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.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by 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.

Not that I'd disagree in particular, but I'd be interested to know your meaning in this case, how often is "quite" often compared to ranged combat? I trust you know about the issue more than I do, that's why I'd like it if you told more (for instance, which army was specialised in use of teeth? ). In what kinds of conditions did it usually occur? I guess poor visibility conditions would be one, or when a recon patrol tried capturing a POW.

[Aragorn2002]

Well, my dear Sergei, I wonder why the initial members from the Leibstandarte were at first selected on a perfect set of teeth....

No, I just meant to say that a man, when fighting for his life, uses everything at his disposal. I've read in several books that soldiers literally did bite each others throat...

Man-to-man fighting occured most frequently in house-to-house fighting and the clearing of trench systems, when the distance between the opposing parties was reduced to a minimum and the use of fire arms was difficult. I suppose it didn't happen quite as often as ranged combat, but it happened especially when the frontline was fluid and attack and counterattack followed each other. And yes, poor visibility and attempts to make prisoners during recon patrols were also ideal conditions for close combat, I agree.

It puzzles me why there are so little good books on subjects like this. It would be very helpful in trying to imagine how it really was. I'm sure these soldiers had lots of special tricks and techniques to survive and so little seem to be known about it. I do realize that veterans are reluctant to talk about such dramatic actions, but there are so many books about the war and yet so few about the details of the actual fighting.

[JasonC]

There isn't much about it because it wasn't very common, when it happened it was usually very lopsided, and there is a certain simplicity to it. That it wasn't common is easily seen in the reports of causes of casualties. Only 1% or so were from causes besides shells and bullets. As for the simplicity of it, it is pretty direct - someone gets the other guy before the reverse. The first hit decides everything.

Men in combat don't live very long if both in close proximity and LOS of each other. When close but in defilade because of terrain (inside houses, etc), grenades were the primary close combat weapon. Small arms were almost immediately lethal if small movements created LOS. It is darn hard to miss at 10 meters. Standard room clearing was grenade or two, then spray fire with an automatic small arm.

Were other weapons sometimes resorted to? Sure. Night attacks with surprise would use knives and bayonets on isolated outposts in an effort to maintain stealth. Lopsided, unless something goes wrong.

In fighting within the same building e.g. in Stalingrad, there was some use made of physical blows rather than bullets, sometimes to follow up grenade stun, because a man shot and mortally wounded can still fire back for a moment or two, while a man physically knocked down cannot. The ability of a man who is "already dead" to fire back momentarily is the only reason to use anything but bullets.

All the talk of "knock down" power of bullets is (HMGs aside) something of a myth, at least if taken literally. The physical momentum of bullets is limited, equal to the recoil and so obviously easily absorbed. Whereas a man clocked with a swung shovel (the favorite German close combat weapon in Stalingrad, sharpened and used like an axe) or a clubbed rifle can indeed be physically knocked down.

It is still a matter of following up grenade stun, not an "even" fight - just varying the "dispatch" weapon to avoid a last shot from the mortally wounded. This was improvisation, based on extensive close combat inside buildings with high losses on both sides, not a matter of training.

Many countries trained extensively with bayonets, mostly for morale purposes (trying to train away physical fear of the enemy and install aggressiveness). There is no evidence that any of that made any difference in reality. E.g. the Japanese were brave and confident to the point of suicide, and trained extensively in bayonet fighting. In practice, close firepower from SMGs, grenades, occasionally shotguns, sometimes pistols (used even at contact range, practically like a knife) trumped any of that.

Commandos and other elite units did weaponless hand to hand training mostly for the same morale reasons, also for the cases of stealthy dispatch of outposts. Gurkas trained with their knives for similar reasons. It seems to have boosted confidence and created some enemy morale effects by reputation, and doubtless improved such units in night fighting in particular.

Virtually all of this matters just via confidence and aggressiveness, not any actual effect of the limited skills learned. Bringing a knife to a gunfight is, after all, famously stupid.

[Mike13]

Try the book "Closing with the Enemy:How GIs Fought The War In Europe, 1944-1945" by Michael Doubler. The book is from the American point of view, and includes chapters on Bocage fighting, house to house, fighting in forests and how the US army developed various fighting techinques.

The book is available in paperback.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by aragorn2002:

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. [snips]

Sorry, there's nothing I know of. The limit of my own hand-to-hand combat training in the TA in the late 70s, which was still pretty WW2ish in style, was "Get in the f***ing 'ole with 'im and sort the f***er out", which, for an aggressive young man with a self-loading rifle and a nasty pointy thing to go on the end of it, was supposed to be enough to be going on with.

I do, however, know a rather good pome on the subject, which is the third and probably least well-known of Henry Reed's "Lessons of War" series, after "The naming of parts" and "Judging distances".

Here it is.

All the best,

John.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Unarmed Combat

by Henry Reed

In due course of course you will all be issued with

Your proper issue; but until tomorrow,

You can hardly be said to need it; and until that time,

We shall have unarmed combat. I shall teach you

The various holds and rolls and throws and breakfalls

Which you may sometimes meet.

