Close Combat

[RockinHarry]

Then CMBN is a lousy simulator of infantry combat, because it really isn't in the games I play.

It´s surely anything but lousy, but if game development decisions are made upon broad "assumptions" about certain combat aspects to be rare (or common) in WW2 or not, then there´s at least some need for more in depth research and gathering credible info.

The truth will surely settle somewhere between "rare" and "common". It´s just about that.

Second comes if it´s worth time and efforts to include something like that in a "game" and there´s yet other reasons not to include as well. A gamey presentation of violence yields certain problems (ESRB rating) and hand to hand combat, as well as show of bloodn gore would likely be the most problematic ones.

At least that would be more of a credible explanation not to include certain parts of gamey violence, instead of declaring it "uncommon" or "rare".

[YankeeDog]

Best way to get a handle on how common hand-to-hand combat was, and specifically how common the use of weapons other than small arms and grenades was, is to just look at the actual casualty reports; many of them break down casualties by cause.

I can't speak for German army casualty reports because I've never seen them. But I have seen the U.S. casualty reports for the ETO, and stab and blunt force wounds are so uncommon they often don't even show up as a category; they're simply lumped in as "other". When they are specifically categorized, it's some fraction of a percent.

So no, I don't think there is much evidence to support the idea that close combat with weapons like bayonets and rifle butts was anything more than a rare occurrence for units in the ETO, unless you can come up with some justification as to why all this close combat was happening, but somehow almost nobody was getting stabbed or clubbed...

But did it happen? Sure; rarely.

Are close combat encounters a popular subject for war history writers? Absolutely -- since accounts of close combat are often exciting and heroic, when it does happen it tends to get a lot of attention. But this very fact makes any sampling of small unit anecdotes a very unreliable indicator of frequency -- these types of records usually skew towards telling the stories of the remarkable and the medal recipients.

Is it important to CMBN to represent close combat in some way? Well... yes and no. Even in a close-range collision (one unit charging into a building and discovering another unit hiding there, for example), the vast majority of the time, soldiers will probably manage to shoot or frag each other before they'll resort to stabbing and punching. That is, if one side doesn't simply surrender or run away.

However, while it hasn't really happened in any my games of CMBN to date (to date, one side has always gotten killed, routed and run away, or surrendered before the soldiers actually got to within bayonet range in my games), I can see how there could be situations where things would get funky in close range encounters if there is absolutely no representation of hand-to-hand melee, especially with soldiers that are carrying low rate-of-fire, low mag capacity weapons, like the Germans' Kar 98k. Not likely that a German carrying a Kar 98k would take the time to try to reload his rifle if he was face-to-face with a GI was standing just a few meters away -- he might surrender or run away, but if he's still going to try to fight, it makes sense that he would resort to hand-to-hand at that point.

So would probably be a good thing to have bayonet stabs and fisticuffs represented in some way, however abstractly.

[sburke]

Some here say, close-, hand to hand combat, was a rare occurance.I counter with, it was daily bread and butter for most frontline units.

Then CMBN is a lousy simulator of infantry combat, because it really isn't in the games I play.

I have neither bread nor butter in mine, hell no jam, coffee, ersatz or otherwise. Man this sucks. No wonder my pixeltruppen are running up and down the hedgerow acting confused, they are starving!

[vonRocko]

This is totally unscientific and doesn't mean much, but I polled some veteran acquaintances of mine. 14 guys (4 from vietnam, 4 from Iraq pt.1, 6 from Iraq/afghan)

All four from vietnam had used their fists, rifle butts or knives at some point. 2 out of the four Iraq pt.1 vets had used their rifle butts, 2 out of the 6 Iraq/afghani vets also had to resort to hand to hand. So out of these 14 vets, 8 had been in hand to hand combat. Different wars, different theatres, different time frames. It seems to me that it is not so "rare", even today.

