# "Combat Days" in WW1 and 2 vs. today



## enfield (1 Mar 2007)

I'm posting this here as a reply to a tangent that developed in this thread: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/58084.60.html. The Mods may want to clean this up, but I wanted to seperate the replies.



			
				Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> I'm with Kiwi on this one, in that I don't think that we should assume that simply by being in theatre someone is going to go insane or experience levels of PTSD that will incapacitate them.  Lets look at history, in the First and Second World Wars, we had troops that remained in combat/in theatre for years at a time.





			
				Staff Weenie said:
			
		

> Enfield - suck back and reload here - go back and read your basic history texts on WWI and WWII combat. Rotation in/out of the lines was particular to each nation's approach, and could differ greatly. Some nations ground their Divisions to a pulp before replacing them. Having units in high intensity combat day in, day out, for over a month, was entirely within the realm of possibility.



 I don’t have anything handy for other armies or WW2, but I will note I said “Allied” armies in my post, since I realize their policies were different from, say, Germany and Russia in ‘41-‘45. I pulled some stats from Mud, Blood and Poppycock by Gordon Corrigan, who gives figures for WW1. A British infantry battalion in WW1 rarely spent more than 10 days a month in the firing line, often much less, and almost never spent more than 4-5 continuous days there. 

When not in the frontline they were in the secondary lines (out of most small arms fire, but subject to artillery fire) or were in the rear areas, essentially billeted in completely safe French towns, and divisions spent long periods out of the line altogether on training, R&R, or preparing for an offensive - battalions could go months without nearing the frontline, as Marshals and Adjutants arranged their forces. Of course the battles and offensives were bloody, horrible, and long and soldiers could be there until their divisions were ground to pulp, but this was the exception, not the rule - the major battles were not constant. The war was by no means easy, but there were longer breaks between the stress of combat or immediate danger.

The advent of fast transport rapidly increased the amount of combat time soldiers accumulated and increased the combat stress per soldier. Helicopters especially erased the transit time (the many days spent moving to the front, the weeks on ships, etc) and made almost everyday a combat day for Western soldiers in wars since the 1960s. I’ve read some interesting studies of the effect of airmobility on infantry combat in Vietnam and Rhodesia – distance was no longer a limitation to combat. No matter where the enemy was, troops could be flown in to meet them, whereas in previous wars combat was limited to local troops, and reinforcements took longer to move in.

The move to asymmetrical warfare increases this tendency. I won’t get into a discussion of its worse or harder or gorier, as that would be a disservice to all veterans. I am simply looking at days spent on "the front" or "in combat". I think it goes without saying that Afghanistan (or Iraq) lacks the intensity or scale of WW1/2, but for the troops involved the stresses and feelings are probably similar.


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 Mar 2007)

Enfield said:
			
		

> I don’t have anything handy for other armies or WW2, but I will note I said “Allied” armies in my post, since I realize their policies were different from, say, Germany and Russia in ‘41-‘45. I pulled some stats from Mud, Blood and Poppycock by Gordon Corrigan, who gives figures for WW1. A British infantry battalion in WW1 rarely spent more than 10 days a month in the firing line, often much less, and almost never spent more than 4-5 continuous days there.



I believe it's been mentioned elsewhere on the forums that the stress of combat is usually considered in a cumulative context.  Adding that factor, even at 'only' 10 days per month, that amounts to an average of 120 days per year, or four months of combat experience per year.  Soldiers were recruiting in the Great War for the "duration of hostilities", so for a man who reached the line by the end on 1914 and who survived in front line battalions throughout the war could conceivably have racked up almost 480 days of combat time and stress.  And that's without accounting for those significant incidents that would have drawn on a man's stock of courage more than the average day in the lines: attacks, defending against enemy attacks, mines, lengthy bombardments - any of which would affect each man differently at different times.  

(Corrigan, by the way, is a worthy read.)

All this to say, perhaps that there are probably too many variables for a conclusive discussion by us non-professionals (in historical analysis of PTSD as it affected different generations).


----------



## Kiwi99 (1 Mar 2007)

Combat is combat, no matter what war you are in.  As far as I can see, the hun popping off a few rounds of small arms is just the same as johnny jundi playing silly buggers.  Keep in mind, Jerry wasnt using sulcide bombers or IEDs either.  There is combat stress.  A Sgt told me that cbt stress was like a glass that gets fuller with time.  Every now and then you have to take a minute or hour to empty the glass.  And the best way to do that is with the boys making fun of each other, and laughing about the intensity of action you just went through.  Nobody said war was going to be easy, so why expect it to be?  Like I said when I began, combat is combat, and if you havent experianced it, then you have no idea what it is.  Trust me, it was not what I thought it would be.


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 Mar 2007)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> Combat is combat, no matter what war you are in.  As far as I can see, the hun popping off a few rounds of small arms is just the same as johnny jundi playing silly buggers.  Keep in mind, Jerry wasnt using suicide bombers or IEDs either.



