Hand-to-hand in combat

[Presley Cannady]

The gunfighter is the spear tip of the modern infantry, but I'm curious as to how (in)frequently the fight pushes to close quarters. Looking at the casualty statistics for Iraq, it's obvious that deaths and wounds resulting from firefights and explosions vastly predominate, but I'm not sure if this tells me all I'd like to know about how often hand-to-hand is used to settle accounts on the field.

[William F. Owen]

The gunfighter is the spear tip of the modern infantry, but I'm curious as to how (in)frequently the fight pushes to close quarters. Looking at the casualty statistics for Iraq, it's obvious that deaths and wounds resulting from firefights and explosions vastly predominate, but I'm not sure if this tells me all I'd like to know about how often hand-to-hand is used to settle accounts on the field.

I can tell you from my own research on this matter that Hand-to-hand combat is largely a myth. Does it take place? Yes, but so rarely that it is of no training or doctrinal importance. The vast majority of training associated with Hand-to-Hand is emotionally based and used to build confidence.

A great many modern accounts of so called hand-to-hand are usually over dramatised or even fabricated. Paddy Griffith's and Rory Muir's work show quite clearly that bayonet fighting (as opposed to charging) was very rare in both the Napoleonic and US Civil Wars.

[Timothy OConnor]

The following two books provide descriptions of hand-to-hand/CQB in Iraq. They won't provide stats on frequency but are certainly detailed.

Of the two I found House to House far more compelling and it includes a detailed description of literal hand-to-hand combat in Iraq (not only CQB w/firearms but a harrowing knife fight).

My Men Are My Heroes
http://www.amazon.com/My-Men-Are-Heroes-Kasal/dp/0696232367

House to House
http://www.amazon.com/House-David-Bellavia/dp/1416574719

[selil]

I can tell you from my own research on this matter that Hand-to-hand combat is largely a myth. Does it take place? Yes, but so rarely that it is of no training or doctrinal importance. The vast majority of training associated with Hand-to-Hand is emotionally based and used to build confidence.

A great many modern accounts of so called hand-to-hand are usually over dramatised or even fabricated. Paddy Griffith's and Rory Muir's work show quite clearly that bayonet fighting (as opposed to charging) was very rare in both the Napoleonic and US Civil Wars.

The only place that I have found hand to hand combat truly exists as a daily part of life is in the corrections world. Rarely considered by law enforcement as true policing the county jail system and especially intake can often result in hand to hand combat between officers who are unarmed and different levels of armed assailants (be nice if those street officers removed the weapons). Having worked both sides of the booking counter the jail side is incredibly violent. Sorry if it is outside the scope of the discussion, but corrections is a valid example.

[William F. Owen]

The following two books provide descriptions of hand-to-hand/CQB in Iraq.

Hand-to-hand and CQB are two different types of action.

Hand-to-hand is the attempted use of lethal force, within arms reach, with or without firearms. It is very rare, and even more so, as part of planned action.

CQB is merely the close application of fire arms or hand thrown and projected HE. Generally characterised at under 25m and engagement windows of 2-5 seconds. This does occur on a regular enough basis that it requires training.

[William F. Owen]

The only place that I have found hand to hand combat truly exists as a daily part of life is in the corrections world. Rarely considered by law enforcement as true policing the county jail system and especially intake can often result in hand to hand combat between officers who are unarmed and different levels of armed assailants (be nice if those street officers removed the weapons). Having worked both sides of the booking counter the jail side is incredibly violent. Sorry if it is outside the scope of the discussion, but corrections is a valid example.

This is somewhat of a special case, as you concede. It is worth noting that this example is a confluence of circumstances that do not normally occur as part of operations. - However it does support one of my basic beliefs that there is some need for arrest and restraint training, and some equipment, to be given to soldiers, when dealing with civilians who require less than lethal use of force to be used against them.

[Ken White]

I've been involved in four such actions, all on a small but deadly scale and have witnessed two involving a fairly large number of combatants on both sides with bayonets and rifle butts as well as hands and feet. I know of half a dozen others involving various numbers from reliable sources.

As mentioned, aside from those incidents, I've been involved in or witnessed dozens of detainee or PW dustups where physical means had to be used to effect the capture or transport. As Wilf says, that is not hand to hand combat but it does require some training. Have a Son who is an in-service training Officer in a mid size police department and his defensive tactics classes are oriented to not using excessive force...

The hand to hand action in military combat is very much type of unit and operation dependent, no question -- but given bad circumstances it can involve anyone who serves and it is a facet of training wherein the psychological benefit to those trained is very beneficial and the skills gained are generally dire emergency items one hopes will not be used. Most will not use those skills; the few who have to will be glad they have them...;)

An interesting aside on this is that the current batch of 18-20 year olds in the US generally has little experience of physical contact (to include sports) and tend to be contact averse, this has caused not only the Armed forces but the Police to have to strengthen their combatives training just to counter this trend.

[selil]

This is somewhat of a special case, as you concede. It is worth noting that this example is a confluence of circumstances that do not normally occur as part of operations. - However it does support one of my basic beliefs that there is some need for arrest and restraint training, and some equipment, to be given to soldiers, when dealing with civilians who require less than lethal use of force to be used against them.

Part of my thoughts in posting was that full spectrum operations (going back to LIC) include law enforcement activities and replacement in theater of indigenous law enforcement by military personnel (and not always by military police). Within full spectrum (over used hyperbole) operations I imagine training in corrections topics might be necessary. Considering that most operations appear to occur in highly centralized authoritarian states with minimal resources I can perceive a need for training and replacement activities as humanitarian and stability operations.

[selil]

An interesting aside on this is that the current batch of 18-20 year olds in the US generally has little experience of physical contact (to include sports) and tend to be contact averse, this has caused not only the Armed forces but the Police to have to strengthen their combatives training just to counter this trend.

When I went to the police academy (corrections) in Washington State I had been through Army basic training (1983) and Marine Corps Boot Camp (1984). The hand to hand combat training was much more intense in the civilian world. Almost every student in residence had formal martial arts training. This was 1987-8 though (so right at two decades distant).

From 1987 to 1993 I saw a transition from hand-to-hand to chemical reactants and "communications skills". The changing flavor was mirrored in patrol tactics as "cover and contact officer safety" and other techniques became more common place and distance for contact seemed to increase.

The changes that seem to have occurred are intriguing. Maybe I should go back and try Q school or boot again. I'm not THAT old... just fat. It would be interesting to see the differences between then and now.

[Global Scout]

With all due respect to William Owen I don't think your research would stand up to reality. I have been involved in two hand to hand incidents in OIF, but admittedly in both cases I could have shot the enemy and have been within the ROE, but preferred not to excalate to that level in those situations.

I had a peer kill an enemy fighter in hand to hand combat after he scaled a roof and was immediate attacked by an Iraqi whose weapon jammed, there was no time for him to get his weapon ready before they were in a stand up grappling match. There was a documented case of a SF Team Sergeant in 5th Group who killed an enemy combatant in Afghanistan after a tough struggle using combatives in a building after his weapon jammed. He received a Silver Star for his actions. Of course there was the well known case when a famous military blogger captured a Stryker Bn Cdr getting shot, and then his CSM engaged in a fatal hand to hand to fight with the assailant.

The value of bayonet fighting has only been degraded in value due to the M4 rifle. That doesn't mean you still can't jam your rifle barrel into someone's throat, or deliver one hell of head butt with a kevlar helmet. My experience indicates that a situation can get out of control quick, and some basic combative skills can be very useful.

If the book "We were Soldiers once and young" is credible, and I believe it based on the character of the authors they experienced plenty of hand to hand combat in that hard fought battle. The stories of hand to hand combat in Korea are legend. Oli Mais (sp?) received a Medal of Honor for killing 11 north Koreans with an e-tool.

It is ugly fighting, nothing fancy, just scared men fighting for survival. I question a lot of the training programs I see today, especially the ones that emphasize ground fighting as though they are going to fight in the Octagon, but that is another discussion for another day.

[Distiller]

OT, but: I remember that stocky elderly Austrian comedian, always playing the crafty schlimazel in theatre and in trivial movies. Then I saw an interview once with him, and the interviewer mentioned that this guy had the Nahkampfspange in Gold (given by the Wehrmacht for surviving 50 days or more in hand-to-hand combat, and only awarded 633 times, in this particular case for action on the Eastern Front). The stocky old fellow said, yeah but that was when he was young and dumb, and what should you do when the Ivan comes after you, but he doesn't talk about it, he said.

Shows you can never tell who excels in CQC just by looking at them.
Anyway, CQC was quite common on the Eastern Front.

[slapout9]

Presely, if you can find a copy of it read "Bayonet Battle" by Tim Ripley. he investigated the use of the bayonet from the first use all the way through to the Falklands War where it was used a good bit during trench clearing. We used to receive H2H as part of our Civil Disturbance training in the 82nd although it was confined to use of the Riot Baton and some come a long holds...it was used a fair amount in the Platoon Bays:D:D

H2H still has it's place IMHO although the new Army style looks more like it belongs on that Queer Eye Guy TV show. With a few exceptions everything you ever wanted to know was figured out by Fairbairn and Applegate a long time ago...it worked then and it works now.

When I started in LE in the late 1970's the 3 most useful techniques were the straight arm bar takedown, wrist lock takedown, and the Hippie Hair head take down:eek: cant use the last one anymore...wouldn't want to violate anyones civil rights. If that didn't work it was usually spit in his face and kick him in the ba.......! The old Baton choke out was good too but you cant do that anymore either geez glad I am retired.

[William F. Owen]

With all due respect to William Owen I don't think your research would stand up to reality. I have been involved in two hand to hand incidents in OIF, but admittedly in both cases I could have shot the enemy and have been within the ROE, but preferred not to excalate to that level in those situations.

And with equal and due respect, I submit that you have either missed my point or I did not make myself sufficiently clear.

A.) Hand-to-Hand combat DOES occur. I am not denying it, but what percentage of Iraqi/Afghan insurgents are killed by US soldiers wielding edged weapons (bayonets/E-tools) or by naked human hands? I would be amazed if it was greater than 0.5%, and more likely 0.1%. This is not a percentage that could or should influence training regimes.

B.) Yes, everyone can cite examples of where hand-to-hand combat has occurred, but they are a vastly minute percentage of the overall number of lethal engagements. More over, because of their dramatic nature, hand to hand combat occurrences tended to get cited in isolation.

C.) To this end, the idea that you need to train men how to kill with e-tools or bayonets is not valid. Those who succeed in doing so, would do so, with or without training.

D.) That is not to say, that you can't usefully instruct soldiers in techniques useful in physical confrontations, in the same way the Police do. - except instead of slapping on the cuffs, you shoot him in the head - in line with the theatre ROE, of course!

