Men-to-men and house-to-house fighting in WW2

[Aragorn2002]

Being a keen student on the history of warfare, especially the eastern front and Normandy, I often notice that man-to-man fighting was quite common (Stalingrad and Hill 112 in Normandy are good examples.) The use of bayonet, rifle butt, knife, spade and even teeth in desperate close combat fighting quite often occured. Usually this is mentioned only briefly, although it must have been very dramatic and fierce. Can anyone tell me where I can find some good, solid information about the way the German, British, American and Russian infantry were trained in this kind of fighting, what were the techniques and how was it trained, which countries gave this kind of training a lot of attention and which didn't, which armies had a good reputation concerning close combat training and so on.

Does anyone know any good book on this subject? I've read books like Bayonet Battle by Tom Ripley and The White Of Their Eyes by Roger Ford, by both books are, to my opinion, superficial and only a summary of the same old stories. Also the Nafziger books offer little info on close combat.

I also would welcome all info on house-to-house combat.

I would appreciate any information or book-recommendations on these subjects.

[Dandelion]

As to the US Army, you'll find every contemporary manual used in training here:

http://www.military-info.com/Index.htm

This article on the bayonet by a Canadian officer I find both interesting and entertaining, and what's more he has a list of sources that you will probably appreciate:

http://members.tripod.com/~RegimentalRogue/papers/bayonet.htm

Just links that sprang to mind. Which languagues do you read? German army material tends to be in German. Would you be interested in such references?

Regards

Dandelion?

[YankeeDog]

Dandelion -

I would be intersted in links to any German manuals you might be able to direct me to, especially WWII vintage.

My German isn't great, but I can get through most texts so long as I have a good English-German dictionary in hand.

Danke Sehr,

YD

[Aragorn2002]

Thanks for these interesting links, Dandelion, I will read them carefully. And yes, I do speak German, so I would be very interested in German links as well.

[Aragorn2002]

Dandelion, I realize too late that with references you might mean books. Yes, I would be extremely interested in German Army material and I'm willing to pay for them.

[Dandelion]

I am not sitting on a goldmine of literature in hand-to hand combat I am afraid, but I thought I would share some research data to get you going.

Sources:

The easiest way to get info is usually to contact the Bundesarchiv. But here is a link with an impressive array of sources (none specifically on your subject, but many able to help you further in your quest - note the publishers and the official documents, you can always track both)

http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/hitler/lectures/hjd_bib.html

Hand to hand training was, as you probably already know, part of the Grundausbildung of recruits, while operations in urban environments were part of unit training (in the usual order Gruppe-Zug-Kompanie etc). So you'll know what manuals you need from the Bndesarchiv (of Library of Congress, or National Archives, both have huge stocks o captured German documents).

You can also always contact the Bundeswehr, although service is not as immediate there, and these matters are a bit sensitive you know.

Here are some publishers that I know of, that publish (or published) qualitative titles on the Heer in WWII, German perspective.

Bender Publishing (these have gone fully online now andh ave a site - there is at leats one book on the German bayonet, but I think it is with a collectors perspective)

Biblio Verlag

Kurt Vowinckel Verlag KG

Tosa Verlag (Landsberg, they have a site I think)

Podzum-Pallas Verlag (they have a site on the internet I believe)

Leopold Stocker Verlag (Graz, not sure they are around anymore, but they had at least 40 titles on WWII)

Munin-Verlag (Osnabrück, no longer around but they had primarily divisional histories of the Waffen SS as titles, many of which are now re-issued by other publishers).

Schild Verlag (München)

These are no illegal publishers or anything like that, no revisionists or nazis, so you won't have to feel embarrassed asking about them. But like I said, it is sensitive, so it will help that you are not German yourself.

Hope it helps some

Dandleion

[Aragorn2002]

It certainly did, Dandelion, thanks for your help. I appreciate it. Especially the article of the Canadian Army's Infantry Journal has been interesting reading. I will try to contact the Bundesarchiv for more information (being Dutch that should not be a problem). I now know that specific details on close combat fighting in WW 2 are hard to find, therefor I will also concentrate on studying modern manuals on close combat. I've started by ordering the "Close Combat" of the USMC. By studying these techniques I will no doubt get a reasonable picture of the techniques used in WW2, since the basics seem to have survived the years.

