Is it better to wound enemies than killing them?

>>34714315
If they aren't dead they can still pick up a gun and shoot you.

Aim for their hands! If both hands are disabled they are no threat

>>34714315
A nations fighting force as in troops that are actually in harms way is less than 1% of the population of any nation that I can think of. If your nations hospital system lacks the redundancy to handle that then you've got much bigger problems.

It is tactically smart to only critically wound your enemy but you don't get that choice unless you're a sniper/marksman or design landmines or some shit.

>>34714441
PUT YOUR HAND ON THAT WALL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B203twyaMfM

File: ranger up.jpg (71KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 720x540px

>>34714315

>>34714315
Not in that sense.

Injuring enemies is a much better way to reduce combat effectiveness.

However, if you can kill rather than maim from a distance, such as with bombs and incendiaries, that is far better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo7XBaG_-SE

>>34714315
technically ... not law wise
yes! it's not only about the aftermath.
But when you wound someone in the field, you need at least 2 or more soldiers to take care of them. that reduces the numbers of enemies in the fight
the best ratio have nbc weaponry. you need like a dozen persons with special equipment to decon on person.
they need not kill, just reduce the numbers of the enemy forces

>>34714315
>Is it better to wound your enemies so that their country has to spend resources taking care of them rather than outright killing them?
yes.
wars are about spending the enemies resources

>>34714441
>>34714454
Your basic Taliban fighter isn't too smart, but you can blow off a limb and it's still 86 percent combat effective. Here's a tip: Aim for the nerve stem, and put it down for good.

>>34714486
>wars are about spending the enemies resources
t. Erich von Falkenhayn

>>34714315
Nope always shoot to kill

Less chance of a lawsuit afterwards

>>34714491
Buenos aires was an inside job

Reducing combat effectiveness is the goal.
One man maimed, and in need of medical needs to be carried, his pack needs to be carried, he needs the attention to stay alive. Rotating 2 extra soldiers to keep this guy alive vs taking care of a corspe that can be collected later.

>>34714315
>wound their legs
>they can still pick up a gun and shoot you
>wound their hands/arms
>they can still talk and relay intelligence
>maim and their population becomes more embittered because of the living breathing reminder

Best to kill by all accounts. Unless you want some psychological warfare. Although if you shoot to wound you can have them use one of their unwounded guys to get them to safety....then shoot him too

What kind of injury will result from you attempting to harm someone will often be pretty random. Especially if combat when you're throwing hell in the enemy's general direction and anyone trying to aim properly gets his head blown off.
Then when you have wounded someone, how he reacts to that wound is also pretty random, with a huge variation. Phineas Gage had an inch thick iron bar blown right through the brain pan, quickly regained consciousness, and healed up.
So you're not really going to choose in combat. You just toss as much lethal force as you can towards the other guys, and let god sort out the details.

Weapons "designed to wound" simply reflect this. A larger bullet could make it more likely to kill, but a small one will still make a casualty, and you can more of those than the big ones. A small land mine is sure to maim, and unlikely to kill. A land mine twice as big is still certain to maim, and slightly more likely to kill. Killing in itself seldom has any purpose, so you get two of the small ones.

>>34714454
all the bones that must've went through...

>>34714315
If you kill your enemies, they win.

>>34714315
At least his knee pads stayed on

>>34714441
Allah ackbar my hands are gone but I still have the detonator near my foot.

the best way it's something like in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Got_His_Gun

would greatly discourage burger volunteers too

File: Hind (5).jpg (426KB, 2048x1492px) Image search: [Google]

426KB, 2048x1492px

Maybe it was true in World War One at the time of industrial total war. But in today's context with the importance of the media and the public opinion, it is better to kill as much enemies as possible in order to foster the anti-war sentiment among in the enemy's country.

A wounded soldier doesn't have as much of an impact in the population's mind than a dead soldier. I would go as far as saying that is the only reason the West can lose a war anymore : public outrage over death toll.

I mean, look what happened in every war after 1945...

>>34714315
First I ever heard this myth was in hunters ed from some washed up old fudd. It makes sense in theory I guess, that if two guys are running and you shoot one of them non fatally the other guy is gonna stop fighting to help his buddy. But in reality when someone gets tagged in combat it can be hard to know if it's a fatal hit or not, and seeing your buddy get shot but thinking there's a chance of survival and hope is different than seeing your buddy being killed indefinitely in front of you. It's a matter of morale. When you see your buddy get blasted and know that he is dead, there is no hope. There is no hope for his survival or yours. Shoot to kill because when the enemy sees their own start to get real fucked they aren't going to be so fond of fighting.

>>34714315
Dead men don't return to the front.

>>34714491
Underrated

>>34716173
I think you're making a good point.

Is that why airstrikes are so common right now? To minimize the amount of dead soldiers that the West loses.

You have medics sitting around. If everyone is dying and not being wounded, then they're not doing anything. It's not wasting a resource, it's just not having to use that resource if everyone died.

>>34718382
Bingo

File: 1501299714465.png (2MB, 1440x1908px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1440x1908px

Just break their Heart!

Ever see a grown man with a broken heart?

PATHETIC!

Just make friends with them, and then slit their throats while they're asleep. 100% effective.

>>34714315
Dead men don't shoot back.