A jujitsu Army?

[William]

http://www.armytimes.com/stories/army14.htm

Opinions?

William Johnson

P.S. The spelling in the subject heading is from the front page of the Army Times.

[Edited by William on 07-09-2000 at 06:50 AM]

[Joseph Svinth]

Matt Larsen appears in the recent film, and between us, I'd say he exaggerates.

First, if the 1/32 AR gets into H2H, something is very wrong. A tank battalion uses very large toys, and you know what treadheads call infantry? Crunchies. Why? Because that's what infantry does when 70 tons of M1A2 hits it at 45 mph. And no, an infantryman on foot cannot outmaneuver an armored vehicle on the ground; a track is not a truck, and by using the cyclics a track can turn much tighter than a man at much higher speeds.

Second, SFC Larsen says that by providing one hour a week of instruction in Gracie jujitsu, in just a few months he can make almost anyone a match for a college wrestler. This I have to see. Based on what I saw in the film, I'd bet Dan Gable myself. Or for that matter Chris Dolman, who was the Netherlands freestyle wrestling champion three years running, and weighs a mere 270.

Finally, what quantification is SFC Larsen using for saying that most infantry combat ends up with both guys rolling on the ground wrestling? All of the few instances I'm aware of, somebody's whacking somebody else with the nearest club or rock or helmet, but nobody's going for an armbar submission hold.

Anyway, while I'm all for the military teaching H2H, I think the folks would do a better job of selling the program were they to say that female soldiers should learn this so that they might be able to better resist the unwanted sexual advances of sergeants-majors and generals than by saying that this will make someone training one hour per week capable of easily defeating a college athlete who trains 30-70 hours per week.

[Tetsutaka]

I can't imagine someone from the military shooting off their mouth... ;)

several dozen soldiers in BDUs and running shoes grappling in pairs as they roll this way and that on the dew-slick grass of a sports field.

A peacetime Army pasttime is NOT preparing for combative readiness...

[Edited by Tetsutaka on 07-09-2000 at 09:19 AM]

[hoshizawa]

Being in the Army now, I feel something is better than nothing. Minus all the hype about what BJJ can do it all goes back to individual skill. You will not see me on the ground fighting like that, but I think any art can help hone the soldiers awareness and skills used on the battlefield. I agree that maybe something more upright and general weapons use is needed.

I recently did the Lines training that is offered to SF and other units. It's very effective for someone who doesn't know any art to learn, but it's main purpose is to kill so a bunch of non spec op kids going around crushing windpipes in bars will be the result of them learning it. I guess with a few more rules (like we need more micro-management!)you could teach it to the mainstream Army.

The Army does need hand to hand more frequently. Many of us have gone SF lately due to the lack of toughness and more technology base it's been moving in. When a 19k (TANKER) is in the rear pulling guard duty at a peacetime camp, or when he's put on the QRF with little or no training
just because he's a combat arms MOS is when he needs H2H training. I've recently seen the outcome of these situations as well as everyday 11B Infantrymen and it goes to show the Army IS QUITE LACKING in H2H period. It helps establish Esprit De Corps and helps build the team. You take away the weapons of war from an American soldier and you have some young punk who thinks he can streetfight some national who's used to dying and wont rely on the next resupply of ammo. It's not that I dont have any faith in my joe's, but a fair amount of them need some toughness in their hearts and need to see some reality before they might have to defend our way of life.

My 2 cents.
Earnie Warnick

Oh and we don't call them treadheads, we call them DATS and
CDATS! Dumb ass tankers and the new improved computerized dumb ass tankers. When we need them they are Mechanized Messiahs!LOL

[Joseph Svinth]

Most of my Army career was spent with admin/loggies supporting a heavy mech brigade, and in their hearts most of these people, about half of whom were female, did not in their hearts believe that an M16A2 with 270 rounds of 5.56mm ball ammunition possessed significant battlefield lethality. (MILES is partly to blame, by the way -- on a training battlefield, a rifle kills nothing.) But anyway, you can guess a 130-pound female PFC's reaction to being tolding that an armbar applied to that 230-pound Samoan first sergeant is going to cause his instant submission and perhaps death.

