OFFICIAL Army Combatives Field Manual

[Ice Phoenix]

OFFICIAL Army Combatives Field Manual

Check it out! Full of BJJ grappling and vale-tudo techniques. All sorts of other cool military-only stuff too. A great resource!

[darrianation]

More interesting than most military type manuals.

[ryanhall]

I hope to God that our soldiers never try to use this stuff on the battlefield.

f. Striking. Striking is an inefficient way to incapacitate an enemy. Strikes are, however, an important part of an overall fight strategy and can be very effective in manipulating the opponent into unfavorable positions. Striking can be practiced with various types of protective padding such as boxing gloves. Defense can be practiced using reduced force blows. Training should be continuously focused on the realities of fighting.

What a crock. The military has sh!t for brains when it comes to hth combat. Step by step knife defenses involving ju-jistu style joint locks? Not gonna happen.

I didn't see a single openhanded strike (palm heel, axe hand, cupped hand, eye jab, etc.). Everything in this book reminds me of the post-UFC "grappling is the greatest" mentality. Grappling has absolutely nothing to do with modern military combat, and is a good way to an early grave. This is one of the single worst manuals on military fighting (or real world fighting in general) that I have ever seen.

You mean you can't take a knife off people by numbers? You mean you can't grapple when wearing a helmet, body armour and 5 hand grenades?

Surely you must be wrong........NOT

[Ice Phoenix]

Originally posted by ryanhall
Everything in this (my) post reminds everyone else of pre-UFC "my chop hands will stop anyone" mentality.

"Grappling has absolutely nothing to do with modern military combat"

Ummm, grappling has to do with "real world fighting" and therefore has to do with h2h combat!

And what exactly out of that excerpt you posted is not completely correct?

Here's a more aptly suited forum for you!

http://www.ultimatekarate.com/modules.php?name=Forum

[ryanhall]

Ummm, grappling has to do with "real world fighting" and therefore has to do with h2h combat!

Grappling would have NOTHING to do with self-defense if everybody carried an m-16 or a 9 inch combat knife with them. Or if everybody was wearing a 50 lb ruck sack, body armor, extra rounds, and plenty of other combat gear that is carried by almost every soldier today. Tell me, can you even put me into your guard while carrying all that? How about pulling an armbar from the same position while burdened by that equipment? I didn't think so. I can't understand why people still fail to get this, but the ring is not the same as the street, which in turn is not the same as the battlefield.

And what exactly out of that excerpt you posted is not completely correct?

"Striking is an inefficient way to incapacitate an enemy." Actually, that's not true. A hard strike to the throat will end a fight faster than any armbar. Same goes for a palm heel to the chin followed by a boot to the head. Grappling requires much more committment an energy. Not to mention, submission grappling IS an inefficient way to end a fight. It is very useful to know for both competition and less-than-lethal self-defense situations, but it has absolutely no place in balls to the wall do-or-die fighting.

If you actually want to learn something instead of arguing with me about submission grappling for real world applications, visit this site and read the articles. It is dedicated to the system of unarmed combat developed before and during World War II most notably by Rex Applegate and William E. Fairbairn. These men had far more experience with real fighting than any instructor you are likely to meet in the United States military today. As the guns get bigger and the bombs more powerful, the quality of an army's unarmed fighting decreases.

www.gutterfighting.org

If not, then I think you might find THIS site more to your liking:
www.marthastuart.com

Good luck expanding your mind.

[Kingston]

ryan i dont know why you used that quote. It seemed to make a whole lot of sence to me. On the battle field striking isn't that effective to incapacitate an enemy. In most situations its not.
But of course its a vital part to the "overall fight strategy"

i personaly have the mentality that strickings main purpose should be to get your opponent to move/react in a benificial way.

i remember watching a kickboxing match on t.v "twin dragons kickboxing" on TSN. i dont follow KB that much, but i heard the anouncer say something like they need at least 8 kicks to the body and 8 punches that connect each round to stay in.

obviously after about 3 rounds thats allot of kicks and punches, yet usualy both men are still standing, though tired, all those strikes didn't amount to much. Sure they were hurt, but not injured, they practicaly tire themselfs out till they can barely hit any more....what happens after the fight if it was on the battlefield?

now you on the battlefield, people are wearing body armor....striking used for incapacitating an enemy just sounds foolish to me.

the amound of energy it takes to use strikes combined with the sheer volume you would need to make them affective combined with the time it takes to execute them......its just not relavent for a battle field enviroment. (oh course iv never gone to war, but what im saying just seems like common sence).

just my two cents......

[ryanhall]

I hate to say it, but your two cents are misplaced. I direct you to the same site as I did Ice Phoenix. If you'd rather read, find a copy of 'Kill or Get Killed' by Rex Applegate or 'Get Tough' by William Fairbairn.

In most situations its not.

Substantiate this if you would. Striking has worked wonders for me in the past.

obviously after about 3 rounds thats allot of kicks and punches, yet usualy both men are still standing, though tired, all those strikes didn't amount to much. Sure they were hurt, but not injured, they practicaly tire themselfs out till they can barely hit any more....what happens after the fight if it was on the battlefield?

Allow me to explain this to you. Gloves can make knocking someone out a little tougher. Secondly, boxers and kickboxers are great at moving their heads to make sure that they are not hit solidly. They may take 10 punches to the body and 20 to the top of the head, but I assure you that they will drop almost every time when a strong punch or strike is delivered to the jaw (think back to the Tyson v Etienne fight a few weeks ago). Secondly, I said striking, not kickboxing. Don't think in terms of punching and kicking. Striking includes--chinjabs, throat strikes, eye strikes, boxing ears, groin strikes. Naturally, these are not included in a sport fight--the contestants wouldn't last too long if they were.

now you on the battlefield, people are wearing body armor....striking used for incapacitating an enemy just sounds foolish to me.

