Army vet here. In short, it's just about survival, to go home and see your loved ones. If you don't shoot to kill/incapacitate, the enemy will do it to you. It's nothing personal, it's just business
Nothing is more real then that moment realizing that those people want to kill you this is not a game. People that haven't been to war don't understand.
Right, we shoot to take the other person out of the fight. "shoot to kill" and "prosecute to the fullest extent of the law" are some of the dumbest statements that have ever come out of some smooth brain.
I remember what I was told during basic training "Killing is a option but our task as a soldier is to neutralize danger enemy pose, be it by killing, making them surrender or forcing them to retreat."
You should talk about "the dai hong dan incident". Where in 2007, a north Korean cargo ship got hijacked by Somalian pirates. And a US warship came to the rescue after hearing their distress call. Fortunately, the NK sailors took the ship back after killing 2 of the baddies, and capturing 5 more. 3 of the sailors needed medical treatment, where US Navy medical personnel helped them. When the news spread around NK, they made a VERY RARE statement, PRAISING the US navy for answering the distress call for the their sailors. Worth talking about it.
When I was in law enforcement class we were told Military shoots to kill and police shoot to stop aggression. The professor admitted both are shoot to kill but cops can't say that.
War is kill or be killed. You carry a battle rifle/carbine for a reason. Law Enforcement is about stopping a threat. Your primary is a handgun. After stopping a threat, law enforcement is expected to render aid to the person who just tried to kill you.
@@codybailey855And the most effective method to neutralize a threat is to stop the threat as efficiently as possible. Remember that a legless, one armed threat can still shoot a gun. And you don’t know if the threat is actually neutralized even if it has stopped moving.
Problem is that almost every shot, regardless of the part of the body could potentially kill anyone. A bullet damage to the body, even in your hand is no joke. Incapacitate is just an euphemism so soldiers could overcome the moral implications and trauma of killing another human being like you later on
What was it Patton said? "Nobody ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it, by making the enemy die for his!" Quote cleaned up, so as to not offend delicate ears.
That's what I find interesting about the fact only about 10% of troops shoot to kill. Imagine on in the Pacific, out of 300 troops only 30 were actually trying to kill the Japanese. It seems to much to believe, do your own research. Start with simply looking on Google then go down the worm hole..I spent weeks reading about it.
3 time Iraq vet here. Even with my Advanced Rifle Marksmanship and Close Quarters Marksmanship certifications when I trained under the Presidents Hundred, we never once were taught to shoot to wound. It was always shoot to hit. Shooting a moving target is hard enough from a stationary and supported position, let alone from a high stress unsupported standing position. We aim for the biggest area of the body, the torso, because it has the highest likelihood success not to mention all the vital organs.
@@ofal5124 I agree but you'd be surprised how many civies don't know this. There's a lot of them who earnestly think "shoot to wound" is a real thing and believe our LEOs and military should be using it more
The thing is, if you surrounded a house where a few Iraqs were entrenched, would you go all in until all of them were dead or would you accept their surrender? Even if one of them hit a fellow soldier. I believe that's the key difference, killing only when you need vs killing when you can.
@@TheEmolanoif they surrender then they have surrendered and that’s that. However, when you’re in a war you don’t risk your life or the lives of your troops to protect an enemy who’s trying to kill you. Are the insurgents in the house armed? Are they indeed insurgents? If yes then f*** em. No platoon commander is going to write a letter home to some kids mother telling her her son is dead because he wanted to treat the enemy with kid gloves, and that mentality has to go up the entire chain of command. Once the military is sent in they have to be allowed to do what it is they do.
I was in the USMC, I was an infantry machine gunner 0331. I carried a 240G machine gun and had been taught to hit the people in their chest to lower stomach and thighs. Those are all kill shots, I learned that during my time in Iraq.
@@David-vz4ykHes not. There is no way Iraq, or any other country could have endagnered american security and freedome. Iraq was invaded for no good reason, other then enlarging the pockets of the military industrial complex.
I always wonder what soldiers do if they just cant take any prisoners at the moment and the enemy surrenders.. I assume that these types of killings are quite common, especially behind enemy lines.
To get to an answer to this question I think it's also important to take into consideration the fact of PTSD. Interestingly enough PTSD is not a new phenomenon. There are written scriptures of ancient army soldiers who had very similar symptoms of nowadays soldiers. I think for the majority of humanity it is hard to take another human life, since we are creatures who feel empathy To overcome this problem I think soldiers need to have at least one of the following conditions: (there are certainly more than the once I mention but I think those are on the top Dehumanization = Get the soldier (or even the whole population) to think about the enemy not as a fellow human being but a threat/problem/disease that needs to be exterminated Personal motivation = To give soldiers an incentive to kill the enemy soldiers in order to protect one's friends/families/hometown/country/freedom or something one holds dear Actual vengeance = Losing empathy through actual events for example the conquest of the soviet union by the germans and their brutality on captured soldiers and the population and later calling for vengeance Under these conditions I actually do believe that even the average Joe would be able to shoot to kill. The problem is once the realisation kicks in that the enemy someone shot was actually a fellow human and not responsible for ones misary or not worth killing over an intrinsic value. And that can even happen during combat itself: If a soldier sees an enemy soldier's face up close frightened stiff, or a picture of a family in a dead soldiers pocket so something that recreates that human connection. A soldier can repress that sentiment maybe in the heat of battle when the adrenaline is pumping and basic training kicks in. But once everything settles down (The timing can vary a lot) the remorse/PTSD/questioning one's action come to themost part of soldiers. Conclusion: I personally believe that given the right conditions soldiers do actually shoot to kill. But humans aren't made to kill one another. And that's why a lot of soldiers will struggle with their actions resulting in PTSD/depression/remorse or general struggle with something. So that's my thesis maybe I enlightened someone / changed their perspective or gave someone help to find an answer to the given question maybe I just talked gibberish if you feel like leaving a response to my commantary fell free to do so I am open to everything and everyone if you made it this far I thank your for reading :D
The Problem is Many soldiers are turned inhumane because of the brutality of war. They see their fellow soldiers being killed and thats what ignites the flame. As you Mentioned earlier, vengeance.
My grandfather told me he was shooting many russian soldiers in WW2, because he knew: if he did not kill them, they would have killed him. Later he felt sorry for what he did, because he knew that they were all just young guys like himself and he was not able to forget about their screams before they died. He drowned his trauma in alcohol until he passed away with 73.
