military combat!!

[kengar]

I'd quote the Mountain Dew commercial if it didn't annoy me so much.
Yes, I was a ground pounder with a pair of wings on my chest. That's all I can tell you or I'd have to kill you. Ha Ha! PBR549 , I'm not questioning your training or what techniques you and your group are adding to your H2H, but rewrite that manual if you want it to teach brutal combat. This isn't WWE, were you can afford to lay down with your enemy with the mind set that someone will come to your rescue. How in the hell could you even say that at the same time your saying your preparing for combat. Other countries train to kill you and every other enemy they may have. Have no doubt that when you're thinking you'll just grab an enemy soldier to take him to the ground and place him in the guard until someone can shoot him, he is getting ready to kill you. If a soldier has to go into H2H then they are already in deep shit, and anything short of KILL attitude will result in your own death.
Again, I'm not against you training in h2h or your group adding combat applicable tactics to your training, but the manual does not reflect combat grappling.

Ken G

[kengar]

Does anyone else remember the incident in Korea when US soldiers where killed on the DMZ in the 80's?
A squad went down into the DMZ to cut down trees, and of course all they had were axes because weapons are not allowed. A couple ROC soldiers slid down, successfully took their axes and brutally killed them. Don't recall the exact numbers, but the ROC soldiers were out numbered but better trained. This is my point about military H2H. They train to kill us, that is their thought and instinct. We have to do the same.

[PBR549]

Thats not the way it happened on the DMZ. There was one American soldier, Maj Bonifas. He was supervising a work detail of South Koreans, it was North Koreans, (ROK, not ROC are the S. Koreans) came to the area where the tree pruning was taking place and they subdued and beheaded Maj. Bonifas.

Anyway, let me see if I can get on of my instructors from Ft. Benning to visit this baord and put his 2 cents in.

[kluten]

Norwegian forces

Well i know you americans have a lot of special forces and a lot more soldiers than we have in norway. But still norway send their force to do international service. And the fighting skills of the norwegian soldier is poor. i have been training bjj an hai boxing for some time now, and in every h2h combat class i knew techniqes who would work better, and faster and easier to aply.

i am thinking if a soldier on the battlefield is tired and stressed. wearing 15kg of equipment. how on earth will he be able to attack or defend himself with those silly technices.

when i was alone with the instructor i asked him to do some fighting with me. I took him out easy every time ( the instuctor is a really good sport, and hi is recomending me for a position as instructor to)

so i still ask the same question as before, what martial art would do best , you might also give oppinion on combination between arts for example bjj+thai boxing wich i am satisfied with, but i lack the really brutal stuff. where can i find it? stick fighting an knife fighting is also relevant.

i know ninjutsu has a lot of silent killing and brutal stuff. but is there a school wich i couls study ninjutsu 24/7? anywhere in the world.

the closest i have come to my answer must be tukong moosul!!

www.tukong.com anyone expirienced with this?

[Roland]

Originally posted by PBR549
Thats not the way it happened on the DMZ. There was one American soldier, Maj Bonifas. He was supervising a work detail of South Koreans, it was North Koreans, (ROK, not ROC are the S. Koreans) came to the area where the tree pruning was taking place and they subdued and beheaded Maj. Bonifas.

Anyway, let me see if I can get on of my instructors from Ft. Benning to visit this baord and put his 2 cents in.

Errr...ROK is Republic of Korea, i.e. South Korea. ROC is Republic of China, i.e. Taiwan. PRC is the People's Republic of China, i.e. Mainland China. I forget what the North Koreans call themselves - I believe it is DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea). Anyway, the US soldiers came down to prune the trees because they were blocking their view of North Korean activities - this was within their right by treaty. While this was going on, a group of North Korean soldiers was watching them, apparently just observing what was going on - this again, was permitted by treaty. Then one of the N. Koreans apparently got agitated, took off his watch, yelled, "Death to the aggressors!!!!" then all Hell broke loose. The Americans got their axes taken away from them and a couple of them were hacked to death. Later, the Americans returned in force to prune the tree. Existing treaties forbade weapons being in that area so the Americans came armed with improvised clubs (axe handles). I think they completely chopped down the tree instead of just pruning it. The event is fairly well documented and details of what happened can be found on the internet. I believe it happened sometime in the 60's, though.

