Jump to content

Close Combat


Recommended Posts

What is so hard to keep sticking at WW2 topic and CMBN theatre in particular? :confused:

Thought this thread was about to leave the field of broad "assumptions" and knowledgable players at least would name their sources and reference materials. I´m not really interested in Frederick the great, Napoleon or Iraque war...sorry! ;)

Bayonet charges? :confused: This thread is about close combat, its frequency, methods and application.

Maybe some more definition is needed. The description of german Close Combat Clasp maybe gives some:

Close Combat Clasp

* 1st Level (Bronze) 15 days close combat

* 2nd Level (Silver) 30 days close combat

* 3rd Level (Gold) 50 days close combat

As "Nahkampftage" (close combat days) were to be counted:

* a) all close combat days, where to be awarded fighters found opportunity, to "see the white of the eye of the enemy", with close combat weapons man against man in the fight to the last decision.

* This could be given in large-scale attack, at patrol, in the defense, single messenger run, enemy patrols etc..

* c) The location - at the outposts, in advance position, in the main battle line , the artillery firing position, in the army rear area (eg, guerrilla warfare, which, however, from 4 August 1944 by order of the High Command was not to be credited anymore. See. Bandenkampfabzeichen ) or a raid on a hospital train, or a supply convoy - played no role.

Every soldier who was unprotected and had to walk into any of the above situation and in doing good, fulfilled the expectation of the clasp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 128
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

As "Nahkampftage" (close combat days) were to be counted:

* a) all close combat days, where to be awarded fighters found opportunity, to "see the white of the eye of the enemy", with close combat weapons man against man in the fight to the last decision.

Ähhh, yes...so close combat days = close combat days or what ? ;)

A discription from Wikipedia maybe is not what i or we was looking for.

"see the white of the eye of the enemy" is stil a range to first use anything else then your hand or a knife.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Well I can't judge that since I'm not the developers, but I'm pro-melee for the sake of argument.

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.

I found this (under "A useless archaic anachronism?") which brings up some points to consider about casualty figures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found this (under "A useless archaic anachronism?") which brings up some points to consider about casualty figures.

Quite interesting article and still has its worth for WW2 conditions IMO :). It basically underlines my ideas developed from common sense as given in post #46:

"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."

Hopefully it is in order to directly quote from the website above:

A useless archaic anachronism?'

One of the most commonly quoted facts about the use of the bayonet in the civil war is that according to casualty returns, only 0.4% of all casualties were inflicted by edged weapons. 6 However, this figure requires the historian to raise certain questions. Is this percentage a total of all casualties, including those that died of fever and those that died in prison camps - if so, it is hardly a fair reflection upon the number of men that died in hand to hand combat on the actual field. Also, how can this figure be comprehensive when nobody counted the cause of death of all those lying on the battlefield and interred in the mass graves? Therefore, one must be wary of such a figure, which has ultimately been plucked from some official returns and used to emphasise the deadliness of modern weapons such as rifled muskets and rifled field pieces.

This argument is supported further when one examines the nature of hand to hand combat in the civil war. Almost every action in the civil war had some detail of hand to hand fighting. To take just a few obvious examples; the charge of the Black Horse Cavalry at First Manasas, the railroad cut at Second Manasas, the Angle at Gettysburg - the list is endless. When almost every action saw hand to hand fighting of some sort, then why is the number of casualties officially recorded to have been inflicted by edged weapons so low? Apart from the reasons already stated above, ultimately, when in close quarters, the blade was not the only weapon. The combatant could also call upon his musket as a club, his bare fists and also his loaded musket as means by which to defeat his foe, none of which would leave an injury that could be described as having been inflicted by an edged weapon. Therefore, although the combat was initiated by one side executing a bayonet charge - the casualties were not necessarily caused by the bayonet.

On the other hand however, if the figure was taken from wounds tended in the field hospitals, then not only is the figure unreliable in terms its restricted 'pool', but also at a more basic level. It would presuppose that casualties from hand to hand combat were as likely to be carried to the rear as those who received their casualties during say, a fire-fight. In reality this would not be so. The area in which close combat would have taken place would generally have been one which was of high importance strategically (thus justifying the need for a bayonet charge) and therefore in the front line in the 'hot' action - too 'hot' for non-combatants to carry the wounded to the field hospital. Also, the ferocity and sheer deadliness of hand to hand fighting that eyewitnesses describe would probably not have left many wounded - most would be hors de combat. These reasons also help show that perhaps generally accepted figures in relation to close-quater fighting are somewhat dubious.

