PDA

View Full Version : New Army Combatives manual



Matt Larsen
13th February 2002, 01:38
The new Army Combatives manual is up on the Army Digital Library.

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

Matt Larsen

thumpanddump
13th February 2002, 02:59
THANKS MATT !!!!

Looks great ha !:D

George Ricard

thumpanddump
14th February 2002, 21:40
Seems to be some stuff that looks just like moves from Gracie/Brasilian JiuJitsu. (??)

Does anyone out there know who (names or styles) assisted in the compilation of the techniques?

George Ricard

Juan Perez
14th February 2002, 22:49
Gentlemen,

I happen to be in Fort Benning, GA, where the manual was developed. If you guys want answers to a few questions, just write them down in list form and I'll take them to the instructors here. I'll see if I get them to respond directly to the thread by posting here.

Also, SSG Jeff Cook, I have your Combatives FM on CD ready to mail to you, take a look at the private messages for more details. Thanks.

Juan Perez, Jr.
Captain, US Army (active)

19th February 2002, 13:07
Hi,

the groundfighting is pretty much pure Gracie Jiu-Jitsu the progression of teaching the groundfighting is almost pure Gracie progression.
Best,

-Rick

George Kohler
19th February 2002, 14:38
Hi Matt,

Long time no see. Last time we talked (1995) you were in Ft. Lewis. So now you are the NCOIC? Still telling your USMC/Philippines stories? Talk to you later.

Matt Larsen
20th February 2002, 00:15
Hey old budy. Good to hear from you. Hear is some more reading if you are interested.

http://www.realfighting.com/0102/matlar.htm

George Kohler
20th February 2002, 01:00
Hey Matt,

Received your PM and will reply to it later tonight after work. You still look the same, but with hair. Here is an old picture that should bring back memories. :)

http://home.earthlink.net/~gkohler9/_images/mattlarsen.jpg

George Kohler
21st February 2002, 09:30
Originally posted by thumpanddump
Seems to be some stuff that looks just like moves from Gracie/Brasilian JiuJitsu. (??)

Does anyone out there know who (names or styles) assisted in the compilation of the techniques?

George Ricard

Hi George,

I don't know who actually wrote the manual, but the person in the pictures (the one applying the techniques) is Matt Larsen, the thread starter. Maybe he can answer more of your questions.

thumpanddump
21st February 2002, 21:42
:D Thanks Mr Kohler (ps I read those stories of you and Mr Larsen getting into ... er .. fight.......fun times in the past :D)

Mr Larsen, are you able to help me with the following questions:
1. How the armed forces (army?) came up with these soughts of techniques as a basis for the book? ie were they developed, adopted and what made the 'upgrade' necessary from FM 21-150 to the current edition?

2. Is the old FM 21-150 for military personel now redundant for training purposes? ie is the FM 21-150 content taught anymore?

3. What sought of council was held and what sought of people (if any) were consultants/advisors to the project?

Many thanks - look forward to hearing a response.

George Ricard

Matt Larsen
22nd February 2002, 03:19
1.The new system was developed in the Ranger Regiment because the old one was a failure. Not only did the average soldier know anything about it but even when forced to train, the training was considered by most as a waste of time. It also did not reflect the needs of the modern army. For instance, how much of a butt stroke are you going to have with an M-4, or a SAW? There was also no actual system of training in place. Ask yourself, If you were a soldier, and you wanted to learn how to fight, would you have busted out the FM or would you have looked for someone to teach you?

2. FM 21-150 has been replaced and no longer doctrinally correct training.

"*This publication supersedes FM 21-150, 30 September 1992."

and also-

http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/3-25.150/auth.htm

3. I will answer #3 in my next post.

also in answer to an earlier question. I wrote the entire new FM with the exception of the parts that have drawings instead of photos. Those portions are from the 1992 version and are in revision now.

Matt Larsen

Matt Larsen
22nd February 2002, 04:04
Around 1995 LTC Stan McCrystal took command of the second Ranger Battalion in Ft. Lewis WA. And ordered a reinvigoration of Combatives training. We got out the FM 21-150 and started doing just what it said to do. The men call !!!!!!!! on something pretty quick and that is just what happened. After about two or three months we went back to the commander and told him that it was a waste of our training time, that we would rather be shooting, or rucking, or anything else that had a better return for the amount of time invested. We also told him that the manual did not reflect the current realities in the battalion. For instance, the weapons fighting portion does not reflect that in a rifle squad there are two SAWs, two M203s, and everyone else is armed with an M-4, not one of which is very suitable for bayoneting and butt-stroking. That is not even to mention all of the flashlights, lasers, and optics on them or assault slings, etc.

He told us that if it was a waste of time there must be a reason and told us to come up with a better answer. A comity was formed of senior NCOs and the various martial artists in the battalion. Represented on the committee were Bujinkan, Judo, Shorin Ryu, Shotokan, JKD, wrestling, boxing, and several others. Many of these men had been drill sergeants or Ranger Instructors and had been responsible for teaching the old stuff even before the 1992 manual. All had extensive experience in the both the infantry and the Ranger Regiment.

The first thing we did was take a look at what had been done elsewhere. We soon noticed that there were very few successful programs around. Our criteria for success were simple. The average soldier in the army had to know what their literature said they should know, and they had to produce their own experts independent of continuing outside instruction. We found that there were very few instances of successful programs in large armies, and that in most cases where there was a successful program there were underlying societal reasons that the program was successful. For instance Judo training is very common in the school system of Japan so it stands to reason that the Japanese would have an easier time than some having at implementing a program. The same thing holds true for Korea with TaeKwonDo. The biggest exception to this rule was the Russians with SOMBO. Almost alone in the world the Russian army takes an untrained populous and successfully trains them on their program. We then asked ourselves what it was about SOMBO that made them have success teaching it to soldiers. The most obvious thing was competition.

Most people begin their martial arts training because they want to learn to fight, but that is not the reason that they continue. After all, few people who train with a Katana do so because they think they may have to use it. There are other often times more compelling reasons to train. They love the history or the romance of it, or they just enjoy it. None of these is a compelling enough reason for most soldiers to dedicate the countless hours that it takes to become proficient at most martial arts. For example when I was stationed on Okinawa as a Marine, Out of the eight hundred men in my infantry battalion I was the only one who pulled myself away from the bars to train. Once again competition provides that reason.

I always ask our students "Who is the best fighter in your company?" They almost never know. I then ask them who the best runner is and they all know. Subconsciously the army has chosen running as more important than fighting. The reason is probably that there has not been any way to show your proficiency in combatives. This is why competition is important. There is more about how we intend to avoid the pitfalls of competition, i.e. a sportive focus, in the manual itself.

We then started looking around to find a way to emulate the successes of SOMBO. Our first stop was obviously wrestling. J. Robinson, the head wrestling coach for the University of Minnesota, was a Vietnam era Ranger and Steve Banach, or battalion S-3, was one of his wrestlers so he came out to help us. He gave us a bunch of great advice and pointed us in the right direction and we started looking around. After several other things we eventually sent four guys to the Gracie Academy. They came back as almost disciples of the Gracies. We however were a bit more skeptical. What we saw was that in many ways what the Gracies had was very good, but it did have some problems. First, it was oriented around one on one arena fighting. We obviously were thinking more about the battlefield, i.e. many people all with weapons, and equipment. We thought that the sportive aspects had a serious potential to change the techniques even farther away from the battlefield. We also thought that the nature of the Army would allow a more systematic approach to training than was practical in a commercial school.

It is my opinion that among the many reasons that the army has not had a successful combatives program since WWII., the two main ones are;

1. Any one motivated enough to expend the personal and professional energy to change the system probably has an extensive martial arts background and therefore has the pedagogy of his system ingrained into him. The unfortunate thing is that most martial systems come from a time when Warriors were raised and not recruited. If you were to get your recruits when they were twelve and you did not need them to be proficient fighters until they were eighteen, you would train them completely differently than if you got them when they were already eighteen. When I was a young recruit the first thing that we were taught was one hour of ukemi, and then we went straight into osotogari (otherwise known as the cross hock takedown), and seoinage (otherwise known as the over the shoulder throw) both of which are excellent techniques. Neither of which can be learned in a half of an hour.

2. The second reason is that few can see past the obvious question of what techniques soldiers need to know to the less obvious question of how do we get them to know what we think they should know. We catch allot of criticism from martial artist for teaching the ground grappling from Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. "Soldiers don't need to be rolling around on the ground", "The ground is the last place you want to be on the battlefield", "blah blah blah blah blah". The reason that we teach that stuff first is not because we think that it is a soldier's first option, or the preferred place to be, or "90% of fights etc.". The reason is that in the amount of time we have we can actually teach them something useful. From the beginning of time martial arts enthusiasts have been saying that if commanders would give more time, etc. etc. But the truth is that they will not. Commanders are under the same pressures now that they were 100 years ago and that they will be under 100 years from now. They will not give more time.
There has to be another answer, and we think we have found it.

I like to compare the way combatives used to be taught like learning marksmanship at the soldier of fortune convention. You put a guy behind a fifty caliber machine gun and its cool. He walks away motivated and it looks like training. But at the end of the day, no one showed him sight alignment or sight picture. So he didn't learn a thing about shooting. We all know that combat marksmanship is a difficult proposition. You are smoked and under stress. It is dark. The targets are fleeting, etc. etc. But no one doubts the necessity of learning Basic Rifle Marksmanship. Consider that dominant body position on the ground and the control of the range, angle and level in standup fighting are the BRM of combatives.

George Kohler
22nd February 2002, 08:21
Originally posted by Matt Larsen
Around 1995 LTC Stan McCrystal took command of the second Ranger Battalion in Ft. Lewis WA. And ordered a reinvigoration of Combatives training. We got out the FM 21-150 and started doing just what it said to do.

Hi Matt,

Thanks for the clarification, but I have a feeling that you had something to do with this. If you didn't then I'm sure you were happy when he made that decision. Hell, we were doing this back in 93. Every week, when time permitted, you had us do some kind of H2H for PT. And I think we were the only squad from our unit doing this during that time.

BTW, do you still practice Shorin ryu?

Matt Larsen
23rd February 2002, 18:49
I actually was studying Judo and AikiJuJitsu at the time. LTC McCrystal was really the one who got us going. I was still trying to teach my guys traditional martial arts at the time, and having about as much luck as every one else that has ever tied that route.

Matt Larsen

thumpanddump
26th February 2002, 02:31
In reference to FM21-150Not only did the average soldier know anything about it but even when forced to train, the training was considered by most as a waste of time. It also did not reflect the needs of the modern army.

Mr Larsen,

Were things contained in FM21-150 like the standing arm locks (figure-4, straight arm bar) and wrist twists deemed redundant for modern army applications? These soughts of techniques are more evident in FM21-150 yeah?

George Ricard

ps in reference to the photo above, do all US army personnel get issued with the same glasses?:laugh:

Matt Larsen
26th February 2002, 19:46
The thing about most arm locks that can be executed from a standing position is that are very dependent on Tai Sabaki. There is no real shortcut to learning the Irimi, Irimi-tenkan, etc that it takes to be successful in the time available. Think about how much training and experience it takes to get from executing kote gaeshi from a grab to being able to execute in a dynamic situation. Its not really a question of what are the best techniques for soldiers to know. It is more of a question of what is it possible for them to learn in the time available, and how to motivate soldiers to want to train and commanders to want them to train. I think that technically the techniques in the old manual were not to bad. I also think that it was a complete failure. The bottom line is that soldiers were not training. They never have. If they had been America would be full of experts, and Combatives would be more popular than TaeKwonDo. Also remember that the manual is not supposed to show every possible technique. It is more a doctrinal statement that shows the direction of training than anything else. Imagine what sort of book it would take to show all of the variables that can take place during a hand-to-hand encounter.

Matt Larsen

Troy White
27th February 2002, 15:25
Matt Larsen,

I admit that I was one of those guys (martial artists) out there saying; "You must be out of your mind teaching BJJ to soldiers for the battlefield!" when I first saw the new manual a week or so ago.

But, I changed my mind after your explanation! The reasons for this curriculum have a lot of merit and were well thought out! I believe it is a great way to keep soldiers motivated. The example of Sombo and the Russian military is very true and now with the new curriculum I hope to see the US Army have the same or even better success! Great job guys and Good Luck!

Jeff Cook
28th February 2002, 13:04
Matt, so I am not posting the same thing in both places, please see this link: http://www.budoseek.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1460

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

Greg Jennings
5th March 2002, 19:45
Thanks for posting. Really excellent work.

Wish figures 3-63 to 3-65 were a little brighter.

Best,

Robert Krone
5th March 2002, 22:45
http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/3-25.150/fig3-3.gif

I can't help but get the wrong impression looking at these pics. Which "army" is this manual for?:laugh: :laugh:

http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/3-25.150/fig3-1.gif

http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/3-25.150/fig3-22.gif

Elliot Harris
8th March 2002, 22:54
Matt,

Great job on the new combatives manual.

I think you have done an excellent job of outlining all the relevant points and addressing the most obvious shortcomings of the techniques you include in the manual. As an infantry officer approaching the 10 yr mark and a lifetime practicioner of the martial arts (22+ yrs judo, dan grades in others)I have had few successes in effectively integrating combatives into my regular training. Even where it was moderately successful it quickly dissappeared either when I left command, or when the key NCOs transfered. While I will not repeat what you address in your various posts I want to make some specific suggestions to anyoune who may be in a position to affect change and to simply stimulate some institutional food for thought on this subject by addressing where to go from here.

First, this manual is geometrically more userfriendly than the previous manual. Having said that I still think that virtually any combatives training will be difficult for the average joe/NCO to learn, etc... just by reading the manual.

Second, fully understanding that virtually all other METL related tasks will take precidence given a choice when allocating time and resources.

