New Army Combative Manual-BJJ [Archive]

Black Jack

02-15-2002, 12:05 PM

I find it to be a pathetic example of when a commerical NHB venture becomes the required training to reflect a current trend.

I am all for ground survival tactics, that is if you are taken down, learn to get up and get out, not to take someone to the ground on purpose in a battlefield, it is absurd to note that they devoted 3 chapters to such nonsense, it is not close combat by any means, it is only based on the fact that the rangers are sold on GJJ, because I would bet that a few of the officers liked what they saw on the UFC, and were students of the system.

They replaced most of there close quater hand blows with a assortment of GJJ techniques, not to mention that the LINE system, a system geared towards the more serious battle focused h2h principles was moved to the SF forces and out of basic training.

I think this goes with the objective of training liability, plus a focus on peackeeping/low intensity conflict missions, not to mention what people think they see in a martial arts tourney is what is acceptable in the real world.

I can see it now, a GI giving a terrorist a triangle choke, in the middle of a overrun battlefield. The same thing happened with HRD in the 70's with Michael Enchanis, and his combatives.

At least his stuff made sense from a tactical standpoint, so does groundfighting if one looks at it from a escape perspective, and not one of submission.

They NEVER should of changed the old close combat syllabus from the 40's and 50's if you ask me.

Ryu

02-15-2002, 12:22 PM

I personally think ground and pound is a quicker and safer tactic for their line of work then looking for submission unless it is a quick choke maybe. Learning how to grapple is key, and obviously it's a requirement for them.

This leads me to an interesting note. I think A LOT of people are grappling these days. A lot of TOUGH guys are learning the BJJ and groundfighting systems. You may even run into a "joe blow" on the street who suddenly does clinch with you and take you down to mount. You've got to know what to do down there, and it won't be with a seminar or two, you've got to train, join schools, train with resistent partners, etc. This is the only way to be able to defend yourself against other "not so nice" guys who look to grappling for a "tough bad ass UFC" type persona.
Gotta be careful. People are training everywhere...not just the good guys in my opinion.

Grappling, like it or not, is now a fundamental part of what we think of as fighting, and I think the non-martial arts community is NOT ignorant to this either... If you want to box, fight with a knife, use guns, bite, eyegouge, etc. Go ahead. They work.
BUT get your foundation in groundwork. Make it a strong foundation because if you're caught not knowing what to do.....
well you lose. Sorry. It's as simple as that.

Ryu

Nexus

02-15-2002, 12:36 PM

Ryu, the last paragraph of your post almosts appears to be threading on the idea that we should be walking around in fear of the guy accross the street so to speak. To begin with, not that many people are training these days. For those that are, the percentage of them that are looking for people to show off their tough guy skills on are very few.

One is welcome to train for whatever reasons they see fit, and if the motivation to train is to be able to defend yourself when the "time comes so to speak" then that's ok, it's up to you really.

- Nexus

GinSueDog

02-15-2002, 12:45 PM

I guess it really depends on where you live. Here is So Cal there is a BJJ school on almost every corner and two kickboxing schools next each one.

It is kind of funny but everytime I go out, I am always checking out people's ears.-ED

Ryu

02-15-2002, 01:04 PM

Hi Nexus,
I didn't mean to sound so paranoid. No, I don't think we should be in fear, and of course not everyone is a "Gracie trained" killer LOL. :) (actually, that last paragraph might have appeared more dark than I wanted...I'm writing a story, and was listening to some foreboding music...haha it might have had something to do with it sorry.. ;) )

But I do want to say that even though many people are not training, there are "tough guys" who are, and who may indeed want to prove themselves. The people who enjoy fighting, enjoy bullying, etc. These people aren't blind to effective means of beating people up. If they are training in BJJ or something similar, it makes them that much more dangerous.

I guess all I was saying is that you should train for the person who is going to be skilled....... it's similar to what MerryPrankster always says. But I didn't mean to be so "armageddon" about it.
Sorry about that. =)
(for what its worth, the story I'm working on is coming out pretty good so far...)

Ryu

koycymru

02-15-2002, 01:17 PM

Thank's for the link :]

Although I don't train in BJJ (I'm a Hapkido and TKD student) I'm also interested in what other styles are teaching -- especially in military application.

crumble

02-15-2002, 01:35 PM

Out of curiosity, what is/are the definitive manual(s) in your opinion?

Thanks in advance,

-crumble

Ford Prefect

02-15-2002, 01:54 PM

Black Jack,

Rangers do BJJ now as well. Two of my Ranger buddies were telling me about how much fun they were having with it before they got shipped out to Egypt this past summer. They are back in the US now after a stint in Afghanistan, so I can't wait to get the stories!

jjj

02-15-2002, 01:55 PM

Fortunately they left out the chapter on death touches.

bamboo_ leaf

02-15-2002, 02:18 PM

Asia,

Good work on the book. Although I have to agree with black jack.

The inclusion of ground tech in ch3 seems a little out of place. The old manual was old but very direct and simple.

The idea of submission for a soldier also seems misplaced,
diffrent mind set.

Worked out with a guy who learned tang so do from the Koreans in the white horse div. In Nam. The rock late 70s.

His approach was very brutal, simple but very brutal

Black Jack

02-15-2002, 02:40 PM

Bamboo,

Its not the GJJ I have a problem with, its how, not why, but how they are presenting the material in the manuel. GJJ can provide a good deal of ground fighting tactics to the army, with that I have zero doubt, how that material is presented concerns me though.

The last army FM combative manuel was from the early 90's and though it was not bad, it still had close quarter blows, atemi-waza, simple and effective strikes, it still was not as good as the original material, I did not like the disarment section at all, it was based on Aikido, and I had a few problems with some of the other capters as well, but it still had value for what is was intended for.

Crumble,

Classics like Kill or Get Killed, Get Tough!, Cold Steel, Do or Die, Wesley Brown's Navy V5 manuel, WWI stuff from Smith, there are many others as well but those are a example of what I consider true military close combat.

Here is a free-online/earlier printing of Get Tough! by Fairbairn.

