Intention Wound vs. Kill Shots...Data?

Specster

Sergeant Major
Joined
Sep 19, 2014
Location
Mass.
I thought this question may have come up before but when you put the critical words in the search you get swamped with results. If this has been asked before Im not trying to be redundant.

The question is during the ACW did soldiers with shoulder arms shoot to wound or to kill?

I know the question is complex:

1. We are talking about brother vs brother
2. As the war went on and casualties increased, so did intensity, hatred and the want for revenge.
3. Battlefield were smoke ridden and confused, aim would be difficult
4. Artillery is a big question mark - I dont think anyone was accurate enough to maim as opposed to kill

Regardless, do people think or have knowledge that soldiers aimed in injure as opposed to aimed to kill? There were positive and negative consequences to each - morally, strategically, politically etc.

Opinions?
 
As you state in point #3, little could be seen on a battlefield (at least after it had been underway) due to the blackpowder smoke. Based on various accounts, I believe the average soldier - when fighting in line of battle - just loaded and fired away into the smoke without being able to see much of the enemy besides their muzzle flashes. There would just be too much smoke and confusion for one to easily take careful aim and try to wound rather than kill.

On point #2, generally speaking, I think the first volunteers were the most eager to get at the enemy, much more so than later on. After they had "seen the elephant," and discovered that the other side was not too different from them, both sides developed a mutual respect for one another - with a few exceptions. But, that doesn't mean they weren't still willing to kill each other....
 
Last edited:
Soldiers were reminded to shoot low, to aim low, not out of any desire to maim rather than kill, but from the tendency of the average soldier to shoot high. At typical rifle range, say 150-200 yards shooters can't be choosy. They want to hit something and a man's chest is bigger than a man's knee and a more likely hit. If closer than 50 yards opposing troops are likely to be so scared by the blizzard of bullets coming at them or the glint of bayonets, all seemingly pointed at their bellies, that they were likely to be just loading, pointing and firing with little thought about trying to wound rather than kill. No. I don't think there was much intent to wound rather than kill in the heat, and terror, of battle.
 
I think they just wanted to hit their opponent in any place - they would actually have to be very lucky just to score any kind of a hit owing to the smoke, confusion and usual distances involved. The amount of lead expended on average to inflict one single casualty was enormous. It was not often that an opponent could be seen clearly, and that was usually at close range, when one side or the other was typically about to give way. Close quarters combat was extremely rare and often came as a surprise, for instance a unit emerging from the woods to find the enemy in near proximity.

However, there are examples of soldiers intentionally trying to kill unarmed and/or disabled opponents who were in plain sight. I have just started compiling a list of such atrocities committed during the battle of Gettysburg. In one case, some wounded Federals were lying or sitting next to a boulder within the enemy lines near the Devil's Den when a Confederate soldier stood off a short distance and began shooting them one by one. Here's another example (as reported in Pictorial History of the Thirteenth Vermont Volunteers by R. O. Sturtevant) from a soldier named Edward Freeman: "After the battle my comrade shot a rebel right in the head because he would not give up his gun."
 
I'm trying to remember where I read this. I read a discussion about ratio of hits to shots fired in different wars, and their conclusion was that most men instinctively were shooting to miss, because of a revulsion against taking human life. Supposedly the army started training people shooting at man sized targets, and then put out video games, in hopes of desensitizing people, and it worked.

Couldn't find the article I was remembering, but this forum post discusses and quotes he same study:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=536561

No idea whether this is valid or not, just putting it out there.
 
3. Battlefield were smoke ridden and confused, aim would be difficult
Here's a good excerpt from Major Samuel H. M. Byers' (in the 5th Iowa Inf.) account of Champion Hill:

"I could not see far to left or right, the smoke of battle was covering everything. I saw bodies of our men lying near me without knowing who they were, though some of them were my messmates in the morning. The Rebels in front we could not see at all. We simply fired at their lines by guess, and occasionally the blaze of their guns showed exactly where they stood. They kept their line like a wall of fire. When I fired my first shot I had resolved to aim at somebody or something as long as I could see, and a dozen times I tired to bring down an officer I dimly saw on a gray horse before me."
http://www.battleofchampionhill.org/byers.htm
 
I thought this question may have come up before but when you put the critical words in the search you get swamped with results. If this has been asked before Im not trying to be redundant.

The question is during the ACW did soldiers with shoulder arms shoot to wound or to kill?