Once again, thanks for your useful and to-the-point information.

[Dandelion]

Actually, I know some about German WWII doctrine and training in urban operations. It is not detailed to the level that I believe you are looking for, but here goes for what it is worth:

German urban operations followed pretty basic patterns by the beginning of the war (1938 model of traning). Platoons fought their way along streets using the kolonne pattern of avdance, meaning in this case all Gruppen in the Zug in a row and all of them divided in half, each half avdancing along a side of the street (i.e. along a wall), looking at the opposite wall. Basically, that was it. There was encouragement to occupy high ground, meaning dominant and high buildings. There was also the striving for firelanes, i.e. to find long ranges for the machineguns to dominate. Urban operations were basically battalion sized operations and rather strictly organised - or so they wanted them. The specialists (pioniere) were not so much urban operation specialists as bunkerbuster specialists. As such, they applied their bunkerbusting skills in the urban enviroment, with no real adjustment (meaning using long poles with democharges and flamethrowers, basically). All in all, quite in its infancy and dependent upon superior firepower. We see this type of combat from France 1940 to Crete, although there is a lack of extended city street fighting during this period.

After the Stalingrad (and in fact many others, like Charkov) experience, the Rat War (Rattenkrieg) doctrines (there was no such one doctrine, rather a large number of principles and lessons to be learned collectively called Rat War) began to be implemented. This entailed a whole new style of fighting in urban terrain, and closely resembles modern operations in most ways. There was an urge to get off the streets, instead advancing through the walls of houses (blowing a hole), sewers or prepared covered routes (or smoke - lots of smoke in a street battle). There was emphasis on automatic weaponry and explosives, as well as operating in small independent teams. These would be ad-hoc formed rather than standard organisation. There was emphasis of staying low at all times, using sewers and basements and leaving any floor but the ground level floor for observation and snipers only. The one exception being advance. During advance, enemyheld buildings would if possible be attacked from the roof (or top floor, coming from a hole in the wall of the top floor of a neighbour building). So you didnt have to advance upwards, as it was disadvantageous. There was emphasis on rapid perpetual movement by the small independent teams, the ideal being non-stop movement and moving from one ambush position to the next. There was also a whole new art of urban fortification, using mainly fortified cellars, as well as field engineering (such as obstructing passages systematically to channel enemy advances and, of course, booby traps). We see this style of fighting in places like Cassino (the town) and Caen. It was of course marked by the lack of superior firepower of the late-war Germans, as well as the defensive stance. Thus cutting down the combat ranges to point blank.

The Germans also had the habit of setting fire to buildings, either to deny enemy use of them or simply to light the surrounding in night fighting. This was actually breach of international law and the Germans avoided it in the West (but still did it in several places, such as Arnhem), but were as usual not so inhibited in the East.

Then as now, Germany was littered with mock-cities for troops to train in and soldiers were trained in urban operations in such places, or in refresher courses at the front. Training focused on entry and exit techniques of hostile environments. You know, how to stand in front of the door, who throws the grenade, in what order to we run in etc. And of course lapelling techniques (never heard of them using ropes with carbine hooks and such, but they had special ways of stepping on eachother to get over walls and so on). Also, troops had to learn a lot about demolitions and urban fortification. I have only a sketchy view of what exactly they trained, as my most detailed source on this particular subject is actually letters from an officer in such training (my grandfather). He writes of injuries during training among his men.

