Combatives!

[darrianation]

I am not sure what forum this should go in so I put it here sorry if this is the wrong place. We need a forum specific to self-defense here.

To clear up some misconceptions about combatives. Most of my early MAs training has been in traditional MAs like karate, or sport MAs like MT but when I began to train in comabtives I: E in the military, S.C.A.R.S. (military and civilian versions), Gun Site, Thunder ranch, and etc. My perceptions of the traditional MAs changed dramatically.

I have read threads/posts about people claiming to be practicing combatievs but on further reading they are not really doing combatives. I have been PM’d on the same subject. So I thought maybe I should write this post to clear something’s up.

Combatives regardless if it is civilian, police, or military have some similar characteristics. The main components of combatives are all built around the firearm. The basic premise is this: weapons first, hands and feet last. In combatives- empty hand techniques are always secondary to weapons. Weapons are always superior to empty hand techniques.

The firearms training has 10 basic components to it:

1) Gun safety
2) Marksmanship
3) Concealment (when applicable)
4) Quick draw or acquisition
5) Weapons retention
6) Tactical shooting
7) Dealing with malfunctions
8) Using a malfunctioned firearm as a impact weapon like a club
9) Shoot, don’t shoot
10) Use of force

Then secondary to firearms:
1) The proper use of knives, sticks/batons, and improvised/hasty weapons.
2) Finely empty hand techniques are only used to buy you time to acquire your weapon or if the weapon malfunctions or you run out of ammo

The latter of use is:
1) Draw/acquire primary weapon.
2) Primary weapons failure- acquire secondary weapon (this can be a second firearm or knife/ baton, etc).
3) Secondary weapon’s failure- use as impact weapon
4) Use empty hand techniques only to provide you time/distance to acquire your primary weapon, or in the case of primary/secondary weapon’s failure

Note in military combatives rule #1 your empty hand techniques are prioritized as a survival tactic to allow time until a teammate can arrive to assist you. If the bad guy’s teammate arrives first you are dead.

If you don’t train in firearms then you are not training in combatives, of course you can call it whatever you want, but it still isn’t combatives.

The main difference between combatives and MAs is the firearm and use of force latter. In combatives you usually begin and spend more time at the top of the latter training in Lethal force! Where is in MAs you start and spend most of your training and the bottom of the latter Non-lethal force. Basically combatives is better at the lethal force and MAs tend to be better at the non-lethal force.

The main differences in the combatives courses between professional and civilian are:

1) Military- Designed for weapons retention, using your firearm such as a M4 as blunt impact weapon or bayonet training. Rapid reloading, or switching from primary weapon to secondary weapon such as a handgun. You get very little H2H and what H2H you do get it is only designed to stall until friendlies arrive to save your ass. Also much work and emphasis is put into dealing with stoppages or other types of weapons malfunctions. Also as of 1992 military combatives was very inconsistent with its H2H training, I don’t know how much if any it has improved since then.
2) Police- Get a lot of the same but they also get a lot more restraining techniques and non-lethal training, and use of force training.
3) Personal or VIP escorts- their training is high in tactical shooting, interdiction, intelligence gathering, risk assessment, and transportation such as high speed emergency avoidance driving and E&E.
4) Civilian- tactical situations involve more H2H training, use of force, home invasion, burglary, muggings, car jackings, defenses against knives, sticks/clubs, and etc. You still get tactical firearms training, but the civilian versions probably has the best H2H (empty hand) training of all of them.

Anyway this is the basics of combatives. I hope this clarifies a few things for you.

[doubleouch]

Good post d. You mean banging around with ratan sticks and nunchuks isn't combatives? I'm dissapointed, I guess I'll have to put my Conan sword back in the closet. This training certainly isn't for everyone. I love MA training but would never considder combatives. If you are gonna do it though I think the way you outlined is probably pretty smart.

[darrianation]

Damn good manual though, and good unarmed and weapons.

Do you mean FM 3-25.150? It's okay but I was never all taht impressed with some of those techniques. There are better ways of H2H than what you see in that manual.

[darrianation]

Good post d. You mean banging around with ratan sticks and nunchuks isn't combatives? I'm dissapointed, I guess I'll have to put my Conan sword back in the closet. This training certainly isn't for everyone. I love MA training but would never considder combatives. If you are gonna do it though I think the way you outlined is probably pretty smart.

Banging the sticks is great fun and practical too. But by true definition it isn't modern combatives. It may qualify as a traditional, or ancient combative though.

