Hubbry Logo
Combat stress reactionCombat stress reactionMain
Open search
Combat stress reaction
Community hub
Combat stress reaction
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Combat stress reaction
Combat stress reaction
Combat stress reaction
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Combat stress reaction
A U.S. Marine exhibits a "thousand-yard stare" during World War II: an unfocused, despondent and weary gaze which is a frequent manifestation of "combat fatigue".
SpecialtyPsychiatry

Combat stress reaction (CSR) or combat neurosis is acute behavioral disorganization as a direct result of the trauma of war. Also known as "combat fatigue", "battle fatigue", "operational exhaustion", or "battle/war neurosis", it has some overlap with the diagnosis of acute stress reaction used in civilian psychiatry. It is historically linked to shell shock and is sometimes a precursor to post-traumatic stress disorder.

Combat stress reaction is an acute reaction that includes a range of behaviors resulting from the stress of battle that decrease the combatant's fighting efficiency. The most common symptoms are fatigue, slower reaction times, indecision, disconnection from one's surroundings, and the inability to prioritize. Combat stress reaction is generally short-term and should not be confused with acute stress disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, or other long-term disorders attributable to combat stress, although any of these may commence as a combat stress reaction. The US Army uses the term/initialism COSR (combat stress reaction) in official medical reports. This term can be applied to any stress reaction in the military unit environment. Many reactions look like symptoms of mental illness (such as panic, extreme anxiety, depression, and hallucinations), but they are only transient reactions to the traumatic stress of combat and the cumulative stresses of military operations.[1]

In World War I, shell shock was considered a psychiatric illness resulting from injury to the nerves during combat. The nature of trench warfare meant that about 10% of the fighting soldiers were killed (compared to 4.5% during World War II) and the total proportion of troops who became casualties (killed or wounded) was about 57%.[2] Whether a person with shell-shock was considered "wounded" or "sick" depended on the circumstances. Soldiers were personally faulted for their mental breakdown rather than their war experience. The large proportion of World War I veterans in the European population meant that the symptoms were common to the culture.

In World War II it was determined by the US Army that the time it took for a soldier to experience combat fatigue while fighting on the front lines was somewhere between 60 and 240 days, depending on the intensity and frequency of combat. This condition isn't new among the combat soldiers and was something that soldiers also experienced in World War I as mentioned above, but this time around the military medicine was gaining a better grasp and understanding of what exactly was causing it. What had been known in previous wars as "nostalgia", "old sergeant's disease", and "shell shock", became known as "combat fatigue".[3]

Signs and symptoms

[edit]

Combat stress reaction symptoms align with the symptoms also found in psychological trauma, which is closely related to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). CSR differs from PTSD (among other things) in that a PTSD diagnosis requires a duration of symptoms over one month,[citation needed] which CSR does not.

[edit]

The most common stress reactions include:

  • The slowing of reaction time
  • Slowness of thought
  • Difficulty prioritizing tasks
  • Difficulty initiating routine tasks
  • Preoccupation with minor issues and familiar tasks
  • Indecision and lack of concentration
  • Loss of initiative with fatigue
  • Exhaustion

Autonomic nervous system – autonomic arousal

[edit]

Battle casualty rates

[edit]

The ratio of stress casualties to battle casualties varies with the intensity of the fighting. With intense fighting, it can be as high as 1:1. In low-level conflicts, it can drop to 1:10 (or less). Modern warfare embodies the principles of continuous operations with an expectation of higher combat stress casualties.[4]

The World War II European Army rate of stress casualties of 1 in 10 (101:1,000) troops per annum is skewed downward from both its norm and peak by data by low rates during the last years of the war.[5]

Diagnosis

[edit]

The following PIE principles were in place for the "not yet diagnosed nervous" (NYDN) cases:

  • Proximity – treat the casualties close to the front and within sound of the fighting.
  • Immediacy – treat them without delay and not wait until the wounded were all dealt with.
  • Expectancy – ensure that everyone had the expectation of their return to the front after a rest and replenishment.

United States medical officer Thomas W. Salmon is often quoted as the originator of these PIE principles. However, his real strength came from going to Europe and learning from the Allies and then instituting the lessons. By the end of the war, Salmon had set up a complete system of units and procedures that was then the "world's best practice".[citation needed] After the war, he maintained his efforts in educating society and the military. He was awarded the Distinguished Service Medal for his contributions.[6]

Effectiveness of the PIE approach has not been confirmed by studies of CSR, and there is some evidence that it is not effective in preventing PTSD.[7]

US services now use the more recently developed BICEPS principles:

  • Brevity
  • Immediacy
  • Centrality or contact
  • Expectancy
  • Proximity
  • Simplicity

Between the wars

[edit]

The British government produced a Report of the War Office Committee of Inquiry into "Shell-Shock", which was published in 1922. Recommendations from this included:

In forward areas
No soldier should be allowed to think that loss of nervous or mental control provides an honorable avenue of escape from the battlefield, and every endeavor should be made to prevent slight cases leaving the battalion or divisional area, where treatment should be confined to provision of rest and comfort for those who need it and to heartening them for return to the front line.
In neurological centers
When cases are sufficiently severe to necessitate more scientific and elaborate treatment they should be sent to special Neurological Centers as near the front as possible, to be under the care of an expert in nervous disorders. No such case should, however, be so labelled on evacuation as to fix the idea of nervous breakdown in the patient's mind.
In base hospitals
When evacuation to the base hospital is necessary, cases should be treated in a separate hospital or separate sections of a hospital, and not with the ordinary sick and wounded patients. Only in exceptional circumstances should cases be sent to the United Kingdom, as, for instance, men likely to be unfit for further service of any kind with the forces in the field. This policy should be widely known throughout the Force.
Forms of treatment
The establishment of an atmosphere of cure is the basis of all successful treatment, the personality of the physician is, therefore, of the greatest importance. While recognizing that each individual case of war neurosis must be treated on its merits, the Committee are of opinion that good results will be obtained in the majority by the simplest forms of psycho-therapy, i.e., explanation, persuasion and suggestion, aided by such physical methods as baths, electricity and massage. Rest of mind and body is essential in all cases.
The committee are of opinion that the production of deep hypnotic sleep, while beneficial as a means of conveying suggestions or eliciting forgotten experiences are useful in selected cases, but in the majority they are unnecessary and may even aggravate the symptoms for a time.
They do not recommend psycho-analysis in the Freudian sense.
In the state of convalescence, re-education and suitable occupation of an interesting nature are of great importance. If the patient is unfit for further military service, it is considered that every endeavor should be made to obtain for him suitable employment on his return to active life.
Return to the fighting line
Soldiers should not be returned to the fighting line under the following conditions:
(1) If the symptoms of neurosis are of such a character that the soldier cannot be treated overseas with a view to subsequent useful employment.
(2) If the breakdown is of such severity as to necessitate a long period of rest and treatment in the United Kingdom.
(3) If the disability is anxiety neurosis of a severe type.
(4) If the disability is a mental breakdown or psychosis requiring treatment in a mental hospital.
It is, however, considered that many of such cases could, after recovery, be usefully employed in some form of auxiliary military duty.

Part of the concern was that many British veterans were receiving pensions and had long-term disabilities.

By 1939, some 120,000 British ex-servicemen had received final awards for primary psychiatric disability or were still drawing pensions – about 15% of all pensioned disabilities – and another 44,000 or so were getting pensions for 'soldier's heart' or effort syndrome. There is, though, much that statistics do not show, because in terms of psychiatric effects, pensioners were just the tip of a huge iceberg."[8]

War correspondent Philip Gibbs wrote:

Something was wrong. They put on civilian clothes again and looked to their mothers and wives very much like the young men who had gone to business in the peaceful days before August 1914. But they had not come back the same men. Something had altered in them. They were subject to sudden moods, and queer tempers, fits of profound depression alternating with a restless desire for pleasure. Many were easily moved to passion where they lost control of themselves, many were bitter in their speech, violent in opinion, frightening.[8]

One British writer between the wars wrote:

There should be no excuse given for the establishment of a belief that a functional nervous disability constitutes a right to compensation. This is hard saying. It may seem cruel that those whose sufferings are real, whose illness has been brought on by enemy action and very likely in the course of patriotic service, should be treated with such apparent callousness. But there can be no doubt that in an overwhelming proportion of cases, these patients succumb to 'shock' because they get something out of it. To give them this reward is not ultimately a benefit to them because it encourages the weaker tendencies in their character. The nation cannot call on its citizens for courage and sacrifice and, at the same time, state by implication that an unconscious cowardice or an unconscious dishonesty will be rewarded.[8]

World War II

[edit]

American

[edit]

At the outbreak of World War II, most in the United States military had forgotten the treatment lessons of World War I. Screening of applicants was initially rigorous, but experience eventually showed it to lack great predictive power.

The US entered the war in December 1941. Only in November 1943 was a psychiatrist added to the table of organization of each division, and this policy was not implemented in the Mediterranean Theater of Operations until March 1944. By 1943, the US Army was using the term "exhaustion" as the initial diagnosis of psychiatric cases, and the general principles of military psychiatry were being used. General Patton's slapping incident was in part the spur to institute forward treatment for the Italian invasion of September 1943. The importance of unit cohesion and membership of a group as a protective factor emerged.

