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-Her.../dp/0696232367

House to House
http://www.amazon.com/House-David-Be.../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

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 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 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!

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 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:



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.