Anyway, I'm all for folks playing physically aggressive games, and I'm pretty sure that properly supervised jujutsu training will result in far fewer serious training injuries than unsupervised basketball, rugby, or two-hand-touch football. I just wish that in this case it was advertised as what it was, a relatively safe way of training large numbers of people without requiring a gym or specialized equipment, rather than hyped as Killer Training.

If suggesting a better system, note that *all* boxing styles are likely verboten. For example, when the USMC reintroduced boxing ("Combat hitting") into recruit training during the mid-1990s, due to broken noses and one young man dying, that program was soon shelved. In Special Operations forces, safety protocols can be disengaged at the commander's discretion, but for other units, safety drives the train.

[William]

Originally posted by Joseph Svinth
Matt Larsen appears in the recent film, and between us, I'd say he exaggerates.

...
Second, SFC Larsen says that by providing one hour a week of instruction in Gracie jujitsu, in just a few months he can make almost anyone a match for a college wrestler. This I have to see. Based on what I saw in the film, I'd bet Dan Gable myself. Or for that matter Chris Dolman, who was the Netherlands freestyle wrestling champion three years running, and weighs a mere 270.

Finally, what quantification is SFC Larsen using for saying that most infantry combat ends up with both guys rolling on the ground wrestling? All of the few instances I'm aware of, somebody's whacking somebody else with the nearest club or rock or helmet, but nobody's going for an armbar submission hold.
...


Thanks for the reply, Joe. I wondered myself about the "most fights ending up on the ground" bit. I've heard that repeated too many times to count, and I wonder where all these studies are that support that claim. I can go around all day quoting anecdotal evidence, but it doesn't mean anything. In fact, for most combat arms, I suspect we would want training that helps us stay off the ground. My guess would be that an infantryman is seldom going to run across 1 to 1 odds on the battlefield, and if I'm tied up in a grapple, that severely limits my ability to survive, should the odds go against me.

One of my other problems with the article was the quote from the RTB Ops officer, which seemed to imply that the Gracie method was better simply because it didn't require any special equipment or a sawdust pit to train in. That those considerations "may help make it the technique of choice." Because its easier to find places to train, and we don't have to spend money on new equipment? That qualifies it for battlefield use? I don't think anybody will have to stretch too far to see the poor logic behind that idea.

William Johnson

[FastEd]

I was also left scraching my head after seeing that portion of the documentary. I once tried to convince my Serg.Maj. to let me teach some self defence stuff at our regiment. He just looked at me and said if your close enough to use it, your already dead.
As a form of aggression building and development of self confidence, it is excellent. But as we had painfully pointed out to us up North here, to much aggression can be a very bad thing.
For commando boys, why not stick to (Fairbain et al.)simple, deadly, and proven.
For MP's and riot control..? useful maybe..but so are the basics from any martial art. And just like our local police forces, their training has been limited, and is not continualy refreshed. Besides the current approach appears to be more focused on numbers of people in black moving with a purpose, rather then having any fancy takedown technique.

And up here our term for Infantry types: axle grease

[William]

Originally posted by hoshizawa
Being in the Army now, I feel something is better than nothing. Minus all the hype about what BJJ can do it all goes back to individual skill. You will not see me on the ground fighting like that, but I think any art can help hone the soldiers awareness and skills used on the battlefield. I agree that maybe something more upright and general weapons use is needed.

I recently did the Lines training that is offered to SF and other units. It's very effective for someone who doesn't know any art to learn, but it's main purpose is to kill so a bunch of non spec op kids going around crushing windpipes in bars will be the result of them learning it. I guess with a few more rules (like we need more micro-management!)you could teach it to the mainstream Army.

The Army does need hand to hand more frequently. Many of us have gone SF lately due to the lack of toughness and more technology base it's been moving in. When a 19k (TANKER) is in the rear pulling guard duty at a peacetime camp, or when he's put on the QRF with little or no training
just because he's a combat arms MOS is when he needs H2H training. I've recently seen the outcome of these situations as well as everyday 11B Infantrymen and it goes to show the Army IS QUITE LACKING in H2H period. It helps establish Esprit De Corps and helps build the team. You take away the weapons of war from an American soldier and you have some young punk who thinks he can streetfight some national who's used to dying and wont rely on the next resupply of ammo. It's not that I dont have any faith in my joe's, but a fair amount of them need some toughness in their hearts and need to see some reality before they might have to defend our way of life.