This is the real deal bar none but you should get the book for more info if you are serious about the subject.

http://www.vrazvedka.ru/main/learning/ruk-b/fairbairn-01.shtml

Braden

02-15-2002, 03:35 PM

Black Jack - Good stuff. But I wonder, has there ever been any adoption of 'flow drills' in military combatatives? It seems to me that these texts contain good ideas for what to do in a fight, but have little to say about actually how to fight - that is, it seems to me there is a wide gap between a body of techniques, even excellent ones well practiced, and being able to employ them with maximum efficiency in a real situation. Granted, simply 'sparring them out' will teach the rudiments of timing, distancing, reaction, etc. However, I'm of the opinion that there are ways of training out 'how to fight' that have synergy with sparring and can create a significantly more refined sense of these basics. Things such as kali's hubud lubud, wing chun's chi sau, taijiquan's push hands (while you certainly could find fault with specifics in each case) seem to be the kinds of things that fit the bill - in that they teach students to react spontaneously, incorporating the techniques they have learnt based upon the flow of force in the engagement. Again, I think such things would be highly synergistic to simply 'sparring out' the techniques. Have any of them been employed? Would you / the authors / military combatative proponents disagree? Or perhaps is only a matter of the minimal needs and limited training time of the soldier?

Actually, now that I think about it, I remember hearing somewhere, some american military body was learning some kali. Would be interesting to know though...

bamboo_ leaf

02-15-2002, 03:54 PM

For those commenting on the book, how many have actually been in US Army combat unites?

How much do you really think H2H plays a role in what they actually do or expect to do.
Used to work in a place called combat developments, so I have a little idea of tactics and doctrine used by us at one time, probably out of date now.

Also have been through escape and evasion courses / commando courses and assisted supported many sf unites in indirect roles during my time in the green machine. Combatives plays a part in training but not as much as many seem to think. If it gets down to that things are not going well.

The idea of what and how soldier’s train is often far different then what is portrayed in the movies.

The the basic mission of grunt unites is very simple.

Find and destroy the enemy and his equipment.

The thought of making him submit or learning submission type tech, IMHO, teaches a mindset that is incompatible with the this simple idea.

Sam Wiley

02-15-2002, 05:54 PM

The manual is put together pretty well from what little I read of it just now. It's a lot different than the army's previous manuals, that's for sure. I had copies of the army and the marine corps' H2H manuals from a few decades ago, and unlike those, this new manual seems geared toward the army's evolving sense of the use of force. This manual seems more diplomatic and idealized than previous versions, and seems to have evolved from bare minimum H2H training to a more stylistic approach. I think the groundfighting tactics section is a great addition. On the other hand, the standing defense and striking sections are sadly lacking in basic and fundamental techniques. I would suggest a serious redesign of those sections. Older manuals focused on vital point strikes to areas such as the neck, for instance, which are most definitely effective strikes and can quickly end a confrontation. Also, things like breaking the bridge of the nose and the collar bone seem to be missing and they are very effective as well. While it is put together nicely, the overall tone seems to indicate that the army has begun teaching their recruits sport martial arts instead of how to really fight.

Black Jack

02-15-2002, 06:36 PM

Braden,

On the topic of fighting applications/flow drills and military combatives/close combat you should not take the conceptual aspect of a book and mislead it into what was/is trained in real time.

A flow drill is just that, a drill, be that a FMA drill like hu-bud, sumbrada, cuatro ****os, sinawali, or a chinese method like chi sao, don chi, push hands, those drills are just coordination methods that "help" to build body mechanics, conceptual understanding, reaction and rythem but are onto themselves not real world fighting methods.

Military methods use a lot of drills to build the same attributes, offensive attack drills, defense counter drills, impact drills, situational drills, atheltic conditioning and of course sparring.

What is so great about military based combatives, in this case I am talking about the purest, its pinnacle, the close combat techniques of WWII is that anybody, and I mean anybody can use them, based on simple gross motor movements they are very easy to retain and execute under extreme pressure, that means the standard person of average ability can use them to overcome a violent situation, no commerical bs, anybody can pick them up and hack them out with a group of training partners, no secrets to purchase, just common sense and a good deal of sheer aggressiveness.

The body of work behind these methods, both unarmed, armed, firearms and silent killing, specific being the Fairbairn/Sykes methods, is legend. In all of its 3 or 4 different incarnations of growth, from police defendu to close combat, it has seen more real world application than I would bet any system on the planet.

From the Shanghai Muncipal Police, the Shanghai Riot Squad (first swat team), Cyprus police, Royal Marines, 4th Marine Regiment, O.S.S., British commando & covert units, SIS, SOE, British Home Guard, U.S. Special Forces, Marine Raiders, Army Rangers, Scouts, Office of Naval Intelligence, the "Devils Brigade", taught in secert in Scotland, Camp X in Canda, Area B in Maryland, to the teachings of such other WWII cqc instructors as Colonel Rex Applegate, Fairbairn's American counterpart, Wesley Brown, U.S.M.C. Colonel Drexel Biddle, John Styers, Dermot O'Neill, Sgt. Kelly, Ben Mangels, Charles Nelson, and a horde of other fighting men, not so well known.

Just my thoughts on what I hold dear and I hope I answered your question in there somewhere;)

Braden

02-15-2002, 06:44 PM

For sure. I think pretty highly of this stuff, that I've seen. I think it was you that posted an oldschool manual here a couple months ago, and I remember remarking that many of the techniques into it were the same things I get out of my bagua - palm heels to the chin, hammerfists to the mastoid or temple... stuff that's easy to pull off, works great at close range, needs no special conditioning, but is very effective and still will be useful if you screw it up. I only asked about the drills because I haven't heard much said about them. Personally, I'm alot more interested in learning more about drills than techniques. I've allready got all the techniques I'll ever need (as you expect, I don't feel you need to know very many, and the simpler the better), but it's always interesting and productive to hear how other people pull off the techniques that they have.

Black Jack

02-15-2002, 07:39 PM

It might be interesting for you to note that there is some chinese connections, though slim if used in its formating, in some of the close combat methods used by a few of these men.

In specific most of what you see as WWII close unarmed combat is paired down/streamlined war time ju-jitsu with a serious attitude, the greats like Fairbairn, Sykes, O'Neill, and others in the Shanghai Police were very high ranking westerners in the Kodokan and other ryus back in that day.

Fairbairns being signed by Jigoro Kano himself.

From a chinese connection Fairbairn and O'Neill did study chinese boxing methods, some say bagua, but the extact system is not for sure, and any influence the chinese systems had on these men is not known, I believe the teacher of O'Neill was a student of Yin Fu, O'Neill (Quick Kill) had a bit more influence it "seems" than the others as he picked up his pierce "toe" kick from a group of chinese loggers, chinese footfighting he called it, plus I have heard rumors that he picked up a little chinese fast wrestling, though that could be another guy, the background can get confusing for a history novcie like me.

Not to sound insulting but I do remeber a quote from Fairbairn in which he stated that of the chinese boxing he learned back in the day, and that was way back in the day if you remeber that these me were westerners, is he found 80% to be wasted ritual and the remaining 20% to be valid.

