Cowardice in battle

[Knight-Dragon]

Edited title, to remove spam-bait-styled earlier title...

 

[The Yankee]

Originally posted by Speedo
Let the cowards run. If they show their face again court martial them for cowardice. Same with deserters.

I'm not sure about the US military positions on the issue (maybe it's addressed in the UCMJ) but IMO once a unit has lost contact with HQ the burden of deciding if/when to surrender falls on the ranking officer/NCO. If the unit no longer has a chain of command, the decision must be made by each individual.

Troops forced to fight to the death are not highly motivated.

Cowardice can be punishable by death, the current law states. The court obviously has to find the soldier in question guilty.

Sure, there is punishment. I think we can all agree on that. But why waste bullets and energy to shoot them as they turn away?

I'd like to see how well Vietcong holds up....

 

[General Porkins]

if the generals want to shoot someone, they should get their cowardly asses on the front lines and shoot the enemy. If someone runs from a battle, let them go. They will have their own shame to live with. If the people see them as traitors, they can go and join the army themselves.

 

[Immortal]

like i siad, thats to good for them. and by shot, i mean shot on the spot, as in haveing men with guns behind them DUREING the battle, whos job is to make sure thay do not run.

This post is so ridiculous I don't know where to begin.

First it is a waste of manpower
Second it is a waste of munitions
Third it is a morale killer
Fourth who would enforce this measure? a second wall of useless soldiers behind them waiting to shoot those who refuse to shoot, and what of that line? See where Im going with this?

Summary: a stupid idea from someone who is obviously trolling the forums.

 

[privatehudson]

Originally posted by General Porkins
if the generals want to shoot someone, they should get their cowardly asses on the front lines and shoot the enemy. If someone runs from a battle, let them go. They will have their own shame to live with. If the people see them as traitors, they can go and join the army themselves.

Thank you! It's about time someone expressed such an opinion

Given that I imagine an awful lot of people here have never actually seen action in war or on a battlefield, I find the attitude that "cowards" should be shot or imprisoned a little arrogant. Many a British soldier in WWI was shot for "desertion" when they refused to make their 20th or whatever charge across no mans land. Too many mistake cowardice for shell shock, and too many ready to ascribe the term "cowardice" have never even been shot at by someone trying to kill them.

I haven't either. Frankly I have no idea what being in a battle is like, and I can garuntee you I'd rather stay out of the military in all but extreme circumstances because I have no wish to find out either. No-one can usually discover quite how they will react until that moment they are first thrust into the battle. Suggesting that those who surrender or refuse to fight, well yes they may be technically less brave than their comrades who do, but for someone to sit in an armchair and criticise them is pointless. At most lock them up until the end of the war then release them, never shoot them.

Unless you can show you've been in combat an opinion that someone who runs from combat is a coward is IMO nothing short of arrogant. Ascribing judgement that involves ending that persons life when you personally have not been in that situation is wrong.

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by privatehudson


Thank you! It's about time someone expressed such an opinion

Given that I imagine an awful lot of people here have never actually seen action in war or on a battlefield, I find the attitude that "cowards" should be shot or imprisoned a little arrogant. Many a British soldier in WWI was shot for "desertion" when they refused to make their 20th or whatever charge across no mans land. Too many mistake cowardice for shell shock, and too many ready to ascribe the term "cowardice" have never even been shot at by someone trying to kill them.

I haven't either. Frankly I have no idea what being in a battle is like, and I can garuntee you I'd rather stay out of the military in all but extreme circumstances because I have no wish to find out either. No-one can usually discover quite how they will react until that moment they are first thrust into the battle. Suggesting that those who surrender or refuse to fight, well yes they may be technically less brave than their comrades who do, but for someone to sit in an armchair and criticise them is pointless. At most lock them up until the end of the war then release them, never shoot them.

Unless you can show you've been in combat an opinion that someone who runs from combat is a coward is IMO nothing short of arrogant. Ascribing judgement that involves ending that persons life when you personally have not been in that situation is wrong.

well most people who've posted said leave it to a courtmartial. i think they could decide what is reasonable and what isn't, having been there done that. don't think there's any need for this tirade.