Then again, "johnny jundi" hasn't yet used massed heavy artillery, divisional assaults or poison gas.  As you say "combat [may be] combat", but comparing experiences at that level in two conflicts could really only be done by someone who experienced both.


----------



## George Wallace (1 Mar 2007)

As Kiwi99 said, it is something that you can be told about, over and over in many different ways, but until you have actually experienced it, you really won't know what it is.


----------



## Kiwi99 (1 Mar 2007)

I find it hard to believe that we will see massed assault and arty missions again.  Those have been replaced by IED and suicide bombers who strike not only to kill, but in an attempt to install fear.  The enemy is a vreature of the past, and he has fought long enough against enough people to know what works.  It is a fact that succesive generations of humans are preogressively less inclined to aggression, and he plays on that.  But, we have taught him a thing or two ourselves, I am glad to say.  And the days of timmy taliban are coming to an end.  But that does not mean the war is won.

I was scared of only one thing while I was there, and that was the jundi jumping on my LAV and throwing in a grenade.  Scared the crap outta me.  But it wasn't dibilitaing in any way.  The basics of combat stay the same.  Person against person with trying to kill each other.  It is the way that we are killed that changes.  And apprently the other 'invisible wounds' that all soldiers are apparently prone to develop.

That being said, combat gives Canadian soldiers a chance to kill the enemy, something we do very well.  But a HEI-T round does a better job than a sword or a WWI rifle.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (1 Mar 2007)

Enfield said:
			
		

> I don’t have anything handy for other armies or WW2, but I will note I said “Allied” armies in my post, since I realize their policies were different from, say, Germany and Russia in ‘41-‘45. I pulled some stats from Mud, Blood and Poppycock by Gordon Corrigan, who gives figures for WW1. A British infantry battalion in WW1 rarely spent more than 10 days a month in the firing line, often much less, and almost never spent more than 4-5 continuous days there.



Would you write an academic paper or support an argument based on a single source?  Lets do some more historical research to see what others say about the time spent at the front.  That said, the 'brief' (as you make it out to be) time periods that these troops were in combat was repeatedly often more intense than almost anything that we've seen in Afghanistan or Iraq.  I don't think we're really going to accomplish much of any value here by arguing who had it worse, the vets of those past conflicts, or those presently serving, but I do find that your comments are somewhat 'cheapening' the experiences that those who carried the torch before us were exposed to.


----------



## enfield (2 Mar 2007)

In my post I was focusing on the concept that WW1/2 soldiers spent "years" fighting, and that this historical example of soldiers withstanding stress for very long periods of time could be used to justify keeping modern soldiers on back to back tours. I won't pretend to know how stresses add up to become PTSD, and I don't want to belittle any vets from any conflict. I am just looking at the historic record for days in contact with the enemy. My hypothesis is that given casualties, unit rotations in an out of the front line, and personnel re-assignment, individual soldiers did not spent long periods of time in the frontline and are thus not a good example of soldiers operating under _long-term_ combat stress.

I've established that, on _average_ a British soldier in WW1 was in the frontline an average of 10 days a month- 10 horrendous, mind-blowing days, yes, but this does not equal "years". Corrigan specifically address the "myth" that British soldiers spent "years" in the trenches, when the trenches were really a small part of their overall routine.
According to http://www.3ad.com/history/wwll/stats.data.2.htm#anchor1710970, the entire US 3rd Armoured Division spent 231 days in combat in the entire war, serving from D-Day to VE Day. Again, this does not equal "years".
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/34th_Infantry_Division_(United_States) the 34th Infantry spent more days in combat in WW2 than any other US unit - 571. An astounding record. However, given their casualties and natural transfers/postings, I doubt any one soldier went through all 571 of those days. The 34th paid an extremely high price for 571 days in combat.
Now, these are two famous formations who were at the forefront of much of the European Theatre - they were exceptional. As divisions, not every unit was engaged at the same time - many would be in the rear, training or resting or re-arming. Tens of thousands of soldiers served in units that did not go into action for more than a couple weeks, and even in the most employed divisions few soldiers were engaged for long periods of time - whether the were killed, wounded, rotated to other positions, or posted out.

So, what was the average?
According to http://www.vietnam-war.info/facts/ the average US infantryman in the South Pacific Theatre of WW2 spent 40 days in combat, over a 4 year period. The average infantryman in Vietnam spent 240, over a one year period.

To recap; the issue I was attempting address was whether the two major conflicts of the 20th century could point to re-thinking how long soldiers are kept in-theatre. *I agree, completely, that soldiers in these past wars faced much worse circumstances and conditions, and that one reason why they spent so few days in combat was that they were killed or wounded. *  Looking at numbers, I come to the (unsurprising, really) conclusion that soldiers in WW1/2 were used hard and used up fast - but they _did not_ normally spend long periods of time in contact with the enemy, and often spent long periods between combat in rear or safe areas. Thus, I don't believe that we can use their historic example as a justification to keep our troops on longer tours.


