# Psychological Training



## A.K. (3 Oct 2004)

Do recruits get any psychological training (ie. constant reinforcement of the 'Kill-or-be killed' idea, etcetera) during their basic training? Obviously you wouldn't want a soldier to break down out on the front lines....


----------



## M.O. (3 Oct 2004)

Yes, I myself have been wondering the same thing, would it be a smart thing to send a man or woman into a war unprepared in the manner of thinking. Physically you cannot do anything unless your mind knows how and what to do so I suppose the recruits do get it but I truly am not sure.


----------



## gun plumber (3 Oct 2004)

From my experiences all trianing done is in context to combat ie:why you must know this is you as a member of a rifle section can and will be expected to preform in UN operations or in a theatre of war
As far as toothpicks proping the eyes open and 20 TVs with violence on every channel or torture resitance training -No


----------



## A.K. (3 Oct 2004)

Thanks. But do they have any kind of positive speeches or calming techniques that are given to recruits?


----------



## pbi (3 Oct 2004)

You guys are touching on a very interesting and controversial issue. It has been sometimes referred to as the "Bulletproof Mind" (In fact I have a US article somewhere by that title...) The idea is that through certain types of training and conditioning we can produce a soldier who is less susceptible to combat stress reaction/PTSD. There is, I believe, a certain amount of evidence that suggests that there are some psychological measures that can be taken that will reduce the likelihood of becoming a psycas. However, I am not sure that there is any empirical evidence that indicates that the effects of combat can be neutralized while still maintaining normal cognitive functions. (IE: not turning a guy into a drugged-up robot...). 

The trouble with techniques that work in civilian life is that there really is no parallel to extended exposure to combat, not even in the realm of the Fire Service which is often represented as a civilian parallel to combat. The firefighter has certain latitude to disobey orders, and is not normally facing a concerted attempt to kill him and destroy his organization and equipment by all possible means. The firefighter also knows that (as long as he survives the call...) he will most likely return to quarters, shower, have a bite to eat and go off shift. The soldier in combat has no such assurance of any of these things. I am not attempting to belittle our brethren in the Fire Service, rather to point out the uniqueness of the threat facing us as soldiers. Cheers.


----------



## Infanteer (3 Oct 2004)

Two fascinating books I would suggest on the notion of Psychological casualties (and possible training or methods to overcome them) are Col Dave Grossman's On Killing and Dr Johnathan Shay's Achilles in Vietnam: Combat Trauma and the Undoing of Character.


----------



## M.O. (3 Oct 2004)

Tell me what type of training do army recruits get for psychological effects in other words what kind of training does one in the army receive, give examples please in the sence what happens and how does one get trained for this type of thing.


----------



## BDTyre (3 Oct 2004)

I'm by no means even an amateur on this subject, but it seems to me that it would be almost impossible to train someone to deal with a situation in which almost everything is a variable, including the individual themself.

I'm sure there are techniques that have a higher "success" rate so to speak, but combat is such a wildly varied situation that almost no technique can be gauranteed to work on most people most of the time, or even a few people some of the time.


----------



## Sheerin (3 Oct 2004)

While reading this thread I was reminded of artice I read in my ex-girlfriend's psych textbook that during WW2 it was calculated that only a 1/3 of the soldiers actually fired at the enemy or something like that.  And that this caused the US military to revamp their basic training to make it easier for the new soldiers to actually kill their enemies.  
Now is this true or an urban legend that has been perpetuated by some anonymous psychologists in his text books?  And if it is true has Canada done anything with its basic training that would make it easier for a solider to kill?


----------



## A.K. (3 Oct 2004)

One would think that more soldiers would fire at the enemy in a war.....
Nowadays, you get to see many more trigger-happy action movies, and that may have indirectly influenced the improvement of this statistic, although as you said, Canada might have taken action on this.


----------



## Sheerin (3 Oct 2004)

I remember reading that the US military during basic training changed the targets from bullseye ones to shapes of humans.  Now i don't know if this is true or not...


----------



## Armymedic (4 Oct 2004)

They discuss the change of tactics about target shooting to human shape targets extensively in Col Dave Grossman's On Killing. 

If the CF ever had required reading for mbrs of the CF this book should definately be on the list.


----------



## M.O. (4 Oct 2004)

How this topic has turned to guns I do not know, but anyways the human target system is put in to one because the human body is not in the shape of a circle, at least to my eyes, and two to get the shooter closer to seeing what it is like to shoot a human, althought it is only reconizing the shape. As for the topic well in a way they do have this type of training in the manner of having the recruit listen to commands and to accomplish what is asked of him.