Hi Earnie,

Thanks for the reply. I agree that something is better than nothing. In fact, at my unit we have been doing combatives training centering around the Gracie method on an average of once a week. My fear is that the Army, in its infinite wisdom, will not see the shortcomings of a groundfighting system (relative to the mission of the Infantry (and other combat arms)).

One of those possible shortcomings, and one I have not seen addressed in the training we do, or any of the combatives training I've been exposed to that uses Gracie method,is the inclusion of the equipment that the infantryman wears. The ballistic helmet and LBE are going to have a significant impact on any sort of combatives training, including groundfighting. Not to mention the presence of a weapon, presumably two. (I realize that the implication is that you have no ammo, and/or lost your weapon. But I think outright not having a weapon is far less likely than not having ammo. What about the phase of combat when you still have the weapon in your hand?) By the way, I'm not firing these thoughts at you (no pun intended); these are just some thoughts about a hand-to-hand combat system that goes directly to the ground and ignores, largely, the rest of the fight.

Another problem I have with the article - I have a number of them! - is the idea that combatives is too technical, and not real, as SFC Larsen seemed to think. As Joseph Svinth pointed out in his post, its higly unlikely that an hour a week is sufficient to teach anybody the kind of skill that SFC Larsen was claiming. And present combatives training doesn't even get that hour! As far as I know, there is no standardized way to teach the current combatives. All FM 21-150 does is show some techniques and regurgitate some standard Army doctrine on teaching by numbers. To my knowledge there is no Army school that teaches combatives. (Other than a few hours of instruction in Ranger school, IET, or perhaps IOBC). Much like the Basic Non-Comissioned Officer Course, where you learn the right way to give P.T. and do Drill and Ceremony, there should be an actual course where leaders can go to get certified in "Army Combatives". And, yes, there would be problems with that, but at least we would have some common ground to work from.

I can't say that I think the present combatives system is the right way to go, and I think the inclusion of groundfighting skills would be valuable. But I hate to see Army doctrine being written by people who are apparently not concerned with finding the most effective system to support the Army's mission. The combat arms mission has to be included when deciding something like this, particularly the mission of the Infantry. And our mission is to close with, by means of fire and maneuver, and destroy the enemy. We do that by utilizing speed, surprise and violence of action, all of which are compromised the minute you start to tie up with someone.

Excuse me while I climb down from my soapbox...

William Johnson

[Joseph Svinth]

For those who don't understand FastEd's allusion to bad things up North, in March 1993, several Canadian paratroopers serving on peacekeeping duty in Somalia beat to death a sixteen-year old Somali they had caught stealing. The resulting scandal led to the disbanding of the Airborne Regiment and the establishment of the Lester B. Pearson Canadian International Peacekeeping Training Centre in Halifax. Courses at Pearson last between one to four weeks, and academic credit is available. The website is http://www.cdnpeacekeeping.ns.ca . I saw nothing on H2H, however.

From 1949 to the mid-1960s, the USAF had its own H2H training program. It was called "The Kodokan," but outside instructors who were not judoka included Tomiki of aikido and Obata of the JKA. The Air Force broke up the training into physical fitness for combat aircrew (remember B-36s stayed in the air for days), sport, restraining techniques for Air Police, and survival/evasion techniques. These were four unrelated programs.

The USAF had programs in the US teaching this -- combative instructor was an actual MOS -- and I believe the schools were at Larsen AFB in Moses Lake, Washington and Stead AFB in Nevada. The USAF also had its own Yudanshakai, which evolved into a political organization rival to the USJF but that is a separate issue. George Harris, Tosh Seino, Hayward Nishioka, and many others were part of all this, as generals used the draft to recruit really excellent base teams.