----------



## Staff Weenie (2 Mar 2007)

I'm somewhat suspect of the Vietnam numbers you've presented. Not in that you're deliberately attempting to mislead, but in that the data itself is potentially not accurate. I've read a few books on Vietnam, and none seem to indicate that the general US soldier or airman spent, on average, 240 days of a year in actual combat. The data may include days spent at a FOB, even though no contact occurred. Some specific capabilities had their personnel employed heavily, often daily, in a risky and exposed position, but many had prolonged periods of inactivity.

You are correct in that the advent of industrialization and enhanced logistics has meant that armies can stay in/endure direct combat for longer and longer periods. We probably see this beginning with the US Civil War, and carrying on forward.

In looking at how this affects each soldier, and what it means for how long we should keep troops in theatre - that's much harder to analyze. Psych casualty rates were actually fairly constant in all the major conventional wars of the last century (when one levels out and equates the various national diagnostic criteria and recording methods for the various forces involved). I haven't seen any comparative data on asymmetrical warfare yet. However - I might wonder if one observation from WWII and post-war studies holds true: soldiers in more constant combat can adapt to the stress better than those who are constantly moved in and out of combat. WWII Bomber Command personnel for example endured a few hours of pure and absolute hell, and then returned home to clean sheets, and the gnawing expectation of the next mission, and that the law of averages were against them living through their tour. They had higher CSR rates (LMF cas) than line infantry, who were exposed to more prolonged stress.

At the risk of putting my neck out way too far - I would wonder, with our motivated, educated, and highly trained CA soldiers, whether the stress of expecting combat/ambush is actually far greater on them than the actual stress created in combat, with casualties around them. Waiting can be harder than enduring......at least once the furball begins, you begin to have a measure of control over your circumstances - you can shoot back and drive the enemy to ground,  then destroy them. But driving up and down the road wondering about every mad driver, and fresh patch of turned up earth beside the road - that's something you can't control easily. 

Kiwi - I would say that western culture itself has progressively placed a higher and higher value on the life of the individual, and there is less willingness on the part of western society to endure sacrifice without direct threat or tangible gain. That's not true for folks in other parts of the world. When your average life span is 35-40, your maternal mortality rate is the highest in the world, and your infant/child mortality is 3 of 5 children dead by age five, it's hard to see much value in life. In this regard, one of the best ways to defeat the TB, is not necessarily by killing them all, but by raising the health, education, and material status of the population base such that they actually have something to live for vice something to die for..... NATO will hopefully achieve this but getting the basic security first is slow.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Mar 2007)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> I find it hard to believe that we will see massed assault and arty missions again.  Those have been replaced by IED and suicide bombers who strike not only to kill, but in an attempt to install fear.  The enemy is a vreature of the past, and he has fought long enough against enough people to know what works.  It is a fact that succesive generations of humans are preogressively less inclined to aggression, and he plays on that.  But, we have taught him a thing or two ourselves, I am glad to say.  And the days of timmy taliban are coming to an end.  But that does not mean the war is won.
> 
> I was scared of only one thing while I was there, and that was the jundi jumping on my LAV and throwing in a grenade.  Scared the crap outta me.  But it wasn't dibilitaing in any way.  The basics of combat stay the same.  Person against person with trying to kill each other.  It is the way that we are killed that changes.  And apprently the other 'invisible wounds' that all soldiers are apparently prone to develop.
> 
> That being said, combat gives Canadian soldiers a chance to kill the enemy, something we do very well.  But a HEI-T round does a better job than a sword or a WWI rifle.



The last major war using these tactics was the Iran-Iraq war, along with gas. Mass warfare could still breakout in Korea or even a future possibility between India and China.


----------



## 3rd Herd (7 Mar 2007)

Some suggested readings:

Sheppard Ben, War of Nerves: Soldiers and Psychiatrists, 1914-1994, Random House. 2002

Britt, Thomas W. and Adler, Amy B.(eds.), The Psychology of the Peacekeeper: Lessons from the Field. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003.

Stretch, Robert H. "Effects of Service in Vietnam on Canadian Forces Military Personnel", Armed Forces & Society, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 571-585, October 1990


----------



## FascistLibertarian (14 Mar 2007)

I think you do have to account for how harsh the fighting is, but that you have to be VERY careful in how you do this.
For example Italy was a very dirty war but compared to the Battle of Normandy (which was shorter and more traumatic) it would be less harsh.  Some people who would break down in Normandy possibly would have been able to handle Italy in probably all of the armies involved.
In the Great War we lost the most people we ever have (60,000), over a longer period, and our contribution was mostly army.
The goal if people broke down used to be getting people back into combat; dealing with them after was barely a thought because the front needed everyone.  They really did not have a good understanding of PTSD b4 ww1 because that was the first war where it became a major problem (ie people of known courage started snapping).
It is important to remember that ww1 was a very impersonal war, brave people got killed and cowards lived, and many people would not see who they killed/who killed them.
The possibility that an artillery shell will come out of no where and blow you up could be very difficult to withstand for long periods.
At the same time there is evidence that in sectors which were not "hot" there was a live and let live policy (this is a generalization of course)
In ww1 on the Western Front the most causalities occurred during periods of mobile warfare (1914 and 1918 being the worst).
Unless you have been in combat it is impossible to say of course but we must also recognize that combat is very subjective for the individuals involved.
Even if soldiers can often relate to each other it can be hard to understand what happened and comparing can only tell us so much.