Third, Let's be honest with ourselves, while anything may be better than nothing, in a combat environment (whether it be OOTW, MOUT, etc...), these specific techniques are not the most useful or efficient (Ken Good/James Williams have the best material I have yet seen - only from the H2H tapes - but like you say, too hard to actually implement...initially). So what is this really doing for our soldiers?

I will attempt to address these in a comprehensive manner:

1 - As any serious martial artist knows, especially those who train with some variation of randori, nothing is better than a controlled free-style training session for building the warrior spirit. As any military historian/combat vet knows, when measuring an individual soldier's performance, nothing is more important than his will to fight/keep cool under fire -- warrior spirit. This is regulary discussed and accepted in virtually all levels of the military, how best to go about developing that is what is oft debated. To address this institutionally, some measure of quantifiable study needs to be shown to demonstrate specific results. Most commanders will say that is what a solid PT program will do. I concur. I also say regular (more on this later) combatives training can only enhance this. COL Robert Spear addresses this in his book on military combatives (I don't have the book or the exact stats, I believe it was an Ohara publication) in which he describes the results of a controlled study he did regarding just this. As you can guess, the group that conducted regular combatives training consistently performed better on PT and other soldier skills to include marksmanship. Presumably do to increased motivation, confidence, and overall warrior spirit.

2 - Ok, we have a user friendly manual and a reason to train, it is probably safe to say that even this is not enough to make combatives training really viable. So how do we get this going at an institutional level? The obvious next step is to incorporate a comprehensive program of progressive combatives training into schools from BCT through ANCOC and IOBC. It would be easiest to start with the 11 series MOSs as all their schools are conviently colocated at Ft. Benning. Over time this could be expanded to other MOSs as well. Either the designated combatives instructors cound recieve regular maintenance training at RTB or RTB could have a core cadre of combatives instructors who teach at each of the schools on a designated schedule. I'm sure there are other viable options as well.

3 - So I am a commander, how do I really integrate this into training without compromising the limited training time I already have? Do I have to dedicate a whole day to this? Here are some suggestions:
- include combatives in PT program once a week or so.
- consider as part of command maintenance or find some other regular day in which joes are doing little real work, and schedule 1-2 hours at the end of the day. This could easily be led by junior leaders while the senior leaders are involved in meetings/planning.
- include as concurrent training on any appropriate range/training event/while in the ISB/etc...
- NCOs may want to include an hour or so of this in their SGT's time training when appropriate/available
- This can be easily monitored if you set a quantifiable standard of training for your unit; ex. 10 hrs per month and schedule where it fits.

4 - What do I do about training on the really useful battlefield skills? This is where I think we need to look to long term -- as in years out. What SFC(?) Larson has done is provide a great and useable base of skills. Other skills can initially be trained in specific packages at at the NCO academies. Ex: any sort of bayonet related skills (with, vs., etc..., ref the Ken Goode/James Williams H2H tapes), arrest and control techniques, the list goes on. These can be incorpoarted at the unit level easily once a strong base in the other skills is built.

5 - My biggest beef with the manual is the reliance on what i understand to be BJJ terminology. While the concepts are the same, I think utilizing military terms can be more helpful in training leaders to think in combat. I will illustrate: the use of the term, "gain dominant body position", no problems with that but could more usefully be phrased as "maneuver to enemy soldiers flank/rear to gain...", the list goes on, but will quickly get off track and should be sufficient to illustrate the point.

I hope this will fuel some thought/action. And I would be clearly interested to know if this is being looked into.

Elliot E. Harris
CPT, USA

komichido
11th March 2002, 01:37
Mr Larsen
I enjoyed reading the manual on line, it was very well written and quite comprehensive. I would like to add a copy of it to my martial arts library, is it available for purchase anywhere? A quick question, In the beginning you covered several key points to being a good fighter, one of them described striking as being inefficient, did you make this statement in regards to modern combatives on the battlefield , i.e. Kevlar Vests and helmets, padded gear and weapons, or do you feel this to be true in civilian street encounters as well. I feel your statement applies to the modern battlefield, but not in every day civilian encounters. Again I reiterate that the manual was an excellent source of martial training, I just wanted a clarification on that point. Thanks again for your diligent work.
Joe Knight

Matt Larsen
11th March 2002, 04:41
CPT Harris, Thank you for you comments. Here are some things to address your points, and hopfully spur on some more thought.

1. This is the hart of the matter. Combatives training is high payoff mental training. When you have a 225lb man leaning on your head, it hurts. You quickly learn that the only way to survive is to relax so that you can feel your opponent's weaknesses and exploit them according to your training.
During our basic course, we introduce the concept of controlling the range during the standup fight by teaching them to achieve the clinch. Then, after showing them various aspects of controlling the clinch, we put the boxing gloves on and they have to achieve the clinch against someone who is trying to hit them. They soon learn that if you are tenacious, you don't get hit very much. Conversely, if you are timid, you get your but handed to you.
A film crew was in a couple of months ago on a day when we were doing ground grappling with strikes, also in the basic course. The students were doing randori with closed fist strikes to the body, and open palm strikes to the head. During all of this a female soldier got her nose smashed and came by the camera with blood all over her. The camera crew turned to me, asking "Do you get allot of injuries doing this type of training?" I answered that we often get black eyes, bloody noses, and fat lips, but that we want that sort of thing.

The bottom line is, the defining characteristic of a warrior is the willingness to close with the enemy. That is our primary training objective.

2. Our training plan is to make combatives a part of most existing institutional training.
We are already well along with this goal. As you stated above the 11 series schools were the initial step. We have already succeeded in adding our program into the POI of OES and NCOES schools on Ft. Benning, with the exception of PLDC. We are currently in the POI of OCS, IOBC, ICCC, and BCT. We are currently implementing training in BNCOC and ANCOC. Our plan is to tie the levels of our program to the soldier skill levels. We are running train the trainer courses designed oriented to each skill level. We are currently running skill level one and two courses, and the skill level three course will go on line in October. The courses are progressive, and they also teach you how to run the courses below your current level. In this way unit programs will be mostly self supporting. We will maintain a data base of certified trainers, and keep those out in the hinterland abreast of the evolution of the program through an interactive web site.

3. When we designed the program we tried to keep in mind the different perspectives from which it would need to be successful. From the commander's perspective, we wanted to have a program that was inexpensive, and didn't take training time away from other valuable pursuits. This may seem impossible but let me explain what we have come up with. From the perspective of cost, As I outlined above, we want to create mostly self-supporting programs. The only personnel that would have to travel to the schoolhouse for training would be the highest level personnel in a unit. In addition to this, our school dates for the lower level courses coincide with the graduation dates for BNCOC and ANCOC. A commander has only to authorize someone who is already at Ft. Benning to stay for the next course to have trained trainers in his unit.

The hard part is to make the training happen without taking away valuable training time. This is where competition comes in. First and most obviously competition can spur on the pursuit of excellence. Why would anyone become proficient at the old Army combatives system? Did it help your career? Did it give you any kind of recognition? Competition gives the reason to become proficient. You can now be the best in your squad, platoon, company, etc. There are some drawbacks to this system however. One of which is the focus on competitive techniques. I will address this latter. Another drawback is that spurring on excellence does very little to get those who are not motivated by competition training. Allow me an analogy. Every member of the Ranger Regt. Knows the Ranger creed, not because they are so motivated, but because there will come a day when at battalion PT they are called to say one of the stanzas in front of the entire battalion. This same principle can be used very effectively in conjunction with competition. Before I left the second Ranger Battalion, on payday activities, the battalion CSM would call out random squads to fight in front of the entire battalion. Never underestimate the power of peer pressure. If neglecting combatives training caries with it the risk of public humiliation, everyone will train. In the 75th, there is a regimental commander's directive that every ranger will train combatives weekly. With that directive and mutually supporting programs of competitions and inspections, very little time on the training schedule is needed. This is of course a simplification, but should suffice for now.

4. In our skill level three course, we will begin to teach how to integrate the techniques they have learned into the battle drills. We are also introducing them to scenario based training. This is very dependent on getting units to a proficiency level high enough to support this type of training. It is also true that this has not been tried on anywhere near the scale that we are pushing for and that the training techniques will have to evolve, as it becomes more prevalent. If you can imagine bluer suits and simunition, you can see the direction we are going. It is also true that the units METL will drive the direction that this training goes. A unit going to man roadblocks in Bosnia, for instance, will have a very different training plan than one going to conduct raids in Afghanistan.

5. I appreciate your point about military terminology. We thought that MMA/BJJ terminology had a clarity that was sometimes lost when trying to use military terms that are not always an exact fit. Perhaps we can figure it out a little better.

Mr. Knight,
The comments about striking are as it relates to the modern battlefield. If you consider that a soldier with a broken hand is a casualty, and the likelihood of injuring yourself with any type of striking attack, not to mention an enemy with body armor etc, it makes less and less sense to have striking as your primary tool.

Thank you again.
Matt Larsen

Elliot Harris
11th March 2002, 16:59
Matt,

I appreciate your response, Thank you. It is good to see that this is being taken seriously on an institutional level, at least at the school house.

One question - at what level is the level 3 course intended? Specifically with BNCOC or ANCOC, or is it openly available once a soldier has passed level 2,....?

Thanks again.

Elliot Harris

Matt Larsen
11th March 2002, 21:05
CPT Harris,
The skill level three course is for any graduate of the level two course.

Matt Larsen

komichido
12th March 2002, 02:53
Mr. Larsen thank you for your quick responce, your thought process is right on target with what I thought you were trying to convey. Lastly where can I purchase this manual, I would like to add it to my Martial Arts library.
Thanks,
Joe Knight

IchiRiKen1
12th March 2002, 06:37
SFC L:

I am a former 11C, a former 19D Drill Sergeant, but am now relegated to the soft arms of the 27D MOS. I have been doing MA for 16 years, recently picking up Modern Arnis to add to my CMA training.

When would certification be open to non-combat arms MOSs, or is such a concept not in the works? I can understand arguements against such training, but I am more inclined to believe that no matter the MOS a soldier would certainly benefit from an active role in combatives participation.

Following the recent upheavals, I can state that I have had first hand opportunity to see that the institution of such a program especially in non-combat arms environments is sorely needed.

Please advise...

SGT Matt Stone
NCOIC, Legal Assistance Office
Camp Zama, Japan

Matt Larsen
12th March 2002, 09:32
The training is not MOS specific. We have already had soldiers from every MOS male and female. Most of the students of the skill level one course are drill sergeants. In fact I have two drill sergeant leaders in my skill level two course this week from Ft. Jackson. They just told me today that graduation from skill level one is becoming a requirement to be a drill sergeant leader.

I recently had a delegation from the Japanese Self defense Force visit. We are currently arranging an instructor exchange program with them. I will probably be coming over there latter this summer to visit their school, so keep in touch. A female Captain from Zama (I don't have her name with me) was here to arrange it.

On another note, how do you like Zama? I was stationed at Atsugi for a couple of years back in the early eighties as a Marine. I used to live about halfway from Atsugi to Sigamihara. Who do you train with over there? Does Alex Mordine come down there?

Matt Larsen

IchiRiKen1
12th March 2002, 11:26
SFC L:

I will most certainly enjoy meeting you when you arrive here. Be sure to swing by the Legal Office - we are just down the hall from the G5 shop, so if you are in the main HQ building, swing by (or let me know when you get here).

As for Zama, let's just say that I really have enjoyed my off duty time. There are things about my on duty time I haven't cared much for, but it would be unsoldierly of me to beat that dead horse, even moreso to do such in a public forum like this. I will miss Japan desperately, but I am looking forward to my PCS to Fort Lewis with great anticipation...

I have met Mr. Mordine on several occasions. I can't say much about any of them, as the meetings were quite short lived. When MSG Edens was running the local club for Mr. Mordine, I had the chance to watch their training, but never participated. I have met and spoken with Mr. Mordine since his work with pro fighters began, but again that was a fleeting conversation and I doubt Mr. Mordine would remember having spoken to me. It is my understanding that he has a dojo up near Yokota, and there are some Zama personnel that train up there.

When you get here we will have to go out for sushi or yakiniku. It would be a great opportunity for me to probe your insights into the new manual and program of instruction.

Thanks for the response!

V/R,
SGT ST1

formerseal
14th March 2002, 01:34
To: SFC Larsen

Why does your manual only teach, ground fighting, not all fights go to the ground, and what do are you supposed to do until you get to the ground just sit and wait until he sits down with you and then start to fight. Do you have any type of stand up fighting. When I was with Seal 2 we had a great program IA m sure you heard of it SCARS, I feel that it was the ultimate military combatives program.

I don't feel that your new system of ground fighting will last, it lacks substance. There is a huge hole in your training philosophy.
Do you ever plan to teach striking or kicking in your new system, if so who is going to help implement that. You; I don't think so it appears that you lack the neccasary skills in that Dept. of fighting, and it also appears that you don't have any one in your facility. That has what it takes to implement it.

Seal team has several qualified instructor, that I am sure will be more than willing to teach you Army guys how to fight.

Also one last thing, I imagine it is hard teaching all those soldiers by yourself since I have read no mention of anyone else in your posts.

Erik Olsen

thumpanddump
14th March 2002, 01:43
:wave: Hi formerseal,

I believe your concerns have already been addressed in the posts above.

George Ricard :toast:

agm
18th March 2002, 23:28
Way to go Matt! I know what you have put into the new manual and I applaud what you have done. I support you 100% in your continued mission. You have once again set the example and shown that Rangers do Lead The Way! BTW, Dee sends his best. I am still in Japan. Let me know when you head this way. I am at your service for any thing you may need. JR has my contact info.
Best,
Alex Mordine
RLTW

Juan Perez
19th March 2002, 01:35
Mr. Olsen,

What was your BUD/s class number and who was your Training Master Chief for that class, if you don't mind me asking? No offense, we just get a few wannabe's around here once in a while. I'm sure you've probably ran into a few.