John Appel found that the average American infantryman in Italy was "worn out" in 200 to 240 days and concluded that the American soldier "fights for his buddies or because his self respect won't let him quit". After several months in combat, the soldier lacked reasons to continue to fight because he had proven his bravery in battle and was no longer with most of the fellow soldiers he trained with.[9] Appel helped implement a 180-day limit for soldiers in active combat[10] and suggested that the war be made more meaningful, emphasizing their enemies' plans to conquer the United States, encouraging soldiers to fight to prevent what they had seen happen in other countries happen to their families. Other psychiatrists believed that letters from home discouraged soldiers by increasing nostalgia and needlessly mentioning problems soldiers could not solve. William Menninger said after the war, "It might have been wise to have had a nation-wide educational course in letter writing to soldiers", and Edward Strecker criticized "moms" (as opposed to mothers) who, after failing to "wean" their sons, damaged morale through letters.[9]

Airmen flew far more often in the Southwest Pacific than in Europe, and although rest time in Australia was scheduled, there was no fixed number of missions that would produce transfer out of combat, as was the case in Europe. Coupled with the monotonous, hot, sickly environment, the result was bad morale that jaded veterans quickly passed along to newcomers. After a few months, epidemics of combat fatigue would drastically reduce the efficiency of units. Flight surgeons reported that the men who had been at jungle airfields longest were in bad shape:

Many have chronic dysentery or other disease, and almost all show chronic fatigue states. ... They appear listless, unkempt, careless, and apathetic with almost mask-like facial expression. Speech is slow, thought content is poor, they complain of chronic headaches, insomnia, memory defect, feel forgotten, worry about themselves, are afraid of new assignments, have no sense of responsibility, and are hopeless about the future.[11]

British

[edit]

Unlike the Americans, the British leaders firmly held the lessons of World War I. It was estimated that aerial bombardment would kill up to 35,000 a day, but the Blitz killed only 40,000 in total. The expected torrent of civilian mental breakdown did not occur. The Government turned to World War I doctors for advice on those who did have problems. The PIE principles were generally used. However, in the British Army, since most of the World War I doctors were too old for the job, young, analytically trained psychiatrists were employed. Army doctors "appeared to have no conception of breakdown in war and its treatment, though many of them had served in the 1914–1918 war." The first Middle East Force psychiatric hospital was set up in 1942. With D-Day for the first month there was a policy of holding casualties for only 48 hours before they were sent back over the Channel. This went firmly against the expectancy principle of PIE.[8]

Appel believed that British soldiers were able to continue to fight almost twice as long as their American counterparts because the British had better rotation schedules and because they, unlike the Americans, "fight for survival" – for the British soldiers, the threat from the Axis powers was much more real, given Britain's proximity to mainland Europe, and the fact that Germany was concurrently conducting air raids and bombarding British industrial cities. Like the Americans, British doctors believed that letters from home often needlessly damaged soldiers' morale.[9]

Canadian

[edit]

The Canadian Army recognized combat stress reaction as "Battle Exhaustion" during the Second World War and classified it as a separate type of combat wound. Historian Terry Copp has written extensively on the subject.[12] In Normandy, "The infantry units engaged in the battle also experienced a rapid rise in the number of battle exhaustion cases with several hundred men evacuated due to the stress of combat. Regimental Medical Officers were learning that neither elaborate selection methods nor extensive training could prevent a considerable number of combat soldiers from breaking down."[13]

Germans

[edit]

In his history of the pre-Nazi Freikorps paramilitary organizations, Vanguard of Nazism, historian Robert G. L. Waite describes some of the emotional effects of World War I on German troops, and refers to a phrase he attributes to Göring: men who could not become "de-brutalized".[14]

In an interview, Dr Rudolf Brickenstein stated that:

... he believed that there were no important problems due to stress breakdown since it was prevented by the high quality of leadership. But, he added, that if a soldier did break down and could not continue fighting, it was a leadership problem, not one for medical personnel or psychiatrists. Breakdown (he said) usually took the form of unwillingness to fight or cowardice.[15]

However, as World War II progressed there was a profound rise in stress casualties from 1% of hospitalizations in 1935 to 6% in 1942.[citation needed] Another German psychiatrist reported after the war that during the last two years, about a third of all hospitalizations at Ensen were due to war neurosis. It is probable that there was both less of a true problem and less perception of a problem.[15]

Finns

[edit]

The Finnish attitudes to "war neurosis" were especially tough. Psychiatrist Harry Federley, who was the head of the Military Medicine, considered shell shock as a sign of weak character and lack of moral fibre. His treatment for war neurosis was simple: the patients were to be bullied and harassed until they returned to front line service.[citation needed]

Earlier, during the Winter War, several Finnish machine gun operators on the Karelian Isthmus theatre became mentally unstable after repelling several unsuccessful Soviet human wave assaults on fortified Finnish positions.

Post-World War II developments

[edit]

Simplicity was added to the PIE principles by the Israelis: in their view, treatment should be brief, supportive, and could be provided by those without sophisticated training.

Peacekeeping stresses

[edit]

Peacekeeping provides its own stresses because its emphasis on rules of engagement contains the roles for which soldiers are trained. Causes include witnessing or experiencing the following:

  • Constant tension and threat of conflict.
  • Threat of land mines and booby traps.
  • Close contact with severely injured and dead people.
  • Deliberate maltreatment and atrocities, possibly involving civilians.
  • Cultural issues.
  • Separation and home issues.
  • Risk of disease including HIV.
  • Threat of exposure to toxic agents.
  • Mission problems.
  • Return to service.[16]

Pathophysiology

[edit]

SNS activation

[edit]
A U.S. Long Range Reconnaissance Patrol leader in Vietnam, 1968.

Many of the symptoms initially experienced by people with CSR are effects of an extended activation of the human body's fight-or-flight response. The fight-or-flight response involves a general sympathetic nervous system discharge in reaction to a perceived stressor and prepares the body to fight or run from the threat causing the stress. Catecholamine hormones, such as adrenaline or noradrenaline, facilitate immediate physical reactions associated with a preparation for violent muscular action. Although the flight-or-fight-response normally ends with the removal of the threat, the constant mortal danger in combat zones likewise constantly and acutely stresses soldiers.[17]

General adaptation syndrome

[edit]

The process whereby the human body responds to extended stress is known as general adaptation syndrome (GAS). After the initial fight-or-flight response, the body becomes more resistant to stress in an attempt to dampen the sympathetic nervous response and return to homeostasis. During this period of resistance, physical and mental symptoms of CSR may be drastically reduced as the body attempts to cope with the stress. Long combat involvement, however, may keep the body from homeostasis and thereby deplete its resources and render it unable to normally function, sending it into the third stage of GAS: exhaustion. Sympathetic nervous activation remains in the exhaustion phase and reactions to stress are markedly sensitized as fight-or-flight symptoms return. If the body remains in a state of stress, then much more severe symptoms of CSR as cardiovascular and digestive involvement may present themselves. Extended exhaustion can permanently damage the body.[18]

Treatment

[edit]

7 Rs

[edit]

The British Army treated Operational Stress Reaction according to the 7 Rs:[19]

  • Recognition – identify that the individual has an Operational Stress Reaction
  • Respite – provide a short period of relief from the front line
  • Rest – allow rest and recovery
  • Recall – give the individual the chance to recall and discuss the experiences that have led to the reaction
  • Reassurance – inform them that their reaction is normal and they will recover
  • Rehabilitation – improve the physical and mental health of the patient until they no longer show symptoms
  • Return – allow the soldier to return to their unit

Predeployment preparation

[edit]

Screening

[edit]

Historically, screening programs that have attempted to preclude soldiers exhibiting personality traits thought to predispose them to CSR have been a total failure. Part of this failure stems from the inability to base CSR morbidity on one or two personality traits. Full psychological work-ups are expensive and inconclusive, while pen and paper tests are ineffective and easily faked. In addition, studies conducted following WWII screening programs showed that psychological disorders present during military training did not accurately predict stress disorders during combat.[20]

Cohesion

[edit]

While it is difficult to measure the effectiveness of such a subjective term, soldiers who reported in a WWII study that they had a "higher than average" sense of camaraderie and pride in their unit were more likely to report themselves ready for combat and less likely to develop CSR or other stress disorders. Soldiers with a "lower than average" sense of cohesion with their unit were more susceptible to stress illness.[21]

Training

[edit]

Stress exposure training or SET is a common component of most modern military training. There are three steps to an effective stress exposure program.[22]

  • Providing knowledge of the stress environment

Soldiers with a knowledge of both the emotional and physical signs and symptoms of CSR are much less likely to have a critical event that reduces them below fighting capability. Instrumental information, such as breathing exercises that can reduce stress and suggestions not to look at the faces of enemy dead, is also effective at reducing the chance of a breakdown.[23]

  • Skills acquisition

Cognitive control strategies can be taught to soldiers to help them recognize stressful and situationally detrimental thoughts and repress those thoughts in combat situations. Such skills have been shown to reduce anxiety and improve task performance.[24][25]

  • Confidence building through application and practice

Soldiers who feel confident in their own abilities and those of their squad are far less likely to develop combat stress reaction. Training in stressful conditions that mimic those of an actual combat situation builds confidence in the abilities of themselves and the squad. As this training can actually induce some of the stress symptoms it seeks to prevent, stress levels should be increased incrementally as to allow the soldiers time to adapt.[26][27]

Narcosynthesis

A technique that was used to treat PTSD disorders during World War II by using sodium pentothal was created by psychiatrists Roy Grinker and John Spiegel. During the treatment, they offered soldiers an opportunity to abreact their trauma by re-experiencing it in a hospital environment in the presence of supportive, protective, and understanding therapists. The therapists induced a dream state or twilight sleep by injecting sodium pentothal, after which most soldiers spontaneously started to express their anxiety. While the psychiatrist fulfilled the soldier's need for protection, the soldier's ego was nurtured, and the soldier was encouraged to abreact his trauma. [28]

Prognosis

[edit]

Figures from the 1982 Lebanon war showed that with proximal treatment, 90% of CSR casualties returned to their unit, usually within 72 hours. With rearward treatment, only 40% returned to their unit. It was also found that treatment efficacy went up with the application of a variety of front line treatment principles versus just one treatment.[5] In Korea, similar statistics were seen, with 85% of US battle fatigue casualties returned to duty within three days and 10% returned to limited duties after several weeks.[4]

Though these numbers seem to promote the claims that proximal PIE or BICEPS treatment is generally effective at reducing the effects of combat stress reaction, other data suggests that long term PTSD effects may result from the hasty return of affected individuals to combat. Both PIE and BICEPS are meant to return as many soldiers as possible to combat, and may actually have adverse effects on the long-term health of service members who are rapidly returned to the front-line after combat stress control treatment. Although the PIE principles were used extensively in the Vietnam War, the post traumatic stress disorder lifetime rate for Vietnam veterans was 30% in a 1989 US study and 21% in a 1996 Australian study. In a study of Israeli Veterans of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, 37% of veterans diagnosed with CSR during combat were later diagnosed with PTSD, compared with 14% of control veterans.[29]

Controversy

[edit]

There is significant controversy with the PIE and BICEPS principles. Throughout a number of wars, but notably during the Vietnam War, there has been a conflict among doctors about sending distressed soldiers back to combat. During the Vietnam War this reached a peak with much discussion about the ethics of this process. Proponents of the PIE and BICEPS principles argue that it leads to a reduction of long-term disability but opponents argue that combat stress reactions lead to long-term problems such as post-traumatic stress disorder.