As a side note the Germans in ww2 had to deal with it more in unit, as the people could be killed, but that is not to say it did not happen to them.


----------



## reccecrewman (15 Mar 2007)

> In the Great War we lost the most people we ever have (60,000), over a longer period, and our contribution was mostly army.



Not even close to being true................. It is true that we lost 60,000 killed, but it certainly wasn't over a longer period of time. World War I flared up in the last week of July 1914 and raged until November 1918 for a total of 51 months of hostilities. The first Canadian formation sent overseas, 1st Canadian Division arrived in France at St. Nazaire in Feb. 1915, (Yes, I am fully aware that the Princess Pats had been fighting with the British Army earlier)

Now, in contrast, World War II flared up in September 1939 and went on until April 1945 - August 1945 including Japan, for a total of 72 months - that's 30% more time than the First World War.

Regards


----------



## FascistLibertarian (15 Mar 2007)

Yes but if you look at the time of the army contribution to ww2 we before June 6th 1944.
1941 Hong Kong (2 battalions)
1942 Dieppe (2nd Div)
1943 Silicy (1st div) then Italy (I or II corps.....)

In ww1 we were constantly engaged from 2nd Ypres to Nov 11 1918
Sorry I did not make myself clear


----------



## reccecrewman (15 Mar 2007)

> Sorry I did not make myself clear



No biggie, but if we want to get nitpicky we cannot overlook the contribution of the RCAF and the RCN who were locked in combat nearly from the get-go.  

The other factor that should be examined in this thread is in World War II, Canada mobilized 1.08 million.  That was an astounding 1 in 10 ratio of uniformed personnel to civilians. In World War I, Canada had 620,000 mobilized.

In World War II, Canada suffered 42,000 killed compared to 67,000 killed in the First World War.  In World War II, Canada had 53,000 wounded compared to a staggering 173,000 wounded (Of course, thousands were wounded on more than one occassion).

This makes 8.7% of our World War II mobilisation force as some form of casualty compared to 38.7% of our mobilsation force in World War I.

Regards


----------



## 1feral1 (16 Mar 2007)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> I was scared of only one thing while I was there, and that was the jundi jumping on my LAV and throwing in a grenade.  Scared the crap outta me.  But it wasn't dibilitaing in any way.  The basics of combat stay the same.  Person against person with trying to kill each other.  It is the way that we are killed that changes.  And apprently the other 'invisible wounds' that all soldiers are apparently prone to develop.
> 
> That being said, combat gives Canadian soldiers a chance to kill the enemy, something we do very well.  But a HEI-T round does a better job than a sword or a WWI rifle.



I too, used to be quite concerned, but each time I went out in our LAV, and played the shooter/operator in a Type II or Type III, it was always IED and EFPs which concerned me, as my head and shoulders were always exposed, shy of passing through check points or known danger areas were we ducked down to avoid snipers, who were always active. One underway, I just used to say to myself, 'odds are you'll be ok', and then into the mission there is much more important things on your mind, and you don't worry about it. 

Once in behind the wire, after a de-brief, we joked and carried on, the morale was always high, and the adrenaline flowed still in our bodies. I did find it hard to get to sleep  at times, but soon exhaustion ruled and I slept like I would have if I was home. I do have insomnia here still at times, and often I only log two or three hours sleep. I get those wicked night sweats and restlessness at times, dreaming I am still in that bloody LAV reliving a day, but I am not alone in that department.

Combat and battle is still what it was a thousand years ago, and only the technology and tactics change, but the emotions and all that goes with the before and after effects remains constant, whether it was Vimy, Caen, Kapyong, or here in this arsehole of a place.


My view anyways,


Wes


----------



## FascistLibertarian (16 Mar 2007)

I think combat has changed and become more impersonal.
In the premodern period armies would meet for pitched battles.  I think it might be easier to be brave for a few hours than being threatened for long periods of time.
In ww2 most people did not see who killed them/who they killed.
Just my thoughts.


----------



## HItorMiss (16 Mar 2007)

Wesley (Over There) said:
			
		

> I did find it hard to get to sleep  at times, but soon exhaustion ruled and I slept like I would have if I was home. I do have insomnia here still at times, and often I only log two or three hours sleep. I get those wicked night sweats and restlessness at times, dreaming I am still in that bloody LAV reliving a day, but I am not alone in that department.


 

No Wes you are not alone and I hope it starts to pass soon. Sometimes I wake up clutching for a hand that is there.....or words stuck in my throat The sweats are the worst I wake up soaked and the sheets so wet they could be strained I really do hate that the most.

Combat never changes and the symtoms after never have either, I talked to vets about it and the only thing we could say that seemed semi diffferent was the speed.