Matt Larsen
19th March 2002, 01:42
Hey Alex,

Good to have you on board. I should be making a trip over there soon. We'll have to get together.

Matt Larsen

agm
19th March 2002, 03:55
Roger that!
Best,
AGM
RLTW

Juan Perez
20th March 2002, 02:30
Mr. Olsen,

I find it curious that your name sounds very similar to an Eric Olson (BUD/S Class 76) who just got promoted to Rear Admiral (Upper Half) recently. You wouldn't happen to be anywhere near related to this guy?

Juan Perez
20th March 2002, 11:35
Hey, Erik (formerseal),

If you're middle name is "Sten" then, I have the e-mail address of someone from Seal Team 2 that you might be acquainted with. He told me to give you the e-mail address if you asked (and if that was your middle name, which would mean you are a Seal from ST 2). Anyway, I got his e-mail address and if you'd like it just let me know. Thanks.

Chiburi
26th March 2002, 17:51
Helsinki, Finland 03/2002

Hey,

Although the manual was very informative and interesting, I was a bit disappointed because Acrobat Reader didn't open its illustrations. The techniques were clearly explained but the explanations were seemingly intended to be published WITH the illustrations.
I wonder if this is a problem with my computer-related skills..I understood from the other replies that they'd seen the illustrations.
I didn't find any indication on the downloads page of the digital library that the illustrations would not be included in the d/l.
Is there an other site to d/l from?
Is it a problem with the program?
If anyone knows the reason (besides my skills), pls inform me!
Anyway, thanks and all the best to you.

O. Chiburi :confused:

Budoka 34
26th March 2002, 18:55
Sirs:

It's good to see that the Army is taking Individual Combatives more serious. When I went basic in 1986 we recieved NO hand to hand and a walk through the bayonet course. I recieved no individual combatives training until arriving at the 11th SFG(A) and that was unoffical.
I have seen some early footage of the gracies training the Ranger Bn., I'm still not impressed. I understand that it helps the troops feel confident but will it hold up in combat? I have fought several other ex-mil personnel in the last year who suffered from the same problems. Lots of Go, but no technique to follow it up. Your thoughts.



Budoka

Kolschey
27th March 2002, 02:22
Mr.Budoka,

If you would be so kind, please do sign your posts with your full, real name. You can set up your signature option in your profile to do this automatically.
Many thanks!

mt2k
29th April 2002, 04:40
Matt--have you ever thought about teaching the original WW2 unarmed/armed combat methods? My dad was a WW2 ranger (4th BN) and was an instructor for the last 9 months of the war. He will be in N.O. at the reunion for WW2 RBA.
There are also a few younger men still teaching these methods.
I liked the manual (Combatives) I thought that the chapter on strikes was excellent and were applicable to LEO's and civilians.

Matt Larsen
13th May 2002, 04:52
Please gentlemen put your name at the bottom of your posts.

We have actually spent quite allot of time studying the WWII era combatives, and even farther back. The infantry center library has allot of material. One of the greatest things about the Ranger Regiment is that the real heroes keep coming back. I would love to speak to your father about the hand-to-hand training and anything else.

When we started to evaluate combative systems, to be considered a success, a system had to have two characteristics. The average soldier had to know what the system designers said they should know, and the system had to produce its own experts. We have found that the techniques of a system are not the measure. It is whether or not the soldiers know them.

It is yet to be seen whether or not we will be successful, but compare the continued worldwide success of SOMBO to the small number of people who are studying WWII era Combatives. Ask yourself why for the last fifty years there has been only very limited combatives training in the Army. While I think the WWII era combatives was valuable and practical training, I also think that it was limited in its scope and vision. The system and techniques that are ideal for expanding an Army of a couple of hundred thousand into one of several million, are not necessarily the same as those that are the best for a large professional Army.

Matt Larsen

IchiRiKen1
13th May 2002, 04:58
Any word on a timeline of your Camp Zama visit?

Matt Larsen
13th May 2002, 05:08
Not yet, Big Army money decisions. We will probaly come this fall.

Matt Larsen

IchiRiKen1
13th May 2002, 05:10
I'll be out of here in late August, so if you show up after that, I regret missing the opportunity to meet you in person.

If you ever get up Fort Lewis way, swing by the JAG office and say hi... I would like the chance to meet you and pick your brains for info.

Domo!

mt2k
13th May 2002, 15:23
Matt..my dad will be at the Ranger reunion in New Orleans late in August. So will many of his old "mates." So will be some military historians who plan to interview/film those who are interested.
I understand that a few current Rangers from Benning will be on hand to escort the old timers around. (The reunion was planned for last Sept, but the WTC attack nixed most of the attendees)
The unarmed tactics that my dad shared with me saved my butt more than once during my 20 years as a NYC Court Officer, as well as on the many security jobs I moonlighted during my first 10 years. Not so much the actual techniques, but the mental attitude that he instilled in me.
I was never in the military service, but from a law enforcement/security viewpoint the WW2 methods are still very pratical. I make this statement after training in many other martial arts for the past 30 years.
I was also a good friend/student of Col. Rex Applegate of OSS/Camp Ritchie fame and I teach his pistol/shotgun/rifle point shooting methods at LEO seminars. The response has been very positive.
There are a few men in their late fourties/earlier fifties who have been studying these methods for many years who can teach the finer points of the system. (There were many variations being taugt during the war.) It really has to be learned hands on, as opposed to books/videos, to be fully appreciated.

Matthew Temkin
Temahedysa@aol.com

Matt Larsen
15th May 2002, 12:41
I am going to try to get out to the reunion. I am not sure if I will make it. We are pretty busy around then.

With certain exceptions The Camp Ritchie program is the model for what we are trying to do. We are not teaching combat weaponry and marksmanship, but there is a growing realization that the Army needs a schoolhouse to do so. It will probably not be us, but it will be closely related to us, hopefully under the same roof. Over the last ten years there has been a revolution in marksmanship in the Army. As an outgrowth of IPSC and latter IDPA a more realistic kind of training is becoming the norm. Much of it is just a refinement of what COL Applegate and his guys were doing back then. The only real differences are that with more people doing it over a longer period of time more lessons can be learned.

As far as hand-to-hand, the major challenges are motivating soldiers to train and providing a format for technical growth. It has never been the case that the average soldier was a proficient hand-to-hand fighter. The main problem is how to motivate them to train. Lets face it most people do not want to do hard physical training. There is always small minorities who are “into it” but that has historically been the limit. Competitions, both voluntary and mandatory are one way to provide motivation. Providing a technical format is much easier. The hard part is not how to train reasonably proficient fighters quickly however, but to do that and at the same time lay a bio-mechanical, technical, and tactical foundation for growth while doing so. Just as I think the guys at Camp Ritchie would have been flabbergasted if they had been able to see Jerry Barnhart shoot, I think the standard of hand-to-hand can easily be much higher.

Matt Larsen

mt2k
18th May 2002, 13:06
I have to disagree about modern methods being "better" than the WW2 approach. Especially shooting. I just returned from giving two Applegate point shooting classes at a regional training conference for IALEFI. Once again I was told by some very impressive shooters that this was the fastest, most pratical method of shooting that they had ever seen. It never ceases to amaze me how quickly--and I mean a matter of hours--the technique can be mastered.
I also did a short class on knife defenses which was also well recieved.
I hope you can make it to the reunion and meet some of the old timers. They will be happy to let you pick their brains.

Matthew Temkin

Zartosht
28th November 2003, 21:01
Sergeant,

First, thanx for the link.

Second, have you ever trained with Gunny Marero [sp] or Professor Holifield [sp]. I can't remember the spelling of their names. I trained with Holifield in McClellan when I was in OSUT in 1997, for MOS 95Bravo.

I trained with Marero for a few days at FT LVN when he came to train our SRT team in CQB techniques. I also saw him on the Tazer video ;) when we got our Tazers in.

I was quite impressed with Marero, and I had more time to train with him than I did with Holifield. Holifield seemed to be a little arrogant, but, I was in training at the time, and he's a combat vet, so how else would he have seemed at that time?

I was wondering if you had the oppurtunity to train with these men, if so what were your impressions of them? Who else have you trained with in the Army side of the house? Who would you reccomend that I train with CONUS and OCONUS? I move around the world a lot, so I'd be interested in knowing both. If you know anyone out in Asia thats worth training with, please let me know.

There is a decent group of guys in the Bangkok Fight Club in Sukumvit. I met an Italian instructor up in Chiang Mai who is an excellent fighter, but, I'm looking for something different, so if you know anyone CONUS or OCONUS who you enjoyed training with, please let me know, I'll make my rounds.

Keep your head down, and thanx in advance.

Juan Perez
29th November 2003, 00:14
Originally posted by mt2k
I have to disagree about modern methods being "better" than the WW2 approach.
Matthew Temkin

Shooting has always been a top concern in SF and, in lieu of current events, even more so. The methods and principles of yesteryear have certainly been refined to adapt to changing weapon capabilities and varied engagement distances. Advanced shooting techniques are practiced until your hand cramps and each soldier shoots several thousand rounds per week for a one month period. This takes place quarterly and is one of the reasons why SF has had such success in the recent conflicts. Adding to that, schools such as Blackwater and Mid South are also part of the training and they bring forth some excellent shooting principles and techniques. There is no doubt that these have had their genesis in the past, but they have been improved upon. There is nothing wrong with this development; it is just the natural order of things. Unfortunately, the conventional side of the house has not had the opportunity to train with this same focus and intensity on the subject of shooting. A dedicated course is indeed needed to provide them with this instruction.

Zartosht
29th November 2003, 03:07
They definately need something other than the BRM that they are teaching to the average soldier. In fact, I think the Army overall needs to start applying the "train as you fight" phrase more rigorously to all that they do.

I don't particullarly like Rummy, but, I do agree with his policies on Force relocation. They've needed to be relocated for a long time, and its nice to see that someone is finally doing it.

I would like to see an overall change in the way we do things, with more emphasis on unconvential tactics. A lot more emphasis. In case the Pentagon has not noticed, we are not fighting a conventional war, and they should have learned from the South East Asian conflicts, obviously they didn't.

John Lindsey
29th November 2003, 03:46
In case the Pentagon has not noticed, we are not fighting a conventional war, and they should have learned from the South East Asian conflicts, obviously they didn't.

I think they did. Remember Afghanistan? How long did Iraq take to fall before us? War does not prove who is right, just who is left. As for Saddam, he doesn't have much left in terms of his gene pool, homes, Army, or positive cash flow.

I think we have seen some of the most brilliant military victories of the last 100 years. Yes, we are having problems, but war is not a chess game.

Mekugi
29th November 2003, 04:11
True, the USA did whomp some hiney and they did oust the controlling forces in said countries (for the moment).

Before back-patting, there are a few problems as to what *is* left:

1) Bin Laden
2) Hussein
3) weapons of mass destruction.

These things that are left are going to be a problem later on, like you said- problems.

-Russ

PS...the link to the manual isn't working anymore....whats up?



Originally posted by John Lindsey
I think they did. Remember Afghanistan? How long did Iraq take to fall before us? War does not prove who is right, just who is left. As for Saddam, he doesn't have much left in terms of his gene pool, homes, Army, or positive cash flow.

I think we have seen some of the most brilliant military victories of the last 100 years. Yes, we are having problems, but war is not a chess game.

ulvulv
29th November 2003, 22:42
Originally posted by John Lindsey
I War does not prove who is right, just who is left.

Nice expression. Did you make it yourself?

Charles Choi
12th January 2004, 23:41
I recently discovered a link to a short clip that explains the objectives of the program as explained in person by Matt Larsen:

http://www.graciemiami.com/videos/entrevistas/rangers.wmv

Joseph Svinth
13th January 2004, 03:10
See also "Martial Arts: The Real Story" (Pacific Street Film, 2000) and "Martial Arts Meets the New Age: Combatives in the Early Twenty-first Century American Military" in *Martial Arts in the Modern World* (Greenwood, 2003).

aterventus
27th January 2004, 20:15
Hi,

I'm new to this forum, but have been following the combatives
discussion with great interest, and found it quite awesome.

Anyway, I was wondering if anyone had information about the
"Warrior Tae Kwon Do" combatives program developed by the 2nd Infantry Division in South Korea.

I recall seeing an article about it in a karate magazine a couple of years ago, and then coming across occasional mentions of it on Army websites.

I was looking for information regarding the techniques they teach,
POIs, suggested training schedules and so forth.

Steve

Matt Larsen
2nd March 2004, 12:53
The TaeKwonDo program was the initiative of one brigade commander. His intent was mostly to more fully integrate the KATUSAs into their units and make the soldiers more aware of the Korean culture. Of course there are obvious PT benefits.

The program survives in Korea, but there is no bleed over into the rest of the Army because the reasons to do it do not exist outside of Korea.

Matt

IchiRiKen1
29th March 2004, 22:01
Mr. Larsen -

I have been endeavoring to implement Combatives training IAW the manual in my office. Thus far it has been fairly successful (though given the our MOS - 27D JAG - the motivation level has been less than stellar), but I had a few questions regarding my understanding of some of the information in the manual, as well as wanting to get your take on our program.

Could I contact you via official email so I can pose these questions to you? My personal email is wolfden68@hotmail.com if you care to email me there so we can exchange official email addresses...

0853517
28th April 2004, 19:55
This manual is a copy of the brazilian manual.....

George Kohler
28th April 2004, 20:00
0853517,

Please sign your posts with your full name. It is E-budo policy.

MMA Combatives
30th April 2004, 06:09
Great job Matt. As a long-time practicioner of MA, and a Ranger (2/75 1979-81 and Ranger class 1-81) I'm glad to see my alma mater has come around to reality. It is a difficult task to train soldiers, especially in combatives. I've seen many a day at Fort Benning (If you see Monica in Public Affairs tell her "MAC" said hello), and the revamp of the program will instill a martial spirit into America's best. Certainly, it will make them better prepared for if needed.