[womble]

This is totally unscientific and doesn't mean much, but I polled some veteran acquaintances of mine. 14 guys (4 from vietnam, 4 from Iraq pt.1, 6 from Iraq/afghan)

All four from vietnam had used their fists, rifle butts or knives at some point. 2 out of the four Iraq pt.1 vets had used their rifle butts, 2 out of the 6 Iraq/afghani vets also had to resort to hand to hand. So out of these 14 vets, 8 had been in hand to hand combat. Different wars, different theatres, different time frames. It seems to me that it is not so "rare", even today.

And how many combats, aggregate had they been in (and what proportion of those ended up in melee)? I have no idea how many firefights they might've gotten into in their terms of service If it was 100 each, and each had only once gotten into a melee, then it's still rare (1% counts as rare in my book).

[vonRocko]

That's a good point. This is just from informal conversation, and some of these guys had multiple tours and saw much action. I guess the percetage will be low, but it does seem that if you are fighting in a war, that sooner or later you might have to use hand to hand at some point. I would also expect that certain specialised units like commandos and spec. ops would have a higher rate of hand to hand, based on the missions they would recieve.

[RockinHarry]

Before I dig my reference materials for evidences, I like to note that CC was probably more encouraged in german army than it was in US. Whether it could be or was applied is another question.

One "encouragement technique" was:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_Combat_Clasp

The Gold Close Combat Clasp was often regarded in higher esteem than the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross by the German infantry. Of the roughly 18 – 20 Million soldiers of the German Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS 36,400 received the Bronze Class, 9,500 the Silver Class and 631 the Gold Class.

Well...the recipients of the CCC were "few", but does it tell anything about frequency of CC situations?

Edit: This one is interesting as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry_Assault_Badge

[YankeeDog]

That's a good point. This is just from informal conversation, and some of these guys had multiple tours and saw much action. I guess the percetage will be low, but it does seem that if you are fighting in a war, that sooner or later you might have to use hand to hand at some point. I would also expect that certain specialised units like commandos and spec. ops would have a higher rate of hand to hand, based on the missions they would recieve.

There's also the issue of the exact nature of the close combat engagements. Iraq and Afghanistan especially have involved a substantial of cordon and search operations -- sweeping houses and other settlements to find weapons and explosives caches, root out insurgents hiding amongst the civilian population, etc. Not that surprising that fisticuffs and other hand-to-hand combat might come up in situations like this, especially since the insurgents are often dressed just like the civilians, so you can't just shoot whomever is wearing an enemy uniform.

Similar conditions in a fair amount of Vietnam, too, actually.

[Wiggum]

@ RockinHarry

Do you have the exact description about what the germans called "Nahkampftag" (Close-combat day) ?

I believe there is a issue with mixing close- and hand to hand combat.

Most likely all fighting in urban areas was "close-combat" but that does not mean that any hand-to-hand combat was occurring at all.

[RockinHarry]

@ RockinHarry

Do you have the exact description about what the germans called "Nahkampftag" (Close-combat day) ?

I believe there is a issue with mixing close- and hand to hand combat.

Most likely all fighting in urban areas was "close-combat" but that does not mean that any hand-to-hand combat was occurring at all.

Unfortunately the english Wiki lacks some further descriptions, the german version has.

Try this (until I find a proper translation):

http://translate.google.de/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FNahkampfspange

[John1966]

The specific environment combat takes place will have a lot of impact on the frequency of both "close" and "HTH" combat. I suppose it would not be too controversial to state that it was more common in Stalingrad than it was in North Africa for fairly obvious reasons. Also more common in night actions. If this is the same engine that is going to be used for these different fronts (as we will be getting an Eastern front game) then HTH combat needs to be modelleed even if it is only an abstraction.

What I'm not altogether clear about from these posts (and indeed from playing CMx2) is whether it actually is modelled. Does anyone have the definitive answer to this?

And for the record (and I know I said this in a previous post), its not a "rare" occurance when I'm playing. If pixeltruppen of opposing sides end up in the same room then I call that pretty "close" combat and potentially a "hand to hand" situation; although still not a given - SMGs and pistols would probably be the first weapons of choice - but in that kind of situation I'd have thought that hitting each other would still take priority over changing clips when empty.

