# Shell Shock in WWI & WWII



## pardus (Mar 19, 2014)

WWI...






It was absolutely disgraceful to shoot Soldiers for cowardice who were suffering from Shell Shock (PTSD). Particularly when it was a recognized and accepted medical condition.

Incredible to think there were 35,000 cases of Shell Shock from the battle of the Somme alone and 200,000 cases for the entire war.


----------



## pardus (Mar 19, 2014)

WWII...


----------



## Etype (Mar 30, 2014)

Electric shock as  treatment, YIKES!

One thing that I've noticed- when I've been exposed to IEDs, rockets, mortars, etc WITHOUT earpro on, it's had a much stronger psychological effect on me.
- Earpro on, you get a feeling of,"that could've killed me, but I'm ok."  It's reasoning at the conscious level, which is something you are in control of.
- No earpro, especially when you aren't expecting it- you _feel _it much more.  It rattles your brain and triggers responses at a much less controllable (adrenal/fight or flight) level.

Now think about those folks from WWI and II, big guns were the name of the game.  Naval gunfire, artillery, siege guns, anti-tank guns- and as far as I know, no one was worried about ear plugs.  On top of the psychological effect, they were constantly absorbing physiological damage.  Since both are involving the brain, there has to be a synergistic effect.


----------



## AWP (Mar 30, 2014)

Etype said:


> One thing that I've noticed- when I've been exposed to IEDs, rockets, mortars, etc WITHOUT earpro on, it's had a much stronger psychological effect on me.
> - Earpro on, you get a feeling of,"that could've killed me, but I'm ok."  It's reasoning at the conscious level, which is something you are in control of.
> - No earpro, especially when you aren't expecting it- you _feel _it much more. * It rattles your brain and triggers responses at a much less controllable (adrenal/fight or flight) level.*
> 
> Now think about those folks from WWI and II, big guns were the name of the game.  Naval gunfire, artillery, siege guns, anti-tank guns- and as far as I know, no one was worried about ear plugs.  On top of the psychological effect, they were constantly absorbing physiological damage.  *Since both are involving the brain, there has to be a synergistic effect*.


 
Infrasound.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Mar 30, 2014)

Concur...a set of PELTORs go along way....


----------



## Phil M (Apr 1, 2014)

The BBC are currently showing some excellent programmes atm regarding the Great War. Interviews recorded in the 60s from officers, mobile units and infantrymen. Also, a complete insight about the secret tunneling at the Somme. Well worth a look if anyone can get bbc iplayer.


----------



## Phil M (Apr 1, 2014)

I would like to see these ill treated warriors recognised and pardoned from their so called "cowardice".  Many mistakes were made by so called Officers during WWI. This issue being one of many.


----------



## pardus (Apr 1, 2014)

Phil M said:


> I would like to see these ill treated warriors recognised and pardoned from their so called "cowardice".  Many mistakes were made by so called Officers during WWI. This issue being one of many.



I am a firm believer in having the "cowardice" cases reviewed and pardons given where warranted.  

I am a little more sympathetic to the Officer Corps now that I am learning more and more about the First World War. It was a total shock to all countries and armies involved, and frankly no one knew what to do. They fell back to the old ways which is all they knew, they were also terrified that any sign of weakness on their part and they would face mass mutiny, desertion and revolution. They started the war using tactics from the 18th and 19th centuries, and in the space of 4 years developed modern warfare out of the painful lessons of slaughter.


----------



## AWP (Apr 1, 2014)

pardus said:


> I am a firm believer in having the "cowardice" cases reviewed and pardons given where warranted.
> 
> I am a little more sympathetic to the Officer Corps now that I am learning more and more about the First World War. It was a total shock to all countries and armies involved, and frankly no one knew what to do. They fell back to the old ways which is all they knew, they were also terrified that any sign of weakness on their part and they would face mass mutiny, desertion and revolution. They started the war using tactics from the 18th and 19th centuries, and in the space of 4 years developed modern warfare out of the painful lessons of slaughter.


