> > > A was watching a report a few weeks ago on the
> > >effectiveness of the military "grunts" during
> > >various wars.
> >
> > Actually, you weren't watching a report, you were just reading this post by me.
> >
> > Either that, or you saw the same program I saw about the whole deal. But no, it's more likely that you get all of your information from me and just don't remember it.
> >
> > -- Dave
>
> Um, oops. That'll teach me. So, whose turn is it next to start a post about military training and efficiency?
>
> Matthew

Speaking of military training and efficiency, did you know that in the days of muskets, it took about a minute to fire your weapon, reload, and fire again. That's a long time to think about what you're doing, and the consequences of it. When arecheologists started researching old American Civil War battlefields, they would often find things like a rifle with multiple loads in the barrel. In fact, it was often the rule rather than the exception that any gun they found would have multiple loads rammed into it. I've heard the "record" was a rifle with no less than 23 loads (powder, wadding, ball) rammed into the barrel.

Why this was so eventually became apparent. Many, perhaps even a majority, of soldiers on the battlefield were simply going through the motions. They'd load their gun, raise it, take aim, stand there for a second, then lower it and reload without ever having fired.

-Faux "now serving number four." Pas