Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Soviet Soldiers VS German Soldiers in martial arts?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by joea View Post
    As someone mentioend on the same thread Sega posted elsewhere, how often would Russian and German soldiers get clsoe enough to fight hand to hand???
    Probably in close-quarters urban combat like Stalingrad and/or Berlin.
    "To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat."
    --Marshal Józef Piłsudski

    Comment


    • #17
      I remember that in Caucasus it has been a lot of close combat. Hills and very dense wild forest.
      But grenade and mp 40 or ppsh 41 were much usefull.

      I don't think that at that time close combat was such known ( and easy to practice and training) to be efficient as it is today with all kinds of martial art for every level of training and purpose given the time you have to learn.
      Last edited by grosnain; 30 Sep 10, 15:07.

      Comment


      • #18
        Unarmed combat was part of training in many armies at the time. I know the US Army did some at least.
        "To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat."
        --Marshal Józef Piłsudski

        Comment


        • #19
          i bet that for average (conscripted)soldier hand to hand was not what we call close combat today.
          Karaté-Do was started to be developed openly in japan in the thirties.
          French boxe (savate) was for educated people.
          Maybe assault troops and such were trained, no many more.
          Last edited by grosnain; 30 Sep 10, 18:23.

          Comment


          • #20
            Boxing was rather widespread and popular then. It's unreasonable to presume much of that was incorporated into military training.
            "To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat."
            --Marshal Józef Piłsudski

            Comment


            • #21
              What was it that Rommel said, in hand to hand combat the man with a round in chamber wins...? Something like that. I would think that the 'martial arts' training would only come in handy if both soldiers were completely unarmed(no rifle, no pistol, no knife, no spade), and I doubt there were more than a few cases like that in the whole war.
              So on general level martial arts training would be completely useless. However, when it comes to forced reconneissance/prisoner cathing missions it would actually be quite useful.
              Wisdom is personal

              Comment


              • #22
                Martial arts? If you mean "bash the other guy's head in as fast and violently as physically possible" then yes they did martial arts. In war's it's a matter of luck, skill, strenght, crazyness, equipment and who sees who first.

                Shoving a bayonet down someone's chest, slitting someone's throat ear to ear or bashing his head to a bloody mess with a rifle butt is not martial arts, it's murder. It's the individual soldier's toughness and will to live that will decide his fate. Hand to hand training was at best lacking thourough WW2 except bayonet training, wich the Russians know all too well since before the time of Napoleon.

                And AFAIK Sambo was not officialised until after WW2.
                Radio Paris Ment...
                Radio Paris Ment...
                Radio Paris est Allemand...

                - Radio London opening intro

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by grosnain View Post
                  i bet that for average (conscripted)soldier hand to hand was not what we call close combat today.
                  Karaté-Do was started to be developed openly in japan in the thirties.
                  French boxe (savate) was for educated people.
                  Maybe assault troops and such were trained, no many more.
                  You are quite wrong about Savate. During the late 1800s and early 1900s Savate was one of the biggest sports in France (as big as football/soccer). Savate clubs and fight rings were so common in France that every town had one and Savate tournaments were hugely popular. It wasn't until after most of the masters of Savate were killed in World War 1 that Savate became primarily known only by those educated, in the military, and those often engaging in street fights. Prior to World War 1 most French men knew at least the basic boxing techniques and kicks such as the chasse lateral or at least heard of Savate. In fact Savate was so common before WW1 that every uneducated gangsters and uneducated criminals were at the very least adept at Savate.
                  Here is a link:
                  http://defensedanslarue.wordpress.co...french-apache/

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by SegaSaturnGamer View Post
                    You are quite wrong about Savate. During the late 1800s and early 1900s Savate was one of the biggest sports in France (as big as football/soccer). Savate clubs and fight rings were so common in France that every town had one and Savate tournaments were hugely popular. It wasn't until after most of the masters of Savate were killed in World War 1 that Savate became primarily known only by those educated, in the military, and those often engaging in street fights. Prior to World War 1 most French men knew at least the basic boxing techniques and kicks such as the chasse lateral or at least heard of Savate. In fact Savate was so common before WW1 that every uneducated gangsters and uneducated criminals were at the very least adept at Savate.
                    Here is a link:
                    http://defensedanslarue.wordpress.co...french-apache/

                    Guy,

                    You have been thoroughly disproved already, but still you start again here with your savate B.S.


                    http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...t=98599&page=4




                    All most Frenchmen knew about "Savate" is that it was the nickname for a pair of worn out light soft shoes, like in "trainer la savate".

                    Unarmed combat was taught in the French Army before WWI, as proved by training manuals of the time, nowhere in these manuals is savate mentionned.

