Hand to Hand Combat

[Aloicious]

I received as a B-day present recently, the German

Infantry Handbook, which i just love. I noticed that though the Landsers were issued a bayonet, they received no training, at least formal, with it. I'm guessing that Americans received training with their bayonets, I think we've all seen the 'scream-at-the-dummy-and-kill-it-dead-with-the-pointy-thing-attached-to-the-end-of-your-rifle' bit in war flicks. Anyone know how extensive training with bayonets were for those that did receive any at all? Would it make any real difference if you did receive even minor training?

It just seems rather odd that the Germans wouldnt be trained with such a trusty bit of equipment. Also I've read somewhere, and I don't remember, that in lieu of the bayonet, German infantry would sometimes use their folding spade, even sometimes sharpening the edges of the head. Any idea of how commonplace this practice was. Personally I'd rather use my shovel than knife, but thats just me. Wonder wich the ground pounders preferred?

Thanks in advance.

[Sergei]

I don't think the use of bayonets was very common. A standard military rifle is not very handy in mélee, and having bayonets at the end while assaulting is dangerous (you could stumble and spear yourself) unless you fix them just before the clash - which is unwieldy at that point. And if you don't have a normal military rifle with bayonet fixing, then you probably have to resort to something else (although the paratroop FG-42 had a bayonet fixing as well as a bipod!!!). The Soviets probably used them more often, an old tradition I guess.

[Quintus]

I think, if I remember the few first hand accounts I've read properly, that entrenching tools, knives and pistols were preferred in trench fighting because of their length. This probably applies to a lot of the 'up close and personal' stuff. There's a classical parallel I suppose, in a close melee, short weapons do better in the main than long ones (Gladius for the Romans, the short spear of the Zulu etc).

SMG's are probably easier to use in-close too, gangsta-stylee.

[SgtMuhammed]

Most infantrymen will tend to use their rifles right up to the point there they had to start clubbing people with it. The weapon value of the bayonette is pretty limited but having even such a simple weapon is good for morale, there is nothing worst than being totally unarmed on the battlefield.

Ironically, recent studies have shown that there have actually been very few incidents where the bayonette was actually used. Even medical reports from the Napoleonic era don't show as many bayonette wounds as one would expect. Most often it is the threat and the shock of the charge itself that causes formations to break from a bayonette charge.

[athkatla]

When I was in the British Army I only took part in Bayonet training twice, once during basic training and a few years later when doing my JNCO's cadre. Both times the training was the "run at the sack on some string and kill it" variety. Reading a book about the Falklands war it stated that bayonets were used in the night attacks by British soldiers there, but unlike in movies, one thrust of a bayonet into an enemys body certainly did not kill him, one account tells of repeated thrusts with the bayonet resulting in the bayonet breaking, and the enemy still alive and fighting. I'm sorry I don't remember the name of the book, but it was written by a soldier who fought in that war!

[ March 12, 2003, 06:33 AM: Message edited by: athkatla ]

[Aloicious]

I can see how it would be rather unwieldy to use the bayonet in melee combat. The heavy, sturdy wood stock of a rifle would be more than sufficient to render an opponent senseless. Hard to fight when you're getting your head bashed in with a big nasty club.

And while we're on the topic, what can anyone tell me about the ghurkas? All know about them is a little anecdote I read in a one book or another. A British officer I believe, in the Italian campaign I think, asked a Ghurka soldier who regularly went out on night raids into German lines, to bring back a wristwatch if he found one. Then one morning, when the Brit officer woke he found a nice present outside his tent, a severed arm of a poor german soldier, wristwatch and all.

[Ant]

Bayonets were not really originally intended to be used against infantry anyway. Their conception came about in the old musket and powder days as a means to defend against a cavalry charge. Their use in modern warfare is largely a holdover from the past and I think the main reason for their continued existence is the thought that it's better to have one than not, and, as has been mentioned, for morale purposes.

[flamingknives]

It's easier to block a sweeping blow than a thrust, so a bayonet scores over a rifle butt there.

Plus most modern rifles don't have a very heavy stock.

They're used to train aggression into trainees and to add impetus to a charge, AFAIK.

The knife used by the gurkas is called a Kukhri and by reputation are very sharp.

The gurkhas are Nepalese hillmen, IIRC.

Another amusing anecdote regarding the unit comes from the falklands. When the final 'ring' of hills surrounding Port Staley were attacked, the Argentinian forces guarding one position found out that there were to be attacked by the Gurkhas, and promptly ran away, beliveing them to be bulletproof and able to fly.

[sgtabell]

Remember a couple of other hand held weapons which do wayyyy more immediate damage....

Entrenching Tool

Way better than the bayonet. Clubbin and cutting damage. Remember the goal is to stop the attacker. A bayonet causes you to bleed to death, after about a minute.

The helmet

Felt to be useless by most grunts anyways.

The rifle as a club.

Rocks and sticks...back to basics...

SgtAbell

[MikeyD]

Remember the bayonet fight in Saving Private Ryan? I've read several Vietnam and Korean conflict stories about very-close fighting where the G.I.s turned to their hand weapons (bayonets, sharpened entrenching tools, etc.) because a gunshot would go through the enemy and into one of their buddies in the confined space. Sounds like the kind of horrific fighting that causes the Army to keep psychiatrists on its payroll.

About hand-to-hand in the game, I believe I read somewhere that sound samples change when fighting gets very close (though I haven't noticed), and non-firearms casualties do mount. I'd like to hear details on exactly how close-in fighting is modeled.