Kevin McIver
CPT, IN (U.S. Army Retired)
Rangers Lead the Way

ninjaman
10th May 2004, 22:26
Can´t axcess the download page for the manual. Is it only available from within the U.S, maybe? Is this some sort of clever trick to stop us foreigners from spying on your new secret combatives system? ;-)

Can anyone make the manual available, somehow? Would be interesting to check out.

Johan Grönwall
(of Sweden, a friendly country)

JGApprentice
10th May 2004, 23:32
Hi, just wondering what sort of manual or techniques are our MARINES using these days to teach combat? Thanks.

George Kohler
11th May 2004, 01:50
Originally posted by MMA Combatives
Great job Matt. As a long-time practicioner of MA, and a Ranger (2/75 1979-81 and Ranger class 1-81) I'm glad to see my alma mater has come around to reality.

Hi Kevin,

Wow, another Ragnar on E-Budo. Great to have another on here on E-Budo. I'm from 1/75 (90-94, Class 4-92) and was a team leader in Matt Larsen's squad (he was my squad leader) before he left for 2/75 in 94.

Also, you might know the owner of E-Budo, John Lindsey, since he was in 2/75 during your time. He was there in Cco 78-82.

aikihazen
12th July 2004, 20:04
Originally posted by George Kohler
Hi Kevin,

Wow, another Ragnar on E-Budo. Great to have another on here on E-Budo. I'm from 1/75 (90-94, Class 4-92) and was a team leader in Matt Larsen's squad (he was my squad leader) before he left for 2/75 in 94.

Also, you might know the owner of E-Budo, John Lindsey, since he was in 2/75 during your time. He was there in Cco 78-82.

And I was there from 1979-82 in B 2/75 Ranger Class 14-81. I also spent time on the Batt Hand to Hand Demonstration Team with Russ Preston ( Who I am still in contact with to this day) and Sam Edgar among others.

As a long time practioner myself (Karate, Tang Soo Do, Judo, A bit of JuJitsu, and now Aikido).... Some of the best Combatives I have ever seen were taught by none other than the RAD (Ist Sgt later CSM George C Conrad) out in the quad. He did not know jack about the Martial Arts. We strung up barbed wire and practiced "dirty fighting taijutsu" along with bayonets, sticks, rocks and plenty of kicks in the balls.We bled all over the place. The man knew how to fight (You serve Three tours as a Ranger in Vietnam and you would know how to fight too.LOL). Combatives are all about one thing... killing and/or rendering combat ineffective your enemy as quickly as possible using any means at "hand". Killing a man face to face is not as easy as it looks in the new manual. I hope the some where today a Ranger First Shirt has his Rangers out in the Quad and is making them bleed all over the place. :) Manuels don't instill spirit... only hard no nonsense training will. Good to meet all of you.

Does anyone here besides me know about the SF Operator who was awarded the Silver Star in the Stan by rendering a Talib or two "Combat Ineffective" using hand to hand? The citation was posted in THE DROP a few months back. Hopefully today's Hand to Hand Instructors are using it as an example of the need to know this stuff and train for it.

William Hazen

Sharp Phil
13th July 2004, 19:23
A Critical Look at FM 3-25.150 (http://www.themartialist.com/0604/criticalfm.htm)

aikihazen
13th July 2004, 19:39
Excellent Review Sharp Phil, and I also agree that taking out almost all of the combat proven Applegate, Fairburn Sykes techniques and replacing them with very dubious at best BJJ inspired grappling will do more harm than good. The Applegate, Fairburn Sykes Curriculum was developed to teach a large group of civilians with no exposure to the martial arts and train them to kill quickly and efficiently. Those techniques are just as valid today as they were 60 years ago and it is sad to see them tossed out. Perhaps the demographics were a factor in changing the curriculum. I would like to assume that more kids today are exposed to the Martial Arts in general with that number being even greater in allied Special Operations Forces. Perhaps the folks who wrote this set the basic Martial Arts knowledge baseline much higher then in the previous FM's hence the reason for all the BJJ inspired grappling.On a side note I just smile when folks ask me way I spend so much time with my Bokken,Jo,and Katana. The reason is obvious to me.

William Hazen

Jeff Cook
14th July 2004, 14:59
It's a bit more complicated than that, gentlemen.

I agree that the last version (FM 21-150) has techniques more appropriate to combat than the current version. Unfortunately, though, the Army was not teaching it. I realize that you guys probably don't know this.

I have had this discussion with Matt over the last few years, and what he says make sense, considering the political/training climate in the Army. This is it in a nutshell:

Leaders had no interest in teaching combatives per the old manual, thus it never got taught. Now that there is a competitive element, they have MUCH interest. It appeals to the macho "my-unit-kicks-more-!!!-than-your-unit" mentality.

So, now the troops are getting SOME training, as opposed to NO training. Seems that we are ahead of the game now.

Also, most troops that get involved in the combatives seek out additional training to make themselves more combat-effective.

Besides, you have to realize that there is almost a ZERO chance that the average troop will get into a CQC situation with the enemy. There is a measurable chance that he will get into some sort of law-enforcement contact through Operations Other Than War (OOTW). The current manual is more appropriate for OOTW.

The units that have a higher probability of engaging in CQC (i.e. special operations) usually have a budget to seek training resources OUTSIDE of the influence of Army Combatives, and do get that more-combative-oriented training.

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

aikihazen
14th July 2004, 16:31
Mr. Cook,

Although I agree with your explaination once again the Army's logic in creating a new system makes no sense. Grappling has no place in OOTW. No major L.E. Department in the country would use it. If the logic behind using it is to build team work and get Unit commanders to teach something rather than nothing well that kind of P.C. "let's make War fun!" is dangerous considering that in the kind of OOTW operations we see all units facing in OIF and OEF.

William Hazen

Hissho
14th July 2004, 18:36
Originally posted by Aikibu


Grappling has no place in OOTW. No major L.E. Department in the country would use it.

William Hazen

This is utterly and completely untrue.

aikihazen
14th July 2004, 18:42
Originally posted by Hissho
This is utterly and completely untrue.

I await the facts to support your statement. To clarify BJJ has no place in any Major LE curriculum that I know of. However I have to no problem learning otherwise.

William Hazen

Jeff Cook
14th July 2004, 19:45
Guys, this is important stuff, and I appreciate the civil argument.

BJJ has a VERY large following in the LE community. I could spend all day pointing you toward sources to confirm that; it would probably be quicker if you google it. My BJJ school has a significant number of local LE officers who attend. Various Gracies are contracted by various law enforcement agencies, teaching seminars for them around the country with taxpayer money. The local LE academy in Sarsota, FL teaches BJJ.

I don't see it as the Army "creating" a new system of combatives. Essentially, we did not have a system of combatives; we only had a field manual that was not being used, taught, trained.

Again, commanders know that there is almost no chance at all that his troops will have to engage the enemy in CQC. But there is a chance that it is of some use for OOTW (referring back to the LE argument). Also to reiterate, special units receive additional special training.

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

aikihazen
14th July 2004, 20:06
Mr. Cook,

If thats the case then I stand corrected... However, there is still in my mind a major differance between BJJ and Combatives. In a L.E. atmosphere submission and control are the primary goals Deadly Force is a last resort. In combat and insurgency these goals are in most cases reversed. I have heard many anecdotes from my Ranger,SF, and SEAL buddies about how difficult it has been for the reserve and PC L.E. MP's and Security Contractors to adjust to a War Zone.Building Aggressive Spirit is one thing and I am all for it. Combatives are about killing.The jury is still out on if this new way of doing things will accomplish BOTH of the Army's Objectives.

William Hazen

Chuck.Gordon
14th July 2004, 20:12
Originally posted by Jeff Cook
Leaders had no interest in teaching combatives per the old manual, thus it never got taught. Now that there is a competitive element, they have MUCH interest. It appeals to the macho "my-unit-kicks-more-!!!-than-your-unit" mentality.

So, now the troops are getting SOME training, as opposed to NO training. Seems that we are ahead of the game now.

Also, most troops that get involved in the combatives seek out additional training to make themselves more combat-effective.

Besides, you have to realize that there is almost a ZERO chance that the average troop will get into a CQC situation with the enemy. There is a measurable chance that he will get into some sort of law-enforcement contact through Operations Other Than War (OOTW). The current manual is more appropriate for OOTW.



Well said, and worth repeating.

Chuck
In Graf, listening to the boys play with things that go BOOM.

Hissho
15th July 2004, 16:40
I can't comment on the military application.

RE: LE however:

Other than what Jeff has contributed:

LAPD is the agency that did the study documenting the extent of grappling encounters occurring during police confrontations. After this they instituted a curriculum based heavily in ground grappling tactics (some better than others I might add). Over the next few years they realized a reduction in suspect injuries, officer injuries, lawsuits, and time off for injury claims at at time when attacks against officers grew more violent.

Then there is LVNR, a Judo based DT method involving takedowns and ground tactics, proven extremely effective in practical application starting in Kansas City and now moving through the country.

ISR matrix is a clinch and ground grappling based LE method devised by a police officer and a bouncer with extensive background in wrestling, judo and BJJ.

Hell, even the latest issue of SWAT magazine contains an article about a grappling system for LE which, after railing against the "jujitsu guard" and the "clench" and NHB fighting shows clinch work and ground grappling that is clearly adapted from the clinch and ground stuff common in any judo, BJJ, or sub wrestling club today.


The point is law enforcement has realized, and rightly so, that real fighting involves a great deal of clinching and groundwork (moreso for cops since apprehension is the goal in the vast majority of situations - but in my experience responding to all manner of assaults and fights and interviewing participants and victims, at least 40-50% of violent situations involve one or both parties on the ground with the fight continuing.) Watch a number of "car cam" videos of officer involved altercations, and especially in the most dangerous/lethal confrontations a large percentage of them spend some time on the ground.


Of course what we are talking about is not straight mat-style judo, BJJ, sub wrestling or what have you. ANY fighting art has to be adapted to the REAL weapons based close quarters environment and it has to be applied in a manner that will successfully deal with everything from the arrest of a low risk, uncooperative drunk elderly person to a multiple assailant ambush by gangbangers.

Most people have little or no experience actually doing so with their art, and no frame of reference for what various close confrontations at different levels of force (in civil life at least) are actually like. Even less do they understand the realities of police response to the same kind of thing.

Suffice it to say, a LOT of grappling happens. Standing in the clinch and on the ground whether on top or on the bottom. A thorough grounding in strategies and tactics based in judo, BJJ, and wrestling, adapted for the realities of "the street," is a very strong component of police control and survival training today.

Sharp Phil
27th July 2004, 18:42
Speaking as an informed civilian and not a member either of law enforcement or the armed services, and setting aside the increasing militarization of law enforcement agencies, the purpose of a police force and the purpose of a military are different. The military fights wars, at least ideally (let's not get into "police actions" and "peacekeeping missions" and such), which means you've got two or more groups of people meeting for the specific purpose of killing one another and wrecking their stuff. A police force, by contrast, does not set out to "kill the enemy" if it can help it.

Whether BJJ specifically applies is a separate argument, but grappling/locking/control skills most certainly do apply to law enforcement environments, I would think. If this same manual was presented as a training document for, say, Military Police, I might feel differently about it.

Jeff Cook
27th July 2004, 20:00
Phil, I hear what you are saying, but let me make you into an even more informed civilian. ;)

The US military, for better or worse, has multiple roles. Killing people and breaking their stuff is one role. We have guns and things that go "boom" for that.

The other roles are civil affairs, humanitarian, peacekeeping, tactical law enforcement (among others). Breaking people's stuff and killing them may seem a bit inappropriate to the folks we are "helping." Thus skills involving sub-lethal force are QUITE necessary for today's modern US military.

We may not like it, but we gotta learn to love it!

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

Joseph Svinth
28th July 2004, 03:32
You also need to look at the Rules of Engagement. For example, let's say you're a Marine Security Guard assigned to the local embassy. Under the usual Marine Security Guard rules of engagement, then you can usually use chemical weapons (CS, Mace, and pepper spray) or a nightstick with suitable provocation. However, shooting somebody, for any reason (to include being shot at) without first obtaining approval from the ambassador, chief of mission, or regional security officer is a court-martial offense. On the other hand, if you're a Marine off the USS Tarawa assigned to provide external protection to that same embassy, then you need a field grade officer's permission to use pepper spray or CS. At the same time, however, you can probably shoot people under the same conditions under which the Marine Security Guard would have been authorized to use the chemical weapons. Finally, if you're the Marine sniper assigned overwatch on the roof, then, depending on the situation (Mogadishu, say), you may be allowed to reach out and touch someone at 1000 meters simply because they happen to be pointing a gun your way.

Joseph Svinth
28th July 2004, 03:48
Some links on such topics, if you're interested. http://www.specialoperations.com/mout/usmcmouta.html

IchiRiKen1
1st August 2004, 20:18
Originally posted by Sharp Phil
Whether BJJ specifically applies is a separate argument, but grappling/locking/control skills most certainly do apply to law enforcement environments, I would think. If this same manual was presented as a training document for, say, Military Police, I might feel differently about it.

I used to be Infantry (God how I miss those days sometimes... for all of about 3 minutes!), and I used to be a Reserve Cavalry Drill Sergeant (when we learned the previous method of Combatives and were told we didn't need to be SMEs to teach it...), but now I'm a Military Paralegal NCO surrounded by soldiers that are more clerk than soldier. The "Warrior Ethos" being pushed by the Army is more foreign to them than anything you could think of.

But they picked up the basic drills of the Combatives program that Matt Larsen put together extremely quickly. They are able, each and every one, to clinch with the opponent, take them down, achieve the mount, pass the guard to achieve the mount, roll them into a rear mount, and apply a number of chokes (all of which have the potential for lethality). Compared to some of the more aggressive units that do this training at least weekly if not several times a week (we only do it once a month, and have done so for about 5 months), our soldiers would get eaten alive. Against untrained opponents, however, they would run the show.

