Talk:Combat knife/Archive 1

Archive 1

blatently false descriptions?

I attempted to fix the blatently false description of Combat knives as "Almost universaly" utility tools and some of the other more rediculous statments about the FS Knife being the only one designed for fighting, but was apperently over ruled by the ignorent.

For the record, the most important Combat Knife of the Vietnam era, the Gerber MkII, is not a utility knife. Since that time the Applegate Fairbairn and many other combat knives have been designed primarily for fighting.

Need for killing descriptions?

I'm new to wikipedia, but do we really need a section in this article describing the most effective way of using a knife to kill someone? -142.157.201.20

Sure, why not? Using knives to kill is a common theme in much of fiction, and clarifying the reality of it is informative. I'd prefer it here rather than someone making a whole new article or something, which is really a waste. But, if you do see that, be sure to suggest a merge. Tyciol 17:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I love the killing section and I definitely think it should be part of Wikipedia. I have edited it myself. However, right now it contains about twice as much text as the main section. So either 1) trim it, or 2) expand the main section, or 3) move it. abelson 18:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. This method is more merciful and less violent than slashing/stabbing because this method is painless and quick so the victim will not suffer. As opposed to stab/slash. Get it? They show this stuff all the time on the A&E channel when they interview ex-Navy Seals, anyhow. Eddo36 20:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little uneasy myself about having what is practically a guide on the "best" ways to kill someone. It's pretty disgusting and distasteful actually. And some of it sounds like original research (the kidney thing, for example) and either needs to be referenced or it will be removed. --Mad Max 22:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I would have absolutely no problem with the "technique" section except for the fact that it seems so unbelievable. I suppose if someone wants to kill with a knife he/she will find out how to do it, so there is little use in censoring. However, as is previously stated, these ideas have no references and are therefore pointless. It sounds more like a twisted 16 year-old played a game of Splinter Cell and then wrote this. I think the whole section should come down unless confirmed by a soldier, a doctor, or another serious authority on the matter. Until then, is sounds just like a sick fantasy. -ZEPhead

They are combat knives, they are meant to kill. I think the section makes perfect sense. HighInBC 20:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

We can argue all day over ethics and whether the inclusion of a guide on murdering other humans makes any sense for an encyclopedia. However, Wikipedia is not a place for unreferenced writing. We're violating several related policies here, no original research, and verifiability. Also, even though we're not censored, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and I'm sure this is one of those cases. If anyone reverts my edit without first referencing these statements, I'll bring this case to the committee. --Mad Max 05:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the section should be put back once proper citations on combat knife methods. Surely somebody must have a training manual of sorts? HighInBC 13:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually it can probably never be readded since it violates an official policy -- Wikipedia is not an instruction manual or "how-to" guide. I've noticed someone has added a similar section again...at least this time it is referenced. --Mad Max 14:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't the redundancy of having two kidneys eliminate the effectiveness of one of them being attacked and disabled?147.144.1.251 22:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe the point is not actually to disable the kidneys, but to cause massive internal (and, of course, external) bleeding. It should be noted that much of this information--and more--is readily available to the public in the form of military field manuals. The debate seems to be operating on the idea that if this unpleasant information is kept out of Wikipedia, then nobody will be able to find out about it and therefore no ill will result of it. That would be great if it were true, but I think it's a little fatuous. That said, I think it reads strangely to have the material in a knife article. I think it belongs in Wikipedia, but in an article on knife technique or knife fighting instead. 128.123.86.239 19:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a knife. There is no official way to use it. This means, I doubt there are any manuals on how to use a knife. Fighting in general is not an exact art. Fighting is what the situation allows. This is why I doubt there is no "best way" to kill someone because I doubt your target will just be standing there and let you kill them. Second of all, why are you people even considering making a how-to guide to killing someone? That's just sick. Smaug99 22:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Image

US Marines practicing with bayonets (knives attached to their guns for combat).

