WW2 knife fighting techniques, retrospective thoughts?

[Fireman]

How your grandpa was trained to fight.

[metaphoricalsimile]

The simulated combat examples were extremely unrealistic. Someone who is hit on a helmeted head with a club isn't just going to go down like that. I feel like this training course is more designed to convince marines that hand-to-hand fighting is possible and is a better choice than surrender or fleeing rather than designed to teach marines actual useful close combat techniques.

[JRinFL]

The simulated combat examples were extremely unrealistic. Someone who is hit on a helmeted head with a club isn't just going to go down like that. I feel like this training course is more designed to convince marines that hand-to-hand fighting is possible and is a better choice than surrender or fleeing rather than designed to teach marines actual useful close combat techniques.

I'm pretty sure it served them well on several islands in the Pacific. Lots of combat there came down to hand to hand. This movie may not be all they were taught by their instructors.

[metaphoricalsimile]

The simulated combat examples were extremely unrealistic. Someone who is hit on a helmeted head with a club isn't just going to go down like that. I feel like this training course is more designed to convince marines that hand-to-hand fighting is possible and is a better choice than surrender or fleeing rather than designed to teach marines actual useful close combat techniques.

I'm pretty sure it served them well on several islands in the Pacific. Lots of combat there came down to hand to hand. This movie may not be all they were taught by their instructors.

The thread asked for perspectives on this movie, not perspectives on the efficacy of all close combat fighting techniques used by Marines in WWII. I'm sure that actual close combat has a way of weeding out those who don't learn quick.

[Kevinim82]

How your grandpa was trained to fight.

Good advice for footwork (like a boxer.)

And grip is a modified French grip from what I can tell.

First move in the video is called a Passata-Sotto. Minute 3:40ish very technical move and exposes your head, not a good option for a slow guy. For success one would want to continue walking into the person and not stopping the thrust.

Basic stance for a repost/thrust. Minute 4:30

Teaching the strong and weak of a blade. Minute 4:40

Upper arm and R quadrant attacks with a thrust technique? Minute 5:20

Double parry with strong part of blade disengage opponents weak blade (modified move for dagger.) Minute 5:50

One of my favorite moves in fencing. Cut over or coupe. Minute 6:30

Overtaking someone with the strong of your blade and following into the person. Can be countered by walking backwards and then coupe over their blade and walk forward into the person (their blade will continue past you.) minute 7:10

These moves are taken from French Fencing techniques meant for rapier/foil work. Old techniques dating back I would say more than 400 years.

Today’s military knife fighting is much different from what I can tell. More focused on slash and less on thrust from what I can tell. Slash and thrust are both effective and lethal.

[JRinFL]

The simulated combat examples were extremely unrealistic. Someone who is hit on a helmeted head with a club isn't just going to go down like that. I feel like this training course is more designed to convince marines that hand-to-hand fighting is possible and is a better choice than surrender or fleeing rather than designed to teach marines actual useful close combat techniques.

I'm pretty sure it served them well on several islands in the Pacific. Lots of combat there came down to hand to hand. This movie may not be all they were taught by their instructors.

The thread asked for perspectives on this movie, not perspectives on the efficacy of all close combat fighting techniques used by Marines in WWII. I'm sure that actual close combat has a way of weeding out those who don't learn quick.

"WW2 knife fighting techniques, retrospective thoughts?" Sorry, I didn't read it that way.

[VooDooChild]

Off topic.

Of course it looks unrealistic. It takes very well trained martial artist to simulate realistic, full speed, combat with live weapons and not hospitalize each other.

With that said it doesnt mean that some of the basic techniques presented were wrong, or even bad, it just looked bad.

I also really liked the club locks. That was more advanced than I was expecting, but they would still be more difficult to pull off in a real scenario.

[Naperville]

Great video. I liked it! I saved it to my drive.

You have to get out there and drill to see what works. If you do not drill at 100% then you're just lying to yourself and when the time comes to implement you will not have a clue.

