Combat Stress Question (1 Viewer)

[Jack]

Bob (Fitzgibbon) and I attended the 200th anniversary commemorations at Waterloo recently. The narrator made the observation that research had shown that a modern soldier would not cope with the stress of a Napoleonic battlefield for more than a few hours. I am not sure if it was a bit of a tall tale but it was delivered with the confidence of a man who had heard it from the horse's mouth. Obviously he wasn't talking about Australian soldiers ({sm4}) but has anyone heard of any research that might support such a claim? The only thing I could think of was perhaps modern soldiers would not sit above ground for hours while being hit with artillery and would instead disperse and go to ground ... but that is not the way it sounded.

 

[jazzeum]

I'm not sure how such an assertion could be made as how could carry the research be carried out to support the conclusion? The assertion could be made that the soldier from the Napoleonic era could not cope with artillery bombardments of the kind that took place in WW I and WW II but, again, how could the research be found to support such a conclusion?

 

[Jack]

I'm not sure how such an assertion could be made as how could carry the research be carried out to support the conclusion? The assertion could be made that the soldier from the Napoleonic era could not cope with artillery bombardments of the kind that took place in WW I and WW II but, again, how could the research be found to support such a conclusion?

Yes ... how could someone 'research' such a question? That is why I thought it might be a conditional 'finding' in that modern soldiers would not sit passively while getting pounded by artillery. That is, however, hardly a mark against them.

He did sound pretty certain though!

 

[Empire MM]

Yes ... how could someone 'research' such a question? That is why I thought it might be a conditional 'finding' in that modern soldiers would not sit passively while getting pounded by artillery. That is, however, hardly a mark against them.

He did sound pretty certain though!

Hi Jack,

Firstly, pleased you went to Waterloo to witness the commemoration in person. What a memory.

As a living history person myself, I can tell you that I have heard so many tales whilst at different events and many, many, told with respect and in honest belief that are either untrue / unfounded or just an opinion that the person involved has broadcast so many times, he feels it is now the ingrained truth.

It is impossible and (possibly) wrong to compare periods of time in history, there are so many "factors" involved. The one thing I do know is this, Combat Stress / PTSD is very, very real, (I have a number of friends who suffer to this day) and you simply cannot ignore the horrors of any war, conflict, situation or trauma, be that from a thousand years ago or to this very day.

The great thing though is that this guy got you thinking, created dialogue and in turn spread the word.

Malcolm. :salute::

 

[BHogan]

What a ridiculous statement for someone to make. Of course no modern soldier would stand and endure that unless he had a death wish. For example, on receipt of artillery you are supposed to run as fast as you can for 600m, regroup, and call in for friendly counter-battery fire or air support. Similarly, if you come under contact you fire two shots, hit the dirt, crawl into an extended line and prepare to conduct a frontal or flaking attack on the enemy after you have won the firefight and they have been suppressed. I am curious though how he arrived at this conclusion. I suspect this statement was thrown into his speech for dramatic effect.
Cheers,
Brendan

 

[johnnybach]

Well........................... if "Research has shown.." etc; - it should have been published - somewhere.

A look at the references/bibliography should be able to lead us to where that statement came from. In the lack of it - the statement is worthless.

What research? When/How was this research conducted - and who were the subjects and/or sponsors? What experiments were undertaken - and by whom? Who was the sponsor for this "research"? Where are such results published or to be found? How were these results arrived at - and what are their significance/reliability levels?

I could go on - but without any such details - the statement is worthless nonsense. It's just an opinion.

And, of course - that's just my opinion too. jb

 

[trooper]

Modern medical science has shown that "shell shock" is a condition where the nervous system is thrown into disarray when exposed to a near explosion and is not an example of lead swinging or cowardice as believed during WW1. However this has now been grabbed by the PC brigade who believe that ANY problem, major or minor, should be attended by hordes of councillors all droning the same text under the heading of "support". If these believes were true then history would have to be rewritten as they would have held true in the past as well as the present. All armies would have had a fit of the vapours every time a rifle was fired, or a lorry backfired and a grenade would have paralysed the entire military structure. The British Army, renown for stoicism and doggedness in defence, is being undermined by these theories. They now have to conform to ridiculous rules ie vehicles must conform to ecological exhaust gas emissions before going into action, regardless of the depleted armaments being used, having mandatory counselling sessions with self important drones who have never worn uniform or personally experienced battle conditions and similar indignities. This is just another example of modern day beliefs being imposed on historical facts. Military history consists of the same things being performed time after time with different weapons, but the men are the same. I am quite sure there were men at Waterloo whose brains were scrambled when a shell burst close by, but equally there was a majority who ground their teeth and stood firm and the artillery fire there was a mere pinprick in comparison with those of WW1, D Day or the Blitz. Trooper

 

[PanzerAce1944]

Bob (Fitzgibbon) and I attended the 200th anniversary commemorations at Waterloo recently. The narrator made the observation that research had shown that a modern soldier would not cope with the stress of a Napoleonic battlefield for more than a few hours. I am not sure if it was a bit of a tall tale but it was delivered with the confidence of a man who had heard it from the horse's mouth. Obviously he wasn't talking about Australian soldiers ({sm4}) but has anyone heard of any research that might support such a claim? The only thing I could think of was perhaps modern soldiers would not sit above ground for hours while being hit with artillery and would instead disperse and go to ground ... but that is not the way it sounded.

Add to the equation that an Infantryman from the 19th Century would not be able to handle modern weaponry and warfare / weapons / either.
A Soldier trains as he fights in the environment where he will most likely do Battle in.