----------



## pbi (4 Oct 2004)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> While reading this thread I was reminded of artice I read in my ex-girlfriend's psych textbook that during WW2 it was calculated that only a 1/3 of the soldiers actually fired at the enemy or something like that. And that this caused the US military to revamp their basic training to make it easier for the new soldiers to actually kill their enemies.
> Now is this true or an urban legend that has been perpetuated by some anonymous psychologists in his text books? And if it is true has Canada done anything with its basic training that would make it easier for a solider to kill?



This is probably taken from SLA Marshall's famous operational research publication called _Men Against Fire_, in which he claimed to have found that only about 30% of combat soldiers actually fired their weapons at the enemy. However, a few things should be noted:

a) some recent writing has called SLA Marshall's work into serious question, even going so far as to suggest that he falsified results;

b) even Marshall admitted that the crews of heavy weapons such as AFVs, AT guns, MGs, etc were far more likely to fire their weapons in combat; and

c) I believe his studies were based largely upon US WWII Infantry. IIRC, William DuPuy, a US WWII Inf Bn CO who later became a General, has described the US Army Infantry of WWII as being the worst trained ever fielded in war by the US Army (subjective opinion, of course...)

The training of a Canadian infantry soldier produces a person who can execute the mechanics of killing other human   beings. Whether the person will actually pull the trigger at the crucial moment is a question whose answer is influenced by many, many factors. IMHO the evidence indicates that many soldiers can kill almost without thinking--that is not the issue---the problems develop in the aftermath when they realize that what they have done is against everything they were   brought up to believe as children and adults. This struggle against a whole mess of personal feelings in order to achieve the mission is what makes soldiering (especially Infantry soldiering) such an intensely human   business. People who sacrifice this truth at the altar of high tech take huge risks, as the US is being reminded nearly every day by the fierce battles its Army and Marine riflemen fight in the streets of Fallujah and elsewhere.



			
				Armymedic said:
			
		

> They discuss the change of tactics about target shooting to human shape targets extensively in Col Dave Grossman's On Killing.
> 
> If the CF ever had required reading for mbrs of the CF this book should definately be on the list.


 The Army does. It's called the CLS' Reading List: you should be able to find it on the Army's website.

To address the general issue of the value of training, it is probably safe to say that any training is better than   none, and that good training delivered by experienced instructors and based on operational lessons learned is the best of all. All training modifies human behaviour to some extent: that is its nature and purpose. Good training, which the soldier understands, repeated and reinforced regularly, will probably produce a soldier who can withstand the demands of combat better than an untrained individual might. Good leadership and strong team cohesion, coupled with a belief in the mission, will further develop the ability of the individual to sustain himself in battle. However, IMHO there is no such thing as the "Bulletproof Mind" nor could we likely produce one in a normal human being. Just as we all have  limits to our physical endurance, so we do have for our mental endurance as well. Conditioning will improve both of these (indeed, there is strong evidence to suggest that they are interrelated at a fundamental level...) but IMHO will not produce a superman, or a supersoldier. Cheers.


----------



## pbi (4 Oct 2004)

Correction: it's not called the "CLS Reading List" it's "The Army Reading List" at:
http://armyapp.dnd.ca/ael/Reading_list.asp Cheers.


----------



## Gayson (4 Oct 2004)

I always thought that instuctors put stress on the students as a way to ready them for the stresses of war?


----------



## pbi (4 Oct 2004)

> I always thought that instuctors put stress on the students as a way to ready them for the stresses of war?



This is the theory, and it probably does contribute to some degree.  My point is not that such training does not achieve something of value: it probably does. All training does, as I suggested. My point is that in my opinion no training that uses a healthy, functioning human mind as its basis, and a reasoning, self-reliant soldier as its product, can guarantee the "Bulletproof Mind": all of us, sometime, will crack under the stress of combat if we are exposed to it long enough. It is not a question of "if" but rather of "when". Cheers.


----------



## gate_guard (4 Oct 2004)

On Killing is a fascinating read into the killing capabilities of soldiers in combat, one point raised by Col Grossman was that since WW2 through to the Vietnam War, the ability of the US soldier to effectively shoot without hesitation has dramatically increased. The US almost deifyed killing and emphasized the enemy as being subhuman(ie Gooks, etc) to make it more acceptable to kill. But as was pointed out by pbi, the soldier is still left with an aftermath of psychological effects. What should be stressed though is not only the killing aspect of soldiering but, as some have already stated, the additional stresses of combat and deployments.
Another decent read is American Soldiers: Ground Combat in the World Wars, Korea, & Vietnam by retired LCol Kindsvatter (US Army) which is an insight into the experience of soldiers throughout these wars. What the book seems to stress as importantly as killing are the aspects of physical exhaustion, lack of sleep/food, extended time "on the line", the blood/gore and sights/odours associated with combat, time away from family, extreme weather conditions (cold/heat in Korea, humidity in Vietnam) etc. Combine these factors and it isn't hard to imagine why so many combat vets come back with psychological and stress issues. There's only so much you can prepare for in training.