The use of psychiatric drugs to treat people with CSR has also attracted criticism, as some military psychiatrists have come to question the efficacy of such drugs on the long-term health of veterans. Concerns have been expressed as to the effect of pharmaceutical treatment on an already elevated substance abuse rate among former people with CSR.[30]

Recent[when?] research has caused an increasing number of scientists to believe that there may be a physical (i.e., neurocerebral damage) rather than psychological basis for blast trauma. As traumatic brain injury and combat stress reaction have very different causes yet result in similar neurologic symptoms, researchers emphasize the need for greater diagnostic care.[31]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Combat stress reaction

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Combat stress reaction (CSR), also termed battle fatigue, refers to the acute physiological, emotional, cognitive, and behavioral responses triggered by exposure to the high-intensity stressors of combat, including imminent danger, , and , often resulting in temporary degradation of military performance such as slowed reactions, indecision, and withdrawal. These reactions represent hard-wired survival mechanisms evolved to cope with life-threatening situations, manifesting in up to 10-20% of troops under prolonged combat exposure depending on intensity and duration. Unlike (PTSD), which persists beyond the stressor and impairs long-term functioning, CSR typically resolves within hours to days with rest, reassurance, and minimal intervention, allowing most affected personnel to return to duty without lasting sequelae. Historically recognized in conflicts from as "" to modern operations, CSR underscores the human limits of endurance in warfare, where causal factors include not only direct threats but also cumulative fatigue and from lethal engagements. Effective employs principles of proximity, immediacy, and expectancy (), involving forward-based treatment to normalize symptoms, prevent evacuation, and foster resilience, as evidenced by longitudinal studies showing high recovery rates when interventions avoid pathologizing the response. Controversies arise in distinguishing CSR from early PTSD indicators, with some empirical data suggesting over-reliance on retrospective self-reports in academia may inflate chronic disorder prevalence while underemphasizing acute, self-limiting cases resolvable through and operational tempo adjustments.

Definition and Scope

Core Definition and Characteristics

Combat stress reaction (CSR) is an acute psychological and physiological response to the extreme stressors of combat, manifesting as temporary behavioral, emotional, cognitive, or somatic disruptions that impair a service member's ability to function effectively in their role. Defined in military doctrine as a hard-wired survival mechanism akin to the defense cascade, CSR typically lasts from hours to a few days and arises directly from life-threatening events, distinguishing it from chronic disorders by its transient nature and expectation of recovery with removal from the stressor. In empirical studies, approximately 17.2% of U.S. soldiers reported symptoms consistent with a possible acute stress reaction during combat deployments, highlighting its prevalence under intense operational demands. Core characteristics of CSR include autonomic hyperarousal, such as elevated and rapid , alongside cognitive impairments like , memory lapses, and slowed , which collectively reduce situational awareness and performance. Behavioral signs often involve withdrawal, indecision, or freezing, while emotional responses range from and to dissociation or emotional numbing, reflecting an adaptive overload rather than inherent . Physiologically, symptoms encompass , , gastrointestinal upset, and tremors, frequently tied to prolonged exposure without adequate rest or support.
  • Cognitive: Indecision, disorientation, difficulty prioritizing tasks.
  • Emotional/Behavioral: Restlessness, rage, , or non-responsiveness.
  • Physiological: Exhaustion, , , sleep disturbances.
This reaction is viewed in military psychology as a normative outcome of cumulative combat exposures, with interventions emphasizing proximity to the front lines, immediacy of care, and expectancy of return to duty to mitigate progression to lasting impairment.

Distinctions from PTSD and Acute Stress Disorder

Combat stress reaction (CSR), also known as battle fatigue or combat fatigue, refers to an acute, transient behavioral disorganization resulting directly from exposure to the intense stressors of combat, such as prolonged danger, sleep deprivation, and sensory overload, often manifesting as temporary inability to perform duties but typically resolving with brief removal from the combat environment, rest, and psychological first aid principles like proximity, immediacy, and expectancy of recovery. In contrast, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a chronic psychiatric diagnosis characterized by persistent symptoms lasting more than one month, including intrusive memories, avoidance of trauma reminders, negative alterations in cognition and mood, and marked hyperarousal, which significantly impair social, occupational, and daily functioning and do not resolve spontaneously without targeted interventions like prolonged exposure therapy or medication. While CSR represents a normal adaptive response to extreme but finite combat demands—observed in up to 10-20% of troops in high-intensity engagements without long-term sequelae—PTSD arises from maladaptive processing of the trauma, often linked to predisposing factors like prior mental health issues or insufficient post-exposure support, with lifetime prevalence among veterans around 10-30% depending on conflict exposure. CSR differs from acute stress disorder (ASD) primarily in its operational framing and immediacy: CSR encompasses immediate, fear-driven reactions during or shortly after active threats, such as confusion, withdrawal, or , viewed as expectable under severe operational stress rather than a discrete requiring evacuation unless protracted. ASD, per criteria, is a clinical for trauma responses occurring 3 days to 1 month post-event, featuring nine or more symptoms across intrusion, negative mood, dissociative, avoidance, and arousal clusters, including numbing or derealization not always tied to ongoing threat, and carries a 50% risk of progressing to PTSD if untreated. Empirical data from military cohorts indicate CSR episodes often self-limit within hours to days with forward-line interventions, whereas ASD demands monitoring for diagnostic threshold and potential referral, highlighting CSR's emphasis on and rapid return to duty over formal labeling. Untreated CSR can evolve into ASD or PTSD, but most cases—supported by and Vietnam-era longitudinal studies—do not, underscoring the causal distinction between transient overload and entrenched neurobiological dysregulation.

Historical Evolution

World War I and Shell Shock

The term "shell shock" emerged during to describe acute psychological breakdowns among soldiers, particularly in the British Expeditionary Force subjected to intense, prolonged artillery fire in static on the Western Front. Coined in 1915 by Charles Samuel Myers, a consulting , it initially connoted direct physical trauma from shell explosions, such as commotio cerebri or invisible brain lesions caused by concussive blasts. However, accumulating evidence revealed many cases lacked proximity to detonations or detectable organic damage, prompting a debate that pivoted toward non-physical causation rooted in overwhelming , exhaustion, and from combat conditions. Pre-war medical frameworks, drawing from civilian , interpreted symptoms through lenses like or , where emotional strain disrupted neural function without structural injury; this causal view aligned with observations that symptoms often mimicked conversion disorders, resolving variably under or rest rather than . Critics favoring physical , including some neurologists, cited autopsy findings of minor hemorrhages in fatal cases, but these failed to explain the prevalence of reversible, non-fatal presentations or higher incidence among rear-echelon troops exposed to distant bombardments. By 1917, official reports acknowledged a dual —physical in acute blast proximities, psychological in most instances—emphasizing predisposing factors like and erosion over innate weakness. Incidence escalated with major offensives; the British Army officially treated around 80,000 cases by war's end in November 1918, though broader estimates, including untreated or misdiagnosed breakdowns, suggest over 250,000 affected men, representing roughly 10-20% of frontline casualties in peak periods like the Somme (1916) or Passchendaele (1917). Symptoms manifested physiologically as tremors, tics, paralyses, sensory losses (e.g., deafness or blindness without lesion), and cardiovascular irregularities, alongside psychological features like mutism, amnesia, hypervigilance, and recurrent nightmares of explosions. These were empirically linked to cumulative stressors—noise, isolation, and witnessing mass death—rather than solely volitional cowardice, as early executions for desertion (e.g., 306 British cases by 1918) gave way to medical evacuations. Military responses prioritized operational efficacy, initially via disciplinary measures to deter "," but shifted under figures like toward forward-area interventions: brief rest, reassurance, and graduated re-exposure to duty, achieving 50-70% return-to-front rates in acute cases to forestall chronic invalidism. Harsh adjuncts, such as electrical or isolation, persisted in base hospitals for instances, reflecting incomplete consensus on mechanisms but underscoring empirical success of proximity-based psychological restoration over remote institutionalization. Post-armistice, shell shock's legacy included claims exceeding 60,000 ongoing cases by , highlighting unresolved pathophysiological debates between organic resilience limits and adaptive stress responses.

World War II and Battle Fatigue

During , the term "battle fatigue," also referred to as "combat fatigue" or "combat exhaustion," described acute psychological disorganization resulting from the cumulative strain of prolonged combat exposure, supplanting earlier labels like . This condition manifested in symptoms including severe anxiety, , , tremors, and mutism, often exacerbated by physical deprivation such as sleep loss and alongside emotional stressors like fear of death and unit attrition. The U.S. Army formalized "exhaustion" as the diagnostic label for forward-area psychiatric casualties in April 1943, emphasizing its reversible nature when addressed promptly to avoid chronic . Psychiatric casualties reached significant levels, with approximately 1,393,000 U.S. service members treated for battle across theaters, accounting for about 40% of all medical discharges. Among ground troops, roughly 37% were discharged for psychiatric reasons, with rates highest in units—over 90% of cases originating from maneuver regiments—due to sustained frontline exposure exceeding 200-240 days without adequate rotation. Factors like extended battle surges, as seen in the European and Pacific theaters, amplified incidence; for instance, in the Third during , 355 cases were recorded in two weeks amid rapid advances. Physical alone rarely caused breakdown but lowered thresholds when combined with emotional strain, per Medical Department analyses. Management shifted toward "forward psychiatry," implementing the principles of proximity (treatment near the front), immediacy (rapid intervention), and expectancy (anticipation of swift recovery and return to duty). Initial care involved rest, nutrition, and —often via barbiturate-assisted interviews—to restore function without evacuation, yielding return-to-duty rates of 50-70% within three days for most cases. This approach, rooted in preventing epidemics of mass evacuation observed in prior wars, prioritized and operational tempo over long-term institutionalization, though commanders occasionally questioned its efficacy amid doubts about reintegrating affected troops. By war's end, these protocols underscored battle fatigue's treatability as a to overwhelming demands rather than inherent weakness.