Another reason that helps explain low casualties for edged weapons or hand to hand fighting other than the fact that the figures themselves are probably misleading - who would go around the field examining how every soldier died anyway? - is the fact that combats were often short and sweet. True melees were rare, most close quater action only lasting perhaps a matter of minutes. Far more commonly, one side would break before a true bloodbath could begin. Sam Watkins in describing the attack upon a Union battery in the action around Atlanta comments on how the presence of heavy support would often sway a charge one way or the other, ensuring that close combat was over quickly;

"But being heavily supported.. The Federal lines waver, and break and fly leaving us in possession of their breast works, and the battlefield"
7

Equally so, the very force of seeing a charge coming on would sometimes be enough for one side to break, the threat of impending combat being too much for one side to bare. James 0. Bradfield of the 1st Texas pays testament to this in his description of the fighting on 2nd July at Gettysburg;

"The enemy stood their ground bravely, until we were close on them, but did not await the bayonet
." 8

Hence, it can be seen that figures regarding casualties inflicted by edged weapons should be treated with a certain degree of suspicion. In a very real sense the belief that the bayonet charge was an obsolete reminder of Napoleonic warfare upon the 'modem' battlefields of the civil war could well be regarded a 'civil war myth'. The unreliability of casualty figures, the intimate nature of hand to hand fighting and the fact that a bayonet charge would not always result in close combat all go someway in disproving the 'myth' that personal struggle, or even the threat of it, was rare in the civil war.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am following this thread for some time now and I wonder if anyone knows some real first hand accounts of WW2 hand-to-hand combat. I have looked thru my books and in the internet but so far I found nothing, which could be an indication how uncommon it was.

The only account of a bayonet charge from the period I could find is from 1937, from the spanish civil war. I found it in George Orwells "Homage to Catalonia":

"....The Fascist fire seemed to have slackened very suddenly. Benjamin leapt to his feet and shouted: 'Forward! Charge!' We dashed up the short steep slope on which the parapet stood. I say 'dashed'; 'lumbered' would be a better word; the fact is that you can't move fast when you are sodden and mudded from head to foot and weighted down with a heavy rifle and bayonet and a hundred and fifty cartridges. I took it for granted that there would be a Fascist waiting for me at the top. If he fired at that range he could not miss me, and yet somehow I never expected him to fire, only to try for me with his bayonet. I seemed to feel in advance the sensation of our bayonets crossing, and I wondered whether his arm would be stronger than mine. However, there was no Fascist waiting. With a vague feeling of relief I found that it was a low parapet and the sand-bags gave a good foothold. As a rule they are difficult to get over. Everything inside was smashed to pieces, beams flung all over the place, and great shards of uralite littered everywhere. Our bombs had wrecked all the huts and dug-outs. And still there was not a soul visible. I thought they would be lurking somewhere underground, and shouted in English (I could not think of any Spanish at the moment): 'Come on out of it! Surrender!' No answer. Then a man, a shadowy figure in the half-light, skipped over the roof of one of the ruined huts and dashed away to the left. I started after him, prodding my bayonet ineffectually into the darkness. As I rounded the comer of the hut I saw a man--I don't know whether or not it was the same man as I had seen before--fleeing up the communication-trench that led to the other Fascist position. I must have been very close to him, for I could see him clearly. He was bareheaded and seemed to have nothing on except a blanket which he was clutching round his shoulders. If I had fired I could have blown him to pieces. But for fear of shooting one another we had been ordered to use only bayonets once we were inside the parapet, and in any case I never even thought of firing. Instead, my mind leapt backwards twenty years, to our boxing instructor at school, showing me in vivid pantomime how he had bayoneted a Turk at the Dardanelles. I gripped my rifle by the small of the butt and lunged at the man's back. He was just out of my reach. Another lunge: still out of reach. And for a little distance we proceeded like this, he rushing up the trench and I after him on the ground above, prodding at his shoulder-blades and never quite getting there--a comic memory for me to look back upon, though I suppose it seemed less comic to him. Of course, he knew the ground better than I and had soon slipped away from me. When I came back the position was full of shouting men. The noise of firing had lessened somewhat. The Fascists were still pouring a heavy fire at us from three sides, but it was coming from a greater distance...."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Normandy a Battalion of the 116th was cut off one night close to St Lo by the FJR. A sister battalion under Major Howie was formed up for a night attack and was told bayonets and grenades only. They were able to break through, but I find no info that they actually HAD to engage, only that they were able to infiltrate through. Also the 104th was practiced in night assualt and one of the tactical orders was to mimimize use of their rifles. Instead the idea was stealth, speed and close assault to keep the Germans guessing about what was actually occurring. Actual detailed reports are hard to come by, but I have found the following in the divisional history pamphlet. Take it all with a grain of salt, it is highly sensationalized. What to expect, the oversight was from Terry Allen of 1st ID fame.