----------



## combat_medic (4 Oct 2004)

I'm also going to come out in praise of Grossman's book. I've read it 2 or 3 times now and each time I pick up something new. 

The problem addressed with psychological training is this: human beings have a natural psychological resistance to killing another human being. Through very selective and pseudo-brain-washing types of training, this resistance can be lessened to allow more soldiers to actively engage the enemy, but, as evidenced in Vietnam, without giving the soldiers the coping mechanisms to deal with the after-effects of taking a human life, many of them will become psychological casulaties. Since Vietnam, a lot of lessons have been learned to help this problem; 

- sending troops as formed units, rather than as single replacements, and allowing them to serve with the same people they trained with
- more stringent rules about drug use (as they reduce a person's ability to form coping mechanisms for stress)
- having a recuperation time before sending someone home
- access to counsellors, psychiatrists, padres etc. during and after deployments


----------



## gunfan (4 Oct 2004)

I have had the opportunity to participate in Lt. Col. Grossman's lecture, The Bullet Proof Mind, and highly recommend his books to all who are participating in policing or military. He is a very knowledgable and engaging individual. 

The book explains the process of training soldiers, as well as the switch from bullseye to more and more human shaped targets to overcome resistance to killing. Newer targets are full 3-D, with movement and fall when hit. Very different mindset than shooting bullseyes all day. 

Again, read the book, and then as suggested, reread it often.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Oct 2004)

There is a book that takes an opposite approach to one of the central ideas to Grossman's thesis; namely that man is by nature not predisposed to kill.

Michael Ghiglieri, a combat veteran, has written The Dark Side of Man: Tracing the Origins of Violence, in which he believes violence and killing is a biologically entrenched part of humanity.  I've had the book sitting on my shelf for a bit, and this discussion has encouraged me to read it in the next little while to approach the topic from a different angle.

Here is the amazon link if anyone is interested.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0738203157/qid=1096917741/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-6565164-1432754?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## 1feral1 (5 Oct 2004)

Here's a good book. Acts Of War, by Richard Holmes. Its about the behaviour of men in battle, and covers centuries of battles to the present, and what we all have in common. Its a UK book available here in Australia, and goes for GBS20.00.

Seriously, a very good read, and hard to put down once you start.

It may be available in Canada.

Published 2003,  ISBN 0-297-84668-X

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## jrhume (5 Oct 2004)

I've read "Achilles in Vietnam" and found it very interesting.  I think the author goes overboard in some areas, mainly because he only worked with disturbed vets.  But one insight I found particularly interesting was his belief that older veterans, friends, family and community directly contribute to the mental health of younger vets by the way they welcome them home.

Veterans throughout history have tended to congregate, to swap stories, etc.  This act reassures the returning veteran that he has done well, that his actions are acceptable and even laudable.  Obviously, the welcome he receives from family, friends and community has a huge impact as well.

When I came back from Vietnam in '68 my family was very welcoming, as were my friends (who mostly also served) and my community (a small town in Montana).  The overall reception for us VN vets was less than welcoming in the general sense, especially in the Northeast and California -- especially on college campuses, where most of us intended to go when we got out.  I joined the VFW briefly in the mid-70s and found a couldn't-care-less attitude toward VN vets.  After all, we lost our war.

After reading "Achilles in Vietnam", I understood more fully the damage our own nation did the my brothers when we came back from doing what most of us still see as our patriotic duty to America, the Vietnamese and the world.  Althougth, as a group, VN vets have fared as well or better than our peers in the last 35 years, we all carry around a tinge of bitterness at the way we were treated.

Disclaimer -- I was not a combat veteran.  My job was Air Traffic Control at various Army airfields.  

Jim


----------



## Gayson (5 Oct 2004)

Also aren't some parts of training such as drill instilled upon to recruits to get them to listen to words of command.  Such as when the section cmdr yells grenade everyone gets down.

I remember when I was a recruit I made a left turn when the WO yelled right turn.  He told me that I was going to die in a conflict.   ;D


----------



## pbi (6 Oct 2004)

J. Gayson:   Once again you raise an interesting subject, one that could be a thread on its own: the role and value of drill.

