Modern Army Combatives

I hope that answers your question Jason.Kinda, but not exactly. I was more interested in the response to the backpack and all the other equipment. It looks like the training is done in fatigues instead of gear- do you ever have them gear up to see how that affects their techniques?Also- sbout what is currently taught- do you feel it is most useful as physical techniques that will possibly save their life? Or more as a confidence builder because they will feel more capable in general?Jason

Squatdog,What do you think of the Cold Steel Tanto as a fighting knife?I like the fact that it is handle-heavy--any knife with a 6 or 7-inch blade should be handle-heavy, IMHO. I like the Kraton handle. I like the skull-crusher pommel. It can also really cut well, and naturally has a strong point.However, I personally prefer knives where the point lies directly or almost in the centerline, to facilitate accurrate thrusts. Daggers obviously come to mind, but other knives, like Bagwell Bowies, also feature this:Also, while knives with the Japanese variation of the hatchet point are touted as having "armor-piercing" points, it should perhaps be mentioned that such a point is primarily to created less drag in a cut. Hank Reinhardt pointed this out in his Paladin Press video on swords.When it comes to knives in the 6 to 7-inch blade range, I like the A-F, the Cold Steel Taipan, the KA-BAR, The Glock Fighting Knife, The Gerber Mk II (especially the type with the "cat's tongue" handle), The M3 Trench Knife, & The various old Ek Commando Knives (both daggers and bowies).IMO, the Taipan would be the very best dagger of its size if it had the A-F's bent-quillon crossguard--that's the only complaint I personally have, and it's a comparatively minor one. I've handled the Taipan, and it's pretty scary--few daggers will cut like the Taipan, and its balance is beautiful.TFS

That Bagwell Bowie feels light as a feather in the hand. It makes you simply sick when you go from that and pick up a cheap import to train with.

Jason

All right, I'll try to do a little better. Fighting with you backpack on is a poor idea in any situation. One of the first things you should if you are wearing your ruck and a fight starts is get it off of your back.

A butt pack of course is a different matter. One thing that we will probably never change is that commanders will overload their soldiers going into battle. It is our approach that the equipment should fit the tactic and not vice versa. The current load carrying equipment in the Ranger Regiment for instance is the RAC system. It is essentially an update to the AK vest that the VC wore. Your equipment is worn on your chest and it is much better suited ergonomically to accomplishing the tasks that you need to perform in a fight, everything from climbing through a window, changing mags or hand-to-hand fighting.

One of the questions that we are frequently asked is exactly this, why do we do most of our training without equipment. Frequently this is followed with "Shouldn't we train the way we are going to fight?" Yes we should. It is really more of a question of what we mean by train as we fight. If you have your equipment on when you train, almost everything you do becomes potentially dangerous. If you take a fall on your canteen wrong, or take an accidental head but with a helmet, you are going to get hurt. You must therefore make immediate concessions in the intensity/reality of your training. You will probably have on all of your equipment when you need to fight, but one thing is for sure, you will have a fully resistant opponent. In our opinion it is a more realistic method of training to have "live" training than to look like you do.

We do fight wearing our equipment. We actually use Tony Blauer's High Gear and combine it with simunitions. So the high end of training around hear is force on force live fire with combatives. We do most of our training without equipment however because you can train harder without risking injury.

As for building confidence, we believe that the best way to build confidence is to build competence. When your soldiers have actual fighting ability, they will be confident.

Matt

I like your knife comments. I currently give the guys who teach for me an A/F after they have been here a while. It's pretty hard to beat for the price.

Matt

That Bagwell Bowie feels light as a feather in the hand. It makes you simply sick when you go from that and pick up a cheap import to train with.I haven't had the opportunity to handle one yet, though they look really sweet...

