"Combat Days" in WW1 and 2 vs. today

[enfield]

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.

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. 

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.