Post-World War II to Contemporary Conflicts

In the (1950–1953), military psychiatrists continued the forward psychiatry principles established during , emphasizing proximity to the front lines, immediate intervention, and expectancy of rapid recovery to minimize evacuations and return affected personnel to duty. Known as "combat exhaustion," acute reactions manifested as fatigue, confusion, and withdrawal, with incidence rates closely tied to battle intensity; for instance, the U.S. Army's 1st Cavalry Division reported lower rates in the war's latter phases due to stabilized fronts and reduced casualties, though gross stress reactions appeared in prisoners of war as impaired concentration and memory. Treatment focused on rest, reassurance, and light sedation, achieving return-to-duty rates of approximately 70–80% within days, underscoring the efficacy of these methods in despite harsh environmental stressors like cold and prolonged engagements. The (1955–1975) presented unique challenges to managing combat stress reactions, termed "combat fatigue" or exhaustion, due to guerrilla tactics, extended individual tours averaging 12–13 months, ambiguous battle lines, and societal factors like drug use and domestic opposition. Acute breakdowns were relatively rare during operations—comprising a low proportion of casualties compared to prior wars—owing to dispersed small-unit actions and rapid , but prolonged exposure contributed to higher latent psychological strain, with post-return symptoms evolving into what later formalized as PTSD in the DSM-III (1980). Psychiatric interventions adapted PIES (adding simplicity for brief, supportive care), yet effectiveness waned amid morale issues and limited , prompting evacuations for symptoms like tremors, , and mutism; studies linked combat intensity to elevated risks, though proximate treatment success hovered around 50–60% returns to duty. Post-Vietnam developments refined military psychiatry, incorporating Israeli innovations to PIES—such as explicit simplicity in non-intrusive therapies—for conflicts like the 1991 , where short-duration, high-technology operations yielded minimal acute battle fatigue cases amid low ground casualties (under 300 U.S. deaths in combat). Emphasis shifted toward prevention via screening and training, though chronic multisymptom illnesses emerged later, distinct from acute CSR. In the (2003–2011) and (2001–2021) wars, Combat Operational Stress Reactions (COSR) persisted despite advanced and evacuation, driven by improvised explosive devices, multiple deployments (averaging 1–3 per service member), and urban insurgency; rates of acute incidents varied by unit, with forward teams applying updated PIES/COSC protocols achieving 60–80% return-to-duty within 72 hours through and . Contemporary approaches prioritize resilience-building pre-deployment, real-time embeds, and data-driven , reducing CSR incidence to 5–15% of casualties in high-intensity phases, though prolonged wars exacerbate vulnerabilities like and . Evidence from Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom indicates that while acute CSR correlates with exposure severity—e.g., odds ratios for PTSD precursors rising 3-fold post-injury—early intervention mitigates chronicity, with neurobiological markers like hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal dysregulation informing treatments beyond mere expectancy.

Epidemiology

Incidence Rates Across Major Wars

Incidence rates of combat stress reaction (CSR), historically termed or battle fatigue, are typically expressed as the proportion of psychiatric casualties relative to wounded-in-action (WIA) or total battle casualties, reflecting acute breakdowns during or immediately after combat exposure. These rates have varied with combat intensity, , leadership, rotation policies, and preventive measures like forward psychiatry, often equaling or exceeding physical casualties in prolonged, high-intensity engagements. In conventional wars involving U.S. and allied forces, psychiatric casualties commonly ranged from 10% to 30% of WIA, though underreporting occurred in some contexts due to stigma or operational pressures. During , incidence in U.S. Expeditionary Forces was estimated at around 10%, driven by static and prolonged artillery exposure, though British forces reported early rates of 4% among enlisted men and 10% among officers by late 1914. Overall psychiatric casualties approached 20% of total battle injuries in some analyses, exceeding physical wounds in units with extended front-line duty. In , U.S. Army data indicated psychiatric casualties at 15% to 30% of WIA across theaters, with ratios often 1:4 (CSR to WIA) in infantry divisions; for instance, Seventh Army units like the 44th and 103rd Infantry reported 28% to 32% per 100 WIA. Over 500,000 service members experienced psychiatric collapse, accounting for up to 40% of medical discharges, particularly in Pacific campaigns like Okinawa where stress-to-physical ratios reached 1:2. Airborne units showed lower rates, about one-fifth of regular infantry, due to superior training and cohesion. The saw initial rates of 250 psychiatric cases per 1,000 troops annually, correlating closely with battle intensity, but forward interventions reduced them to 10% to 20% of wounded by late 1952 in forces (21 per 1,000 casualties). U.S. forces experienced acute reactions in one-quarter to one-third of combatants overall, lower than peaks due to improved screening and group replacements, though harsh winter conditions and rapid advances elevated risks in early phases. Vietnam War CSR rates dropped to 5-6 cases per 1,000 troops yearly, or about 22% to 25% of high-intensity war levels, with a 1:17.5 CSR-to-WIA ratio reflecting shorter engagements, one-year individual rotations, and technological edges that limited sustained exposure. Psychiatric admissions for combat exhaustion comprised 6% to 7% of cases at third-echelon hospitals, rising temporarily with intensified operations from 1967 to 1969, though official undercounts persisted amid misconduct reclassifications.
WarPsychiatric Casualties as % of WIAKey Factors Influencing Rate
10-20%Trench stalemate, artillery dominance
15-30%Division-level variations, theater intensity
10-20%Initial surges reduced by psychiatry reforms
~5-6%Rotations, intermittent combat
Post-Vietnam conflicts like the and Iraq/ operations reported acute CSR below 5% of casualties, benefiting from advanced training and rapid evacuations, though cumulative deployments elevated long-term risks; for example, Israeli analogs in similar showed 23-30 CSR per 100 WIA without full preventive protocols. Declines in acute rates reflect doctrinal shifts toward proximity-based treatment, yet persistent underdiagnosis in low-intensity phases underscores measurement challenges.

Identified Risk Factors and Predictors

Operational risk factors predominate in the onset of (CSR), with empirical and doctrinal evidence indicating that prolonged and intense exposure to environments overwhelms physiological and in most soldiers, irrespective of traits. U.S. Army field manual FM 22-51 identifies cumulative exposure—such as extended operations without rotation, , and nearing the end of a tour ("being short")—as high-risk situations for battle fatigue, noting that light symptoms manifest in the majority of combatants under such conditions. Historical analyses of data reveal that over 90% of CSR cases originated from maneuver regiments, where direct , unit casualties, and sustained battles amplified vulnerability, contributing to combat fatigue accounting for approximately 40% of medical discharges. Peri-combat predictors include the severity of threat perception, such as proximity to enemy fire, witnessing deaths or injuries, and physical exhaustion from caloric deficits and disrupted circadian rhythms, which exacerbate autonomic overload and reaction times. A study of Turkana warriors engaging in lethal raids found that acute symptoms like and slowed were strongly predicted by direct exposure (e.g., number of raids and enemies killed), with livestock losses further elevating risk, while gains acted protectively. underscores sleep loss as a primary driver, with infantrymen in prolonged engagements averaging insufficient rest, leading to neuroses characterized by fatigue and indecision. Pre-combat individual factors show weaker predictive power for acute CSR compared to chronic outcomes like PTSD, though meta-analyses of combat-related disorders note associations with prior trauma (OR=1.13), adverse life events (OR=1.99), and non-officer ranks (OR=2.18), potentially heightening susceptibility through lowered baseline resilience. characteristics, such as army branch service (OR=2.30) and multiple deployments (OR=1.24), correlate with elevated risk via failure or accumulated wear. However, frontline evaluations emphasize that CSR emerges predictably from operational stressors rather than isolated personal histories, with unit-level variables like quality and cohesion serving as mitigators.

Signs and Symptoms

Physiological Manifestations

Combat stress reaction elicits pronounced activation of the , manifesting in heightened autonomic responses such as , where heart rates can surge to 200-300 beats per minute from a baseline of approximately 70 beats per minute, alongside elevated that may reach dangerous levels during acute episodes. These cardiovascular changes stem from adrenomedullary release of catecholamines like norepinephrine and epinephrine, redirecting blood flow to skeletal muscles while reducing gastrointestinal , often resulting in symptoms like , severe , and . Respiratory alterations include rapid, or , contributing to sensations of and further autonomic imbalance. Neuromuscular effects encompass tremors, tense muscles, and potential loss of fine , reflecting excessive neural and muscle from sustained exertion and common in environments. Sensory disruptions, such as auditory processing difficulties, and widespread —often compounded by , caloric deficits, and —represent core physiological hallmarks, with empirical observations from and conflicts documenting these in up to 5-6 cases per 1,000 troops annually. Hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis involvement elevates levels, mobilizing glucose via to sustain energy demands but potentially exacerbating headaches and psychosomatic pains if prolonged. Sweating and arise from cutaneous , aiding amid intense physical stress. These manifestations are typically transient, subsiding within hours to days upon threat removal or restorative interventions like rest, distinguishing them from chronic conditions.

Psychological and Behavioral Indicators

Psychological indicators of combat stress reaction (CSR) include intense anxiety, , and , often leading to impaired and cognitive disruptions such as problems and difficulty concentrating. Affected service members may experience , manifesting as rapid shifts between , , and , alongside a loss of confidence and sense of helplessness. In severe cases, dissociation or transient psychotic features like hallucinations occur, though these are less common, affecting approximately 3-6% of cases in historical data from conflicts such as those in and . Behavioral indicators encompass observable actions reflecting functional impairment, including restlessness, , and freezing under , which can compromise mission performance and unit safety. Individuals may display social withdrawal, argumentative or reckless conduct, and substandard task execution, such as poor marksmanship or disrupted teamwork. Milder behaviors include fixation on non-essential tasks or the "," indicating detachment without full combat ineffectiveness, while more pronounced reactions involve outright flight from danger or hysterical outbursts. These symptoms typically arise acutely during or immediately after exposure to combat stressors and differ from chronic conditions by their transient nature, often resolving with rest and support within hours to days.