Bear in mind that the Army has specific training requirements - things like "low cost," "safe to train," and "low skill maintenance investment." There are SO many other things we need to train on at any given time, hand to hand combat simply isn't high on the list of things to work on (especially given the oftentimes high amount of maintenance work required for more traditional training).

I was skeptical at first. Then I started working with it, and am now pursuing certification as an Instructor so I can set up our battalion's program (since there isn't one yet). I will admit some of my own training is leaking through, but the basic fundamentals are strictly Army doctrine.

Believe it or not, the Army does know what its doing, even when the grunt on the ground or the civilian on the street can't make heads or tails of it.

Joseph Svinth
1st August 2004, 21:32
Some historical background on both MCMAP and Army Combatives appears at http://www.realfighting.com/issue7/josephframe.html .

Sharp Phil
1st August 2004, 22:22
But they picked up the basic drills of the Combatives program that Matt Larsen put together extremely quickly. They are able, each and every one, to clinch with the opponent, take them down, achieve the mount, pass the guard to achieve the mount, roll them into a rear mount, and apply a number of chokes (all of which have the potential for lethality). Compared to some of the more aggressive units that do this training at least weekly if not several times a week (we only do it once a month, and have done so for about 5 months), our soldiers would get eaten alive. Against untrained opponents, however, they would run the show.

Bear in mind that the Army has specific training requirements - things like "low cost," "safe to train," and "low skill maintenance investment." There are SO many other things we need to train on at any given time, hand to hand combat simply isn't high on the list of things to work on (especially given the oftentimes high amount of maintenance work required for more traditional training).

I was skeptical at first. Then I started working with it, and am now pursuing certification as an Instructor so I can set up our battalion's program (since there isn't one yet). I will admit some of my own training is leaking through, but the basic fundamentals are strictly Army doctrine.


I don't doubt that anyone can learn to do these things. I question their applicability in military combat, though, expecially compared to the utility of earlier curricula.

Ken Allen
11th August 2004, 20:00
Is the previous manual available anywhere, maybe even online?

Joseph Svinth
12th August 2004, 01:55
Yes, previous editions are available online. Go to Google, and as your keyword search, use FM 21-150.

IchiRiKen1
12th August 2004, 02:43
Originally posted by Sharp Phil
I don't doubt that anyone can learn to do these things. I question their applicability in military combat, though, expecially compared to the utility of earlier curricula.

The most recent previous edition of Combatives is/was essentially identical to the current version minus the groundfighting methods. I think the stand up information has been strengthened and streamlined, and the improvised weapons information is better, but beyond that it is pretty much the same.

The version from the late 60's - early 70's was awful. I was taught to teach that when I attended Drill Sergeant school and was told flatly that I didn't have to be a Subject Matter Expert (SME) in order to teach it... The fact that it was all easily defended against and potentially hazardous to the user seemed lost on everyone concerned. I'm not sure what "utility" you think this variation had, but I can tell you first hand there wasn't any to speak of.

Officially, the Army has only had a few approved versions of HTH training. Certainly there was the WWII stuff, but that was 60 years ago and hasn't been "official" in a very, very long time.

What is the utility of groundfighting in combat? Not much if you look at it from a MA standpoint. However, for those of us who are vets here, we can all attest to the very real possibility of simply losing your footing causing you and a potential opponent to hit the ground. Once there, what to do? As has been illustrated so many times, if a person's training fails to at least orient them to a particular hazard, they will lock up and fall victim to that hazard when first confronted with it. One of the purposes of military training isn't so much to make you an expert in the performance of a particular skill, but rather to provide you with sufficient familiarization to allow you to recognize the situation and identify some possible answers to the problem.

That's what Combatives training provides.

Anyone who has ever done individual tactical movement with full gear can attest to the difficulty of a simple combat roll to the left or right with canteens on your hips. Now think of the difficulty of doing the same thing with your opponent in the mount or guard... Pretty tough. Not impossible, just tough.

The mottos of the Combatives school needs to be remembered, too... "The winner of the fight is the one whose friends with guns arrive first." They have no illusions of making Bruce Lees out of every soldier, just to provide them with one more tool...

Lastly, there have been quite a few reports in the Army Times about the use of Combatives to de-escalate some situations in Iraq. The attorney in charge of my office was in one such situation, and it was well documented. Is GJJ applicable in "combat?" Well, no more than anything else not designed with military gear in mind. But the entire program of stand up transitioning into a takedown to neutralize the enemy is working the way the Combatives team intended it to...

Sharp Phil
12th August 2004, 02:56
I am not arguing against the acquisition of groundfighting skills. I am questioning the applicability of emphasizing it above all else in the curriculum.

Soulend
12th August 2004, 10:37
Jeff pretty much hit the nail on the head. When people think of military H2H, they tend to think of stomping skulls under boot heels on the battlefield. But the military is tasked with a wide variety of roles today, and booting out teeth in every situation a la L.I.N.E. isn't appropriate.

I haven't read the Army manual, but our MCMAP contains quite a bit of groundfighting and non-lethal techniques as well.

areusafe
23rd November 2004, 23:53
HiYa Group,

Hey Soulend,

Do you know if the MCMAC manual is available on the web?

I appreciate it.

Chris Watson
3rd December 2004, 15:13
As an 11B in OSUT in '87 we were fortunate(?) to have had a 3 or 4 day segment on the combatives. In my case, I'd already spent two years as a student of Jack Hoban and was bored out of my skull.

My favorite point in time out of those 3 days was when the Drill said "Watson, *let* him throw you!" and then when it was my turn taking my partner about six feet in the air before I helped him land safely. (I did quite a few pushups for that stunt...)

One of the issues back them with the Army was it's perverse sense of risk-aversion. I never understood how I as an 11B and a block down from the 2nd Batt couldn't do combatives, while the guys there were beating the piss out of each other.

Has the army finally come to terms with training the Infantry to *fight*? IMHO, If this were the case then SCARS and the other programs in Army SOF wouldn't be necessary.

Joel Simmons
12th December 2004, 22:39
Aloha,

I didn't read any of the posts prior to mine, so forgive me if this is redundant.

I just completed basic training at Ft. Sill. The Army's hand-to-hand combatives program is a joke. We spent one Saturday afternoon doing a horrible re-hash of "Brazilian Jiu-jitsu" in a sand pit. I'm sorry, but techniques devised for ultimate fighting or whatever are completely useless for soldiers hunkered down with a crap-load of equipment. It was pitched to us as superior techniques over anything else because it is used in no-holds barred matches. Yeah, well all those guys in UFC or whatever are in mahu tights slipping around on a mat.

Anyway...I was extremely disappointed with the extent of hand-to-hand training at basic. Now, maybe it's different for infantry guys, rangers or SF...but as a base from which to work with and to rely upon for 99% of your soldiers...pray for us.

aikihazen
12th December 2004, 23:19
Originally posted by hawaiianvw67
Aloha,

I didn't read any of the posts prior to mine, so forgive me if this is redundant.

I just completed basic training at Ft. Sill. The Army's hand-to-hand combatives program is a joke. We spent one Saturday afternoon doing a horrible re-hash of "Brazilian Jiu-jitsu" in a sand pit. I'm sorry, but techniques devised for ultimate fighting or whatever are completely useless for soldiers hunkered down with a crap-load of equipment. It was pitched to us as superior techniques over anything else because it is used in no-holds barred matches. Yeah, well all those guys in UFC or whatever are in mahu tights slipping around on a mat.

Anyway...I was extremely disappointed with the extent of hand-to-hand training at basic. Now, maybe it's different for infantry guys, rangers or SF...but as a base from which to work with and to rely upon for 99% of your soldiers...pray for us.

Hang in there Joel. There are some Army Vets here (including me) who are skeptical as well and hopefully the Army's "New Combatives" Doctrine will go through constant improvement. Take the time to get up to speed on the posts here (some of the Army folks here have a say in how the training developed) and make sure you make the most of every training opportunity especially bayonet training. It sounds like you're in a Non-Combat MOS and if that is the case rumor has it the boys in the puzzle palace plan to place a new emphasis on "combat soldier first" training for non-combat MOS's. My prayers are with you and your buddies.

William Hazen
B 2/75 Ranger C 3/12 SFGA(R) 1979-1994.

IchiRiKen1
13th December 2004, 01:55
Originally posted by hawaiianvw67
I just completed basic training at Ft. Sill.

What's your MOS? Are you Artillery, or did you just do BT at Sill?


The Army's hand-to-hand combatives program is a joke.

In what particulars, and upon what previous training do you base your assessment? I'm not trying to ding you on your opinion, I'm just curious what you are comparing Combatives to...


We spent one Saturday afternoon doing a horrible re-hash of "Brazilian Jiu-jitsu" in a sand pit.

One afternoon would imply to me a 4 hour block of instruction as an introduction/familiarization to Combatives. It certainly was by no means intended to make you even remotely competent, but rather to provide you a very rudimentary base upon which your training at your parent unit will build...


I'm sorry, but techniques devised for ultimate fighting or whatever are completely useless for soldiers hunkered down with a crap-load of equipment.

By reading more in this forum, you'll find that Combatives isn't intended to turn you into a UFC champion, nor a BJJist, but rather to provide you with tools you can use regardless of the situation you find yourself in. A soldier MUST have tools that enable him/her to deal with all eventualities (by either being situation-specific, or able to be modified/adapted to fit the situation). As such, by presenting stand up striking, stand up grappling, ground fighting/grappling, weapons use (stick, pole, E-tool, bayonet, etc.), and situation training, the soldier is fully familiarized with numerous contingencies.

The official motto of the Combatives School is "the winner of the hand to hand combat fight is the one who's buddy shows up with a gun first." Bruce Lee you ain't, nor is the Combatives program intended to turn you into Bruce Lee...

As for the Combatives' program failing to address training with equipment, please realize you've just finished BASIC training... You still have yet to undergo any training at your permanent duty station (assuming you are active duty and not reserve component). It'll be addressed if your trainers are competent.


It was pitched to us as superior techniques over anything else because it is used in no-holds barred matches. Yeah, well all those guys in UFC or whatever are in mahu tights slipping around on a mat.

To your average, non-MA trained Joe, by telling them that the techniques have modern use, modern application, and have been tested in a public forum, you will have won the "mental fight," and passed the hurdle of convincing them that the techniques can/will work. Because of safety considerations, you simply cannot have soldiers breaking each other's noses, arms, legs, etc., nor can you pummel each other to your heart's content... Strength management plays a big part in coordinating training; you don't want the entire platoon on sick call because of one training session. There is still the daily work that needs to be accomplished...


Anyway...I was extremely disappointed with the extent of hand-to-hand training at basic. Now, maybe it's different for infantry guys, rangers or SF...but as a base from which to work with and to rely upon for 99% of your soldiers...pray for us.

Bear in mind, Young Trooper, that the Army is not an entity that engages the enemy in hand to hand combat as the primary method by which to control the modern battlefield. Your rifle, your mortar, your artiller, your air support, those are the primary weapons of modern combat. Combatives exists to bridge the gap between certain levels, as well as providing training for application in "Operations Other than War," something we engage in far more frequently now than ever.

Be patient, Grasshopper. The Combatives program is mandatory for ALL soldiers now (by DA directive), but as with any large organization, change will ripple through the ranks slowly.

Where are you stationed?

Joel Simmons
14th December 2004, 02:59
Alohas,

I do understand that the Army's combatives course is intended as an introductory course during basic training. However, I find it disappointing when compared with other military forces' hand-to-hand training (I.E. - IDF).

I have my fair share of MA training prior to the military and it does give me a good perspective from which to make a judgement call on some of what they teach us. My main concern is that they are not taking into consideration the fact that most soldiers will be restricted in movement by the clothing and equipment that they are wearing. It seems they are just teaching techniques or throwing around terms such as "Brazilian jiu jitsu" in order to win the "mental fight." Well, that's great and I'm glad BJJ has been tested in the ring, but what about when you're loaded down in an LBE, kevlar, ruck and who know's what else...?

Anyway, my MOS is M.I. I'm here at Ft. Huachuca, AZ. Most of my training is focused on the tactical side of M.I. not the strategic.

rodgerd
14th December 2004, 03:54
Originally posted by Jeff Cook
The other roles are civil affairs, humanitarian, peacekeeping, tactical law enforcement (among others). Breaking people's stuff and killing them may seem a bit inappropriate to the folks we are "helping." Thus skills involving sub-lethal force are QUITE necessary for today's modern US military.And the difference between subduing and killing said people will probably have a direct correlation to how many US soldiers end up dead as a result of car bomb, sneak mortar attacks, et al (see: Vietnam, Iraq).

IchiRiKen1
14th December 2004, 04:14
Originally posted by hawaiianvw67

I do understand that the Army's combatives course is intended as an introductory course during basic training. However, I find it disappointing when compared with other military forces' hand-to-hand training (I.E. - IDF).

And what is it that they do that is so significantly different? What is it they teach to their raw recruits, new soldiers with little to no prior training, that will fit into the minor niche that HTH plays with modern soldiers?


I have my fair share of MA training prior to the military and it does give me a good perspective from which to make a judgement call on some of what they teach us.

What did you train in, how long, and with whom?


My main concern is that they are not taking into consideration the fact that most soldiers will be restricted in movement by the clothing and equipment that they are wearing.

Yes, they most certainly are. Introductory instruction, as well as basic technical instruction, are conducted in BDUs in order to build basic familiarity as well as providing a safe learning environment. Once a relative degree of mastery is achieved, applying the exact same techniques with full "battle rattle" is next. Train how you fight, right? I'm sure you've heard that at least once or twice... ;)


It seems they are just teaching techniques or throwing around terms such as "Brazilian jiu jitsu" in order to win the "mental fight." Well, that's great and I'm glad BJJ has been tested in the ring, but what about when you're loaded down in an LBE, kevlar, ruck and who know's what else...?