All that went away with Vietnam, where downed pilots were grateful to see the NVA troops, who might beat them up but were not going to stick them with pitchforks like the angry farmers whose fields said pilots had been napalming a few minutes earlier.

There is a little about this at JNonLethal at http://ejmas.com , and I guess I'll add posting more to my list of things to do. But there are precedents for an actual military program, and the manuals do exist, just not in the SAC Museum or the USAF Historical Branch in Alabama.

Having no collective memory, we keep reinventing the wheel.

[Neil Hawkins]

Before I start, welcome fastEd, I must point out though that we have this little using your full name rule here when posting.

Anyway BJJ, whilst an effective grappling system is next to useless in a real CQB scenario for the simple reason that it was not designed for that environment. That doesn't mean that certain aspects can't be adapted to work, but the system on the whole is, as Joe said, a sport activity.

The main problem with CQB is that everyone that has ever practiced a Martial Art has an opinion on it and most base this on their own experience. Unfortunately that experience is usually limited to training indoors in some sportive system. I've seen military guys here in AUS teaching Shotokan, TKD, Judo and others on base, they turn out some very good competition fighters, but there is a perception that this helps them in CQB.

I did an experiment with some friends once who trained in these other styles. I dressed them in full combat gear, boots, LBE, helmet, pack and empty rifle. I then put them into some combative scenarios and watched what they did. The karate guy tried a kick and fell over because of the weight of his pack, he tried punches but found that the LBE effectively covered all his usual targets. The judo guy actually dropped his rifle to grapple his opponent and did a fairly effective take down, but that was it. He then looked around for the rifle he dropped, which I had picked up and hidden! :)

Anyway, CQB is about fast effective defense and attack. It must be simple to do and allow for all the factors, uneven ground, multiple opponents, bulky equipment, etc. It is a specialised area.

Military policy makers need to realise this and do proper studies. All too often it is left up to the Training Officer or lower to implement training and this is clouded by what is safe, affordable and expedient. If you have a national all styles champ in Company B why not use him.

That's my rant over with for awhile.

Regards

Neil

[hoshizawa]

Agree definately,
A major prob with the army is that we don't train with what we have enough due to money or public outcry, yeah I've had the pleasure to train with the Canadian Airborne, and remember the incidents quite well, they have even thought and some have proposed to disband our Airborne!! Would be a fatal mistake, who can get there faster to fight? I can also respect the power of a tank. In conventional warfare you can't go without em'!

My 2 cents,
Earnie Warnick

[FastEd]

I apologize for the missing name thing. (Fast Ed = Ed Chart) I will not forget to add that next time.

As for my opinon on H2H in combat arms trades, it is next to useless except as means for aggression building. And in practice most guys are pretty aggressive anyway so what's the point. Dispite the popular American perception, combat soldiers are not UFC fighters, medevil knights, or gaurdian angels, thats not their job description.

The trouble, I think, with the Canadian Airborne Regiment, was that their training was designed to make them effective combat soldiers (which they undoubtedly were some of the best). As the enquirey found out later, and which their commanding officer (a veteren of several UN deployments)new at the time before being replaced, was that they were completely unsuitable for UN peace keeping/enforcement.

The analogy would be sort of like adding gas to the fire, and these poor guys, were not given enough time to train too correct their attitude, and more specificly their aggression level. Lots of blame to go around.

During war time though, the situation probably different with less time to train guys to kill.
Ed Chart

[George Kohler]

Originally posted by Joseph Svinth
Matt Larsen appears in the recent film

Hi Joe,

I'm curious, Is this the same Matt Larsen in the picture below (He is in the middle, next to the French foreign legionnaire)? That's me on the far right, BTW.

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

If it is, Matt and I go way back. We both were stationed in Savannah GA. at 1st Ranger Bn. He was my Squad Leader for about a year before he was transfered to 2nd Ranger Bn. I was one of his Team Leaders. Actually, Matt use to be a Marine stationed in Okinawa. He studied Shorin Ryu under Shimabuku Eizo while he was there. After leaving the Marines he joined the US Army and became a Ranger.

Now, since I don't have cable, I have to see this film and see him for myself.