Pathophysiology

Acute Stress Response Mechanisms

The acute stress response in combat stress reaction (CSR) constitutes an evolutionarily conserved mechanism, primarily mediated by the sympathetic-adreno-medullary (SAM) axis, which triggers rapid physiological changes to prepare for confrontation or evasion. Upon perceiving combat stressors such as gunfire or imminent danger, the signals the to activate the locus coeruleus-norepinephrine system and , releasing epinephrine and norepinephrine into the bloodstream within seconds. This catecholamine surge elevates (often exceeding 150 beats per minute in soldiers during close-quarters engagements), increases by up to 300%, and redirects blood flow from viscera to skeletal muscles and the , enhancing , strength, and reaction speed while suppressing non-essential functions like . In military contexts, this response manifests as heightened vigilance and motor readiness, but the suppression of flight due to operational demands can prolong sympathetic dominance, amplifying physical strain. Concurrently, the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis provides a secondary, somewhat delayed layer of response for sustained energy mobilization, initiated by corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH) from the paraventricular nucleus of the hypothalamus, which stimulates adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) release from the anterior pituitary. ACTH then prompts cortisol secretion from the adrenal cortex, peaking within 10-30 minutes and elevating blood glucose levels via gluconeogenesis and glycogenolysis to fuel anaerobic metabolism under oxygen-limited combat conditions. Empirical data from soldiers in simulated or real operational stress reveal cortisol elevations correlating with perceived threat intensity, alongside increased blood lactate from glycolytic shifts, indicating a shift to high-intensity, short-burst exertion incompatible with prolonged aerobic demands. These neuroendocrine adaptations, while adaptive for acute threats lasting minutes, contribute to CSR when combat exposure extends beyond individual recovery thresholds, as unchecked glucocorticoid release impairs immune function and hippocampal plasticity. Autonomic imbalance further characterizes the response, with parasympathetic withdrawal exacerbating sympathetic overdrive, leading to measurable electrocardiographic changes like reduced in tactical personnel under acute duress. and biomarker studies confirm that this orchestration—rooted in and limbic circuitry—prioritizes causal threat neutralization over , explaining why CSR incidence surges in high-lethality scenarios where (e.g., blasts exceeding 140 dB) bypasses higher cortical filtering. Though generally transient and reversible upon stressor cessation, individual variability in baseline resilience modulates severity, with genetic polymorphisms in stress-related genes like influencing HPA feedback efficiency.

Neuroendocrine and Autonomic Involvement

Combat stress reaction involves rapid activation of the sympathetic branch of the , which initiates the fight-flight-freeze response to perceived life-threatening threats in combat environments. This activation increases , often spiking from baseline levels of approximately 70 beats per minute to 200-300 beats per minute within seconds, elevates , and redirects blood flow to skeletal muscles while suppressing non-essential functions like . In simulated close-quarters combat scenarios, soldiers exhibit increases of up to 125% (from 72 bpm to 162 bpm) alongside reduced metrics such as of successive differences (RMSSD), indicating sympathetic dominance and parasympathetic withdrawal. These changes prepare the body for immediate action but, if sustained, contribute to exhaustion and impaired , as evidenced by decreased standard deviation of successive differences (SDSD) from 149 ms to 73 ms during intense tactical engagements. The neuroendocrine component coordinates with autonomic responses through the sympathetic-adreno-medullary (SAM) axis, prompting adrenal medulla release of catecholamines—epinephrine and norepinephrine—which amplify sympathetic effects by enhancing arousal, glucose mobilization, and vigilance. Concurrently, the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis activates via corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH) from the hypothalamus, stimulating adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) release from the pituitary, which in turn elevates cortisol from the adrenal cortex to sustain energy availability through gluconeogenesis and anti-inflammatory modulation during prolonged stress. In military contexts, acute battle simulations show this HPA engagement alongside autonomic shifts, with sympathetic overdrive during sleep-deprived operations reducing parasympathetic tone (e.g., RMSSD drops of 27 ms mid-stress) and correlating with cognitive decrements. Dysregulation from repeated combat exposure can lead to HPA axis fatigue, though acute reactions primarily reflect adaptive hyperarousal rather than chronic pathology.

Diagnosis and Classification

Modern Diagnostic Criteria

In military medicine, combat stress reaction (CSR) lacks formal diagnostic criteria in the DSM-5, where acute responses to combat trauma are typically subsumed under Acute Stress Disorder (ASD; DSM-5 code F43.0), requiring exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence, along with at least nine symptoms from intrusion, negative mood, dissociative, avoidance, and arousal categories persisting from 3 days to 1 month post-trauma. Instead, U.S. Department of Defense policy frames CSR as a subclinical, expected physiological and psychological adaptation to extreme combat stressors, not a mental disorder, emphasizing clinical identification through symptom profiles rather than rigid thresholds to facilitate rapid return to duty. Diagnosis requires evaluation by a licensed behavioral health provider to exclude organic causes such as traumatic brain injury, exhaustion, or substance effects, with persistence beyond the acute phase (typically hours to days) prompting reassessment for ASD or posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Modern military protocols, per Combat and Operational Stress Control (COSC) guidelines, utilize two primary symptom profiles—"" (hyperarousal) and "Power Down" (shutdown)—to characterize CSR, derived from empirical observations of service members under or witnessing casualties. These profiles guide on-site , with "Power Up" manifesting as intensified sympathetic activation and "Power Down" as parasympathetic dominance or dissociation, often triggered by imminent threat. Symptoms must align with recent exposure and resolve with rest, reassurance, and proximity to unit to confirm CSR over .
ProfilePhysicalBehavioralEmotionalMentalSpeechSensorimotor
Power Up (Arousal)Increased , , respiration; sweating; dry mouth/eyes; dilated pupils; reduced Agitation, recklessness, outburstsIntense , , ; mood swingsRapid thoughts, confusion, Loud, rapid, Heightened senses, tingling, analgesia
Power Down (Shutdown)Decreased , , energy; ; shivering; constricted pupilsWithdrawal, freezing, unresponsivenessNumbness, hopelessness, detachmentSluggish , disorientation, Mumbled, hesitant, or absentSensory numbness, paralysis-like states, analgesia
This approach prioritizes functional impairment in operational context over symptom count, with DoD Instruction 6490.05 mandating surveillance and early intervention to prevent escalation, reporting CSR separately from diagnosable conditions for unit readiness tracking. Empirical data from deployments indicate 5-20% incidence rates for identifiable CSR profiles, underscoring their transient nature when managed promptly.

Historical and Evolving Assessment Methods

During , assessment of , an early term for what is now recognized as acute combat stress reactions, initially focused on physical symptoms attributed to artillery concussions, such as tremors, fatigue, and sensory impairments, with rudimentary clinical examinations by frontline physicians to differentiate from or organic injury. By 1917, the U.S. Army introduced the Psychoneurotic Inventory, a precursor to modern personality assessments, comprising 116 yes/no questions on neurotic tendencies to screen recruits for vulnerability to prior to deployment, marking the first systematic tool in military contexts. Diagnoses were categorized into hysterical manifestations, often seen in enlisted men with motor and sensory symptoms, and traumatic in officers, based on observed behavioral disorganization rather than standardized criteria, with over 80,000 British cases officially documented by war's end. In , U.S. Army assessments evolved toward operational efficiency under forward psychiatry principles, emphasizing rapid of combat exhaustion—renamed from —via symptom severity sorting: mild cases (e.g., exhaustion without panic) were rested and returned to duty within hours, while severe ones involving confusion or mutism required evacuation, informed by empirical data showing psychiatric casualties reached 40% of medical discharges. Evaluations relied on brief interviews assessing duration of exposure (typically 200-240 days cumulative combat leading to breakdown in 98% of ), physiological signs like , and behavioral indicators, prioritizing expectancy of return to function over deep probing to minimize unit disruption. methods mirrored WWII, with added emphasis on as a compounding factor in persistent cases, assessed through self-reported symptoms and peer observations amid prolonged engagements. Post-Vietnam developments integrated structured scales, evolving from ad-hoc wartime to include the Combat Exposure Scale (CES), a 7-item self-report measure quantifying wartime stressors like firefights and casualties to gauge acute reaction intensity, validated for predictive utility in military populations. By the , U.S. military guidelines formalized Combat and Operational Stress Reactions (COSR) assessment via stepped-care models: initial detection through clinical signs checklists (e.g., , withdrawal) by buddies or medics, followed by standardized interviews evaluating neuroendocrine markers indirectly via symptom clusters, with VA/DoD protocols mandating multidisciplinary input for differentiation from PTSD. Modern tools incorporate peer support for early identification and psychometric instruments like Likert-scale surveys for severity, reflecting causal recognition of cumulative stressors over purely psychological framing, though persistent challenges include underreporting due to stigma.

Prevention Measures

Pre-Deployment Screening and Selection

Pre-deployment screening and selection processes in military contexts aim to evaluate personnel's and identify risk factors for combat stress reaction (CSR), such as prior trauma exposure, history, and vulnerability to acute stress, to facilitate early interventions or role adjustments. These assessments prioritize empirical indicators of stress tolerance, including autonomic responses and cognitive adaptability under simulated pressure, over subjective self-reports alone, recognizing that self-selection biases can inflate perceived readiness. In the U.S. Army, the Deployment Health Assessment Program (DHAP) mandates pre-deployment health assessments (PDHAs) that screen for mental health concerns like anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress indicators, documenting these alongside physical readiness to mitigate deployment-related breakdowns. Tools such as the Deployment Risk and Resilience Inventory-2 (DRRI-2), comprising 17 scales measuring factors like combat exposure history and social support, are employed to quantify psychosocial risks pre-deployment, enabling targeted resilience-building before high-stress operations. Evidence on effectiveness remains mixed; while some pre-deployment evaluations correlate with reduced PTSD caseness (e.g., odds ratios of 3.21 for attention bias modification training), broad screening programs show inconsistent prevention of acute CSR, often due to baseline confounders and the inherent demands of that limit exclusionary practices. Selection for specialized high-stress roles, such as forces, incorporates rigorous resilience testing—emphasizing physiological and decision-making under duress—but attrition rates indicate that even screened personnel exhibit variable stress responses in , underscoring the need for ongoing monitoring rather than static pre-deployment gates.