[Roland]

Originally posted by PBR549
But what I can do is grab the enemy and try to take him to the ground because I have my squad coming in behind me and they can put a bullet in that ****ers head because I have him occupied.

Errr...couldn't the same be said for the enemy? Not only do you have HIM occupied, he has YOU occupied as well which means HIS friends can run up and put a bullet in your skull. You're basically betting your life on the belief that your friends can run faster than his friends.

If your rifle has malfunctioned, why not just butt stroke the enemy in the face with the stock? Why not just bayonet him? Why not just hack him to death with your E-tool? Why not take of your helmet and smash his face in with it and when he's distracted, kick him savagely in the testicles with your jungle boots? For that matter, why not just pick up a rock and do your best to crack his skull like an egg-shell with it? Why intentionally drag him to the ground when you have all these other more expedient options at your disposal?

[PBR549]

Roland, in the scenario I described you are close quaters, a trench or a building, you may not have the room to swing your weapon, we dont go around with our bayonets attached to our weapons and you wouldnt have the time to fix bayonets anyway. We dont carry our E-tools, they stay strapped to the side of the ruck sack. When you are clearing a room or a trench, you have surprise on your side, so if you have to grab the enemy and take him to the ground, the rest of your men are right behind you shooting any enemy thats standing, the enemy shouldnt have the chance to shoot you, but if he does, thats the chance you take.
Anyway, I contacted the instructors at the Combatives School, hopefully they will have the time to come here and explain things better than me.

[M Larsen]

Army Combatives

I am sorry it took me o long to get on here to answer. My name is Matt Larsen. I wrote the new FM or at least all of the changes from the 1992 version. I was reading through the posts above and I noticed some typical misconceptions about combatives training in the Army so I will try to explain some of what you see in the manual as well as general concepts about our program.

Lets start with this, If there had ever been a successful combatives program in any branch of the U. S. military wouldn't there be tens of thousands of experts around the country. Now why do you suppose that this has not been the case? Remember that there are more than four hundred thousand people in the Army right now and there were literaly millions in during WWII.

Matt Larsen

[Guest]

Maybe these could be reasons.

1. There hasn't been a good system for many years.
2. The exponents of it were comparatively few, elite unit types.
3. Many were killed by bombs and bullets anyway.
4. Others killed by old age.
5. The very few that are left are aged.
6. Their followers are second generation combatives, and ignored by politically correct governments who don't want their on leave or ex soldiers killing people with their bare hands in public places.

Waddaya say? Do I win a doughnut Matt?

[M Larsen]

I say that all of the reasons you have stated are undoubtedly true, but still do not explain why.
1. The systems were no better or worse than what is being taught in martial arts schools around the world.
2. A successful system by definition in an organization would be one that was able to spread competent teachers throughout the force.
3. The percentages of soldiers who are combat casualties is actual a very small percentage of those who serve.
4. Why would old age affect a military system any more than a civilian system?

Matt Larsen

[M Larsen]

The question that never gets asked by most martial artists, including the ones that have designed the past U.S. systems, is why would the average soldier devote the time it takes to gain proficiency in combative technique. The answer that has come down to us is that unless we do something different than has been done before, they will not.

Think about which armies in the world have effective programs. By effective I mean that the average soldier actually knows what the literature says they should know. They have all answered that question.

For example, the Russians, with SOMBO have a system of competitions. If you can be the best in your platoon, or your battalion, or the Army, there is a reason to excel.
I know you would like to think that being prepared for war would be reason enough, but soldiers are just like every one else, by and large they just want to go home at the end of the day.

Matt Larsen

[Guest]

I suppose you realise that the system I faovur would be as per Fairbair/Applegate type stuff.

Brutal and easy to learn. A system only to be used if weapons were not available for use.

All this competition aspect etc is a massive distraction from what those expected to go to war should be about. They can compete in BJJ or Boxing or whatever. But are they so ill motivated that they need a competitive element in their "for real" training? You seem to suggest their motivation os very low.

ps - I don't see how you answered any of my points.