Your grandpa at least still has the symphaty deep in his heart... There are lots of soldiers out there who get used to killing and take it as a game for pure enjoyment...
My father was a WW2 veteran and I remember him telling me that oneday he was left alone to guard their outpost. His commanding officer told him to fire upon ANY vehicle that approached, without waiting to see who it was. He was given orders to shoot to kill basically. A vehicle later approached from some distance and Dad's finger started to squeeze the trigger. But he couldn't bring himself to shoot, not knowing who it was. Just as well too because it turned out to be the army doctor.
@@jason200912Yes absolutely. I had a WW2 veteran tell me another equally awful story, worse actually. He told me he was ordered to shoot German soldiers as they were parachuting in mid air. He cried as he told me he felt like a murderer. I learned recently that that was an illegal order as the Germans were helpless in that situation. It would be like shooting a soldier when he was asleep. That poor man and his platoon carried the burden of guilt their whole lives.
@@janethammond5925 I think that's actually legal as long as they're an armed soldier such as a paratrooper or if the fire while descending. It's air pilots that are the ones assumed to be non combatants when they parachute down and bail the plane
@@jason200912 Yes that makes sense, though it still seems unfair if the paratroopers are unable to fire back. But thanks for your reply, I've learned something today! 😊
“Friendly fire is not tolerated.” Viktor Reznov: The flag may be different, but the methods are the same. Theodore Roosevelt: You should be ashamed of your military honor!
Marine Corps vet here - There is no ambiguity about shooting to kill in the Marine Corps. From day one, you’re DIs make it clear that the purpose of a Marine is to kill, and that every round you fire must be fired with the intent to kill your adversary, hence the saying “One Shot, One Kill” in the words of my drill instructor, “Killing the other guy is how you go home alive.” Unlike the Army where a refrigeration mechanic would never expect to see combat and therefore boot camp is much more generalized, every Marine, regardless of their MOS expects to see combat at some point in their career, and to that end, the entirety of Marine Corps basic training and the subsequent one month of Marine Combat Training is laser focused on training you to kill the enemy. Soldiers may not shoot to kill, but Marines shoot to kill with every shot.
My dad spent 25 years in the army and he always told me the idea is to shoot to incapacitate the enemy, not necessarily to kill. It takes two soldiers or so to help a wounded man, so that's removes 3 from the fight.
Its not actually true, I spent 24 years in the Army, you're taught to shoot for the centre of mass. Reason being it gives you more margin for error. (ie youre most likely to hit that way) But dont forget that can mean centre of the head if thats all you can see....but that logic also makes it more robotic....you aren't being told the outcome of the shots just where to shoot. (I also spent 10 years in a sniper platoon, thats different as youre shooting for accuracy. So you do actually pick a specific point which then makes it easier for adjustments if you miss)
I read that rhodesian soldiers were trained to fire at cover in a firefight it was very effective as often in a combat situation it can be hard to tell iniatially where you are been fired from.
How interesting… I tried this method in PUBG when I’m getting shot at and don’t know where the enemy is. It made it easier to locate the enemy (while also making me more safe). Do you remember where you read this info from? LOL 😂
In WW2 there would have been many combatants, who had fathers and other male relatives, injured, tortured, imprisoned or killed from WW1. It makes a big difference when people have a personal reason to kill...
I have had the pleasure of speaking to egyptian SOF operators, when they were fighting insurgents in north sinai. They shot to kill, they despised their enemy and viewed him as less than human and loved what was behind them. The insurgents infront of them had not only been the cause of the death of loved ones, but also brothers in arms and the de-stabilization of the arab world. My own father wasn't SOF nor was he infantry for that matter but he was a doctor, he was dispatched with SOF in the southern mountains and north sinai, he hates that he never killed any insurgents. His war with the idea of islamic extremism continued long after his service ended, to this day as a matter of fact. Another weird phenomenon i noticed is that our soliders never really get PTSD from killing the enemy, as the enemy is always somebody terrible
You didn't mention the Korean War my Dad was in that one and the stories he told me about the enemy were unbelievable. The Chinese were experts at firing mortars. He would hear them coming down miles away and landing right into the Americans foxholes. The were precise and deadly accurate. Many of his friends were killed from that weapons explosions. He himself was injured on Triangle Hill shrapnel got his leg from and enemy cannon. He was there for over two years and was sent home after his injuries.
There are instances where soldiers don't know exactly where an enemy is so they kinda pepper an area with fire. There is covering fire to keep enemies down or in cover. Not every trigger pull is intended to kill. I imagine some conscripted soldiers wouldn't want to kill. I bet there are plenty who don't want to kill, but when your life is on the line it's probably not something on the top of mind.
People generally don't kill people without extreme cause, even in wars. People die by accident in wars, accidents happen a lot when you send a lot of bullets in the general direction that other bullets are coming from, you can have shooting accidents outside of war too, just ask Marvin. But for the most part militaries have been trying to get soldiers to actually shoot to kill, or maime, for the better part of a few centuries to little availe. That said we have found two things that work, the first is to use successful propoganda to dehumanize the enemy, this is largely why the veterans of WW2 dont regret much of what they did over there, it helped that our enemies were doing unhuman things. The other is to train people to shoot before they have time to think about what they're shooting. On the whole though both come with extreme consequences; we're seeing the highest rates of post combat PTSD, ever, and it appears that previous generations didn't escape it either. So yeah maybe getting thousands of teenagers and young adults to actually kill people isn't the most sustainable thing we couldve done as a nation.
In the Army we trained to shoot center mass ( the torso ) because it's much easier to hit a large target than a small one. A common phrase was aim small miss small. Now with that being said, if you are aiming at a persons chest, what are the odds you hit a major artery or organ?
In Vietnam they thought soldiers were shooting over the enemies head. This furthered the Armies desire to replace the M14 rifles because of their recoil being a factor creating more uncertainty.
After spending 1999-2016 as a combatant with many combat deployments, I find Grossman's assertions to be an extreme characterization. At least when applied to the modern soldier. I don't disagree that Posturing is a thing and there's a lot more shooting that happens than accurate shooting but there's also an awful lot of dead Iraqis and afghanis 2ith bullet holes in them and I never saw in any substantive way a lack of will and intent to fight.
When comparing WWII Germans, 1931-1945 Japanese made even the Waffen SS and Red Army look like saints. They ABSOLUTLY reveled in violence and sadism to the point of ecstasy. They viewed all foreigners and especially a surrendering soldier(s) as a non-entity, let alone a living being. Like a kid in a candy store.