I know the question is complex:

1. We are talking about brother vs brother
2. As the war went on and casualties increased, so did intensity, hatred and the want for revenge.
3. Battlefield were smoke ridden and confused, aim would be difficult
4. Artillery is a big question mark - I dont think anyone was accurate enough to maim as opposed to kill

Regardless, do people think or have knowledge that soldiers aimed in injure as opposed to aimed to kill? There were positive and negative consequences to each - morally, strategically, politically etc.

Opinions?
Has others have pointed out in the heat and stress of battle their is simply not enough time to aim to wound. It is simply kill or be killed. Just hitting a target with a modern smokeless rifle with iron sights is not that easy. Try using a replica CW rifle and shoot three shots a minute at a standard combat target at 25, 50 100 yards and ( I use the ICE -QT target because that's what I have to qualify on) and try to shoot to maim. Chances are you will miss or sometimes hit the kill zone and some times hit to maim. Have other shoot next to you and scream in your ear just like in a typical CW battle . Lets compound that with the fact that often CW soldiers where very hungry, to hot or to cold and to tired after a long day or days marching.
Leftyhunter
 
Marksmanship training in the Military has been discussed for decades.

Even though the following video is not Civil War related, I wanted to share it with the forum.



http://www.usmcpress.com/heritage/marine_corps_rifleman's_creed.htm


Marine Corps Rifleman's Creed: (excerpt from Warrior Culture of the U.S. Marines, copyright 2001 Marion F. Sturkey)

In boot camp at Parris Island or San Diego, and in the Basic School at Quantico, no one escapes from the Rifleman's Creed. Every Marine is trained, first and foremost, as a rifleman, for it is the rifleman who must close with and destroy the enemy. The rifleman remains the most basic tenet of Marine Corps doctrine. All else revolves around him. Marine Aviation, Marine Armor, Marine Artillery, and all supporting arms and warfighting assets exist to support the rifleman. It is believed that MGen. William H. Rupertus, USMC, authored the creed shortly after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. It is commonly known as the Rifleman's Creed, but it has also been called "My Rifle: The Creed of a United States Marine." Every Marine must memorize this creed. And, every Marine must live by the creed.

This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life. Without me my rifle is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless. I must fire my rifle true. I must shoot straighter than the enemy who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me. I will. My rifle and I know that what counts in war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, or the smoke we make. We know that it is the hits that count. We will hit.

My rifle is human, even as I am human, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weaknesses, its strengths, its parts, its accessories, its sights and its barrel. I will keep my rifle clean and ready, even as I am clean and ready. We will become part of each other.

Before God I swear this creed. My rifle and I are the defenders of my country. We are the masters of our enemy. We are the saviors of my life.

So be it, until victory is America's and there is no enemy.


http://www.ww2gyrene.org/weapons_M1903A3_rifle.htm


Expired Image Removed
WEAPONS OF THE WORLD WAR II GYRENE

The U. S. Rifle, cal. .30, M1903A3



Expired Image Removed
CHARACTERISTICS

The U. S. Rifle, cal. .30, M1903A3 was an air cooled, clip-fed, bolt action, shoulder weapon.

Weight—8.69 pounds
Length—45 inches
Ammunition—cal. 30.06
Method of loading—5 round clips
Effective range—600 yards
Muzzle velocity

An infantryman of the 1st Marine Division on patrol with his Springfield during the campaign for Guadalcanal in 1942. He carries spare ammunition in his cartridge belt and in bandoleers slung on his shoulders. USMC Photo



Expired Image Removed
Belleau Wood by
Frank E. Schoonover
US Army Art Collection

The Marines opened up with machine-gun fire and with rifle fire—extraordinarily accurate rifle fire, thanks to U. S. Marine Corps training that emphasized accuracy of fire over speed. "The French told us," [Col Albertus] Catlin recalled, "that they had never seen such marksmanship practiced in the heat of battle."

Miracle at Belleau Wood by Alex Axelrod

The horrors of the Western Front in World War I tested the Marines who fought there in ways unimaginable to those who weren't exposed to the reality of life in the trenches. The passage above refers to the first day of Marine combat in the hotly contested Belleau Wood in France. On that day in June 1918, the Fourth Marine Brigade suffered more casualties than in the entire history of the Marine Corps up to then. But the steadfast leathernecks of the Fifth and Sixth Marine Regiments gave as good as they got. In large measure, their effectiveness was due to practical marksmanship training, leadership and a rifle that matched the steel of the men who used it on that hot day in France, and on many other battlefields around the world. That rifle was the M1903, nicknamed "the Springfield," or simply, "the 03."

