Combatives

[Erich Wagner]

This is a link to the U.S. Army Combatives manual. Some of this material was presented during the ARMA gathering by Matt Larson. Really good stuff...

[Jake_Norwood]

Most of it--and all of the stuff from the Gathering--was basic Brazillian Jiu-Jitsu.

Not that it wasn't great stuff, though.

Jake

[Randall Pleasant]

Erich Wagner wrote:[b]
This is a link to the U.S. Army Combatives manual. Some of this material was presented during the ARMA gathering by Matt Larson. Really good stuff...[b]

Link tothe manual: http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/3-25.150/toc.htm

Good stuff indeed!

[Shane Smith]

I'm with Jake,the stuff shown was very much Jujitsu with a hint of Mixed-martial-arts and no-holds-barred fighting incorporated into one effective curriculum.Focused a little heavily on the "ground and pound" in my opinion,but definitely effective...I just prefer to ground the other guy and remain on my feet when possible.I have no doubt our guys in the field can get the job done with this combative system as demonstrated by Matt.

[Erich Wagner]

I don't think Matt was promoting the opinion that going to ground was the best way to win an unarmed contest. I think he was just trying to punctuate the concept of controlling the fight. Not that old grappling guys like me don't like a good roll in the dirt.

<img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

[John_Clements]

I talked with Matt at length, he said that they borrowed a lot from them for the ground fighting essentials, but that it was also modified and that he was only showing us some fundamentals of how and why they start teahcing what they do in the Army system.

I really liked how he was able to refer it back to similarities among our Renaissance unarmed skills, especially our modern approach to training.

JC

[TimSheetz]

Hi all,

Matt quite clearly said that going to the ground was NOT the best choice... he said they start teaching it first because it is the easiest to learn.

I thought his KEY element was get to the basics: Determine what you are fighting for [Principle of WAR: OBJECTIVE]. In this case, POSITION. Almost a direct quote from him was: If the guy can't remember a lot of techniques, he will be assisted by having an objective in the ground fight.

The next techniqes covered was how to approach an adversary that was using the "default fight plan", i.e. hitting you with fists until you stop moving. It was a technique that kept you on your feet and your opponent on the ground.

For me, one of the most interesting parts of his class was the how they went about deciding what to train and how... remember the boxing experiment? Really fascinating stuff I thought.

Remember, they train with this always in mind: The guy who wins is the one who has a friend with a weapon show up first...

Peace,

Tim Sheetz

[Shane Smith]

Tim Sheetz says;"Remember, they train with this always in mind: The guy who wins is the one who has a friend with a weapon show up first... "

I say,"Well said!"

To digress a bit,the only real problem I've ever had with ground fighting is the danger of the other guy having a weapon you failed to notice(a combat folder for example) until he's sticking you in the gut with it because you were so busy grounding him that you failed to see him slip his hand into his pocket,or even worse ,a couple of buddies willing to help him stomp your guts out once they peel you off of their guy <img src="/forum/images/icons/shocked.gif" alt="" />

[Stuart McDermid]

Hi Guys,

Shane assured me by PM that this chappie was fairly impressive in the flesh but looking at his FM, I see a Mixed Martial Arts manual not a combatives text. Compare this to Kill or Get Killed available here in pdf www.gutterfighting.org or any other manual written in wartime or derived from wartime combatives and you will see a great difference.

Firstly, you will most often find that fist blows are not advised. The edge of the hand (Codex Wallerstein anyone?) The Chinjab (Fiore anyone?) and the tiger claw are the types of blows most often used.
These blows are more effective and safer for the hands than punching unless you have spent a long time conditioning your hands. (ala' BKB). Wrestling is avoided at ALL costs by concentrating on blows to limbs as well as vital areas.
Cheers,
Stu.

[TimSheetz]

HI Stuart,

I haven't looked at the gutterfighting web site, but in thinking about battlefield combatives, focusing on blows is the wrong way to go in my opinion. Note, I said "focusing" - Blows absolutely need to be incorporated into training... but put a guy in uniform, strap on his gear, elbow/knee pads, some tactical gloves, a helmet, gear strapped to his legs... and your target areas for effective blows get more and more limited.