What this states on his opinion for chinese martial arts is anyone's guess but it does not seem very high, remeber this is coming from a guy who had over 700 plus armed encounters in the back alley's of Shanghai with gangs like the Tong, beat and left for dead on a least one occasion, that I remeber from some reading.

Other men added different things of course, I think Patterson? added Lathi stick fighting, but all in all Ju Jitsu had a HUGE impact on western unarmed combatives.

Lets also not forget that Fairbairn was they innovator on military knife craft as well as pistol work/point shooting. His F-S dagger is the symbol of commandoes.

GinSueDog

02-15-2002, 08:09 PM

Black Jack,
I honestly think the new manual is a lot better then any previous version. From what I heard, the LINE system is pretty much considered a joke with most Marines, much as the SCARS system is considered a joke with SEALs. A lot of the techniques just cannot be trained full force, with the new system everything can be train anywhere and any place plus I think it builds aggression which is key. The men and women training with the new manual will have more faith in what they are being taught as they can actually practrice it live. People have to get the idea of the submission out of there heads, an armbar is a break, same with a chicken wing, knee bar, etc. I like the new manual, it keeps it simple, and easy plus all the techniques are for the most part proven to work.-ED

Braden

02-15-2002, 08:15 PM

Frankly, I don't have a very high opinion of the vast majority of chinese based schools either. ;) From my experiences so far, bagua and taiji are the only styles I'm at all interested in, and in them, it's such a mixed bag of practitioners, it's almost impossible to find someone with the same training emphasis as you. I have a pathological aversion to ritual though, so really most any traditional martial art school rubs me the wrong way.

The low-line kicks with the inside and outside of the foot that were shown in the old manual posted here are very classic bagua, especially Yin Fu styles. But I would be surprised if that was actually their source; I'm sure many people use them.

I would absolutely love to pick up some judo. However, everytime I see it, I get so turned off by the entire minutes they spend pushing, pulling, and battling for superior grip before attempting the throw. I'm sure thats important in training for sensitivity, but in actual application I feel it should be touch-throw. Although I'm sure someone will say I'm dumb. ;) Plus the ritualistic slant to japanese based schools turns me off, although the judo ones don't seem to be as bad as the others.

Black Jack

02-15-2002, 10:50 PM

Ginsue,

I guess we will stay at disagreements on this faction, to be blunt I think the new focus on groundfighting is sheer crap, the old stuff blows it away, no offense to asia, but what you see in there is not close combat material, its NHB tourney fighting, submission work for field soliders in combat, its a popular combative sport trend that found its way into a area that by all merit it should not off been introduced to, but GJJ is a business as well as a martial art, real life battle survival principles require totally different conditions that a grappling event.

It obvious you would believe the material is better because that is what you practice, it is not practical for war-time combat in the conditions it describes, there good GJJ material in the manuel though, some of the stuff is good like the chokes, but ground combat training is good in the sense of knowing what to do when your down there to escape, but to intentionaly take another enemy solider to the ground in war or even on the street is freakin assine, even more assine to spend three capters on it.

The old stuff built real aggression, its whole key was pure aggression and simple strikes crafted to take a enemy soldier out as fast as possible, combative principles "really" used in war-time encounters, where does GJJ build battlefield based aggression?

In what context does this training apply to war-time combat and the ability to harness the willpower to kill another man with your bare hands???????????

Sorry, I mean no offense to you or you art, but I am not buying this, its bollocks.

As for the LINE system, I have seen the system via tapes, it is a good and simple set of skills, good enough I believe to now be moved to the SF forces, I still don't think its as good as the F/S material but its good, as for SCARS, well SCARS or its rip-off SAFTA is a joke but I am don't really want to start insulting something someone may practice.

I am not against GJJ/BJJ or the great set of skills it will give a person, but in this context it is expolited in the wrong manner.

Just my own viewpoint.

bamboo_ leaf

02-15-2002, 11:26 PM

The basic mission of grunt unites is very simple.

Seek, Find and destroy the enemy and his equipment.

The thought of making him submit or learning submission type tech, IMHO, teaches a mindset that is incompatible with this simple idea.

During the gulf war, some Iraqis soldiers where in a defensive trench they refused to come out. A tracked vehicle straddled the trench, they where asked again to move.

Using the weaponry on the tracked vec. The Iraqi soldiers met ala that day. Another vec. Covered the trench.

Told to me by a friend, this is war.

Lots of things happen, the propose of any combative training should be to totally destroy the enemy any way possible. This is freedom to think other wise is not to be free but constrained by artificial niceties.

Just as many seem to view fighting in the context of sport matches looks like there starting to view combat in the same way. Artificial niceties tend to cause people to get confused.

confusion, can get you hurt or dead.

GinSueDog

02-15-2002, 11:52 PM

Black Jack,
I really think the new manual is pretty practical. It goes into how to defend yourself from strikes while on the ground, how to strike with maximum effect while on the ground and the submission moves are simple and easy to perform. The takedowns and throws are kept simple and the defensive techniques are well selected. It is all good stuff, easy to learn and train. Most of the submissions I saw in that manual were chokes, and the other submissions were kept pretty simple.

The strikes are all basic Thai boxing techniques which have been proven both on the battlefield and in the ring by the Thai's for centuries.

I don't remember the manual saying anywhere throw your weapon to the ground and to take the fight to the ground, but it does teach a person how to survive if thrown into that environment. I would also like to point out that a lot of the stuff in the old manual is pretty much useless crap. I mean who is going to use a knife hand on someone wearing a ****ing helmet?

Yes I train in BJJ, but I have also trained in Thai boxing, and JKD as well. A lot of the stuff in that manual is to put it simply the bread and butter of MMA, but that doesn't mean it can not be applied to other areas. I would rather my tax dollars go into something like this if they are even going to bother training hand to hand combat then some super secret death touch crap that doesn't work or is so low percentage that is would be impossible for them to pull off without hundreds of hours of training put into it.

Here is something to think about, when the SEALs were looking for a new hand to hand system to teach some of their teams on the East Coast they invited several martial arts masters to compete for the contract. To get the contract all you had to do was survive a one on one fight with the biggest SEAL the team. Well to make a short story shorter, that is how Paul Vunak got the contract. I think the military just wants some practical results that they can see.

Finally I would like to remind you that in 99.99% of the time a soldier is going to be doing his killing with a firearm.-ED

Black Jack

02-16-2002, 12:35 AM

Ginsue,

Yes, there is some good groundfighting material in the new manuel, yes it can be very effective if taken to the ground, but the focus on subs and two/single legged takedowns and other groundfighting aspects is not needed and is not a wise investment of your tax dollars, it breeds bad habits for heavy conflict fighting.