I got an idea for a video. Why do war crimes occur? I do remember reading that troops are schooled in international law. So why do they do something they know is a crime? Or don't try and stop a crime if it is occurring. For instance, why did the My Lai massacre occur even though it seems like a textbook case of terrorism? War crimes don't normally seem like a spur of the moment attempt at self-defense. They seem planned.
only in armies like the IDF where killing is praised by religion. You have to remember, that your enemy has a family, a wife and potential children. Even Jesus teached to love your enemy.
They’re supposed to, especially with modern training methods, but whether they follow through is another matter. Dave Grossman’s On Killing is an illuminating book on the subject.
On the subject of hesitation in battle: "When you put your hand into a bunch of goo that a moment before was your best friend's face, you'll know what to do." --Patton
I believe the answer varies a lot based on situation: -Is the soldier in the deffending or atacking side? -Is the soldier a conscript or volunteer? -Is the war an ethinical conflict? -For how long the war has been going? -Are the soldiers currently taking revenge for something? If we look trought history we had very bloody battles like Stalingrad where a lot of those boxes were ticked and soldiers went for the kill even when they ran out of ammo. But also there's plenty of cases where a side surrended with minimal loses.
A decent amount of kills are just shooting into bushes or areas where enemies are meant to be, despite not seeing them face to face. Although if face to face it's a matter of kill or be killed. You might have trauma but at least you're alive.
Lt col dave Grossman also talked about how a large percentage of combat soldiers that didn't partake in combat would directly support thos who would Running ammo, re supplying medical equip, relaying orders, directing fire. Stuff like that
I never understood wouldn’t a sniper better be able to see a persons face? Most firefights take place form quite a distant(unless it’s house to house fighting but that’s never been common in any war)
@@Berserker3624A modern day sniper is an observer first and a shooter second. Getting to know all the "players" is key in urban combat for a sniper. So you may watch people for days before a shot is ever taken. But in combat a majority of shots are taken center mass, so you will never see the face of the person you're shooting. Depends on the mission objective.
As a pog vet that spent years after the military doing my job as a firefighter on army bases in Iraq, nothing I miss more than the brotherhood and experience of being in that environment with like.minded bros. I've been through dozens and dozens of idf attacks like on may 4 in taji Iraq and I miss the simple but fulfilling life I had living and working in a war zone.
People say what they will do in a situation like this but honestly and frankly they do not know unless they have been in the situation. They can speculate what their reaction will be but never know 100% until they are in the situation and rounds are flying past you. I know what my reaction can and will be it is a hard thing to know that lives inside of a person and can and will change them forever. It is something I would not wish upon anyone to have to know.
On the pacific front, a WW2 soldier's qualms against shooting to kill would have been changed the moment they realized the ruthlessness of the Japanese
probably the most terrifying form of warfare we have is drone warfare due to how much it looks like games like warthunder, meaning that soldiers are much more likely to drop a grenade due to the complete personal disconnection and anonimity
Interesting video. Anecdotally, those I have talked to from Iraq were never sure if they were the ones who actually pulled the trigger as it was usually a group effort to make people stop moving. There were more than a few who were psychopaths and wanted to kill. The majority were just in a situation and didn't really care if the enemy was dead or disabled, so long as they were not able/actively shooting at them. I had listened to a rather amusing story of an American trying to get a prisoner count from the local militia, followed by a back and forth exchange of expected numbers, routinely getting smaller each time the local militia leader came back.
Romanticizing your actions during such a stressful time is a safety mechanism for your psyche. Especially in western culture, where we tend to teach a defined moral, black and white instead of the gray, it truly is.
There is no satisfaction in killing another human being. But, in a war, it's all about survival and a soldier will do whatever it takes to preserve his life and also to protect his comrades.
My father, a Millitary historian, once told me that the quite truth is that on average around 20% of soldiers enjoy combat and even enjoy killing. He was speaking about the US Army during the Vietnam war which was a conscripted army, and I can only imagine that percentage goes up with an entire volunteer army where you choose your MOS or close to what you want to do. I know several combat veterans from Vietnam to the most recent US involved wars and of those who have opened up to me about it, only one outright said he hated killing the enemy. One even bragged about some of the kills that he recalls and seemed to be speaking about them with pride, seeing as how that particular veteran was in Vietnam and was widly celebrated due to his numerous medals, including the CMH, I can only agree with what my father said about it.
6:49 I remember reading about colonel Marshall in “Humankind, A Hopeful History” by Rutger Bregman 3 years ago. I’ve looked into some of the claims of that book over the years and a lot of it leaves crucial information out. So if you read the book, take it with a grain of salt.
Even Video Games like "Call of Duty" doesn't seem to make kills easier. Sometimes when you join the army, chances you spent a whole life in battle without firing a single shot like the Infamous film "Jarhead" for example.
Soldiers training for WW1 used circular bulls eye targets for target practice. A lot of soldiers were hesitating when shooting at people. Training for WW2 used human shaped targets and was much more likely to fire at people.
Short answer is: sort of. A Soldiers job is to pacify the enemy with deadly force, and they are trained specifically to inflict mortal wounds to stop the enemy as quickly as possible by aiming for vital organs in the upper thoracic cavity (AKA center mass) or aiming for the nose, eyes and in between (AKA the T-Box). If the enemy is wearing body armor, then they aim for the pelvis (AKA the Catcher's Mitt) to cause debilitation. Whether the enemy actually dies or not does not matter to combat troops as long as the enemy ceases posing as a threat. In the heat of an engagement, Troops often don't have time for moral objections, any guilt that exists will creep in after the battle, that's why it's called POST traumatic stress.
5.56 ammo is pretty much the awnser it was not made to kill but to remove 3 soldiers out of the battle 1 that got shot and the bullet would stay inside him then 2 to carry him to saftey
The problem with WWI was that there was a lack understanding of what they were fighting for. It was basically a pile of inbred elites who massed there armies in a pissing contest and fought each other out of an issue of emotional insecurity in that if they did nothing the others would attack.
@@switzerland3696 in many places it was a massive mess like how formal agreements ( triple alliance ) broke down and pinky promises were over delivered leading to a massive mess
@@chemistryofquestionablequa6252 That kind of describes Ukraine. But that is more of a proxy war where Ukraine is just providing the meat for the grinder.
Glad to see your face while you talk about your channel. Makes this channel much more believable in a world where so many channels are created by AI and copy-paste material with low quality.
