Deluxe Martial Arts Forums - View Single Post

Mike Brewer · 04-14-2008, 08:44 PM

I mentioned before that this was a predictable discussion following a predictable script???

Lest we lose sight of the meat of the thread...I don't think anyone disagrees that there are major weaknesses in any system that requires a fully laden soldier, complete with Interceptor, 13 magazines, night vision pegged to one leg, gas mask pegged to the other, butt pack full of pogey bait in the small of his back and a rifle slung over his shoulder to go to the ground. I am and always have been very, very critical of going to the ground in any real fight. I think the primary reason to study ground fighting is so that you can be better able to get up if the fight ends up there. I also think it is totally and completely assinine to purposefully take an opponent to the ground if you have all that shit strapped to your body and a HMMWV with a .50 on top parked at your flank.

But if I am being totally honest about the kinds of fights soldiers face, the simple fact is, if they're geared up and ready for a fight, they are not alone. If they're geared up and ready, they aren't empty-handed. The chances of a soldier getting in a knock-down drag out fight with some Iraqi out in indian country without a weapon or his buddies at his side is anorexic slim. On the other hand, the chances of him getting in a fight with a POW or detainee in an area where weapons are not allowed and being authorized to kill said detainee are equally slim.

Faced with a fight out in the AO, he's going to shoot, move, communicate. There won't be any choking or pulling guard anywhere. Back blast areas will be called clear and great huge orangey fireballs will billow forth from hostile territory. Faced with a fight in say, Guantanamo or some such, shooting the bad guy in the head will also likely not be an approved manner of engagement. There is a valid need for both types of abilities, and denying that's so is to deny the fact that the modern battlefield comes with a different set of concerns than did the World War II battlefield. I think this whole argument is a matter of tempering preference with practiced pragmatism. I don't personally care for groundfighting, but it truly has a place. I'd rather shoot a bad guy and lighten the load, but there are times when that's just a stupid idea. Preference really doesn't have much place on the battlefield. Necessity does, though, and if there's a time and place for it on the battlefield, there ought to be a time and place for it in the soldier's training.

04-14-2008, 08:44 PM	#87 (permalink)
Mike Brewer Moderate Moderator Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 8,167	I mentioned before that this was a predictable discussion following a predictable script??? Lest we lose sight of the meat of the thread...I don't think anyone disagrees that there are major weaknesses in any system that requires a fully laden soldier, complete with Interceptor, 13 magazines, night vision pegged to one leg, gas mask pegged to the other, butt pack full of pogey bait in the small of his back and a rifle slung over his shoulder to go to the ground. I am and always have been very, very critical of going to the ground in any real fight. I think the primary reason to study ground fighting is so that you can be better able to get up if the fight ends up there. I also think it is totally and completely assinine to purposefully take an opponent to the ground if you have all that shit strapped to your body and a HMMWV with a .50 on top parked at your flank. But if I am being totally honest about the kinds of fights soldiers face, the simple fact is, if they're geared up and ready for a fight, they are not alone. If they're geared up and ready, they aren't empty-handed. The chances of a soldier getting in a knock-down drag out fight with some Iraqi out in indian country without a weapon or his buddies at his side is anorexic slim. On the other hand, the chances of him getting in a fight with a POW or detainee in an area where weapons are not allowed and being authorized to kill said detainee are equally slim. Faced with a fight out in the AO, he's going to shoot, move, communicate. There won't be any choking or pulling guard anywhere. Back blast areas will be called clear and great huge orangey fireballs will billow forth from hostile territory. Faced with a fight in say, Guantanamo or some such, shooting the bad guy in the head will also likely not be an approved manner of engagement. There is a valid need for both types of abilities, and denying that's so is to deny the fact that the modern battlefield comes with a different set of concerns than did the World War II battlefield. I think this whole argument is a matter of tempering preference with practiced pragmatism. I don't personally care for groundfighting, but it truly has a place. I'd rather shoot a bad guy and lighten the load, but there are times when that's just a stupid idea. Preference really doesn't have much place on the battlefield. Necessity does, though, and if there's a time and place for it on the battlefield, there ought to be a time and place for it in the soldier's training.