Soliders should be trained to jump in and kill the enemy at all costs, not submit him with a armbar, a move that will get you bayoneted in the spleen.

As for the knife-hand/axe-hand, I disagree, that strike is simple, non-specific, easy to retain, does not require extra conditioning, generates power in a short distance, anyone can use it, and it can have devasting results, a cornerstone of battle-proven WWII close combat.

Who is going to axe-hand the helmet??????

Axe-hands are used to hack the collar-bone, bridge of nose, under the nose, front, back and side of the neck, arms, ribs, under the jawbone, face, temples, solar plexus, these are all great areas, a lot of them disabling and some even lethal, the front and back of the neck can be lethal, whiplash at the least, hitting the temples is serious business, side of the neck will be a bracheal stun, the nose can lead to concussion and even more nastier **** if your lucky, add into this the fact that you are going in with a aggressive mindset, being not one axe-hand but a barage of strikes, acting as if each one was your last, it can do a serious job of taking down the attacker or at least free the solider up to get a weapon.

IMHO its a very good tech, but as I say each to his own.

GinSueDog

02-16-2002, 01:54 AM

Black Jack,

I do not want to be offensive but I think just the knife hand is a barely useful technique especially for the modern day soldier.

First, don't most soldiers wear some kind of body armor? Making blows to the solar plexus, ribs, and collar bones just about useless.

Second, what do you think would happen to a soldier's hand if he missed hitting his opponent's temple or jawbone and hit his opponent's helmet?

I would think the chances would be pretty high, considering how little time is spent on hand to hand combat and how ****ing big a helmet is and how ****ing small the targets are.

I have to ask, did you even bother reading the new manual? It looks to me like you are only seeing the grappling chapters and not even the whole section at that.

**************************************************

Here is a little section of the new manual:

When fighting two against one, use the following procedures.

a. Angles of Attack. The fighters should advance together, spreading out so that if the enemy turns to face either soldier he will expose his flank to the other.

b. Communication. One soldier should attack the enemy's legs and the other should concentrate on his upper body. This can be done by signal, or the soldier attacking the flank can automatically go low. After the enemy is on the ground, good communication is necessary so that you can control and then finish him.

9-5. THREE AGAINST TWO
When fighting three against two, use the following procedures.

a. Angles of Attack. The fighters should advance so that the outside two are outside of the enemy. One of the enemies will have to make a choice to face either the outside or inside man. When he does, he will expose his flank to the other one. The fighter who is facing his opponent alone will stall until the other two have finished and can come to his aid.

b. Communication. Not only must the two who are fighting the same opponent communicate with each other, but also the fighter who is alone must keep them abreast of his situation. If he is in trouble, it may be necessary for one of them to disengage and come to his aid.

9-6. PARITY
If both groups have the same number of fighters, one fighter stays in reserve until the enemy has committed their entire force. When they have committed, the reserved fighter will attack the exposed back of the enemy.

9-7. ONE AGAINST TWO
When fighting one against two, use the following procedures.

a. Remain Standing. Defeating two opponents simultaneously is very difficult. When outnumbered, you should usually try to remain standing-mobility is critical to an effective defense or escape. It is very important not to expose your back. You must use the obstacles around you to restrict the enemies' movements so that you face only one at a time, or maneuver yourself to the flank of the one nearest to you and use him to block the other one. Attack the first enemy using strikes or field-expedient weapons, and then deal with the remaining one.

b. Defense on the Ground. If you should lose your footing or be taken to the ground, you must protect your back. Your best defense is to move into a corner or against a wall. Use a modified guard, so that your legs are not exposed, to limit the enemies' ability to attack simultaneously.

9-8. TWO AGAINST THREE
When fighting two against three, you should maneuver to the flanks either together or separately.

a. Together. If you can get to one flank together, with the help of restrictive terrain if possible, use strikes to attack one opponent at a time until you have defeated all three.

b. Separately. If you are separated, one of you defends as in one against two while the other attacks the remaining enemy with strikes and then comes to the aid of the first.

It seems pretty practical to me.-ED

Braden

02-16-2002, 03:17 AM

What's so impractical and "magic death touchy" about the old stuff? Some great targets are cutting up with that little bone adjacent your thumb, for instance the spot behind the earlobe (either the soft spot right behind it, or the harded plate behind that) is an exceptional target, but anything in that area will do in a pinch - cutting up under the corner of the jawbone, striking the carotid, the collarbone. I don't see how the helmet is going to get in the way of these strikes - human necks are incapable of bending in such a way to make this happen, so unless he suddenly drops 6", it's not going to get in the way. What happens if you hit the helmet with this strike? The blunt trauma will still knock the guy over, and your hand should be fine - which is one of the great things about using a surface like that instead of your fist. Go ahead, smack your chair and the wall right next to and find out. Worst case senario, if you don't know how to do the strike properly - you break the knuckle of your little finger. In the scheme of things - big deal, and the idea is that you've been taught to do it right.

The passage quoted from the manual on multiple attackers is interesting. In neither case (you outnumbered or them outnumbered) does it suggest to use ground techniques. Since for a soldier, more than any other possible person, multiple assailant engagements is going to be the rule rather than the exception - why spend so much time on the things you're being advised not to use?

rogue

02-16-2002, 09:32 AM

Let me point out that a soldier does not carry a gun at all times. Not counting covert ops, a soldier may be in a foreign land, off base, where he will be unarmed, (going to the local ho house ;) ) but still find himself in trouble, (locals, boyfriends, various criminal elements, other armed services looking to have some fun). This is where the H2H will more than likely be used. So to think a soldier is taught only battlefield techniques would be off the mark.

rogue

02-16-2002, 09:42 AM

Black Jack,
A nice set of self defense tapes that you may like are "Fight to Win" by Jim West. I can vouch that much of the hype that TRS put out about him is correct. I also see some of his students used on the tape showing up on TV (SF Col. Remo Butler is easy to spot) and in print Butler and Comstock.

Black Jack

02-16-2002, 10:11 AM

Rogue,

Good point on the fact that these techniques will also see plenty of action when in port or stationed, plus as you stated, there are times when a solider is unarmed, taken by suprise, in a tight situation, cut off from his other forces, out fo ammo, or even in a covert situation.

Oh and thanks for telling me about the tape, I have been meaning to get one of the TRS tapes by either, Jim West or the Bob Taylor tape "Small Mans Advantage" or "Unarmed and Fearless".

Despite the TRS marketing, I hear a lot of good things about some of there products, how are the West tapes, a lot of good information to learn, how is his teaching style?