There have been several articles in the Army Times, as well as quite a bit of word of mouth testimony (some from my OIC who is recently returned from Iraq), relating that Army Combatives is being used often, and has proven itself more than sufficient for the tasks at hand.


Anyway, my MOS is M.I. I'm here at Ft. Huachuca, AZ. Most of my training is focused on the tactical side of M.I. not the strategic.

And given your MOS, I'd suspect that few, if any, of your comrades are "certified" by the Combatives school to instruct combatives. Further, I question whether, without you driving the train, your battalion would even consider initiating a Combatives program. Of course, it is a DA directive, but until and unless they impose a drop dead date for certification and training completion, it'll be politely ignored... At least until someone with sufficient collar weight comes by and shows an interest in the training.

Had I not pushed the issue with my SGM, and had my SGM not been receptive to the program, our office never would have been exposed to Combatives at all beyond BT.

Joel Simmons
18th December 2004, 02:01
Aloha Mr. Stone,

I agree with the "train how you fight" quote, that's why I wonder about doing combatives in only BDUs and not in full "battle rattle." Then again, like you said M.I. may not get a whole lot of combatives training depending on the specific field. However, there are certain M.I. MOS' that will receive that training. FYI - all our Drills here are infantry guys, there's not enough M.I. Drills to fill the demand anymore.

I don't mean to knock Army combatives too hard, but in comparison to the IDF, which trains their IET soldiers to a similar extent that many of our professional infantry and special ops guys are, basic training Army combatives seems a bit lacking. Then again, the Army is friggin' huge...so maybe it's just a logistics problem.

You have a personal message.

IchiRiKen1
18th December 2004, 23:12
Originally posted by hawaiianvw67
Aloha Mr. Stone,

Aloha.

[QUOTE]I agree with the "train how you fight" quote, that's why I wonder about doing combatives in only BDUs and not in full "battle rattle."

Again, initial instruction is done only in BDUs so that soldiers can get accustomed to the basic techniques. Once they are familiar with the basic techniques, they can be exposed to the unique nature of trying to execute them while encumbered with LBV, helmet, boots, etc. It is easier to modify how a technique is performed when under less than ideal circumstances when that technique is known and understood under ideal circumstances... If you know the technique only partially, or hardly at all, you won't be as enabled to modify it, accounting for restrictions, than if you knew it much better. Does that make sense?


Then again, like you said M.I. may not get a whole lot of combatives training depending on the specific field. However, there are certain M.I. MOS' that will receive that training. FYI - all our Drills here are infantry guys, there's not enough M.I. Drills to fill the demand anymore.

I'm not trying to denigrate any other MOS, just pointing out that some MOSs have a greater inclination toward certain types of training than others.

Am I to understand you are still in BT/AIT? Boy, things have changed since when I was in BT... Internet access??? Hell, we couldn't even buy a candy bar...


I don't mean to knock Army combatives too hard, but in comparison to the IDF, which trains their IET soldiers to a similar extent that many of our professional infantry and special ops guys are, basic training Army combatives seems a bit lacking. Then again, the Army is friggin' huge...so maybe it's just a logistics problem.

Mind you, I'm not saying that Combatives is the be all/end all of HTH combat. Hardly. It does what it is meant to do - provide training for use by soldiers, sufficiently detailed to allow a soldier to improvise in combat, but not so technique intense to require an inordinate amount of time to provide proficiency development.

I've been studying martial arts for 19 years. I'm still studying, still training, because there is much I have yet to learn. Combatives isn't intended to make "Bruce Lee," just to provide a soldier with some rudimentary skills. Similarly, we teach first aid but we know that a soldier won't be a field surgeon because of his training...

kroh
17th February 2005, 13:37
HOLY HUGE THREAD!

I just finished reading through and there are a lot of opinions going back and forth. I am a former Army guy (a real one not the little green plastic version) and was not inside when the army starting revising the hand to hand stuff. From what I see now, my friends that are still in and playing greasy ( rng-bt, group, and a few friends who cook...Much love to the omlettes Vin...) have told me that the new army combatives (Congrats on the program Mr. Larsen) is a step in the right direction about keeping their soldiers physically fit and more active. Let's face it, even in infantry style units for my time in, I still saw some chunky boys around the block...failing pt tests and getting processed out ( I still curse the day I got transfered to Bragg, but hey, at least I met some cool people).

However, one thing that they did note, a friend of mine who was 18d (don't know if the MOS numbers are the same, I got out in '95, he got out in 2000) and the only MA guy in the military that I knew said that alot of his playmates sought training elsewhere to augment what the army was showing. Is this common for guys who want something more complete than just grappling training to seek outside instruction? Or are most of them content to wait untill the combatives instruction reaches that level?

DO you ( this is addressed to Mr Larsen and the other currently active duty personel on the board) feel that this training inspires people to seek outside training as a means to become a more complete unarmed combatant?

Have you seen an increase in other attributes (attention to detail, better riflery, more agressive posture during manuevers) as a result of this training ( which I think would be a benefit of the increased confidence caused by such a program)?

Thank you in advance to answering my questions and I appreciate your time.

Regards,
Walt

hjnorris
21st May 2005, 16:58
Several combat veterans from Afghanistan and Iraq have relayed that enough men were lost due to the over emphasis of ground fighting in their close quarters combatives training, that they stopped training it altogether and went back to older more tried and true combative methods.

Loose lips sink ships, so I won't provide any details online. PM me if you want to discuss in private.

I'd like to ask if anyone in the military has addressed this issue now that the ground fighting combatives have seen real world combat and been rejected by the soldiers.

I am not trying to start a flame war, either.

Regards,

Henry Norris
Raleigh, NC

Jeff Cook
21st May 2005, 18:19
That's odd. Upon reviewing the FOUO DOD-restricted portion of the Center for Army Lessons Learned website, I see many references to the efficacy of the current combatives program:

"Integration of combatives, grappling, take-downs, and boxing will instill the discipline and technique required for successful unarmed dealings."

Also, an OIf/OEF AAR lists modern Army Combatives as the fifth highest priority for training for those theaters.

(The CALL website is dedicated to after-action reviews, among other things.)

I'm not saying there aren't some AAR's critical of the program; I just can't find them. And, H2H encounters are rare, and when they happen one must analyze the events to decide if the system of training is inadequate or if the soldier just didn't know what the hell he was doing. Compare this to poor marksmanship in the heat of battle; was it a failure of the weapon, or a failure of the marksmanship training? That has to be looked at carefully.

Something smells fishy.

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

Joseph Svinth
21st May 2005, 20:59
Personally, I wouldn't recommend striking someone wearing full battle rattle in the chest or back with a bare hand, as those plates in the body armor are going to be hard on the hands. Kevlar helmets and impact resistant goggles could be hard on the hands, too. Even knees are often rubber-armored.

So, my guess is that you're hearing Urban Myth.

D Dempsey
21st May 2005, 22:03
The main people who I hear complaining about the new combatives program are non-grapplers, and a large majority of these people aren't even in the military. While the system isn't perfect it is far far better then the older combatives system we used.

Jeff Cook
21st May 2005, 23:31
Personally, I wouldn't recommend striking someone wearing full battle rattle in the chest or back with a bare hand, as those plates in the body armor are going to be hard on the hands. Kevlar helmets and impact resistant goggles could be hard on the hands, too. Even knees are often rubber-armored.

So, my guess is that you're hearing Urban Myth.

Joe, I'm guessing we are hearing trolling. There is no need to take this to PM, Mr. Norris. It is quite easy to discuss this publicly without compromising OPSEC. What commands were these troops assigned to, how many deaths are attributed to this, how much training in combatives did the soldiers involve actually have, etc.

Also, referring to it as "ground fighting combatives" is a true indication of the nature of your trolling attempt. Ground fighting is only a part of combatives. It includes a broad curriculum of standup technique, field expedient weapons, etc.

If you are not trolling, prove me wrong with solid info, and I would be happy to apologize publicly for accusing you of such.

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

TonyU
22nd May 2005, 00:07
If you are not trolling, prove me wrong with solid info, and I would be happy to apologize publicly for accusing you of such.

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu
Somehow, I doubt you will have to.

Joseph Svinth
22nd May 2005, 23:19
Now here's a thought. If this isn't a troll, then by name, who died doing H2H? There is a list of the known dead at http://www.militarycity.com/valor/honor.html . They even include photos.

Once we know who, by name, died doing H2H, it should then be easy enough to track down more details.

The Army gives more detailed direct accounts than does the USMC. Fortunately, the combatives program under question is Army specific. Going back a few months, I see:

* Lots of improvised explosive devices near vehicle or patrol
* The occasional RPG or small arms fire striking the deceased's vehicle, position, or person
* The occasional motor vehicle accident (driving into a ditch, collisions, etc.)
* The occasional helicopter crash
* Non-battle related reasons (disease, etc.)

No H2H casualties, though.

Anyway, I only looked at a couple of months of casualties. So, maybe they're there. But, if they are, then the risk caused by somebody not paying attention during H2H training is definitely far lower than the risk caused by somebody not paying attention during motor vehicle/aviation maintenance.

Juan Perez
23rd May 2005, 16:49
Now here's a thought. If this isn't a troll, then by name, who died doing H2H? There is a list of the known dead at http://www.militarycity.com/valor/honor.html . They even include photos.

Once we know who, by name, died doing H2H, it should then be easy enough to track down more details.

The Army gives more detailed direct accounts than does the USMC. Fortunately, the combatives program under question is Army specific. Going back a few months, I see:

* Lots of improvised explosive devices near vehicle or patrol
* The occasional RPG or small arms fire striking the deceased's vehicle, position, or person
* The occasional motor vehicle accident (driving into a ditch, collisions, etc.)
* The occasional helicopter crash
* Non-battle related reasons (disease, etc.)

No H2H casualties, though.

Anyway, I only looked at a couple of months of casualties. So, maybe they're there. But, if they are, then the risk caused by somebody not paying attention during H2H training is definitely far lower than the risk caused by somebody not paying attention during motor vehicle/aviation maintenance.

Well, most of you guys know my line of work within the military and I haven't heard anything about it. Believe me, if one of our boys traveled to Valhalla in this fashion, we'd know about it being that the community is so small and tight knit.

PS - I love the new look of the site.

Jeff Cook
23rd May 2005, 17:15
Good to have you back, sir!

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

hjnorris
23rd May 2005, 23:05
If you are not trolling, prove me wrong with solid info, and I would be happy to apologize publicly for accusing you of such.
Hi Jeff,

I'm not trolling. I may have been in too much of a rush with my origninal post. What proof can I possibly provide?

What I have are statements from members of the 82nd Airborne who served in Fallujah, some of which are trained boxers and grapplers.

hjnorris
23rd May 2005, 23:07
I'm not saying there aren't some AAR's critical of the program; I just can't find them.
Wouldn't this be like the kiss of death to a soldier's career if he did report this?

hjnorris
23rd May 2005, 23:15
Anyway, I only looked at a couple of months of casualties. So, maybe they're there.
Can you check 82nd Airborne, specifically up to and including Falluja?

Juan Perez
23rd May 2005, 23:40
Can you check 82nd Airborne, specifically up to and including Falluja?

PM me which brigade of the 82nd, if you don't feel comfortable writing it on an open forum. One of the current brigade commanders is a personal friend of mine.

Jeff:

How are you, soldier!? PM me about what you've been up to. I've been out of "the net" for a while due to both extensive training and deployments. I'll be able to check out the web for the next week, or so. Right now I'm enjoying the perks of modified grooming standards and relative anonimity where I'm at. Take care, bro.

Juan Perez
23rd May 2005, 23:49
Wouldn't this be like the kiss of death to a soldier's career if he did report this?

I'm confused here. Are you implying that it would be the end of a "soldier's career" if he reported that his buddy might have died, or been maimed on the ground while grappling with an insurgent? Or, if a soldier reported that ground fighting almost got him killed? Believe me, I've seen worst things reported about more critical things (faulty ammunition, vehicles, CQB techniques, etc).

I can see it now at the E-8 Board: "Yeah, this E-7 won't do." "Why?" "He doesn't do well on the side mount." File goes onto the "no" basket.

hjnorris
24th May 2005, 00:26
Are you implying that it would be the end of a "soldier's career" if he reported that his buddy might have died, or been maimed on the ground while grappling with an insurgent?
No. I'm saying an E4 would never be critical of a system or method (to an officer) that had become standard training practice, even if everyone he knew saw it had issues.

Troll Basher
24th May 2005, 02:16
As of last year all Army Units are required to learn H2H, Matt correct me if I am wrong on this since I am just repeating what I was told.
Because of my MA background I was asked by the by the base C.O. and Command Sgt. Major (former Special Forces) of Camp Zama to teach H2H to several Units in the Army here in Japan, these would include the C.I.D. as part of their PT. This might sound kind of kool but I knew the CSM of Zama well so it was a favor and I was by no sense of the word an “official instructor” nor do I claim to have taught Special Forces or any other elite unit. It was just a favor since I worked for the Athletics Office at the time and they wanted to incorporate that into their daily PT.
Anywayz…..the “New” Army manual looks a hell of a lot like the Marine Corps. Combatives Manual just with an Army book Jacket on it.
Since I was familiar with some of the techniques in the manual I agreed to teach them and threw in some of the stuff I had been taught by my instructor just for fun. Oddly enough I was reprimanded by an E-8 for being too rough with the several of the soldiers. I explained I was “authorized” to be rough with his "little darlings" by his C.O. and CSM to do so.
The techniques are more geared towards detaining and controlling, similar to police type techniques, rather than killing them……let’s face it takes a lot to kill someone with your bare hands. In my opinion if you lose your weapon in a war you are in a world of s****

Joseph Svinth
24th May 2005, 04:51
Remember that Speedy Four who stood right up there in front of God and CNN to ask Rumsfeld, to his face, why they had to take apart wrecked Humvees for armor plates? He's a lot more common than you think.

