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.