If you have not already I would insist that you check out Jim Grover's Combatives Series by Paladin. They are excellent tapes on WWII close combat, the guy shows off real aggression, and he is, unlike a lot of the other bozo's out there, the real deal with a real background in combat operations, going even back to his grandfather I believe, all of them U.S.M.C. guys. He also just came out with a new pistol-craft (point-shooting) tapes and situational survial tapes, get the combative tapes first.

He runs the Crucible training school in Va?

Other good tapes are the stuff by Sgt. Leonard Hollyfield, Army h2h instructor, what you may like about these tapes is that you will see a lot of streamlined karate, but cut-down and wicked, not WWII but real interesting.

Skip the Defendo tapes, rip off if you are looking for real WWII combatives, no serious connection to WWII close combat, the tapes are not bad but the subject matter is not true, Tony Wolf is a tough S.O.B but it is a lot of Hapikdo and Muay Thai.

I also would skip the John Kary tapes, he is close to blind and a lot of his techniques as taught to him by Charles Nelson were formated to fit this handicap, which means for sighted people it is a lot of telegraphic movement, there is still some good stuff there but you get the whole bag with Grover.

There are more but my brain is fried.

Ginsue,

I am not knocking your art, just pointing out what I see, I believe that ground training is important, the old stuff had this to, but not in this context.

I just think its a sign of the times.

Sam Wiley

02-16-2002, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by Black Jack
I just think its a sign of the times.

A sad sign, too. Why the sudden change in direction and the new almost exclusive focus on grappling? I see plenty of merits, and I like that the stuff there is so detailed...but why drop almost the entire stand-up skills repetoire? The section on striking is missing so many basic and fundamental techniques, it's no wonder the message at the tops states that striking is inefficient. It's also lacking in information on target areas. The stand-up section is a mere shadow of its former self, and should be rebuilt, if not from previous manuals, from new information gathered from effective styles. It's also sad that the grappling section goes into so much detail on the interaction between two fighters on the ground, but that the stand-up section only deals with what a punch looks like not where to strike or how to gain maximum power or how to counter any of the punches...and the section on kicks is also missing several important kicks as well. The short section on transition between ranges is pitiful as well. The rest of the book seems okay, but they need to do something about that pitiful stand-up section.

bamboo_ leaf

02-16-2002, 03:19 PM

“ When fighting two against one, use the following procedures”

One should shoot, while the other keeps a look out.

Having served in the Army for many yrs. What people do on their off time is their concern. Enough soldiers’ manage to do some very bad things in other places as it is.

The weaponry and tactics employed by the 21st century soldier is very different from what I read here. At one time laser rifles where being developed but never made it to production. Not yet.

The rest of the world and some of the people here don’t seem to get it.

The lethality of the US soldier combined with tech is about 1 to 10.

One US soldier = 10 others, this ratio is increasing. Combatives help, but really its not the primary way of combat training. Notice they don’t mention how many enemies are killed anymore. If they did then people would start talking about things like fairness and other stuff.

Its not a game, the only rule is to survive and take space, this is done for the most part by destroying those who occupy the space you want.

We know how to do that

The book was okay, I thought the older one was more direct.

the regular GI Joe is not nor will s/he ever be equal to some one who plays MA for real. This is not their job and not the way they will fight. Combatives are a way of teaching sprite, one of many ways that the Army has.

the question really is one of value vs. real training time on stuff that you will be actully doing. if you think that going H2H with another soldier trying to kill you is the prefferd method. well lets say i wouldn't recommend it for your health.

when these lines of thought become confused, its very easy to make misstakes. unfourtnatly misstakes like this cost lives.

we have seen this in other areas. The soldires mission was not clear and we lost some people.

looking at this manule while it's not too bad, makes me feel some things have changed.

GinSueDog

02-16-2002, 04:00 PM

Black Jack,
I don't have an "art." I simply use what will work for me in the shortest amount of time possible. For me it is about the quikest results in the shortest amount of time. My stand up is rock solid, my grappling is catching up. There is a lot of BS out there that sounds good and looks good on paper and film but just doesn't work in real life. A prefect example is destructions, the idea sounds great, the concept seems sound, but the fact is 98% of the time it is impossble to pull off. Try it sometime for real against someone with a good jab. What the old manual had were tricks, pure and simple. If my money is going to go into training hand to hand combat, something that most soldiers will most likely never see, then at least do it in a way that will get the most done in the shortest amount of time. Dirty tricks do not win fights, two or three key techniques well done win fights. As it is 99.99% of the time a soldier is going to be using a firearm. So hand to hand training is for the most part useless as a means of winning battles.

Sam W,
You can try to teach someone all the striking techniques you want but the simple truth is, they don't have the time or the means to learn them all. I'd rather they work on a few boxing techniques and some basic Judo/BJJ techniques any day over the dark ages stuff they were doing. All anyone really needs is two or three strikes and a little wrestling for self defense. Jab-Cross-Hook-Sprawl. Unless you really believe the soldiers in the US army are going to prefer duking it out over calling in an air strike?

Late all.-ED

Black Jack

02-16-2002, 04:01 PM

Bamboo,

Unless you are in reference to me, which I don't think you are, my point is not about combatives being equal to armed combat training, its just a subcategory of something in that arena, something which in todays vast technological enviroment is not addressed as much because of thus stated technology.

My viewpoint is not on the modern methods anyway, but of those used at a time when those skills were much more important, though h2h training is still important today, just not as focused, the era of WWII close combat is where I am coming from.

There was no need to change the wheel because it was not broken.

As for your comment on a ma'ist beating someone who studies military combatives, well I don't go for the style vrs style crap, but lets just say for real world self defense I disagree to your comment, if that was your point anyway/;)

Ginsue,

Destructions have merit, the merit is not as great as some people pretend it is, but there is still merit. You stated that all a person needs is a few simple moves to win a fight, I 110% agree, what you just described was military close combat training, not the stuff you see in the new manuel, but the old stuff.

A few generic moves, applied with aggression, moves that can be used in a variety of situations, axe-hand, hammerfist, tigerclaw/face smash, cupped hand blows, chinjab, elbows, eyejab, knees, edge of boot kick, head stomp, eye gouges, simple targets like the throat/neck, chin, eyes, groin and knees.

Besides some extras thrown in by different men and personal favorites other instructors might put in, that is really all it is, very simple, very straight forward.

You also keep addressing the fact that h2h will not win a battle, looking back through the posts I dont see where anyone stated it would, how is teaching a solider to take a enemy to the ground with a double leg practical in a heavy conflict situation in which he finds himself unarmed or at close quarters, this type of training will build the wrong reactions, not only that but the first time some solider starts a fight in a offshore filipino bar and takes the fight to the ground on purpose to show off his "practical" GJJ skills, he is going to understand
what a blade culture is.

