Forum menu
Sauce:
No matter what the training, at somepoint in the future hes going to dwell on this isn't he? Off at a tangent but it reminded me of the machine gunners of WWI who couldn't cope due to the numbers they had shot.
His choice, he pulls the trigger, his problem. Why even create a fuss about it?
Oh too late...
Yeah but he didn't do it for freedom, and the best Goddamn country in the world.
Anyway some Finish guy in WW2 had over 500 kills.
Imagine if a foreign government paid for a sniper to come over here and using his skill and judgement pick off those he deemed a threat.
Reckon it'd leave a few people upset, eh...
Anyway some Finish guy in WW2 had over 500 kills.
Ah- when Russia invaded Finland and lost over 100,000 troops to the Fins wasn't it? If it wasn't for that debacle, they wouldn't have learnt their lesson and the Germans would have inflicted more casualties and the Russians would have had equally no cold weather gear provisions- a change (or more likely prolonged the war?).
I believe so. But still he also didn't do it for freedom, his buddies, and the best GODDAMN county in the world.
Some strong language. NSFW
Kryton57 - Member
His choice, he pulls the trigger, his problem. Why even create a fuss about it?
or 16 year old joins army then at some point keeps following orders and has a long life to deal with it.
Off at a tangent but it reminded me of the machine gunners of WWI who couldn't cope due to the numbers they had shot.
Its quite a challenge for modern armies - you can train someone to aim and shoot a gun accurately, but its harder to make them want to hit and kill someone. In old-fashioned mass-conscription warfare really soldiers on both sides were really just hoping gunfire would just make the other side go away. They were shooting to scare, not to kill.
[img] 
[/img]
600,000+ 😯
my grandfather in law was a lancaster bomber, bomber and while not so bad now had some very big guilt issues about the civillians hed killed and colleagues hed survived
he never spoke about it to my MIL or the family, just suffered from a lot of ptsd and depression (and took it out on the family)
then at our wedding told it all to my uncle (who hed never met b4)
To be fair I think that Winter War image is wrong.
Wiki lists the casualties as
[img] 
[/img]
Must re-read up on that conflict. From memory the Fins funnelled a badly dressed battle group into a narrow strip of land?
mikewsmith - Member
Kryton57 - Member
His choice, he pulls the trigger, his problem. Why even create a fuss about it?or 16 year old joins army then at some point keeps following orders and has a long life to deal with it.
Don't join the army then *shrugs*
Don't join the army then
He didn't. He joined the Royal Navy.
From memory the Fins funnelled a badly dressed battle group into a narrow strip of land?
Repeatedly. They even funnelled them onto a frozen lake that they blew up
Good fictional account of the Finnish winter war in "Unknown Soldier" by Vaino Linna
[i]Don't join the army then *shrugs*[/i]
Err, I believe he joined the marines. I understand they can be a bit unforgiving if someone confuses the two.
Read the article this morning.
Yes I am sure he thought about what he did, as Kelly said that was his job and he was saving lives of the soldiers on his side. If you search back there are interviews with the crew of Enola-Gay who dropped the atomic bomb, they have a similar view that their actions shortened the war and saved a lot of lives
I really enjoyed Enemy at the Gates
Winter War and Continuation war still very raw in Finland. The reason that Russia didn't take over Finland like the rest of Eastern Europe is they took such a hammering at the hands of the Finns. There was a price for the Finns they lost a lot of land in the settlement. The old Finns I met in Karellia really hated the Russians.
Anyone know which battle the frozen lake shelling took place?
I know the Germans shelled Lake Ladoga during the siege of Leningrad, and the Battle of the Ice took place in the 13th Century where a load of Knights were drowned after retreating onto thin ice but can't find anything re Winter war.
There is a misconception that the Russians relied exclusively on frontal attacks but in fact they had great success with flanking, and in the end took more land than they had demanded.