[ March 12, 2003, 11:02 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[scoop88]

Bayonet training in the U.S. Army, circa 1972 when I went through it, consisted of one session lasting maybe an hour where they taught you how to thrust the bayonet and withdraw it, using a sandbag mounted at about chest level to simulate the enemy. We also had some very basic judo/karate ... just enough to hurt ourselves ... and a session with pongee sticks, which were long clubs with a soft, rectangular "pillow" on each end. The sticks were the most fun. Two combatants would put on football helmets and proceed to beat the hell out of each other with the sticks until the drill sergeant ordered you to stop. That was the extent of our hand-to-hand combat training.

[Sergei]

In the Finnish Army, half of the melee training comprises of destroying tanks with toothpicks, coarse language and other WMD. Too bad I was on sick leave...

[ March 12, 2003, 11:12 AM: Message edited by: Sergei ]

[Conscript Bagger]

The whole padded-stick-thingy fight has to be a psychological training exercise more than a legitimate battlefield technique, doesn't it? I mean, unless we go to war against the American Gladiators.

[Nestor]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

The knife used by the gurkas is called a Kukhri and by reputation are very sharp.

From too many youthful years spent reading The Victor on a Saturday (which always had some kind of Gurkha story going on)I seem to recall that once drawn the kukhri is not supposed to be sheathed until it has drawn blood.

Obviously, given the source, this may be complete bollocks but it all adds to the Gurkha mystique

[Other Means]

slightly off topic but a good (apocryphal?) story.

my mate told me the story of his friend, John Ridgeway Sutch (of ridgeway teas as it happens).

John was the British Army liason to the gurkhas during WWII. they where doing a briefing about a jump into the jungle.

"So, you'll be dropped about 5,000 foot above the jungle..."

this caused some commotion amongst the gurkha command who asked,

"can we be dropped, maybe at 500 feet?"

"but your parachutes wouldn't have time to open."

"...ahhhh. parachutes".

as i say, maybe not true but the fact that the story gets told is a measure of the toughness of them.

[mPisi]

Gorkas are some tough guys, for sure. Some of the best friends the UK has had, even if the gov't keeps scrwing them on pensions, etc. If you're looking for a really good khukuri (and I'm talking a real tool/weapon, not a flea-market piece of pot metal), check out Himalayan Imports. The Khukuri FAQ also has alot of info on Gorkhas.

As for having to draw blood with the khukuri before sheathing it, it may well have been true at one time, and not just for khukuris. It seems to me it would be a good incentive to keep a new warrior from constantly screwing around with his weapon, if he had to take a slice from his arm, or say some long magic spell, before he put his weapon away.

[mPisi]

There is also a story of a Gurkha out on recon patrol with an English officer, somewhere in a jungle war. Upon finding the enemy area, the English officer tells the soldier to stay in place while the officer goes for help. For some reason the officer is diverted to some other task, and it is months or years later when he comes back to the area of his recon patrol. Where he finds the Gurkha still waiting for him, with a nice hut built and garden growing for sustenance.

[demoss]

About hand-to-hand in the game, I believe I read somewhere that sound samples change when fighting gets very close (though I haven't noticed), and non-firearms casualties do mount.

I can confirm that.

[Zebulon Pleasure Beast]

Originally posted by demoss:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> About hand-to-hand in the game, I believe I read somewhere that sound samples change when fighting gets very close (though I haven't noticed), and non-firearms casualties do mount.

I can confirm that. </font>

[Bertram]

The Khukri (or however you spell it) is in fact a very common knife in Nepal. Lots of people going into the mountains will carry one, on trekkings especially the cooks and the kitchen boy's, to chop wood, vegatables and an occasional chicken.

"Security guards" at the hotels in Kathmandu (often ex-Ghurka's who do double duty as doorman and bellboy) almost always have one to (and will be proud to show it to anyone remotely interested).

Old ones are usually sold to tourists, for about ten times what a new one would cost. I bought a new one at a general store for NR 400 (IIRC) what would be about 2 euro (??). Of course it isn't as fancy as the one shown above, with just a wooden scabbart and wood heft, and made of rather soft iron (which makes it very sharp, but care intensive).

Bertram

[SgtMuhammed]

It is tradition that the khukuri is supposed to draw blood once drawn. Like all traditions some people take it more seriously than others. Some Gurkhas will show one to you then cut their thumb before putting it back.

I remember hearing from some friends I had in the Royal Marines that when the Argies surrendered before the final assault on Port Stanely a lot of the Gurkhas were pissed off.

[Sublime]

The drawing blood thing is also true IIRC with Katanas and the Samurai tradition. Samurai would show their weapon by pulling part way out of the sheath, but they had to draw blood with it if it was removed from the sheath.

[Aloicious]

Are the Ghurkas just a military unit, I mean would they be analgous to the Rangers or SEALs, or are they just your typical Nepalese warriors who happen to be quite fierce and tough?

[flamingknives]

Gurkhas are a 'regular' army unit, but they are really quite good. Their TO&E is the same as a regular infantry unit, but they get used like the Paras or the Royal Marines.

Part of their significant fighting prowess seems to be attributed to the fact that they have very few preconceptions about combat, and as such learn what they are taught well and quickly.

The drawing blood with the Kukhri is most likely rubbish. It's a jungle knife, like a machete. ( My Grandfather, who served in Burma, managed to cut himself with one, but that wasn't intentional)

[Firefly]

The origin of Ghurkhas in the British Army goes back to one of the 'little wars' of the 19th century, called the Ghurkha War, between the British and the Nepalese. The British were so impressed with the fighting abilities of their opponents that the treaty concluding the war obliged the Nepalese to provide some of their fighting men for British service and the tradition was born. These days Ghurkhas serve in both the British and Indian army and competition to enter their ranks is quite stiff. The Royal Ghurkha Rifles are the only non-Guards regiment that provides ceremonial guards for Buckingham Palace.

[ March 13, 2003, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: Firefly ]