|
Post by omnivorous on Oct 28, 2014 19:51:47 GMT -5
Technically, no. In effect, yes. In my opinion.
|
|
winter
Junior Member
Posts: 479
|
Post by winter on Oct 29, 2014 3:51:51 GMT -5
par·ry ˈperē/ verb verb: parry; 3rd person present: parries; past tense: parried; past participle: parried; gerund or present participle: parrying 1. ward off (a weapon or attack), especially with a countermove. "he parried the blow by holding his sword vertically" synonyms: ward off, fend off; Are you a fencer? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_fencing"Parry A simple defensive action designed to deflect an attack, performed with the forte of the blade. A parry is usually only wide enough to allow the attacker's blade to just miss; any additional motion is wasteful. A well-executed parry should take the foible of the attacker's blade with the forte and/or guard of the defender's. This provides the greatest control over the opponent's blade. In sabre, the guard should be turned appropriately using the fingers to protect the wrist. Parries generally cover one of the 'lines' of the body. The simplest parries move the blade in a straight line. Other parries move the blade in a circular, semicircular, or diagonal manner. There are eight basic parries, and many derivatives of these eight. (see #Prime, #Seconde, #Tierce, #Quarte, #Quinte, #Sixte, #Septime, #Octave, #Neuvieme). See also #Lines. In foil, the opponent's blade should not only be deflected away from the target, but away from off-target areas as well. An attack that is deflected off the valid target but onto invalid target still retains right-of-way. In sabre, the opponent's blade need only be deflected away from valid target, since off-target touches do not stop the phrase. Sabre parries must be particularly clean and clear to avoid the possibility of whip-over touches. In épée, a good parry is simply any one that gains enough time for the riposte; opposition parries and prise-de-fer are commonly used, since they do not release the opponent's blade to allow a remise." Alrighty then.
|
|
|
Post by hudson5969 on Oct 29, 2014 9:17:19 GMT -5
It's not just the parry, but the ability to catch and direct their hand/arm away from you far enough to open them up to a throat strike or what have you, and then finish them. It's rare to find anyone who knows what to do when you parry, catch and redirect, because it's almost never taught, because everyone teaches oriental knife fighting, which largely utilizes blades with no guards or quillions to do this with. Taking the fight outside of THEIR box can be a big game changer.
Again, this can be done with any blade with quillions, and you're not necessarily blocking another bayonet. Considering the people being brought into this country (and other western nations), machetes are a real possibility, and from my perspective, they are worth blocking. You're also not necessarily using the bayonet fixed on the end of a rifle, they work in hand as well.
|
|
|
Post by omnivorous on Oct 29, 2014 12:22:51 GMT -5
Yes, winter, I am a fencer, but not the kind of "fencing" as it is understood in modern times. None of that .001 sec difference determining a "winner" when both participants land a hit on each other, or using "weapons" which simulate a car antenna with a guard better than a proper sword, kind of fencer. And I don't use the term "parry" like that. Parrying is a purely defensive action, one would simply be deflecting an attack, a counter attack would come after, all be it immediately after, before the adversary has a moment to recover. Deflecting an attack, and then immediately counter-attacking, is the classic parry/reposte. If you just attack the trusting hand/wrist/forearm of an opponent, you're not truly parrying their attack.
hudson5969, you bring up an interesting point about a lot of the more popular Oriental systems using weapons with minimal or no guards. I'd suggest it comes from those systems being developed in environments of heavy jungle, so a large-ish guard is going to be a snag fest when moving through the foliage. Also, many of those systems don't have a whole lot of blade-on-blade actions. When a system has a lot of blade-on-blade actions contained in the systems, the weapons tend to have larger guards to protect the wielder's hands. Then again, there are some Filipino swords, for example, which do have relatively small guards, but I would question if they are in the majority.
|
|
winter
Junior Member
Posts: 479
|
Post by winter on Oct 29, 2014 13:11:31 GMT -5
We are splitting hairs.
I'm only saying that when blocking (parrying) a knife attack, your blade against their knuckles, hand, wrist, or forearm beats the shit out of blocking knife to knife.
ETA- from the other thread. "In battle, you ain't got time for that shit. You may be in a knife fight with this guy, but his bro right behind him has a damn rifle. Your blade has to be able to cause extreme trauma and shock so as to disable your adversary in well under 30 seconds. Even slicing someones throat is gonna be a solid 20-45 second struggle. Conversely a knife to the liver is almost instant incapacitating shock."