 
Mass mobilization and transportation played a huge role in creating the stalemate. Both sides could flood the front with conscripts and jam the lines. So, you attack, right? Whoopsie, everyone has machine guns. Deadlock.

The first domino to fall was the ability of industrialized nations to put a lot of men in the field in very short order. When the unstoppable force of humanity met the immovable object's machine gun, we shouldn't be surprised at the results.


----------



## Phil M (Apr 2, 2014)

pardus said:


> I am a firm believer in having the "cowardice" cases reviewed and pardons given where warranted.
> 
> I am a little more sympathetic to the Officer Corps now that I am learning more and more about the First World War. It was a total shock to all countries and armies involved, and frankly no one knew what to do. They fell back to the old ways which is all they knew, they were also terrified that any sign of weakness on their part and they would face mass mutiny, desertion and revolution. They started the war using tactics from the 18th and 19th centuries, and in the space of 4 years developed modern warfare out of the painful lessons of slaughter.





pardus said:


> I am a firm believer in having the "cowardice" cases reviewed and pardons given where warranted.
> 
> I am a little more sympathetic to the Officer Corps now that I am learning more and more about the First World War. It was a total shock to all countries and armies involved, and frankly no one knew what to do. They fell back to the old ways which is all they knew, they were also terrified that any sign of weakness on their part and they would face mass mutiny, desertion and revolution. They started the war using tactics from the 18th and 19th centuries, and in the space of 4 years developed modern warfare out of the painful lessons of slaughter.



I understand.  Im aware that the whole affair was a huge learning curve, adapting to modern warfare.  As it is for me 100 years later, trying to make sense of it all. From what I have read, the machine gun was a massive game changer and it was the Germans that manufactured more of these and used them well.  The tunneling at the Somme is very interesting and worth researching. At work at the moment.  Back later.


----------



## pardus (Apr 7, 2014)

Phil M said:


> I understand.  Im aware that the whole affair was a huge learning curve, adapting to modern warfare.  As it is for me 100 years later, trying to make sense of it all. From what I have read, the machine gun was a massive game changer and it was the Germans that manufactured more of these and used them well.  The tunneling at the Somme is very interesting and worth researching. At work at the moment.  Back later.



They didn't adapt to modern warfare, they invented/developed it. 
The Machine Gun was a huge factor in WWI, but it was an Artillery war first and foremost.


----------



## Phil M (Apr 7, 2014)

pardus said:


> They didn't adapt to modern warfare, they invented/developed it.
> The Machine Gun was a huge factor in WWI, but it was an Artillery war first and foremost.



I see your point.  But surely war evolves. Warfighters then adapt to its dynamics. I can't see it being invented.  Tactics and weapons are developed and invented. Please dont think im splitting hairs or being argumentative.  I take on board your wealth of knowledge, and experience. Thank you. I've Be been really busy with work and golf competitions. Which is why I was late responding to my earlier post. Sorry.


----------



## Phil M (Apr 7, 2014)

These  iphones really are crap. I seem to be plagued by errors, with a tiny keyboard only fit for people with needles for fingers.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 7, 2014)

pardus said:


> They didn't adapt to modern warfare, they invented/developed it.
> The Machine Gun was a huge factor in WWI, but it was an Artillery war first and foremost.



Technically, the use of machine guns and modern artillery was first seen in the banana wars/Spanish American war. Albeit those were more unconventional vs the large scale conventional modernization during WW1. If I can remember correctly WW1 was the first for tank, chemical and air to air warfare.

But outside of all that, I agree that the military forces of WW1 were making it up as they went.

Hard to believe that soldiers were executed for shell shock. I was totally unaware of that. Its also interesting that some of the methods for dealing with shell shock are still in use in some treatments for PTSD and TBI. A lot of forward thinking from both WW1 & WW2 that seems to hold true today.


----------



## Phil M (Apr 7, 2014)

JAB said:


> Technically, the use of machine guns and modern artillery was first seen in the banana wars/Spanish American war. Albeit those were more unconventional vs the large scale conventional modernization during WW1. If I can remember correctly WW1 was the first for tank, chemical and air to air warfare....
> 
> Apparently, during the middle ages... diseased animals were literally thrown over fortifications in an attempt to create illness.  I suppose this was biological warfare not chemical. But still very interesting.