It's important to remember that the US Military has to train people from 5 foot tall to 6ft 6in. I do not know what the regs are on height and weight but some things work for some people and they may not for others. You have to get in there and work as hard as you can to see what works.

Here are some newer videos on knife defense you might find of interest:
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=84649&p=1353693

[Kevinim82]

How your grandpa was trained to fight.

Good advice for footwork (like a boxer.)

And grip is a modified French grip from what I can tell.

First move in the video is called a Passata-Sotto. Minute 3:40ish very technical move and exposes your head, not a good option for a slow guy. For success one would want to continue walking into the person and not stopping the thrust.

Basic stance for a repost/thrust. Minute 4:30

Teaching the strong and weak of a blade. Minute 4:40

Upper arm and R quadrant attacks with a thrust technique? Minute 5:20

Double parry with strong part of blade disengage opponents weak blade (modified move for dagger.) Minute 5:50

One of my favorite moves in fencing. Cut over or coupe. Minute 6:30

Overtaking someone with the strong of your blade and following into the person. Can be countered by walking backwards and then coupe over their blade and walk forward into the person (their blade will continue past you.) minute 7:10

These moves are taken from French Fencing techniques meant for rapier/foil work. Old techniques dating back I would say more than 400 years.

Today’s military knife fighting is much different from what I can tell. More focused on slash and less on thrust from what I can tell. Slash and thrust are both effective and lethal.

If Mike Janich would chime in, I would like to know his take, and his thoughts on modern military knife fighting styles compared to this video.

[Fireman]

Would love Michael’s opinion

[Half Sack]

I watched this a few days ago after how to bust a tank.
Would love to see an updated version

[zhyla]

Today’s military knife fighting

C’mon, that’s not a real thing. Maybe they still teach it, but I’m pretty sure knives mostly get used as utility tools these days.

My buddy who was a spec ops type did use knives but it wasn’t for what I would call combat — sneaking up behind someone and slipping a blade between their ribs is not fighting.

[Manifestgtr]

Watching instructionals like that is always kind of an odd feeling for me. They have this clinical feel (which is completely necessary) but you know that the real world scenarios are messy and frightening beyond belief.

In aviation, they say that you need to train until it’s in your bones because when you’re in the air, you lose half of your brain power. This has to be the same thing, times ten. In order to be a truly effective melee fighter, these concepts and a dozen contingencies would need to be buried deep in your neurons.

[Evil D]

Those techniques probably served well enough to get the job done. Much has changed in training though, there was a time when this was the trained stance to fire a handgun.




But that was probably the height of tactical prowess considering we came from a firing line formation. Looking back on that era if battle seemed more like turn based suicide than war.

[Skidoosh]

Best training was bar fights.

[Kevinim82]

Today’s military knife fighting

C’mon, that’s not a real thing. Maybe they still teach it, but I’m pretty sure knives mostly get used as utility tools these days.

My buddy who was a spec ops type did use knives but it wasn’t for what I would call combat — sneaking up behind someone and slipping a blade between their ribs is not fighting.

“ Today’s military knife fighting is much different from what I can tell.”

The US marines (2012ish) teach infantry how to slash the neck, under the armpit, belly and groin (there is a song that goes to it.) And that song hits every major artery in the human body. This WW2 video takes into account arm/neck/belly… and no catchy toon/ no anatomy focus.

When your primary gun is a pistol and it jams and you attempt to clear that jam and it fails, I’d ask your spec ops guy what does he start reaching for?

I’m sure the answer is situational. Knife would be where my brain would go more than not.

[Kevinim82]

Those techniques probably served well enough to get the job done. Much has changed in training though, there was a time when this was the trained stance to fire a handgun.




But that was probably the height of tactical prowess considering we came from a firing line formation. Looking back on that era if battle seemed more like turn based suicide than war.

There is always a utility to how something is done.

I wonder the misfire rate of a revolver where you had to assemble your own shot with lead ball and cap? I would guess such a stance was 1. How they aimed for accuracy. 2. Maybe a little protective from my misfire?

