Has the experience of the combat infantryman changed?

Yes I get your point. Not wanting to move thread to the Zulu wars but a few maxims and Pullene may have had the upper hand.
Although tactics would still have had to play their part...no good firing at the main body of a zulu army when the horns are surrounding you, your just delaying the inevetalbe. but that is debatable.
There are indeed less casualties than ever before in firefights of today. That is due to technology and a big learning curve...but it may also be due in LARGE part to the enemy we face at times.

Our respective infantries, may not have had so few casualties if facing a army based on Western or even present Russian standards in a straight fight.

Maybe its good we are facing enemies of lesser tactical awareness and technology.

From Scotland on Sunday Paper

Argylls fight hand to hand in Iraq

BRIAN BRADY WESTMINSTER EDITOR

SCOTTISH troops fixed bayonets and fought hand to hand with a Shi’ite militia in southern Iraq in one of their fiercest clashes since the war was declared more than a year ago, it was reported last night.

Soldiers from the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders mounted what were described as "classic infantry assaults" on firing and mortar positions held by more than 100 fighters loyal to the outlawed cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, according to military sources.

At least 20 men from al-Sadr’s army were believed killed in more than three hours of fighting - the highest toll reported in any single incident involving British forces in the past 12 months.

Nine fighters were captured and three British soldiers injured, none seriously.

"It was very bloody and it was difficult to count all their dead," one source was quoted as saying. "There were bodies floating in the river."

The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders were drawn into the fighting when soldiers in two Land-Rovers were ambushed on Friday afternoon about 15 miles east of the city of Amara. The soldiers escaped, only to be ambushed a second time by a larger group of militia, armed with machine-guns, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars.

Reinforcements were summoned from the Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment at a base nearby. "There was some pretty fierce hand-to-hand fighting with bayonets fixed," the source added. "There were some classic assaults on mortar positions held by the al-Sadr forces."

Official spokesman Major Ian Clooney confirmed the Mehdi army "took a pretty heavy knocking", but refused to specify tactics. "This was certainly an intense engagement," he added.

 

YouTube - British Army

 

Again you guys are citing exceptions and not standards. The potential for brutality will remain a constant presence on the battlefield. My point is that brutality of warfare has decreased. There will always remain the potential for brutal action regardless.

During the 18 and 19th centuries close combat with bayonets was expected and was indeed part of the engagement doctrine.

As reliable repeating rifles came into use the necessity of the "bayonet charge" became less and less and was religated to a more or less "last ditch effort" defensive weapon when all other options have been exhausted or are unavailable.

The trend in warfare has always been to keep as much distance between you and the enemy for as long as you can.

Does brutality still exist on the modern battlefield?.........yes.
Has the Brutality of the battelfield, as whole, deminished..........yes.

Has the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Gahribe been described as Brutal?

How brutal is the treatment of those prisoners when compared to the treatment of prisoners during the Revolutionary war or Civil War?

 

guess it needs to be asked what is your definition of brutal. we are much more high tech. as a snipe we can engage point targets and a much longer range, a bullet is a bullet no matter what it's make up though must say the newere rounds are much more lethal tearing the body to shreds even at over 800 yds. Do you not consider the upper air weaponry much more toxic in it's killing power than 500l;bers dropped during WW2 with much better pin-point accuracy ?

what about house to house spraying with smg's of the newer breed, lethality is much more extreme than when we went on hunts for VC in the bush and in villages.

well speaking of ............ lethality on the battlefield has not in any way diminished

 

True enough, however also keep in mind that during most wars of this period the majority of a soldiers time was spent doing not very much, marching about, setting up and striking camp, general kit care etc which would probably familiar to any soldier today. These soldiers were fairly safe most of the time, in set-piece type battles they fought an enemy they could see and aside from when thoroughly ambushed could usually fight back. Compare this to today, with bases under threat from rocket attacks, the constant threat of IED's on patrol and the high intensity of many operations going on (few Napoleonic soldiers fought constantly for days on end), maybe it is just a different type of 'brutality.'

Your claim that today brutality is the 'exception rather than the rule' falls down rather at this point I feel, as it always has been the exception. Most of a soldiers life has always been fairly dull and not in combat, even the horror of the First World War has been described by many as massive periods of boredom and inactivity interspersed with brief bouts of furious activity.

Are you using 'brutality' to mean simply 'hand to hand combat?' If so, then yeah, of course it is rarer these days. I do not however feel that means that combat is any less brutal. The dictionary gives us:

adj.

1. Extremely ruthless or cruel.
2. Crude or unfeeling in manner or speech.
3. Harsh; unrelenting: a brutal winter in the Arctic.
4. Disagreeably precise or penetrating: spoke with brutal honesty.

Well, modern combat is in many ways both ruthless and cruel (one could argue that being able to kill from range makes one more ruthless). Crude or unfeeling in manner? Sounds a lot like artillery or an IED. Harsh and unrelenting? I think this is more what we are talking about and again, scraps today seem pretty harsh and unrelenting, the assault on Al Amarah springs to mind.

I'm not so sure about that, the infantry mission remains to 'defeat the enemy through close combat' and ultimately all other forces are on the battlefield to enable the infantry soldier to get in close and kill his opponant. However much technology we have to help him get there, all battles are about the fairly brutal act of an infantryman standing where a fallen enemy once stood.

