Hand-to-hand in combat

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

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:

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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).

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

This guy is quite the character, but his site has some detailed info. Hope this helps !

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FL-CRACKER

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stan

This guy is quite the character, but his site 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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jedburgh

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/learnin...irbairn-47.gif

A site some of you may find both entertaining and informative is Gutterfighting.org. 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.

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcustis

They are long, big, and clunky.

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Short clip of USMC Bayonet Training Film form WW2.

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

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 (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.:eek:

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

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

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.

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?

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.