[Joseph Svinth]

From the photo, I can't say for sure, but the jaw looks right. The Matt Larsen in the film didn't wear glasses, but that doesn't mean he doesn't wear contacts in garrison.

As for the quotes in the newspaper, they are almost exactly the same things he said on camera. To wit: "Only thing we've done is devise a program to teach a short amount of time those same techniques [as the Gracies]. Say, for instance, if I boil down all the ways you can twist somebody's arm to break it to two or three ways that are simple and show the principles involved, well, then I can show a guy that and he'll understand. We've kind of boiled it down to about thirteen moves that are sort of the core of a fighting strategy. We can take somebody and we can give them five or ten or fifteen hours of instruction and they're actually a better fighter."

And:

"If it says in some book someplace or somebody in some martial arts studio says, "If I show you this technique, it's gonna break the guy's neck." How do they know? Did they break somebody's neck? But if I tell you this will break somebody's arm the reason I know is because either me or my teacher Jorge and Royce Gracie or one of my guys or something has done it. So, that's what we like. It's gotta be real."

[MarkF]

originally posted by Joe Svinth:

From 1949 to the mid-1960s, the USAF had its own H2H training program. It was called "The Kodokan," but outside instructors who were not judoka included Tomiki of aikido and Obata of the JKA.

Tomiki was outside the Kodokan? This has nothing to do with your point, but just to make sure this is not passed on as fact, Tomiki Kenji was 7-dan judo and his instructor was J. Kano, at the Kodokan. This was, of course, before he went on to learn aikido, and before he began his own style, Shodokan, which contains many similarities to judo, one of which is shiai. I am sure you meant this in the most strictness of the statement in that you meant he was not judoka anymore.

[Joseph Svinth]

Mark --

You're right, Tomiki hadn't been kicked out or anything, but this is the one who founded Tomiki aikido.

The Japanese who made the 1953 SAC tour were:

Sumiyuki Kotani
Tadao Otaki
Chugo Sato
Takahiko Ishikawa
Kenji Tomiki
Kiyoshi Kobayashi
Hidetaka Nishiyama
Kusuo Hosakawa
Isao Obata
Toshio Kamada

Their tour guide was Mel Bruno.

You can get photos of these gentlemen from the Strategic Air Command Museum in Nebraska. Cost is about $10 each, as I recall.

[Jeff Cook]

What those good folks are doing when not jumping out of airplanes (GJJ) is NOT Army doctrine, and it is NOT "Army Combatives." It is watered-down GJJ being taught at unit-level by some well-intentioned and somewhat-misinformed NCO's as an adjunct to their PT program. In my opinion, SFC Larsen should be commended for his zeal, and counselled for his comments.

BTW, don't look for them to be doing that for too much longer. Some of their OIC's are searching for another program. The shortcomings have been noticed and acknowledged at the higher levels, and continuing with direct Gracie instruction has ceased due to it being cost-prohibitive.

More to follow. Joe, perhaps we should talk about this off-line in detail (hint-hint!). Opportunity possibly awaits.

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

[IchiRiKen1]

First, let me say "Hi" to the Forum Gods. I am new here, having been referred to this community by a Sergeant Major that I am acquainted with that does Batto-jutsu here in Japan.

I saw the article in the Army Times and could not be more appalled! I am an instructor in Chinese martial arts, and have recently started training in Shuri-te. My background, while not extensive in groundfighting, includes training in all ranges, and I have yet to meet anyone (outside of the pop culture jujutsu folks) that stick with this fighting on the ground thing! I hear from BJJ people that they can fight multiple attackers, but I have yet to see it!

I was 11C from '87 - '90, 19D from '91 - '95, and now I work in the Judge Advocate General's Corps (Legal Office). Having trained in Combatives (both the 1960 era version which I got in BT and AIT, and the post 1987 version), I think the new version is sufficient for VERY basic beginning orientation. The fighting stance is natural, the techniques are few. But this deals strictly with the striking portions. The grappling is something that, as all of you well know, has so many minor, minute variations and subtleties, that were it so easy to "boil down" into 13 or so techniques that form the "core of a fighting strategy," it would have been done YEARS AGO by somebody! Bruce Lee is hugely popular. Why? He didn't tell anyone anything original or new. With over 5000 years of training, perhaps much of what he said was simply refreshing people's memories, but there was nothing new. Likewise, the Army's attempt at creating a lighter more deadly fighter is going to take a bit more than a 10 hour initial training with one hour of maintenance training each week. How long do all of you spend "maintaining" what you have, much less developing higher skills?