Perhaps I play "aggressively" (recklessly, more like) but these situations are fairly common in the games I play, especially where a fair few buildings are involved.

EDIT: Just in case that isn't obvious, I am suggesting that closed terrain will throw up more situations of close combat as opposing forces are engaged at closer distances. Not anything to do with the "nature" of the fighting; although that would also have an impact itself.

[Childress]

Bayonetting, or'wet work', has been in decline for a couple of hundred years. If BFC were simulating WW1 should it be in? Probably. The American Civil War? Most definitely. Napoleon's wars? Absolutely. As I think Steve pointed out even the massively popular, well bank-rolled WW2 FPS like Call of Duty didn't see fit to include close quarter combat animations. Apparently the game wasn't worth the candle, as the French say.

[Haggard Sketchy]

From Wikipedia:

During the Korean War, Lewis L. Millett led soldiers of the US Army's 27th Infantry Regiment in taking out a machine gun position with bayonets. Millett was awarded the Medal of Honor for this action. This was the last bayonet charge by the US Army.

Another from Korea:

The attackers continued to assault his position and Pfc. Brown weaponless, drew his entrenching tool from his pack and calmly waited until they 1 by 1 peered over the wall, delivering each a crushing blow upon the head. Knocking 10 or 12 enemy from the wall, his daring action so inspired his platoon that they repelled the attack and held their position.

A "bonk them on the head with a shovel as they peek over a wall" animation might be asking for a bit much. I do think one simple animation + abstracted effect is reasonable though.

Bayonetting, or'wet work', has been in decline for a couple of hundred years. If BFC were simulating WW1 should it be in? Probably. The American Civil War? Most definitely. Napoleon's wars? Absolutely. As I think Steve pointed out even the massively popular, well bank-rolled WW2 FPS like Call of Duty didn't see fit to include close quarter combat animations. Apparently the game wasn't worth the candle, as the French say.

CoD has it. Haven't played the others, but the first game had multiple hand-to-hand animations, albeit mostly for AI. If anything, I thought H2H was nerfed in that game, since everyone could reload so quickly and flawlessly. Plus I have yet to see an FPS that models the hindrances of weapon length in close quarters, as well as the fact that someone with the drop on you probably won't leave you able to simply turn around and shoot them (tackling, grabbing gun, whatever).

If you want an example of a more realistic FPS produced on a small budget, Red Orchestra had mêlée kills often enough. It looked terrible (the bayo stab looked to have as much force as a baby's punch and the butt-swing didn't even have an animation), but it got the job done.

On the other hand, there was America's Army 2 without any H2H ability for similar reasons argued here. It was always ridiculous to watch the last two remaining players in a round spend four seconds next to each other doing the reload dance.

I don't agree with the "It happens only an average of a few seconds per hour-long scenario therefore it's not worth development efforts" argument, for the same reason nay-sayers like to bring up regarding anecdotes versus statistics: It sticks in the mind more! Otherwise I'd complain that there aren't a bazillion different jogging animations. This is leaving something out entirely.

[sburke]

I don't agree with the "It happens only an average of a few seconds per hour-long scenario therefore it's not worth development efforts" argument, for the same reason nay-sayers like to bring up regarding anecdotes versus statistics: It sticks in the mind more! Otherwise I'd complain that there aren't a bazillion different jogging animations. This is leaving something out entirely.

I'm confused (nothing personal, it happens all the time. I must need to eat more ginkoba or something - maybe barley grass tea). Does that mean you think they should spend the development time or it is okay by you that it isn't there?

[LukeFF]

Leave it to the Scottish to keep the tradition of the bayonet charge alive:

http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14911

Morale is very good following this serious incident.

[RockinHarry]

Who knows about ESRB rating matters? Would it hurt sales if CMBN adds appropiate hand to hand combat animations and modelling? CMX1 was rather "soft" in this regard, so there weren´t likely any problems.