Expired Image Removed
A sentry stands his post armed with his Springfield rifle. Attached to the muzzle of his rifle is the M1905 bayonet. This weapon had a blade length of 16 inches.USMC Photo

Since its earliest history, the Marine Corps has lived by the phrase, "every Marine a rifleman." Marksmanship and its tactical applications have been drilled into every Marine who has worn the uniform of the Corps. This core combat skill was epitomized by the thin line of Devil Dogs at Belleau Wood who smashed the best the German army had to offer. But the Springfield rifle was not only used in the First World War, but also in expeditions across the face of the globe, and through the early battles in World War II. Versions of the Springfield modified as a sniper rifle soldiered on through the Korean War, and some even saw service in this role in Vietnam.

Expired Image Removed
Guadalcanal Marine by Maj Donald Dickson, USMC. USMC Art Collection

After the Spanish-American was of 1898 the U. S. Army Ordnance Department searched for a service rifle that was reliable, hard-hitting and easy to operate. The answer came in the form of the M1903 rifle, which used a licensed derivative of the famed Mauser action. In 1906, the Ordnance Department adopted the .30 caliber cartridge for the Springfield. Designed in response to German ammunition developments, the "30.06 round" would go on to serve in many wars of the 20th century. Able to penetrate 1/4 inch of steel plate at 600 yards, the 30.06 round was powerful enough for any battlefield application.

Marksmanship was almost a cult in the Marine Corps. The yearly ritual of qualification—especially in the interwar years—took a full week and the stakes were very high, not only for the individual Marine, but for his unit as well. Marines practiced snapping in, a repetitive exercise with unloaded rifles where they lined up their sights on an object and then squeezed the trigger. Performing this drill hundreds of times in various shooting positions, the riflemen refreshed and honed their skills before the all important live firing.

Then it was off to the known distance, or "KD," range. Here the shooters reinforced and demonstrated their skills with live ammunition. The firing detail was broken down into relays. One of the relays trudged downrange to the butts, a trenched and reinforced area where they pulled and marked targets for the other relays.

Expired Image Removed
Camp Mathews, Calif. Marines from MCB, San Diego, practice in the kneeling position at one of the camp's many ranges. Photo courtesy of Les Groshong

Finally came qualification day, better known as "qual day." Shooting at ranges of between 300 to 600 yards, the riflemen shot strings of slow and rapid fire in the offhand, sitting, kneeling and prone positions. Record fire consisted of 70 rounds for a maximum score of 350 points. Called " a possible," this level of perfection was seldom achieved. To qualify as an expert riflemen, the Marine had to shoot a score of 306 or better. 290 or better qualified the Marine as a rifle sharpshooter. The minimum qualifying score of 240 earned the Marine a marksman badge. Below that and the Marine was unqualified, called an "unq."

Before World War II, each battalion-size unit was required by Marine Corps regulations to ensure that at least 95% of assigned troops attained a yearly qualification of marksman or higher. For the individual Marine, an expert rating meant an extra $5 per month, and sharpshooters received an extra $3 per month.

Expired Image Removed
Pearl Harbor—7 December 1941. Armed with their Springfield rifles, Leathernecks of Marine Barracks, Pearl Harbor, scan the skies during the Japanese attack.US Navy Photo

Between its introduction in 1903 and the end of World War I about 1,200,000 Springfield rifles were produced by the U. S. arsenal of the same name and at the Rock Island Arsenal. Springfield Armory transferred the production machinery to Remington in 1941 and production of the World War II era M1903A3 began in September of that year. In addition to Remington, Smith-Corona, better known as a typewriter manufacturer, built these rifles during the war. During the war, these two companies built 1,415,593 Springfield rifles.

To replace the Springfield rifle, the U. S, Army adopted the M1 service rifle in 1936 and the Marine Corps followed suit in November 1941. Nevertheless, the trusted Springfield remained in service throughout the war. It was the standard service rifle of the Gyrenes who fought on Wake Island, in the Philippines, and with the First Marine Division during the epic struggle for Guadalcanal.

The M1903A3 rifle was declared as substitute standard with the adoption of the M1 and as limited standard in November 1944. But large numbers of Springfield rifles remained in service throughout the FMF during the war, especially to equip grenadiers. The D-series Marine division was authorized 456 M1903 rifles and an identical number of M1 rifle grenade launchers. The faithful Springfield was subsequently declared as obsolete on 24 July 1947.