What solid close combat training will do is give a solider confidence, aggression and the skills to back it up if they find themselves in the dire situation where it is needed and on a more relative note it can win the battle here on the civilan turf.

That is what is important to me.

Either way I think the manuel is absurd.

Sam Wiley

02-16-2002, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by GinSueDog
Sam W,
You can try to teach someone all the striking techniques you want but the simple truth is, they don't have the time or the means to learn them all. I'd rather they work on a few boxing techniques and some basic Judo/BJJ techniques any day over the dark ages stuff they were doing. All anyone really needs is two or three strikes and a little wrestling for self defense. Jab-Cross-Hook-Sprawl. Unless you really believe the soldiers in the US army are going to prefer duking it out over calling in an air strike?

Late all.-ED

I don't doubt at all that they would prefer to call in an airstrike. But that's not the point. If they're going to have a H2H manual at all, it has to contain training in the basics at least, and what I saw there were by no means the basics, just some pictures of a guy with his arm stuck out. There weren't even any entering or countering methods for punching. If they are going to rely on simple punches like the ones in the book, they need to at least include some kind of practice methods for them. They at least told how to clinch, take down, and fight or defend on the ground. But detailed nothing for the stand-up section.

I understand what you are saying about learning a few basic strikes that are good. I myself tend to stick with straight punches, back fists, and snap punches. However, I know the opening and entering methods to use with them to enable me to devastate an opponent with several more strikes. I will be the first to admit that in a one on one encounter where I do not really want to hurt the guy, I'll open like that and instead of finishing with strikes, close and take down and finish with a back mounted sleeper or something like that.

I'm not saying that what's in the groundfighting section isn't good or isn't usable. All I'm saying is that they need to expand the stand-up section, and include something with more substance to it. Except for the section on kicking (which could use some improvement, as well), there was very little two-person interaction in the stand-up section. The "dark ages" stuff they were doing was done because it was extremely effective. They've abandoned the proven effective for what someone else told them was effective. On top of that, the introduction to the striking section reads like an advertisement for a Gracie JJ tape on basic striking. There was no need to abandon the previous methods in favor of groundfighting. All they had to do was add groundfighting to what they had, and they would have had something a little more substantial.

YiLiQuan1

02-16-2002, 06:29 PM

While everyone has presented rather valid points on their personal philosophies of what H2H method would work best for soldiers, thus far NONE of you (even the alleged veterans) have focused on the REALITY of H2H in the modern military machine.

I have been in the Army since 1987, in the Infantry (as an infantryman, not a support guy), in the Cavalry (as a Cavalry Scout and a Drill Sergeant, not a support guy), and now I am working in JAG (now I'm a support guy with LOTS of connections with unit commanders, senior officers, etc. Ask Asia about the circles the Brigade Legal NCOs run in in terms of daily contact and open door policies...). I have taught martial arts exclusively to military personnel for the past 7 years, primarily to infantry and military police personnel (I should put up a website and use that as marketing so I can sell black belts, huh? :D ), and have learned quite a few things about what the Army (can't speak for the other services... yet) REALLY thinks about H2H.

First, you MUST understand that the Army has a limited period of time to train on combat essential tasks. Those of you familiar with military manuals may (or may not) be familiar with the Common Task Testing reference manuals. It is THESE tasks that are vital to a regular ol' Joe's training, NOT some fancy schmancy rolling on the ground hugging your enemy B.S. that the command is concerned with. You see, CTT training goes on a report. Goofy sh*t doesn't. Reports affect Officer Evaluation Reports (OER) and Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reports (NCOER), while goofy sh*t doesn't. Starting to see a pattern?

Now, as a caveat to this, there are elements in units that are highly receptive to H2H training - they understand that it provides training in multiple areas that CTT training never comes close to, and unit physical fitness training will never, ever touch. However, let's return to the limited time issue for a moment...

Say you get a unit commander to bite the hook that you have some super high tech H2H to teach. Great. And you tell him that it is easy to learn. Double great. So they schedule you for training. By the way, don't forget that it is Department of the Army mandated that Sergeant's Time Training (held once a week, for 5 hours) is when training other than field duty will be conducted. Let's also not forget that the aforementioned CTT, as well as MOS relevent tasks (i.e. normal job stuff that needs training, especially stuff that may be outside the normal scope of your daily duties, but you still need to keep up on anyway), mandatory quarterly training, etc. will normally be on those days...

So you manage to get this commander to put you on the training schedule, which is usually done at least 12 weeks out... So ONE TIME in 12 weeks, for a 5 hour period, that unit will go through preliminary training in your high tech H2H. It may sell on the commander so well that he schedules you again - in the next 12 week cycle. So now, in 24 weeks (that's 6 months, folks) your unit has had H2H training TWICE for a total of 10 hours... 10 hours is what, like 2 - 3 weeks of training in a normal commercial school???

So this is the problem the military machine faces: how to develop in its soldiers effective H2H skills that require minimal time to learn and maintain.

I quote from the 1992 edition of FM 21-150, Combatives:

"The following instructor responsibilities are the core of planning and executing combatives training.
a. Seek maximum efficiency with minimum effort. Continually strive to reduce all unnecessary explanations, movement, and activity. Streamline the training without compromising content, efficiency, or safety."

Oh yeah. Safety. Forgot to touch on that issue. The Army is a Zero Tolerance Area for training injuries of ANY kind. People get relieved from their positions for things like that. H2H, being an inherently dangerous aspect, and if practiced PROPERLY produces a moderate risk for danger (Black Jack should be able to recall training in a prior school in Omaha where the rule was very simple - if you don't move, you get hit. Oftentimes, if the opponent was doing his job and not short changing the student across from him, that meant a very real danger of getting cranked solid if the dufus didn't get the hell out of the way...). Otherwise, there is little "realism" involved in the training... And the Army motto for training is "Train How You Fight."

So we have both scheduling and safety issues that hamstring a soldier's real development of skills that may save his butt in a conflict gone bad ('cuz if Charlie's in the wire, something went SERIOUSLY wrong!). Bear in mind that not ALL soldiers wear body armor, MOST soldiers are REQUIRED to wear their Kevlar Helmet at all times, and they will also be encumbered with LBE (ammo pouches, canteens, etc.), thus making GJJ/BJJ or ANY JJ for that matter a serious issue of concern, making flow drills (I do believe that kali/escrima/arnis is the best option for soldiers - quick to learn, simple joint locks and throws, powerful strikes, etc.) difficult at best to perform due to equipement worn causing hampered range of motion.

In the end folks, the only ones that have any business figuring stuff like this out are the ones on the ground. If you aren't active duty, in the Modern Military, you amount to an Armchair Quarterback.