I found this US Marine image and caption, it should be PD as it was taken by the US government. Looks good for the article, please let me know what you think. HighInBC 20:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I am removing the bit about the large Japanese switchblade because: A) I'm an expert on knives of all sorts, and I have never seen a switch that large, and B) It's unsourced. Also, it's (Redacted). --68.56.134.117 23:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have added information on the use of the combat knife and included a cite for the source of that information.

Cleanup?

In what way does this article need a clean-up? PhotoNikonMan 17:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't, it needs more information on where knives have been used in the military, examples like US Navy SEAL in the Gulf of Aden destroying a pirate with his only working back-up for the situation:- his combat knife. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.212.119 (talk) 08:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Terms Not Interchangeable

One problem with this article is that the title "Combat knife" has been erroneously defined as synonymous with "fighting knife" and "tactical knife". It is NOT. A combat knife is specifically designed for military use, primarily for close combat, and thus differs from the fighting knife or the tactical knife, either of which may be designed for other purposes, such as civilian use as a personal defense weapon. An M3 Trench knife IS a combat knife as it was specifically designed for military use in combat, while a bowie knife is undeniably a fighting knife, but not a combat knife, even if used in countless hand-to-hand encounters.Dellant (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but those articles redirect here for now, Tactical knife is a redirect, but a search for "Fighting knife" displays this article. So until we break them out into separate individual pieces we should list them all, at least for now. If you want to write separate articles for each one, I'm ok with it. I'll even help you.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

OK with that. Did not realize each term had to have a separate article once redirects were in place. Popular use may have totally blended the definition of "fighting knife" and "tactical knife" (the latter is really a modernized weasel word for the older term "fighting knife"). But "combat knife" has a specific meaning and deserves its own definition.Dellant (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, they technically don't need separate articles and my guess is that someone will come along in a few years to suggest a merge of them anyway. I'm ok with breaking them out, of course, but if you think we can keep them all contained in this one we can do that, too. Maybe a subsection here for fighting knife and tactical (yes a more politically correct term of "fighting knife", but popular enough and designed differently enough with regard to folders that 9 out of 10 people probably buy/use/carry/collect tactical knives that its taken on an entirely new meaning in its own right). Let me know, I'll mention it on the project page and see if anyone else wants to chime in. Thanks and sorry for the confusion with the edits.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I created a separate article for fighting knife and placed the tactical knife in that article, as the two names are often used interchangeably and it is logical to place "tactical knife" with "fighting knife". "Tactical knife" will have to be changed to redirect to "fighting knife." That should take care of it.Dellant (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me know if you need any help, I think I have some good tactical knife stuff in a sandbox on here somewhere, or maybe in a text file at home. I wrote a big article on tactical vs fighting knives for one of the gun magazines complete with sources and later trimmed it down about a year ago.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes please help! Need more material and refs, the history section in particular needs workDellant (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: redirect changed. This did not require an RM, but consensus is clear. Andrewa (talk) 10:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Tactical knife → Dellant – Request that "Tactical knife", currently a redirect to "Combat Knife", be redirected to "Fighting knife" per the discussion below under terms. A tactical knife is is a knife with one or more military features designed for use in extreme situations, which may or may not include a design capability as a military combat knife (see Shideler, Dan, Sigler, Derrek, and Ramage, Ken (eds.), The Gun Digest Book Of Tactical Gear, Krause Publications, ISBN 0896896846, 9780896896840 (2008), p. 7). In contrast, the "Combat knife" is a specific category of military fighting knife, designed solely for military use (see:Burton, Walter E., Knives For Fighting Men, Popular Science, July 1944, Vol. 145 No. 1, p. 150: A combat knife is specifically designed for military use, and is thus a more restrictive category than that of a fighting knife, which may include knives designed for civilian use.)Dellant (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Agree per discussion.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Combat knife. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120607051412/http://www.chrisreeve.com/greenberet.htm to http://www.chrisreeve.com/greenberet.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)