The original question posed by Presley Cannady was: "how often hand-to-hand is used to settle accounts on the field."

If more than 1 in 100 infantrymen in Iraq, have had to kill the enemy by hand or using hand held methods (other than firearms) then I suggest this is where some attention might be usefully focussed.

[William F. Owen]

Presely, if you can find a copy of it read "Bayonet Battle" by Tim Ripley. he investigated the use of the bayonet from the first use all the way through to the Falklands War where it was used a good bit during trench clearing.

I know Tim and have a signed copy of his book, which I spend a fair amount of time teasing him about! Tim had to go and read all the CMH and VC citations to get most of his info. He also failed to differentiate between using the "bayonet to kill", and "fighting with a bayonet". EG: In WW1 Bayonets were routinely used to kill the wounded or to confirm death as a result of killing by firearms or grenades. The same basic aspect was true in the Falklands. Had UK forces not had bayonets, the out come would not have altered.

[jcustis]

highlights a fairly clearcut example of hand-to-hand combat, IMO.


B.) Yes, everyone can cite examples of where hand-to-hand combat has occurred, but they are a vastly minute percentage of the overall number of lethal engagements. More over, because of their dramatic nature, hand to hand combat occurrences tended to get cited in isolation.

C.) To this end, the idea that you need to train men how to kill with e-tools or bayonets is not valid. Those who succeed in doing so, would do so, with or without training.

I have to disagree with these two points. Training a man to kill with a bayonet, K-Bar, or rudimentary implement isn't so much about ensuring that he strikes a vulnerable spot, but more so about the martial spirit it instills, and the demeanor of I will not quit, I will not give up the fight under any circumstances.

An Australian major acquaintance referes it to "getting a little mongrel about you," and some folks need to have that mongrel pulled out of them because they have never been in a fist-fight growing up and inter-personal violence is new to them.

Are many of the examples isolated and anectdotal, compared to the numbers of enemy shot, bombed, and otherwise blown to bits by C-4 and grenades? No argument there. Far greater than 0.1% of our troops need the martial spirit though.

[William F. Owen]

I have to disagree with these two points. Training a man to kill with a bayonet, K-Bar, or rudimentary implement isn't so much about ensuring that he strikes a vulnerable spot, but more so about the martial spirit it instills, and the demeanor of I will not quit, I will not give up the fight under any circumstances.

An Australian major acquaintance referes it to "getting a little mongrel about you," and some folks need to have that mongrel pulled out of them because they have never been in a fist-fight growing up and inter-personal violence is new to them.

Are many of the examples isolated and anectdotal, compared to the numbers of enemy shot, bombed, and otherwise blown to bits by C-4 and grenades? No argument there. Far greater than 0.1% of our troops need the martial spirit though.

I do not believe that instilling a determination to kill can be usefully accomplished merely by training. The UK tried to do this with "Blood and Bayonet" training in both the World Wars. It was judged a failure in both cases, and this is fairly well documented.

Yes, people have to be exposed to physical aggression and control their fear of harm. Milling as done by the UK Parachute Regiment is an example of an attempt at this, but any experience of this type has to contain the potential to suffer significant pain to be of any use. Training people to stab sand bags with bayonets contributes nothing in comparison, because you can't suffer harm, and thus I can see no use for it. Getting guys to beat the hell out of each other with their fists for 2 minutes, does have some merit. - but that's nothing to do with training for hand-to-hand combat with edged weapons.

[slapout9]

There was a TV special on the History channel the other night about the UK Royal Marines. There favorite close combat tool was the "Boarding Hatchet" a rather nasty looking device used to clear the enemy from the deck of a captured ship. Not a lot of training needed but they certainly seemed to be effective:eek: bring back the Ranger Hatchet for the US and the Boarding Hatchet for the UK. Ah the good old days.

Found some visual aids...also appears it was called a Boarding Axe?? but still about the size of a good Hatchet.
http://blindkat.hegewisch.net/pirates/axe.html

[jcustis]

Aye, but have you had the chance to peek at the Marine Corps' Martial Arts Program? I think its founder, Colonel Bristol, would wholeheartedly disagree! :D


Getting guys to beat the hell out of each other with their fists for 2 minutes, does have some merit. - but that's nothing to do with training for hand-to-hand combat with edged weapons.

[selil]

I'm kind of surprised at the arguments against training to use improvised weapons. I know training time is precious, but a soldier should be taught that every item from skin to teeth to a door can be used as a weapon. I'm not sure why there would be any argument against that. It would seem to be a good process for discipline, create a holistic mindset towards success in battle, and prepare the soldier for thinking about combat in other ways.

[Jedburgh]

There was a TV special on the History channel the other night about the UK Royal Marines. There favorite close combat tool was the "Boarding Hatchet" a rather nasty looking device used to clear the enemy from the deck of a captured ship. Not a lot of training needed but they certainly seemed to be effective:eek: bring back the Ranger Hatchet for the US and the Boarding Hatchet for the UK. Ah the good old days.

Found some visual aids...also appears it was called a Boarding Axe?? but still about the size of a good Hatchet.
http://blindkat.hegewisch.net/pirates/axe.html
Slap - with reference to your earlier mention of Fairbairn, since you're now discussing axes & hatchets I have to bring up the Smatchet:

http://www.vrazvedka.ru/main/learning/ruk-b/im-fairbairn/fairbairn-47.gif

A site some of you may find both entertaining and informative is Gutterfighting.org (http://www.gutterfighting.org/Main.html). Along with much else, it has online excerpts - and a couple of full pdf's - from some of the classics in the field.

[FL-CRACKER]

I can tell you from my own research on this matter that Hand-to-hand combat is largely a myth. Does it take place? Yes, but so rarely that it is of no training or doctrinal importance.


Training people to stab sand bags with bayonets contributes nothing in comparison, because you can't suffer harm, and thus I can see no use for it

Chest Puller is rolling over in his grave reading your posts Mr. Owen.. :D

The techniques they ingrain in you do serve a purpose of ingraining the overall Warrior spirit, that refusal to give up the fight.

The Marine Corps' Martial Arts Program has also helped a great deal of Marines with PTSD issues as well.

Plus, the Marine Corps has Pugil Sticks that every Marine has the opportunity to enjoy. That is definitely putting this hand to hand/bayonet training in context with a more stressful environment.

When you find yourself in a situation that requires a last line of defense, I'm sure you'd be greatful for the training, not to mention the mental toughness and mental agility that the training itself inspires.

[Stan]

I will echo JC's comments and refer to what the Army's UNCSG-JSA (DMZ and MDL Korea) has done with their grunts and MPs since 1970, as well as the majority of Ranger, SF and MTT members operating in hostile environments (with or without bayonets, knives or otherwise jammed firearms). However, the provision of such a discipline in the Army is relative to otherwise potential or foreseen operational events that dictate said training.

I think just about every Marine must graduate basic with at least one broken nose :eek:

[Presley Cannady]

Nice to see this discussion take off.

Can anyone point me to operational and medical research touching on hand-to-hand combat in the Pacific War?

[Presley Cannady]

The following two books provide descriptions of hand-to-hand/CQB in Iraq. They won't provide stats on frequency but are certainly detailed.

Of the two I found House to House far more compelling and it includes a detailed description of literal hand-to-hand combat in Iraq (not only CQB w/firearms but a harrowing knife fight).

Thanks, I'll get my hands on these as soon as possible. I'm definitely looking for anecdotes, but more importantly I'm trying to determine how frequent CQB is in the era of firearms and warfare at range. As I understand it, the last time CQB played an important role in the age of rifle infantry was the Boshin War.

[William F. Owen]

I'm kind of surprised at the arguments against training to use improvised weapons. I know training time is precious, but a soldier should be taught that every item from skin to teeth to a door can be used as a weapon. I'm not sure why there would be any argument against that. It would seem to be a good process for discipline, create a holistic mindset towards success in battle, and prepare the soldier for thinking about combat in other ways.

I argue against it because conventional training regimes such as stabbing sand bags does not produce results - so why do it? It's typical WW2 process driven training. Stabbing sand bags simulates using a bayonet to the same degree as humping the couch simulates sex. It's utterly useless.

How do you train to use a bayonet, or e-tool for combat? I submit, you cannot in any effective way. Using a bayonet effectively is about WILL not SKILL. Same for any edged weapon. You'll either have the balls to use it effectively or you won't. Training will not change the amount of balls you have.

Training where error will result in harm and/or pain, EG Milling, indicates to some small degree who has balls and who does not. It is therefore useful. More importantly it can build mutual respect amongst the individuals involved.

[Stan]

Nice to see this discussion take off.

Can anyone point me to operational and medical research touching on hand-to-hand combat in the Pacific War?

This guy is quite the character, but his site (http://www.grunt.com/scuttlebutt/corps-stories/ww2/pacific.asp) has some detailed info. Hope this helps !


One man's detailed research on the events during the 2nd Marine Division in WWII. A great tribute to the history of our beloved Corps. Semper Fi Sgt Grit

Regards, Stan

[William F. Owen]

A. Chest Puller is rolling over in his grave reading your posts Mr. Owen.. :D

B. Plus, the Marine Corps has Pugil Sticks that every Marine has the opportunity to enjoy. That is definitely putting this hand to hand/bayonet training in context with a more stressful environment.

C. When you find yourself in a situation that requires a last line of defense, I'm sure you'd be greatful for the training, not to mention the mental toughness and mental agility that the training itself inspires.

A. well me and Chesty were never going to see eye to eye!

B. YES! Pugil Sticks is good, because you can get hurt. That has merit. I do not see how a pugil equipment effectively represents anything to do with bayonets.

C. I did all the British Army's standard "old school" Bayonet training. We did milling/boxing as well. I am not convinced that any of it made me a better soldier.

[FL-CRACKER]

Sir, you said it was about WILL not SKILL.

I've been training in Jiu Jitsu and MMA for several years. Whether or not I will actually ever use this training is not really the question. This training has helped me avoid those situations. It has helped strengthened my mindset, situational awareness, my will to succeed and win, and more over, has made me a better athlete and given me more endurance; all qualities that would come in handy on a battlefield.

I think military training/infantry training as a whole gives Soldiers and Marines the skills to where their WILL is most effective.

[Presley Cannady]

This guy is quite the character, but his site (http://www.grunt.com/scuttlebutt/corps-stories/ww2/pacific.asp) has some detailed info. Hope this helps !

Good read, though still a little light on the actual hand-to-hand. Still, I'm very interested in any history on battlefield experiences with jukenjutsu and Toyama battojutsu in the Pacific. Let me risk a dumb question: is there any particular argument against reintroducing long blades like swords into the modern gunfighter's arsenal? You know, aside from the extra 2 to 5 lbs and the fact there's no system of instruction in place to make use of them?

