A word on knives use...

[Kal]

Yes, there has been many posts on the topic of knives,  but rarely do I see a post that actually encourages the use/ training for knives in the CF, or more so the Infantry.  Many are quick to critisize the use of such 'tools', and classify their users as 'Rambos.'  I will agree that there really isn't a need for a 'rambo first blood commando killer', but I contest that there should be more training for soldiers to use weapons other than their rifles, lmgs, etc. 

*example* Many have seen the movie Blackhawk Down, in the film every somalian and their dog is armed with a rifle, when in actuality very few had such weapons.  It is documented that few of the soldiers died from wounds caused by a bullet or piece of sharpnel, but more from wounds caused by knives, sticks and rocks.  It was documented that one ranger had actually seen one of his peers drop his rifle after he had expended his stores of ammunition and fight the on-coming combatants with his hands.  Was there something wrong with this?  No.  Could he have done something more effective? Yes.  Why would one drop an 8 lb aluminum and steel club in order to fight 'unarmed'?  When the dead were retrieved, it was found that some still had their knives sheathed on their lbv. 

If the science of knife and stick fighting is obsolete, why is it that the British SAS, U.S. Delta Force and Green Berets still practice this among other of the world's top operators?  Why was the OSS and soldiers at Camp X taught these skills?  The answer to these questions is that the skills are still effective and are still needed.  ( to clarify, by stick a mean any weapons than can be wielded by a single or both hands ie a rifle, cane, or even a windshield snow brush ) 

I recognize that the majority of the people asking the questions about knives and the military are kids that have little to no real world training, but should we dismiss their questions entirely?  Am I one of naive 'civvies' who speak without any military training?  Nope.  I did my time in the reserves with the LSSR.  I have done the hand/knife/stick/gun thing for a few years now, and realize its potential. I've been fortunate to train with some of the best instructors in the world and have done training with our local SWAT/ERT team.  I just find it sad that few realize its potential, too.

I spoke on this topic rather loosely and generally, but I would love to hear the feed back from others on this site and would gladly answer any questions or speak further about this topic.  If you're interested check out Hocks Close Quarters Combatives group, from a guy who's seen it and done it too.....

 

[Fusaki]

IMHO we do need to expand our CQC training, but I don't think knife fighting should be the emphasis of any new curriculum. Why not train soldiers in the use of ASP Batons? Its my understanding that a knife can only be used in a deadly force scenario. An ASP Baton on the other hand can be used both as a nonlethal AND a lethal weapon. A collapsed ASP looks very non-aggressive, if it even draws any attention at all. But its quickly extended into an extremely intimidating beat-down stick.

With an ASP Baton, you can go up and down the continuum of force quickly and effectively all the way from verbal commands to deadly force. Knife fighting is a comparatively small niche that is rarely - if ever - used by conventional forces.

 

[Kal]

I completely understand what you mean Ghostwalk.  An ASP is a very effective tool for a broad range of duties.  However, I feel that it's use is generally taught as a 'control and contain' tool.  From speaking with a few OPP friends of mine, they tell me the use of force continuum for them is, 1) pepper spray 2) ASP and finally 3) Firearm.  Given the situation, sometimes the first two steps need to be by-passed and go straight to step 3.  If the ASP were taught the full scale of its abilities would have to be addressed, from learning how to strike, block, disarm a combatant, and joint manipulations. 

With regards to the knife being a lethal force weapon only....  It's simply not true.  A trained operator will know that striking with the pummel, (bottom on the handle) the spine of the blade, (back not sharpened length on the blade) and the flat of the blade, (side of the blade) are all options when using a knife.  Granted the bigger the blade and handle the more effective the non-lethal options are.  In training, we use mostly non-sharpened aluminum knives and a little of foam knives for 'sparring'.  Even getting hit with the soft aluminum knife can hurt like hell.

This all brings up another issue though...  Do we want an ASP fighter? A knife fighter? A gun fighter?  No, we want a complete soldier.  The soldier is the weapon, he/she will utilize whatever is at their disposal.  We want warriors that can fight on any terms with any weapon, in essence, a fighter with a knife, or a fighter with a stick, or both, a fighter with a firearm, that can fight from standing, kneeling, and on the ground.  If I were armed with a knife and someone threw a punch at me and I blocked the punch, hit them with the pummel in the side of the neck, gave them an elbow to the face and did a take down, and knelt down on their head, isn't that non-lethal?  If we wanted to do only a joint crank say, then yes doing one with a knife is much harder, and an ASP would be much more appropriate or the use of unarmed skills, but I ask when would a soldier need to do such a task as just so subdue someone?  An MP forsure, a prison guard, definitely, but have a different course for those individuals whos job it requiring non-lethal force.  When would our main group of infantry soldiers need to use batons?  Maybe riot control, but when do they need to do that.  Train for what most likely you're are going to encounter.  To an infanteer is that going to be trying to subdue an individual or kill them? 