Training Protocols for Resilience

Stress inoculation training (SIT) constitutes a core protocol for fostering resilience to combat stress reaction, involving graduated exposure to simulated high-stress environments to habituate personnel to physiological and psychological arousal without inducing breakdown. Developed originally by Donald Meichenbaum in the 1970s and adapted for military contexts, SIT progresses through three phases: conceptualization (education on stress responses), skill acquisition (techniques like breathing control and ), and application (realistic drills such as drown-proofing or live-fire exercises under ). In the U.S. Air Force Reserve Command, SIT integrates into scenarios mimicking peer threats, emphasizing the "5-C's" of character, competence, and cohesion to align training with operational demands as of 2024. Empirical evaluations indicate SIT reduces acute stress symptoms in tactical settings, with one study of combat medics showing diminished negative reactions post-exposure. The U.S. Army's Master Resilience Training (MRT), implemented since 2009 as part of broader resilience initiatives, equips non-commissioned officers via a 10-day course to disseminate skills addressing emotional, mental, and social domains. MRT targets six competencies—self-awareness, self-regulation, , mental agility, character strengths, and relationship reinforcement—through evidence-based modules like goal-setting and avoiding the "victim mentality." A 2022 review of military resilience programs found MRT and similar interventions associated with modest reductions in rates among deployed personnel, though long-term efficacy varies by implementation fidelity. Leaders apply MRT by integrating weekly resilience huddles and drills, such as tactical breathing during physical conditioning, to preempt combat stress escalation. Physiological resilience protocols complement psychological ones, emphasizing aerobic and to modulate the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and autonomic responses under duress. Military guidelines recommend 150 minutes of moderate cardio weekly alongside resistance exercises, as these attenuate spikes and enhance recovery from acute stressors. Integrated approaches, such as combining SIT with for focus under fatigue, have demonstrated improved performance in randomized trials of over 4,000 , yielding lower stress-related impairments post-deployment. Despite these findings, critics note that while short-term gains in resilience metrics occur, broader programs like Comprehensive Soldier Fitness faced methodological challenges in proving for reduced stress reactions.

Fostering Unit Cohesion and Leadership

Strong , characterized by mutual trust, shared commitment, and emotional bonds among members, serves as a critical buffer against combat stress reaction (CSR) by enhancing collective resilience and reducing isolation during high-stress operations. Empirical studies of U.S. military personnel deployed to and have demonstrated that higher perceived unit cohesion prospectively predicts lower (PTSD) symptoms and depressive outcomes post-deployment, with cohesion mitigating the psychological impact of combat exposure. A VA analysis of nearly 800 and Reserve troops further found that soldiers reporting elevated unit cohesion levels exhibited greater resiliency to disruptions following combat. These associations hold independently of traumatic exposure intensity, underscoring cohesion's role in fostering adaptive mechanisms that prevent acute stress breakdowns. Effective is instrumental in cultivating this cohesion, as leaders who prioritize subordinate welfare, maintain clear communication, and demonstrate competence in adversity directly contribute to lower CSR incidence. U.S. Army Field Manual 22-51, Leaders' Manual for Combat Stress Control (1994), emphasizes that small-unit leaders' skills and genuine concern for soldiers' well-being significantly influence battle prevention, with cohesive units under such experiencing fewer psychiatric casualties. Historical analyses, including those from and subsequent conflicts, affirm that fostering horizontal bonds (peer-to-peer) alongside vertical trust (leader-subordinate) amplifies combat effectiveness and stress tolerance, as cohesive teams better manage through mutual support. In practice, leaders implement this by enforcing equitable standards, rotating high-risk duties, and integrating team-building exercises in pre-deployment training to simulate stressors while reinforcing group interdependence. Military doctrines advocate proactive cohesion-building to preempt CSR, such as the U.S. Army's initiatives to develop unit bonds prior to wartime hardships, recognizing that ad-hoc cohesion alone proves insufficient against prolonged exposure. Leaders trained in resilience protocols, including those outlined in FM 22-51's battle fatigue chapter, monitor morale indicators and intervene early by addressing grievances, ensuring fair resource distribution, and modeling endurance, which collectively sustain unit performance and minimize stress-induced breakdowns. Quantitatively, units with robust leadership-driven cohesion report up to 20-30% reductions in post-combat referrals compared to fragmented groups, highlighting the causal link between deliberate fostering efforts and operational sustainability.

Treatment Protocols

Principles of Forward Psychiatry (PIE and BICEPS)

Forward psychiatry, a doctrinal approach in , prioritizes the treatment of combat stress reactions (CSR) as close as possible to the battlefield to preserve , minimize evacuations, and promote rapid return to duty, thereby reducing the incidence of chronic psychiatric disorders. Developed during based on observations from earlier conflicts, it contrasts with rear-area hospitalization, which was found to exacerbate symptoms through separation from comrades and reinforcement of invalidism. Empirical data from British forces in 1940-1945 showed that applying these principles lowered psychiatric casualty rates from over 50% of non-mortal casualties in to under 10% in some theaters, attributing success to avoiding prolonged removal from combat environments. The foundational mnemonic PIE encapsulates three interlocking principles: Proximity, treating affected personnel at or near the front lines to maintain familiarity with their unit and operational context; Immediacy, initiating intervention without delay, often within hours of symptom onset to interrupt the acute stress cycle; and Expectancy, fostering a clinical expectation of full recovery and swift reintegration, communicated explicitly to the individual to leverage psychological suggestion and reduce demoralization. These were formalized post-World War II, drawing from field trials where proximity reduced desertion-like behaviors by keeping soldiers with peers, immediacy prevented symptom entrenchment as seen in delayed cases, and expectancy correlated with return-to-duty rates exceeding 70% in acute CSR presentations. Israeli military applications during the further validated PIE, with studies reporting 50-60% immediate return rates when combined with group support, versus lower outcomes in evacuation scenarios. Subsequent refinements expanded PIE into BICEPS, incorporating additional elements to address operational constraints: Brevity limits interventions to 1-3 days of rest and basic stabilization, avoiding extended therapy that could signal permanence; Immediacy and Expectancy retain their PIE roles; Centrality designates treatment at forward aid stations serving multiple units for efficient resource use and peer normalization; Proximity ensures minimal geographic separation; and Simplicity employs straightforward measures like sleep, nutrition, reassurance, and light duty over pharmacological or psychoanalytic methods. U.S. Army doctrine in the 1990s Gulf War era adopted BICEPS, yielding data from combat stress control units showing over 80% return-to-duty within 72 hours for non-organic CSR, with centrality aiding in collective debriefing to dispel myths of inevitability. Malaysian forces in 2022 case series reported similar efficacy, evolving from PIE to BICEPS for brevity in high-tempo operations, though long-term follow-up emphasized monitoring for relapse risks. Application of and prioritizes non-medical causes of CSR—such as fatigue, fear, and loss—over predisposing vulnerabilities, using to differentiate reversible exhaustion from organic injury or . Leaders are integral, enforcing expectancy through commands like "rest and return," as evidenced in divisional records where unit commanders' involvement doubled recovery rates compared to isolated medical handling. While effective in acute phases, critiques note variability in high-casualty scenarios, where proximity risks secondary traumatization, underscoring the need for trained psychiatric assets forward-deployed.

Acute On-Site Interventions

Acute on-site interventions for combat stress reaction (CSR) prioritize rapid stabilization to restore function and facilitate return to duty, typically occurring at or near the point of under forward principles. These interventions emphasize physiological restoration through rest, hydration, nutrition, and alleviation, as untreated exhaustion exacerbates symptoms like confusion, tremors, and dissociation. Medics or trained peers conduct immediate to differentiate CSR from physical or , ensuring safety and ruling out organic causes via basic neurological checks. Behavioral techniques form the core of non-pharmacological management, including reassurance that symptoms are normal adaptive responses to extreme stress and expectancy of quick recovery, which counters demoralization and fosters resilience. Psychological involves normalizing reactions, validating experiences without pathologizing, and encouraging through buddy aid or unit reintegration discussions to maintain social bonds. Graduated exposure to low-threat activities, such as light duties or familiar routines, aids desensitization while avoiding prolonged removal from the unit, as evacuation to rear echelons historically increased chronicity risks. In and applications, such proximity-based rest and reassurance yielded return-to-duty rates of approximately 50-70% within 72 hours, outperforming rear-area hospitalizations. Pharmacological options are reserved for severe cases unresponsive to initial measures, with short-acting sedatives like administered judiciously to interrupt acute or , though evidence cautions against routine use due to dependency risks and impaired . Emerging peer-led protocols, such as ReSTART , equip non-medical personnel to deliver structured and grounding exercises on-site, showing feasibility in reducing symptom persistence in controlled settings. Monitoring for resolution occurs over 24-48 hours, with persistent symptoms prompting escalation to specialized care, prioritizing empirical recovery markers like symptom abatement over subjective reports to mitigate over-diagnosis concerns.
Intervention ComponentDescriptionEvidence-Based Outcome
Physiological SupportRest, fluids, mealsRapid symptom reduction in 80% of mild cases
Reassurance and ExpectancyVerbal normalization of stress responseEnhanced morale and 60%+ return to duty
Peer/Buddy AidUnit-based emotional supportDecreased isolation, faster reintegration
Limited MedicationSedatives for refractory agitationShort-term efficacy but risks dependency

Rehabilitation and Follow-Up Care

Rehabilitation for combat stress reaction (CSR) casualties typically follows acute stabilization and involves structured programs at division or corps-level restoration centers, emphasizing rapid restoration of physical, psychological, and operational functioning to facilitate return to duty. These programs, lasting 4 to 21 days depending on symptom severity, incorporate replenishment through , , hydration, and ; physical activities to rebuild stamina; therapeutic interventions such as group debriefings, emotional ventilation, and professional reassurance; and military retraining to restore combat skills and . The approach prioritizes proximity to the front lines to minimize evacuation, which historical data indicate improves recovery rates, with 50-85% of casualties returning to duty within 1-3 days when treated forward and 10-40% within 1-2 weeks at reconditioning facilities. Follow-up care post-rehabilitation includes reassessment within 4 days of initial intervention, with ongoing monitoring by unit leaders, primary care providers, or mental health specialists to detect symptom recurrence or progression to chronic conditions like posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Common patterns involve either direct psychiatric evaluation with periodic follow-ups or initial psychiatrist-prescribed medications (e.g., short-course SSRIs or sleep aids) managed via primary care teleconsultation, tailored to operational demands and access. Long-term outcomes from frontline rehabilitation demonstrate effectiveness, with a 20-year study of 1982 Lebanon War veterans showing treated CSR casualties had PTSD rates of 30.4% compared to 41.0% for those receiving rear-echelon care, alongside reduced psychiatric symptoms and improved social functioning, particularly when multiple principles like proximity, immediacy, and expectancy were applied. Screening for high-risk factors—such as persistent hyperarousal or lack of social support—guides escalated interventions like brief cognitive-behavioral therapy to prevent chronicity.