[jcustis]

is there any particular argument against reintroducing long blades like swords into the modern gunfighter's arsenal?

They are long, big, and clunky. Great for a charge across a stone wall and into the maelstrom at the other end of a wheat field, or from a mount aboard a quick steed, but not much else.

The terms "modern gunfighter" and "sword" are totally incompatible.

[slapout9]

Slap - with reference to your earlier mention of Fairbairn, since you're now discussing axes & hatchets I have to bring up the Smatchet:

http://www.vrazvedka.ru/main/learning/ruk-b/im-fairbairn/fairbairn-47.gif

A site some of you may find both entertaining and informative is Gutterfighting.org (http://www.gutterfighting.org/Main.html). Along with much else, it has online excerpts - and a couple of full pdf's - from some of the classics in the field.



Hi Jed, yes smatchet would do the job:wry:

Hi Presley, at the sight Jed links to in Fairbairns book "Get Tough" there is some limited medical discussion on bleed out times for knife wounds and a drawing also. Rex Applegate did interviews with Doctors on the effects of various weapons he also interviewed convicts in prison who had killed people with edged weapons. I don't know of any purely medical study from WW2 on H2H combat wounds. Rex Applegate was the only person I have ever found that was given the actual mission to find out all there was to know about how to commit personal mayhem. His last book "The Close Combat Files" has a fairly detailed description of the processes he used to come to his conclusions.

[Ken White]

Mention of the Paras Milling brings up recollection of both the Bear Pits and of the Push Ball (later Combat Football and Combat Basketball by some units). Those things used to be done throughout much of the US Army. So too was the 'running' of an Obstacle or Confidence Course a very common thing. All those activities were designed to encourage an aggressive spirit and let people know you could sustain a minor injury and still function.

Bayonet training, long ago did not use Pugil Sticks -- we used M1 Rifles with the Bayonet fixed and the Scabbard on the bayonet (it was specifically designed to lock on to the bayonet in that mode for the purpose) and we didn't just stick the bayonet in sandbags, we also paired off and had one-on-one practice fights. We started with moves on command and then progressed to free flow and even to two-on-one practice.

In all those things, people got hurt. :rolleyes:

In a democracy and with large Armies raised by National Service or a Draft, those injuries annoyed Mothers who complained to their elected representatives who in turn directed the Armed Forces to cut the training injury (and loss) rates. Armies in democracies in peacetime will always soften their training. As western society has itself softened, so too has life and training in its Armed forces (except for some special units). We no longer conscript and with volunteers, we could all toughen our training but inertia gets in the way of that...

Wilf says that less than one percent can be expected to engage in 'hand to hand' combat; probably true but if one is part of that one percent one can be happy some training was provided. The use of numbers and metrics to determine what needs to be trained has not been terribly beneficial to us. :(

For Presley and hand to hand in the Pacific, I know of no single source but if one reads any of the many unit or battle oriented "I was there" books out of the Pacific in WW II, there are numerous brief accounts. I've read a couple of dozen over the years and two that I recall with such accounts are Ribbon and A Star(Monks) and Battalion of the Damned (Christ).

[Timothy OConnor]

Hand-to-hand and CQB are two different types of action.


Yup, that's why I included both in the description




Hand-to-hand is the attempted use of lethal force, within arms reach, with or without firearms. It is very rare, and even more so, as part of planned action.

CQB is merely the close application of fire arms or hand thrown and projected HE. Generally characterised at under 25m and engagement windows of 2-5 seconds. This does occur on a regular enough basis that it requires training.


Yup, and for those who have been involved in the real thing that might well be an academic distinction without a difference. :)

But seriously, there's certainly a gray area. As the actual combat veterans decribe in the two books I reference above one man's CQB action...is another man's hand-to-hand action...is another man's confusion. A small unit such as a squad contained entirely within a single building can experience all within moments with some engaged in actual fisticuffs Captain Kirk-style (but more violent and bloody) while others are engaged in "firefights" through/around walls and yet others, just mere feet away, are left wondering what's going on.

As Ken and others have pointed out law enforcement and detainee situations are probably more likely to result in actuall hand-to-hand combat.

A friend who served in the U.S. army once engaged in what he described as "Roman-style" massed-combat against rioting Cuban refugees (I believe it was in Panama). His unit was given riot shields and clubs but were denied their firearms. The Cubans were armed with sharpened metal stakes/poles taken from their bunks and tents.

He and his comrades waded into the Cuban mob shoulder-to-shoulder with shields virtually touching. Soldiers in the front rank did their best to swing their clubs (difficult in the scrum) while those behind stommped on Cubans who had fallen and were overrun by his unit. My friend was stabbed in the lower gut when a "spear" got under his vest. To this day he suffers repeated hernias from the wound and now guards Federal buildings in DC (virtual desk duty). Both sides suffered horrible wounds in a very concentrated area. He said the carnage was just terrible.

[Presley Cannady]

They are long, big, and clunky.

Definitely, but the same can be said for a rifle.


Great for a charge across a stone wall and into the maelstrom at the other end of a wheat field, or from a mount aboard a quick steed, but not much else. The terms "modern gunfighter" and "sword" are totally incompatible.

This is my guess as well, though it admittedly falls from intuition more than anything else. I'm just frustrated, though not surprised, with the lack of scholarly commentary on the issue. By the 19th century and the rise of what we call military science arming swords had already retreated into obscurity on the Western battlefield. That leaves Asian and African military history, and either the literature was lost at time or not forthcoming in the first place. I won't say my search has been exhaustive, but so far I've turned up nothing evaluating the utility (or lack thereof) of machetes, knives, and swords in contemporary Africa, Japan from the Boshin War to World War II, or China in the Opium Wars and various pre-Nationalist rebellions. Both blades and fairly modern firearms are at least superficially ubiquitous in these fairly recent experiences. Yet aside from the occasional story of machete wielding druggies tearing apart villagers, the massacre of Mimawargumi charging a hill filled with rifle-armed Satsuma men, and latter day heroes fighting the Qing off with wu shu, there's not a lot to answer the basic question of the sword's value on the modern battlefield.

[slapout9]

Short clip of USMC Bayonet Training Film form WW2.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eI2Ef7sH8c

[Norfolk]

The Secret War Report of the OSS by Anthony Cave-Brown reported the statements of a few OSS members whose confidence and motivation to close to close quarters and kill the enemy in hand to hand combat or in silent killing was dramatically improved by the training that they received in Unarmed Combat, Close Combat, and Silent Killing. That said, such training probably developed the already considerable latent aggression within such already motivated individuals, and would not have quite the same level of effect upon many less-motivated individuals.

I seem to remember being taught how to kill with an E-Tool (especially by bringing the edge of the spade's blade down diagonally at the base of the neck) - but my memory isn't completely clear here. We did Unarmed Combat and Bayonet Fighting (the two chief instructors for this in my Company were formerly from 3 Commando, CAR, and 22 SAS, respectively). I later learned Silent killing (should have learned it earlier with Unarmed Combat and Bayonet Fighting - not sure why that was), and carried a garrotte for some time (it was pretty crappy actually). We used the Mark 7 Bayonet, not the newer Mark 9, and the Mark 7 was probably a better weapon for unarmed combat in general and almost certainly a better weapon for silent killing. A lot of guys carried German Army Bootknives (great piece of kit), and some carried various forms of Russell Knives. On Field Ex's, whenever we were preparing to go into an Attack, we normally fixed bayonets.

The dao (http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-9108313835753892698&hl=en-CA) (in two forms, the dadao and the miaddao) was used quite efficiently by Chinese troops against Japanese troops in CQC during WWII. About the size of a Turkish Battleaxe that some Marines carried in Vietnam.

The Russians were really into H2H in certain Units and Formations, especially Spetznaz (everyone there had to learn Sambo and possibly one other Martial Art). That's probably excessive, and I think that slapout is pretty much on the money with Fairbairn, Sykes, Applegate, et al. Better to spend more time training with firearms than for H2H - but not to the extent that H2H is neglected, just taught in proportion to the need for it.

But you need to spend more time on weapons handling than H2H, or you just might end up like this guy (http://youtube.com/watch?v=iORmi46dowo&feature=related).:eek:

Yep, the good old Saturday Night Special - don't leave home without it.;)

[slapout9]

The Real Deal...William Fairbairn and Rex Applegate in OSS training film.
Simple and effective...I would think every soldier should know these basics. The whole course including knife,club and H2H was only 8 hours and was combined with PT sessions when it was taught. Good training with very little training time required.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhUdTeo7gYA

[William F. Owen]

Gentlemen,

Let me make myself perfectly clear, so as to draw this to some useful conclusion. Should I ever (God Forbid) end up training infantrymen again, I would:

1. Drop bayonet training, and not issue bayonets.

2. I would re-introduce Milling, Pugil Sticks, and "bear pitting".

3. I would also introduce training for arrest and restraint training, as well as weapons retention - eg: What most SWAT teams do. - and how to use a baton. You could throw in Krav Maga or Combatives of some other stuff, but how many hour of training this consumes would have to be very carefully monitored.

4. Riot/crowd control should form part of normal infantry training syllabus, so no problem there.

[selil]

In the Marine Corps do they still do the "pit"? Grappling at nearly unrestrained levels? At my level it was lark and "fun" but now I'm wondering if it wasn't a sort of training?

[Rifleman]

I believe most of the H2H incidents in Vietnam involved Special Forces. For example, I believe MSG Roy Benavidez' MOH citation mentions that he killed an assailant in H2H and there were other times when border camps and recon teams were being overrun that it came down to H2H.

I believe there were fewer incidents in Vietnam of conventional infantry engaging in H2H but it did happen on occasion. The final push for the summit of Dong Ap Bai, aka Hamburger Hill, is one example.

[Rifleman]

But you need to spend more time on weapons handling than H2H, or you just might end up like this

Or this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeGD7r6s-zU :eek:

[William F. Owen]

I believe most of the H2H incidents in Vietnam involved Special Forces. For example, I believe MSG Roy Benavidez' MOH citation mentions that he killed an assailant in H2H and there were other times when border camps and recon teams were being overrun that it came down to H2H.

Interesting you should mention this. When I interviewed some 14 SOG 1-0s none of them could ever remember anyone being involved in true Hand-to-hand combat other than Benavidez. The actual question i asked was could they remember any member of a Recon Team killing the enemy with a knife.

The only other exception often mentioned was the 1968 sapper attack on the CCN FOB at Da Nang.

[Norfolk]

Or this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeGD7r6s-zU :eek:

Oooh!:eek: But what a man:cool:; he just kept on truckin', finished the lesson, and then grabbed the keys to the bathroom and mosied on out the door to patch things up.

Good thing that CAR-15 wasn't loaded though when someone went to show it off.