----------



## Michael OLeary (17 Mar 2007)

FascistLibertarian said:
			
		

> I think combat has changed and become more impersonal.
> In the premodern period armies would meet for pitched battles.  I think it might be easier to be brave for a few hours than being threatened for long periods of time.
> In ww2 most people did not see who killed them/who they killed.
> Just my thoughts.



FascistLibrarian,

you may want to spend some time reading the remarks of some of the posters here before you continue to expound on your concepts of how "personal" warfare is in various eras and sitiations.  Kiwi, HitorMiss and Wesley (among others) probably have some personal experience that might change you views on the review of readings you have made.  As a few of our correspondents have noted, reactions to combat are very personal and generalizations such as yours could be inaccurate.


----------



## Roy Harding (17 Mar 2007)

FascistLibertarian said:
			
		

> I think combat has changed and become more impersonal.
> In the premodern period armies would meet for pitched battles.  I think it might be easier to be brave for a few hours than being threatened for long periods of time.
> In ww2 most people did not see who killed them/who they killed.
> Just my thoughts.



STFU - you have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## 1feral1 (17 Mar 2007)

FascistLibertarian said:
			
		

> I think combat has changed and become more impersonal.
> 
> I think it might be easier to be brave for a few hours than being threatened for long periods of time.



In response to your first sentance quoted. Its a very personal thing. VERY personal!

In response to your second sentance quoted, define long periods of time, and what experience do you base this on? 

I've been in this mess just shy of 7 months, the longest deployment in history for Australian troops in Iraq. No let up, 7 days a week (a small break/escape for a bit not long after I got here), exposed to the violence 24 hrs a day.

In my going on 32 years of combined service in Canada and now Australia, this time spent in Baghdad and surrounding areas has been the most exciting, challenging time in my life, and also the most terrifying. 

As for being brave, I am not brave, at times perhaps maybe stupid, for I have volunteered for things, but not brave. We have all walked the edge of a straight razor here, and we've been lucky. Its called being there for each other and standing one's ground for what one believes is right. Thats how I see it anyways. One is compelled to go that extra bit, driven from some wierd internal force from within one's mind. If I did not listen to this 'force', I would have problems living with myself. I leave this war feeling quite proud of my Unit's service here, and a job well done for us all.

I don't know where you are getting your information from, but I do NOT think it is correct. However, should you ever have the chance to see some active service, just be careful what you wish for, because at times its far from pleasant.

Hey HoM, thanks for your words, and it relaxes me a bit to know that you know exactly what I am talking about. Ya, we are not alone.

I am going home soon, and I can't wait.

Cheers from Hell City,


Wes


----------



## reccecrewman (17 Mar 2007)

> As for being brave, I am not brave, at times perhaps maybe stupid, for I have volunteered for things, but not brave



Typical answer from a professional soldier............. Well, I'm going to go ahead and say it Wes. You and every other allied serviceman/woman who have had the guts to step foot in Iraq are brave.  Your comment there is very typical of a professional who doesn't want to be seen as puffing up his chest.  You are humble, go-about-the-business of getting it done, noble........... and brave.

Godspeed in getting home to your lovely wife safe.


----------



## FascistLibertarian (17 Mar 2007)

I am really and truly sorry to anyone and everyone I offended.
I was not trying to make a comparison from ww1 or 2 to today or anything of the sort.  I think the Great War was the war that was really radically different from the wars before it.
Of course every individual’s experiences and reactions are going to be different. Warfare has always caused psychological issues I am sure even in Ancient times.
My point was that it is probably harder for the average person to be in a stressful situation for a long period of time than a short period of time.  This was based mostly on my knowledge WW1 compared to earlier British wars which had far fewer psychological causalities.  (just explaining my thinking not trying to turn this into an argument)
I have a tremendous amount of respect for our soldiers who put themselves in a dangerous situation and by no means sought to downplay anything they do.
I did not mean to cause a controversy and I once again apologize.


----------



## Michael OLeary (17 Mar 2007)

FascistLibertarian said:
			
		

> I am really and truly sorry to anyone and everyone I offended.
> I was not trying to make a comparison from ww1 or 2 to today or anything of the sort.  I think the Great War was the war that was really radically different from the wars before it.
> Of course every individual’s experiences and reactions are going to be different. Warfare has always caused psychological issues I am sure even in Ancient times.
> My point was that it is probably harder for the average person to be in a stressful situation for a long period of time than a short period of time.  This was *based mostly on my knowledge* WW1 compared to earlier British wars which had far fewer psychological causalities.  (just explaining my thinking not trying to turn this into an argument)
> ...



Why don't you start by explaining exactly what experience/research/credentials you have, so that your remarks can be put into context.


----------



## Long in the tooth (17 Mar 2007)

If I may add a personal note, what we are fighting now is quite different from WW 1 or 2.  My Grandfather was wounded three times in WW1.  My Father's Bn suffered over 100% casualties (600 wounded, 400 dead) in WW2.  In addition, after being wounded he stayed in action.  They were there for 'the duration' against the most capable troops the world had ever seen (WW1 Germans cost the allies 2.5 casualties for each of theirs, WW2 up to 6:1, never less than 2:1).