With that in mind the block/parry in our context is always just the first part of a violent and rapid series of attacks.
|
|
|
Post by omnivorous on Oct 29, 2014 13:29:51 GMT -5
I'm only saying that when blocking (parrying) a knife attack, your blade against their knuckles, hand, wrist, or forearm beats the shit out of blocking knife to knife. With that in mind the block/parry in our context is always just the first part of a violent and rapid series of attacks. Agreed. But, also: www.paladin-press.com/product/Contemporary_Knife_Targeting
|
|
winter
Junior Member
Posts: 479
|
Post by winter on Oct 29, 2014 15:36:17 GMT -5
I haven't read that, but, the difference between martial knife combatives and LE defensive knife use is more than a little.
|
|
|
Post by omnivorous on Oct 29, 2014 16:10:55 GMT -5
All knife fighting is martial. The particular ROEs one is subjected too, is all that determines how far one can go.
The book is mostly about taking a medical/scientific approach to what actually happens to the body when subjected to slashing and penetrating wounds from short, edged weapons. I posted the link more in response to the quote about a single stab to the liver.
Really, though, what is the likelihood of both individuals already having their knives drawn? Most attacks involving knives are ambushes, hasty or prepared. I think I mentioned it earlier in the thread, unless you're going around with your bayonet fixed all of the time, you're more than likely going to have it, or a knife of your own, sheathed. Its not as cool, or fun, to train knife self-defence techniques, since you're likely going to get jabbed and whacked (with a blunt training knife, as opposed to stabbed and slashed with a sharpened knife), and frankly, will lose a lot. Its a lower percentage of scenarios in which both participants start off with blades drawn, not to say it shouldn't be trained for, because it should, but its not as high a priority as training unarmed v. knife should be, in my opinion.
Also, a multiple attacker scenario involving knives is pretty much no-win. You can't alter the test's settings, and your attackers won't attack you one at a time.
How would you define the differences between "martial knife combatives" and "LE defensive knife use", winter?
|
|
winter
Junior Member
Posts: 479
|
Post by winter on Oct 29, 2014 20:31:56 GMT -5
With a dictionary. Martial is military in every definition you can find. Law enforcement is not military and is wrong when it appears so. Hahaha, me and you must have different dictionaries of some shit. We keep getting hung up on words. In the other thread- uwgear.proboards.com/thread/653/carry-sort-combat-survival-knifeI stated much of this that I'd have to retype right now. I understand in a martial situation that I may be stabbing a guy with a rifle in his hand. Maybe not, maybe there's a sleepy sentry? I don't know. In law enforcement knife fighting, it's only defensive and stabbing the perp six times in the fucking throat may ruin your pension.
|
|
|
Post by hudson5969 on Oct 30, 2014 9:59:16 GMT -5
hudson5969, you bring up an interesting point about a lot of the more popular Oriental systems using weapons with minimal or no guards. I'd suggest it comes from those systems being developed in environments of heavy jungle, so a large-ish guard is going to be a snag fest when moving through the foliage. Also, many of those systems don't have a whole lot of blade-on-blade actions. When a system has a lot of blade-on-blade actions contained in the systems, the weapons tend to have larger guards to protect the wielder's hands. Then again, there are some Filipino swords, for example, which do have relatively small guards, but I would question if they are in the majority. I'm thinking that oriental arts are derived from peasant fighting, and they were not allowed to have weapons. Adding a guard to a knife is almost universally seen as taking it from "tool" to "weapon". So, they developed their unarmed and armed fighting based on the inability to have weapons, and prepared accordingly. Nobles, who were al-lowed to be armed, used mostly bows and spears, and for them, the sword was abackup weapon, and had a small guard. THeir technique seems to be more of slapping another long weapon out of the way with their sword that a parry/reposte. As for scenarios in modern times when having a proper guard on a knife may come into play: First, as stated in the intro section and video for this forum that I saw, this isn't about hobby stuff, and not about CCW- or LEO activities, it's abotu warfighting as a partizan, basically. The aforementioned situation where you get jumped with a machete-wielding foe is not improbable these days, as it is a favorite witht he mexican and other gangs pouring across the border. You can TRY to stab at the knuckles/wristof a foe with a longer (and in this case, light and maneuverable) weapon, but I'd recommend you try it a few thousand times with training weapons and see how often you lose. You're really going to appreciate having a guard on your blade, and carrying a bayonet (or like I said before Ka-Bar type knife, or other knife with quillions -- only difference between them and a bayonet is you can't attach them to a rifle). Another is one guys faced in Iraq: you go into a room shooting, and your rifle goes down. You MAY have enough room to use the rifle as a bludgeon, you may not. Having a real fighting blade that you can quickly draw and use would be a big asset. The nice thing about the OKC-3S is that it has an 8" blade and can reach vitals (like the heart) from pretty much every direction, even through thick clothing, and the swedge is sharpened aiding penetration through fabrics. Another advantage talked about earlier is that everyone wants to act liek they are in a desert where there's nothing to cut, and so advocate very small or even no knife (I never cut nuttin' in 'Raq). OK, well in that fight, against someone with their easy-to-carry 3" to 4" blade, using something with an 8" blade means I can ram it into the oft-mentioned hand or wrist 4"-5" before their point is even at my guard. Hey, it's not for everybody, and I don't advocate carrying a bayonet just to have a bayonet, it needs to be a good utility knife and fighting knife first, and the ability to attach it to a rifle is a bonus. I know people want to complain about it as a field knife, and I used to as well, until I tried it. It makes fuzz sticks and kindling as well as anything. In the context we are speaking fine whittling is really not a necessity, and if it is, then carrying a Mora (or higher-class puukko) weighs little and can be packed away in your 3rd line. Just so everyone knows, I don't work for Ontario or anything, it's just that the only designs I know of that really fit the multipurpose rolewell are the OKC-3S and the ZT-9. The OKC-3s is $100 or so and 14 ounces, and the ZT-9 is $320 or so, half an inch shorter, and 19.8 ounces. If you aren't running an AR with a bayonet lug, just buy a good multipurpose knife.