[Rifleman]

I don't think that H2H was by any means common for SF, Wilf, only that it happened and probably a little more frequently than in conventional infantry units. I found a few more examples. Here's two that led to the MOH being awarded:

".....Sgt. Yntema stood his ground, using his rifle as a club to fight the approximately 15 Viet Cong attempting his capture." - from the Medal of Honor Citation for Gordon D. Yntema

"M/Sgt. Hosking immediately leaped upon the Viet Cong's back. With utter disregard for his personal safety, he grasped the Viet Cong in a "Bear Hug" forcing the grenade against the enemy soldier's chest. He then wrestled the Viet Cong to the ground and covered the enemy's body with his body until the grenade detonated." - from the Medal of Honor Citation for Charles E. Hosking

And some quotes from the fall of the SF "A" camp in the A Shau Valley:

"Fighting hand-to-hand, the defenders had pulled back into the northern corner of the triangular fort." - Time

"Bitter hand-to-hand fighting continued for almost 3 hours until those friendly forces on the east wall were isolated from the rest of the camp....." - 5th Special Forces Group after action report.

That's a few that it was easy to find some documentation for. We don't know what happened to some of the MIAs - like "Mad Dog" Shriver, etc. - but it wouldn't be improbale that at least some of them went down in H2H fighting also.

[Ken White]

had at least minor hand to hand tussles on occasion. It's rarely the big pitched battle ala the movies, just a minor scuffle here and there. Some guys may have put in a couple of tours and never have seen an incidence of it while another guy might have personally been in three or four scuffles. Occasionally it got up to a whole platoon, less often to a company but it happened.

There were even more on a per capita basis in Korea, a whole lot more. Mostly in the early days due to the Chinese tactic of infiltrating and swarming (with PpSh 41 / 43s they didn't have a lot of choice). :D

Wilf needs to recall Bill Speakman's VC. And the Gloucesters... ;)

Later, after the static battle developed, it was a battle of back and forth attacks on fortified positions, trenches breed hand to hand.

Goes with the territory.

[Presley Cannady]

Once again, this is amazing history guys. I've started to pile through a lot of the recommended literature, but I should ask again. Does anyone know of any quantitative discussion of the role of hand-to-hand in the age of firearms? Btw, Ken and Norfolk, I'd greatly appreciate any further directions you might have for digging up the Chinese H2H experience in World War II and Korea.

[Norfolk]

Once again, this is amazing history guys. I've started to pile through a lot of the recommended literature, but I should ask again. Does anyone know of any quantitative discussion of the role of hand-to-hand in the age of firearms? Btw, Ken and Norfolk, I'd greatly appreciate any further directions you might have for digging up the Chinese H2H experience in World War II and Korea.

Presley, the references that were given for Fairbairn and Sykes (and O' Neil as well) are a great place to start, given that both learned their craft in the Shanghai Municipal Police - and of course Applegate partnered with Fairbairn. These will give a sense of what Chinese H2H is about.

The official system of H2H in China is called Sanda (for a while it was called Sanshou); it is a simplified form of Zhongguo wushu, dispensing with the ritual and art typical of most other styles of "Kung-Fu" in favour of concentration on H2H. It is the standard H2H system of both the PLA and the ROC Armed Forces.

For finding out about Chinese H2H experience in WWII and Korea, you'll probably need to learn Chinese.

[Presley Cannady]

Presley, the references that were given for Fairbairn and Sykes (and O' Neil as well) are a great place to start, given that both learned their craft in the Shanghai Municipal Police - and of course Applegate partnered with Fairbairn. These will give a sense of what Chinese H2H is about.

Yes, I'm still immersed in Gutterfighting, although probably at the risk of sidetracking from my objective. I'd come across Defendu in martial arts seminars some time ago, but I didn't figure it to have such an...elaborate history. Still, I'm looking for material more on the lines of say the materials raised in the discussions on rifle squad composition [1 (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=1729), 2 (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=4614)] (especially the Melody and Karcher papers.


The official system of H2H in China is called Sanda (for a while it was called Sanshou); it is a simplified form of Zhongguo wushu, dispensing with the ritual and art typical of most other styles of "Kung-Fu" in favour of concentration on H2H. It is the standard H2H system of both the PLA and the ROC Armed Forces.

I imagine long blades and other weapons aside from clubs and staffs have been dropped from the curriculum as well, or at least I haven't heard of it. Then again, the English language literature on wushu practice in modern PRC and ROC military and law enforcement is very limited.


For finding out about Chinese H2H experience in WWII and Korea, you'll probably need to learn Chinese.

That's probably the case. The Japanese military experience with kenjutsu is also lacks much in the way of English scholarship, in fact most of the English literature is focused on judo and jujutsu in particular and is almost entirely instructional. I just hope that a possibly amazing period in East Asian military history is preserved in Chinese and Japanese.

[Norfolk]

Still, I'm looking for material more on the lines of say the materials raised in the discussions on rifle squad composition [1 (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=1729), 2 (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=4614)] (especially the Melody and Karcher papers.

Rifleman and slapout posted links to quite a few such materials on the Rifle Squad and other associated threads. There are also some under the heading of "Selected Sources" at the bottom of several "Infantry Section" articles here (http://thenorfolkblog.blogspot.com/).

[jcustis]

Interesting picture you have there on your new blog Norfolk. Royal Marines on Mt. Harriett?

[Norfolk]

Interesting picture you have there on your new blog Norfolk. Royal Marines on Mt. Harriett?

Close jcustis;); Scots Guards at Tumbledown Mountain:D (couldn't find a good one of the RM except for the Landing at Port San Carlos - and it wasn't the right colours - pity.:()

[jcustis]

I'm going to run a query at the Gray Research Center, but I do recall there being something on file in the archives about hand-2-hand in the Korean War context.

[Norfolk]

I'm going to run a query at the Gray Research Center, but I do recall there being something on file in the archives about hand-2-hand in the Korean War context.

Jon, I just noticed this blog on your post and took a look - nice work:cool: - is it yours (inquiring minds want to know...:D)?

[jcustis]

Jon, I just noticed this blog on your post and took a look - nice work:cool: - is it yours (inquiring minds want to know...:D)?

Sure is. I updated my sig line to put it out there for the chance of wider distribution. The avatar pic was graciously provided by the SWC's own AdamL. I've got a long, long way to go on the project, but the blog helps to keep me on some sort of plan of attack and serves as a journal of sorts for actions to be accomplished.

[sullygoarmy]

I'm a day late on this one but I'll throw a question out there regarding hand-to-hand. The Army's new combatives training emphasizes going to the ground with your opponent. While I find this to be an interesting exercise in PT gear on a matted gym floor, I wonder why we are teaching the techniques when, in reality, most of the hand-to-hand combat actions are going to take place with a soldier wearing full body armor, helmet and assorted other gear to weigh him down. So you want me to train soldiers to go to the ground with their opponent when, in reality, your opponent most likely will have little to no extra weight on his person, and quite capable of maneuvering away from our poor, heavily weighed down turtle?

Am I off base here or is the purpose of this new combatives program to teach our soldiers no kidding, useful hand-to-hand skills or to make them feel better about themselves and learn just enough to get their asses kicked in a bar fight?:eek:

[Ken White]

...
Am I off base here or is the purpose of this new combatives program to teach our soldiers no kidding, useful hand-to-hand skills or to make them feel better about themselves and learn just enough to get their asses kicked in a bar fight?:eek:

-- and to get kids who haven't played team sports or had much physical contact to learn a sprain, a cut lip or a bloody nose won't kill you. :wry:

Re: your first paragraph above, I may have been misinformed but I thought that grappling / Brazilian judo bit was just introductory and that later follow on training got them out of the "go to ground" mode. I sure hope so; with or without looking like a Ninja Turtle, the ground is the last place you want to be in a serious fight...

[sullygoarmy]

Good point Ken. It is amazing how many kids joining the military have never gotten into any sort of physical altercation. I'm a big believer in boxing and hand-to-hand training...enough to build your confidence that you can in fact, handle yourself and survive.

[slapout9]

Good point Ken. It is amazing how many kids joining the military have never gotten into any sort of physical altercation. I'm a big believer in boxing and hand-to-hand training...enough to build your confidence that you can in fact, handle yourself and survive.


This is kind of a personal rant with me. Going to the ground was warned against in both Fairbarns and Applegates books some time ago. I never understood it myself...why would you want to be on the ground as a matter of choice???:confused: especially since some of that stuff looks like it belongs in the don't ask don't tell part of the Army.:wry: I certainly never saw anything like that in Montgomery...the ones that were put on the ground tended to stay there for awhile and theyt didn't do any huggie buggie boo type moves either....more like Mike Tyson on acid.:eek:

[William F. Owen]

Close jcustis;); Scots Guards at Tumbledown Mountain:D (couldn't find a good one of the RM except for the Landing at Port San Carlos - and it wasn't the right colours - pity.:()

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Read "Not mentioned in Dispatches" which shows that the "H2H" at Goose Green did not occur in the way many said it did. The UK has constantly and deliberately failed to differentiate between killing with or using a bayonet, and Fighting using a bayonet. IT's NOT the same thing.

There is a least one good account from WW1 where a Sgt in the Black Watch said the best thing about a bayonet was it allowed you to kill the German wounded, undetected and thus you did not have to treat them!

[slapout9]

Some of you will remember awhile back about a 72 year old Marine that beats up a pick pocket. Here are the actual security tapes of the incident from several different views. Some hand strikes, a couple of elbows and looks like he slipped a good knee strike in there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mafN9E6AR2Q&feature=related

[Ron Humphrey]

Good point Ken. It is amazing how many kids joining the military have never gotten into any sort of physical altercation. I'm a big believer in boxing and hand-to-hand training...enough to build your confidence that you can in fact, handle yourself and survive.

The old saying about being able to take a lickin and keep on tickin probably takes on a whole new meaning when the one giving the licking will literally finish you off if you don't. :wry:

[Rifleman]

Sad story; slightly off topic, but it sort of goes along with this thread:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,326148,00.html

[Coldstreamer]

An enormous degree of excellent analysis in all of this, but I must say a few -namely the gallant Will F Owen (holding his ground in the best infantry traditions) fail to understand the real utility of all unarmed combat, with edged weapons or otherwise.

Its for throwing your weight around when you're off duty, showing off in front of chicks in your boxer shorts once you've lured them back to your 'love dojo', and escaping from yobbos on the Kings Road after you've provoked them into violence by your Alpha Male vibes.

Most specialist forms of this art: FISH (fighting in some one's house), FIBAR (fighting in bars and restaurants) and RAWD (running away with dignity). The latter involves a few hand chops at the air, possibly a roll or two before fleeing at top speed.