It also heavily depends on the situation, are you shooting an enemy sleeping in his rack during a trench raid? or are you shooting an enemy bearing down on you with a bayonet at full sprint?
You don't even have to kill someone in war to have PTSD, merely witnessing it is enough. But it only takes getting shot at once to realize you want to live and make it back home (regardless of how close they come to hitting you). I don't remember any of the soldiers I served with just shooting to wound, or confuse the enemy. Sure a lot of weapons (especially small explosives) are designed to injure one or more people causing them to need attending by their fellow soldiers and therefore taking more of the enemy out of the fighting than just the injured. But like OldUncleDan said here in the comments, U.S. soldiers receive so much repetitive training it makes you simply react the way you were trained.
It actually makes more strategic sense to wound rather than kill. A wounded soldier cannot fight, but still needs to be fed, putting strain on the enemy's logistics.
That question can only be asked by people who have never been in combat. Soldiers shoot to kill because if they don’t, they die, or their battle buddies. That is, period, question answered.
While being trained by the FBI as a firearm instructor, I wrote a paper about how training soldiers to shoot at life like silhouettes improved accuracy from WW1 all the way to Vietnam, where it increases from 20% of soldiers hitting their to target to 75%. But artillery was the leading loss of life.
In the marine corps we were trained to shoot center mass but also trained to shoot the pelvic area as that immobilizes a target. By doing so u can theoretically take out more combatants as others will rush to a wounded soldier vs a dead one.
i was a machine gunner. I was either shooting in the general direction of the enemy by pointing my gun based on a map bearing and elevation from a tripod. Or, just shooting shadows that seemed to be moving. But yes, shoot to kill.
When I was in the army in 2011 we were told a few things. One was it would depend on who we were fighting. If it was a group that had no care for loss of life you would kill. If it was another nation that cared about it’s manpower you would attempt to wound when possible to not only remove that soldier but it would also take several other enemy soldiers out of the fight when they had to go get that guy out of there.
@@PROVOCATEURSK Everybody was once a civilian, some become soldiers that unfortunately will HAVE to kill each other. If you want peace, prepare for war
![[DOKKAN BATTLE] Worldwide Campaign Announcement Video Part 2!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JpT5Voak6WA/mqdefault.jpg)
This video was made possible thanks to everyone on the Simple History Patreon: www.patreon.com/simplehistory
meow
@@yayamerinbark bark.
@@yayamerinbark bark.
@@yayamerinno
I have an idea: what if you created subtitles in several languages, as not everyone (including me) knows how to speak English
Army vet here. In short, it's just about survival, to go home and see your loved ones. If you don't shoot to kill/incapacitate, the enemy will do it to you. It's nothing personal, it's just business
Nothing is more real then that moment realizing that those people want to kill you this is not a game. People that haven't been to war don't understand.
@@kooperuranus1503but I can understand what it means in history
I don’t need to be in the frontlines to understand why ww1 was messy
@@korhol2065you can say the words, but you can't feel the feelings.
But then you realize that your enemies have the same will as you to survive and be able to see their loved ones, yea but still.. kill or be billed
Right, we shoot to take the other person out of the fight. "shoot to kill" and "prosecute to the fullest extent of the law" are some of the dumbest statements that have ever come out of some smooth brain.
I remember what I was told during basic training "Killing is a option but our task as a soldier is to neutralize danger enemy pose, be it by killing, making them surrender or forcing them to retreat."
Thats a good way to put it.
You had a really good teacher sounds like.
@@eurosonly You mean LT of my platoon.
This is accurate
I totally would’ve said something like that… 😤
We're trained with muscle memory to shoot human shaped targets it just becomes second nature
Why they went to human Silhouettes to replace the round targets
@@GolfRemoEchoGolf2 Exactly 👍🏼
Hahaha what in the main character syndrome comment even is this
@@deonachilles10because you’ve killed 46,930 people haven’t you
@@Alphoricbro log out
You should talk about "the dai hong dan incident". Where in 2007, a north Korean cargo ship got hijacked by Somalian pirates. And a US warship came to the rescue after hearing their distress call. Fortunately, the NK sailors took the ship back after killing 2 of the baddies, and capturing 5 more. 3 of the sailors needed medical treatment, where US Navy medical personnel helped them. When the news spread around NK, they made a VERY RARE statement, PRAISING the US navy for answering the distress call for the their sailors. Worth talking about it.
@You_never_okay yeah I was talking about the pirates
When I was in law enforcement class we were told Military shoots to kill and police shoot to stop aggression. The professor admitted both are shoot to kill but cops can't say that.
I wonder why? Do they think we’ll just keep guns with us just in case?
So theyre taught to lie and manipulate from day 1? Interesting..
War is kill or be killed. You carry a battle rifle/carbine for a reason. Law Enforcement is about stopping a threat. Your primary is a handgun. After stopping a threat, law enforcement is expected to render aid to the person who just tried to kill you.
@@codybailey855And the most effective method to neutralize a threat is to stop the threat as efficiently as possible.
Remember that a legless, one armed threat can still shoot a gun.
And you don’t know if the threat is actually neutralized even if it has stopped moving.
@@codybailey855 SWAT Teams: Lol. Lmao even.
What my uncle told me about war. War is a ugly scary nightmare . No other way to describe it.
If soldiers were not cowards they would shoot their officers. No officers, no wars.
I reckon they mostly shoot to stop the enemy from fighting (not killing), but with how chaotic battles can be, then it’s the matter of survival
Nice pfp bro
@@TheTankperson same to you brother!
Problem is that almost every shot, regardless of the part of the body could potentially kill anyone. A bullet damage to the body, even in your hand is no joke.
Incapacitate is just an euphemism so soldiers could overcome the moral implications and trauma of killing another human being like you later on
soliders dont get into gun battles to persuade enemies to flee. soldiers/warfighters get in gun battles to end the threat.
The soldiers who don't are taken out by the ones who do.
Exactly
@@Berserker3624 Yeah it's kill or be killed
What was it Patton said?
"Nobody ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it, by making the enemy die for his!"
Quote cleaned up, so as to not offend delicate ears.
@@jedknight4389 shame that RUclips doesn’t allow for free speech anymore eh?
That's what I find interesting about the fact only about 10% of troops shoot to kill. Imagine on in the Pacific, out of 300 troops only 30 were actually trying to kill the Japanese. It seems to much to believe, do your own research. Start with simply looking on Google then go down the worm hole..I spent weeks reading about it.
