02-05-2013, 03:02 PM
You are almost certainly on to a key factor.
I thought the infantry contact time (ops tempo) was somewhat less than the 2/3 of year suggested. At the same time, I know of some who where engaged in firefights very frequently and in eyeball contact for a larger fraction of the time. The trenches of WW I exposed a lot of folks to fire for long periods of time. The term "shell shock" was coined to describe what I think could be described as a very severe form of PTSD.
During Vietnam, Korea, World War II, and World War I, aircrews got the most frequent and prolonged exposure to hostile fire along with surprising casualty rates. The situation has been different in Iraq and Afghanistan simply because of the marked difference in technology (read air supremacy) for fixed wing assets. Helicopters delivering troops, etc., still must get into RPG and rifle fire.
Vietnam witnessed a massive introduction of the helicopter as a transport, assault, attack, and other mission aircraft. This meant that troops could be used a lot more efficiently. Rather than marching or riding trucks from battle to battle which could take weeks or months, troops of today are literally rushed from firefight to firefight. Again, technology and training keep the casualty rates are much lower among the combat arms than even in Vietnam, but the contact and enemy casualty rate is almost certainly higher. These make for very serious stresses.
Other factors include vastly improved diagnostic techniques and political factors. Today, PTSD (shell shock?) is not the badge of shame it once was, so more folks come forward for discussions and other treatment.
I suspect the anti-war movement also plays up the numbers and consequences of PTSD to help justify "hate the war, not the soldier" as a way to undermine our defense efforts abroad.
I thought the infantry contact time (ops tempo) was somewhat less than the 2/3 of year suggested. At the same time, I know of some who where engaged in firefights very frequently and in eyeball contact for a larger fraction of the time. The trenches of WW I exposed a lot of folks to fire for long periods of time. The term "shell shock" was coined to describe what I think could be described as a very severe form of PTSD.
During Vietnam, Korea, World War II, and World War I, aircrews got the most frequent and prolonged exposure to hostile fire along with surprising casualty rates. The situation has been different in Iraq and Afghanistan simply because of the marked difference in technology (read air supremacy) for fixed wing assets. Helicopters delivering troops, etc., still must get into RPG and rifle fire.
Vietnam witnessed a massive introduction of the helicopter as a transport, assault, attack, and other mission aircraft. This meant that troops could be used a lot more efficiently. Rather than marching or riding trucks from battle to battle which could take weeks or months, troops of today are literally rushed from firefight to firefight. Again, technology and training keep the casualty rates are much lower among the combat arms than even in Vietnam, but the contact and enemy casualty rate is almost certainly higher. These make for very serious stresses.
Other factors include vastly improved diagnostic techniques and political factors. Today, PTSD (shell shock?) is not the badge of shame it once was, so more folks come forward for discussions and other treatment.
I suspect the anti-war movement also plays up the numbers and consequences of PTSD to help justify "hate the war, not the soldier" as a way to undermine our defense efforts abroad.