Interesting point, I remember hearing a while ago a historian talking about medieval battles, talking about the killing of wounded on the battlefield. Now often the massacring of wounded is looked upon as somewhat barbaric, however it was seen as chivalrous by many as it offered a quick end rather than a long and painful death. Brutal? Sure by our standards but not necessarily by those of the time. So, do we assess brutality by the standards of the time or by those of modern times.

 

When I think of "Brutal Combat" I do reduce it to the "Kill or Be Killed" terms of close combat.

I also look at the grander scheme and what is used to inflict injury to the enemy and the scope of that injury, the depth of engagement and collateral damage.

I don't see how the carpet bombing of citites can compare to the use of "Smart" bombs and guided munitions.

It is my opinion that the modern battlefield is soome what benign when compared to the battlefields of Europe and the Pacific, regardless of the scope of the conflict.

I think that as human morality changes and evolves so does it's definition of "Brutality". What passes for "Brutal" and "Heinious" today would be treated as a foot note when put in the context of past conflicts.

 

Surely that just means it is more efficient, which could in fact logically render it more brutal.

 

Sorry I was editing my last post as you were writing yours. I apologize.

I suppose it could; however, being hacked to bits by a Roman Broad Sword could also be considered more brutal than being raked by machine gun fire.

Not being able to send e-mail or make phone calls home could also be considered "Brutal" by todays soldier.

So it is a matter of context and perspective.

 

The state of war in Iraq is not like any other war from history, this is purely a guerrilla war, not as clear cut as ww1 or ww2 with clear front lines. Virtually it was as simple as that way -> is the Germans and that way <- is the Allies. Iraq is more the enemy being up, all different angles.

I do not believe the brutality of war has or will ever change, just look at Napoleon ear (gentlemen's wars) there were still arms missing, blood everywhere, 1000's of dead. Ww1 there was even more dead by the newer deadly weapons with even more damage done, ww2 is a contuation from ww1. Then look at Vietnam and the brutalness of the VC on the Nationalist armies.

It has never changed, just that "In every new war we create new ways of killing each other"

 

On the other hand having your arms and legs ripped off by a mine or being covered in phosphorus could be considered rather more brutal than any sword combat (though the Romans tended towards short, stabbing swords rather than broad swords).

Yeah, I think that about sums it up. It's all about where you look at it from.

 

From the rear...about 2 miles to the rear would be my exact preferred position.

 

Why stop at 2 miles, most people find several thousand miles via television more than sufficient

 

Keep up with the times babe; they're "Insurgents" now, calling them "Guerillas" is just plain rude man.

It may never change; but, you can put it into perspective. Look at how the conduct of war has changed since Vietnam.

OR​

Do you agree that an "Arc Light" on the Kyber Pass would have an effect on the amount of "outside" help the insurgents are getting?

OR​

Maybe a few million anti personnel mines would provide some level of security.

OR​

A little "Willie Pete" and NAPALM would certainly quell the most hostile pockets of resistance.....neighborhoods.

The current conflicts are brutal in their own right. The fact remains that they could get a lot worse and conditions are considerably better than in the past. At it's basist level it can be just as brutal, and horrible, as any conflict in history.

 

Because someone has to put the road signs up when the ruperts come charging past and bend them. Its usually at the 2 mile point that the calvary loose all sense of direction and have to be pointed towards the enemy.

 

Jeez, where'd all these uppity monkeys come from

It's a fair point though, when asked to sum up the light cavalry's role to someone the other day I wound up saying 'basically they point at the enemy and say "go that way until you find someone with a gun then come back and tell us what he looks like" so we do..."

Jeff, another thing to take into account is that the way people deal with things has changed a lot over the last century, methods by which men (not being sexist but war was primarily a male occupation for quite a while at least in the west) dealt with 'combat fatigue' and PTSD simply weren't enough to cope with the industrial slaughter of WW1. Hence we see research into the suffering of soldiers, what causes it and ultimately the nature of the 'combat experience,' so to some extent things may seem less brutal because we now look at them scientifically.

 

There will always be the morning "police call" of the company area. There will always be "Fire Watch". Weapons and equipment will always require maintenance. Gear will always need to be accounted for. There will always be a line a the chow hall. There will always be "grunts" on the frontline and "pogues" in the rear. There will always be a Company Gunny or First Shirt that is more concerened with grooming standards than hot chow. The Company Comander's "Light PT" will always be a test of fortitude and endurance. The end of the "Hump" is always just ahead. Your friends will always die in new horrible and gruesome ways regardless of how close you shave, how shiny your boots are or how many whistles and bells the equipment you have strapped to your back has.

The comaprison of experience began on the night of 11 November, 1775 when a newly appointed Corporal was the "Duty NCO" in the Marine Barracks above Tun Tavern. He looked upon a group of newly arrived recruits and said: "Let me tell you how we did it in the Old Corps".

Brad

Stefan: Check your PMs

 

Urqh may be away a while as he comes round and kills me for the 'monkey' jibe

FJH, we have 'Colonels PT' over here which traditionally is when the great big, grey haired wheezey guy who commands the regiment embarrasses everyone by thrashing them round a 12 mile run without breaking a sweat!

 

There has been much discussion on the question of the experience of the combat infantryman, whether it has changed or not over time. I believe that in a way that it has changed with the advances of technology. Every old soldier will always tell the newer soldiers how bad they had it when they first signed on, and how good it is now. On the other hand, I believe that in 500, 1000 or more years down the way, the infantryman's lot will be pretty much the same as today, and has been for all times - a miserable and dirty job. And they will look back on todays infantryman and notice the same similarities and differences we are talking about today and of the old days. Whether that makes sense or not, well, that's my two cents worth.