Comments on: Instinct for the Battlefield

By: Isegoria

Isegoria — Mon, 08 Sep 2014 14:12:00 +0000

As I recall, the Soviets clung to airborne units as an excellent way to select for bravery, even when it became clear that they wouldn’t be using those troops as actual paratroopers.

By: Toddy Cat

Toddy Cat — Mon, 08 Sep 2014 13:59:03 +0000

I’d be willing to bet that the percentages were slightly higher for the Germans and slightly lower for the Russians, but pretty close, outside of picked, elite units. Yet another Pareto power law — 20% of the men did 80% of the fighting.

By: A Boy and His Dog

A Boy and His Dog — Sun, 07 Sep 2014 22:43:10 +0000

Doesn’t this hold true for just about any human endeavor, not just combat?

By: Cassander

Cassander — Sun, 07 Sep 2014 18:20:59 +0000

I think this explains a lot of the success of airborne operations in World War 2. Every single one of them started as a clusterfuck, with units disorganized, weapons lost, fighting against superior numbers, etc., but they were also all largely successful. When you realize that most men didn’t really fight — though I would be interested to see if those same percentages apply to the German or Russian armies — and that the airborne units were all full of picked men, this becomes much more understandable. No better demonstration of Napoleon’s maxim that the moral is to the physical as three is to one. Three-to-one might even be understating the issue.

By: Aretae

Aretae — Sun, 07 Sep 2014 14:44:27 +0000

I’ve been reading the Collins violence book. This is such crazy analysis compared to normal thinking on the topic.