Expired Image Removed
Recruits at MCB, Parris Island, marching with their Springfield rifles in 1942.Library of Congress

Another important role for the Springfield was as a sniping weapon. Several variants of this this rifle were used by Marines during the war. First was the World War I era M1903/Winchester A5, which saw combat in the early campaigns of the war. The Marine-designed M1903A1, equipped with a Unertl 8-power scope proved to be one of the finest sniping weapons in the world. Finally, the Corps used limited quantities of the Army issue 1903A4 rifle.

"Gather round on the deck. The smoking lamp is lit." The squat sergeant stood in the semicircle of sweating recruits. "Today is the most important day of your lives. You people are going to draw rifles. You've got yourselves a new girl now. Forget that broad back home! This girl is the most faithful, truest woman in the world if you give her a fair shake. She won't sleep with no swab jockies the minute your back is turned. Keep her clean and she'll save your life."

They laughed politely at Beller's recitation. Smiling content, he continued. "You can take tanks, artillery, planes and any other goofball invention and jam it. The rifle is going to win this war like it's been winning them since we whipped you goddamyankees at Antietam. The Marines are the best goddam riflemen in the world."

Battle Cry by Leon Uris





 
Last edited:
In most cases it was usually apparent that the soldier was just trying to hit the enemy... any means possible... Have never encountered a credible written account whereas soldiers were intentionally only intending to inflict a non-fatal minor wound v/s shoot to kill...

Side note.. The issue of instructions to aim low or aim high usually is reflected in the known arched trajectory path of the common musket of the day. Most were "sighted" for a designated distance... without having to fiddle with the rear sight adjustment..... depending on the source may be stated to be anywhere about 150-200 yards using direct line aim musket sights... bullet path travels up.. then starts to come back down to strike the "bullseye" so to speak at that designated distance... To over simplify.... If the enemy is 50-60 yards distance or less... the "hit" is normally going to be a bit higher than the point of aim.... If the target is 200+ yards.. the impact point will be lower... as the projectile continues to drop...

Alleged improvements in weapons and weapon accuracy was of minimal impact when the soldiers themselves generally lacked the proper instruction and knowledge of how to take advantage of those improvements.. It was something they typically learned on their own in the field if they were a good soldier... We read accounts whereas an officer on the firing line yelling for his troops to aim low.. and/or aim at the belt buckle... If in close distance as mentioned above the trajectory... aiming at the waist belt plate typically would place the bullet in center chest... At greater than nominal distances we may read "aim high"... not because they intend to miss their target.. its the trajectory path at play... If then aimed at the belt plate.. might strike the target in the knee caps instead... (just an example)...

In one personal account in battle in the Valley of Va in 1864, a Confederate Regiment was staged awaiting to advance when they came under distant fire... soldiers commented on the ground just ahead of them being plowed up by musketry fire... and they occasionally being pelted with spent bullets in the foot, lower leg or knees.... The enemy not taking into aiming account of the greater distance...

Another similar account in the Bermuda Hundred Campaign in 1864.... Enemy over estimated the distance.. firing volleys high... The confederate lines patiently waiting to advance wrote of the hail of lead ripping apart the trees up over head, but served little to no damage to their ranks... The falling limbs and branches were more of an annoyance than the enemy volleys...
 
As you state in point #3, little could be seen on a battlefield (at least after it had been underway) due to the blackpowder smoke. Based on various accounts, I believe the average soldier - when fighting in line of battle - just loaded and fired away into the smoke without being able to see much of the enemy besides their muzzle flashes. But I do recall reading of some instances mentioned in period accounts where individual soldiers intentionally fired into the air, rather than aim at the enemy.

On point #2, generally speaking, I think the first volunteers were the most eager to get at the enemy, much more so than later on. After they had "seen the elephant," and discovered that the other side was not too different from them, both sides developed a mutual respect for one another - with a few exceptions. But, that doesn't mean they weren't still willing to kill each other....


I appreciate your response but Im not sure I agree. I would have thought that early on, with lighter casualties, soldiers didnt bare that much animosity. After the carnage of Fredricksburg, Antietem and such, I would have thought both sides were looking for some pay back. If someone had killed my brother, uncle or friend I think I would have been pretty upset and willing to end their lives.
 
I don't think such a question can be honestly answered as there are too many variables. Some men certainly knew if their shots told or not; especially those on the skirmish line but in a line of battle. I just think such an answer would be impossible to answer.


