|
| 07 Feb 2012 07:54 PM |
In the Civil War, only about 10% of soldiers actually fired therir weapons or killed someone. Years later in the Vietnam War, it went from 10% to 90%.
How?
The soldiers were 'drilled' and 'conditioned' to overcome the natural resistance of killing, similar to how they did in WWII.
Smh.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 07 Feb 2012 07:55 PM |
whatever you're saying is wrong because most people right now agree that the U.S. has the best military right now
You're really sLATE in the military technology the U.S. has broski. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Inks13
|
  |
| Joined: 22 Dec 2009 |
| Total Posts: 12312 |
|
|
| 07 Feb 2012 07:56 PM |
or maybe weapons became better, more accurate, and had a longer distance? along with explosives, tanks, you know, Advancements like that. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 07 Feb 2012 07:57 PM |
LOOK
OP IS OBVIOUSLY JUST "TROLLING" BECAUSE NOT ONLY DOES HE MAKE AN OUTRAGEOUS CLAIM, HE HAS NO SOURCES OR CONFIRMED FACTS TO BACK IT UP
NOW STFU, THE OP JUST WANTS YOU TO ARGUE WITH HIM |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
rockybow
|
  |
| Joined: 15 Jan 2008 |
| Total Posts: 10036 |
|
|
| 07 Feb 2012 07:58 PM |
| Actually, in the Vietnam war, they couldn't tell who the enemy and the civilians were, so they panicked and just started firing. That's why that war sucked. :3 |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 07 Feb 2012 08:00 PM |
"Actually, in the Vietnam war, they couldn't tell who the enemy and the civilians were, so they panicked and just started firing. That's why that war sucked."
So true |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Finn938
|
  |
| Joined: 27 Nov 2011 |
| Total Posts: 3487 |
|
| |
|
|
| 07 Feb 2012 08:02 PM |
@muscloo, You want me to cite my sources? Fine.
Milton Metlzer. Weapons & Warfare. Pages 78-80
Anderson, Jervis. War and Society in Europe of the Old Regine
Brandsted, Johannes. Guns in American Life. New York. Random House,1984 |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 07 Feb 2012 08:02 PM |
From the moment you said the first sentence, this thread was doomed to fail. The Civil War had some of the bloodiest battles in history. (Battle of Antietam) Sure the soldiers spent most of their time killing time playing cards, but they were forced to sit there and guard as many places as possible.
What worse, it doesn't need weapons to cause this violence. Remember the blockade the North used to cut off the South's supplies? And Sherman's Sea Run cut the South territory in half in DAYS. Plus we took the Mississippi river almost right off the bat.
In case you're confused, here's the TL;DR version:
Go back to school. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 07 Feb 2012 08:05 PM |
Forgot a few... Tunis, Edwin. Weapons: A Pictorical History. New York: World, 1954 Slotkin, Richard. Gunfighter Nation: The Myth of the Frontier in Twentieth-Century America. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1954. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 07 Feb 2012 08:06 PM |
okay
now you're not just spouting nonsense
still doubt the legitimacy, though |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 07 Feb 2012 08:07 PM |
@Neighborly, I realize that now, I was mistaken about the Battle of Gettysburg; they had found 25,574 guns, but 10% of them were still loaded.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
rockybow
|
  |
| Joined: 15 Jan 2008 |
| Total Posts: 10036 |
|
|
| 07 Feb 2012 08:09 PM |
| This should have ended with my last post. Because it's true. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 07 Feb 2012 08:10 PM |
Good point, I almost forgot about the most famous one...lol. Did you know that battle is also known as Antietam part 2?
Knoxville was a pretty bloody battle too. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
alafoot
|
  |
| Joined: 28 Nov 2010 |
| Total Posts: 636 |
|
|
| 07 Feb 2012 08:14 PM |
>Winning WW2
> WAAAAY better than Japan's falling robots.
> 10% soldiers = survival in Civil War.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|