And the various holds and rolls and throws and breakfalls

Do not depend on any sort of weapon,

But only on what I might coin a phrase and call

The ever-important question of human balance,

And the ever-important need to be in a strong

Position at the start.

There are many kinds of weakness about the body,

Where you would least expect, like the ball of the foot,

But the various holds and rolls and throws and breakfalls

Will always come in useful. And never be frightened

To tackle from behind: it may not be clean to do so,

But this is global war.

So give them all you have, and always give them

As good as you get: it will always get you somewhere.

(You may not know it, but you can tie a Jerry

Up with rope; it is one of the things I shall teach you.)

Nothing will matter if only you are ready for him.

The readiness is all.

The readiness is all. How can I help but feel

I have been here before? But somehow then,

I was the tied-up one. How to get out

Was always then my problem. And even if I had

A piece of rope I was always the sort of person

Who threw the rope aside.

And in my time I have given them all I had,

Which was never as good as I got, and it got me nowhere.

And the various holds and rolls and throws and breakfalls

Somehow or other I always seemed to put

In the wrong place. And as for war, my wars

Were global from the start.

Perhaps I was never in a strong position,

Or the ball of my foot got hurt, or I had some weakness

Where I had least expected. But I think I see your point.

While awaiting a proper issue, we must learn the lesson

Of the ever-important question of human balance

It is courage that counts.

Things may be the same again; and we must fight

Not in the hope of winning but rather of keeping

Something alive: so that when we meet our end,

It may be said that we tackled whatever we could,

That battle-fit we lived, and though defeated,

Not without glory fought.

[Aragorn2002]

There isn't much about it because it wasn't very common, when it happened it was usually very lopsided, and there is a certain simplicity to it.

I'm not sure about most close combat fighting being very lopsided. I've read accounts which suggests that it took quite a while before one of the sides broke down. And there are now many close combat manuals around, which show that the art of close combat is not ad hoc, but must be learned and practised. The Germans had Nahkampf-experts and it is a known fact that the Waffen-SS did put a lot of time in teaching their recruts the basics of close combat fighting. I've once saw some pictures about how they learned to parry a bayonet thrust with their spade, or aim for the throat or belly with their bayonet. There must have been a great number of techniques of close combat (take for example Saving Private Ryan, in which they throw their helmets at their enemy, which sounds like lesson out of practice, passed on by veterans). Of course most soldiers would prefer to use machine guns or grenades, but it is a fact that ammunition wasn't always around.

Well, all your suggestions and the poem have been interesing to read, but I guess information on close combat in WW2 is very, very hard to find.

I will read "Closing with the Enemy:How GIs Fought The War In Europe, 1944-1945" by Michael Doubler. I'm curious, but I've read from several sources that the US Army infantry were very reluctant to get involved in close combat.

Anyway, thanks for all your reactions.

[86smopuim]

Originally posted by JasonC:

It is darn hard to miss at 10 meters.

U must never have witnessed me firing a gun

[Sergei]

While drawing conclusions from training of men, one must bear in mind that all armies also carried gasmasks and knew how to use them. But that doesn't mean that poisonous gasses were actually used in combat.

Giving training in close-quarters fighting was important in the sense that then the enemy could not rely on their men to be superior in close charges. For special units like SAS it was obviously very important for their survival.

Then, of course, we've got the Polish cavalry...

[eif]

Not sure if relevant, (or true), but a friend mentioned that german helmets underwent a change in the war? British commandos supposedly found that while in hand to hand combat, german troops necks could be pulled back and snapped due to the design of the helmets if they managed to get close enough to get a grip.

[Nidan1]

Originally posted by eif:

Not sure if relevant, (or true), but a friend mentioned that german helmets underwent a change in the war? British commandos supposedly found that while in hand to hand combat, german troops necks could be pulled back and snapped due to the design of the helmets if they managed to get close enough to get a grip.

Untrue. the basic design of the German "Stahlhelm" remained virtually unchanged throughout the war. The only exception was the helmet which was worn by Fallschirmajaeger, which was different in shape.

If a man is wearing any kind of helment with the chinstrap firmly in place, it makes it easier to wrench the neck and possibly break it. The shape of the helment would not necessarily have any influence on that. American Helmets had a quick release chin strap to prevent that. Is that what you are referring to? The straps?

[Ant]

Well I can confirm the bit about the commandos is true. There was a TV series on in the UK last year about the commandos in WW2 and a couple of the old ex commandos definitely said that it was easy to break a German sentry's neck from behind because of the shape of the helmet.

I agree that the helmets didn't change though. Probably not very cost effective to change the helmets of your entire army on the off chance that a commando might sneak up behind a few soldiers

[Poor Old Spike]

Cornelius Ryan's "A Bridge Too Far" makes excellent reading of course. Sample-"a satchel charge thrown by a German through the window into a house was hurled back out by the British moments later.."