Army Rangers... Gracie Fans!?!?!?!

[macdawg]

Concentrating very much on BJJ is a waste for the army, an introductory course to increase options and awareness of submissions would be good along with some dirty tricks I could agree with but they need to concentrate on their guns, tanks, and blowing **** up.
BTW, getting someone in the guard is very easy, getting someone in the mount requires a takedown and maneuvering around their legs which is much harder. This is why Royce always ends up in the guard. Any grappler in their right mind would take the mount over the guard as it is a very dominant position and the guard is not.

[Wongsifu]

I have always wondered why hand to hand combat is taught in the army ISnt it hard to apply an armlock on a guy with a gun ?

[Cliff Mattox]

Dont you all see? Its President Clintons new plan to make the army more gay friendly! Get those big tough guys rolling around on the mats with other sweaty opponents and who knows where it might lead?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[GinSueDog]

I don't doubt that BJJ is effective as a fighting system, and I do see it's uses on the battlefield considering BJJ is about position first. I just thought that the ranger instructor just seemed a little bias is all. Considering that they have broken down the core of BJJ to just 13 techniques I don't see why it couldn't be learned in a few weeks or even days. Hell a week of BJJ makes a huge difference. BTW, as for the multiple opponents thing, that's why Rangers learn how to use a rifle.-ED

P.S.-Wongsifu, not as hard as trying to use Monkey Kung Fu on a guy with a gun [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]

------------------
"The grappling arts imply most fights end up on the ground...take them there. The striking arts imply all fights start standing up...keep them there. The mixed martial arts imply any fight can go anywhere...be ready and able to go everywhere."-a mix martial artist

[This message has been edited by GinSueDog (edited 07-10-2000).]

[GinSueDog]

Slater_E,
I know that is not always the case. My uncle was a ranger with the 82 airborne during the Gulf War and was behind enemy lines a number of times before the ground war even started locating targets for both airstrikes and artillery. He told me they worked both in small and large groups depending on what needed to get done.-ED


------------------
"The grappling arts imply most fights end up on the ground...take them there. The striking arts imply all fights start standing up...keep them there. The mixed martial arts imply any fight can go anywhere...be ready and able to go everywhere."-a mix martial artist

[Paul DiMarino]

Hey guys,

The Ranger instructor on that documentary stated that (I'm paraphrasing) the training was to build "confidence" and a "warrior spirit". The army uses guns, knives, explosives, etc. Hand-to-hand fighting isn't really much of a concern.

[Robinf]

I hate to take a different view on this, but watching just the brief spots they had, I can see why they focus on BJJ. In enemy territory, or even in friendly territory, during a war, you want to keep low to the ground, perhaps hide among the brush. They train to keep low, so training in something like (my beloved) taekwondo or (my other beloved) kung fu, wouldn't make a whole lot of sense. They're accustomed to throwing their center of gravity toward the ground and working with their body down there. Learning BJJ helps to enforce that practice, I would think. But, I will admit, I know NOTHING about what Army Rangers actually do.

[tricky-fist]

Hey guys, just my 2 cents worth,

As far as I know from my great-uncle Herb, the Canadian equivalent to the Rangers would be the commando squads he trained in during the Second World War. Seeing as we’re talking about training ‘warrior spirit’ and what would be the best hand-to-hand system for elite fighting group, I thought people on the board would be interested to know that Herb’s particular group got trained by Ghurkas. Ghurkas – and anyone who knows more jump in here – are the mountain guides of the indigenous people who inhabit the mountain ranges of Nepal… they’re most commonly known for the knives they carry - kuhkris (sp?) – which are roughly a foot long and slightly curved.

Anyhoo, Herb and co. would set up in a field with trenches or obstacles in the middle of the night and attempt to defend their particular area against Ghurka incursions… according to Herb these guys just came out of no-where and didn’t make a sound. Herb never stressed any kind of fighting style – he used to box - but he said that these guys were really unnerving. I just thought it was interesting that at his time the emphasis seemed to be on making them train with people that were better than them, and now it seems to be more a matter of ‘style’ and system.