I agree it is almost impossible to answer but we can know, I think, what the objectives were of the soldiers, from what they and others wrote. Also, we know of situations where men had surrendered and been cut down. Looking at the questions as an outside observer, yes, it is virtually impossible to determine what the intent was -kill or wound. Wounding a soldier carries its own burdens. It doesnt do much for morale, the soldier has to be transported, cared for, fed, etc. Then again, these were hard men, many lost limbs, sometimes more than one in different battles, and kept coming back for more.
 
Were Civil War soldiers trained marksmen?

I would argue that their are simply to many variables in how a CW soldier was trained. I read one account where a Unionist soldier from Tn was given 3 weeks training before being sent out in combat. Doubtless their are many similar tales. Their where variouscamps of instruction for both sides it woulde difficult to exam how many hours if an where devoted to marksmanship taining. Obviously some units such has sharpshooters had more training i.e. Brendans sharpshooters'. In "Company Atch" Sam Watkins wrote of a competition to see who would be the assigned shooter of an expensive English made Whitworth rifle". Due to the Whitworth's cost only one cout be issued per company. Unlike you post bout American Marines and Army soldiers during WW2 their simply was no fixed marksmanship protocol for marksmanship training.
Leftyhunter
 
I appreciate your response but Im not sure I agree. I would have thought that early on, with lighter casualties, soldiers didnt bare that much animosity. After the carnage of Fredricksburg, Antietem and such, I would have thought both sides were looking for some pay back. If someone had killed my brother, uncle or friend I think I would have been pretty upset and willing to end their lives.
I'm certain that there were soldiers who wanted revenge after a friend or relative was killed, though I doubt that the animosity increased only after later battles. First Manassas, Wilson's Creek, Seven Pines, the Seven Says, or Shiloh were all fiercely fought and and did produce heavy losses among the units that fought there.

But, going back to my original point, it was more so that I don't believe soldiers (again, generally speaking) bore any less animosity toward the enemy at the beginning of the war, before they saw combat; although, it was for different reasons, i.e. they believed in the Northern or Southern stereotypes, believed such things as "one Southerner can killed ten Yanks" and so on. I'm sure many of the first volunteers in 1861 could never imagine themselves several years later meeting with the enemy between the lines at Petersburg or wherever to exchange tobacco and coffee.
 
Last edited:
I would argue that their are simply to many variables in how a CW soldier was trained. I read one account where a Unionist soldier from Tn was given 3 weeks training before being sent out in combat. Doubtless their are many similar tales. Their where variouscamps of instruction for both sides it woulde difficult to exam how many hours if an where devoted to marksmanship taining. Obviously some units such has sharpshooters had more training i.e. Brendans sharpshooters'. In "Company Atch" Sam Watkins wrote of a competition to see who would be the assigned shooter of an expensive English made Whitworth rifle". Due to the Whitworth's cost only one cout be issued per company. Unlike you post bout American Marines and Army soldiers during WW2 their simply was no fixed marksmanship protocol for marksmanship training.
Leftyhunter


I understand that the variables are ALMOST insurmountable. Yet, they are not as best as we can figure, to some extent better than a mere guess. If solders were aiming to kill or to maim, at close quarters without smoke and confusion being an over whelming factor, we should be able to understand what was occurring. This is certainly apparent in close quarter situations with one side having overwhelming numbers. There are more variables that come into play but I think, as a matter of statistics, we should be able to understand, and I think timing is critical (1861 as ospposed to 1864), what the soldiers wanted to do, and what their emotions compelled them to do.
 
I thought this question may have come up before but when you put the critical words in the search you get swamped with results. If this has been asked before Im not trying to be redundant.

The question is during the ACW did soldiers with shoulder arms shoot to wound or to kill?

I know the question is complex:

1. We are talking about brother vs brother
2. As the war went on and casualties increased, so did intensity, hatred and the want for revenge.
3. Battlefield were smoke ridden and confused, aim would be difficult
4. Artillery is a big question mark - I dont think anyone was accurate enough to maim as opposed to kill

Regardless, do people think or have knowledge that soldiers aimed in injure as opposed to aimed to kill? There were positive and negative consequences to each - morally, strategically, politically etc.

Opinions?
I don't think speculation is necessary. There's enough primary sources that, if this happened on any sort of meaningful basis, we'd know about it. Also, when a large percentage of the wounded would die from their wounds, is there a meaningful distinction between the intentions?
 