Yet again, Uncle Sam has found another way to potentially sacrifice lives in the pursuit of cheaper training alternatives to satisfy the whims of the generals in charge. This is a passing thing, like uniforms that are practical or boots that fit. Give it a few months, and this, along with combat oriented PT to replace the Pushup/Situp/2 Mile Run test, will fade away quietly...

Thanks for listening to me rant. Yoroshiku.

Matt Stone

[Joseph Svinth]

Ooh -- another 71D. I like it! (Death from the rear was what I wanted the class motto to be, but they wouldn't go for that.)

[kyle]

This is a good thread!!!
I dont know what the answer is. I have a Platoon Sergeant who has gone through the MTT and he has been teaching this to the medics, and his section now has a higher morale and they work together much better, and dont mess with them, they will roll ya up!
Another thing, after about a couple of classes, one of our guys whooped up our resident all army wrestler, same size, and the guy had zero wrestling or hand to hand background.
Is it end all be all? NO. Is it good for the joes? YES.
Sometimes I step in and show some alternate techniques or things that they dont go over (ie eye gouging, skin grabs, fish hooks, small joint locks/breaks, knee strikes etc)
Of course I let em know that I am NOT an expert, nor instructor qualified in anything, but I am just trying to get them to think in a broad perspective so that they dont focus just on what is taught in that h to h system.

Well, thats my 2 cents, for what it is worth,,

Kyle Cooper
1/508th Airborne Combat Team, Italy

[Jeff Cook]

Kyle and others,

To state again, what Larsen and his good folks are doing is not "hand-to-hand," and it is not Uncle Sam's idea. To represent it as h to h or to imply that it is Army doctrine is misleading and totally incorrect.

What they are doing is great. It certainly is better than nothing. And fortunately probably none of them will ever have to engage the enemy at close quarters, because what they are doing is not close-quarters combat training.

I commend you for trying to inject some realism into their training. Maybe you can try to get them focused on the most basic tenent learned in the instructor-trainer course (to be awarded the "H" identifier): BATTLE-FOCUSED TRAINING - TRAIN AS YOU FIGHT! If watered-down GJJ in running shoes and BDU's is all they are doing, maybe they should remember battle-field conditions and the basic attire of a soldier under battle-field conditions, when he may have to actually engage the enemy in close-quarters combat.

After they are dressed in boots, BDU's, Kevlar helmet, flak jacket, and LCE they can try grappling each other. Give one of them a rubber knife, but if that is too challenging, give one of them a stick, then let them roll. Let them punch and kick each other. Let them use environmental weapons, but make sure they are wearing goggles first.

After that, test them on their ability to quickly and silently remove a sentry.

If they are not doing these things, they are not practicing CQC. They are only playing a sport. GJJ has as much in common with true military CQC training as Western boxing does.

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

[IchiRiKen1]

A few years back there was a MSG Holyfield (a rather large and imposing looking fellow), allegedly a high dan in several martial arts (I say allegedly because I have no way to verify yea or nay) that was working on the new combatives system for Uncle Sam. He was stationed at Fort Sill at the time.

I have a copy of the new Combative manual (FM 21-150, dated September 92), and while it is NOT a complete method, it is a rather useful tool for incorporating combatives training, in combat uniform and battle focused, into a unit's training regimen.

Now I say this with the qualification that a know-nothing senior NCO is NOT going to get up in front of the group and end up a wizened martial arts master nor an ultimate fighting champion by following this book. However, a trained martial arts instructor could, with a little effort, take the technical info from the manual and turn it into a useful training session. The book doesn't cover things like how to properly throw a punch, or what the entry angles should be like when trying to disarm a rifle/bayonet equipped attacker, etc. But with a qualified instructor, that stuff could be taken care of.