Respects,
TF

[Gargoyle again]

I'll have to watch the tape again, but I remember the Ranger guy saying something like "We take only 6 or so moves and train those and throw out the rest. You only need to know one way to break an arm" and then giving the impression that the short instruction period turned them into deadly fighters. It seemed a little bit more of "rah rah" confidence boosting than actually intended to be used on the battlefield.

I think we've reached the period in time though where kung fu is no longer useful or effective as a battlefield art, and now must be considered from the value of personal self-defense.

I have had friends that have been through infantry training, one from my kung fu group. He returned to class from army training and said with his six months from us he'd been able to walk into basic training already a better hand to hand fighter than his army intructors were [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img] The military guys are tough-as-nails warriors when it comes to the entirety of the battlefield, but just because someone is a green beret doesn't mean that they are a deadly hand-to-hand master. Although I'd still never wish to fight one [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]

[Arioch7]

Robin, that is one very good point you brought up. I did not even think of it.

Rangers function more like "Light Infantry" then regular grunts. They hit airports, bridges and targets which require speed and precision. They dont spend much time in the dirt if they can help it. Of course, dure to the fortunes of war, they must act like regular infantry much of the time. The paragraph below is NOT for the politically correct.

Mow, I realize I am in the minority when it comes to HtH training. I am 100% for it. I have read studies from the Department Of Defense that have stated that a true "Killing" mentality is VERY rare in todays society. Modern society is tickled pink that "smart" bombs and automated weapons will take the place of actual down and dirty fighting. This is the biggest load of BS that I have seen.

We let the Albanians in former Yugoslavia get completely uprooted from thier homes and a great deal of them were killed. In effect, the war was waged to be "Politically correct" No troops lives were considered worth the risk. My opinion is Fight or DONT fight. If we do fight, dont do it half-assed.

I am posting this because society's mindset is indicative of the effectiveness of the Armed forces. "Modern Army soldiers dont NEED to fight HtH" This is what I hear often... what if they are taken prisoner? Also, this modern garbage is predicated on the fact that we have the worlds strongest military. What if we got our ass's kicked? What if our armed forces were over-run? What if we had to "fight them in the fields, fight them in the hills... and NEVER surrender?" [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

The Marine Corps has it right. They are ALL WARRIORS and they train everyone AS Warriors, including mess cooks. As for the "politically correct", people that do not want to be exposed to warfare shouldn't join the Military.

Do you know that the Army recently wanted me to join as a Reservist and they WAIVED all Infantry training because I had prior service? I WORKED ON PLANES!?!?! Pathetic.

[GinSueDog]

Hmmm...I think it generally depends on the mission, both the US Army and US Marine Corp have in general different missions from one another. Also keep in mind the Army is much larger and in general has different groups within it designed for different missions. I know for a fact from speaking with my uncle, a ranger in the 82nd Airborne, that he worked both in small and large groups while serving in Iraq. One of his jobs was to pinpoint targets across enemy lines for both artillery and airstrikes. It all depends on the mission. If everyone did the same thing and trained the same way we wouldn't need to have different serves and wouldn't be multidimenional anymore. I think one of the few groups that actually needs to learn H2H combat training are our pilots as they are the ones that will most likely need it. Here's a story I know some of you are likely aware of from the Discovery series on the Inside, a group of eight Rangers went far behind enemy lines to watch a key Iraq road. Anyways to make a long story short they were discovered and ended up getting into a fire fight with both the local militia and Iraq soldiers. By the time they were air lifted out they had killed over one hundred enemy soldiers and had not lost a single man. None of the Iraq soldiers had been able to get very close to them as five of the eight were trained snipers. Like I said earlier different training for different services for different missions.-ED

------------------
"The grappling arts imply most fights end up on the ground...take them there. The striking arts imply all fights start standing up...keep them there. The mixed martial arts imply any fight can go anywhere...be ready and able to go everywhere."-a mix martial artist

[This message has been edited by GinSueDog (edited 07-11-2000).]