Not to minimize our troops efforts, but 1 casualty today mandates a state funeral.  Our troops are now some of the most professional, best trained and best lead that we have ever deployed.  Our intelligence is excellent.  And when they deploy they have an end date.

My father fought years just to get $50/month for shrapnel wounds just an inch from his spine.  Our benefits are much better.


----------



## FascistLibertarian (17 Mar 2007)

There seems to be two issues people have with me here, my statements about this and also if I should be making these statements.

This is in regards to the contentions I have made (the less important part)
I hope people find this a bit interesting…
Academic information on PTSD in ww1:
The first case of shell shock described in a British medical journal was by Charles Myers in Feb 1915 
http://bms.brown.edu/HistoryofPsychiatry/Myers.html
I am not aware of other cases described in earlier British wars, but there may have been. It just was not as much as issue because less people had PTSD.

In ww1 WHR Rivers wrote one of his most famous papers On the Repression of War Experience 
It can be found below
http://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/comment/rivers.htm
This is one of the first good examinations of shell shock and how to deal with it.
Basically the idea is that they should talk about what occurred with people who have experienced similar trauma rather than repressing it.
High levels of anger with no way to express them will cause anyone problems.

Before ww1 symptoms were considered "cannon fatigue" "Battle fatigue" "nerves" etc
The problem was in ww1 men started breaking down who were known to be a proven courage, so the answer could no longer be that these men were "cowards".

From Cataclysm: the First World War as Political Tragedy by David Stevenson pp 169-70
"Post-traumatic stress disorder, to give its modern name to a condition labeled 'shell shock' in the English-speaking countries, had doubtlessly existed in earlier conflicts, but had not been diagnosed as such. It was exacerbated by the special conditions of static warfare in which soldiers endured repeated bombardments in confined spaces with little control over their fate, and lived day after day in close proximity to their comrades' decomposing remains. In the mobile fighting of 1914 and 1918 its incidence diminished"
Only after the Somme did the UK accept it was psychological.
200,000 cases in Germany 80,000 cases in UK of which 87% were returned to duty in a month

Here is a ww2 account by Lewis Jeeble "A Worm's Eye View: The 1/4th KOYLI in Normandy" in Canadian Military History Spring 1994 Vol 3 No 1 pp92
"The battlefield is empty. One sees few live, uncaptured enemies"
In his account he talks about "The Anatomy of Courage" by Lord Moran which makes the claim that everyone has a reservoir of courage, small to large, and when that is gone your times up.

From Abnormal Psychology 2nd Canadian Ed Gerald Davison etc all 2005 John Wiley & sons Canada
pp185-6 Canadian Perspectives: PTSD in Canadian Veterans and Peacekeepers
In WW1 10% of Canadian causalities were “nervous and mental cases” (a very broad term)
Canadians in Vietnam = 65.4% in study of 164 veterans around 1990.
Dieppe = 37% of people with 43.4% of POW’s and 29.9% of non-POW’s had PTSD in 1992 (50 years on, 276 sample). Only 5.4% were getting govt assistance for this!
For Hong Kong I would estimate a rate of near 100% for survivors based mostly on my reading/listening to various accounts (their fight with the government is another example of Canada not doing enough in time). 

I am not claiming I agree with all of this but it’s my "research".
Our knowledge about PTSD has been increasing since the Great War and will only continue to do so.

As to my credentials I have a history degree with a psyc minor and a slight understanding of the DSM, nothing really to special and I am not claiming to be any kind of expert.

I am very interested in the accounts here and genuinely meant no disrespect, my only point was that warfare has changed and the situations vary (and anyone is free to disagree).

Now for the more important part:
I have never had PTSD like symptoms nor been in a situation where it was likely to develop.  It was not at all my intention of anger anyone, ESPICALLY those who have been through combat.  Many of my family members have been and I have a great respect for it and comparing how traumatic events are to different individuals and among different situations is like comparing apples and oranges, not very helpful and also offensive.   
I have not been as respectful as I should have been and as an amateur historian I should have kept my views to myself as they are academic/armchair and probably not appropriate for this thread which is dealing with actual people and their very real experiences. 
Dealing with PTSD that develops among Canadians who are serving their country is something which I take very seriously and have much sympathy for.
I apologize.


----------



## reccecrewman (18 Mar 2007)

> I think the Great War was the war that was really radically different from the wars before it.



Even with this statement F.L, you are showing lack of knowledge to some degree.  The U.S Civil War was technically the war that brought mass butchery into it's own.  The Great War merely put it onto the world stage.  