The Finns were reliant on their quick movement and local knowledge, while the Russians were hindered by inexperience after Uncle Joe's purges. Also the Finns were defending their homes but the Russian troops had little reason to fight, except not getting shot by their own side.
Major intelligence failings/hubris on the Russian side too, they thought the Finns would welcome them and it would take less than a week, hence the summer uniforms.
He didn't. He joined the Royal Navy.
Ha! They [i]hate[/i] being reminded of that.
The truth is of course that whilst RM are a part of the Navy, he joined the marines. He'll never be a sailor and sailors won't be marines (although they can and do become RN Commandos).
Err, I believe he joined the marines. I understand they can be a bit unforgiving if someone confuses the two.
And vice versa.
[i]If you search back there are interviews with the crew of Enola-Gay who dropped the atomic bomb, they have a similar view that their actions shortened the war and saved a lot of lives[/i]
If you've just killed the entire population of a major city, you'd have to rationalize it somehow, or go a bit bonkers, i'd have thought.
Is there such a thing now?
Not as a formed unit. Many RN slots within 3CDO require CDO trained ranks. Dentists, medics, a good few within CHF have the qual and others.
SBS is now joint forces (as per SAS) and is commanded by DSF, not the Admiral Navy type bloke.
Not as a formed unit. Many RN slots within 3CDO require CDO trained ranks. Dentists, medics, a good few within CHF have the qual and others.
Ah, gotcha. Makes sense.
I seem to recall Navy EOD were doing land-based Afghan tours. If the skills are there, makes sense to use them.
I seem to recall Navy EOD were doing land-based Afghan tours. If the skills are there, makes sense to use them.
I instructed a few. I seem to remember that if they didn't pass the course, they didn't get their promotion or slot! For a 35 year old dentist that's a lot of pressure when you're running around with 18-20 year old fit as **** RE and RAs.
Oh back on topic, the RM snipers course is regarded as one of the best in the world and the only course ran by regulars which SF bods go on. Not sure if it's a "Q" course though.
If you search back there are interviews with the crew of Enola-Gay who dropped the atomic bomb, they have a similar view that their actions shortened the war and saved a lot of lives
Theres a few trains of thought on this. The viewpoint of the Japanese as savage aggressors getting what they deserved and sub-human to segregation-America. Then ontop of that the plain old shortening the war and the 'say this to the media' from the old school American government/Hoover era etc afterwards.
Even so, I bet in private on a dark night one or two of them would have dwelled a fair few times on that.
When you're out of the Army/Navy and you've managed to kill a few people and are sat alone after a few beers I doubt any human being would simply think 'it was my duty so **** it'.
In old-fashioned mass-conscription warfare really soldiers on both sides were really just hoping gunfire would just make the other side go away. They were shooting to scare, not to kill.
Yes this was very common. Mostly they fired "towards" the enemy rather than at them.
One of the main difference between newly formed units and "battle hardened" units was that ones that had saw more combat generally shot to kill which obviously made them much more effective
@hora I think many (most ?) people just deal with it by shutting it out. There where many stories on the Auschwitz 70th anniversary where survivors had said they hadn't spoken about it till 50 years after. Of course that's different than you thinking about it. I do think what's significant now vs world wars is they where a collective experience and returning soldiers where undeniably treated as heroes. Much more difficult now when veterans are treated as criminals by some parts of society. Snipers too must have quite a different experience seeing an individual target in their sights and taking a very deliberate aim.
The singularly most pointless thread ever.
The only people who get to comment or analyse the actions of those that served are those that served (excluding of course the issue of war crimes).
The only people who get to comment or analyse the actions of those that served are those that served
Hi, if you read alot on the history, ethics and social impact of war you tend to have an interest in such topics or do we have to wait until this event/bloke becomes history?
I'm not taking criticism from someone who holidays at a modern-day Butlins BTW.
geetee1972The only people who get to comment or analyse the actions of those that served are those that served (excluding of course the issue of war crimes).
This is bullshit.
