14 posts / 0 new
Last post
Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture
U.S. Army's Basic Hand To Hand Fighting of World War 1

I was sent a link to this silent movie by Stewart Squire today and I thought you may enjoy it:

All the best,

Iain

Peregrine
Peregrine's picture

Nice to see the old-style cross counter at 1:05ish. 

Pretty sure I don't like the attempts to elbow a prone foe from stnading you see after a lot of the throws though.

The text cards some up pretty quickly so I've transcribed them.  Some I still can't quite make out though.

  • 3:32 On his way to the drill ground, two of the garrison suspect Captain Smith of being a German spy, with disastrous results to themselves
  • 3:37 ...two methods of bringing...No-Man's land...The men in this picture are instructed to knock their captor over to hit them or kick them, and then get away
  • 3:40 [assumedly something about"Jujistu", given the next comment]...holds...weak man may force a strong man to come along
  • 3:56 Most people think that Jujitsu is merely a series of trick holds, but our men are taught that they must knock all the fight out of a man before they try these holds on them.  They are taught to kick quickly and effectively
  • 4:15 Catching the enemy's leg and counter...crotch
  • 4:20 Enemy attempts to seize you around waist.  Counter with chin hold and break his neck.
  • 4:29 Enemy attacks throat, break his hold, hit him below chin and follow with knee to crotch.
  • 4:39 Enemy attacks throat again, counter...throw and kill him.
  • 4:47 Rush a boxer and throw him with hip throw
  • 4:59  Enemy seizes you from behind above arms, counter with shoulder throw
  • 5:12 Enemy again seizes you from behind above arms. counter with elbow blow on solar plexus
  • 5:21 Enemy seizes you from behind below arms. counter with elbow on chin or neck
  • 5:32 Enemy seizes you from behind below arms. counter with fist on stomach and back throw.
  • 5:46 Enemy attacks throat, counter with back knee throw.
  • 5:58 Enemy seizes around waist below arms. counter with back knee throw and kill him on ground
  • 6:09 Death Lock again. this time enemy has been slightly warned. but by destroying his balance we get him all the same.
  • 6:17 An enemy in No-Man's land tries to regain his own lines.  We stalk him and get him with a variation of the Death Lock and kill him.
  • 6:25  The famous stomach throw of Japan.  When an enemy rushes you, lie down on your bak and put your foot in his stomach.
  • 7:21  They call it "Dirty Wrestling" - and there's something in the name
  • 7:45 Knowing _how_ enables bare hands to beat bayonets.  Mike Gibbons shows how.
  • 7:59 Nothing can ever rattle a man after this kind of an education.
  • 8:34 Cage Ball is the new game of the aviators
  • 8:36 Push Ball is a good fighting game
  • 8:44 Playing as _one_ teaches men to fight as _one_ - and to win.
  • 9:44 Some form of set-up drill became the daily portion of every man and woman in uniform.
michael rosenbaum
michael rosenbaum's picture

Impressive for stand up fighting but like most civil defense systems it goes out the window rather quick when rifles, bayonetts and broken terrain add factored in. I read a few years back where after the battle of Belleau wood in 1918, that an American newspaper reported the Marines used boxing to defeat the Germans.  It was a romantic  notion and that was about all. Both sides relied on mortars, machine-guns, rifles, pistols, bayonetts and other weapons of destruction far more lethal than the human fist.

Mike R

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Peregrine wrote:
The text cards some up pretty quickly so I've transcribed them.

That's brilliant and really helpful! Thanks for taking the time to do that.

All the best,

Iain

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

michael rosenbaum wrote:
It was a romantic notion and that was about all. Both sides relied on mortars, machine-guns, rifles, pistols, bayonetts and other weapons of destruction far more lethal than the human fist.

With films like this I always find myself wondering how much of the training is for group morale, aggression and physical fitness; as opposed to 100% direct application in the field? Perhaps an element of propaganda too?

All the best,

Iain

michael rosenbaum
michael rosenbaum's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:

With films like this I always find myself wondering how much of the training is for group morale, aggression and physical fitness; as opposed to 100% direct application in the field? Perhaps an element of propaganda too?

Iain,

Some of it actually can be applied to the battlefield though its not as pretty as in the film. Anytime you find yourself fighting unarmed on the battlefield, or even at arm's distance to your enemy, then things have gotten pretty bad. There are exceptions such as operations in urban terrain where you're clearing rooms, houses, etc but even then its weapons first, fist last. During the time I was in service all my karate was put to use inside the enlisted man's club where some real humdinger brawls would occur. Often it would be five, six even ten guys fighting it out at the same time. I once was part of a brawl that involved two whole companies, one Marine, one Paratrooper (almost 200 men) that occured because we were both drinking in the same NCO club and decided to find out who was the toughest. John Wayne and Hollywood didn't have nothing on us that night, but come the next day you never saw some many black eyes, fat lips and missing teeth.