And for those who think the previous version of Combatives was adequate... C'mon!!! Please tell me you are kidding... The previous manual was hilarious and got more guys' asses kicked than anything! Even the instructors (of which I was one) knew is sucked! Gimme a break...

Just my humble, rambling (and currently devalued due to international exchange rates) 2 yen. Flame away...

Oh yeah, let's not forget the primary weapon of a soldier either, and the fact that we spend time on ranges (albeit not enough in my opinion) engaging targets from 25 to 400 meters with them... Kill 'em far enough out and you don't have to worry about H2H. Artillery and mortars and rockets, Oh My!!!

Thanks for listening...

bamboo_ leaf

02-16-2002, 07:21 PM

“Even the alleged veterans”

This is for alleged soldiers,

I retired in 95 with 20yrs of service, served mainly in infantry unites for 10yrs as a field medic / so yes, I know a little about what grunts can and cannot do. Yes I have supported SF, 7th and 10th group specifically. Yes i have been on escape and evasion coureses also commando courses.

The rest was in field artillery.

while in Korea 2ID worked a little with some MPs there. what they knew then was okay but not againts someone who really knew what they where doing.

The MA group I used to hang with at the rock (GER) even put on MA demos for the people of Luxembourg when the unite went there for some event. 1/39INF mec. they said mech but we sure did a lot of ground pounding :)

I don’t care for the manual, it’s okay but I don’t care for it.

02-16-2002, 08:13 PM

Hey people,
I,m with BL and Yiliquan 1 here.But great interesting posts.
Yep I have done time down here in OZ(yeah I know we aren't the most combatent country out there)

While I understand that you guys are focusing on talking strictly about H2H within the Defense forces,there is one more point I would like to put in.
When all the $hit hits the fan in the war feild,thinking goes out the window,and so most army training depends largly on two things,Keep It Simple,and Stay with your Mates.
As BL points out the goal of the infantry(not Recon/special ops) is to close with the enemy and destroy it.Indivual skill are placed below that of the group working as a unit.While I am sure such training can only enhance indivual combat skill I think most infantry units would prefer to(yeah right!) grit out a 40km pack march then a live fire excerise to work on mental determination and group dynamics.
Recon/special OPs has a different objective and so different training.

Braden

02-16-2002, 09:41 PM

"As BL points out the goal of the infantry(not Recon/special ops) is to close with the enemy and destroy it."

I'd always been taught the primary purpose of infantry is to hold land. Just an aside.

For what it's worth, I've had a little contact with Canadian military hand-to-hand as taught a couple decades ago. My impression in general would be that it would stand up admirably to the vast majority of martial arts schools, because the latter notoriously become blinded by their training methods and only end up providing answers to things within their own paradigm.

Asia

02-16-2002, 10:19 PM

BL,

Does make a valid point, one I take pleasure in proving. One who studies MA seriously is going to have the advantage over the guys who had the ONE day hip throw training in Basic. Or went to ONE or TWO seminars with the Gracies! Little knowledge can be very bad!!!

If you meet any Range/SF guy who says he is a kick as H2H fighter then he learned it on his own the ARMY does not dedicate much time to make one a H2H master. My skill came from MY own pursuits.

Even the Combatives program we have now only consists of an hour every Tuesday for PT. (But MY soldiers have an unfair advantage. I ball them up if they screw up. It is common to see a sticky hands battle played out to see who has to do maintence on the vehicles. :D )

All and all BL and YiLiQuan1 state the truth.

YiLiQuan1,

JAG!?!?! You traitor!!!:P Seriously I thought JAG would be a cushy desk job but after seeing what they went through in Kosovo and helping them here I see they work there butts off. All that **** paper to keep track of.

BL,

Time to LEAVE the ROCK. T-23 days and counting!!!

:p

Asia

02-16-2002, 10:29 PM

For what it's worth, I've had a little contact with Canadian military hand-to-hand as taught a couple decades ago. My impression in general would be that it would stand up admirably to the vast majority of martial arts schools

Braden,

I always say judge the person not the art but from my experience, and it is quite vast. Most military guys will only be good H2H if they do it themselves. I have crossed fists with Russians, Canadians, Britishs (marines and SAS), Italians, Greeks, Frenchs, Germans, the list goes on. All the guys that were good H2H did it themselves.

Braden

02-16-2002, 10:32 PM

Could very well be, Asia. Although I didn't say I thought they were good H2H, I said I thought they were better than the majority of martial arts schools. ;)

Although, maybe if there were more baji schools around, that would change. ;)

YiLiQuan1

02-17-2002, 12:37 AM

Originally posted by Asia
YiLiQuan1,

JAG!?!?! You traitor!!!:P Seriously I thought JAG would be a cushy desk job but after seeing what they went through in Kosovo and helping them here I see they work there butts off. All that **** paper to keep track of.

Nope, not a traitor... I traded up! No more foxholes, no more mortar pits, no more muddy a$$ sniper hides waiting for some sloppy OPFOR jerky boy to stroll along to get whacked...

Cushy it ain't. I am currently running the Admin office, the Legal Assistance / Claims office AND the Unit Tax Center. Just lil' ol' me. The only thing cushy is the chair I USED to sit in! Too busy to sit now that tax season is here...

When you coming to visit your old stomping grounds? Things here they are a-changin'; you likely won't recognize things from once upon a yester-year...

Asia

02-17-2002, 12:54 AM

Hey Matt!!

It probably won't be for a while. Looks like I am going to be OPFOR in Hohenfels, Germany. I plan on going for a short vist this winter but I looks like I won't get stationed there for a while.

02-17-2002, 03:52 AM

That's true I beleive from memeory that the first line is
"the role of the infrantry is to seek out,close with and kill the enemy......" then it goes on about holding land etc

bamboo_ leaf

02-17-2002, 08:36 AM

OPFOR in Hohenfels, Germany

Ha ha!

Nice vacation spot that many don’t get to see enjoy
have fun. :)

Brad Souders

02-17-2002, 08:13 PM

Ground and pound would be effective on the field but also look at the danger of g-n-p if the guy doing the pounding breaks his hand making him and it useless.

Ryu

02-17-2002, 08:14 PM

"Ground and pound would be effective on the field but also look at the danger of g-n-p if the guy doing the pounding breaks his hand making him and it useless."

That's very true...

Ryu

Xebsball

02-17-2002, 08:43 PM

I just wanted to let you know that i wont be joining this particular discussion due to the fact that the link wont open.

The same thing happened when i tried to open the site that had some militar manuals Shaolin Tiger had posted.