I understand that the variables are ALMOST insurmountable. Yet, they are not as best as we can figure, to some extent better than a mere guess. If solders were aiming to kill or to maim, at close quarters without smoke and confusion being an over whelming factor, we should be able to understand what was occurring. This is certainly apparent in close quarter situations with one side having overwhelming numbers. There are more variables that come into play but I think, as a matter of statistics, we should be able to understand, and I think timing is critical (1861 as ospposed to 1864), what the soldiers wanted to do, and what their emotions compelled them to do.
I understand that the variables are ALMOST insurmountable. Yet, they are not as best as we can figure, to some extent better than a mere guess. If solders were aiming to kill or to maim, at close quarters without smoke and confusion being an over whelming factor, we should be able to understand what was occurring. This is certainly apparent in close quarter situations with one side having overwhelming numbers. There are more variables that come into play but I think, as a matter of statistics, we should be able to understand, and I think timing is critical (1861 as ospposed to 1864), what the soldiers wanted to do, and what their emotions compelled them to do.
I respect your right to have a question. I don't see how we could establish an objective metric to prove or disprove your hypothesis. Perhaps a poster skilled in scientific studies could do so and still take account of all the variables already mentioned.
Here's how I look at it. lets look at documented police shootings which are at much closer range and the police officer is almost never as cold, hot hungry diseased ridden or fatigued as the average CW soldier on either side.
I can only hope that all persons who carry a handgun for a living i.e myself think about the following study commissioned by the New York City Police Dept. I think it is relevant to the discussion to show that it is very difficult at best to have the time to determine just where one's rounds go in a combat situation.
From the online article pointshooting.com/lasop9.htm
Starting through 1969 and published in 1981 the NYPD studied 6,00 shooting from Sept 1854 to December 1979 in which 254 police officers where killed it did not mention wounded.
Hit potential the following figures show at what percentage the suspect was shot at what range.
0 to 3 yards 38%
3 to 7 yards 11.5%
7 to 15 yards 9.44%
overall 90% of shootings where under 15 feet.
70% of the NYPD officers involved in the study did not use their sights 10% did not know if they did or not.
In a 1992 NYPD study the hit potential was worse.
Less then 3 yards 28%
3 to seven yards 11%
7 to 15 yards 4.2 %
Keep in mind for most of these years NYPD officers where far better trained then CW soldiers in marksmanship and the vast majority of NYPD officers had served in the US or other millitaries and many of those where and still very much so are combat veterans in the US and or other millitaries . Yet they only hit the suspect 17% of the time. I just don't see a CW soldier having the time and ability to choose just where his rounds will hit.

Leftyhunter
P.S> Amazingly enough the NYPD was able to hit 10 suspects for every officer shot . The average amount of rounds expended was 2 too 3 vs a Los Angeles Police study( 1967) that showed it was 2.6 rounds expended. NYC encompass a wide range of topography ranging from crowded urban areas to suburban areas to beach's and large parks.
 
Last edited:
I think you have missed an "obvious" question which really is not obvious. Marshall in WWII surveyed US troops and was shocked to find that only 20 percent actually fired during combat. He was not a trained psychologist or sociologist so he did not have the training to go into the motivations. Later in Vietnam, training had addressed the issue but still about 20 percent did not fire. Now the surveys were vague and even in combat some soldiers have other jobs than shooting: communications, spotting for artillary, bringing up ammunition and so on.

I think the English army was well aware of this problem. They emphasized rate of fire. The notion was that the musket was so inaccurate that everyone had about an even chance. Aimed fire was regarded with horror by many and regarded as a form of murder. Maybe soldiers felt better about firing if they felt that the results were largely accidental or in the hands of God. Something similar could have operated in the Civil War. There was enough smoke and confusion that soldiers did not know if they hit anyone or not.

You get the same thing with the bayonet. English soldiers were taught to use it. But it was figured that it took three years to train an infantry man. During the revolution very few American units could stand in the face of a bayonet attack. In the civil war, bayonet wounds were almost unheard of. Hand to hand combat occurred but soldiers seemed to prefer to use their rifles as clubs.

All of the above is just addressing the fact that most people are extremely reluctant to kill. It does not take into account of the problem that people tend to not aim whilst being shot at. I saw a documentary of the Gunfight at the OK corral. Apparently, the positions of the combatants is known and the result of every round fired is known. The accuracy was only about 25 percent and the ranges were very close about 10-20 feet. There is anecdotal evidence that the feared gun fighters were not fast. They took their time and were more accurate. But that trait was very rare and that might be a good thing. How many killers does a society need?
 
Back
Top