Well, it's less foolish than grappling with your enemy. I'd like to point out that neither I nor any of the old school combatives instructors ever advocated punching to the body in military combat. If not striking, what else would you suggest then? An automatic rifle? A knife? A large blunt object? Naturally. However, this is a situation where no better options than empty hands exist, so you have to make do as best you can.

the amound of energy it takes to use strikes combined with the sheer volume you would need to make them affective combined with the time it takes to execute them......its just not relavent for a battle field enviroment. (oh course iv never gone to war, but what im saying just seems like common sence).

I don't know how to soften this, so I'll just have to say it straight: you're wrong. When was the last time you saw a fight? Ever seen a fight? They don't last long, and the first guy to land a solid blow has a large advantage. Real fights are not like boxing matches.

[darrianation]

If your dumb enough to let yourself run out of ammo, all your left with is a very ugly club. One of the Gracies said it best in an interview ( the oldest brother but cant be sure). "If someone breaks into my home I'm grabbin' my 44."

The army and marines may get a few days to a week worth of training in h2h mostly boxing. Not enough to make them proficient. Barley enough to to get a taste. But there are only very few situations where you might need it. Mout antd military police. If your reduced to h2h then you've already screwed your whole wold up, and your one hurting unit. And there's no time for gound fighting. Also dont think for a second the badguys didnt come to play with loaded weapons.

[darrianation]

Imagine trying to train all these soldiers to be proficent at h2h? a daunting task to say the least. How long did it take us to proficient (if proficient at all) ? The mil' doesnt have the time and resources to do this. There are alot of other stuff (skills) they need to train these soldiers in.

[Kingston]

of course you can use throat strikes eye jabs... but most of the time you have to manipulate the other persons body to do that.

its not always about what is effective its about whats more effective.

of course if your on a battlefield i would assume that would would have some kind of weapon on you. wether you have time to use it or whatever is another story, i think the more intense H2H without weapons would be in the more elite and smaller combat units, perhaps in counter terrorist operations....would they have more intensive H2H training then in the field manual? i dont know perhaps.....(or many mite find training outside the army)

it does take some time and energy to kill a man with striking, remember the other soldier will have training, and friends nearby. bullets wizzing by you head. As a theory i think it makes some sence.

yes i have seen real fights.

i was using the kickboxing as an example of how allot of strikes wont incapacitate an enemy...striking can lead to a person injuring themselves as well.

i dont think that BJJ (from what i hear) would be the most effective tool to use on the battlefield.

Assuming you have no previous fight experience joining the army, i dont think trying to strike down an enemy would work as well as maybe some of the other options. striking has its place, but its only one piece of the puzzle.

im just saying as a basic philosophy for the average guy or gal that joins the army, it makes some sence.

[ryanhall]

Imagine trying to train all these soldiers to be proficent at h2h? a daunting task to say the least. How long did it take us to proficient (if proficient at all) ? The mil' doesnt have the time and resources to do this. There are alot of other stuff (skills) they need to train these soldiers in.

Exactly. That's why the old combatives were what they were--easy to learn, easy to apply, long on aggression, and very effective. Not to mention, they didn't use a set fighting stance. If you actually got to a decent base, you would attack all out until the threat was eliminated. I loved the boxing part of the manual. I'd like to see a surprised soldier use a jab to set up his cross and hook after he's been hit over the head with a rifle butt. The only times a soldier would resort to hand to hand in combat are when he is out of ammo (better idea to just hide until you can find more) or if he is surprised by an enemy and he loses his weapon. Even then, his #1 priority is to recover said weapon and use it on his attacker, not wrestle for a choke or a kneebar. Modern military hand to hand is not designed to turn out killers. It is designed to build character and morale. Nothing more.

[kungfupanda]

I gotta go with my arch enemy ryan on this one . In a battle situation. Grappling limits your focus to one man...period. That is why striking will serve you better. although id go with pulling a trigger or the stabbing techniques.

I'm with Ryan on this. That's why I'm into combatives.

As for comparing the battlefield (or the street for that matter) to kick boxing or BJJ, forget it. Take a look at a boxing/kick boxing or BJJ rule book. Get to the "you're not allowed to do this" part. That's where you will find the techniques that the Combatives guys DO use.

Combatives are simple moves that are easy to learn.
They are ugly and efficient (fingers in the eyes, axe hand to the throat etc.).
The underlying philosophy is attack attack attack.
There is no "finesse", no "art" and no bullshit.

Democratic countries teach their soldiers BJJ because they don't want their soldiers to be too dangerous when they come back from the war. Your average soldier may well be rock hard and fit. But if he tires to use punching or grappling in a military environment his opponent will be laughing as he stabs/shoots him in the gut.

[shasan]

I love grappling and BJJ, but I have to go with Ryan on this one. Not sure if BJJ style grappling is the best thing for an armed forces guy to be learning.

I've heard from guys in the army that the only reason would be engaging in H2H is that for some wierd messed up reason, they don't have their weapon. Their weapon is used for one thing... to kill. Nothing can substitute for the weapon if it does not have the capacity to inflict swift and deadly damage.

Therefore, to effectively make up for the lack of a weapon, whatever H2H techniques they have, must have this capacity, and I don't think Grappling (as shown in that site) does.

My $0.02.