Regards

Dandelion

[Aragorn2002]

Very interesting. For me it confirms my impression that, especially after Stalingrad, the German training in urban warfare intensified. Thorough people as they are, the Germans must have had an equal professional approach to close combat training. This is the kind of information I'm looking for. I've noticed that some people on this board, like you, posess an extraordinary knowledge of rare details, which can hardly be found elsewhere. Thanks for sharing this. I regret there are few books which can give us an impression of how it was on the level of the ordinary soldier. Personally I like "Death in Normandy" and "Kampfgruppe Peiper" by James Lucas, but I don't know many more books like these. Do you have some recommendations on well-written books (preferabaly not in the style of The Forgotten Soldier by Guy Sayer) which give a good view of reality? And with reality I mean the experiences and fighting techniques of front soldiers, without false drama and "anti-war" horror stories.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Dandelion:

[snips]

This article on the bayonet by a Canadian officer I find both interesting and entertaining, and what's more he has a list of sources that you will probably appreciate:

http://members.tripod.com/~RegimentalRogue/papers/bayonet.htm

Interesting.

I think some people might differ with the assertion in the piece that "Offensive spirit cannot be taught or trained."

For a different view on the value of the bayonet, Dr. Paddy Griffith's book "Forward into Battle" is well worth a look. Apart from anything else, he shows (quite convincingly IMHO) that the British line beat the Napoleonic column by shock action, not by attriting it by fire.

All the best,

John.

[Dandelion]

If you want extreme realism, as in measurable, scientifically exact, go for the report of the No 2 Operational Research Section (and subdivision Teams). This unit was in service with 21st Army Group in the NWE 44-45. The many reports are not published, but the Imperial War Museum will be able to help. I am sure it will radically change your conceptual frame of reality permanently

Jokes aside, their report is stunning and I have never understood why it was never published (it is not secret, nor was it ever). Examples of interesting facts, these concerning the effect of rocket air support, are that they note that in reality, one needed 350 rockets, fired in 44 sorties of Typhoons, to obtain a 50% chance of hitting a small gun position. They conclude that the effect on morale, primarily the boost of friendly morale, was the only discernable effect of rocket firing Typhoons. No reports are "live", they just record all they find. Shellholes, vehicles, angles, casualties - everything.

Personally, in terms of literature on the war, I have a passion for Divisional history books. Divisional historians are qualified to make qualitative compilations, including plenty of personal accounts but also maps, datas and details. Things are set in a context and make more sense than do the accounts of poor bloody infantrymen hiding in their holes, knowing nothing except that they are permanently assigned to the s_ end of the stick of fate.

Nowadays there are dozens of such to be found but my favourite remains the history of the 12th SS Panzer Division by Hubert Meyer. As a single book (well, two actually), it really comes close to having it all. In the Bundesarchiv, works of less talented writers (but equally skilled historians) can be found, such as the one I am quoting in my signature.

But of course, these are not the individual mans story, although titbits of such appear.

Personal accounts tend to be just that - personal. Reflecting an individual experience which may and may not be congruent with what can be called objectively observable truth. If the latter even exists (I am not so sure). Thus I do not encounter much of this in my research (oh tonnes of brief interviews, but not coherent personal accounts in the shape of complete books).

Kurt Meyer wrote his Grenadiere, a personal account from a man always at the center of action and certainly honest - in a way. He was still a convinced Nazi when he wrote it. He was also a very emotional man, passionate even, which is reflected in his style of writing. Am I recommending it? Well sure, to study his concept of reality.

But really, if you want to know what it was like, for individuals participating, write to one of the many many camaraderie organisations for veterans in Germany or Austria. Perhaps surprisingly, I find they tend to be remarkably service minded and extrovert (I have never tried ex-SS though), and make me feel I am not asking stupid questions even when I certainly am. The benefit of such contacts is that you can ask that particular question. Did you use your general service knife of a special knife when peeling potatoes as penal duty at barracks? I mean, some details are simply never written down...

Sadly, the Germans were not at all as organised and structured as they are rumored to have been. After many years of research, I have found all of it to be one huge misunderastanding. Germany was in a state of confusion bordering absurdity, which reached its tragicomical climax during the even more absurd Nazi state. No ends meet I promise you. Nothing was organised, not even crime.

- - -

About the bayonet, I agree with John and am of the humble personal opinion that offensive spririt must be taught in order to appear, thus in quite contrast to it being impossible to teach.

Of course, I am regrettably not Canadian, and little do I know of what natural inclination to extrem aggression that might hide underneath the surface of these otherwise outwardly so kind and warm folk?

All The Best

Dandelion