Personally, I am a great believer in drill for several reasons, and I think that we are sadly neglecting drill today as a result of misunderstanding its value(that said, we are a heck of a lot sharper on the square than many others, let me tell you.....) Some people say there is no place for drill in a modern army, and that it has nothing to do with combat soldiering. I disagree with this position. As an   NCO/WO I loved teaching drill, training drill instructors, and participating in ceremonial parades. I still do. (Although as a pogue I don't get to draw my sword too much...)

I remember reading "The Wild Geese" a few years back, in which the famous mercenary commander Col Mike Hoare spoke about his exploits. He stated that he was a big believer in drill as an indicator of soldierly qualities. Normally, as part of his merc hiring process, he would have his Sgt Maj form up the group of prospective mercenaries and then drill the heck out of them. He stated that he had found that a soldier who really worked hard and looked sharp on the square was often a good hire.

While I do not believe that performance on the square is a direct indicator of the abilities of a soldier, I have also generally found over the years that soldiers who take pride in themselves on the square, who put some "crack and drive" into their drill, will usually work hard elsewhere as well. Now, this does not mean that soldiers should spend their lives on the square, or that mindless drill should replace tactical training. Rather I think drill is both a useful tool to acculturate soldiers and to develop the habits of attention to, and immediate execution of, correct orders (Remember: you don't react to an impossible word of command, unless of course you are in a Rifle Regiment    ) as well as a good way of gauging effort and attitude. A good way, I said--not the only way.

As well, public drill displays (no: NOT wearing chrome helmets and white bootlaces and spinning rifles around-not that kind of BS drill...) of well trained, disciplined troops sharply turned out and smartly executing movements such as Advance In Review Order, March Past In Line In Slow Time, Fix Bayonets, etc send an extremely important and impressive message to the public, IMHO. They are always impressed by the sight of disciplined drill, especiall en masse. On the other hand, sloppy, shoddy drill by lazy, unkempt troops who don't know what they're doing and obviously couldnt care less sends and equally strong message.

What do folks think about drill today? Cheers.


----------



## Infanteer (6 Oct 2004)

Agree 100%.

I remember the first words to me when I was a Recruit on the parade square was "there is nothing more impressive then a formed body of disciplined troops maneuvering as one"; I still believe that Sergeant was right.

To me "discipline", "drill", and "professionalism" are all directly related.


----------



## pbi (6 Oct 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Agree 100%.
> 
> I remember the first words to me when I was a Recruit on the parade square was "there is nothing more impressive then a formed body of disciplined troops maneuvering as one"; I still believe that Sergeant was right.
> 
> To me "discipline", "drill", and "professionalism" are all directly related.



Yes, I think so too. However, I have heard some military people vehemently deny all of the above, and say that drill is rubbish, a waste of time, antiquated, etc. In terms of training value, I think that one need look no further than sports teams, Fire Service, police tac units, etc. all of whom who spend hours on drills of various types, so that in the heat and confusion of the game/fire/incident people will do what is expected of them at a basic functional level, thus freeing leaders to concentrate on the matter at hand. I believe that it also instills confidence. Cheers.


----------



## A.K. (6 Oct 2004)

One could say that drill is a form of indirect psychological training. Although I agree with the whole aspect of one inteligent person telling an organised mass of soldiers what to do, what if the highest in command is killed? Who takes over? Is there a hierarchy of command? (on the battlefield)


----------



## Infanteer (6 Oct 2004)

Two levels up, my friend....


----------



## pbi (7 Oct 2004)

> One could say that drill is a form of indirect psychological training. Although I agree with the whole aspect of one inteligent person telling an organised mass of soldiers what to do, what if the highest in command is killed? Who takes over? Is there a hierarchy of command? (on the battlefield)



Normally every commander, from large formation (division, brigade, etc) down to the section (8-10 soldiers led by an NCO) there is a "Second in Command" or "2IC". This person is (or should be) trained and ready to step up. Once that person is also killed/injured/etc, the next  most senior person available knows that it is his duty to take command immediately. If there are two soldiers left, one is th boss.

In any good Army, all people are trained to do the job of the person above them, either through formal training or by osmosis/observation. In a really good Army, people can tackle a job two up, but this is much more difficult and is normally only possible in a smaller, highly professional force.

All of this is facilitated by an important concept known as "Commander's Intent". This is always included in orders, and explains the main intent of the commander two up, as well as that of the immediate superior (one up). This way, if the chain of command becomes disrupted, communications are lost, the situation changes so that orders are no longer relevant, etc, subordinate leaders can act within the commander's intent instead of just sitting there like a dummy waiting for orders. Cheers.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Oct 2004)

Hence why Battle Procedure is so important and should not be shortened except in extreme circumstances.

"Soldier, you're the last one left standing. What can you do to help fulfill the Commander's Intent"


----------