John Lindsey
24th May 2005, 05:35
Well, this thread has taken an interesting turn. I haven’t heard anyone talk about or train in the Army’s new system that much. It is the USMC martial art system that gets talked about mostly. I don't think many of the Army people even know they have a system.

Most incidents I hear about are soldiers clearing buildings and coming upon the Bad Guys up close and personal. Rifle butt strokes and pistol whipping seem more common than figure four arm locks. BUT, restraining techniques are used quite a lot.

Honestly, there are not a lot of Bad Guys who will fight it out with you without a weapon. It might be a cultural thing or a lack of training, but they either give up or run away. The foreigner fighters are a bit more dedicated to the cause (mostly Saudis it seems these days) and will fight to the end. So, in this current conflict, it seems that unarmed conflict is not seen that much..

Iraqis are masters of rock throwing though..

One common situation is when you have to chase someone down who is trying to flee, most notably after dropping their weapon or being caught trying to steal something. Pursuit and takedowns from the rear are often the result. One interesting tid bit is that if you are chasing someone wearing sandals, as if often the case with the locals out in the country, they reach a terminal velocity in which they cannot run any faster without their sandals flying off, and resulting in a decrease in their speed and then their capture.

Butt strokes and barrel jabs are great techniques stil.

hjnorris
25th May 2005, 16:05
Remember that Speedy Four who stood right up there in front of God and CNN to ask Rumsfeld, to his face, why they had to take apart wrecked Humvees for armor plates?
The press coached him, in that instance. Doesn't our bloviating Congress set the number of Humvees that are produced?

IchiRiKen1
19th June 2005, 04:33
Yep. The Army is now required to have all soldiers trained and certified to level one proficiency (of four levels) within the next few years. It is a mandatory part of training, and is part and parcel of the Army's transformation and integration of the Warrior Ethos.

I've conducted classes at Fort Lewis for my office and a deploying unit (with the help of a close family friend that is sandan in judo and has about 10 years of BJJ behind him as well), and am looking forward to training in it here in Korea as well. Though I'm not much of a grappler, I've used what I learned in the 6 basic drills a number of times against people my size and a little larger that decided taking me to the ground during training was a good idea. It is a good program when people fully understand the Army's concept behind it - it is NOT to make you a deadly hand to hand fighter, but to instill a fighting spirit, a desire to overcome, a drive to win. The Army Combatives school's official motto is "the winner of a hand to hand fight is the guy who's buddy gets to the fight with a gun first." That about sums it up.

Level 2 certification apparently involves having some guy with boxing gloves try to take your head off as you attempt to grapple him only. I'm looking forward to that day...

Jeff Cook
19th June 2005, 14:20
Matt, sorry I missed you in Korea; I was there a few months ago for RSOI (Osan AB).

Matt, the "clinching drill" (actually a "punching drill") is a part of the test to get certified to instruct Level 1, although they do not want you to teach the clinching drill to Level 1 students.

Take care brother.

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

TonyU
19th June 2005, 14:28
Hey Jeff, I think a cut and paste of Mr. Stone's opinion would be order.
Don't you think? With his permission of course.

ARH
19th June 2005, 14:50
Yep. The Army is now required to have all soldiers trained and certified to level one proficiency (of four levels)...

What is involved in the fourth level? The last I heard several months ago was a fourth level was planned, but I have never read what it consists of.

Asia
30th June 2005, 23:55
What is involved in the fourth level? The last I heard several months ago was a fourth level was planned, but I have never read what it consists of.

I will be going to the course to find out what level 4 entails. Right now I think its more weapons work but I'm not sure.

Lonewolfjujutsu
5th July 2005, 17:05
Thought I would add to the post,

While I am not with the Army anymore, I am enjoying my last 18 months with the Air Farce, I can say that I am a bit disappointed with the whole grappling thing being taught in the Army. While it is better than nothing as was the case for many years in rear area ops units,it is still not the best method as currently taught.

I tried to justify the Rangers quest with developing this system and the only justification that I could come up with is that they ( rangers) work in a team. What I mean if I tackled my adversary and pinned him to the ground then I would expect my ranger buddy to come over and stab or shoot my adversary. It works if you out-number your opponent.

The current training does not work one on one or if you are out-numbered.
But as I said it is better than nothing. I guess. Still disappointing.

Old style WW2, H2H was much better.

Ed

Chuck.Gordon
5th July 2005, 17:56
Hey Ed,

I agree, I think the older FM was far more 'complete'. However, as I said earlier, at least the kids are actually TRAINING this system, and my experience has been that instructors are filling in around the edges quite a bit.

The old FM was great, but it simply didn't get taught. Sad, but true.

Oh, and by the way , please (per forum rules) use your full name. You can add this in your sig if you wish.

Chuck

IchiRiKen1
6th July 2005, 13:59
Hey Jeff, I think a cut and paste of Mr. Stone's opinion would be order.

Hell, what did I say??? I don't think I said anything that necessarily bears repeating, and nobody needs my permission to do anything...

I've been here in Korea for nearly 2 months now. The Division apparently takes their TKD pretty seriously, enough that there is a "Warrior TKD Team" with nice, official looking hats and shirts. It appears to me that they travel around to units, don their Adidas TKD outfits (complete with warm up jackets), and "instruct" units in TKD.

:rolleyes:

There are quite a few guys doing Combatives here, at least the ground work. It isn't uncommon at all to ride around post during Sergeant's Time Training and see clusters of soldiers in BDUs and sneakers rolling around in the grass. There are a few that go to the gym and roll there as well.

Unfortunately, my office being what it is (no jokes from the vets, either...), I'm not holding my breath until we start training. I'd pass out long before it happens... :rolleyes:

I'm going to do what I can to get some training going... I just picked up the Division Level 4 Instructor's phone number today. Gonna have to make a call...

hoshizawa
15th August 2005, 22:10
Now here's a thought. If this isn't a troll, then by name, who died doing H2H? There is a list of the known dead at http://www.militarycity.com/valor/honor.html . They even include photos.

Once we know who, by name, died doing H2H, it should then be easy enough to track down more details.

The Army gives more detailed direct accounts than does the USMC. Fortunately, the combatives program under question is Army specific. Going back a few months, I see:

* Lots of improvised explosive devices near vehicle or patrol
* The occasional RPG or small arms fire striking the deceased's vehicle, position, or person
* The occasional motor vehicle accident (driving into a ditch, collisions, etc.)
* The occasional helicopter crash
* Non-battle related reasons (disease, etc.)

No H2H casualties, though.

Anyway, I only looked at a couple of months of casualties. So, maybe they're there. But, if they are, then the risk caused by somebody not paying attention during H2H training is definitely far lower than the risk caused by somebody not paying attention during motor vehicle/aviation maintenance.

Just to help out,

Last year in the 1st Armored Division a soldier from 2/6 Infantry (2nd Brigade) died during what was called combatives. This was not during combat operations but in the FOB.

The guy supposedly had a heart condition and that's what killed him. This spread some rumors I think about combatives deaths in Iraq. I remember very well, my class was shut down due to General Dempsey forbidding any units to conduct combatives training of any kind for some weeks.

There was a memo distributed about it. Later it was announced that combatives training was authorized but with many constraints that were almost impossible. The company commander had to be present for all training was one, and risk assessments had to be sent up through the Brigade channels and blessed off before any training conducted and a certified combatives trainer had to be present (which I think a certain level of instructor had to be present too). I will be in Baumholder tomorrow so maybe I can find out the name of the soldier and find the memo for what it's worth.

For the record there is very little or no focus on combatives at the moment over here, though I have heard of units starting it up again. Typical of Germany though. I am an Army combatives instructor and have not been able to teach since I left Ft. Lewis in 2003. As stated, it's part of the newest mandatory concepts of deployment prep, though that seems to depend on the unit unfortunately.

Asia
17th August 2005, 02:30
Just to help out,

Last year in the 1st Armored Division a soldier from 2/6 Infantry (2nd Brigade) died during what was called combatives. This was not during combat operations but in the FOB.

The guy supposedly had a heart condition and that's what killed him. This spread some rumors I think about combatives deaths in Iraq. I remember very well, my class was shut down due to General Dempsey forbidding any units to conduct combatives training of any kind for some weeks.

There was a memo distributed about it. Later it was announced that combatives training was authorized but with many constraints that were almost impossible. The company commander had to be present for all training was one, and risk assessments had to be sent up through the Brigade channels and blessed off before any training conducted and a certified combatives trainer had to be present (which I think a certain level of instructor had to be present too). I will be in Baumholder tomorrow so maybe I can find out the name of the soldier and find the memo for what it's worth.

For the record there is very little or no focus on combatives at the moment over here, though I have heard of units starting it up again. Typical of Germany though. I am an Army combatives instructor and have not been able to teach since I left Ft. Lewis in 2003. As stated, it's part of the newest mandatory concepts of deployment prep, though that seems to depend on the unit unfortunately.

I was still in Germany and I didn't see this memo or heard about this. I continued my weekly combatives training with now problem, and the CO wasn't always there. If you find out more info on this I would like to know. While you are at the ROCK look up a NEIL CHITWOOD (LT type so speak S L O W L Y). I left 1AD 2BDE just before they moved out. Can't say I miss the place.

hoshizawa
17th August 2005, 09:01
The incident happened around December 2003 while we were downrange not in Germany. The memo was distributed there and circulated throughout 2BCT, CSM Santos and Col Baker enforced it at the time. The 1SG of HHC 2nd Brigade even interupted my class to inform me.

Once again this happened in Baghdad, when 2/6 IN was down south near Tuwaitha at their FOB on the airbase.

Asia did you leave in early 2003 or when they moved out recently for training? The units at the rock are currently in training (whole BDE), so getting the name is gonna have to wait. I think I might get it by google due to I heard the family was pretty upset at the Army also, though it was proven he had a heart condition well before the Army, so he should have not been in the first place, unfortunately.

Asia
18th August 2005, 14:01
I left in late 2002, so a few months before the offically rolled out for Iraq. I was up at 2BDE S6. SGT Taylor, if he is still there is one of my old joes. CSM Santos was the CSM at 1/4 Infantry before I pcsed there.

I was intrested in this because I was doing alot of work to try to push doing combatives and competeing in BJJ, Sub Grappling, and MMA all together. Thats why I did this article (http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=26457&archive=true) for Stars&Stripes so units and MWR would support sodliers going out to learn more.

Chuck.Gordon
18th August 2005, 15:16
Heya LeTerian,

Some of your groundwork (pun intended) may be paying off. There was a meeting here today with several trainers from Hohenhells and Graf with a guy named van Fleet (I think), discussing setting up some training up to (IIRC) level 4.

I'll keep you posted.

cg

hoshizawa
18th August 2005, 16:45
Hi all,

I have found out so far the soldier's name is SPC John P. Johnson and was assigned to A Co 2/6 IN, 2BDE, 1AD. The incident happened after training and he supposedly died the next morning due to a heart condition.

I spoke with an NCO who came to my class last week and he stated that 1AD is thinking or trying to get SFC Larsen out for the division set-up, but he hadn't figured the rest of the details. Mr. Van Fleet was in another Stars and Stripes recent article about a month ago in the Manheim area I believe. Looks like things are picking up again as stated.

I have been contracting through MWR here in Germany to units (non divisional or DA civilian types mostly) teaching combatives also. I focus more on weapon retention, draws, target aquisition, and doing all combatives armed and/or restraint techniques. You don't go anywhere downrange without a weapon, so we start with response drills to unarmed assailants and progress. In the course I do use current Army combatives towards the end, due to the main focus being armed and wearing gear. Just about all of the drills end in weapon drawn scenarios with weapons trained or firing on the assailant. Lots of awareness training as well, especially with the multiples possible downrange.

*ps this is not a plug for the courses I run*

Asia
19th August 2005, 03:20
Excellent! At least my work has bore some fruit.

The Van Fleets pcsed from here. I first saw Christine when she fought Debi.

GreySilk
2nd September 2005, 20:22
Is the link suppose to take us to a restricted military site??

CoyoteG
22nd January 2006, 19:23
as an Active Duty E7 with a Martial Arts background I applaud the Army in trying to bring back an effective H2H system. What I've seen here is a "Flamming" of the use of grappling so predominately in the Army system so I'll address that first.

It's actually fairly easy to take a 19yo PVT and teach him a Jab, Cross, Hook, and uppercut....and front snap and side kick....and then take him and start combining those 6 techniques into a fairly effective means to defend himself/herself....teaching distance, timing, and combinations doesn't take a rocket scientist. On the otherhand.....teaching grappling takes actually a little bit of time and knowledge....people tend to freeze when they are pinned to the ground.... they tend to "Quit" when pinned to the ground and are pummled at the same time....it's important to teach soldiers not only NOT to quit but that in that kind of position they can overcome and "Win".... that kind of "Lesson" applies to other places in combat as well....it instills the "warrior spirit/ethos" after showing 150 Pvt Snuffy that he can defeat a 180lb NCO....it is instilling confidence as well as teaching technique.

After THAT has been done then it's time to pull full kit on and "Relearn" the techniques....to see how they apply with an EXTRA 50lbs....for the attacker to be almost "Clean" as an Iraqi/Afghani would be in a MOUT situation...to show the need for PT to move that kind of extra weight around for prolong periods.

THEN you start combining the techniques from the standing position at 50% with gloves and headgear and show them how the fight can start with both combatants standing and progress to both combatants on the ground rolling around in about 2 seconds.

Has there been very much H2H in Iraq/Afghanistan???...Probaby more between soldiers as they try to deal with stress than between actual combatants on the "Field of Battle".....does that mean that we should then stop training "Combatives"???...Hell NO....it teaches/instills a lot more in soldiers than a couple of self-defense techniques.