|
|
|
Post by omnivorous on Oct 30, 2014 12:01:01 GMT -5
Well, it may not so much be that the peasantry were deprived of weapons, probably the most well known example in the West, of such a situation in the Orient, was the take-over of the Okinawan islands by the Japanese. The Okinawan's were prevent from possessing weapons, so they developed systems around improvised weapons and modified farming implements. However, in Medieval and Renaissance era Europe, similar situations occurred, but more because the peasantry were dirt poor peasants. They couldn't afford the nice stuff, so had to make-do with modified farming implements or more cheaply made and simpler designed weapons. A single-edged sword is easier to make than a double-edged one. In particular, a whole series of long knives were developed in Germanic regions, known as Grosse Messer - big knife. They were pretty much bowie knives with ~2ft long blades. Similarly, in other regions, the "peasants" swords were falcions. Another reason why such weapons were popular, was because they were a legal end-run around sword bans in some places. They were "knives" not "swords". For the machete attack scenario, yeah, that's a terrible horrible no-good very bad day. Stabbing at a hand is a tall order for even trained people. I wouldn't advocate it, unless it is after passing the machete, which should be done anyway because of its superior reach. The ol' "defanging the snake" concept comes into play. Yeah, an 8" long fixed-blade knife is nothing to scoff at, and I don't know who would advocate not having a some kind of at least medium-sized knife on their "go to war" rig. I like swedges and clip-points, they're kind of a way to cheat with the construction of the knife, by allowing you to have the sharper point of a dagger, while maintaining the spine strength of a knife.
|
|
|
Post by hudson5969 on Oct 31, 2014 0:19:00 GMT -5
The stabbing the hand/wrist was in response to the above post where they said rather than parry (since most people will have smallish knives, unless they grew up in the third world.....), they'd just stab the hand/wrist. I was pointing out that even in that scenario, the longer blade is an advantage.
Really, I just want to bring to light that a bayonet is not just something you stick on the end of a rifle to throw off your aim. If you select the bayonet properly, you have a good general purpose knife, and it has features that are actually beneficial in a knife FIGHT,versus just two guys attacking each other with knives, which is what most think a knife fight is.
And again, if I was using a dedicated bayonet, like the old cruciform or triangular models, where all they can do is stab other people, I'd not bother taking one. Even the M7 and M9 aren't really worth taking, IMO. A multipurpose beast like we've talked about is worth its weight because it performs more than one ob well. It isn't GREAT at any one thing, but it does all tasks well. Perfect for something trying to justify itself on your belt.
|
|
|
Post by waffenmacht on Oct 31, 2014 6:59:23 GMT -5
I honestly think the bayonet went the way of the dinosaur in WW2. When you look at troops that were forced into combat on a daily basis, which often ended in hand-to-hand (due to many armies like the Germans, Russians, and Austrians being primarily equipped with bolt action rifles) the E-tool was preferred almost universally over the bayonet. Hudson hit on why above...multipurpose. An E-tool can be used to fry food on, pry with, dig trenches with (something the Russians and Germans did every day), process wood (although not as efficient as an axe) and as a combat weapon it is light, maneuverable, easy to carry, and deadly when used properly. Attaching a knife to the end of a rifle just isn't as efficient and guys who did this as a living for months, if not years on end learned this pretty quick. Bayonets certainly still have their place, but IMO they are limited by the lack of good multipurpose capabilities and when stuck on the end of a rifle they are less efficient then other hand-held weapons like the E-tool and even the tomahawk (I'm talking a true tomahawk with removable head). The lack of popularity with bayonets we see today among combat troops experiencing hand-to-hand fighting may be simply because there are better, more efficient options available.
|
|
|
Post by eddiewouldclearhot on Dec 7, 2014 16:37:56 GMT -5
Tomahawk... multipurpose, and a better fighting weapon. Easier to train on as well.
|
|
|
Post by hudson5969 on Dec 7, 2014 17:08:33 GMT -5
I would agree, except we're talking about bayonets.
|
|