But keep up with the sticks. I practice with them as often as time permits

[doubleouch]

D,
Certainly you are right. I was just joking though. I don't train any weapons any more. Those damn sticks hurt too much when you get hit!

[darrianation]

D,
Certainly you are right. I was just joking though. I don't train any weapons any more. Those damn sticks hurt too much when you get hit!

I am sorry to hear that you gave up the sticks. I too have had many a bad bumps and bruises. I have even suffered to broken fingers and a dislocated thumb.....ouch!

[darrianation]

Some more on combative philosophy.

Some quotes by W.E. Fairbairn the man considered to be the father of modern combatives.

“Unarmed combat is what we enter into when we have been foolish enough not to have a weapon; careless enough to have lost our weapon; or unlucky enough to have broken our weapon. But in any case our first choice will be to use our weapons to finish our opponent. Lacking those weapons; then our hands and feet will have to do”.

“Clearly our goal is to avoid conflict whenever possible. If we cannot avoid our goal becomes to make ourselves a tough target and evade the situation. But if avoid and evade fail; then we will make every effort to destroy our attacker by doing as much damage to him as quickly as we can then leaving the area as quickly as we can”.

[darrianation]

Combatives part 2 the evolution of combatives (a brief history)

We have always had combatives. Throughout time and memoriam men have always used weapons to fight. In the beginning it may have been rocks, or tree branches but weapons were always preferred over empty hands.

As we look back through history we find that all civilizations and societies used weapons to defend themselves.

fighting throughout history involved developing and implementing more and more efficient weapons, starting with very rudimentary weapons like a rock, then a sharp rock, then a sharp rock on a stick, then swords, bows, and spears using the latest in technology.

In the 14th century we began to see cannons in Europe. Chinese alchemists discovered nitrates and soon invented what we now know as gun powder around 900 AD and introduced it to Europe via trade routes around 1225 AD. Then the cannon was invented in southern Europe just before 1300 AD.

Barbour, reports that cannons were used by Edward III in his first campaign against the Scots, in 1327. They were also employed by the French in the siege of Puy Guillaume, in 1338.

Nearly a century elapsed before small-arms were invented. In 1430 according to Bilius, the first guns were invented by the Lucquese, when they were besieged by the Florentines. The musket, invented in Spain, was introduced into France in the late 1500s.

Some aspects of distance weapons have been present, in the form of archers and slingers, since ancient Egypt, but until the introduction of the long bow the available armor (generally just a shield) was sufficient to stop these weapons from becoming decisive.

However up even into the 19th century due to the musket’s unreliability and long reload times, swords and bayonets were still the weapons of choice for close range fighting.

In Japanese history weapons and armor were being developed by the Yayoi. Early weapons included bows, arrows and swords. Armor included a helmet, a breastplate, arm and shoulder protectors, and a belly wrap.

The Samurai rose out of the continuing battles for land. The Samurai eventually became a class unto themselves between the 9th and 12th centuries A.D. The early Samurai emphasized fighting with the bow and arrow. They used swords for close-in fighting and beheading their enemies.

Another change occurred in the 15th century because of the constancy of war and the introduction of guns into battle. It was apparent that the samurai embraced modern technology as it came around, they knew that weapon were superior to empty hands.

One of the biggest contributions to combatives came by the way of the Romans. The Romans generally preferred heavy-armed troops. But it was a peculiarity of Roman policy always to adopt every improvement in the art of war with which they became acquainted whether it originated with friend or foe.

Today combatives continues in the form of modern militaries, and police forces. Most of their training is in modern weapons and tactics (the best that technology and money can provide); just like in days of old little emphasis is placed in empty hand training.

Today we have three basic divisions in combative training
1) military
2) law enforcement
3) civilian

Although they all emphasize different aspects there is one ingredient that binds them together and that the use of all the modern science and technology at their disposal. Of course costs and legal issues dictate what weapons are available for use.

There is another phenomenon taking place in the guise of either a traditional martial art or an eclectic martial art trying to cash in on the popularity of combatives. They call themselves unarmed combatives. This is a bit of a misnomer because they do not use modern standards of weapons training and use. When you hear the term unarmed combatives it is usually a traditional martial art trying to pass them selves off as a reality based self-defense system.

True combatives utilizes all the modern technology that will allow them to survive in battle just like the ancient combatives of the Samurai, and the Romans, and hundreds of others.

One of the best definitions I have heard for combatives is: Continually adapt every improvement in the art of war.