On Combat

My brother recommended it to me, I'm almost done with it and I think its close to the most important book I've ever read. I thought of it while I was reading this thread: What it takes to survive (London Times Article) which covers stress and the importance of prior planning. But I think this book needs its own thread. It was written by LTC Dave Grossman, a West Point psychology professor, Professor of Military Science and Army Ranger. The book is about psychology and physiology of human conflict. The information is aimed at police and soldiers primarily, but also the people who know them or who they serve. It covers mental preparation for combat and training, the effects of battle while you're in it, immediately afterward and over the weeks months and years afterward.

Some of the important lessons are that you need to know what your body will do when you're under the most extreme stress (like urinating or defecating yourself, sensory distortion, or the loss of fine motor control), the importance of stress inoculation in training and practicing fine motor skills until they're automatic, and how to prepare for and deal with the emotions that come after violence.

Like I said, its aimed at violent conflict, but the information is useful for any stressful, life threatening situation.

Just a word of caution - Grossman has been criticized quite a bit, especially his earlier work On Killing. This is not to say that his work has no value, but it is in many ways based on false premises and oversimplifications.

In particular, his statistics regarding WWII and Vietnam have been shown to be very much off, thus undermining his central argument in "killology". Also, the idea of violence in PC games, TV and the like desensitizing the population or even teaching actual combat skills has been repeatedly disproven.

As far as military history, Grossman's view of combat is perhaps too limited to the modern Western world, failing to take into account the full extent of the individual's upbringing and cultural environment. Which is a bit strange since a number of military theorists since Clausewitz have placed considerable emphasis on that issue. Reader beware...

I haven't read On Killing yet. I have it, but I ended up reading On Combat first. I also wasn't aware of the criticism or controversy over these books or the author. Based on what I've read so far though, On Combat is pretty spot for the mental preparation and training required to function in high stress situations.

I wouldn't want to vouch for every point, some of the book does get a little soft or preachy when he gets away from what I consider the core points. On that note, however, violent video games have been adapted by the military and police for training purposes. Some use the same basic technology as Duck Hunt more realistically clothed. The training systems work. Likewise, a soldier or policeman training with paint bullets and children shooting each other with soft air guns aren't doing anything fundamentally different, except that in the latter their isn't any prior training, systematic training goal or as Dave Grossman points out with video games, system of discipline. I've even considered using airsoft as a training tool for marksmanship or reflexive fire training. Whether or not the effects of media violence are as drastic as the author claims is up for debate, but the similarities between the games and the training systems are not. Do you think aapplying concepts from combat training to childrens' entertainment or letting children play games that are easily modified into effective combat training unsupervised is healthy?

I think the link between violent media and violence in society is probably pretty strongly related to parental involvement in their childrens' lives. Letting the computer, video console or television raise your children means letting a lot of random shmucks raise your children. Supervision undoubtedly plays a huge role. However, social commentary aside, I recommend you read the book for what it says about training for the high stress situation of interpersonal violence and then decide whether to apply the lessons to how you prepare for everything else.

I've had "On Killing" for years, and never got around ot reading it. May have to drag it out and start it.

@Tom L. Perhaps I am being touchy at your word of caution, if so I apologize. But I would say his works have received more comments about being accurate and forthright than them being known as being criticized over the facts.

I would be interested in what you are using as your source material for the criticism on LTC Grossmans work on the desensitization of young boys to violence through video games (or tv or media). I have not heard of any criticisms on this except from talking heads on news outlets that are giving opinions and not contrary evidence.

Before I got out of the Army, LTC Grossman was an instructor of mine at an Officers course so even before he published On Killing, I was able to digest he concepts. I read On Killing and Stop Teaching Kids to Kill (the one dealing with video games.) I sat through a conference he gave on the first book (On Killing). I have heard him speak on the subject of kids and how they process stimuli for several hours on talk radio.

Even though I have left a comment on this thread, I would say this is not the place to discuss these things as his works that I have read thus far do not deal with preparation for natural disasters or mental training for a survival situation in a non-combat environment.

I do think I will respond to your comments, if you so choose to. Not b/c I am rude or as a sign of disrespect but I don't want this thread to become a conversation on the mental aspects of killing or the desensitization of our youth, I would rather see a long thread on Laurence Gonzales book Deep Survival instead. I respect your concern over his work and I politely disagree that LTC. Grossmans has been legitimately criticized.

Comms, I understand you may feel differently about Grossman's work, more so as you were his student. I also agree that this is not the best place to discuss Grossman's work. If I understand correctly however, you would like some clarification, which is all right and well so I will try to address the issues briefly.

Without going into too much detail regarding PC games and TV desensitization, my main objection, which is shared by a number of people I have worked with, is that desensitization is one thing but teaching actual combat skills is different altogether. A child who plays Counterstrike all the time may pick up some knowledge that is in fact applicable to the real battlefield. Computer simulations have an important place in military training as well but they only have practical value as part of a much bigger system than involves serious training, technical, physical and mental. Real death and killing is much different from computer-generated special effects and you cannot get used to it simply through virtual reality.

What I find more problematic about Grossman's work is his methodology and lack of critical approach. As a military historian by profession and close to my PhD I can see serious flaws in his arguments. Grossman seems to be well in his element when discussing recent warfare and training. But his treatment of earlier conflicts cannot stand up to scrutiny. Even when analyzing WWII he makes repeated arguments based on
(perhaps unintentionally) misinterpreted sources. For example, his claim that only a very small percentage of troops in WWII ever fired their weapon in anger is based on some very unreliable statistical data which is further distorted as the statistics apply not just to combat troops but all kinds of rear-area and support personnel.

Even more disappointing is Grossman's treatment of earlier periods like the Civil War. He does not seem to have a working understanding of the 19th c. tactics and weaponry, let alone a wider grasp of the social context, which is very important as pertaining to recruitment, training etc. Therefore, he draws flawed conclusions based on loosely interpreted facts, e.g. the seemingly poor effect of muzzleloading rifles, many of which were found loaded after the battle. Yet that in fact has little to do with any human aversion to kiling but rather poor training, complicated loading procedures, inherent technical problems of muzzleloading firearms and the overall "fog of war", which was a very real factor before the introduction of smokeless gunpowder.

In my opinion, much of what Grossman has written on the mental aspect of violence holds true. Many of his suggestions for more realistic training methods seem to make good sense and have been proven in practice. But his overall academic approach leaves much to be desired and undermines many of his conclusions, which are sometimes exaggerated, out of context or simply false.

Perhaps you are not aware of the fact that Grossman's On Killing (and to a varying extent his more recent works) have been seriously challenged, so much so that some would call Grossman a controversial author. Again, I appreciate the fact that you respect Grossman as your instructor and no doubt some of the critique directed at him has been unfair. I would suggest a quick Google search so you can get an impression yourself as there is a fair bit of material online. One article that I have bookmarked on my PC can be found here:
http://www.theppsc.org/Grossman/Main-R.htm

I hope this answers your question without stirring any more controversy. If you wish to discuss this further, you can drop me a message. Respectfully, Tom

Thanks Tom, I appreciate your information. My comment should have read, will NOT respond to comments based on the reason I posted.

Hope we can cross post on other ETS posts. Regards,