This probably came from a dueling pose? They did like to kill each other 100-300 years ago. (A stance like that would make you a smaller target.) In some ways we’ve not changed.

[Michael Janich]

Hey, All:

Thanks for sharing this and for sharing your thoughts on it.

I first saw this video about 20 years ago when working for Paladin Press. If I recall correctly, we got a copy from the National Archives and re-released it as a Paladin title--the same way we did many old military books.

From a historical perspective, it's fascinating, and consistent with a lot of WWII-era training materials, which tended to present "clinical" solutions to specific situational contexts. In this case, most of the material was based on that contained in John Styers "Cold Steel" book, which was originally published in a series of articles in Leatherneck magazine. The book itself was printed after the war, in 1952.

Compared to all the other close-combat manuals of the era, Styers' was the most detailed. With that said, as shown in this film, all the knife techniques would only work if you were armed with a bayonet or other blade long enough to do blade-to-blade beats and parries. They also only worked if your attacker was following a similar "dueling" style of engagement. Most importantly, it showed a lot of "pillar attacks" (a Kelly McCann term) in which the attacker freezes unrealistically after the initial attack so the defender can finish his sequence. This is particularly evident in the parry, cut the hand, slash the throat, and stab the side sequences.

The club technique emphasized the advantages of the short grip, which requires a lot more training to use and sacrifices the greatest advantages of the club--distance and power. It also included a lot of specific "tricks" like the club come-along/prisoner escort, the X-block/compression lock against kicks, etc. Again, this is typical of a lot of WWII-era stuff, which emphasized instilling confidence in soldiers/Marines by creating specific problem/solution types of techniques.

During my time at Paladin Press, I got to work with Kelly McCann, Bob Kasper, and Cardo Urso, all of whom were subject matter experts on close-combat for the Marine Corps when the Corps revamped its program around 2001. That process was led by Cardo Urso, who was the NCOIC of the close-combat program at Quantico and went on to become the close-combat program director for the Air Marshals after 9/11. Prior to that time (the 1980's), the Marines used the LINE program, a very complicated system developed by Ron Donvito, with whom I also worked--producing a three-volume video series on that program when he was marketing it to the Army (after it was abandoned by the USMC). Like the techniques in this film, the belief was that the LINE program was too contrived and technique-specific and therefore not realistic for modern combat.

During the revamp, the most fascinating and educational process was when Kelly McCann and Bob Kasper interviewed a bunch of WWII veterans of the Pacific theater, including Marine Raiders, who saw a lot of hand-to-hand fighting. They asked the veterans if they used the techniques they learned in basic training and the answer was a vehement "no." When Kelly asked one grizzled combat veteran what the best close-combat weapon was, his answer was the M1 Garand rifle. To paraphrase, "You grab the Garand by the barrel like a baseball bat and get to other Marines to work with you. They grab the enemy by the arms and you bash his head in with the butt of the rifle. Then you find another one and do it again. You keep doing it until you run out of guys to kill."

One of my mentors, the late Col. Rex Applegate, always emphasized to me that the training time available during WWII was always extremely limited. They therefore focused more on building confidence than teaching lots of technique. I see this film as an illustration of that approach, rather than combat technique that's of value today. It's also another reason the WWII-era guys were "the greatest generation." They may have learned this stuff in basic, but went on to adapt their skills and tactics to the harsh reality of the combat they faced.

Stay safe,

Mike

[Jim Malone]

Reminds me of the matchbox technique where they advised to use a wooden matchbox as a kubotan style fistload to knock out german soldiers. I always wondered how many Germans where neutralised this way. It indeed tries to instill confidence in the grunts instead of teaching them evidence based techniques.

[Jim Malone]

Imho the US forces had some real life experience in H2H combat from the trenches in WW1? I don't know if they had experienced trench raiders like the German stormtroopers who had experience in fighting with knives and impact tools in confined spaces? Maybe they feared that teaching them techniques that where too realistic would instill fear?