On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Kevin Elliott wrote: > At 14:06 -0700 on 11/19/02, Mike Diehl wrote: > >> The british got VERY upset with us because of a tendency > >> to shoot officers which was considered very bad "form". I believe it > >> was common practice to hang anyone found armed with a rifle for what > >> amounted to war crimes. But again, very poor rate of fire kept them > >> from replacing the smoothbore. > > > >This probably stemmed from the aristocratic culture of the times....? > > It's probably partly historical as well (meaning there used to be a > good reason). Think about a large conscript army, basically > completely undisciplined by todays standard. Very poor > communication, so the officer core on site has nearly complete > autonomy. Killing a large piece of that officer core could very well > remove any constraints on the soldiers behavior. Next thing you know > the orderly army has turned into a marauding barbarian horde. That's > not good for either side. >
I always thought this was hype generated by the Officer cadre to cover their butts. Discipline was dolled out by the NCOs, not officers. Killing the officers might piss off a few, but certainly not all, esp in a conscript unit. The NCOs are in charge, the Officers have the agenda. Kill the officer, kill the agenda.