The only people who get to comment or analyse the actions of those that served are those that served (excluding of course the issue of war crimes).
That in itself is debatable as we the taxpayers fund the armed forces~ they are theoretically working on our behalf...
This video manages to make some very strong points in under 10 minutes... the birth defects from depleted Uranium are particularly disturbing:
Grandfather in law was also a serviceman and was part of the Allied invasion of Sicily. I spent a lot of time with him in his final weeks as he was at a hospital in London a short tube ride from my office so would go a few nights a week to see how he was and give my mother-in-law a break.
As he'd only had daughters and granddaughters the chance for him to talk to another man about this had been limited so me and the father-in-law heard a lot in those last weeks about life in the Army.
I was amazed at how he'd not spoken about it to anyone else as he didn't want to burden them, and also how it wasn't something that he wanted 'women' to have to listen to.
A truly great man, and up to that point you would've have thought his Army life wasn't too bad. A real eye opener for me to be honest but while he was happy to get it off his chest - he had no real remorse as it was ' a job that needed doing'
Not sure if/how that contributes to anything in this thread but I'd not really thought about it for the last 3 or 4 years and while the content of those memories were quite grim - it has brought me a smile reminiscing about our chats in those last couple of weeks in the company of such a man.
I'll admit that I haven't a clue and don't even like killing slugs but I imagine that there are a small percentage of people who actually enjoy killing, maybe they become snipers.
This video manages to make some very strong points in under 10 minutes... the birth defects from depleted Uranium are particularly disturbing:
Birth defects from DU are a total bunch of horseshit, with no epidemiological evidence what so ever to back it up.
The high rates of deformities in Iraq are likely caused by a mixture of pollution, ancient fertilizers and chemical weapons.
[url=
is an interesting piece which brings into question what you state as fact[/url]
[i]Epidemiological studies and toxicological tests on laboratory animals point to it as being immunotoxic,[85] teratogenic,[86][87] neurotoxic,[88] with carcinogenic and leukemogenic potential.[89] A 2005 report by epidemiologists concluded: "the human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU."[10][/i]
That's from Wiki, so a claim of "Birth defects from DU are a total bunch of horseshit, with no epidemiological evidence what so ever to back it up." is clearly wide of the mark.
I'll admit that I haven't a clue and don't even like killing slugs but I imagine that there are a small percentage of people who actually enjoy killing, maybe they become snipers.
Read a few of the British Imperial War Museum books and interviews- apparently there are some people that are natural born killers. Normal in civie life, would never even have thought about it before but in war they excel. I guess for those few - they would miss the action.
Absence of moral or ethical considerations, focus on maximum effectiveness.
I'll admit that I haven't a clue and don't even like killing slugs but I imagine that there are a small percentage of people who actually enjoy killing, maybe they become snipers.
You may find this interesting:
BBC.CO.UK 'Enjoy' may be the wrong word, because that could mark you out as a sociapathic psychopath. But I know what you mean.
On a personal note, when I joined the reserves, my introduction was a sergeant talking about an SA80, Light Support Weapon and a bayonet, all sat on a table; he said something like, "if you're looking at these and thinking 'Guns! Knives! Rarrr!' then we don't want you. If you're thinking 'they look like serious bits of kit that could cause damage' then we do."
That all said, the guy in my section that recited the entire Full Metal Jacket 'this is my gun!' in the mess was a noted constant source of worry. But then he also scored incredibly highly on the simulated battle range...
That in itself is debatable as we the taxpayers fund the armed forces~ they are theoretically working on our behalf...
Then we need to focus our attention on the governments that put the forces there not the individuals themselves.
Service men and women are sent into conflict zones. They are given a set of rules of engagement and for as long as they follow those rules, the only people who get the right to comment on their actions are themselves.
The idea that people can sit in their cosy houses and pontificate about how those people should or should not feel is just breathtakingly arrogant.
If they commit war crimes that is a different matter, but outside of that it comes down to individual conscience.