I recognize USA's plot not to let this brazilian young man have access to their military manuals.

rogue

02-17-2002, 09:09 PM

Sounds like to the brass that H2H is one step above G.S. Pattons manual on swordfighting for calvary.

Black Jack, while I am a fan of WWII H2H I also believe that the M-1 being semi-auto rather than bolt is more responsible for allied infantry being effective than Fairbairn. As far as I know the only time that both sides had ran out of ammo and resorted to H2H was during the Battle of the Bulge. Every military person that I've met who's even decent at H2H has trained in it on their own time. Now some of these people have gotten to study with some excellent teachers in remote lands due to being stationed in Okinawa, Japan and Korea.

With that said there is a story about SAS being captured by the Iraqi's and fighting their way out, so I guess it's a matter of good to have when you need it.:)

YiLiQuan1, thanks for the insiders view.

ATENG

02-17-2002, 09:48 PM

Asia,

you do realize that Dong Fang Bu Bai in Xiao Ao Jiang Hu was a nut-less (literally) freak, right?
:p

bamboo_ leaf

02-17-2002, 10:16 PM

Some thoughts on the thinking here.

if the other is dead from a hole you just put though him worrying about breaking your hand is not a problem.

With the advent of the gun, the skills that many of us train in really take a long time for much of the training to be effective to the same degree as a gun, (it may never reach that level for many IMHO) , even then it’s not a sure thing, not so with a gun.

The one great equalizer the gun, it takes some skill but a bullet will kill you dead regardless of who is pulling the trigger.

For anyone who has been a grunt with all the stuff that they carry the idea of engaging in some type of ground and pound. I just don’t see it and as many have pointed out, if it comes to that something is very wrong.

Most of the old book as I remember was very simple and showed a lot of sentry killing type of stuff. What!! You think sneaking up on some one and drawing a knife across their throat isn’t fair?

How about setting up booby traps that people can see, so they step on the one that they can’t see trying to avoid the first one. How about using IR scopes and sighting devices making the night day for us.

We are talking about warfare in the 21st century; I used to work in a place called combat developments. We formulated war-fighting doctrine for our branch of the service.

H2H wasn’t even a blimp on the radar screens. They where talking of developing a type of exo-skeleton, some thing that would enhance speed and power all things used to cover ground and carry all the stuff that / at least the guys I was with carried
They where talking about case-less bullets and high tech rifles lighter, more accurate.

When you see CNN or some news cast with our guys in it please note all the stuff they have to carry. Mopp gear, lbe, butt pack ammo, gas mask, wepon and maybe a ruck. On some operations we carried rucks that weighed around 60lb, add a radio or m-60 to that and it gets heavy, very fast.

All of our forces are moving to smaller and smaller unites with lethally always increasing. the thing that incresses it is the tech stuff coupled with the training to employ it.

Most don’t know and never will unless you’ve been there. Ask Asia or any other soldier or vet “even the alleged ones”

The doctrine that we used to use was called ALB, Air, land battle; we saw that put to work in the most recent conflicts. The bottom line is that when you go to war or use force ,you fight on your terms not theirs. Ours happens to be the use of our technology combined with a doctrine that combines all elements integrated into one cohesive whole.

This is the way we fight and win wars. H2H, pugle sticks, obstacle courses and all the other training that grunts go though build fighting sprit and what is called “esprit de corps” But are not the main stays of what they really will be doing

The guys in infantry have to really work with a lot of high tech stuff, to be “high speed, low drag” being a grunt is a lot more then what is shown in the movies. the speed at which they move is fast, very fast.

My comment on this, and this is the last one is really directed to the idea of keeping it simple, I felt the old manual was okay for what it was intended for. The new manual that Asia, had a hand in is good. But as I said before the tone of the manual seems a little different.

for Asia the rest of the guys training our GIs now, hey, i wish you guys the best. its your time now. go for it.

on my track this is when we had green and white stars, i had a motto stencled

train to kill
born to die.

the grunts didn't like it to much, they thought it was odd for a "doc" to have that on his track.

take care

fmann

02-17-2002, 11:22 PM

I didn't fully read all the opinions on this thread, but my take on it is: Great, now when our GI's are going for arm bars and triangle chokes, the enemy's friends can just shoot them in the back or from a distance.

Ground fighting works great in 1-on-1 situation and for controlling a prisoner or what not. However, in a multiple, armed combatant situation (aka war), do I really want to go for an armbar? Or would grabbing and tearing at the testicles, rolling, and then getting a weapon (aka gun, knife, smachet, shovel, etc.) work better?

I think this manual reflects the change in US military purpose. No longer is the military focusing primarily on large scale battles (I personally feel this manual's training does not reflect such a situation), to smaller operations with fewer combatants like capturing terrorists, etc., where subduing captives and ground/submission techniques would more likely come in to play.

Knifefighter

02-18-2002, 12:36 AM

Gin Sue:
Where did you find the text of the new manual? I'd like to check it out.

I agree with those who are saying that H2H fighting is going to play a very small or non-existent role in the career of almost all military personnel.

What I do disagree with is the thinking that grappling and groundfighting have no place in a multiple opponent or weapons vs. empty hand situation. These components of fighting are just as important as striking in these situations.

Asia

02-18-2002, 01:57 AM

you do realize that Dong Fang Bu Bai in Xiao Ao Jiang Hu was a nut-less (literally) freak, right

Yes I know but I still look better than Brigdette Lin anyday!:p

I go the name in college, after the third movie was released. My friends used to joke that I would do anything to gain ultimate Kung Fu!! (This stemming from a failed Iron Palm experiment where you had to abstain from sex for 90 DAYS!!! I failed with a 2 weeks to go!!!)

jesper

02-18-2002, 08:48 AM

Ok I havent read all the thread, but you guys seems to forget some important thing about a soldier going to the ground in H2H.

Look at all the gear they are wearing, you cannot do the typical mudwrestling wearing all this. I dont care how long you have trained wrestling. Cant be done.
In my bataljon we had an top ranking Ju-jitsu instructor out to teach us. He was good fighter, but when we geared him up, he was toast going to the ground against inexperienced fighters not wearing gear, and more experienced fighters wearing gear. Every time.

Lets look at a grunt, hes wearing flak jacket, ammo, backpack etc.
Even without a person on top of you, when you go to your back it takes effort to get back up again. Now put a person on top, and your really in the ****hole. Kind of like the old knights who where fantastic fighters until you tripped them.

Besides you will very seldom be without a weapon in war, at the very least you should have your knife or spade or even your helmet as a last resort. Two soldiers fighting unarmed combat in war, is just so unlikely its not worth wasting valuable training time over. Time better spend on something else that is. Thats why most armies use very little resources on this kind of training