Prognosis

Short-Term Recovery and Return to Duty

Short-term recovery from combat stress reaction (CSR) prioritizes rapid stabilization and reintegration into duty through forward principles, such as Proximity, Immediacy, and Expectancy (), which were developed during and refined in subsequent conflicts to treat acute reactions near the front lines without unnecessary evacuation. These principles evolved into the framework—Brevity, Immediacy, Centrality (or Contact), Expectancy, Proximity, and Simplicity—emphasizing brief, simple interventions close to the unit to restore physiological and psychological function quickly. The core aim is to achieve return to duty (RTD) rates of 50-85% within 1-3 days for most cases through "hold and refer" strategies, where soldiers receive initial care and are monitored for improvement before reassignment. Interventions focus on physiological first aid to address exhaustion, the primary driver of CSR, including enforced , hot meals, hydration, , and limited use of only if essential, avoiding prolonged that could impair function. Psychological support involves reassurance from leaders and peers, framing symptoms as transient combat fatigue rather than illness, and fostering expectancy of full recovery to combat demoralization; group discussions or individual counseling may reinforce without pathologizing the reaction. Treatment occurs in centralized forward areas, such as battalion aid stations, to maintain proximity to the soldier's unit and minimize separation anxiety, with simplicity ensuring non-specialist medics can implement care effectively. Historical data indicate these methods yielded RTD rates of 40-80% within a week during , with one analysis of 500 psychiatric casualties reporting 70% reintegration, though success depended on operational tempo and symptom severity. In the 1982 conflict, forward treatment achieved higher RTD compared to rear echelons, supporting the principles' efficacy in reducing attrition. However, while short-term recovery often succeeds for mild cases, severe CSR may result in reassignment to support roles rather than direct combat, and acute reactions predict elevated PTSD risk at 1-20 years post-event, underscoring the need for follow-up despite initial RTD. Vietnam-era applications showed variable outcomes, with deviations from immediacy linked to lower effectiveness, highlighting adherence to principles as causal to success.

Long-Term Outcomes and Chronic Risk Factors

Individuals experiencing combat stress reaction (CSR) face elevated risks of developing chronic (PTSD), with longitudinal data indicating that CSR casualties have 6.6 times higher odds of uninterrupted PTSD symptoms over 20 years compared to veterans without CSR. This progression is linked to the intensity of acute symptoms, where severe manifestations during CSR correlate with persistent neuropsychiatric disorders years later. Beyond PTSD, long-term outcomes include heightened depressive symptoms, particularly among those exposed to high-intensity combat environments, and increased somatic complaints alongside poorer general health. CSR also contributes to elevated mortality risks and chronic physical ailments, as evidenced by studies of veterans showing wartime stress as a predictor of earlier , independent of injury severity. Service members with CSR report more chronic diseases, risky health behaviors, and functional impairments persisting beyond the acute phase, with peak mental health deterioration often occurring within the first three years post-exposure. Key chronic risk factors include greater combat exposure intensity, such as discharging weapons, witnessing fatalities or injuries, and sustaining physical trauma or , which amplify PTSD likelihood by disrupting neural processing of threats long-term. Individual vulnerabilities, including pre-deployment personality traits like , lower unit support, and delayed or insufficient early interventions, further predict chronicity by hindering symptom resolution. Multiple deployments or prolonged exposure exacerbate these risks, as does proximity to blasts or assaults, leading to sustained hyperarousal and avoidance patterns. In contrast, robust social reintegration and resilience training mitigate progression to chronic states.

Controversies

Debates on Malingering and Over-Diagnosis

Debates persist regarding the extent to which some reported cases of combat stress reaction (CSR) involve , defined as the intentional production of false or exaggerated symptoms for external incentives such as avoidance of combat duty or expedited discharge. Historical psychiatry has long recognized this risk, with World War II-era assessments using pharmacological challenges like intravenous sodium amytal to differentiate genuine from malingering, where malingerers typically resisted therapeutic relaxation. estimates in settings range from 5% among personnel seeking evaluation to higher rates of 5-25% in contexts of compulsory service, where incentives to feign acute distress—such as reactions mimicking CSR—to evade deployment or are pronounced. Acute distress malingering, distinct from chronic feigning for compensation, often manifests in high-stakes operational environments as adaptive deception to secure immediate relief from stressors, complicating frontline differentiation from authentic CSR. protocols, such as those emphasizing rapid return-to-duty under forward psychiatry principles, implicitly address this by minimizing secondary gains like psychiatric evacuation, which could otherwise encourage symptom exaggeration. Studies indicate that over 80% of documented encounters in active-duty personnel involve isolated incidents, predominantly classified as such without progression to chronic claims. Critics argue that over-diagnosis of CSR arises from heightened awareness and lowered diagnostic thresholds, potentially pathologizing transient combat fatigue as requiring intervention, which dilutes focus on resilience and unit effectiveness. This concern echoes broader psychiatric , where explanatory models distinguish genuine delayed symptom reporting from incentivized over-reporting, particularly when tied to lucrative outcomes post-service. Empirical detection challenges persist, as no single exists, relying instead on multimodal assessments like inconsistent symptom presentation or failure to respond to expectancy-minimizing interventions. Such debates underscore the tension between compassionate and preserving operational integrity, with evidence suggesting that unaddressed erodes trust in psychiatric evaluations.

Effects on Military Readiness and Effectiveness

Combat stress reactions (CSRs) directly diminish military readiness by rendering affected personnel temporarily or prolonged ineffective for duty, thereby eroding and operational capacity. Severe CSRs impair cognitive functions such as , , and vigilance, leading to reduced performance and increased vulnerability to errors or enemy action. In unit-level dynamics, even a modest incidence of CSRs can cascade into lowered , in maneuvers, and disrupted command structures, as unaffected members divert resources to support or evacuate comrades. Historical data underscores the scale of this impact. During , over 504,000 U.S. troops were lost to combat fatigue, equivalent to a substantial fraction of total non-battle casualties and necessitating extensive medical interventions to sustain frontline strength. Psychiatric casualties accounted for approximately 12-23% of all evacuations in U.S. forces across major conflicts including WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, often exceeding physical wounds in prolonged engagements and straining logistical chains for treatment and replacement. In the , acute stress reactions affected up to one-third of exposed troops, correlating with higher rates of unit attrition during sustained offensives. These losses compound broader readiness challenges, including delayed reinforcements and elevated training demands to backfill experienced personnel. Empirical analyses from interwar comparisons reveal that psychiatric breakdowns rise exponentially with exposure duration, potentially halving effective fighting strength in units after 200-300 cumulative days of front-line service without rotation. In modern contexts, such as Operations and , untreated CSRs contributed to elevated non-deployable rates, with factors implicated in 20-30% of post-mission readiness shortfalls. Mitigation through forward has historically returned 50-70% of cases to duty, averting deeper erosions in effectiveness, though persistent cases amplify long-term personnel deficits.

Critiques of Medicalization vs. Emphasis on Resilience

Critics of the medicalization of combat stress reactions argue that framing transient responses to battlefield stressors—historically termed "battle fatigue" or "shell shock"—as chronic disorders like post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) pathologizes normal adaptive reactions, potentially fostering dependency and undermining soldiers' inherent capacity for recovery. This perspective posits that acute stress symptoms, such as fatigue, anxiety, or dissociation, often resolve spontaneously with rest and expectancy of return to duty, as evidenced by World War II forward psychiatry outcomes where 50-70% of affected troops resumed combat roles within days via principles like proximity and immediacy, without long-term labeling. In contrast, the PTSD diagnosis, formalized in the DSM-III in 1980, has expanded criteria to include indirect exposures, enabling claims for compensation without direct combat involvement, which psychiatrist Sally Satel contends dilutes the condition's severity and incentivizes symptom endorsement for benefits, as seen in a post-9/11 surge of veteran disability claims exceeding 300,000 by 2010. Proponents of resilience emphasis counter that over-reliance on medical models prioritizes pharmacological or therapeutic interventions over preventive hardening, potentially eroding and operational effectiveness by evacuating personnel prematurely rather than reintegrating them. programs like the U.S. Army's Comprehensive Soldier Fitness (CSF), launched in 2009, train over 1 million personnel in self-regulation and optimism techniques, yielding data from randomized trials showing reduced psychological symptoms and improved performance under stress, with participants reporting 15-20% lower distress levels post-training. This approach aligns with empirical observations that most exposed service members—up to 80% in some cohorts—exhibit resilience without intervention, as longitudinal studies of and veterans indicate only 10-20% develop persistent PTSD when controlling for pre-existing vulnerabilities like prior trauma. The tension highlights causal risks of iatrogenic harm from diagnostic labeling, where expectation of chronicity can prolong symptoms via effects, versus resilience-building that leverages and for faster adaptation. Satel notes that Vietnam-era PTSD prevalence estimates varied wildly from 2-98% due to surveys incentivized by benefits, underscoring how amplifies perceived prevalence over actual impairment. Resilience advocates, drawing from , argue combat stress reactions serve adaptive functions like heightened vigilance, which training enhances rather than suppresses, as demonstrated by Marine Corps Operational Stress Control programs achieving 70% return-to-duty rates for mild cases through peer-led normalization. Yet, while resilience training shows short-term efficacy, long-term critiques persist that it may overlook subgroups with genuine neurological sequelae from blast exposure, necessitating hybrid models balancing toughness with targeted care.

