Hand to hand combat is relatively rare but it is not absent.
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.
The value of Hand to gland training
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.
That bayonets get fixed, does not mean bayonets get used!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
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.
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.
Corporal Jason Dunham's MoH citation
highlights a fairly clearcut example of hand-to-hand combat, IMO.
Quote:
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.
If We Don't Have it, Chesty Wouldn't Want it !
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
Interesting discussion, couple of points.
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).
Most infantry units in Viet Nam
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.