What we've added into the mix of combatives is using your weapon for less than lethal applications....take the barrel of your M4 and violently thrust it into the chest of a Man running at you will take that person off their feet and probably take some of the starch out of them...take that same barrel and bring crashing down on the wrist of someone holding a stick and the stick will probably end up on the floor.

As soldiers practice and impliment this H2H training, they will weed out what is ineffective, add techniques, and figure out where in their "Kit of techniques" this needs to be filed....but please don't attack an active duty E7 (SFC Larsen) for trying to fill a void that the Army neglected to fill for Many years....

George Kohler
22nd January 2006, 22:09
but please don't attack an active duty E7 (SFC Larsen) for trying to fill a void that the Army neglected to fill for Many years....

Is he still an E-7? I thought he has been promoted. Both Matt and I go back since early 90's, before he started the combatives at 2nd Ranger Bn. He was also my squad leader before he left 1st Ranger Bn and moved to Ft. Lewis.

CoyoteG
22nd January 2006, 22:21
Is he still an E-7?
I'm only going by what I've seen printed in THIS Thread....he's been addressed as a SFC more than a couple of times....NO it doesn't seem right that a 11B ranger that's served in Regiment and as an instructor would Still be an E7....but I've seen stranger things happen in the Army....LOL

Robert Cheshire
22nd February 2006, 15:02
Is there a way for non-military to view this info? I have students in law enforcement that are very interested in this sort of training and I wanted to see what else is out there to compliment what we do. I also wanted to see what format this is taught to the military. My thinking is it would work in a similar fashion with police officers.

Any other suggestions would be appreciated.

George Kohler
22nd February 2006, 19:01
The book is out on the web. I think Matt placed the link at the beginning of this thread. Also, you could find out if anyone from the National Guard in Nac has trained in it.

Robert Cheshire
22nd February 2006, 19:04
I tried the link at the begining of the thread and it took me to the begining page for the training, but, said I needed a user name and password. I figured this ment it was for military only.

I'll have to check out the local national Guard.

Thanks as always George!

Anybody have it on a PDF?

George Kohler
22nd February 2006, 22:18
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-25-150/

Should help

Robert Cheshire
22nd February 2006, 22:43
That worked - thanks again George for all of your help!

mt2k
1st April 2006, 03:55
Is Matt Larson still onboard here?
My dad and I just returned from a visit to the Ranger training unit at Ft. Benning and was trying to say hello to him.
We will be going back to Benning soon to attend one of the Ranger graduations and to watch the Ranger In Action demo.
Matthew Temkin

George Kohler
1st April 2006, 09:44
He shows up every once in a while.

Have fun watching the show. They made us watch it when I was in Ranger School (graduate 4-92).

If you see him, tell him I said hello and to stop telling his Philipines stories.

Matt Larsen
4th April 2006, 02:10
mt2k e-mail me at:

president@moderncombatives.org

I would love to meet you guys and bring you by the school if you have time.

mt2k
8th April 2006, 11:53
E mail sent.
Both myself and my dad are looking forward to meeting you and visiting your school.
And, even at 82, my old man can still demo some of the WW2 methods.
Matthew Temkin

K_Dawg
17th August 2006, 04:47
Matt,

I have been a fan since I first learned of the Combatives program in late 2003 at Ft McCoy , Wi. My Instructor was SSGT Donald Hennemen. I was a graduate from the Level 1 Program in early 2004 right before we were deployed to Iraq. I am extremely interested in staying active in Combatives training even though I am not in the Military anymore. I was injured while serving and am not able to be in the Army but have rehabilitated enough that I want to continue with my training. When my gear was shipped back to the States my Certificate of Completion and my Combatives Manual were lost. Even though I may never get my Certificate back I would greatly appreciate a copy of the new FM manual. I wasn't able to get it off the site address you posted. If you could send me a copy or a CD rom with the manual on it it would be greatly appreciated.

Thank You.
Joshua Shane Kies

uscollins
24th February 2007, 13:45
I was VERY disappointed with the new Army combatives manual. Basically, its fine for a ring or dojo, but ridiculous for quick killing in close quarter's fighting. Grappling, Gracie Jujitsu, etc. are practical for SOME law enforcement situations but will get you killed in real close quarter's fighting.

The last thing I want to have happen is my buddy rolling around on the ground with a guy trying to get a choke to work (which is what most soldiers seem to do after receiving the combatives training). You just don't have the time to choke-out some jerkoff. Getting into a clinch is too dangerous, slows you down, and will get you a bayonet in the back from your enemy's buddy.

I found Jeffrey Prather's close quarter combat course extremely lethal, practical, easy to execute, and designed with the reality of close quarters combat in mind, not some over-hyped, hollywood-blessed, latest-fad martial art.

Ar Ramadi Vet

Jeff Cook
24th February 2007, 22:09
Your post is absolutely amazing, Jeff. Amazing for the ignorance you display about what the program truly is (again, it is NOT the manual), and amazing because it totally ignores the validity of the program - verified through actual combat in an actual combat zone.

Have you bothered to read any CALL after-action reviews, or the many successful anectdotes of US Army soldiers who have survived H2H encounters and loudly proclaim that they owe their life to MACP training? Furthermore, have you seen a SINGLE anectdote of anyone who has been killed or injured because they responded inappropriately based upon their MACP training???

Just trying to figure out where your disgruntled opinion is coming from, as it does not reflect the REALITY of this particularly successful program.

Jeff Cook

Jeff Cook
8th June 2007, 02:10
Hmmmm. Months later, and I am wondering if "Jeff Collins" is actually "Jeff Prather," as his ONE AND ONLY post on E-Budo is to put down MACP and promote a civilian program....

Jeff Cook

IchiRiKen1
8th June 2007, 03:00
Well, I finished Level 2 certification back in April. Great class, absolutely amazing instructors, and great camaraderie amongst the students.

I was a skeptic years back, and I thought the grappling craze was going to burn out eventually... It's still here, and I confess to being a convert.

The MACP is exactly what the Army needs... It isn't about "quick killing" like some of these folks seem to think a) exists and b) is capable for a typical Soldier. It's about allowing a Soldier to fend off a potentially stronger, better prepared opponent (whether that's the reality or not), until a buddy gets there to lend a hand. I have several females in my office, quite petite, but even against the larger, male Soldiers they manage quite well to forestall any of their attempts at submissions (or anything else) with little effort... Seems to work just fine.

George Kohler
8th June 2007, 13:00
As far as I know Jeff Prather is Arizona. The actual post was posted from a state on the other side of the US.

Jeff Cook
8th June 2007, 13:24
Roger that, George. I am suspicious of one-post wonders who slam a program to promote another, however. Thanks for checking the IP.

Jeff Cook

Asia
11th July 2007, 01:09
Well, I finished Level 2 certification back in April. Great class, absolutely amazing instructors, and great camaraderie amongst the students.

I was a skeptic years back, and I thought the grappling craze was going to burn out eventually... It's still here, and I confess to being a convert.

The MACP is exactly what the Army needs... It isn't about "quick killing" like some of these folks seem to think a) exists and b) is capable for a typical Soldier. It's about allowing a Soldier to fend off a potentially stronger, better prepared opponent (whether that's the reality or not), until a buddy gets there to lend a hand. I have several females in my office, quite petite, but even against the larger, male Soldiers they manage quite well to forestall any of their attempts at submissions (or anything else) with little effort... Seems to work just fine.
Didn't I tell you prior to this that you will be assimilated too?

Now get your butt to the All Army this year. I will be bringing a team but I don't know if I will compete. I report to OCS after it and don't want to risk injury, but hell I might just do it anyways.

IchiRiKen1
11th July 2007, 02:41
Asia,

Y'know, our conversations go back quite a ways... I remember the first time we reminisced about your time at Camp Zama all those years ago. I also remember my resistance to MMA-related anything. I have to say now that, having been exposed ever so slightly to "the program," I'm a dedicated convert. However, even though I recently got my permanent profile changed from a 313111 to 112111, I think I'm a little too old, and with too much mileage, to be stepping onto the mat with Soldiers far younger and in better shape than me...

I'm heading off for a 6 month "business trip" on Saturday. When I get back, I'm going to start doing a little training at Marcelo Alonzo's dojo near Fort Lewis (not actually "near;" it's relative), as well as training with my daughter at Chaisai Muay Thai a little north of here. Of course, I won't abandon my Yiliquan training at all - it's brought me this far, and has been of great utility even during Combatives work - but I'm at a point where "assimilation" of as much new material as possible is my constant focus.

Good luck at All Army, good luck at OCS (you traitorous bastard). With luck I"ll actually get to meet you face to face one day... And great job on the video at "that other forum." I laughed my !!! off...

StephenMWyatt
7th November 2007, 06:28
When are they going to either put it BACK, or put it on a ".pdf" document, so I can download it?

Jeff Cook
7th November 2007, 11:40
Stephen, you are in luck. You can go to my webpage and download it, along with the USMC manual. Edit: see post below

Jeff Cook

Kotev
7th November 2007, 19:53
Stephen, you are in luck. You can go to my webpage and download it, along with the USMC manual.

Edit: see post below

Jeff Cook

Jeff,

This is awesome. Thanks! I have wanted to get a hold of the MCAP manual for a long time. Thanks for making it available.

Best,
Stephen Kotev

Jeff Cook
18th November 2007, 11:51
You are quite welcome!

Jeff Cook

Jeff Cook
26th December 2007, 23:53
Here is the new link on my web page with the MACP and MCMAP manuals: http://www.wabujitsu.com/combatives.htm . Moderator, please edit the above link in my previous post, and then delete this reply. Thanks!

Jeff Cook

William Perkins
30th May 2008, 17:26
Matt, the link seems to be broken. Could you resend or submit it.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Jeff Cook
31st May 2008, 01:34
William, I am not Matt, but am assuming you are addressing me? My link is still good - I just checked it. If you still cannot get it to work, send an email to me at jeff@wabujitsu.com. I will respond in a few days. I am in Vietnam right now, but will be leaving here later today, thus my delay in responding.

Jeff Cook

Mike West
28th June 2009, 19:28
Your post is absolutely amazing, Jeff. Amazing for the ignorance you display about what the program truly is (again, it is NOT the manual), and amazing because it totally ignores the validity of the program - verified through actual combat in an actual combat zone.

Have you bothered to read any CALL after-action reviews, or the many successful anectdotes of US Army soldiers who have survived H2H encounters and loudly proclaim that they owe their life to MACP training? Furthermore, have you seen a SINGLE anectdote of anyone who has been killed or injured because they responded inappropriately based upon their MACP training???

Just trying to figure out where your disgruntled opinion is coming from, as it does not reflect the REALITY of this particularly successful program.

Jeff Cook

Where can I read more about the CALL after-action reviews and, the anecdotes aof how MACP ytraining saved soldiers lives?

That would seem to be the best evidence for the current program.

My Judo Sensei has posted the story of a former student who used a Judo technique in combat in Iraq on his website.

Here is the link. The soldiers name is Capt. Rob Stanley.

http://www.bushidojudoschool.com/Our_Heroes.html

Thank you.

Mike West

Jeff Cook
29th June 2009, 01:38
Mike, here is the CALL website: http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/call/index.asp Try this email address, and either ask for AARs, or ask for contact info for Matt Larsen, who collects the AARs: BENN.DOT.tmisd@conus.army.mil

Jeff Cook

tanis
12th July 2009, 22:19
Have these links been disconnected they dont seem to work thanks

Josh Young
13th July 2009, 17:07
Jeff, thanks for those links, after searching unsuccessfully for a hard copy f the manual I am very pleased to be able to download it.

Note even my family in the Army could find a hard copy, I was told it was not widely printed.

The program seems perfect for soldiers, not ideal for one on one self defense perhaps, but for the troops who can back eachother up it is perfect.

It takes advantage of the vital flaw of ground games, someones friend is going to come up and kill you while you are busy holding on.

This is why it is said by the author of the manual, the person who wins the fight is the one whose friends show up with guns first.

Very practical and realistic philosophy there.

markglad
6th April 2010, 19:27
can anyone repost the links to this all the ones I tried were down.

Jody Holeton
5th August 2010, 04:57
Dear all,

I'm with a group trying to get level 2.

We need help.

Is there a new updated, illustrated FM 3-25.150?

I am told there is a "poster" showing all the MACP moves...

I need some pictures to show more of the complicated moves for me and my crew.

For the level 2 test is there a similar "clinch before you get punched in the face drill"?

Thanks!

vottBeceGoorm
16th November 2010, 20:04
If the title was old and new then we could include women, men and other things.

The pepper is not rotten, it is aged and dry

So can we change the title so we can open the thread?

Asher
_________________
http://www.ps2netdrivers.net/manual/epson.emp-83/

JUDOJO
1st July 2011, 01:58
Moshi Moshi E-Budo.com, Shogun ni Ninjin budo bokoto erai. Ano waza Ju dojo mashite Peso ni Yen ni Euro ni Dollar. Doshi ni doshi zero no naka ni ni zero Gakusei. Konichiwa yobi , wa ni wari-wari wa ashi mashite wa Judojo Waza. Gashuku kihon 1. jikan, 2. Fukushin, 3. Soshin, 4. Te mashit Bukuto 5. Atemi, 6. Barrai ni Uchi. Oss ano waza Shodokan. Konichiwa, Reynaldo Ligoro Albano, Ju Dojo

Samurai Chrome
22nd November 2015, 12:07
I am getting a 404 error.

I am curious. Do you have another link that I can get to?

Thank you.

Cady Goldfield
22nd November 2015, 16:53
I am getting a 404 error.

I am curious. Do you have another link that I can get to?

Thank you.

Hi-
This thread is quite old, so it's probable that the link you're referring to no longer functions and the site it links to is no longer in existence.

Kinomo_Dojo
4th February 2016, 02:20
This new army combatives manual is based on the american army research on the basic field, but we civilians must also learn this by reservist training.