Cosmoline
Member
There is no dout that the underlying methodology for Marshall's study was even more flawed than that underlying "Arming America." By modern standards there was no methodology. It was a joke. Unfortunately, the Army in its wisdom took the joke seriously and since WWII has set about trying to overcome the supposed reluctance to kill. Now you have generations of soldiers who are convinced that humans won't kill unless you put them through intense and brutal psychological training. Never mind that something like 15,000+ people are killed every year in this country by folks with little or no training.
Later studies conducted on men in Vietnam and in subsequent conflicts have become more and more accurate as sociological research has grown from a soft science joke to something which can actually give us useful information. IRONICALLY, however, as the research shows a higher kill rate because the reaserch gets gradually more accurate and scientific, the defense dept. takes credit for these results and pats itself on the back for training better soldiers!
So it's a myth that's taken on a vibrant life of its own. It's like having a massive undercount of cattle, hiring new hands and then patting yourself on the back because the next count accurately shows you weren't missing any cows to begin with!
This business of artillery killing most men is also nonsense. Until recent decades nothing in our artillery arsenal could do very much to the deeply entrenched enemies we faced. And make no mistake--by the time the US engaged the enemy in both world wars the enemy was VERY well entrenched. You'd be lucky to ever get a clear shot at your foe. This is explained in detail in every first-hadn account I've read.
Later studies conducted on men in Vietnam and in subsequent conflicts have become more and more accurate as sociological research has grown from a soft science joke to something which can actually give us useful information. IRONICALLY, however, as the research shows a higher kill rate because the reaserch gets gradually more accurate and scientific, the defense dept. takes credit for these results and pats itself on the back for training better soldiers!
So it's a myth that's taken on a vibrant life of its own. It's like having a massive undercount of cattle, hiring new hands and then patting yourself on the back because the next count accurately shows you weren't missing any cows to begin with!
This business of artillery killing most men is also nonsense. Until recent decades nothing in our artillery arsenal could do very much to the deeply entrenched enemies we faced. And make no mistake--by the time the US engaged the enemy in both world wars the enemy was VERY well entrenched. You'd be lucky to ever get a clear shot at your foe. This is explained in detail in every first-hadn account I've read.