Remember, those of you that think the Army shouldn't be teaching the guard as a defensive technique: While I have my enemy in my guard, half guard, etc., my buddy is butt stroking him to the head with his/my M-4. We might be an Army of One, now, but we never fight in elements smaller than buddy teams. Matt, thanks for clearing the air about the ruck issue. Soldiers never fight with rucksacks on. Assault packs, maybe, but for actions on the objective, the ruck is being dropped. Hooah on the confidence/competence paradigm. I've been to Matt's school and it should be subtitled "Mandatory Manhood Training". When I teach soldiers combatives, we always start by watching the seen from "Saving Private Ryan" of the Hand-to-Hand fight in which the Ranger is killed by the German Soldier when the Ranger's ammo bearer fails to show up due to his fear (remember, the ammo bearer was an Intel person, not a Ranger). Anyway. I stop the tape when the Ranger has dominant body position (full mount). Everybody remembers what happens next, right. The Ranger pulls out his Hitler Youth Knife that he found during the landing but the German soldier reverses him, and winds up killing the guy with his own knife. I ask the soldiers, "the Ranger had dominant body position, and two juicy German arms extended into his chest, why then did he pull a knife?" The answer: he shouldn't have pulled the knife, but rather attacked one of the German's arms with an arm bar or key lock, not for submission, but for max damage. The soldiers get the point.

Thanks Matt, that was much more what I was looking for. As for building confidence, we believe that the best way to build confidence is to build competence. When your soldiers have actual fighting ability, they will be confident.How long is the combatives training in basic? My understanding was that it was not too long. I don't see how any techniques are going to do much more than build a little confidence in a few days. I noticed that when my brother-in-law came back from basic this time he was raving about the BJJ, but even with doing it on weekends or whatever, when he came back, I thought the biggest improvement was still in his attitude rather than his actual skill level.Jason

While I have my enemy in my guard, half guard, etc., my buddy is butt stroking him to the head with his/my M-4. We might be an Army of One, now, but we never fight in elements smaller than buddy teams.My concern would be if the other side did also. I ask the soldiers, "the Ranger had dominant body position, and two juicy German arms extended into his chest, why then did he pull a knife?" The answer: he shouldn't have pulled the knife, but rather attacked one of the German's arms with an arm bar or key lock, not for submission, but for max damage. The soldiers get the point.No offense lieutenantdan, but you've got to be kidding me. I'm a fan of live training and I think itis great Matt is able to get some into the combatives program, but what you just said is everyone's worst fear about using sport grappling training as a base. You avoid using your weapon to drop off of the guy into an armbar? Or a keylock from the mount? I guess I just don't get it.Jason

I'll admit I have to agree with Jason on this one about the knife thing...

BTW-

I'm not ripping on the military, the current program, BJJ, ltdan, Matt, anyone or anything else, I want to make that clear.

I think the evolution of the combatives program is interesting and I'm glad I have the opportunity to discuss the issue. Ever since I saw the new FM, I've had some rather obvious questions about it. I appreciate Matt coming here and doing this Q&A because it allows me to finally ask those questions.

Jason

Jason, thanks for the comments. I would never feel like you or anyone else who has contributed to this thread-so far-is ripping me or the military. One of the things we are trying to build in new recruits especially those who are signing up for combat arms Military Occupational Skills is Warrior Ethos: The willingness to close with and destroy the enemy without fear or at least without hesitation. Nothing builds this Spirit in my opinion like SFC Larsen's program--nothing--not pugil sticks, not the bayonet assault course or bayonet training(both of which, by the way are part of the Program of Instruction at Larsen's school). I think all would agree that anytime one pulls an edged weapon in close quarters combat, that the weapon can be used against the individual who pulls it if he doesn't know what he is doing and the enemy does. Now, that being said, back to my example, if the coward in SPR had shown up, then I would not be using the scene as an illustration of what not to do in a fight. But hey, that's Hollywood.

So it sounds like the confidence/aggressiveness/martial spirit is a large part of the training goal? Not to put words in your mouth :-)

I was curious about that since historically it seems that that is the main point of much of the earlier combatives training- inculcating a martial spirit rather than expecting that there was a substantial likelihood that they would ever use the skills taught.