[slapout9]

Check out these counter terrorist/ hostage rescue police dogs:eek: not sure what language they are speaking but they certainly know their H2H combat or is that Paw2Paw combat

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfi5FVs63Jo&feature=related

[William F. Owen]

An enormous degree of excellent analysis in all of this, but I must say a few -namely the gallant Will F Owen (holding his ground in the best infantry traditions) fail to understand the real utility of all unarmed combat, with edged weapons or otherwise.

Its for throwing your weight around when you're off duty, showing off in front of chicks in your boxer shorts once you've lured them back to your 'love dojo', and escaping from yobbos on the Kings Road after you've provoked them into violence by your Alpha Male vibes.

Most specialist forms of this art: FISH (fighting in some one's house), FIBAR (fighting in bars and restaurants) and RAWD (running away with dignity). The latter involves a few hand chops at the air, possibly a roll or two before fleeing at top speed.

Thank you, the House Hold Division Representative. Having spent a bit of time conducting FART (fighting around town) in can only concur with your analysis.

I have no problem skilling the boys up with a few shrewd moves, placed in the context of an operational reality, but I cannot, and probably never will see the point in teaching line infantry how to use a bayonet, or giving him one to use! - and I can'e see the point in foot drill either!!:eek:

[FL-CRACKER]

Classic post coldstreamer.

Are troops even issued bayonets anymore? I haven't heard of anyone using one or even being issued one over in Iraq, and I have several friends that are of the 11B / 03xx variety.

To me though, hand to hand combat training seems an essential part of a layered offense/defense. In the least, while a bayonet may not be necessary, I think anyone that is clearing a house should in least have a fighting knife such as a Kbar on them, other than a folding blade/multitool. I've also heard of accounts in Iraq, where guys have entered a room and quickly realized that there were several propane tanks or IEDs that would prevent them from engaging the insurgent with their rifle/carbine and when it came down to it, they ended up finishing the job with a folding knife of some type. This especially seems more necessary for the door kickers, who are less likely to have a pistol as their secondary weapon.

[Shek]

Classic post coldstreamer.

Are troops even issued bayonets anymore? I haven't heard of anyone using one or even being issued one over in Iraq, and I have several friends that are of the 11B / 03xx variety.

To me though, hand to hand combat training seems an essential part of a layered offense/defense. In the least, while a bayonet may not be necessary, I think anyone that is clearing a house should in least have a fighting knife such as a Kbar on them, other than a folding blade/multitool. I've also heard of accounts in Iraq, where guys have entered a room and quickly realized that there were several propane tanks or IEDs that would prevent them from engaging the insurgent with their rifle/carbine and when it came down to it, they ended up finishing the job with a folding knife of some type. This especially seems more necessary for the door kickers, who are less likely to have a pistol as their secondary weapon.

I had my rifle company carry bayonets on person all the time. I didn't see its primary purpose as a hand-to-hand weapon, but rather as a visible and serious escalation of force in crowd control situations. It's easy for folks to try to crowd you bare muzzles since they don't expect to get shot. Place a pointy object that will prick you if you crowd a soldier with a weapon, and you reduce the temptation to crowd too close to soldiers holding the line. This provides an option between trying to grapple with those that are too close and overescalation (warning shots), which runs the risk of devolving to chaos much quicker than a person that gets too uppity and walks away with a minor flesh wound.

I guess it's an ironic application of the bayonet - break out in case of low intensity operations.

[Shek]

I'm a day late on this one but I'll throw a question out there regarding hand-to-hand. The Army's new combatives training emphasizes going to the ground with your opponent. While I find this to be an interesting exercise in PT gear on a matted gym floor, I wonder why we are teaching the techniques when, in reality, most of the hand-to-hand combat actions are going to take place with a soldier wearing full body armor, helmet and assorted other gear to weigh him down. So you want me to train soldiers to go to the ground with their opponent when, in reality, your opponent most likely will have little to no extra weight on his person, and quite capable of maneuvering away from our poor, heavily weighed down turtle?

Am I off base here or is the purpose of this new combatives program to teach our soldiers no kidding, useful hand-to-hand skills or to make them feel better about themselves and learn just enough to get their asses kicked in a bar fight?:eek:

We had a NCO in a sister battalion in Mosul back in 2004 kill an insurgent with his knife (the insurgent pulled a knife as well) after grappling on the ground. I believe this soldier had done some BJJ outside of the combatives program within his battalion, so he was better than the average bear, but I think the key is that the new combatives program recognizes the fact that most fights end on the ground. As they say, train as you fight, and the old school judo throw way simply wasn't realistic.

[Ken White]

... but I think the key is that the new combatives program recognizes the fact that most fights end on the ground...Being old and from an era where bar fights and such were far more common than they are today and having indulged in hand to hand with sundry folks with hostile intent in several parts of the world, I can agree that some fights end up on the ground but I think most don't and those that do generally end up with someone REALLY getting hurt -- and which one is a coin flip.

I know in most cases anyone who wants to stay alive should avoid the ground to the maximum extent possible..


...As they say, train as you fight, and the old school judo throw way simply wasn't realistic.

True, it was not -- and it wasn't taught to or used by anyone who might have to get seriously engaged; other techniques were. Ranger School used the old stuff as a teaching vehicle in much the same mode that grappling is used today, from there it sort of permeated the Army. Both were/are bad ideas. Train as you'll fight requires teaching everyone how to kill people with their hands or feet or, better, using any object that comes to hand (including your car keys) as a weapon -- not a well accepted idea in western society... :wry:

I have no problem with teaching grappling as a way for the kids to learn getting hurt is not life threatening -- but teaching anyone to go to ground if it can be avoided in a real life threatening situation is a very bad idea.

[Coldstreamer]

Thank you, the House Hold Division Representative. Having spent a bit of time conducting FART (fighting around town) in can only concur with your analysis.

I have no problem skilling the boys up with a few shrewd moves, placed in the context of an operational reality, but I cannot, and probably never will see the point in teaching line infantry how to use a bayonet, or giving him one to use! - and I can'e see the point in foot drill either!!:eek:

Well that's just silly. Foot Drill is the fastest and simplest form of bringing cohesion and teamwork to a disparate group of individuals as a behavioural basis for all future team activity. It also forms part of a wider doctrinal immersion that requires the sublimation of individual will to the collective benefit, for people who have hitherto had no discipline or restraint imposed upon them by family, education system or society.

Bayonets are like all other capabilities. Lose them at your peril. Lack of both bayonets and NVGs were cited as massive errors in the battle of Mogadishu, where they were left behind to minimise weight for a short duration op. You miss the human factors aspect of the edged weapon in your analysis, which is excellent but entirely metrics based. The number of people killed by edged weapons in operational analysis is infinitely less significant than the external and internal symbol of visceral commitment an infantryman makes when he fixes it. We live in a world of perceptions and symbology; you will damn well know a company of Guardsmen coming for you with bayonets fixed. And as an affirmation of 'betterness' over an enemy immediately prior to close engagements where fear and anxiety will be the prevalent emotions, it is an excellent tool. When we fix bayonets, we do it with the conscious intent to destroy. Armys which do not embrace this martial spirit tend to underperform in most other areas as well.

My company and I are currently on operations in Afghanistan, and we all carry bayonets.

[Jedburgh]

Being old and from an era where bar fights and such were far more common than they are today and having indulged in hand to hand with sundry folks with hostile intent in several parts of the world, I can agree that some fights end up on the ground but I think most don't and those that do generally end up with someone REALLY getting hurt -- and which one is a coin flip.

I know in most cases anyone who wants to stay alive should avoid the ground to the maximum extent possible..

True, it was not -- and it wasn't taught to or used by anyone who might have to get seriously engaged; other techniques were. Ranger School used the old stuff as a teaching vehicle in much the same mode that grappling is used today, from there it sort of permeated the Army. Both were/are bad ideas. Train as you'll fight requires teaching everyone how to kill people with their hands or feet or, better, using any object that comes to hand (including your car keys) as a weapon -- not a well accepted idea in western society... :wry:

I have no problem with teaching grappling as a way for the kids to learn getting hurt is not life threatening -- but teaching anyone to go to ground if it can be avoided in a real life threatening situation is a very bad idea.
What he said.

I also strongly disagree with the assertion that most fights end up on the ground. Going along with that, it was never my experience that the old judo throw way was ever part of serious H2H for combat soldiers.

As Ken stated, train as you fight means teaching the young'uns to kill the bad guy in a close encounter by the most expeditious means available. This is not just base skills training, its also awareness training - awareness of the bad guy, awareness of the surroundings and how to physically exploit both to the detriment of the former.

Slap has mentioned Fairbairn a number of times on the board. Fairbairn's methods are simple to teach, learn and execute - and they are meant to kill. Fairbairn understood the dangers of ending up in grappling contest or going to ground, and stressed eliminating the threat as quickly as possible. This, based on countless real world life or death encounters.

Sometimes I think that current combatives was more influenced by UFC/cage fighting than it was by anything to do with the cold necessity in a close encounter of killing your enemy as quickly as possible.

[Ron Humphrey]

What he said.

I also strongly disagree with the assertion that most fights end up on the ground. Going along with that, it was never my experience that the old judo throw way was ever part of serious H2H for combat soldiers.


Sometimes I think that current combatives was more influenced by UFC/cage fighting than it was by anything to do with the cold necessity in a close encounter of killing your enemy as quickly as possible.

I have often ended up in discussions with my siblings about that very thing as I try to explain that real fighting which ends up in one winner and one permanently losing. These bouts would be considerably different than what they see on TV.

I think thats the overwhelming point, for military there is no other point to H2H then to win at all cost thus any training should reflect that, not what we watch on Saturday night.

[FL-CRACKER]

Well that's just silly. Foot Drill is the fastest and simplest form of bringing cohesion and teamwork to a disparate group of individuals as a behavioural basis for all future team activity. It also forms part of a wider doctrinal immersion that requires the sublimation of individual will to the collective benefit, for people who have hitherto had no discipline or restraint imposed upon them by family, education system or society.

Bayonets are like all other capabilities. Lose them at your peril. Lack of both bayonets and NVGs were cited as massive errors in the battle of Mogadishu, where they were left behind to minimise weight for a short duration op. You miss the human factors aspect of the edged weapon in your analysis, which is excellent but entirely metrics based. The number of people killed by edged weapons in operational analysis is infinitely less significant than the external and internal symbol of visceral commitment an infantryman makes when he fixes it. We live in a world of perceptions and symbology; you will damn well know a company of Guardsmen coming for you with bayonets fixed. And as an affirmation of 'betterness' over an enemy immediately prior to close engagements where fear and anxiety will be the prevalent emotions, it is an excellent tool. When we fix bayonets, we do it with the conscious intent to destroy. Armys which do not embrace this martial spirit tend to underperform in most other areas as well.

My company and I are currently on operations in Afghanistan, and we all carry bayonets.


