Tweet
I'm noticing the odd thread where people are trying to credibility to an art by stating that some Special Forces use it. People like the US Marines, Recon, Seals etc. etc. But this is a misnomer.
The vast majority of hand to hand (H2H) combat taught to the military is not only very scarce, it is also bollocks. The Marines "LINE" system is like 3rd rate Jiu Jitsu, where your partner has to allow you to perform the move, and even then it may not work (in fairness, even the Marines now realise this). And Brazillian Jiu Jitsu? The Marines are taught this quite alot. Don't get me wrong, it is a fine system for one on one unarmed self defence. But are allied soldiers ever really going to fight under these circumstances? NO! The are going to be carrying body armour, loads of equipment, and be in a battlefield with loads of enemy soldiers about, all armed to the teeth. Taking someone to the floor in these circumstances is the LAST thing you want to do.
All kinds of people claim to have trained specialist units, and even those who have often merely reflect the Military upper ranks lack of knowledge of real H2H. My own preferred art was recently rejected by the USMC. Why? BECAUSE THEY SAID IT WAS TOO NASTY!
Now why would the military hierarchy act like this? Well, it is all politically dominated. 99.9% of soldiers fighting involves using their weapons. Why train their men to frightening levels of "nasty" skills when they may never need them and, even worse, may use them on the general public in bar fights etc? Most people respect their armed forces, particularly specialist units, but you have to admit that the have their fair share of macho arse holes. The political fall out of some expert soldier killing a civillian would be massive.
In short, in the eyes of the upper ehelons of the military, the risk of training their men to kill without weapons is higher than not training them to kill. I don't necessarily agree with this, but there you go.
Now everyone knows that a BJJ strangle can kill, or that a Thai Boxer could beat someone to death. But both these methods take a small amount of time, thinking time where you can realise what you are doing and then hold back. A true old style World War 2 H2H strike could kill in an instant, so there is no time to correct any over reaction of the part of the soldier.
So I would argue that saying "this system is good because the Recon use it" (or whoever) is not a valid argument.
The vast majority of hand to hand (H2H) combat taught to the military is not only very scarce, it is also bollocks. The Marines "LINE" system is like 3rd rate Jiu Jitsu, where your partner has to allow you to perform the move, and even then it may not work (in fairness, even the Marines now realise this). And Brazillian Jiu Jitsu? The Marines are taught this quite alot. Don't get me wrong, it is a fine system for one on one unarmed self defence. But are allied soldiers ever really going to fight under these circumstances? NO! The are going to be carrying body armour, loads of equipment, and be in a battlefield with loads of enemy soldiers about, all armed to the teeth. Taking someone to the floor in these circumstances is the LAST thing you want to do.
All kinds of people claim to have trained specialist units, and even those who have often merely reflect the Military upper ranks lack of knowledge of real H2H. My own preferred art was recently rejected by the USMC. Why? BECAUSE THEY SAID IT WAS TOO NASTY!
Now why would the military hierarchy act like this? Well, it is all politically dominated. 99.9% of soldiers fighting involves using their weapons. Why train their men to frightening levels of "nasty" skills when they may never need them and, even worse, may use them on the general public in bar fights etc? Most people respect their armed forces, particularly specialist units, but you have to admit that the have their fair share of macho arse holes. The political fall out of some expert soldier killing a civillian would be massive.
In short, in the eyes of the upper ehelons of the military, the risk of training their men to kill without weapons is higher than not training them to kill. I don't necessarily agree with this, but there you go.
Now everyone knows that a BJJ strangle can kill, or that a Thai Boxer could beat someone to death. But both these methods take a small amount of time, thinking time where you can realise what you are doing and then hold back. A true old style World War 2 H2H strike could kill in an instant, so there is no time to correct any over reaction of the part of the soldier.
So I would argue that saying "this system is good because the Recon use it" (or whoever) is not a valid argument.
Comment