[andy1964]

Hi,

Just thought I'd put in another point on this.

During WW2, SLA Marshall (Brig General, US ARMY) conducted interviews with troops of the 7th Infantry division after Kwajalein. A book was written,whuch described this, called Island Victory.

During the interviews it was found that only about 25% of the men in any formation actually took an active part in any combat. (one stat was 36 guys out of a battalion actually fired weapons against a Japanese massed assault)

The rest didn't run or anything, but they didn't actually fire a weapon.

Marshall, with further research figured the number was closer to 5% of men were actually effective in combat. These were the guys who won the battles.

So in one way, yes we have a unit of men under arms, but the highly motivated ones will still be attacking or defending after the rest have gone to cover. The rest, with no disrespect intended, are filling in places and soaking up fire.

Training regimes were put in place to deal with this issue after this research was published. But due to differing standards across armies I would imagine this still applies in some cases.

This issue was the subject of one of the Sandhurst wargames, published back in the early 80's by a guy called Paddy Griffiths. (Designed by the Sandhurst wargames club) I Believe Paddy was a lectured there as well as an avid wargamer and writer on the military subjects.

So yes I can see justification for a force that has been beat up on to continue attacking or defending. It's not the mass who are doing it but the motivated 5%.

TY
Andy

PS and yes it still bugs the hell out of me that those guys don't run away and I have to hunt them down to win the game :-)