
Adam Kippes wrote:
>
> In <3DC09D3E...@nbnet.nb.ca>, David Garvin wrote:
>
> > Despite all post-war propoganda contrary to the fact, it remains
> > true that the everyday Joe (Fritz?) in Germany had roughly the same view
> > on the war as those in other countries.
>
> Any evidence for that assertion? Somehow, I just don't think your average
> Soviet soldier, for instance, wanted the Germans to win the war.
>
Good point. I perhaps should have said that the everyday Fritz had
roughly the same view on the war as those in other countries vis-a-vis
their own side. For example, Fritz was happy to be winning when he was,
worried when he wasn't. Hated the "other side", and thought that they
were "bad", etc etc.
> -- AK
>
> --
> Please reply to the newsgroup. That is why it exists.
And so I shall! :-)
Timo Nieminen
> In <3DC09D3E...@nbnet.nb.ca>, David Garvin wrote:
>
> > Despite all post-war propoganda contrary to the fact, it remains
> > true that the everyday Joe (Fritz?) in Germany had roughly the same view
> > on the war as those in other countries.
>
> Any evidence for that assertion? Somehow, I just don't think your average
> Soviet soldier, for instance, wanted the Germans to win the war.
Sophistry aside, Soviet govt (with a lot of help from Hitler) managed to
rouse a lot more popular support for the war than the German govt ever
did. What did the Germans have to gain at the start of the war? Not like
Joe average thought that France could be smashed in 6 weeks, not after the
last time they tried.
Once the war started, they didn't have as much choice. Do your duty,
support the war effort. Or else.
With the benefit of hindsight, not like they should have expected anything
else with Hitler in charge.
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
Iguana Bwana
<jpan...@tetontel.com> wrote:
> The war didn't start by itself.
Versailles, St. Germain. There's your clue Sherlock.
IB
John Pancoast
"Iguana Bwana" <Iguana...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:q0i3su876dos0p2c6...@4ax.com...
Nice try Watson. I'm well aware of Versailles. Still no excuse(which is
what you're doing, keep trying or at least come up with a new one) for what
occurred.
John
John Pancoast
"Timo Nieminen" <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33L2.0211...@localhost.localdomain...
Hindsight ? Plenty of foresight with the Rhineland, Austria,
Czechoslavakia(twice), etc. imo.
John
>
Martin Rapier
> > There are two different things happening here, for want of better
> > terms, 'shell shock' and 'combat fatigue' are quite different
> > things.
> During the late/post WWI period I think shell shock was often used as a
> term for any form of, what is now known as, PTS.
Yes, they hadn't figured out the two different effects yet.
In WW2 it was fairly well known, there were even little charts to calculate
how much fire was required to produce a reasonably long lived morale
collapse in enemy positions, the Royal Artillery one was roughly:
vs open positions, 4 hours shelling at 0.1 lb per sq/yard (of 25 pdr
shells), or
15 minutes if 1 lb per sq/yard.
vs light fortifications times are doubled
vs heavy fortifications the effect is negligible unless projectiles capable
of penetration the fortification are used (ie heavy guns, naval artillery
etc)
Obviously there will be suppressive and lethal effects as well.
The concept of each man having a finite limit to how much combat they could
endure before breaking was alluded to in any number of accounts and studies,
John Ellis summation in 'The Sharp End of War' is as good as any.
Cheers
Martin
Timo Nieminen
> "Timo Nieminen" wrote:
> >
> > With the benefit of hindsight, not like they should have expected anything
> > else with Hitler in charge.
>
> Hindsight ? Plenty of foresight with the Rhineland, Austria,
> Czechoslavakia(twice), etc. imo.
Naturally, the German people could expect Hitler to grab more territory.
But, from the above list, they might reasonably expect him to do so
without war. The hindsight comes into realising that Hitler was a reckless
maniac who didn't know when to stop, rather than a cunning politician who
will reverse the Versailles dismemberment of Germany without war. I wonder
if the Germans thought that Hitler would regain Alsace and Lorraine
without war? 'Twould be a good test of how deluded they were.