A bitter bayonet and grenade battle raged but Germans were "kaput" by morning. Co. L plunged forward to gain a 1000 yard area north of Durwiss.

Weisweiler was rough. Germans threw every conceivable weapon at the 414th whose grenades and bayonets took a heavy toll in the savage, house-to-house fighting.

Preceded by a terrifying artillery barrage, two companies of 2nd Bn., 415th, waded the icy stream an hour before midnight, Dec. 2. Surprised Nazis, dazed by the heavy fire, were overrun in cellars and bayoneted and grenaded into submission after staging several rallies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read a lot of those accounts too, and they need to be taken with a LARGE grain of salt. The guys who wrote them were typically middle-aged officers who were not eyewitnesses to the events (or possibly, to any other frontline infantry combat). But they had been brought up in the traditional pikeman "spirit of the bayonet" culture that still formed a very fundamental component of infantry training and doctrine. So for these guys, it somehow wasn't a real fight if it didn't involve spitting the Hun.

I mean, it's not like it never happened, especially at night as ammo ran short. But in an era of mass-produced handguns, machine pistols, semiautomatic rifles/carbines and grenades, more reliable and longer-ranged alternatives were available for killing enemies once you saw the whites of their eyes. Stabbing and clubbing a man to death face-to-face was strictly a last resort.

The Civil War was a very different era tactically, with infantry combat having more in common with the Napoleonic era than with the 20th century. Introduction of the bolt-action rifle (more likely the single-shot breechloading cartridge a la Martini-Henry -- think Zulu War "volley fire") was the swansong of the medieval pikeman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Juri JS - William Manchester gives some first hand, not second, not higher up, actually there and actually personally did this and that resulted, accounts of close combat in the Pacific theater in WW II, when in night inflitration fighting there actually was some. Mostly it was a 45 at point blank, on one occasion physically pressed into the side of an enemy soldier trying to kill him. Steel, not so much. Closer than anyone wants and made him sick, but the actual business done by firearm. FWIW...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember seeing a history channel show about the house-to-house fighting in Stalingrad where Russians had used shovels on their German visitors. Urban fighting would lend itself more to shovels/knives/bayonets?

Gerry

That and being sent into battle without a rifle... The Russians had a tendency to do that at one point. Why bother giving everyone a rifle? Half would be dead shortly anyway so only give half rifles.

Given a choice the Russians preferred grenades and PPsH for room clearing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sburke - notice how they always say "bayonets and grenades", over and over?

Here is a hint - the grenades are doing all the actual killing, and the bayonets are just getting press copy...

I figured the bayonets were for prodding through the remains looking for souvenir Lugers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinion is, that when you read "bayonets and grenades" or "bayonet charge" or "naked steel" or "hand to hand" or whatever it is, the best way to interpet that:

- Fighting was taking place a range close enough for the shooting to be personal, i.e., not masses of rounds in that general direction but private Shmedlap has to shoot it out with private Schmidt, and they are both close enough so that cover, movement, and individual accuracy determines who wins.

- Above and beyond "normal" small arms fire, grenades and maybe even bayonets actually got used. This is very different from, grenades and bayonets had a decisive effect on the fight.

- The fight was decisive, one side ran, was wiped out, surrendered, etc.

I'm pretty much with LLF on this one. Although one can't rule out absolutely some one actually getting hurt by a bayonet in anger, the chances of it actually having a meaninful effect on a fight were pretty much nil. However, an attempt by infantry to get into very close range with other infantry (meaning here, pretty much any shot is individually aimed and has a high chance of hitting) is very prettily described as "a bayonet charge".