----------



## Phil M (Apr 7, 2014)

Apparently during the middle ages, diseased animals were literally thrown over fortifications in an attempt to create illness.  I suppose this was biological warfare not chemical. But still very interesting.


----------



## pardus (Apr 7, 2014)

Phil M said:


> I see your point.  But surely war evolves. Warfighters then adapt to its dynamics. I can't see it being invented.  Tactics and weapons are developed and invented. Please dont think im splitting hairs or being argumentative.  I take on board your wealth of knowledge, and experience. Thank you. I've Be been really busy with work and golf competitions. Which is why I was late responding to my earlier post. Sorry.



Tactics and strategies along with weapons _are_ war. When one/some of these advance, war evolves. WWI introduced several new factors (as have been mentioned in previous posts), this necessitated a change in the way things were done, hence my statement _invented/developed_.
 Modern warfare began in WWI.




JAB said:


> Technically, the use of machine guns and modern artillery was first seen in the banana wars/Spanish American war.



Not to be picky but that's not quite right. Maxim machine guns were used in anger in Africa in two conflicts previous to the Spanish American wars. In both the Emin Pasha Relief Expedition 1886-1890 and the First Matabele War 1893-1894 (presumably also in the Second Matabele war (1896-1897) too, but I'm not sure on that).
And the first modern artillery piece, the Armstrong gun was used in 1856-1860 in the Second Opium War in China and also in New Zealand in 1863. 




JAB said:


> Albeit those were more unconventional vs the large scale conventional modernization during WW1. If I can remember correctly WW1 was the first for tank, chemical and air to air warfare.
> 
> But outside of all that, I agree that the military forces of WW1 were making it up as they went.
> 
> Hard to believe that soldiers were executed for shell shock. I was totally unaware of that. Its also interesting that some of the methods for dealing with shell shock are still in use in some treatments for PTSD and TBI. A lot of forward thinking from both WW1 & WW2 that seems to hold true today.



It is fascinating to me to see how modern things were in WWI when you really look into it. Sure they had some archaic ideas/methods still, but also some tactics etc... that you could apply to today's battlefield without a problem.


----------



## AWP (Apr 7, 2014)

pardus said:


> Not to be picky but that's not quite right. Maxim machine guns were used in anger in Africa in two conflicts previous to the Spanish American wars. In both the Emin Pasha Relief Expedition 1886-1890 and the First Matabele War 1893-1894 (presumably also in the Second Matabele war (1896-1897) too, but I'm not sure on that).


 
The Mahdist War as well, most famously at Omdurman in 1898.

Whatever happens,
we have got,
the Maxim gun,
and they have not.

---

I will argue against your earlier statement that WWI was an artillery war. Artillery become important as the only conceivable means to break the deadlock created in part by the machine gun. Without the machine gun, artillery is another piece of the puzzle. The machine gun created the stalemate which elevated artillery's importance.


----------



## Phil M (Apr 8, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> The Mahdist War as well, most famously at Omdurman in 1898.
> 
> Whatever happens,
> we have got,
> ...



Thank you. This is what I have read. Vickers really cashed in on the mass production and improvement of the Maxim. I bet nobody got a medal for the classic literature used for that song.


----------



## CQB (Apr 8, 2014)

I'm interested in the three different approaches to the cure, all which seemed to have got results. Thanks for the posting.


----------



## pardus (Apr 8, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> The Mahdist War as well, most famously at Omdurman in 1898.
> 
> Whatever happens,
> we have got,
> ...



NERD WAR!!!  

I will agree that the machine gun turned the war into an artillery war. I don't negate the MG's role at all, it was hugely significant in the development of the war, however once the troops dug in the MG's effectiveness was severely degraded.


----------



## AWP (Apr 8, 2014)

pardus said:


> NERD WAR!!!
> 
> I will agree that the machine gun turned the war into an artillery war. I don't negate the MG's role at all, it was hugely significant in the development of the war, however once the troops dug in the MG's effectiveness was severely degraded.


