Bernd
10/02/2018 (Tue) 18:27:56
No.19709
del
10/02/2018 (Tue) 18:27:56
No.19709
del
>>19700
I have to circle back to the psychology of killing again.
The interviews the American historians conducted with the soldiers not just determined that only 2% of them was willing to kill but about the third of them took shots at the enemy. Not targeted shots just shots into the general direction of them. Which also means that rifle fire should proved to be less effective as it should have been compared to the fire of automatic weapons (in our case smgs) since by the law of large numbers randomly spraying a bunch of bullet at once has more chance to hit a target than a random single shot. This might be translated to the military leadership as an increased effectiveness when they viewed smgs the first time and decided it's a viable option.
I have to circle back to the psychology of killing again.
The interviews the American historians conducted with the soldiers not just determined that only 2% of them was willing to kill but about the third of them took shots at the enemy. Not targeted shots just shots into the general direction of them. Which also means that rifle fire should proved to be less effective as it should have been compared to the fire of automatic weapons (in our case smgs) since by the law of large numbers randomly spraying a bunch of bullet at once has more chance to hit a target than a random single shot. This might be translated to the military leadership as an increased effectiveness when they viewed smgs the first time and decided it's a viable option.