 

[The Yankee]

I think it's just something for Vietcong to spread his view again. I would like to see what he does or what he would do in these situations.

 

[h4ppy]

What use is a coward to his nation? But also what use is the man who trained the coward. Though deserters need to be punished severely.

 

[Perfection]

It's bad enough that they dragged these "cowards" into war, it isn't right to force someone to fight then kill them when the freak out!

 

[amadeus]

Vietcong, I would like to know what you would do if you were drafted and sent to fight for a capitalist country.

If you were in my company, I don't know if I'd let you handle anything more dangerous than a slide whistle.

 

[Mrogreturns]

have heard it said by people who ought to know that courage is a limited resource. We all have only so much and eventually even the bravest person is going to break. What would you do if someone who had fought and not faltered in many battles suddenly couldn't do it anymore?

 

[covok48]

"He isn't helping the enemy. He just isn't hurting the enemy."

Well he is because that is one less man to fight the enemy. It's actually worse than a dead soldier or POW, because they [POW or dead soldier] no longer have an option to fight or not, while the coward is an able-bodied man who is still capable of carrying on battle.

It also hurts moral which further sapps existing fighting effectiveness. This is why they are dealt with so harshly.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Such policies were carried out by the NKVD with punishment battalions and other groups, but are not workable, practical or acceptable on any grounds in modern military forces and circumstances. The days of massed infantry attacks where this bizarre notion would be slightly relevant are long gone.

Punishment of desertion and cowardice can be carried out in the current framework.

 

[Zarn]

Originally posted by covok48
"He isn't helping the enemy. He just isn't hurting the enemy."

Well he is because that is one less man to fight the enemy. It's actually worse than a dead soldier or POW, because they [POW or dead soldier] no longer have an option to fight or not, while the coward is an able-bodied man who is still capable of carrying on battle.

It also hurts moral which further sapps existing fighting effectiveness. This is why they are dealt with so harshly.

Then press charges, but shooting him isn't going to boost morale. I don't think you have gotten my point, before.

 

[Enemy Ace]

Cowardice? Running from bullets and bombs sounds like a good idea, actually.

Self-preservation is a hard instinct to control. You cannot just turn it off. The mind can only take so much before it ceases to function in a normal manner. Seeing hundreds of men die and your buddies getting blown to bits in the middle of hellish battling with explosions, gunfire, dirt and sand blasting around you, blood, guts. Most of us CFCers would sh*t our pants...give these guys a little more credit for just being there and being exposed to such horrors. War is NOT supposed to happen. It is NOT our natural habitat.

 

[privatehudson]

well most people who've posted said leave it to a courtmartial. i think they could decide what is reasonable and what isn't, having been there done that. don't think there's any need for this tirade.

I was directly replying to the thread creator and anyone who might agree with such an attitude, I believe it's called adressing the topic, so yes there was a need.

 

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
The days of massed infantry attacks where this bizarre notion would be slightly relevant are long gone.

I wouldn't be too sure of this one. They were used in the Iraq/Iran war were they not? I would think they are only
ended in the west after WW1.

Cowardice is subjective, it could be shell-shock of a seasoned
veteran whom the worm has got. It could be an escaping impressed /drafted man who does'nt want to die to prop up a egomanic dictator. It could be a survivor with a moronic commander with delusions of Alamo Glory. It could be a moronic
bureaucrazy sending men with no attitude for combat into
the front line.

I don't believe in cowardice, pretty damn sure of stupitity though.

 

[Stapel]

Apart from Vietcong absurd ideas and reasoning:

Didn't the Sovjets use this 'tactic' in WWII? I remember a quote from a Russian general:

For a Russian soldier, it takes more courage to run, than to fight....

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Since conscription has been dropped in most civilised countries, you would expect an armyman to take the risks involving battle (However, as Curt pointed out, theese are humans also). Yet I can't think what would happend it soldiers worldwide would all suddenly defect.

 

[SanPellegrino]

actually it was done before, in WW I french gendarms were behind the lines to shoot any deserteur (but I am sure other armes did the same). but it is wrong of course, like war in general.