Great post.

Bayonet training may not be of "doctrinal importance" since Infantry has never cared much for "doctrine" in the first place. It is very important to the "killing mindset" though, which may not concern a commander in a dry, warm office, but is of the uptmost importance to the boots on the ground.

Besides, how many famous battles over the years were won with a Commander's rallying cry, "FIX BAYONETS!!!!" the order in and of itself is adrenaline pumping.

His advice would be very good for our enemies to heed though, seeing as how I prefer my enemy to not be trained in bayonet skill. :cool:

Thanks for the info coldstream and for serving. Be safe out there and watch your six.

[Ken White]

Well that's just silly...

Bayonets are like all other capabilities. Lose them at your peril. Lack of both bayonets and NVGs were cited as massive errors in the battle of Mogadishu, where they were left behind to minimise weight for a short duration op. You miss the human factors aspect of the edged weapon in your analysis, which is excellent but entirely metrics based.

My company and I are currently on operations in Afghanistan, and we all carry bayonets.

Point down -- so of course the Heralds will be perturbed... ;)

There are those who forget the human element in their theorizing particularly if over enamored of numbers. Frankly, if I were to design an ideal Armed Force, there'd be no humans involved, they are so pesky about little things... :(

I'm still working on how to do that. :D

[William F. Owen]

....Foot Drill is the fastest and simplest form of bringing cohesion and teamwork to a disparate group of individuals as a behavioural basis for all future team activity. ...
.

Don't worry Colstreamer. SO2 Inf EC, is a Guardsman and is trying to get all the section weapons fitted with bayonets! I've even sat through the presentation

As long as we acknowledge that i fulfils a psychological/emotional need and not an operational one, I guess UK can justify the weight versus another 30 rd mag and the training time, versus something else.

[Ken White]

is a Rifle Company in peacetime. It has plenty of training time. That excess of training time is not available in wartime but a little drill or a little bayonet instruction isn't all that time consuming and it feeds into what N. Bonaparte said; "In war, the moral is to the physical as three is to one."

Most people carry and use too much ammo anyway. If you need more than six 30 round mags, somebody has already screwed up to the point that more ammo likely will make little difference.

As Shek said above, the bayonet is great for crowd control -- a mission in most Armies at one time or another; if the kids aren't used to using them, they stick themselves or others inadvertently. The same effect of lack of familiarity that leads to accidental shootings when an Army gets deployed after years of peace.

Not to mention the bayonet can be a good utility knife which every soldier ought to have to do semi legal or illegal things with... :D

[William F. Owen]

is a Rifle Company in peacetime. It has plenty of training time. That excess of training time is not available in wartime but a little drill or a little bayonet instruction isn't all that time consuming and it feeds into what N. Bonaparte said; "In war, the moral is to the physical as three is to one."

Most people carry and use too much ammo anyway. If you need more than six 30 round mags, somebody has already screwed up to the point that more ammo likely will make little difference.

As Shek said above, the bayonet is great for crowd control -- a mission in most Armies at one time or another; if the kids aren't used to using them, they stick themselves or others inadvertently. The same effect of lack of familiarity that leads to accidental shootings when an Army gets deployed after years of peace.

Not to mention the bayonet can be a good utility knife which every soldier ought to have to do semi legal or illegal things with... :D

Almost all good points. You have kinda covered why I spend so much time working on infantry doctrine, but we are still left with the elephant in the corner that cannot explain why Infantry does the things it does without explicit recognition of operational realities and human factor constraints. The UK infantry man is now more overloaded than at any time in history. Shows we don't know much more than we did in 1917.

I agree about mags. Mags aint the issue. It's all the other ammo natures.

Yes, Bayonets are good for crowd control, but what happens when you use them? You can't fix bayonets without being prepared to stick someone and do you want your men bayoneting civilians?

Bayonet as a good knife? Well I submit there are better tools to carry.

[Ken White]

...The UK infantry man is now more overloaded than at any time in history. Shows we don't know much more than we did in 1917.So, generally is the US Infantryman. However, in good units, that load is half or less what it is in not so good units -- all that extraneous stuff is left behind. It's not a question of detailed analysis, merely a question of training and competence. One of my pet examples of this is to view pictures of the 82d and 101st on the 5th of June 1944. the 101st was going into combat for the first time and they were so overloaded they could barley move. The 82d having been in Sicily and Italy had weapon, ammo and little more.
I agree about mags. Mags aint the issue. It's all the other ammo natures.Those other Ammo natures have finite weights, if you want to carry X more rounds, you need Y more people -- any other solution will adversely impact your combat capability. Nowadays Ammo isn't nearly the problem batteries are... :(
Yes, Bayonets are good for crowd control, but what happens when you use them? You can't fix bayonets without being prepared to stick someone and do you want your men bayoneting civilians? If the civilians need to be stuck, I'd smack the kids upside the head if they did not stick them. Sticking is no worse than a muzzle slash -- and it's a better deterrent. Trust me on that one... :D
Bayonet as a good knife? Well I submit there are better tools to carry.Really? What? I've been looking for years and haven't found anything better than an old clunky K-Bar. I've got a Victorinox, A Gerber Tool and a Leatherman and two or three other assorted knives. All have their uses, none are as overall useful in the field as a good hefty knife. However, if you've got a better idea, I'm all for it.

[William F. Owen]

So, generally is the US Infantryman. However, in good units, that load is half or less what it is in not so good units -- all that extraneous stuff is left behind.

Sure, the skill of your Chain of Command is everything. I gave a lecture at the RUSI in London on exactly this issues. It's on the net somewhere. The problem is that weight just gets added eg the new radio weighs 50% more than the old one!


Those other Ammo natures have finite weights, if you want to carry X more rounds, you need Y more people -- any other solution will adversely impact your combat capability. Nowadays Ammo isn't nearly the problem batteries are...

I hear you. So why when the UK created the 5-man Manoeuvre Support Section in 1995 did it have 5 men and 2 x GPMG. Yet when we had Lewis Gun sections in 1917-1934 there was one gun supported by 6-men? I've been dealing with the obvious stuff since day 1. Why does no one do anything about it. - again, if Bayonets were so critical to UK infantry capability, how come only 25% of platoon weapons can fix them?


:( If the civilians need to be stuck, I'd smack the kids upside the head if they did not stick them. Sticking is no worse than a muzzle slash -- and it's a better deterrent. Trust me on that one... :D
I concur. However when one of your guys fatally bayonets some 18 year old girl in a riot, the flow down effect could be something similar to Haditha or Abu Graib. I don't ever remember Bayonets being carried in Northern Ireland.


Really? What? I've been looking for years and haven't found anything better than an old clunky K-Bar. I've got a Victorinox.
Well I only have my personal experience to go on. As a very young Rifleman I went and found an M3 Combat knife, and found it was useless. I then got an MOD Arctic Survival knife, and an MOD Clasp knife. which worked great for a long while. I don't know about Arctic but it worked very well in the Negev desert. Some years later I binned the Clasp knife for a Leatherman, and I can't see how I would improve on that.

[Ken White]

Sure, the skill of your Chain of Command is everything. I gave a lecture at the RUSI in London on exactly this issues. It's on the net somewhere. The problem is that weight just gets added eg the new radio weighs 50% more than the old one!Why you do that? Our new one weighs less and does more. :)
I hear you. So why when the UK created the 5-man Manoeuvre Support Section in 1995 did it have 5 men and 2 x GPMG. Yet when we had Lewis Gun sections in 1917-1934 there was one gun supported by 6-men? I've been dealing with the obvious stuff since day 1. Why does no one do anything about it.Because manpower is the most expensive item in any defense budget and politicians are always trying to impose strength cuts on the Forces. Said Forces comply but not always intelligently -- mostly because the manpower bean counters try to make their job easy and they sell the Generals their dumb ideas and the Dtar wearers accept it because know the troops will somehow make even the dumbest ideas work. I've converted more than one rear area straphanger into an unwilling Ammo bearer.
...again, if Bayonets were so critical to UK infantry capability, how come only 25% of platoon weapons can fix them? Dunno. Our ratio isn't much better but I don't think they're critical, just very useful for some purposes and of very small consequence in their adverse impacts.
I concur. However when one of your guys fatally bayonets some 18 year old girl in a riot, the flow down effect could be something similar to Haditha or Abu Graib. I don't ever remember Bayonets being carried in Northern Ireland. Could be, particularly in this day and age. Things are tough all over. It's far more probable that the bayonets will chill things before that happens but rioters take chances and doo-doo occurs. I believe in doing everything possible to avoid civilian casualties but one can go too far in worrying about appearances. You cannot bluff in riot actions. We've fixed bayonets in several domestic crowd control situations yet to my knowledge, no one has been bayoneted in the US in the last 50 plus years.
Well I only have my personal experience to go on. As a very young Rifleman I went and found an M3 Combat knife, and found it was useless. I then got an MOD Arctic Survival knife, and an MOD Clasp knife. which worked great for a long while. I don't know about Arctic but it worked very well in the Negev desert. Some years later I binned the Clasp knife for a Leatherman, and I can't see how I would improve on that. Lotta neat gadgets but many of them not terribly durable plus the knife blade is of marginal utility. I like my Gerber a little better because it can be operated with one hand but in the woods, I still prefer my Ka-Bar. Different approaches -- that's why they make Toyotas and Hyundais and Opels and Holdens and ...

[William F. Owen]

Because manpower is the most expensive item in any defense budget and politicians are always trying to impose strength cuts on the Forces. .

Very true, so why was the 1924 platoon smaller than the 1995 platoon?

Actually in the UK it is not the Politicians. It's the senior officers who make incredible data free descisions, and then hide behind blaming the politicans. No UK politician ever specified a platoon level weapons set, or made up data to support the 8-man section. It was all done by soldiers.

[Coldstreamer]

Big time agree with data-free decisions....living the dream every day.

Most of the issues with excessively heavy radios, underperforming kit, suboptimal organisation, I believe, is because we have an equipment-centric defence policy which is fundamentally tied to supporting UK defence industries rather than getting the best pragmatic solutions for todays needs...re-enter Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs debate about procurement - but largely true.

[William F. Owen]

Big time agree with data-free decisions....living the dream every day.

Most of the issues with excessively heavy radios, underperforming kit, suboptimal organisation, I believe, is because we have an equipment-centric defence policy which is fundamentally tied to supporting UK defence industries rather than getting the best pragmatic solutions for todays needs...re-enter Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs debate about procurement - but largely true.

Didn't the Director of Infantry say "We equip the man, not man the equipment!"

...so when I pointed out all the problems with PRC-354 at a School of Infantry Study day, I was very politely told to shut up.

[Ratzel]

What he said.

I also strongly disagree with the assertion that most fights end up on the ground. Going along with that, it was never my experience that the old judo throw way was ever part of serious H2H for combat soldiers.