The American Civil war showed the advent of everything the Great War was, only on a less murderous scale. With a death toll of over 600,000, it was in the American civil war that the quick firing magazine loader made it's grand debut as the infantryman weapon of choice, machine guns, (albeit rather crude ones) aerial reconnaissance, telegraph service for quick communication, railroads used for rapid troop deployment and trenching came into their own as an SOP......... casualty lists in the thousands after a battle and photographs from the front showing people back home images of the horrors of war.  The list goes on and on, but your comment about the Great War being "radically different" from the wars before it is not technically true. (At least in my opinion - you may disagee.   )

Regards


----------



## 3rd Herd (18 Mar 2007)

reccecrewman said:
			
		

> Even with this statement F.L, you are showing lack of knowledge to some degree.  The U.S Civil War was technically the war that brought mass butchery into it's own.



And it's delivery into everyones household was courtesy of James Brady and his band of roving photographers. An excellent site on him is "Pictures of the Civil War", http://www.archives.gov/research/civil-war/photos/


----------



## Michael OLeary (18 Mar 2007)

reccecrewman said:
			
		

> The U.S Civil War was technically the war that brought mass butchery into it's own.  The Great War merely put it onto the world stage.



The Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05 should also be recalled for the scale of forces and casualties on each side, in part because of the influences of maturing technological developments versus the employment of massed forces.

Russian Empire - 500,000 Soldiers (24,844 killed; 146,519 wounded; 59,218 POW)
Japanese Empire - 400,000 Soldiers (47,387 killed; 173,425 wounded)
Plus unknown numbers of Chinese civilian casiualties.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Japanese_War)

This war, unfortunately, went largely unnoticed by western military scholars and did not appear to provide much in the way of extrapolation of new ways to wage warfare leading into the Great War.


----------



## 3rd Herd (18 Mar 2007)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> The Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05 should also be recalled for the scale of forces and casualties on each side, in part because of the influences of maturing technological developments versus the employment of massed forces.
> 
> This war, unfortunately, went largely unnoticed by western military scholars and did not appear to provide much in the way of extrapolation of new ways to wage warfare leading into the Great War.



"U.S. Army officers acted as observers during the Boer War and the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-5. During the latter, the percentage of soldiers dying of their wounds was technically the lowest of all nineteenth- and twentieth-century conflicts, until the low American loss rate of World War II, largely because the soldiers of both sides frequently died before they could be moved to an aid station and officially counted as "wounded." Nine Army officers, including John F. Morrison, Arthur MacArthur (father of Douglas), Charles Lynch of the Medical Department, and John J. Pershing, were distributed among several Japanese field armies and the Imperial General Staff in Tokyo. These men closely examined every aspect of Japanese operations, and later produced the five-volume Reports of Military Observers Attached to the Armies in Manchuria During the Russo-Japanese War, as well as numerous articles and lectures." 

Source: Greenwood, John T. "The U.S. Army Military Observers with the Japanese Army during the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905)," Army History, Winter 1996, (pg.4-5.)

Edit to Add:

"Over 80 observers in all were despatched by the armed forces of 15 nations to report on the conflict, of which more than one third consisted of British officers, many of them with considerable experience of colonial campaigning. On the Japanese side, the British military attachés enjoyed not only the advantage of numerical superiority, but also benefited considerably from the special relationship with the Japanese military as a result of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance of 1902. Consequently, British officers often received information which was withheld from the other foreign observers."

Source: THE RUSSO-JAPANESE WAR: Reports from Officers Attached to the Japanese Forces in the Field (London, 1905-6)
http://www.ganesha-publishing.com/russo_jap.htm


----------



## Michael OLeary (18 Mar 2007)

Just because a lengthy report was produced doesn't mean Lessons Learned were effectively promulgated.


----------



## Old Sweat (18 Mar 2007)

3rd Herd said:
			
		

> Edit to Add:
> 
> "Over 80 observers in all were despatched by the armed forces of 15 nations to report on the conflict, of which more than one third consisted of British officers, many of them with considerable experience of colonial campaigning. On the Japanese side, the British military attachés enjoyed not only the advantage of numerical superiority, but also benefited considerably from the special relationship with the Japanese military as a result of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance of 1902. Consequently, British officers often received information which was withheld from the other foreign observers."
> 
> ...


----------



## 3rd Herd (18 Mar 2007)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Just because a lengthy report was produced doesn't mean Lessons Learned were effectively promulgated.



"In battle after battle, even when their opponents resolved to attack, even though usually out numbered and occasionally out gunned, the Japanese seized the initiative, took the offensive, usually absorbed heavier causalities and won victory after victory. Of all the lessons available form this war, this one was the most clearest. and it was certainly noted by most observers."

Source: Cox, Gary. "Of Aphorisms, Lessons, and Paradigms: Comparing the British and German Histories of the Russo-Japanese War." The Journal of Military History:1992.(pgs 389-402)


"Official Military History is suspect on three counts: it is contemporary, official and collaborative," Leonard Krieger


----------



## FascistLibertarian (18 Mar 2007)

No i agree with what you said reccecrewman.  I just have zero information on the psychological aspect of any of those wars and my knowledge of the Civil War is fairly limited.
I have argued with a South African friend of mine until we are blue in the face about the first "modern" war (so stupid I know as it all depends on how you define it....). I say Civil he says Boer 
I have no idea how big a killer artillery was in the Civil War but I assume it was not nearly as big as in the First World War.
Not to mention airplanes (I know they were used pre 1914), tanks, the global nature of the conflict, and the number of countries involved, the numbers of people involved.
All wars are of course unique (this is a truism).
I still think the Great War was radically different from all wars before it as the Civil War was.

