Are there any notable clashes where the warfare ground down to medieval style warfare of a large scale. No doubt there were many battles where hand to hand was very common, yet was there any battles where hundreds of soldiers duked it out. And if so were there actually any victors ? I know there was some heavy hand to hand at Stalingrad yet i dont own a book with any indepth information on the subject.
I doubt it. Submachineguns and pistols were very common in the eastern front. There were at least one of these weapons in every infantry section whether Soviet or German. I did hear about hand-to hand occurring in Stalingrad after the German surrender. Some armored infantry units defending the Red October factory fought to the death. There are accounts of them running out of ammunition and ambushing Red Army troops with spades and pieces of machinery in very close quarters (inside the factory).
Skywalker,do you mean spears / horse warfare??? WW2 is to modern to have this kind of warfare,the polish had old equitment,and even the polish had guns. even the horse units had guns and modern equitment. The only thing i can think of ww2 having any medieval spear warfare is that the soldiers riffel having a little tiny spear at the end of it,and by using it by stabbing an emeny soldier! This is some what the only thing that is medieval warfare during ww2. And also,i have forgot to add these objects that could be classes ww2 medieval warfare! the dagger (British and German)and the Japansese swords that was used on pows,all this is kind of ww2 medieval warfare.
This is not the Eastern front, but in the Pacific theater, hand to hand combat was probably more common thanks to the terrain (and the Japanese proclivity towards it). I remember reading an account of a British officer in this theater who achieved a superhuman feat. After getting bayoneted several times to the abdomen and having his right arm slashed by a katana-wielding Japanese officer, he slayed his opponents with his revolver and acquired the blade. He continued the fight and continued leading his men despite his grave injuries. He dropped his revolver and slayed a few more Japanese troops with the captured Katana (while his shattered, bloody useless right arm dangled). Shortly afterwards, he collasped and died of his injuries. Inspired by his example, his platoon carried on and defeated the Japanese defenders. The fallen officer won the Victoria's Cross for this action.
Indeed a valuable observation pertaining to combat environment. "Hand to hand" in military terms really means close combat and includes sidearms, submachine guns, grenades, improvised weapons, bayonets and unarmed combat (though the latter is traditionally associated with special commando operations and partisan action). In Stalingrad for example, General Chuikov specialised in a "hand to hand" tactical doctrine which replaced his predecessor's more traditional artillery support doctrine. He sent his "boys" out with submachine guns and grenades forming the pinwheel of any attack, claiming one life with a rifle was worth one enemy life, but a life with a grenade was worth ten. This was the theme of "hand to hand" at Stalingrad for the most part. Certainly the account of improvised weapons is not entirely isolated, that is also the nature of sustained urban warfare. Jungle warfare too is similar in this regard, though again the submachine gun and grenade were the preferred weapons in close quarter combat. Psychological warfare is also widely practised in close combat environments, the most shocking of these would be the flame thrower (its actual combat value is rated as minimal). These are all close combat methods, attacks made in any formation size should be supported by mortars and machine guns, and anti-armour and assault support weapons if one is to conduct operations with any kind of tactical organisation. Therein lay the distinction. Interestingly enough Hitler's ideal for the Germanic superman involved proficiency in boxing and judo, as outlined in Mein Kampf. I dare say any patriotic Nazi within the military/waffen would be so schooled. And of course some proficiency in unarmed combat is routinely taught in any boot camp around the world.
Yes, the Red Army "Storm groups". At Stalingrad they were generally chosen men- the most experienced and reliable fighters. They were heavily armed with automatic weapons, flamethrowers, and bags of grenades. They were instructed to advance and throw grenades literally everywhere in front of them while MG/Sniper sections covered them. This became standard practice very soon, and these SMG-companies (and then later, battalions) were regularly formed for offensive missions.
The flame-thrower's combat value is rated as minimal?? By whom?? Certainly not by the US Marines who used them on numerous islands in the Pacific to clear the Japanese defenders from literally thousands of caves, bunkers and other defensive fortifications. The Marines rated them as crucial and very, very valuable weapons for such tasks.
Maybe it was minimal when trying to clear flat trench defenses? I've seen a panzer training video where triple flamethrower armored halftracks were used to mop up enemy positions with dismounted Armored infantry. This was to occur after panzers and mounted armored infantry break through.
I've noticed that mentions of "hand to hand" combat often downplay rifle fire. It's always about the submachinguns, pistols, grenades, bayonets/spades, etc. I'm not experienced with firearms, but is it really that difficult and unwieldy to hit moving individuals with a bolt action or semi-automatic rifle in close range?
Oddly enough it is. Not only difficult to do the first time, but overcoming the normal human (operative word "normal") dislike for killing another human being, for whatever reason has to be suppressed. It gets somewhat less stressful to the "normal" combat soldier with time. Even first time deer hunters will occassionally succumb to what is called "buck fever", and although excellent shots on the target range miss a deer so badly it is hard to tell where in the heck the bullet went. And those are generally through scopes, and the deer aren't shooting back!
Combat value as associated with weapon complexity/weight versus destructive capabilities. Certainly it could be very effective within a confined tunnel or room system as a special purpose weapon, so long as the area is indeed confined and relatively unfurnished. But again its immediate effects are mostly psychological, determined troops can return fire even as they burn to death, most whilst in great pain will be only superficially burned without sustained or direct delivery, plus it is somewhat dangerous to the user, has extremely limited range and is very heavy equipment. Certainly they have excellent situational value, and were also used with tremendous effect during the Great War by German Stormtroopers for trench clearing. Large projectors were mounted on armoured carriages during WW2 as a troop support weapon. But for the above mentioned reasons its value is primarily psychological, whilst users enjoy quite some vulnerability. Great for foxhole warrens in the Pacific, no doubt about that, grenades won't send shrapnel around twisting corridors and corners. It's good for evacuating bunkers (re. psychological warfare) but grenades give better actual combat effect in that particular case. On open ground you're going to do little more than try to avoid getting hit and wait for the others to win the battle. Aim at centre of mass, be a very instinctive shot and stay calm, because you've only got one chance before the rifle becomes a club. You're much better off with a sidearm and a knife at close range, though an SMG is the ideal weapon. Think of it in these terms, point blank range for a traditional rifle is about 20 feet, and about 5 feet for a sidearm. Saw some footage taken by a Deerstalker member in Africa, where a rogue elephant with a busted tusk had to be hunted and put down for trampling some villages and killing a number of locals, it was elderly and insane with rage as they put it. Gun I think was a Remington side by side firing nitro express. First shot at about a hundred feet impacted high on the cranium and really just made it especially angry. It charged directly towards the firer and cameraman. Things suddenly turned life threatening, since it was covering the distance in a matter of moments and sidearms would be useless. The firer remained inhumanly calm however, took aim with the second barrel and stopped it some twenty feet away. It was very lucky. Imagine trying that in a combat environment, bullets and shrapnel whizzing by, snipers trying to sight you, shells exploding all over the place, screaming fanatics leaping out over the next crater and you're likely to be on the move, ducking and weaving.
Sure thing that there were instances throuought the war. Many actions at Guadalcanal quilify as hand-to-hand. Read up about the fighting that took place on Edsons Ridge and at Henderson Field. East Front stuff-read Jason Marks excellent book: "Island of Fire" and you will learn of some of the actions at Stalingrad. Kursk, Kharkov, and so many other places are also great cases in point.