As Ken stated, train as you fight means teaching the young'uns to kill the bad guy in a close encounter by the most expeditious means available. This is not just base skills training, its also awareness training - awareness of the bad guy, awareness of the surroundings and how to physically exploit both to the detriment of the former.

Slap has mentioned Fairbairn a number of times on the board. Fairbairn's methods are simple to teach, learn and execute - and they are meant to kill. Fairbairn understood the dangers of ending up in grappling contest or going to ground, and stressed eliminating the threat as quickly as possible. This, based on countless real world life or death encounters.

Sometimes I think that current combatives was more influenced by UFC/cage fighting than it was by anything to do with the cold necessity in a close encounter of killing your enemy as quickly as possible.


US Army combatives IS based on UFC fighting. The "inventor" of modern Army combatives went to the Gracie school (sometimes known as the "Lions Den") in order to learn and develop this new style. I attended "Phase One" training at Ft. Benning and watching UFC fighting is part of the curriculum. There's a reason for this.

UFC is the closest thing to real street fighting. The UFC started with the idea of seeing which martial art was best. When it started, all kinds of Kung-Fu masters and Karate folks showed up and tried using the leg sweeps and spin kicks they had been using for hundreds of years. After Hoist Gracie won the first one-using Brazilian Jujitsu- it didn't take long to see that Karate and Kung-Fu were not very effective in a real fight. Today we see no Kung-Fuers in UFC as pretty much everyone in the sport uses Kick Boxing/Maui Tai for striking and grappling for the ground. Occasionally you'll see people like "Tank-Abbott" who used what was known as "ground and pound" which was basically a street fighting form which features getting someone to the ground and beating the crap out of them.

US Army combatives has 3 phases. 1. Ground Phase 2. Throwing/take-down phase 3. Striking Phase.

Many people wonder why the Army starts with ground phase? The reason is simple. Everyone knows how to throw some kind of a punch (although probably wrong). So to try to reteach something like throwing a proper punch, would take a long time and most people can hurt someone with their fist regardless. Instead, the Army teaches a skill in which people have a large learning curve; grappling. Most people know nothing about grappling. Someone can be very powerful and very tough, but if his opponent knows a little about ground fighting, there's a very good chance he'll lose.

While in the school, we talked about the myth of "90% of fights going to the ground." The creator of the program said he'd never seen actual statistics to back this claim up. Many fights do, or at least the two fighters get a hold of each other. It is at this point (while holding on to each other) that the trained man has the advantage. After learning about grappling, I would say that I would prefer to take someone to the ground in a fight. As long as his friends don't outnumber mine (more on this later). So the point is, go ahead and bash your enemy with fists or M-16's or Hockey sticks, but if you get into a position where you're holding on to him, now you know what to do.

Now to the secret of winning h2h combat in real combat situations. The key is to have your friends show up first before the enemy's friends show up. You don't even have to win the fight, you just need to control the man until your buddy comes and places his barrel to your opponents scull. This is why learning "The Guard" in grappling is key. If you can control your opponent, and get him into a position where YOU are controlling him, your chances of winning (or surviving) is much higher.

In phase 3 of the school, you learn some basic kicks and punches but also learn how to use weapons found in the street. But the most important thing the school teaches is to get over fear. When I went through, the instructor had a real cage fighter strap on the boxing gloves and you had to tackle him while he punched you in the head. This was very important for people who had never been punched before or who had never been in a fight. Getting over that fear of being hit was very important. The instructor even told us of people who failed the class due to refusing to be hit.

So overall, I believe the Army combatives program to be a good one. Its important to remember that the point isn't to take every fight to the ground. If you can finish someone on your feet then do so. But if it does go to the ground, then you'll know how to finish off your opponent.

[Jedburgh]

UFC is the closest thing to real street fighting.
There's the initial mistake. Street fighting bears no approximation to H2H in combat. Or, at least, what H2H in combat should be. The intent is to kill, period. As quickly and efficiently as possible. If you're in a situation where you have to go H2H, or use expedient weapons, you're in a potential world of hurt anyway, and any second thoughts about subduing or capturing the bad guy are deadly mental weaknesses. Current combatives does not effectively address this, and puts the wrong mindset into soldiers. As a physical training and motivational program, fine. But it is a mistake to posture it as true combat H2H.

Now to the secret of winning h2h combat in real combat situations. The key is to have your friends show up first before the enemy's friends show up. You don't even have to win the fight, you just need to control the man until your buddy comes and places his barrel to your opponents skull. This is why learning "The Guard" in grappling is key.
:rolleyes:
This speaks to what I just stated above. Training someone to "control" the bad guy in H2H until his buddies arrive is a huge and potentially deadly training mistake. Let's not go down the road of relative size, differences in carry load, adrenaline vs crazed, etc. That concept is fine for LE purposes - but in a world where the next bad guy with a gun wanting to put you down is potentially just as close or closer than "your friends", you need to kill the sonuvabitch. Immediately.

If you can control your opponent, and get him into a position where YOU are controlling him, your chances of winning (or surviving) is much higher.
Kill him and move on.
- W.E. Fairbairn.

[Ken White]

"Kill him and move on."
- W.E. Fairbairn.

Street fighting, restraining persons to be detained and hand to hand combat are three very different things. The first is essentially training for itself, the second requires only a few hours of training and the last only two or three days -- and no throws, judo tae kwan do or kung fu moves are entailed though some elementary physiology is...

[slapout9]

This is a little short clip of a retired NYPD detective who teaches Fairbairn methods for self defense. Here is how to survive a grappling situation or what the enemy will do to you if don't stop learning the Girlie Man Combat........ Eye gouge, crush his balls, then break his neck.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__FX8q5Rsho&feature=related

[Coldstreamer]

Except that in H2H and unarmed combat of all forms, operational context remains everything - as in all else. If my blokes start ripping out peoples windpipes in a COIN context, it will raise eyebrows and probably see me on a plane home quite quickly. So the ability to restrain, control and physical manage people from non-lethal up to lethal remains a requirement.

I suspect we're all violent agreeing, but our people need to be prepared, through training and conditioning, to apply the appropriate levels of force whether with weapons or without. Its actually remarkably easy to kill a man with your hands. Neutralising appropriately begins to require a training bill, but one that still needs to be addressed.

As a Guards officer, this is less of a problem personally. An icy stare and a raised eyebrow is enough to make most forms of life burst into flames. Faced with large public order situations, a dismissive shake of the head usually has the unwashed retiring in embarrassment and shame. You'll also notice the original master often relied on non-kinetic forms of deterrence...

http://www.chucknorrisfacts.com/

[Ken White]

In 1966, I was sitting in a Hotel lobby in Kuala Lumpur when a Malaysian Army staff car pulled up, disgorging a British Army Guards Major in jungle Green. Without looking at anyone or any thing he swept into the Lobby at 120 steps to the minute and the two doors were opened by a passerby and a Bellboy at great speed and with agility that was impressive and said Major proceeded through the doors without breaking stride or a sideways glance, head erect, presumably communing with his friend God to be greeted by a deeply bowing Malay Assistant Manager...

Awesome. Post colonial or not, the effect lingered.

Of, course, he was a Grenadier... :D

[slapout9]

Here is the new hit CD to go with the Combatives manual:D:D:D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A0W-hsUf4Y&feature=related

[Ratzel]

There's the initial mistake. Street fighting bears no approximation to H2H in combat. Or, at least, what H2H in combat should be. The intent is to kill, period. As quickly and efficiently as possible. If you're in a situation where you have to go H2H, or use expedient weapons, you're in a potential world of hurt anyway, and any second thoughts about subduing or capturing the bad guy are deadly mental weaknesses. Current combatives does not effectively address this, and puts the wrong mindset into soldiers. As a physical training and motivational program, fine. But it is a mistake to posture it as true combat H2H.

I'm not sure I agree? The only difference between the two is the law. If there was no law in place, more people would be killed in steet fights. You're still trying to hurt the other person bad enough that they can no longer hurt you. Usally street fights get broken up before any real damgae can happen.

:rolleyes:
This speaks to what I just stated above. Training someone to "control" the bad guy in H2H until his buddies arrive is a huge and potentially deadly training mistake. Let's not go down the road of relative size, differences in carry load, adrenaline vs crazed, etc. That concept is fine for LE purposes - but in a world where the next bad guy with a gun wanting to put you down is potentially just as close or closer than "your friends", you need to kill the sonuvabitch. Immediately.

The point isn't just to control the other guy, if you can't do anything else due being weaker or less experienced, then this would be your last resort. While developing the US Army combatives program, the creator conducted case studies and found this (the buddy helping out) most often.

Kill him and move on.


Yes indeed, kill him and move out, better yet, kill him, chop off his head and hang it at the market. I like the move that John Matrix uses in Commando when he turns the guys head real fast and snaps his neck. Unforchanly, most people don't have this ability, and I'm unfamiliar with any system that offers such knowledge? I would hope that most people would kick for the groin and punch for the throat, bite off the ear or gouge out the eyes. But if you get rapped up with someone and you have the ability to choke him out or break his arm-with an arm bar-then you'll be in good shape to "kill him and move on." I'm not disagreeing with you that we should kill the enemy quickly, I just disagree that its so easy to do.

[selil]

I'm getting the impression that most soldiers don't do a lot of hand to hand combat. I figure the few police officers/corrections officers on here likely have a greater understanding of non-fire-arm combat which actually kind of surprises me. One comment that put me on my heels was the idea that restraint or arrest training could be done in only a few hours. How many layers to the ladder of force are their in an arrest situation? Remember Fairbairn who has been oft quoted was a Shanghai policeman when he developed most of his system. I know the Royal Marines claim him closely, but he was only in the Marines for a short time, and a police officer nearly 30 years. I'm just more and more surprised at the numerous issues like going to ground (ever heard of between a rock and a hard place?), and other things that make zero sense. In a jail riot you want to end the capability of an adversary rapidly not spar. Every technique I was taught in several years of training (Combined Arts Training System), was mostly based off actual fights and how to end them quickly. Just chalk this up to quietly puzzled.

[Ken White]

"I'm not disagreeing with you that we should kill the enemy quickly, I just disagree that its so easy to do."As I said above, "Street fighting, restraining persons to be detained and hand to hand combat are three very different things" You keep trying to roll them into one package.