What I am speaking for in the fighting man who's job it is "to close with a DESTROY the enemy."  Not; 'subdue the enemy in a non-lethal fashion.'  When you said: "Knife fighting is a comparatively small niche that is rarely - if ever - used by conventional forces.",  you were correct.  Would it not be the same for ASP use then?  When on the battlefield is one going to open their ASP and beat down a combatant?  Whereas, I can much more see the knife being used for sentry removal or for the use of silent infiltration.  Yes, a pistol with silencer, would be a better weapon, though.  If you were operating and your goal was to "destroy" a combatant, what would you rather have, a knife or an ASP?  I know I would use a knife, and I train with both.  What about in parts of the world where the use of knives is taught from an early age? ie Iran, Afghanistan, India, most nations in the middle east.  It is so because it is their culture and the use of knives is very much respected.  In the comming years, there is going to be many more operations in countries in that general location.  Would you not want your soldiers to know how to counter these threats and fight with the same weapon if needed?  It all goes back to being a complete soldier.  Many would say; 'well I would just shoot them.'  Yeah that's great is the environment your in allows you to manuevere your metre long primary weapons around.  What is you were house clearing and someone was to rush and tackle you from a blind corner or confined hallway?  One doesn't always need the highest technology to batlle someone.  Look at one reapon why the Commanche program was scraped in the U.S., they didn't need a stealth recce/attack helicopter to combat an enemy that doesn't have any radars ie terrorists, or an enemy that still uses very low tech weapons soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm going to leave things like that, 'cause I've spent enough time with it for today, well for now at least.....  Thanks for the feedback though Ghostwalk, always love to here others views points and learn from them. 

 

[Gunnerlove]

The army taught me to stick my bayonet on the end of my rifle as it gives a greater reach and allows you to put far more force into your victim. Rifle in one hand and knife in the other? 

 

[Blackhorse7]

I agree... to a point.   As a current serving Police Officer, the ASP is more appropriate for my role.  But my role differs quite a bit from an infantyman's role (or any soldier's, for that matter).  Skills in CQB for the soldier are to survive.  To kill the other combatant.  And if it means coming down to a knife fight, then so be it. 

Personally, if I have to kill someone, I'm not going to try and do it with my ASP.  And keep this in mind too.  Any strike that you are trying to kill someone with is going to need a lot of swinging room, and force, with an ASP.  Something you might not have a lot of.

P.S. - I can count on one hand how many times I have used my ASP... once.  And that was to smash a window, not on a person.  That's in seven years of Policing.

 

[Kal]

Hey Gunner, when I said using a stick and knife I didn't mean using a knife in one hand and your rifle in the other.  Sorry about the confusion.  I meant more along the lines of an ASP, fixed baton, or wooden stick and a knife. 

Now to Blackhorse.  I completely understand what you're saying and I thank you for reiterating my early points with real world experience.  The ASP is an excellent tool for for subduing an individual and using non-lethal techniques.  As you said, being a police officer, your your primary task is to, well, police not kill.  Therefore, you chose the ASP.  The primary job for an infanteer is to kill.  Yes, there are many other tasks this type of soldier is required and trained to do, but what it really boils down to is that his primary job is to kill the enemy, and as you have stated, you wouldn't use an ASP.....

Thanks for al the comments guys, I really do appreciate them.

 

[m_a_c]

I agree with you Kal, there is just not enough focus on unarmed combat within the CF.  The soldier should be able to deploy an asp, baton, or knife.  The complete soldier as you explained. 

 

[Blackhorse7]

See, I don't agree with that statement either, though.  I don't think an ASP is something that needs to be in a soldier's inventory.  To illustrate the point, as a general duty officer (the infantryman of Police), do not get trained on the MP 5, the C-7, or other weapons used by our ERT teams.  Because the majority of the situations that I will be called upon to act in don't require that kind of firepower.

When you start talking about the training and issue of less-than-lethal, or non-lethal equipment to a soldier, you are now re-defining what that soldier's role and responsibilities are going to be.  I think that can be a slippery slope to start down.  If you open up that door, welcome yourself to the kind of scrutiny that having both lethal and non-lethal options will bring.  A decision that you will have to make in a split second may turn into an ugly, drawn out battle.  "Why didn't you employ non-lethal force to my victim, (insert rank)?"  "Sure my client was armed, but was he a direct threat?  Did he have his weapon pointed at you?  At someone else?"

You see where I am going with this...

 

[Kal]

Thanks, m_a_c, a soldier should be able to fight and fight effectively with a varierty of weapons from a variety of positions in a variety of environments.  I can only speak from my reserve light infantry experience, but I and I'm sure many others believe a light infantry soldier should be able to deploy from a landed chinook, fast rope from a griffon and enter a zone via zodiak, and/or a combination of these methods. I realize that the funds are not available to conduct such training ops in the single reserves unit level, but more large scale collective mutiple unit ex's should be available to conducts these types operations.  A complete soldier not only knows how to fight with his rifle, but also his hands, a knife, and an impact weapon, but also in landborne, heli/airborne and waterborne environments.  

How many of us from the reserves can offer testimony when on our weekly training nights end up doing weapons drills, weapons cleaning, kit inspections, or sports nights because of the fact that there isn't the funds or resources to do anything else.  All these activities are important, but there is a problem when you do them just because there isn't any type of soldiering activities to do.....  I personally would love to have a night of just unarmed combatives, or just knife, or just stick, or a combination of them.  There are many other activities that con be conducted at rather low figure cost, but because so many canadians and their government rather spend funds elsewhere the military suffers, and has been suffering for some time.  People tend to want too many thing at once, health care, child care, driveable roads, social programs, and once one thing gets a slash to finance the other, people are crying bloody murder, then try raising taxes to fund all the programs they want, and people will cry even more.  Because our military is so poorly underfunded, people end up laughing and making jokes of our military because they don't want to caugh up the funds to support it.......

Sorry, for getting off topic there, I have a tendency to do that.....

 

[Kal]

Thanks, Blackhorse, but I think the non lethal argument came from Ghostwalk.  He had said that the CF should train its soldiers with a baton over a knife because of its non lethal principles.  I had argued that an infantryman rarely, if ever, has to employ a non lethal technique, and should be trained how to "close with and destroy the enemy," and should be trained in a variety techniques to do so. 

I appologize for the misunderstanding and thanks for the feedback.

 

[Blackhorse7]

Our posts must be getting mixed up.  I was referring to M A C's comments, but no prob.