                    Here is a WWI French unarmed training manual, looks very much like the WWII "commando manuals" but only 20 years older !

                    http://jfgilles.perso.sfr.fr/escrime...cac/index.html


                    kelt

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by kelt06 View Post
                      Guy,

                      You have been thoroughly disproved already, but still you start again here with your savate B.S.


                      http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...t=98599&page=4




                      All most Frenchmen knew about "Savate" is that it was the nickname for a pair of worn out light soft shoes, like in "trainer la savate".

                      Unarmed combat was taught in the French Army before WWI, as proved by training manuals of the time, nowhere in these manuals is savate mentionned.

                      Here is a WWI French unarmed training manual, looks very much like the WWII "commando manuals" but only 20 years older !

                      http://jfgilles.perso.sfr.fr/escrime...cac/index.html


                      kelt
                      If you think Iam lying, watch this:
                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZk_1zcEX0w

                      Plus you are wrong about Savate's meaning. It mean old shoe in French. The term first came when Napoleon's armies created a punishment involving hours of getting kicked in the ass. The officer jokingly called it Savate.

                      Prior to Savate the art was called Chausson,after the iron boots sailors wore while on boats.

                      You don't know much about martial arts. If there is one thing I learned it is to never argue about a topic that you only know popular knowledge or stereotypes about with some who is very knowlegdable about the subject.
                      Last edited by SegaSaturnGamer; 21 Oct 10, 13:58.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by surfinbird View Post
                        Martial arts? If you mean "bash the other guy's head in as fast and violently as physically possible" then yes they did martial arts. In war's it's a matter of luck, skill, strenght, crazyness, equipment and who sees who first.

                        Shoving a bayonet down someone's chest, slitting someone's throat ear to ear or bashing his head to a bloody mess with a rifle butt is not martial arts, it's murder. It's the individual soldier's toughness and will to live that will decide his fate. Hand to hand training was at best lacking thourough WW2 except bayonet training, wich the Russians know all too well since before the time of Napoleon.

                        And AFAIK Sambo was not officialised until after WW2.
                        Actually shoving a bayonet down someone's chest, slitting someone's throat ear to ear or bashing his head to a bloody mess with a rifle butt are a portrayal as martial arts. All the term martial arts means is skill in melee or unarmed combat.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Karri View Post
                          What was it that Rommel said, in hand to hand combat the man with a round in chamber wins...? Something like that. I would think that the 'martial arts' training would only come in handy if both soldiers were completely unarmed(no rifle, no pistol, no knife, no spade), and I doubt there were more than a few cases like that in the whole war.
                          So on general level martial arts training would be completely useless. However, when it comes to forced reconneissance/prisoner cathing missions it would actually be quite useful.
                          Not necessarily. Ever seen the Russian Spetsnaz's skill in hand to hand? A spetsnaz could easily kill you even if you hold a pistol if you are in close rang. With a knife? Don't better when fighting a Russian Spetsnaz. He will turn the knife against you and stab you with it. If a person is skilled in martial arts, he could easily kill a person wielding a knife,spade, or even a pistol.

                          And Rommel never even heard of martial arts; hell he never even practiced basic western hand to hand combat such as boxing and wrestling!

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Pilsudski View Post
                            Unarmed combat was part of training in many armies at the time. I know the US Army did some at least.
                            Correct, the US Army taught basic boxing and wrestling techniques such as the arm twist and strangling. I would bet an American soldier over any German soldier save the Waffen SS in hand to hand combat anyday! I even remember hearing how a regular US infantryman easily twisted a German paratrooper's arm and broke it! Often read that Americans won close quarters melee combat most of the time against German troops.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by grosnain View Post
                              I remember that in Caucasus it has been a lot of close combat. Hills and very dense wild forest.
                              But grenade and mp 40 or ppsh 41 were much usefull.

                              I don't think that at that time close combat was such known ( and easy to practice and training) to be efficient as it is today with all kinds of martial art for every level of training and purpose given the time you have to learn.
                              Back then they didn't teach complex techniques or had a formal well developed hand to hand combat courses for regular infantryman; that was reserved for special forces and commandos such as the SAS and Waffen SS.

                              However in the US army and to a much smaller extent the British army they taught at least very basic techniques such as bayonet combat, wrestling, and boxing.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by SegaSaturnGamer View Post
                                If you think Iam lying, watch this:
                                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZk_1zcEX0w

                                Plus you are wrong about Savate's meaning. It mean old shoe in French. The term first came when Napoleon's armies created a punishment involving hours of getting kicked in the ass. The officer jokingly called it Savate.

                                Prior to Savate the art was called Chausson,after the iron boots sailors wore while on boats.

                                You don't know much about martial arts. If there is one thing I learned it is to never argue about a topic that you only know popular knowledge or stereotypes about with some who is very knowlegdable about the subject.
                                kid,

                                What I know about unarmed combat doesn't come from browsing internet sites, it's the stuff I learned in the Army in the Sixties (1er RPIMa), I served one year as an instructor at the N'Gor Commando school (1er RIAOM) and practiced while in the reserve.

                                As a Frenchman, I know what savate means in argot.


                                kelt

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X