.

For me the purpose of dialog is to learn. Whether I agree or not, I'm always trying to learn something about the premises upon which my conclusions are based. On occasion someone has brought something to my attention that has resonated with me and caused me to reevaluate my premises and draw different conclusions.I am familiar with the references you provided. Google is my friend.  8)Ad hominem attacks as argument have little effect on my thinking, whomever the source.This, unfortunately for me, is so far over the top for the mistakes he made, I am now having difficulty taking much of what you say as an opportunity for me to learn anything.

I get that you disagree with me.  I say again, I call BS on most of what is presented in On Killing based solely on my own experience.  I particularly find his number of 98% not firing in combat suspicious.  He would have us believe that almost 100% of small-arms inflicted wounds in combat are inflicted by the 2% who are willing to fight and might I add, apparently also insane.  I am incredulous that more people have not questioned this line of reasoning, it is counter-intuitive to say the least.  His use of the suspect data from Marshall only increases my personal doubt in the validity of his conclusions.  As I state in my review, most of what he says in the book seems to be based on a preconcieved notion that killing is difficult.  I point out that history says otherwise.  If anything, increased physical distance should make it easier to kill, not harder.  Some of the bloodiest battles in history were fought with swords when you actually had to look a man in the eye as you killed him.I also simply pointed out the absurdity of basing your belief in veracity by the books inclusion on a service reading list.  I did not launch an ad hominem attack on you, I simply pointed out the lack of academic rigor in the selection of books for inclusion in the service reading lists.  It seems to me that the difficulties of Ambrose are indeed germane by highlighting a lack of academic rigor.  If you choose to take my rebuttal personally that is your problem, not mine.  I have tried to avoid a personal attack as I find them useless when trying to debate a subject.  I would assume though that I could be excused for vigorously defending my position.  I am still waiting for you to show me something that proves him right other than your belief in his veracity.  I have personal experience of combat in a cavalry unit, that is what I base my belief on.  What about you?

I just noticed the view count. I am surprised so few others have chimed in on this.

I am not surprised, I think I nailed the problems with this work regardless of my tone.  You have yet to add anything substantive in refutation other than to point out that you disagree with my assessment, think I am attacking Grossman personally, and because the Marines like him so do you.  I think that pretty much sums up the gist of your posts thus far.