3 time Iraq vet here. Even with my Advanced Rifle Marksmanship and Close Quarters Marksmanship certifications when I trained under the Presidents Hundred, we never once were taught to shoot to wound. It was always shoot to hit. Shooting a moving target is hard enough from a stationary and supported position, let alone from a high stress unsupported standing position. We aim for the biggest area of the body, the torso, because it has the highest likelihood success not to mention all the vital organs.
You don't really have to be veteran to know this
@@ofal5124 I agree but you'd be surprised how many civies don't know this. There's a lot of them who earnestly think "shoot to wound" is a real thing and believe our LEOs and military should be using it more
"Shoot to wound" VS "Shoot the dude" lol
The thing is, if you surrounded a house where a few Iraqs were entrenched, would you go all in until all of them were dead or would you accept their surrender? Even if one of them hit a fellow soldier. I believe that's the key difference, killing only when you need vs killing when you can.
@@TheEmolanoif they surrender then they have surrendered and that’s that. However, when you’re in a war you don’t risk your life or the lives of your troops to protect an enemy who’s trying to kill you. Are the insurgents in the house armed? Are they indeed insurgents? If yes then f*** em. No platoon commander is going to write a letter home to some kids mother telling her her son is dead because he wanted to treat the enemy with kid gloves, and that mentality has to go up the entire chain of command. Once the military is sent in they have to be allowed to do what it is they do.
I was in the USMC, I was an infantry machine gunner 0331. I carried a 240G machine gun and had been taught to hit the people in their chest to lower stomach and thighs. Those are all kill shots, I learned that during my time in Iraq.
So you would kill for money, how evil and cowardly.
@@PROVOCATEURSKhe is the reason you are able to live a comfterable life without oppression
@PROVOCATEURSK ok, you broke pansy.
@@David-vz4ykGood joke buddy 😂😂😂
@@David-vz4ykHes not. There is no way Iraq, or any other country could have endagnered american security and freedome. Iraq was invaded for no good reason, other then enlarging the pockets of the military industrial complex.
1:44
Man surrenders
Man stabs
Man has mental trauma
I always wonder what soldiers do if they just cant take any prisoners at the moment and the enemy surrenders.. I assume that these types of killings are quite common, especially behind enemy lines.
why man stab ?
@@Praskfulin case the other soldier pulls a *”Sike, I lied”* move
Sadly humans aren't perfect to know if it's true or lies
With how the war in Ukraine shows, killing still seems to be the norm in wars and soldiers eventually become accustomed to it (if they survive)
humans are extremely adaptable creatures, good trait to have
People are taught to be weapons by people who make the drill instructor from full metal jacket look like your nice grandpa
Yeah. But the second they get back home they never forget the people they killed. War's horrible.
@@shipsability more importantly, seeing their friends getting killed in horrifying ways
Sometimes war is necessary…
It’s honestly sad RUclips demonetizes this stuff like seriously this shot has to be remembered and not changed to sound more colourful or one sided
To get to an answer to this question I think it's also important to take into consideration the fact of PTSD. Interestingly enough PTSD is not a new phenomenon. There are written scriptures of ancient army soldiers who had very similar symptoms of nowadays soldiers.
I think for the majority of humanity it is hard to take another human life, since we are creatures who feel empathy
To overcome this problem I think soldiers need to have at least one of the following conditions: (there are certainly more than the once I mention but I think those are on the top
Dehumanization = Get the soldier (or even the whole population) to think about the enemy not as a fellow human being but a threat/problem/disease that needs to be exterminated
Personal motivation = To give soldiers an incentive to kill the enemy soldiers in order to protect one's friends/families/hometown/country/freedom or something one holds dear
Actual vengeance = Losing empathy through actual events for example the conquest of the soviet union by the germans and their brutality on captured soldiers and the population and later calling for vengeance
Under these conditions I actually do believe that even the average Joe would be able to shoot to kill.
The problem is once the realisation kicks in that the enemy someone shot was actually a fellow human and not responsible for ones misary or not worth killing over an intrinsic value.
And that can even happen during combat itself: If a soldier sees an enemy soldier's face up close frightened stiff, or a picture of a family in a dead soldiers pocket so something that recreates that human connection.
A soldier can repress that sentiment maybe in the heat of battle when the adrenaline is pumping and basic training kicks in. But once everything settles down (The timing can vary a lot) the remorse/PTSD/questioning one's action come to themost part of soldiers.
Conclusion: I personally believe that given the right conditions soldiers do actually shoot to kill. But humans aren't made to kill one another. And that's why a lot of soldiers will struggle with their actions resulting in PTSD/depression/remorse or general struggle with something.
So that's my thesis maybe I enlightened someone / changed their perspective or gave someone help to find an answer to the given question maybe I just talked gibberish if you feel like leaving a response to my commantary fell free to do so I am open to everything and everyone if you made it this far I thank your for reading :D
The Problem is Many soldiers are turned inhumane because of the brutality of war. They see their fellow soldiers being killed and thats what ignites the flame. As you Mentioned earlier, vengeance.
My grandfather told me he was shooting many russian soldiers in WW2, because he knew: if he did not kill them, they would have killed him. Later he felt sorry for what he did, because he knew that they were all just young guys like himself and he was not able to forget about their screams before they died. He drowned his trauma in alcohol until he passed away with 73.
Your grandpa at least still has the symphaty deep in his heart... There are lots of soldiers out there who get used to killing and take it as a game for pure enjoyment...
Killing Russians in WWII, so he was German?
I have been watching you for 6 years now, love the videos! Keep up the great work!
"This is War. Survival is your responsibility," - Hunk
My father was a WW2 veteran and I remember him telling me that oneday he was left alone to guard their outpost. His commanding officer told him to fire upon ANY vehicle that approached, without waiting to see who it was. He was given orders to shoot to kill basically. A vehicle later approached from some distance and Dad's finger started to squeeze the trigger. But he couldn't bring himself to shoot, not knowing who it was. Just as well too because it turned out to be the army doctor.
What a stupid order
Orders like this is what got stonewall Jackson killed by his own troops
@@jason200912Yes absolutely. I had a WW2 veteran tell me another equally awful story, worse actually. He told me he was ordered to shoot German soldiers as they were parachuting in mid air. He cried as he told me he felt like a murderer. I learned recently that that was an illegal order as the Germans were helpless in that situation. It would be like shooting a soldier when he was asleep. That poor man and his platoon carried the burden of guilt their whole lives.