 

[Johnboy]

I don't think this premise is right. At Waterloo, many formations on both sides were broken up by artillery fire, some leaving the scene of action until being led back to their positions by senior officers, for instance the well documented story of Bijlandt's Brigade that was left exposed on the front slope of the Allied Left Centre and suffered severely from the French grand battery fire. They were eventually withdrawn but not before a healthy portion of them had anticipated this command and left anyway (who can blame them!). Sensibly, good commanders like Wellington found a convenient reverse slope behind which they sheltered as many men as possible to protect them against DESTRUCTIVE artillery fire. Wellington's men also had a torrid time via artillery when La Haie Sainte finally fell and the French Horse Artillery were able to get a few guns up there which caused havoc in the centre until marksmen from 1/95th were able to pick off the gun crews.
The well known instance of the destruction of the 1/27th (Inniskilling) who held Wellingtons centre in the late afternoon is a further example of the terror of artillery. The 27th were a formidable unit and stayed where they were ordered despite suffering severe casualties - basically dying in square
formation......however, besides being heroic, they were completely exhausted due to the long journey from America then force marching to the Battlefield . It was probably beyond their endurance to retreat even if they had wanted to! It is very difficult to ascertain what happened on a battlefield 200 years ago the truth is , due to black powder smoke no one could see beyond their next file of men. I don't think they were any tougher than soldiers of today......you see, it was the past and they did things differently there.

 

[johnnybach]

I also think that this discussion should encompass events that happened before lots of things started to go "BANG".

What about the stress involved during battles and campaigns before Waterloo?

I wouldn't mind betting there was a fair bit of buttock clenching going on in a Shield Wall - when Saxons faced up to a horde of Vikings, for example.

Then - what about Crecy and Agincourt. There you are - cold, wet, hungry - suffering from dysentry - or one of its cousins. Outnumbered and escape cut-off - you have two choices - run away (and be hunted down and hacked to death) - or stand and slog it out (naked from the waist down - in many cases - due to dysentry).

Anyone care to take part in a "Research Project" of what it's like to be one of Henry V 's archers?

Soldiers just "get on with it" whatever, whenever, and either face up to what's in front of them with what they've got - or break down - and they don't. Ever it was so - in my opinion. We just understand it, and it's after effects a little better now - and can treat some of the side-effects just a little better - than the firing squads of WW1.

Research???? My arse! jb

 

[Fitzgibbon]

A very interesting discussion from what seemed like a curious statement (delivered on both evenings) but...having been at the Waterloo Bicentennial event (a truly wonderful show in the long Northern dusk), the only stress experienced was in trying to leave the field with all of the other thousands of spectators at the same time on the first of the two evenings - I had the sense of experiencing the penguin walk along with many others doing the same thing (without, of course, the sub-zero antarctic breeze). So, on reflection, I noted that: should one have wanted back then to 'hare off' with the aim of survival, then one would have needed to predict the mass movement and leave early. The penguin walk mode of evacuation in large numbers would have resulted in an absolute feast for the enemy artillery. {sm2}

 

[Go for Broke]

The prospect of a violent death is indeed very stressful. Thankfully the great many of us will never experience such trauma. However, wild animals are in combat situations everyday from birth to death. I've seen a small herd of deer, where a doe is on point, a second doe not far behind, the buck in the middle and a doe as a rear guard, just like a combat squad. We step outside everyday with the security of complete safety, while every bird and animal got their eyes on you. Just something to think about.

 

[Jack]

Research???? My arse! jb

Even with funding, that's a research project for someone else!

 

[johnnybach]

A very interesting discussion from what seemed like a curious statement (delivered on both evenings) but...having been at the Waterloo Bicentennial event (a truly wonderful show in the long Northern dusk), the only stress experienced was in trying to leave the field with all of the other thousands of spectators at the same time on the first of the two evenings - I had the sense of experiencing the penguin walk along with many others doing the same thing (without, of course, the sub-zero antarctic breeze). So, on reflection, I noted that: should one have wanted back then to 'hare off' with the aim of survival, then one would have needed to predict the mass movement and leave early. The penguin walk mode of evacuation in large numbers would have resulted in an absolute feast for the enemy artillery. {sm2}

It's the same as trying to get out of Cardiff Arms Park at the end of a glorious match. Nobody wants to get to "The Old Arcade" (otherwise known as HQ) and be at the back of the scrum - trying to catch the eye of the valiant few - trying their best to avoid eye-contact ( bar-staff).^&grin

Having said that - I never leave early - as with my dodgy old knees - I'd be trampled in the rush from astern! The penguin waddle is okay for me!

 

[johnnybach]

Even with funding, that's a research project for someone else!

Nobody would stoop that low!{sm2}

 

[Napoleon1er]

Echoing previous statements, I want to make one appraisal of the concept:

A modern person, including modern solider, *might* not be able to cope with an early 19th century/late 18th century battlefield, simply because he is not accustomed to that particular form of violence and behavior in the face of it. In a similar vein, a person/soldier of that era would probably freak out in the modern era. Both modern and historical combat are incredibly stressful, but in very different ways. If one was accustomed to and trained for one stressful situation, that does not necessarily help one in a completely different stressful situation, though we have no way of knowing or proving this.

All in all, it is both logically and historically impossible to compare such things, not to mention on the edge of bad taste.

 

[Go for Broke]

At least in the early wars, you got to rest at night. Now you get hammered day and night.

 

[PanzerAce1944]

This would be an interesting topic for the "History" channel to cover........................ Maybe ?

 

[Flimoni]

if you are ready to say goodbye to your stress and always keep calm, http://skywritingservice.com/blog/20-tips-how-to-avoid-stress-and-always-keep-calm will help you to do this!