Perhaps apropos of this but maybe just in the way of trivia, I'm reading Geronimo's memoirs. His recollections of fighting particularly the Mexicans but also other Apaches and the US cavalry are really interesting, several times he tells about how his guys are shooting it out with other guys, and then he decides it's time to get close in and decide the fight. This is over several decades when at the beginning most every one is armed with rifled muzzle loaders, and at the end pretty much every one (except the poorer Apache braves perhaps) are armed with rifled breech loaders, and in the case of the richest Apaches rifled muzzle loaders. But all black powder weapons with a maximum effective range of maybe 100 - 300 meters in a fight, depending on how you define "effective." He describes hand-to-hand fighting taking place at times, if I recall correctly no bayonets but certainly at times including clubbing and knives.

Reading between the lines and making adjustments for bad memory and lies and so forth, it seems like what he was doing was leading his guys into close range and forcing a decisive engagement, during which some combatants actually did get close enough to one another to strike each other - but at the same time killing maiming some one by any means but shooting was so rare as to be extraordinary.

Another anecdote from this era springs to mind - duing the Battle of Omdurman in 1898 Winston Churchill, certainly a man able to get enthusiastic about the alleged romance of battle, participated in a charge by the 7th Lancers against dervish tribesmen. The lancers lined up and went through their walk, trot gallop routine and Churchill, being an officer, had to place himself in front of his troop with drawn saber and repeat commands and so forth. So once the lancers get going and are bearing down on the dervishes, who according to Churchill are mostly armed with shields and spears and swords, what does the future leader of the British Empire do? He sheathes his sword (which, he points out, is no easy trick while galloping a horse) and draws a Mauser semi-automatic pistol, with which (again according to his account) he shoots four or so tribesmen in the esuing melee.

I would say the more able a soldier, just about any soldier, is able to keep a round loaded, the less likely that man would be to resort to cold steel. Discipline or tactical circumstance (for instance, the dervishes didn't have access to fire arms) might skew that decision away from using a gun in a few rare cases. But if a human has any sense at all, the closer he gets to the enemy, the more he's going to want to eliminate that threat to his life as efficiently as possible: and that is almost never with a blow of a sharp or blunt object.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That and being sent into battle without a rifle... The Russians had a tendency to do that at one point. Why bother giving everyone a rifle? Half would be dead shortly anyway so only give half rifles.

I keep hearing that story a lot, but is it really true? Sure, it makes for a great Hollywood story, but I don't learn my history from them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...(for instance, the dervishes didn't have access to fire arms)...

Er, it's been a while but I believe the dervishes did have some muzzle loaders. Plus, they would have captured some British arms when they too Khartoum. I'm pretty sure Churchill recounts that one of them fired at him and missed. Churchill returned fire and didn't miss.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I keep hearing that story a lot, but is it really true? Sure, it makes for a great Hollywood story, but I don't learn my history from them.

It's somewhat true, but only for some formations and only during the first year of the war. I think that by the summer of '42 that shortage had been pretty well made good. After all, rifles are fairly easy to produce in a hurry.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting back to WW2 western front anecdotes. From "The Lorraine Campaign", pages 64-65:

"The 3d Battalion had greater initial success in the central crossing attempt at Pont-à-Mousson. The 305th Engineer Combat Battalion, ferrying the infantry across the Moselle in rubber assault boats, landed about four platoons of infantry from I and L Companies on the enemy bank, although casualties were heavy and thirty-eight of the sixty-four assault boats were lost. The infantry dug in about one hundred yards east of the river, and there they were held by machine gun and mortar fire as soon as day broke. The available troops of the 2d Battalion now were ordered to march to Pont-à-Mousson and reinforce the 3d, while smoke was put on the opposite bank to cover the thin American line. But before aid could be crossed the German infantry left their foxholes along the river bank and closed in with bayonets, grenades, and machine pistols. The American position was wiped out by 1100, with 160 officers

and men missing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Lorraine campaign", page 590:

Estimates by the Enemy

At the end of 1944 the German training staffs published a series of “Battle

Experiences,” 1 containing the official enemy estimate of the American soldier, his tactics, and his weapons. For the most part this German’s-eye view is presented in the form of a “catch-all” characterization of the American troops fighting on the Western Front; in numerous instances, however, generalizations are supported by examples chosen from the Lorraine sector. Since the “Battle Experiences” were prepared for and issued to the troops, they contain much that stems from the politico-military dogmas of the Nazi party or that obviously is intended to raise the morale of the individual German soldier.