@@janethammond5925 I think that's actually legal as long as they're an armed soldier such as a paratrooper or if the fire while descending. It's air pilots that are the ones assumed to be non combatants when they parachute down and bail the plane
@@jason200912 Yes that makes sense, though it still seems unfair if the paratroopers are unable to fire back. But thanks for your reply, I've learned something today! 😊
War is stupid!
We're not meant to kill our fellow man!
What if they are evil capitalists and democrats and don´t want to build an utopia?
“Friendly fire is not tolerated.”
Viktor Reznov: The flag may be different, but the methods are the same.
Theodore Roosevelt: You should be ashamed of your military honor!
And roselfelt was right
Everyone knows back at home you're like, "Thank God for Pearl Harbor".
@@Arcanyum?
@@whiteeye3453These were quotes from Epic rap Battles of History Theodore Roosevelt vs Winston Churchill
@@whiteeye3453millions of us victims in dozens and dozens of nations 😊
Kyle didnt earn the monicker "american sniper" lol he was known as The Devil of Ramadi
Yep, that’s just his book title
Yeah, that made me cringe...
@@stonefree1911why did it make you cringe
Marine Corps vet here - There is no ambiguity about shooting to kill in the Marine Corps. From day one, you’re DIs make it clear that the purpose of a Marine is to kill, and that every round you fire must be fired with the intent to kill your adversary, hence the saying “One Shot, One Kill” in the words of my drill instructor, “Killing the other guy is how you go home alive.” Unlike the Army where a refrigeration mechanic would never expect to see combat and therefore boot camp is much more generalized, every Marine, regardless of their MOS expects to see combat at some point in their career, and to that end, the entirety of Marine Corps basic training and the subsequent one month of Marine Combat Training is laser focused on training you to kill the enemy. Soldiers may not shoot to kill, but Marines shoot to kill with every shot.
Well stated. That last sentence put it perfectly.
I can confirm that. Semper Fi.
Clowns
I’ve always wondered what you looked like. Nice video, your Channel is very entertaining, and educational.
"War's tragedy is that it uses man's best to do man's worst." - Harry Emerson Fosdick
My dad spent 25 years in the army and he always told me the idea is to shoot to incapacitate the enemy, not necessarily to kill. It takes two soldiers or so to help a wounded man, so that's removes 3 from the fight.
Your father lied so you could get nightmares
@@whiteeye3453Huh???
That is especially true in a guerilla conflict.
@@whiteeye3453 your father snuck in your room and played with your sugar now you're a princess
Its not actually true, I spent 24 years in the Army, you're taught to shoot for the centre of mass. Reason being it gives you more margin for error. (ie youre most likely to hit that way) But dont forget that can mean centre of the head if thats all you can see....but that logic also makes it more robotic....you aren't being told the outcome of the shots just where to shoot.
(I also spent 10 years in a sniper platoon, thats different as youre shooting for accuracy. So you do actually pick a specific point which then makes it easier for adjustments if you miss)
I read that rhodesian soldiers were trained to fire at cover in a firefight it was very effective as often in a combat situation it can be hard to tell iniatially where you are been fired from.
How interesting… I tried this method in PUBG when I’m getting shot at and don’t know where the enemy is. It made it easier to locate the enemy (while also making me more safe).
Do you remember where you read this info from? LOL 😂
I would highly, HIGHLY, suggest reading the book “On Killing” by Dave Grossman.
They shoot to hug and spread love
In WW2 there would have been many combatants, who had fathers and other male relatives, injured, tortured, imprisoned or killed from WW1.
It makes a big difference when people have a personal reason to kill...
I have had the pleasure of speaking to egyptian SOF operators, when they were fighting insurgents in north sinai. They shot to kill, they despised their enemy and viewed him as less than human and loved what was behind them. The insurgents infront of them had not only been the cause of the death of loved ones, but also brothers in arms and the de-stabilization of the arab world. My own father wasn't SOF nor was he infantry for that matter but he was a doctor, he was dispatched with SOF in the southern mountains and north sinai, he hates that he never killed any insurgents. His war with the idea of islamic extremism continued long after his service ended, to this day as a matter of fact. Another weird phenomenon i noticed is that our soliders never really get PTSD from killing the enemy, as the enemy is always somebody terrible
You didn't mention the Korean War my Dad was in that one and the stories he told me about the enemy were unbelievable. The Chinese were experts at firing mortars. He would hear them coming down miles away and landing right into the Americans foxholes. The were precise and deadly accurate. Many of his friends were killed from that weapons explosions. He himself was injured on Triangle Hill shrapnel got his leg from and enemy cannon. He was there for over two years and was sent home after his injuries.
"Only the dead have seen the end of war."
~Plato~
9:49 I think I've seen some cases where civilian targets are added to train your instinct to identify who not to fire on as well.
The German soldier shooting the French one after he hesitated to bayonet stab him is wild.
I'm glad I've never had to go to war
2:16
Bolt action Garand
I see!😂
That's an M1903 Springfield; specifically an M1903A3 which has a substantially similar rear sight as the M1 Garand.
That's not a garand, there is a visible bolt handle. Its an M1903 Springfield
I'm sure both of you are super blind. That's clearly an M1 Garand. The design is obviously a Garand, they're just operating it like it's an M1903.
@jorji_costavareal20 I know.
Which is why I was jokingly referring to is as a "bolt action garand".
I apologize I can't donate as I'm struggling myself, but I very much appreciate the content and you've got my morale support.
There is no reason to fill guilty. He gets paid off views to.
There’s no reason to donate man, he’s getting plenty of money from views and sponsorships.
There are instances where soldiers don't know exactly where an enemy is so they kinda pepper an area with fire. There is covering fire to keep enemies down or in cover. Not every trigger pull is intended to kill. I imagine some conscripted soldiers wouldn't want to kill. I bet there are plenty who don't want to kill, but when your life is on the line it's probably not something on the top of mind.
People generally don't kill people without extreme cause, even in wars. People die by accident in wars, accidents happen a lot when you send a lot of bullets in the general direction that other bullets are coming from, you can have shooting accidents outside of war too, just ask Marvin. But for the most part militaries have been trying to get soldiers to actually shoot to kill, or maime, for the better part of a few centuries to little availe. That said we have found two things that work, the first is to use successful propoganda to dehumanize the enemy, this is largely why the veterans of WW2 dont regret much of what they did over there, it helped that our enemies were doing unhuman things. The other is to train people to shoot before they have time to think about what they're shooting. On the whole though both come with extreme consequences; we're seeing the highest rates of post combat PTSD, ever, and it appears that previous generations didn't escape it either. So yeah maybe getting thousands of teenagers and young adults to actually kill people isn't the most sustainable thing we couldve done as a nation.