[kengar]

M Larsen,
Were you ever stationed in Germany? There was a Matt Larsen in my platoon, though I guess there is always a chance of 2 ML's.
OK! My problem with the manual isn't that it doesn't guide you through a fighting system, its that it lacks combat mentality. You mention Sambo, good system for sport but the military trains so different that they have two categories, Sambo and Combat Sambo. These other countries train to fight and kill their enemy. It is my strong belief that a combat manual should be just that, focusing on H2H that applies to combat. And it should be a manual that any soldier can pick up and see how they can effectively defend, attack and kill.
I have no problem with progression, it holds people's interest and gives a reason to train more, but a new soldier should be learning the most effective tactics to begin with. Young soldiers go to war too, and if you didn't teach them the proper way to kill their enemy because they're a white belt it could get them killed. What PBR549 said about grabbing the enemy and taking to the ground to wait for your buddies to run over and shoot them is tactically ignorant. If you were to ever engage in H2H your only thought should be to kill your enemy.
My oppologies for misspelling the acronym ROK, after I posted I knew something wasn't right.

Ken

[M Larsen]

competition as a motivational tool

I was never stationed in Germany, although I have been there several times to do MTTs. I was in the Marine Corps in Japan from 84-88 and I have been in the Ranger Regt. Since then.

It is interesting to compare SOMBO with the American and British systems that grew from approximately the same time period. If you look at the manuals from the 1940 the techniques are almost identical. This is pretty easily explained by their common origin in Judo. W. E. Fairbairne was of course a nidan from the Kodokan, and V. S. Oshchepkov was a shodan.

Why then is the system pioneered by Fairbairn completely gone from the U.S. military while the one at least in part created by Oshchepkov is popular even in our country and persists as the martial art system of the Russian military? The answer is at least in part because SOMBO has a system of competition. If a soldier can be the best in his platoon, company, battalion, etc. he is more likely to excel.

The Fairbairne system failed to take into account any of the realities of training large groups, and we are talking about millions of men. It was simply a group of simple effective techniques. Unfortunately, and as strange as it might sound, that is not enough.

As for competition being a waste of time, that is like saying that the best Ranger competition is a waste of time because the competitors may do things for the sake of competitions that are not battle focused. That type of statement ignores the real reason behind these kinds of events, recognizing excellence and motivating the rank and file to train harder.

The bottom line is that the perfect system that nobody actually does is still a failure. The most important aspect of any combative system is participation.

More latter about training strategy and fight tactics.

Matt Larsen

[M Larsen]

Why begin with ground grappling

Now about training strategy, in the initial stages of developing the current system we conducted several experiments with different types of training. One of these was to take a 100 man RIP class and divide it in half. We then gave one half of the class several hours of boxing instruction. The first time ten hours then twelve and latter sixteen hours each time by a different local boxing teacher. After the training the those who had received it boxed against those who had not. Strangely enough, each time the half that did not receive the instruction won more fights. Why this was the case is open for discussion, but our conclusion was that small amounts of some types of combative instruction was actually counter productive. When that same type of experiment is done with ground grappling, the success rate of the trained grapplers approached a hundred percent.

We begin the new soldier with ground grappling for the simple reason that if your desire is to have actual improvement in their fighting ability, it has proved to be the most productive type of training.
It also leads to more effective follow on training. If for example you spend ten or twenty hours of training time trying to teach soldiers a couple of throws or takedowns, very few of them will even attempt what they have been taught when placed under duress. Those that do attempt the techniques will usually be too tentative in their attempt to even come close to being successful. The Army and the Marine Corps tried for sixty years to teach soldiers and Marines Osoto-gari and Ipon-seoinage and yet I have never even heard of someone who was not a civilian martial artist trying one of those techniques much less doing so successfully when they were in an altercation. If however a soldier is taught to feel confidence in his abilities in ground grappling, he is much more likely to attempt a takedown. I am not just stating my opinion either. We have proved this through experimentation.

More to follow

Matt Larsen