Kicks are useful, but then you are in terrain that is likely to be rough and difficult at best so kicks may not be as readily useful as they are on a gymn floor or flat clear ground.

If I end up in a battlefiled fight and my opponent wants to try to pummel me.. I'll be in good fortune as he will most assuredly give me time for the following options: 1- draw my side arm (using the proper techniqes to prevent it from being grabbed) 2- draw a knife or machete 3- shoot him with my primary weapon 4- Beat him to death with the butt of my rifle 5- maintain position and call for help.. first guy who has a friend with a gun show up wins.

I still think that the guy who closes and grabs my helmet and snaps my neck (or totally control my head) with the assistance of the chin strap has a better chance against me than someone who wants to try to pummel me... the high collar of the body armor plus the helmet means he is likely to expend vast sums of energy and not get much payoff... meanwhile my friends are coming....

Lastly, the manual has been updated with the LONG VIEW in mind. Changing things in a 'culture' as large as the US military can be a very difficult task. This is a great step in the right direction. Combatives is getting more focus, but can only be done without taking huge sums of time from KEY training. The enemy has to get past the 'double taps' before he can use hand to hand on you. You are smarter to give marksmanship more time than h2h.

That's my 2 cents! ... or 102 cents...

Peace,

Tim

[Stuart McDermid]

Hi Tim,

I look at things like this. Fairbairn, Oneil and many of the other big WWII names held dan levels in Judo. This was back when Judo was alot more "real" than it is in these "Olympic" Times.

Taking these dan gradings in Judo along with wrestling and boxing, savate and Chinese MA experience,

Fairbairn created a system that relied primarily on blows and kicks and contained very little in the way of any type of grappling.
He essentially abandoned the majority of his martial arts training when the popular concept of a system being "martially sound" was applied.

Interestingly, even his counters to grapples used mainly blows.
His advice against a grappler was to attack the limbs, neck, face and groin with boots, fingers, palms and the edges of the hand in a relentless offensive manner.

In your example above, I would attack the eyes with my fingers.
I am not saying in this that a new combatives system can be the same as Fairbairns. Moves like a good wrestlers sprawl for example are vital which brings me to my next point. The manual is full of great groundfighting advice and shows how to get to a clinch and work from it which is nice to see as the clinch is often neglected but doesn't really work on what I would consider to be the vital factor of how to keep your feet when another wants to take you down and you don't want to go there.

I think a judo focus would be far more useful than a BJJ one if grappling is to be taught. Throwing people down whilst staying on your feet is difficult but learning to keep your feet against a relatively unskilled player is relatively easy.

I strongly suggest that anyone with any interest in combatives peruse the above site. Kill or Get Killed belongs on the shelf of any serious martial artist who practices unarmed techniques. If anyone wants more titles or some more links, contact me by PM.
Cheers,
Stu.

[TimSheetz]

HI Stuart,

Based on your last post, I think we agree more than disagree. When it is life or death all the elements come into play, and of course you can't neglect any part of the body's arsenal. Ruthlessly and sadistically striking out at your opponent's weaknesses is called for in combatives.

I am sure he did not want to go to ground at all.. hence the focus of his system. No one wants to go to ground on a battlefield.

Reference your counter to the situation in my former post... I think the better answer is to get your buddy to shoot.

Tim

[John_Clements]

Actually....Matt told us the manual was being rewritten I believe. That it was not the "bible" of their course. Apparrantly they are still having to avoid the landmines of internal Army politics with senior brass (who don't actualy attend or train) favoring their own personal Asian martial art styles. Matt's own Asian martial arts resume and background is impressive and diverse, and yet they reduced things all down to what works best and what can be taught and learned quickly for real combat survival. It was this aspect which ARMA guys ound most familiar and relate to our own source texts.