In the Army we trained to shoot center mass ( the torso ) because it's much easier to hit a large target than a small one. A common phrase was aim small miss small. Now with that being said, if you are aiming at a persons chest, what are the odds you hit a major artery or organ?
chance of hitting a major artery or organ? target(s) big, chance big?
In Vietnam they thought soldiers were shooting over the enemies head. This furthered the Armies desire to replace the M14 rifles because of their recoil being a factor creating more uncertainty.
How do you think they kill? By eating the enemy?
*cough* WW2 Japanesse *Cough*
Communists: Allow us to introduce ourselves.
Well, we do get Tabasco sauce issued with each and every MRE, so why put it waste?
I’ve seen people get arrested for eating people in a desperate situation where there wasn’t a choice
@@Gamerguy826 I don't know any reports of Berlin wall guards eating failed escapees. Though it could be another communist regime you're referring too
After spending 1999-2016 as a combatant with many combat deployments, I find Grossman's assertions to be an extreme characterization. At least when applied to the modern soldier.
I don't disagree that Posturing is a thing and there's a lot more shooting that happens than accurate shooting but there's also an awful lot of dead Iraqis and afghanis 2ith bullet holes in them and I never saw in any substantive way a lack of will and intent to fight.
When comparing WWII Germans, 1931-1945 Japanese made even the Waffen SS and Red Army look like saints. They ABSOLUTLY reveled in violence and sadism to the point of ecstasy. They viewed all foreigners and especially a surrendering soldier(s) as a non-entity, let alone a living being. Like a kid in a candy store.
Surely there must also be a component of how painfull the death you inflict is in the decision whether to shoot to kill
I got an idea for a video. Why do war crimes occur? I do remember reading that troops are schooled in international law. So why do they do something they know is a crime? Or don't try and stop a crime if it is occurring.
For instance, why did the My Lai massacre occur even though it seems like a textbook case of terrorism?
War crimes don't normally seem like a spur of the moment attempt at self-defense. They seem planned.
I mean one of the most popular military sayings in history is "Shoot anything that moves."
only in armies like the IDF where killing is praised by religion. You have to remember, that your enemy has a family, a wife and potential children. Even Jesus teached to love your enemy.
Yes, sadly the Americans take that saying to heart.
Look at all the cases of friendly fire!
They’re supposed to, especially with modern training methods, but whether they follow through is another matter. Dave Grossman’s On Killing is an illuminating book on the subject.
On the subject of hesitation in battle: "When you put your hand into a bunch of goo that a moment before was your best friend's face, you'll know what to do." --Patton
I believe the answer varies a lot based on situation:
-Is the soldier in the deffending or atacking side?
-Is the soldier a conscript or volunteer?
-Is the war an ethinical conflict?
-For how long the war has been going?
-Are the soldiers currently taking revenge for something?
If we look trought history we had very bloody battles like Stalingrad where a lot of those boxes were ticked and soldiers went for the kill even when they ran out of ammo. But also there's plenty of cases where a side surrended with minimal loses.
A decent amount of kills are just shooting into bushes or areas where enemies are meant to be, despite not seeing them face to face.
Although if face to face it's a matter of kill or be killed. You might have trauma but at least you're alive.
Lt col dave Grossman also talked about how a large percentage of combat soldiers that didn't partake in combat would directly support thos who would
Running ammo, re supplying medical equip, relaying orders, directing fire. Stuff like that
Grossman's entire shtick is pseudoscience based on faulty interpretations of limited data. He's a complete fraud.
The white ghost had zero issues shooting to kill for what he believed in, granted he wasn't up front and personal but still.
I never understood wouldn’t a sniper better be able to see a persons face? Most firefights take place form quite a distant(unless it’s house to house fighting but that’s never been common in any war)
@@Berserker3624 Yes.
@@Berserker3624iron sights, just because he can see the silhouette, doesn't mean he has super human farsight.
@@stefthorman8548 You can put mesh cloth or smaller vision slit on sniper nowadays.
@@Berserker3624A modern day sniper is an observer first and a shooter second. Getting to know all the "players" is key in urban combat for a sniper. So you may watch people for days before a shot is ever taken.
But in combat a majority of shots are taken center mass, so you will never see the face of the person you're shooting.
Depends on the mission objective.
Depends on the situation....
As a pog vet that spent years after the military doing my job as a firefighter on army bases in Iraq, nothing I miss more than the brotherhood and experience of being in that environment with like.minded bros. I've been through dozens and dozens of idf attacks like on may 4 in taji Iraq and I miss the simple but fulfilling life I had living and working in a war zone.
People say what they will do in a situation like this but honestly and frankly they do not know unless they have been in the situation. They can speculate what their reaction will be but never know 100% until they are in the situation and rounds are flying past you. I know what my reaction can and will be it is a hard thing to know that lives inside of a person and can and will change them forever. It is something I would not wish upon anyone to have to know.
On the pacific front, a WW2 soldier's qualms against shooting to kill would have been changed the moment they realized the ruthlessness of the Japanese
probably the most terrifying form of warfare we have is drone warfare due to how much it looks like games like warthunder, meaning that soldiers are much more likely to drop a grenade due to the complete personal disconnection and anonimity
Rambo said it best, “when you’re pushed, killing is as easy as breathing.”
3:02 that was bc they would not let letters through if they were writting about the war in a negativ way.
(On both sides)
Interesting video. Anecdotally, those I have talked to from Iraq were never sure if they were the ones who actually pulled the trigger as it was usually a group effort to make people stop moving. There were more than a few who were psychopaths and wanted to kill. The majority were just in a situation and didn't really care if the enemy was dead or disabled, so long as they were not able/actively shooting at them. I had listened to a rather amusing story of an American trying to get a prisoner count from the local militia, followed by a back and forth exchange of expected numbers, routinely getting smaller each time the local militia leader came back.
thank you for making these history videos!
Romanticizing your actions during such a stressful time is a safety mechanism for your psyche. Especially in western culture, where we tend to teach a defined moral, black and white instead of the gray, it truly is.
Summary: yes
There is no satisfaction in killing another human being. But, in a war, it's all about survival and a soldier will do whatever it takes to preserve his life and also to protect his comrades.
Excellent work
Also a combat vet here. Yes.