As you alluded to above much of the hand to hand taught in the military is done so for physcial fitness or to develop an aggressive spirit and sometimes even for propaganda. I remember as a child seeing every year paratroopers from the 101st airborne giving hand to hand demostations at the county fair. It was really fun to watch because they really went at it.  There was all this kicking, throwing, shouting and chopping going on. However when those guys rotated over to Vietnam they used M-16's instead of karate chops.

This is a pretty interesting clip on military combatives, real propaganda too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc4h0qcAIpE&feature=related Ever since we climbed down out of the trees we've tried to use weapons, except when prevented by law.  Call it a biological need for survival, I guess.

What I found most interesting about the film clip you posted was the fact that it was produced sometime during or shortly after the first World War, but the techniques used fall very much within karate, kung-gu, MMA, and a host of other Asian combatives that were not widely known in the west at that time. So it appears to me that western fighting arts have/had the same amount of dept and sophistication as their Asian counterparts. Its that we've just forgotten that over time.

Have a good day!

Mike R

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Michael,

Thanks for that. I’ve embedded the video to make it easier for people to view.

michael rosenbaum wrote:
What I found most interesting about the film clip you posted was the fact that it was produced sometime during or shortly after the first World War, but the techniques used fall very much within karate, kung-gu, MMA, and a host of other Asian combatives that were not widely known in the west at that time. So it appears to me that western fighting arts have/had the same amount of dept and sophistication as their Asian counterparts. It’s that we've just forgotten that over time.

That’s very true. If you had modern film of people of doing many of those techniques there would be an automatic assumption that those same techniques were Asian in origin. The west have done a ry poor job of preserving their combative methods … but when people from all over the globe start fighting then we see very similar solutions to the problem of violence being put forward. What works, works regardless of origin and it’s fascinating to see the “common ground” like this.

Thanks for pointing that out.

All the best,

Iain

michael rosenbaum
michael rosenbaum's picture

Iain,

For those interested in the U.S. Army's Modern COmbatives program this articl might be of interest: http://www.armytimes.com/legacy/new/0-ARMYPAPER-2286667.php

Also this website contains more info: http://www.moderncombatives.org/home.html

Enjoy,

Mike R

nielmag
nielmag's picture

Great article, thanks for sharing.  The question I have is, isnt going to the ground the last thing you want to do in a physical altercation?  Im surprised BJJ is the first (and sometimes only if they dont do the other trainings listed in the article) thing they learn?   Is it because the assumption is that one will be with a platoon, squad, etc, and while someone goes to the ground, their buddies will be there for the other insurgents/enemies?

michael rosenbaum
michael rosenbaum's picture

nielmag wrote:

   Is it because the assumption is that one will be with a platoon, squad, etc, and while someone goes to the ground, their buddies will be there for the other insurgents/enemies?

Niel,

I'd say that's part of it. There's also the competitive element which would be appeal to soldiers, especially young, aggressive-physically active soldiers. Basically what the Army is doing is implementing a course that has both sport and combative elements within it. Something that not only can be applied in a rudmentary way to the battlefield but will also develop a soldier's fighting spirit through competition as well as their physical fitness. (Both of which are very important)

 You're right ground grappling is the last thing one wants to do on the battlfield, but grappling does occur in hand to hand combat so the BJJ provides a base for the soldier to build on. Now don't get me wrong,  I'm not advocating BJJ as the solve all end all to the army's hand to hand program, but given the choice of BJJ and its full-contact/live sparring as opposed to some of the more esoteric/mystical BS I've seen introduced to the Army during the past 30 years, I'll take the BJJ any day.

Mike R

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

neilmag wrote:
isn’t going to the ground the last thing you want to do in a physical altercation?

Yes it is. I’d also suggest that a lot of what is used in skilled grappler vs. skilled grappler exchanges would not transpose that well to a battlefield environment. Holds, pins and locks that work well with a single unarmed opponent, don’t work well with armed opponents and in an environment where things are not guaranteed to be one on one. It’s also interesting to note that this was well established in the past.

Captain W.E. Fairbairn developed a system of unarmed combat that became a part of the training for the Shanghai Municipal Police, the British Commandos, the American Marine corp., the British Special Operations Executive and the American Office of Strategic Services during World War Two.

