Would they have carried out their sealed orders? (Killed people known to them)

[CART Web Monitor]

David Blair responds first with;

"After the initial invasion and a start of occupation, then witnessing the brutal regime executing patrol members as they found them or hanged along road sides as an example as  well as in the village square to a forced audience, I'm more than sure some would take revenge on quislings or others who were part of the killing order. War is brutal and brings out a darker side of  man. Some would deal with it as easily as killing livestock, its dead meat once all life is out of it, the process its done by is a different matter, if they were up close and could feel the struggle and fight a person puts up when they know they are about to die, then it is a brutal and very violent act and over fairly quickly. So, a tentative yes to that question, but i don't think it would have been a universal task.. I know of some who would have relished the task......:)"

[Evelyn Simak]

Well, in some of the material published on the Internet, some of the interviewed patrol members say that they would have carried out their sealed orders.  

[CART Web Monitor]

CART's Weapon Adviser, Richard Ashley adds;

Yes. Without doubt. Having spoken to several veterans about this, any breach of security because of loose tongues after a couple of pints, teachers who might be able to tell who might make likely candidates for the Aux-Units, policemen as they showed only too well in the Channel Islands, seemingly cared little about who paid them, Whitehall or Berlin ? Yes, they would have worked their way down the list on their sealed orders without a problem. Their .22" rifles especially if fitted with either moderators or silencers would have been amply suitable for the job. Of course in many instances, knocking on the door followed by pushing the muzzle against those listed and pulling the trigger would have muffled most noise and if that wasn't a possibility, sniping their target would have had to be the other option. It is said that .22" bullets have killed more folk than any other calibre. At what time in history this statement was made, I know not. However, against someone not expecting to be shot, the .22" does a very good job providing a vital bit of the body is hit. After all, a cigarette paper bigger in diameter i.e. .223" has been fired out of L85's (SA80), a truly dreadful rifle system and M16 Armalites, slow rifling twist therefore unstable bullet that tumble sideways generally far better, for years. Yes I'm sure, that .22" rifle in Aux-Unit hands would have done the job well and yes, orders would certainly have been obeyed, whoever it was.

[Andy EY]

I can personally vouch for the .22 calibre. In my day just before the SA80 came out we used the legendary SLR 7.62mm and as part of the of the Regimental Shooting Team we practised with the Heckler and Koch .22 conversion for the SLR and in that form it was a remarkable weapon, couple that with a set of scopes and I would have no qualms about taking into a battlefield setting.