I understand that what the RTB is doing right now amounts only to R&D at the Army's expense, but I might point out that the lack of knowledge of real martial arts training these Rangers have is shown in their belief that a system as extensive as BJJ could be "watered down" into 13 techniques or concepts, and that an untrained individual (and here I make an assumption that "untrained" means the same to me as it does to them) could take anything useful away from a 15 hour training course with a 1 hour per week maintenance session to keep them "up to speed." Besides, if simplifying a system into such a pocket-sized package was possible, wouldn't a "master" have done it long before some untrained grunt did? (As a caveat I use "grunt" with the affection that only one who has been a grunt can... Infantry from 87 - 90, thank you...)

How long does it take a beginning student to feel comfy with a reverse punch, or a front kick? Simple, basic techniques, right? Now tell them to get on the ground and try to use jujutsu? I think not.

I just hope that this little trend fades quickly, and some young troops are not pulled into this thinking that they have been trained to be empty handed killers. When the lives of soldiers are at risk, there is no exception for stupidity or poor judgement.

Sorry for the rant. I will put my soapbox away now...

[kyle]

Thanks for the advice!
I agree with what you all have said.
When I brought up the fact that they need to practice in combat gear, they said that a later MTT would cover that, and they would practice in full battle rattle in squad teams...I guess they would work together, one guy roll up an enemy and another squad member take him out....dont know though, havent seen them do it yet.

On another note, did have a guy get rolled up by a couple of Italians downtown. I dont remember the exact details, but there were three Italian, two held the soldiers arms while the other one kicked an punched him...I remember specifically the soldier telling me as I examined him that he couldnt understand it, he always did really well during combatives training...

The situation may have muddled things, though, because his wife was present and he was concerned about them going after her. I know that in some of my training in Budo Taijutsu we practiced situations with multiple attackers and a loved one near that needed to be protected...I was impressed and learned alot.

I am NOT an expert NOR am I any type of instructor, but it seems to me that there is a difference between Combat, self/family defense, and bar room brawling.

Mentioned above was the Army Hand to Hand Combat manual...is that the newest one? I downloaded one from the DA Pubs site, and thought it was pretty good overall, but dont remember the date on it,,,thought it was newer than 92

Of course, any corrections/discussions about any of my comments are very welcome,,,I am here to learn!!

Kyle Cooper

[Joseph Svinth]

That is the latest FM 21-150, Combatives, and it can be accessed online at http://155.217.58.58/cgi-bin/atdl.dll

It's getting crowded on the soapbox, but to my thinking if the Rangers were to say that rolling around on the grass with a partner resulted in fewer reportable injuries and required less equipment than equivalent sports such as flag football or basketball, then I'd say they had a excellent multi-purpose PT program. But to say that Gracie jujitsu provides soliders with training in Naked Kill is the type of nonsense that in the old days staff officers and civilians dreamed up rather than serving infantry NCOs.

[IchiRiKen1]

I think that the entire situation has come about from somebody up top dreaming up their idea of the Amurikan take on hand to hand. For years we have suffered under the idea that your regular Joe Wayne (John's brother) could "street fight" or "box" his way out of harm's way. That is what happens in the old Westerns and the WWII and other period war movies right? A good ol' right cross to the chin, let him get up, then let him have it good like!

We all can discuss endlessly the obvious problems with using BJJ/GJJ as a realistic method of military unarmed combat. And that is what we are talking about, is MILITARY combat where you KILL the bad guy, not just disable him. I am sure that BJJ/GJJ is effective in its own way in dealing with self defence issues (I have never seen it in person). But as a soldier, doing soldierly things, in a soldierly uniform, with soldierly equipment, with some bad guy trying his hardest to put a bullet in my brain or his bayonet in my belly, somehow I am not terribly comfy with having a roll in the mud with him because it was the safest method to train in "back home." I would rather run the risk of injury to know for certain that I was safe.

That topic, however, is a whole 'nother topic for discussion elsewhere (i.e. the Army's Zero Tolerance policy for injury... guess what? Combat is dangerous, and training is padded, though the Army doctrine says "Train as you Fight.")