 
Until they had to attack.

The funny thing is, just digging for a few minutes, the numbers about casualties and their causes varies widely. Artillery in general vs. machine guns during an attack. If there's some scholarly agreement I'm too lazy to dig for it. Instead I'll ban @amlove21 because...reasons and stuff.


----------



## pardus (Apr 8, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> Until they had to attack.
> 
> The funny thing is, just digging for a few minutes, the numbers about casualties and their causes varies widely. Artillery in general vs. machine guns during an attack. If there's some scholarly agreement I'm too lazy to dig for it. Instead I'll ban @amlove21 because...reasons and stuff.



I would love to see a break down on what weapons caused what casualties though I would be a little surprised if those stats existed at all. 

1/3 of all British shells failed to detonate, which is one major reason France and Belgium have a rather large and ongoing UXB problem. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the MG had the Lion's share of casualties to it's credit. The WWI bunkers were pretty much impervious to artillery fire.



Freefalling said:


> Until they had to attack.



Yes, absolutely.


----------



## Phil M (Apr 9, 2014)

The more I research WWI, I find myself totally engrossed. Most of all with the passion in which soldiers on all sides acquitted themselves. Especially under such circumstances that Pardus stated earlier.  These circumstances, where I only have my imagination, most of you guys have real experience to call upon. This is one of the main reasons I visit SS. WWI is fascinating that such an ordeal could produce so many creative heroes too. Warfighter artists and poets that became English literature and cultural icons. Alfred Owen, arguably the most popular and the one I was forced to study at college. The English Coal Miners that gave their lives digging the secret underground maze of tunnels at the Somme. I have just found out about these secret tunnels, can you tell?  A learning curve indeed. I'm amazed at some of the subtle, lesser known operations that took place. I tend to believe that not one skirmish is more honorable than another. Each one must be as gravely important as the next. The true essence of team work.  An unbreakable chain of specially manufactured parts. That shit impresses me.


----------



## CQB (Apr 9, 2014)

I think you'll find it's Wilfred Owen and if my memory serves me well, his mother read the telegram reporting his death as the church bells tolled, signalling the Armistice. For some info on tunneling check info on Hill 60 at Ypres and the tunneling companies.


----------



## Phil M (Apr 10, 2014)

CQB said:


> I think you'll find it's Wilfred Owen and if my memory serves me well, his mother read the telegram reporting his death as the church bells tolled, signalling the Armistice. For some info on tunneling check info on Hill 60 at Ypres and the tunneling companies.









 Lets just call him Fred then. I have his book too. Sorry for the oversight.  Thanks for the info, I will check it out soon as I finish work.


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 10, 2014)

pardus said:


> I would love to see a break down on what weapons caused what casualties though I would be a little surprised if those stats existed at all.
> 
> 1/3 of all British shells failed to detonate, which is one major reason France and Belgium have a rather large and ongoing UXB problem. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the MG had the Lion's share of casualties to it's credit. The WWI bunkers were pretty much impervious to artillery fire.
> 
> ...



I bet the stats are out there, PhD candidates LOVE that kind of research.

My money's on disease and non-battle injuries being the greatest casualty producer, followed by artillery.


----------



## pardus (Jun 5, 2014)

*The 10 Biggest Misconceptions About the First World War*
*1. "Most soldiers were killed by machine guns"*

No doubt — the introduction of the machine gun irrevocably changed the way war is fought. But its impact has been exaggerated over the years. As early as the American Civil War, massed troops were already creating a similar effect by using rifles to deliver impenetrable walls of bullets.
Rather, the real difference maker during the Great War was the prolific use of artillery. It has been estimated that two-thirds of all casualties were caused by artillery. Use of this weapon was so intense that, during the early days of the war, some 40,000 shells were used in a single day.

 

_Sources: World War I Companion: Matthias Strohn, A World Undone: G. J. Meyer, The First World War: Hew Strachan._

_------------------------------_
I still struggle with the sheer scale of the conflict. Incredible...


----------