References

  1. https://www.health.mil/Military-Health-Topics/Centers-of-Excellence/Psychological-Health-Center-of-Excellence/Psychological-Health-Readiness/Combat-and-Operational-Stress-Control/COSRs
  2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8965216/
  3. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD1001001.pdf
  4. https://www.militaryonesource.mil/military-basics/wounded-ill-injured-and-caregivers/understanding-and-dealing-with-combat-stress-and-ptsd/
  5. https://www.army.mil/article/7977/combat_stress_and_ptsd_knowing_the_difference
  6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11057676/
  7. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bjpsych-open/article/examining-the-development-of-ptsd-symptoms-in-individuals-who-witness-acute-stress-reaction-on-the-battlefield/D1FEED21A66C9DD7459C9118B153C30D
  8. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34318331/
  9. https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/649005p.pdf
  10. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/psychology/combat-stress-reaction-csr
  11. https://warriorcare.dodlive.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2607914/combat-stress-vs-ptsd-how-to-tell-the-difference/
  12. https://www.military.com/spouse/military-life/wounded-warriors/combat-stress-symptoms.html
  13. https://www.honeylake.clinic/blog/whats-the-difference-between-combat-stress-disorder-and-ptsd/
  14. https://www.health.mil/Military-Health-Topics/Centers-of-Excellence/Psychological-Health-Center-of-Excellence/Real-Warriors-Campaign/Articles/The-Physiology-of-Combat-Stress-Reaction
  15. https://www.cuddiganlaw.com/library/combat-stress-and-ptsd.cfm
  16. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/medicine-on-the-western-front-part-two/war-office-report-on-shell-shock/
  17. https://medicalmuseum.health.mil/index.cfm?p=media.news.article.2018.shell_shock_treatment
  18. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4176276/
  19. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/06/shell-shocked
  20. https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/war-psychiatry-and-shell-shock-2-0/
  21. https://www.ptsd.va.gov/understand/what/history_ptsd.asp
  22. https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/combat-fatigue-how-stress-in-battle-was-felt-and-treated-in-wwii/
  23. https://www.pattonsbestmedics.com/combat-exhaustion/
  24. https://achh.army.mil/history/book-wwii-combatphsych-section2-2/
  25. https://accesspress.org/what-was-called-battle-fatigue-affected-world-war-ii-veterans/
  26. https://www.pbs.org/perilousfight/psychology/the_mental_toll/
  27. https://www.gulflink.osd.mil/library/randrep/marlowe_paper/mr1018_11_ch7.html
  28. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/wwii-post-traumatic-stress
  29. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231793594_Battle_exhaustion_The_dilemma_of_psychiatric_casualties_in_Normandy_June-August_1944
  30. https://achh.army.mil/history/book-wwii-combatphsych-section1-6/
  31. https://academic.oup.com/milmed/article-pdf/165/4/256/24253685/milmed-165-4-256.pdf
  32. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10556413/
  33. https://www.medhist.or.kr/journal/view.php?number=2460
  34. https://gulflink.health.mil/library/randrep/marlowe_paper/mr1018_11_ch9.html
  35. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1569621/
  36. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1024426321072
  37. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2089086/
  38. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa040603
  39. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4168809/
  40. https://www.counseling.org/docs/default-source/archived-docs/vistas/how-have-the-wars-in-iraq-and-afghanistan-impacted-the-troops.pdf?sfvrsn=403a5898_4
  41. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20088060
  42. https://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG191.html
  43. https://medcoeckapwstorprd01.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/pfw-images/dbimages/Chap6_final2.pdf
  44. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2054270417746061
  45. https://journals.lww.com/mhhb/fulltext/2015/20020/_shell_shock___an_entity_that_predated.10.aspx
  46. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3181586/
  47. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10822695/
  48. https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/pn.38.10.0020
  49. https://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/General/FromShellshockToPtsd
  50. https://www.publichealth.va.gov/epidemiology/studies/new-generation/ptsd.asp
  51. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/22-51/22-51_e.htm
  52. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2020430118
  53. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4368749/
  54. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK541120/
  55. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10779181/
  56. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8834678/
  57. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5964013/
  58. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9780143/
  59. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK278995/
  60. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.925157/full
  61. https://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/treat/essentials/acute_stress_disorder.asp
  62. https://www.health.mil/Reference-Center/Publications/2021/03/30/Clinical-Signs-and-Symptoms-Profiles-Associated-With-Combat-Stress-Reactions
  63. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/first-personality-test-was-developed-during-world-war-i-180973192/
  64. http://roadstothegreatwar-ww1.blogspot.com/2024/03/they-called-it-shell-shock-combat.html
  65. https://www.westernfrontassociation.com/world-war-i-articles/discuss-the-psychological-effects-of-the-great-war-on-soldiers-and-how-medical-professionals-attempted-to-treat-shell-shock/
  66. https://medcoeckapwstorprd01.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/pfw-images/borden/war-psychiatry/WarPsychChapter02.pdf
  67. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6188425/
  68. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3363186/
  69. https://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/assessment/te-measures/ces.asp
  70. https://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/articles/article-pdf/id88356.pdf
  71. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8589682/
  72. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35866414/
  73. https://www.armyresilience.army.mil/ard/r2/Deployment-Health-Assessment-Program.html
  74. https://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/assessment/deployment/index.asp
  75. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD013242.pub2/full
  76. https://www.health.mil/Military-Health-Topics/Centers-of-Excellence/Psychological-Health-Center-of-Excellence/Real-Warriors-Campaign/Articles/Stress-Reduction-Techniques-for-High-Stress-Operations
  77. https://operationalsupport.un.org/sites/default/files/report_on_ptsd_prevention_0.pdf
  78. https://www.nsca.com/education/articles/tsac-report/stress-inoculation-training-in-tactical-strength-and-conditioning/
  79. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR750.html
  80. https://www.afrc.af.mil/News/Features/Display/Article/3764178/afrc-increases-realism-by-adding-stress-inoculation-to-training-scenarios/
  81. https://interactivemediainstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/CR-42.pdf
  82. https://ppc.sas.upenn.edu/sites/default/files/mrtinarmyjan2011.pdf
  83. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11057578/
  84. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/NCO-Journal/Archives/2020/September/The-Leaders-Guide-to-Building-Resilient-Soldiers/
  85. https://press.armywarcollege.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2838&context=parameters
  86. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11202720/
  87. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/dangerous-ideas/201206/the-army-s-flawed-resilience-training-study-call-retraction
  88. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7058190/
  89. https://www.research.va.gov/currents/summer2014/summer2014-27.cfm
  90. https://academic.oup.com/occmed/article/66/4/308/1752575
  91. https://www.patriotoutreach.org/docs/FM_22-2.pdf
  92. https://www.army.mil/article/238001/fostering_unit_cohesion_new_strategies_to_build_community
  93. https://medcoeckapwstorprd01.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/pfw-images/borden/military-psychiatry/MPch1.pdf
  94. https://www.patriotoutreach.org/fm_22-51_ch5.html
  95. https://poole.ncsu.edu/thought-leadership/article/study-finds-that-unit-cohesion-may-mitigate-mental-health-issues-from-combat-exposure/
  96. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12895024/
  97. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10632292_Forward_psychiatry_in_the_military_Its_origins_and_effectiveness
  98. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG191.pdf
  99. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.7249/mg191a.13.pdf
  100. https://armymedical.tpub.com/MD0549/Principles-of-Treatment-Psychosocial-Issues-24.htm
  101. https://media.defense.gov/1996/Feb/29/2001715252/-1/-1/1/96-079.pdf
  102. https://www.aseanjournalofpsychiatry.org/articles/the-application-of-forward-psychiatry-among-malaysian-soldiers-on-battlefield-case-series.pdf
  103. https://sk.sagepub.com/ency/edvol/download/war/chpt/psychiatry-military.pdf
  104. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8086390/
  105. https://www.healthquality.va.gov/guidelines/MH/ptsd/PTSD-Line-Leaders_508.pdf
  106. https://medcoeckapwstorprd01.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/pfw-images/dbimages/Fund%2520ch%252037.pdf
  107. https://medcoeckapwstorprd01.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/pfw-images/dbimages/chap7_final2.pdf
  108. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/20008066.2024.2400011
  109. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11503197/
  110. https://academic.oup.com/milmed/article-abstract/185/3-4/356/5625993
  111. https://medcoeckapwstorprd01.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/pfw-images/dbimages/Fund%20ch%2037.pdf
  112. https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.ajp.162.12.2309
  113. https://academic.oup.com/milmed/article/182/7/e1755/4158555
  114. https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2006.090910
  115. https://americansoldierww2.org/topics/medical-care-and-mental-health
  116. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17094817/
  117. https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/ajp.150.7.1000
  118. https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/ajp.2006.163.4.659
  119. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0887618588900199
  120. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953623008109
  121. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277953605000602
  122. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2378023118813017
  123. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8119815/
  124. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0120270
  125. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-022-02241-0
  126. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772632023000739
  127. https://www.ptsd.va.gov/understand/types/combat_exposure.asp
  128. https://jaapl.org/content/early/2022/04/25/jaapl.210068-21
  129. https://achh.army.mil/history/book-wwii-combatphsych-section1-3/
  130. https://academic.oup.com/milmed/article/178/1/50/4210902
  131. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303867412_General_practitioners%27_approach_to_malingering_in_basic_military_training_centres
  132. https://jaapl.org/content/50/2/194
  133. https://jaapl.org/content/early/2022/04/27/JAAPL.210160-21
  134. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23927062/
  135. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4382135/
  136. https://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?pid=S1887-85712019000300143&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en
  137. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11230035/
  138. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12101757_Psychiatric_battle_casualties_An_intra-_and_interwar_comparison
  139. https://www.gulflink.osd.mil/library/randrep/marlowe_paper/mr1018_11_sum.html
  140. https://www.simonwessely.com/Downloads/Publications/History/8.pdf
  141. https://mentalillnesspolicy.org/mentalhealth/ptsd-mentally-ill.html
  142. https://www.antioch.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/1.-Do-the-Militarys-Frontline-Psychiatry_Combat-and-Operational...Part-One_Framing-the-Issue-by-Russell_-Figley.pdf
  143. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704913304575371130876271708
  144. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1536504215609300
  145. https://psycnet.apa.org/doilanding?doi=10.1037%252Fa0021420
  146. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08995605.2022.2139948
  147. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4142015/
  148. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12171028/
  149. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR500/RR562/RAND_RR562.pdf
  150. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11920-022-01335-2
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.