Jason

ttt

In Basic combat training they are supposed to get 15 hours of training. That doesn't sound like allot, but in that amount of time they actually learn the concept of positional fighting. If you start with the assumption that they may forget every technique that you show them before they need it, what you are left with is a fighting strategy. If you understand what you are fighting for (dominant position) you are already better off. If you get mounted and have no idea what to do from there, raining punches and elbows down still works pretty well.

With all of that said, I am probably the biggest advocate of combatives training in the Army but I will be the first to tell you that we do not win wars because we are better hand-to-hand fighters. We do however win wars because of the things it takes to be a good hand-to-hand fighter.

Besides the concept of dominant position there are two things that we expect the level one students to remember when they leave here. The first is that the winner of the hand-to-hand fight in combat is the guy whose buddy shows up first with a gun. Even if you drop the guy dead at your feet with the Dim Mak, and his buddy walks in with a gun, you still loose. This is the reason that we do not actually have an army of one. It also puts a reality check on all combatives training.

The second thing we want them to memorize is that the defining characteristic of a warrior is the willingness to close with the enemy. There are too many people in the Army who think that being a good soldier means being able to run well and looking good in uniform. The bottom line is that you can be the best guy in the army at every thing we do, but if you are not willing to go through the door with me when I need you, you are worthless.

Matt Larsen

Now, that being said, back to my example, if the coward in SPR had shown up, then I would not be using the scene as an illustration of what not to do in a fight. But hey, that's Hollywood. - You still didn't explain why you would have guys try to go for an armbar or keylock instead of doing something else (unless I missed it). I don't see that as being the better option in such a situation. Perhaps its justme, but I was always trained to kill the enemy in the quickest manner possible, not damage him and drag out the fight. Employing a weapon is a better option IMHO in the infamous "SVP" scenerio (a movie which I think is extremely overused in military circles, and not just the combatives circle).

Ahh but you have missed the point. It's not about what the appropriate technique to use is in a specific situation. It's more about teaching them what their options are. You can debate whether this or that option is better or even stupid, because you understand what the options are. That is far more than most soldiers can do. A successful system educates them as to what the options are.

The central question is why, with all of the wonderful manuals that we have had over the years and thousands of martial artists spread throughout the force, the average soldier cannot even tell you what an armbar or a keylock is.

Of course it is better to use a weapon. It is better still to know how and when to use that weapon successfully.

Matt

Actually I don't think I missed the point. I certainly know its best to provide the soldier with several options for a situation (the reason we have battle drills). My point is in reference to lieutenantdan's comments about attacking a person's arms. Now I've never sat in on one of his classes, but from the phrase he posted here, it comes across as if he is teaching the new guys that it is better to go for an arm than to employ a weapon, he is possibly setting the guys up for failure.

As for your central question, that is quite eay to answer. The most soldiers dont know what an armbar or a keylock are due to the fact that outside of a few units, Combatives is given virtually no time on the training schedule. Also, it depends on what you excatly mean by the terms "armbar" and "keylock". You won't find those two techniques covered in any of the older manuals in the "BJJish" manner in which you have included in the new Combatives manual, but you can find standing variants (geared mainly as restraints). Also keep in mind the way the military loves to change terms around. Until you have the majority of the force training with one certain model you are never going to have a "uniformity" of terms. Honestly, even if that day were to occur, you will still have guys that don't know what and armbar or keylock is.

Matt-Just to bring highlight the differences, could you tell us a little about the combatives program that you went through back when you first entered the military? What it taught, how long, what everyone thought about it, etc.Thanks,
Jason

To "go for an arm" in lieu of a weapon is a strategy for failure; but, equally, to IGNORE an arm while trying to employ a weapon is really doing things the hard way. If the guy hands you an arm (pardon the pun) BEFORE you've deployed a weapon, and you take the arm, it's going to be harder for him to interfere with subsequent deployment of the weapon.

I think the point that Mr. Larsen was trying to make is that the more options you have, the more likely you'll be served an opportunity on a silver platter.