Despite recognition that the individual American was a more skilled and

tenacious fighter in the fall of 1944 than in the early weeks after the Normandy landings, the doctrine of the superiority of the German infantryman did not alter. Stripped of the numerous propaganda reasons put forth to support this allegation, the core of the argument is as follows: the American soldier depends upon tremendous materiel support to bring the battle to a successful conclusion; when he is denied heavy support by the combined arms the “drive” in the attack dwindles; he avoids close combat, dislikes night fighting, and surrenders readily–all symptoms of his poor quality as a soldier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Lorraine Campaign", page 150:

The Germans resumed their assault on the bridgehead at 0330 on 12 Sep-

tember, using troops from the 17th SS, 3d, and 15th Panzer Grenadier Divisions. This time they came on in a co-ordinated attack striking at all sections of the American line, close behind a heavy barrage which rolled up the hills and ridge line and over onto the rearward slopes where lay the infantry reserves. On the right of the 10th Infantry, a battalion of German infantry and a company of tanks made the attack. American artillery mowed down the first waves, but two companies managed to break into the lines of the 1st Battalion; there most of the German grenadiers were killed in a hand-to-hand fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

same, page 182:

Colonel Barth then ordered the 3d Battalion to move in on the

right of the 1st and block toward the south while the assault was made into the gap along the road. The two battalions were organizing for this maneuver when, a little after noon, the Germans struck hard at the two companies deployed for the assault. This counterattack, made by troops of the Fahnenjunkerschule regiment, was pressed with all of the determination and savagery that characterized these elite German infantry. But the Americans stood their ground and drove off the enemy, after losing seventy-two men in a bitter hand-to-hand fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...page 249:

GERMAN COUNTERATTACK IN XII CORPS SECTOR

Inside the forest perimeter the fight turned into a confused succession of hand-to-hand battles fought independently by companies, platoons, and squads from the 137th, the 134th, and the 320th. As the day progressed the five American battalions slowly won the upper hand, while friendly artillery and the ubiquitous fighter-bombers isolated the forest battleground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...page 279:

The new 90th Division commander, Brig. Gen. James A. Van Fleet, ordered the 357th Infantry to take Maizières by 2 November, and Colonel Barth began to set the stage for a final assault by alternately probing and battering at the Hôtel de Ville.

On 26 October K Company reached the lower floor of the building but was stopped by piles of burning mattresses in the hallways; it was then driven out by flame throwers. The next day four 1o-man assault teams tried again.

This time three of the assault teams were checked by mines and barbed wire. The fourth crawled through a gap blasted in the wall by the 155-mm. selfpropelled gun and engaged in a hand-to-hand fight inside the building, in which all but one man were killed or wounded. The survivors managed to escape while the unwounded soldier held off the Germans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....page 370:

About 0200 the enemy guns opened up, preparatory to a last assault. The leading wave of this attack was allowed to come within three hundred yards of Landroff, and then a concentration fired by eight battalions of field artillery cut the Germans to pieces. Succeeding waves pushed the attack home, however, and reached the streets of the village. There in the darkness a melee ensued with the combatants fighting hand to hand with rifles, pistols, bazookas, trench shovels, and grenades. Slowly the Americans regained control of the southern half of the village. About 0500 a company of the 319th Infantry came in to take a hand, and the surviving Germans in the north part of the village were hunted down and captured or killed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty much with LLF on this one. Although one can't rule out absolutely some one actually getting hurt by a bayonet in anger, the chances of it actually having a meaninful effect on a fight were pretty much nil.

Miles off the mark there mate.

There are numerous accounts in Australian military history of bayonet charges, notably El Alamein and through out the Pacific war, bayonet encounters were common in the fighting in Malaya. The Japanese as well used the bayonet which ultimately lead to the banzai charges.

Even as recent as the Falklands Islands conflict the bayonet was used to good effect.

Things there are numerous reasons a well trained soldier might resort to a bayonet. In close and no time to reload, firing a rifle at someone at close range, particularly in urban terrain, invites a ricochet that could harm you, shooting a person at close range the bullet passes through and can shoot your comrades and most of all is the effect a bayonet has beyond its ability to kill you, the terror it can invoke in the one on the receiving end.

There are many occasions where a spirited bayonet charge has put to flight a defender through fear alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...