I know most FPS games and played most of them and if few do not have hand to hand combat modelled, a modder community would have added it later on (ARMA2, i44 mod).

Some of the FPS games taught me, if you´re heavily focused on a certain action (observing, shooting, reloading, cowering, ...close combat), you could quickly die by getting stabbed from an enemy approaching you unseen, around the corner and such.

[acrashb]

Scot's troops still enjoy having a bayonet

They did - but the operative phrases from the article are "When ammunition ran low..." and "first time in 22 years".

Great article. I knew about the incident, but not that they charged over 200 yards of open ground. A really interesting AAR would indicate how many of the enemy expired from bayonet wounds vs. bullet wounds from the few remaining rounds of allied ammo vs. just ran from the battlefield. I expect that bayonets per se had little to do with success (other than perhaps the psychological factor) - "Some did get cut with the blades of the bayonet as we tumbled around, but in the end, they surrendered and were controlled".

Since it was bunch of Scots, no doubt bagpipes were also key to success, although not mentioned in the article (preserving opsec).

[acrashb]

Some of the FPS games taught me, if you´re heavily focused on a certain action (observing, shooting, reloading, cowering, ...close combat), you could quickly die by getting stabbed from an enemy approaching you unseen, around the corner and such.

FPS' aren't real-life. You get stabbed in FPS' because some players want style points. In "real life" you would get shot by the unseen enemy, because he would not be stupid enough to pull a knife and get that close to you as long as his primary and secondary weapons worked. For that matter, if primary and secondary go down, your enemy is simply going to leave the area and get new guns.

[RockinHarry]

FPS' aren't real-life. You get stabbed in FPS' because some players want style points. In "real life" you would get shot by the unseen enemy, because he would not be stupid enough to pull a knife and get that close to you as long as his primary and secondary weapons worked. For that matter, if primary and secondary go down, your enemy is simply going to leave the area and get new guns.

Off course they aren´t real life and I can´t tell of the reason I got stabbed (bayonet), instead of shot, since I did not survive the action. Maybe the oppo player expended ammo, lacked time to reload, wanted to keep stealthieness, whatever. Btw, it was latest experience of playing RO2 HOS :cool:, ...so no idea about "style points".

Some of the better FPS with CC implementation provide a good testing ground for when to better have bayonet fixed and when not. If I expect an enemy just the next corner (bocage, wall, room, trench...) around I prefer to have bayonet fixed already. In very confined spaces an entrenching tool might be even more handy.

[acrashb]

Some of the better FPS with CC implementation provide a good testing ground for when to better have bayonet fixed and when not.

A good testing ground for the FPS game in question, and only for the game. In real-life it just isn't done (at least today) for the reasons I mentioned; note that the Basra bayonet charge was the first for the British Army in 22 years.

WWII may well be different - if a soldier has a bolt-action rifle as a primary and no secondary, bayonets suddenly seem more helpful - I suppose it would be considered the secondary. Which is why others have dug up both anecdotes and wound stats to support, or not, including hand-to-hand in CMBN.

since I did not survive the action.

So we are having a seance?

[RockinHarry]

Lets stick to WW2 and CMBN. Anything beyond or prior, though interesting, is secondary.

The brutal nature of CC also might lead to outcomes, where survivors won´t be registered for the sake of having wound stats, for whatever they´re good for. Maybe too many died in CC situations and were buried, left behind or captured, before anybody could make a useful stat.

[c3k]

Bayonets aren't the only item used in HtH. However, running forward as a unit with bayonets fixed, screaming, red-faced, etc., shows the enemy that you are serious. If he is not as serious, he will attempt to surrender (not likely when facing screaming red-faced men running at you with pointy metal), or he will flee.

Sharpened entrenching tools work well as battle axes. The trench club is merely a modernized mace. It has the same utility. The rifles themselves are great. Being about 10 lbs and 4 feet in length, they add a bit of "oomph" to the butt stroke. (I'd be bit hesitant about expecting results from an M4 butt stroke, especially compared to what an upswung Garand stock would do to a jaw.)