My father, a Millitary historian, once told me that the quite truth is that on average around 20% of soldiers enjoy combat and even enjoy killing. He was speaking about the US Army during the Vietnam war which was a conscripted army, and I can only imagine that percentage goes up with an entire volunteer army where you choose your MOS or close to what you want to do. I know several combat veterans from Vietnam to the most recent US involved wars and of those who have opened up to me about it, only one outright said he hated killing the enemy. One even bragged about some of the kills that he recalls and seemed to be speaking about them with pride, seeing as how that particular veteran was in Vietnam and was widly celebrated due to his numerous medals, including the CMH, I can only agree with what my father said about it.
In the military soldiers are trained to shoot center mass. So in short, yes. Service members are trained to shoot for the kill.
YES!
What an intriguing video, thank you Simple History. I find this explanation about the human nature in war fascinating.
6:49 I remember reading about colonel Marshall in “Humankind, A Hopeful History” by Rutger Bregman 3 years ago. I’ve looked into some of the claims of that book over the years and a lot of it leaves crucial information out. So if you read the book, take it with a grain of salt.
what else would they shoot for? shoot to tickle?
Already saw the Lindybeige video on this topic 😂
Even Video Games like "Call of Duty" doesn't seem to make kills easier.
Sometimes when you join the army, chances you spent a whole life in battle without firing a single shot like the Infamous film "Jarhead" for example.
Soldiers training for WW1 used circular bulls eye targets for target practice. A lot of soldiers were hesitating when shooting at people. Training for WW2 used human shaped targets and was much more likely to fire at people.
Soldiers kill not because they hate whats in front
But because they love whats behind them
I’m going home safe, whatever else happens, happens.
I'm sure that sounded very cool in your head.
@@CasabaHowitzer nope, just a fact.
Of course, because...*checks notes*... war. It's not like it's a tickle fight.
Uh yeah?
Short answer is: sort of. A Soldiers job is to pacify the enemy with deadly force, and they are trained specifically to inflict mortal wounds to stop the enemy as quickly as possible by aiming for vital organs in the upper thoracic cavity (AKA center mass) or aiming for the nose, eyes and in between (AKA the T-Box). If the enemy is wearing body armor, then they aim for the pelvis (AKA the Catcher's Mitt) to cause debilitation. Whether the enemy actually dies or not does not matter to combat troops as long as the enemy ceases posing as a threat. In the heat of an engagement, Troops often don't have time for moral objections, any guilt that exists will creep in after the battle, that's why it's called POST traumatic stress.
Center mass and whatever happens …happens
Exactly. I’m going home safe.
And thats why we invented Flak Jackets and Trama plate vests.
@@jaywerner8415lemme go cyclic on that for a second ;)
5.56 ammo is pretty much the awnser it was not made to kill but to remove 3 soldiers out of the battle 1 that got shot and the bullet would stay inside him then 2 to carry him to saftey
The logic of not wanting to kill in ww1 as personally my politics teacher shared kinda checks out especially when looking at the trolly problem
The problem with WWI was that there was a lack understanding of what they were fighting for. It was basically a pile of inbred elites who massed there armies in a pissing contest and fought each other out of an issue of emotional insecurity in that if they did nothing the others would attack.
@@switzerland3696 in many places it was a massive mess like how formal agreements ( triple alliance ) broke down and pinky promises were over delivered leading to a massive mess
Fighting a war you don’t understand against people who look like you is harder. No more brother wars.
@@chemistryofquestionablequa6252 That kind of describes Ukraine. But that is more of a proxy war where Ukraine is just providing the meat for the grinder.
Glad to see your face while you talk about your channel. Makes this channel much more believable in a world where so many channels are created by AI and copy-paste material with low quality.
It also heavily depends on the situation, are you shooting an enemy sleeping in his rack during a trench raid? or are you shooting an enemy bearing down on you with a bayonet at full sprint?
The real war veterans tell you. You don't even hear a bang and you are gone.
You don't even have to kill someone in war to have PTSD, merely witnessing it is enough. But it only takes getting shot at once to realize you want to live and make it back home (regardless of how close they come to hitting you). I don't remember any of the soldiers I served with just shooting to wound, or confuse the enemy. Sure a lot of weapons (especially small explosives) are designed to injure one or more people causing them to need attending by their fellow soldiers and therefore taking more of the enemy out of the fighting than just the injured. But like OldUncleDan said here in the comments, U.S. soldiers receive so much repetitive training it makes you simply react the way you were trained.
It actually makes more strategic sense to wound rather than kill. A wounded soldier cannot fight, but still needs to be fed, putting strain on the enemy's logistics.
Most wounded soldiers return to the fight a few weeks later.
Never served have you
@@tomhenry897who cares if he has
That question can only be asked by people who have never been in combat. Soldiers shoot to kill because if they don’t, they die, or their battle buddies.
That is, period, question answered.
While being trained by the FBI as a firearm instructor, I wrote a paper about how training soldiers to shoot at life like silhouettes improved accuracy from WW1 all the way to Vietnam, where it increases from 20% of soldiers hitting their to target to 75%. But artillery was the leading loss of life.
In the marine corps we were trained to shoot center mass but also trained to shoot the pelvic area as that immobilizes a target. By doing so u can theoretically take out more combatants as others will rush to a wounded soldier vs a dead one.
Read the book "on killing" by Dave grossman. He references him in the beginning. Did research and interviews on the subject. Fascinating read.
Yes, but no...but yes.
i was a machine gunner. I was either shooting in the general direction of the enemy by pointing my gun based on a map bearing and elevation from a tripod. Or, just shooting shadows that seemed to be moving.
But yes, shoot to kill.
When I was in the army in 2011 we were told a few things. One was it would depend on who we were fighting. If it was a group that had no care for loss of life you would kill. If it was another nation that cared about it’s manpower you would attempt to wound when possible to not only remove that soldier but it would also take several other enemy soldiers out of the fight when they had to go get that guy out of there.
What woke unit were you in
It was 2011, woke wasn't a thing yet.@@tomhenry897
Sometimes the commander shut out a different instruction to fight. Like Fire at Will.
Never been this early before
Me to.
Good video.
If the enemy poses a threat, yes.
It´s not an enemy, it is a former civilian from another country.
@@PROVOCATEURSK That can also be enemy.
@@PROVOCATEURSK Everybody was once a civilian, some become soldiers that unfortunately will HAVE to kill each other. If you want peace, prepare for war
@@SurgicalJust0n6838 Si vis pacem, para bellum