bobthethinker - the USMC developed the LINE system. I don't think anyone doubts the capabilities of the USMC as modern day warriors but many people have voiced dissatisfaction with LINE...which is why the USMC developed their own "martial art".
If EVERYTHING the Rangers thought were the end-all-be-all of hand-to-hand combat, why has what has been taught in the US army re: hand-to-hand combat changed so much (and quite frequently) from WWII to the present?
".......They should issue all US troops with a Louisville slugger for hand-to-hand combat...."
Yep.........it's called an "entrenching tool".
The military gets sold on gimicks and fads just like everyone else does. As I said a few years ago when Larsen's material was first making its rounds through differing units; the BJJ portion would be great for peacekeeping operations; as for the other material, I think there are better options out there. Of course no two people are ever going ot truely agree on what is the best route out there. We can only hope that what is taught to the soldiers help them to survive
Hi Bobthetinker,
I would go with the people who have put the most hours in on the subject at hand utilising the resources of those who have the most experience. Rex Applegate (RIP) only died a few years ago yet spent most of his time training overseas units (read units actually fighting in limited war situations ALL the time) in crowd control combat shooting and hand to hand combat.
Whilst this was going on, the western armies of the world were having a love affair with "men in pyjamas" and learning methods of spiritual development that have no place on the battlefield.
Recently these methods seem to have been replaced with ring sports which whilst being better than Kung Fu etc ignores methods developed over a period stretching from the 1930's (Chicago cops in this period considered Shanghai to be too dangerous in a time when gangster activity was rife Chicago) until Col. Applegate's passing in 1998.
Who are you going to follow? Applegate who travelled all over the world and has the military and police experience of decades of service or someone with a blackbelt in a few Asian martial arts created in the last 200 years for purposes other than real combat.
If these were my methods then I would of course defer to people actually currently serving in the Army. Those who advocate WWII combatives have generally done their research and combine it with the latest in psychological science.
Cheers,
Stu.
"why has what has been taught in the US army re: hand-to-hand combat changed so much (and quite frequently) from WWII to the present?"
This is a really, really good question. I'm mostly a Historical Fencing person, and the entire basis of doing HF is that "those people why fought to the death for real are bound to know way more about how it really works than those who haven't i.e. me". There's plenty of times I've been compeletly stumped as to why or what the hell a particular historical technique has been trying to achieve, but every time doing it the way the master says has turned out to be way better than any other way, and the reason its the way it is has become obvious with increased understanding.
Unlike medieval swordfighting, in Combatives we actually have guys still living who did it for real, know exactly whay works and what doesn't, and a plethora of manuals telling it exactly how it is written in the midst of the most intense war in the last 100 years. Why muck with it? It seems bizarre an institution that can maintain 200 year old traditions without a thought keeps trying to change or "improve" on things that have already been, if not perfected, then brought as close as is practicable for military purposes.
"No question on who I'm going to side with, I'm going with the guys that training on the edge is a way of life."
Twaddle. Crap practices can creep into - or be imposed on - any "professional" service. The differences in approach, not only in combatives, but in even basic infantry tactics between various Western armies, and even between various US services, show that there's lots of different approaches to the same problem. Simple fact is some approches are going to be better than others, which means some are going to be relatively crap.
".......They should issue all US troops with a Louisville slugger for hand-to-hand combat...."
That's actually not as silly as it sounds. Maybe they should give them SCA rattan clubs... :)
"the US would be unbeatable in hand-to-hand combat. Any enemy soldier who tried to use Karate, Judo, Sambo, BJJ, Muay Thai - whatever, would have to deal with a baseball bat being swung at his melon with murderous intent!"
Ah, but any cricket player would knock you for six
Paul
Interesting discussion.