There's so much more than just the bayonet.

[YankeeDog]

Lets stick to WW2 and CMBN. Anything beyond or prior, though interesting, is secondary.

The brutal nature of CC also might lead to outcomes, where survivors won´t be registered for the sake of having wound stats, for whatever they´re good for. Maybe too many died in CC situations and were buried, left behind or captured, before anybody could make a useful stat.

U.S. Casualty stats include both KIA and wounded (U.S. Graves registration teams record cause of death for all recovered bodies, friend and foe, as far as can be determined). Of course, they do not include wounded POW as they would have no way of measuring this.

Of course, there is probably a significant margin of error with these stats as there are a number of MIA, undetermined etc. However, the % casualties caused by melee-type injuries is so low, there would have to be a very large systemic error somewhere for stabbing and blunt-force to have actually been a common occurrence.

And I reiterate that these stats do not actually say anything directly about how often close engagements occurred (that is, how often GIs and Germans got "within spitting distance" of each other in combat). It could be that close engagements were fairly common, but that American soldiers tended to surrender or run before they could be stabbed or clubbed. Or that German soldiers were much more likely to shoot or frag in a close engagement than resort to melee weapons. Or that American soldiers were much better than Germans at close combat, and so tended to win a disproportionate number of hand-to-hand engagements (this last one I very much doubt, but it is something you have to consider when looking at this type of statistic).

[JasonC]

YankeeDog - we don't really need to guess even that much, really. You are right that melee weapons inflict only a tiny fraction of all injuries. It was below 1% as early as the US civil war, with serious reload problems and plenty of grand scrum presses. Under 2% throughout the second half of the 19th century, in war after war. With artillery and machineguns it went lower still. It is all pretty much Hollywood nonsense. Did fighting take place down to quite low ranges sometimes, especially at night? Sure. But it was mostly conducted by grenade and personal firearms. Even that was a change from the usual daytime fighting, in which even rifles were something of a footnote to bigger weapons - artillery, tanks, crew served weapons. Then the SAW got half of what those left.

The last period in which edged weapons inflicted any appreciable portion of the wounds was the Napoleonic wars, when cavalry swords (and lances) account for a bit less than 10% of all combat wounds. Bayonets are still small, around 2-3%. Most wounds (up to two thirds) were inflicted by musketry and the balance by artillery.

[Sgt Joch]

YankeeDog - we don't really need to guess even that much, really. You are right that melee weapons inflict only a tiny fraction of all injuries. It was below 1% as early as the US civil war, with serious reload problems and plenty of grand scrum presses. Under 2% throughout the second half of the 19th century, in war after war. With artillery and machineguns it went lower still. It is all pretty much Hollywood nonsense. Did fighting take place down to quite low ranges sometimes, especially at night? Sure. But it was mostly conducted by grenade and personal firearms. Even that was a change from the usual daytime fighting, in which even rifles were something of a footnote to bigger weapons - artillery, tanks, crew served weapons. Then the SAW got half of what those left.

The last period in which edged weapons inflicted any appreciable portion of the wounds was the Napoleonic wars, when cavalry swords (and lances) account for a bit less than 10% of all combat wounds. Bayonets are still small, around 2-3%. Most wounds (up to two thirds) were inflicted by musketry and the balance by artillery.

Even in the seven year's war in the 1750s, it was already relatively infrequent. I had read quotes of Prussian and Austrian generals complaining after the war that all battles were decided by artillery/musket fire and that no one conducted proper bayonet charges anymore.

At the beginning of the war in 1756-57, King Frederick had insisted that his infantry advance without firing to break the enemy lines with "cold steel". In the first real tests at Prague and Kolin in 57, Austrian artillery massacred the Prussian infantry and everyone went back to deciding battles with musket/artillery fire. By the later battles in 59-60, artillery caused most casualties and opposing lines often came no closer then 100-200 meters before one fled.

You see the same thing as you go forward in time and obviously firearms were much deadlier in WW2. I am sure you had situations of close combat in WW2, but it was the exception.