JC

[Mike Cartier]

Good ground fighting does not mean to seek to fight on the ground at all costs, it means to be aware of the realities of combat.
1st rule is of all ranges only one range is a range that can be forced on you against your will. A boxer cannot force you to box, a kicker cannot force you to kick, you can adjust your range to him if you are motivated. Grappling can be forced on you however unless you have grappling skills to counter.
With that in mind i am very much happier with this kind of combatives than the old stuff. Knife edge attacks contain no more or less power than a punch, you can also break your hand doing this type of attack.
Counting on your grappling throws to secure victory is a nice cioncept that rarely plays out well under real conditions.
ground fighting is being prepared for plan B or plan C when the first plans fail.

If you are forced into a grappling situation and end up on the bottom under a skilled opponent then you will need your ground skills to get to a safe position.
Taking a man of greater strength or a guy with grappling skills and trying to throw him will invariably leave either one or both of you on the ground whether you like it or not.

I also like the greater attention to the different fighting ranges, i good all round fighter should be able to fight in any range or situation and be comfortable enough to switch ranges to his advantage and away from his opponents advantage.
I think this goes in that direction.

By the way not all ground fighting advocates submission attempts on the ground, pankration ground skills seek a good (on top) position from which to strike the opponent out of action.
In BJJ this is reminiscent of the knee on opponents belly where you can in just a fraction of a second rain down a set of irresistable blows from a position of superior reach and balance. essentially allowing you to strike with great power, accuracy and still keep you in the safe zone where you can move to keep yourself safe.

Keep in mind that if the guy has buddies you will be in trouble no matter what type of fight you choose to engage in, its only in the movies where folks wait to punch you so you don't get blasted from behind.

[Stuart McDermid]

Hi Mike,

I look at military combatives in what I believe is a similar way to Tim. With his military experience I'm sure there will be some holes in my "civvy" logic here that he can fill.

Training in general should be conducted so that the most likely scenarios are covered first and covered well before the less likely. This is of course why CQC skills are often neglected in modern armies.

The most common battle scenario for footsoldiers would involve a group of soldiers shooting at another. Hence skills for creating and avoiding ambushes along with explosive and projectile weaponry methods would be the primary focus.

For a "non gun" situation to have occurred someone either has to have run out of ammunition, dropped their gun or needs to take someone out quietly. The former two assume that a sidearm isn't accessible or being carried and the third requires stealth, a knowledge of anatomy and a silenced weapon or a good sharp knife.

Ok now lets assume we are the guy being stalked by the knife wielder and we can hear him coming. Maybe we can shoot him with a longarm or a sidearm. Maybe we can also access a knife or machete. Perhaps we have no choice but to throw something at the guy and attack.

If we start "pulling guard", "achieving a clinch" or taking the mount then we are going to get jacked repeatedly with a blade that we are too close to deal with. As such we have to parry and strike as best we can until the other guy falls over. The same thing applies if the other guy has a bayonet fixed or if we have a bayonet fixed against a knifer. In neither of these cases is closing with our attacker a good idea.

Now the only time that wrestling might be even remotely advisable is in the extremely unlikely event that we are faced with an opponent who is obviously unarmed (are we sure he isn't concealing a weapon?) and we are on a surface where a fall won't likely be damaging and we aren't going to land on grenade or something and crack a rib.

The fact of the matter is that if two people in a fight with a little training don't want a fight to go to the ground, then it won't. The BJJ 90% of all fights end up on the ground stuff is just rubbish. If this were so then Talhoffer would be teaching armbars from the guard and mount.

Whether a civvy on the street or a soldier in the field you always MUST assume that an adversary is armed and must treat him that way even if you think he likely isn't. Mike if you think about the way you would fight for real when facing a knifer and then think about your method when facing off against an unarmed attacker and see vast differences then you are in for some difficulty. If this same chap approaches you and attacks without warning, how are you going to pick whether or not he is armed?

Think about the way that the Codex Wallerstein shows to deal with hand strikes. Does it look much different than the stops for the dagger in terms of the footwork used? I don't think so. Medieval methods move away from the dagger and only move in after securing it for a very good reason.
Cheers,
Stu.