And as to learning lessons from wars at least the Americans did not draw the lessons the Japanese did from the war with Russia.
Banzi charges work!
Have a descisive naval battle, win, and they will surrender!
Will matters more than production!


----------



## TCBF (18 Mar 2007)

"I still think the Great War was radically different from all wars before it as the Civil War was".

- Nope.  Evolutionary, not revolutionary.  Think logistics: Canned food, and the use of railroads to move troops and supplies (like barbed wire!): Civil War.


----------



## 3rd Herd (19 Mar 2007)

In looking at some of the other armies involved in this era I found a couple of interesting points.The author Bartov "reports that in WWII Hitler’s Army shot at least 13,000 of its soldiers, principally for desertion and failure to show the spirit of fuehrer. This defined the context of psychiatric combat casualties in Hitler’s army. The Kaiser’s army in WWI executed only 48. The nature of coercion and discipline employed by these two armies was very different and this had major implications for how psychiatric casualties were managed." An interesting study of veterans of the Finish Army has shown a rate of PTSD/Battle Exhaustion lower than 10%. The co-authored report this due to "Without exception, they spoke freely about the war, often with emotion. Themes that received emphasis in their accounts included the Finnish fighting spirit and the strong reciprocal bonds of loyalty that were felt during the war. The war now featured prominently as part of their integrity as old men, representing a honourable task that they had been called on to fulfil. The significance they attributed to the war had not waned with time."(Hautamäki, Coleman) Perhaps Evans explains it best with "We should see war stories for what they are: complex narratives that serve many functions – functions that those of us who have never been to war are not always best placed to interpret."  

In the realm of did they learn or not, "that the combat psychiatric lessons learned about forward treatment by the U.S. military in WWI were lost by the time of WWII. Lessons that seem clear in retrospect may have been much less clear in 1941. In fact, many of the WWI psychiatrists held that the principal lesson of war was that the soldiers who broke down were predisposed to break down."(Holloway) But further Holloway point out that "in WWII, U.S. psychiatric combat casualties had the same rate of decoration for bravery as those who were wounded in action. The stigmatization of such casualties as cowards was less when this was known." And doing the judging of who was sane and who was not is again interesting as "at least half of U.S. military psychiatrists during WWII were general physicians trained for a brief time by the army and assigned to psychiatric duties. The U.S. army had 20 physicians with some psychiatric experience at the beginning of the war and 2402 by the end of the war. Further, many military psychiatrists during this period attended specialty-training courses or received on-the-job training in the military"(Farrell, Berlien) 

Source:

Bartov, O. Hitler’s army: Soldiers, Nazis, and war in the Third Reich. New York: Oxford University Press. (1992)

Evans, R. In Defence of History.Cambridge: Granta.2001

Farrell, M. J., & Berlien, I. C. Professional personnel. In A. J. Glass & R. J. Bernucci (Eds.), Neuropsychiatry in World War II: Volume I, The zone of the interior (pp. 41–51).Washington,DC: Office of the Surgeon General, Department of the Army.(1966). 

Hautamäki ,A. Coleman, P. G."Explanation for low prevalence of PTSD among older Finnish war veterans: social solidarity and continued significance given to wartime sufferings". Aging & Mental Health. Volume 5, Number 2/May 1, 2001. (165-174)

Holloway, Harry C. "Combat Psychiatry", Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. (June 2002)


----------



## FascistLibertarian (19 Mar 2007)

Great point's 3rd Herd!
In a stressful situation there is no way to predict who will or wont break down.
In terms of long term coping being on the winning or losing side is an important variable.
US Soldiers returning from Vietnam found a hostile public. They lacked the acceptance of the earlier generation in Korea and WW2.
How well the general public can understand and relate to the trauma suffered is very important as well.
Hong Kong vets and Vietnam Vets in Canada are a small group so their ordeal receives less attention.
I think the stigma is an important aspect which needs to be broken down more. The attention Dallaire has gotten due to his PTSD, and how he has turned that into a psoitive and his work breaking the stigma, and the proud manner in which he conducts himself should be an inspiration to all.
How could someone who saw such horror, or people who were survivors of such horror, not be affected?

Some other thoughts
After ww1 people were in long term care into the 1960's.
In ww2 many German Generals killed themselves as well (possibly because they were in impossible situations) unlike ww1.
One of our best Generals in ww2 broke down twice during training before he got to combat and went on to an amazing career!

And on the original topic:
The tooth to tail ratio was much higher in the Great War than in ww2.  Infantry by far made up our biggest contribution in ww1 compared to ww2 although casualties to the infantry were horrific in both wars.


----------