In his 1942 combat manual entitled, ‘Get Tough!’ Captain Fairbairn wrote, “You will have noted that no holds or locks on the ground are demonstrated. The reason for this is: THIS IS WAR.

Captain Fairbairn goes on to explain that we should aim to regain our feet as quickly as possible, we are very vulnerable to attack whilst on the floor, that there is a vast difference between fighting on mats and on rocky ground or a road, and that the most important thing is to remain on your feet in the first instance if at all possible.

So ground fighting hold and locks were not seen as a workable or relevant skill set during WW2. I would suggest that the reason that has changed is what Michael said above i.e. the focus being placed on fighting spirit and fitness as opposed to directly applicable combative methods for the battlefield.

Michael Rosenbaum wrote:
Something that not only can be applied in a rudimentary way to the battlefield but will also develop a soldier's fighting spirit through competition as well as their physical fitness. (Both of which are very important)

The British Paratroopers have the tradition of recruits engaging in  “milling” (putting on boxing gloves and getting them to smash seven bells out of each other). The aim of the milling is not to develop useable boxing skills (as you can see from the clip below), but to develop aggression and fighting spirit.  BJJ can be used in a similar way. There’s also the fact that BJJ is hugely popular and hence is likely to be an attractive option and a good way to get soldiers to fully commit to this side of training. The physical fitness and fighting spirit developed are applicable to all areas of conflict, whereas empty hand skills (of all kinds) don’t really have that much relevance to modern warfare.

In summary, ground holds and locks are not really applicable, but the physical fitness and fighting spirit develop though their practise most definitely are. I would therefore say they are adopted in to the training as a popular and effective way to develop those vitally important attributes.

All the best,

Iain 

Black Tiger
Black Tiger's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:
..........

The British Paratroopers have the tradition of recruits engaging in  “milling” (putting on boxing gloves and getting them to smash seven bells out of each other).

That brings back memories of when i was in the British Armed Forces. We used to "Mill" each other them buy each other drinks in the NAAFI later

Thanks for the "reminder" of fun times

michael rosenbaum
michael rosenbaum's picture

I'd been training in karate for several years when I entered the military, but all of my karate skills were put to use in the enlisted man's club, or the numerous bars located around the place were I was stationed. We also had a high ranking NCO who had learned Tae Kwon Do while stationed in Korea, who led classes during the morning. It was really popular, and I have pictures of my mates practicing outside, during the wintertime, in below freezing temps. However, not once did I ever see Tae Kwon Do used in the field or during a deployment.

I've heard more than one karate/kung-fu/judo/MMA instructor tell me that they'd like too, or have taught military personel. Well, that's great but it dosen't make you an expert on battlefield combat and tactics. IT just means you've taught karate to someone who is in the military. For the eager karate-ka who really wants some insight into military hand to hand my advice is: Put on a heavy ruck sack, take an old rifle or broom stick, go out into a muddy field and run, jump, roll around on the ground for 30 min then run up the steepest hill you can find and when you get to the top fight your best friend (who might I add has done the same as you) and manage to still hold on to your weapon/broom stick.  Oh, and also let me add before you do this little exercise go two days without sleeping or eating. Then you'll be at the ballpark's front gate. I'm really serious about this. Most karate-ka can't imagaine fighting on broken terrain much less hand to hand ala the military.

Mike R.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

michael rosenbaum wrote:
I've heard more than one karate/kung-fu/judo/MMA instructor tell me that they'd like too, or have taught military personel. Well, that's great but it doesn’t make you an expert on battlefield combat and tactics. IT just means you've taught karate to someone who is in the military.

Good point! We sometimes see that association used as a means validate what a person is teaching i.e. “As taught to Unit X!” However, I've never seen the link; and besides I would say that civilians need an approach that addresses the specifics of civilian conflict and military personnel need an approach that addresses the specifics of military conflict.

michael rosenbaum wrote:
For the eager karate-ka who really wants some insight into military hand to hand my advice is: Put on a heavy ruck sack, take an old rifle or broom stick, go out into a muddy field and run, jump, roll around on the ground for 30 min then run up the steepest hill you can find and when you get to the top fight your best friend (who might I add has done the same as you) and manage to still hold on to your weapon/broom stick.  Oh, and also let me add before you do this little exercise go two days without sleeping or eating. Then you'll be at the ballpark's front gate.

Can I use ankle locks? :-) Kidding aside that’s a nice illustration of the differences we are talking about. Thanks for the insights Michael! Most useful.

All the best,

Iain