That and this:
"Yes indeed, kill him and move out, better yet, kill him, chop off his head and hang it at the market. I like the move that John Matrix uses in Commando when he turns the guys head real fast and snaps his neck..." Indicate an idealistic or a fictional view of a skill that everyone doesn't need -- Wilf is correct on that score. That makes you correct on this:
" Unforchanly, most people don't have this ability..."Because those taught it have be folks that will NOT use it in that street fight -- or on someone we're trying to detain. Which is why it is not taught to most people in the Armed Forces in peacetime (and for the nation, this is peacetime). What's being taught is adequate for the average troop -- with the exception of getting on the ground.
"...and I'm unfamiliar with any system that offers such knowledge?" There are several out there; Tae Kwan Do for example teaches you to kill -- but it requires a lot of practice and some heavy calluses. With other methods a little knowledge of the body can be acquired easily and that body has a lot of vulnerable spots besides the neck so no great amount of practice is required.

[Coldstreamer]

In 1966, I was sitting in a Hotel lobby in Kuala Lumpur when a Malaysian Army staff car pulled up, disgorging a British Army Guards Major in jungle Green. Without looking at anyone or any thing he swept into the Lobby at 120 steps to the minute and the two doors were opened by a passerby and a Bellboy at great speed and with agility that was impressive and said Major proceeded through the doors without breaking stride or a sideways glance, head erect, presumably communing with his friend God to be greeted by a deeply bowing Malay Assistant Manager...

Awesome. Post colonial or not, the effect lingered.

Of, course, he was a Grenadier... :D
If he'd been a Coldstreamer someone would have offered him a drink and a girl...

[slapout9]

I'm getting the impression that most soldiers don't do a lot of hand to hand combat. I figure the few police officers/corrections officers on here likely have a greater understanding of non-fire-arm combat which actually kind of surprises me. One comment that put me on my heels was the idea that restraint or arrest training could be done in only a few hours. How many layers to the ladder of force are their in an arrest situation? Remember Fairbairn who has been oft quoted was a Shanghai policeman when he developed most of his system. I know the Royal Marines claim him closely, but he was only in the Marines for a short time, and a police officer nearly 30 years. I'm just more and more surprised at the numerous issues like going to ground (ever heard of between a rock and a hard place?), and other things that make zero sense. In a jail riot you want to end the capability of an adversary rapidly not spar. Every technique I was taught in several years of training (Combined Arts Training System), was mostly based off actual fights and how to end them quickly. Just chalk this up to quietly puzzled.


Hi Selil, both Fairbairn and Applegate were police officers (Applegate was an MP). After retiring from the Army Applegate did extensive work in Central and South America as a Riot Control specialist which is why the later editions of his book "Kill or be Killed" have large sections on Riot Control. And like everything else he wrote it is as valid today as it was back then.

[Ken White]

I'm getting the impression that most soldiers don't do a lot of hand to hand combat. I figure the few police officers/corrections officers on here likely have a greater understanding of non-fire-arm combat which actually kind of surprises me.They don't and they should not. It can and should be generally avoided. There are however a few units that have a greater probability of such contact and need to be trained accordingly. For the bulk of the Army or Marines, that isn't necessary -- or desirable.

I don't know why that would be a surprise; sort of figures if you ask me. The soldiers job, essentially is to kill the bad guys; the cops is to restrain them with minimum damage.
One comment that put me on my heels was the idea that restraint or arrest training could be done in only a few hours. How many layers to the ladder of force are their in an arrest situation?Take off your Cop hat and put on your Marine cover. The first has many constraints in law and practice, the second has very few. A bruise in the wrong place can kill a cop's career. Not nearly as likely for the Marine. The Cop's job is to protect and to serve; the Marines to kill or be killed.
I'm just more and more surprised at the numerous issues like going to ground (ever heard of between a rock and a hard place?)...So was I...
...and other things that make zero sense. In a jail riot you want to end the capability of an adversary rapidly not spar. Every technique I was taught in several years of training (Combined Arts Training System), was mostly based off actual fights and how to end them quickly. Just chalk this up to quietly puzzled.The difference between the Cop and the Marine yet again. The Cop really, really wants to end that fight quickly and without undue harm to all involved. The Marine wants his fight to end even more quickly (because he invariably has other worries and things to do) and he is not and should not be too concerned -- not unconcerned in the case of detaining someone, just not too concerned -- with damage to the opponent.

[Ken White]

If he'd been a Coldstreamer someone would have offered him a drink and a girl...

two girls? ;)

[Rifleman]

You seem to be self-conscious and lacking esteem, Coldstreamer. ;)

Not to worry, it's not too late for you to become something special. :wry:

After all, there's still G Squadron, 22 SAS. :p

[Ray]

The posts here have got me thinking.

I have experience both in war and in Counter Insurgency. But seriously, I have never given this a thought.

Unarmed Combat is taught in our Army. It includes disarming a sentry as also attacks on a soldier by the enemy in a variety of situations. Initially, it is taught in PT gear and then in sandpits, but it graduates to being in combat gear.

Is it useful?

I presume in a raid, it is, where silence is the key to success – at least in the initial part where one has to enter the area by disarming those on guard. Obviously, noise would not help. I have been in such a raid in war time, though I will confess that it did not work out totally because the surprise had been lost as another party on a complementary raid had botched up the timings. They claimed that the unarmed combat stuff had worked for them.

In a Counter Insurgency environment and our army follows the procedure of “talk first and shoot later”, I think Unarmed Combat does help. Many a suspect who is fleeing the scene and may not be actual terrorists could be “downed” thorough unarmed combat, rather than be accused by the Human Rights and others of being unduly aggressive and killing the “innocent”! Like it or not, a “bad press” creates such a stink that it is not worth the trouble!

A soldier has to have an aggressive mindset and I think that Unarmed Combat assists him to be able to maintain this mindset even if he is without or has been deprived of his weapon. Further, it builds the psyche of “never say die”!

[slapout9]

Couple of further points. A soldier if he is to hold the title of one should no how to fight with any weapon. I always thought it was very fitting for the Marine Corps Martial Arts program motto as "One Mind..Any Weapon."

The original H2H system of the WW2 taught by Fairbairn and Applegate was called Close Combat and started at handgun/sub machine gun range(point shooting) then to the Bayonet, then to the knife, then to the stick, and finally as a last resort H2H. Marine Historian Chuck Meslon wrote a book on this subject called "Combat Conditioning" which reviews the H2H,PT,and Obstacle courses used to condition Marines in WW2, he points out that one of the most serious problems with modern combatives is that they have left out the firearms part and it is a problem that should be corrected. The book is available from Paladin Press and is pretty cheap, has many drawings and pictures and the complete syllabus for the close combat course as taught to Marine officers.

[William F. Owen]

The original H2H system of the WW2 taught by Fairbairn and Applegate was called Close Combat and started at handgun/sub machine gun range(point shooting) then to the Bayonet, then to the knife, then to the stick, and finally as a last resort H2H.

Thank you! This is precisely it! H2H is action of last resort (thus failure of other methods) or relevant by virtue of the level of force required (arrest/restraint).

Having just downloaded, printed and read the combatives manual, I think you could safely ignore 1/2 or more of the document and still retain what is useful.

[slapout9]

Hi Wilf, well the Air Force agrees with you. Over on Strategypage.com they just posted an article saying the Air Force just started teaching the Army combatives course at the officers training course at Maxwell,Al. they cut the Army course if half saying thats all they needed the students loved the course and were encouraged to continue training on their own time.

here is the link with pictures.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htinf/articles/20080204.aspx

[William F. Owen]

Hi Wilf, well the Air Force agrees with you. x[/url]

Well that's not good! I think I may have to have a re-think! :)

[Norfolk]

Well that's not good! I think I may have to have a re-think! :)

Demand that at least 15 minutes of Unarmed Combat training is performed at each hole on each Base's Officer's Club golf course. That'll set 'em straight!

[FL-CRACKER]

Almost all good points. You have kinda covered why I spend so much time working on infantry doctrine, but we are still left with the elephant in the corner that cannot explain why Infantry does the things it does without explicit recognition of operational realities and human factor constraints. The UK infantry man is now more overloaded than at any time in history. Shows we don't know much more than we did in 1917.

I agree about mags. Mags aint the issue. It's all the other ammo natures.

Yes, Bayonets are good for crowd control, but what happens when you use them? You can't fix bayonets without being prepared to stick someone and do you want your men bayoneting civilians?

Bayonet as a good knife? Well I submit there are better tools to carry.



Sir,

Is that a knife or a bayonet in your avatar? :D

Respectfully,

FC

[William F. Owen]

Sir,

Is that a knife or a bayonet in your avatar? :D

Respectfully,

FC

It is an SA-80 Bayonet. My avatar is that of the UK Infantry Heretics "The Outsider Platoon". The Approved UK Infantry Emblem, is red with a bayonet pointing up!

[Presley Cannady]

One last question, is there much in the way of comparative literature looking at both contemporary H2H and pre-modern systems? As best as I can tell, combatives, defendu, defendo, etc., claim lineage with and critique very recent--in fact 19th and 20th century--schools of unarmed combat. But by the time they emerged the rifle and pistol were already pretty ubiquitous even in East Asia. By my count, the Sengoku period in Japanese history and transition from Ming to Qing dynasties in China are the most recent examples of martial arts playing a significant role on the battlefield.

[slapout9]

No this is some real H2H courtesy of the Green Berets.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRnra0KRnDk&feature=related

[kaur]

1 more link about Air Force training.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/01/army_combatives_080128w/

[slapout9]

Wilf or Norfolk or anybody with some UK Army knowledge are there any UK Army H2H manuals that can be downloaded?

[Norfolk]

E-mail sent.

[Rifleman]

So you want hand to hand, huh? Here's a classic, sports fans.

It's a 180lbs Jack Dempsey taking on a 245lbs Jess Willard in Toledo, Ohio on July 4, 1919:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFHAFNTjcSE ;)

You'll have to overlook (or mute) the Japanese commentary. I couldn't find a full length English version. It's still worth watching.

Hey? Did I catch a glimpse of you at ringside in that clip, Ken? ;)

[Ken White]

due to my advanced age, I not attend the match. Might have been too much for the old heart to cope with the adrenalin rush... :D

[slapout9]

Check this out. This is a PPCT Brachial Stun. I first saw this over 10 years ago so the film quality is not that great but you get the point. When I saw this it was set the tune of the Curly Shuffle:)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sam6vfq7XS8&feature=related

[Ron Humphrey]

Check this out. This is a PPCT Brachial Stun. I first saw this over 10 years ago so the film quality is not that great but you get the point. When I saw this it was set the tune of the Curly Shuffle:)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sam6vfq7XS8&feature=related

The best part isn't even the hit itself but watching someone try to get their bearings back afterwards:eek:

[kaur]

This is more close to H2H concept. Genki Sudo vs Butterbean :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2SqIkt0E7o&feature=related

[slapout9]

Now this is some bayonet drill. They have MoJo:wry:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFcKSXKXSEU&feature=related

[Norfolk]

Much as I loathe dog-and-pony shows, I still have to admit that was very impressive, and those ROC Army boys sure had the drill down pat. Great find slap.