*kicks the soapbox back under the bed*

'Nuff said (from me anyway...)

[Bob Steinkraus]

An interesting discussion.

I think I am hearing a number of things. Some of the points being made are (I think)

- BJJ/GJJ training is unrealistic because
- Hand to hand in combat never occurs
- BJJ/GJJ doesn't expressly kill the opponent, which is what you need to be able to do
- BJJ/GJJ involves techniques that are not practical for a soldier in combat gear
- BJJ/GJJ training is not extensive enough to be useful
- BJJ/GJJ training was chosen because it was safe, not because it is effective

I apologize if I mis-state anyone's position.

Could I ask those who are involved in this discussion to clarify a couple of things?

- What do you see as the goal of military hand to hand training for the average soldier? What will they need to do in the course of their combat experience that H2H should teach them? Should they be able to take out a sentry, kill as opposed to break an arm, or what?

- What sets of techniques should be taught to achieve those goals? Punches, kicks, grappling, what? Please understand that I am not trying to start a 'my style is better than your style' argument.

- Is it the consensus that H2H training is mainly to encourage aggression and provide physical fitness training?

I would be especially interested in discussions that take into account the limited amount of training time available.

Disclaimer: I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the armed forces (of any country). I have, however, trained people of a number of different backgrounds in what I would consider hand to hand combat, and I am eager for new ideas.

All thoughtful responses welcomed.

[Joseph Svinth]

I suggested to "Marine Corps Gazette" that its H2H program concentrate on such things as teaching female officers to fend off the sexual assaults of sergeants major, but the editor didn't find that real funny, especially as an Army general was being court-martialed at the time for demanding sexual favors from the wives of subordinates.

The average private figures that if 270 rounds of 5.56mm ball ammunition doesn't stop it, probably fisticuffs won't either. Therefore he would rather play football or basketball. Injury rates there are high, so probably wrestling could be substituted. BJJ is excellent here, especially if advertised as exercise with H2H potential rather than training in killing.

The average sergeant and platoon leader would like a PT program for the kids that builds group cohesion and doesn't require a lot of equipment or command supervision.

Special operations groups want something that gives members some skill in unarmed combatives.

Colonels and generals want something that looks impressive to visiting dignitaries.

These are all differing requirements, but usually the colonels and generals win all arguments about what gets played today.

Another legitimate problem is a lack of institutional memory. Somebody retires and the entire program goes away. This is what killed the SAC judo programs of the 1950s -- Curt LeMay and Tom Power supported them. They retired, and the programs effectively retired with them.

For the most part, the average recruit gets some training in what the Marine Corps calls "combat hitting," which is designed to build confidence and esprit. Other than that, training time is probably better devoted to teaching people to read maps and call for fire.

Punching is out for most purposes, as a kid got killed during a USMC "combat hitting" drill a couple years ago and the stink ended the whole program. Meanwhile, without training kicking isn't real practical in combat boots. And due in part to statistics showing the rates of domestic and barracks violence are already unacceptably high, probably the commands do not want people well-trained in using rack extenders (e.g., steel pipes) in the attack. This leaves wrestling-based arts such as GJJ capable of passing the make-sense tests required by a typical command.

In case I didn't say it clearly before, I have no trouble with anyone training in GJJ in a military environment. All I have trouble with is saying that fifteen hours instruction will make you capable of defeating any college wrestler (you'd think Iowa would want to learn some of this before going to Oklahoma next year) or that it will turn you into a deadly fighting machine. It will improve what you already do, sure, but no more than that.

And a program designed to appeal to the troops always tells the truth, as privates' BS detectors are far more astute than those of generals.




[Edited by Joseph Svinth on 07-21-2000 at 10:32 PM]

[IchiRiKen1]

I think that there are two significant parts of this issue: #1 - what "style" or technique of fighting do we use and #2 - how do we do the training.

The first part is easy. Soldiers/Sailors/Marines/Airmen need to be able to KILL their attacker. Regrettably, war kind of entails that. Like it or not, nearly all of the folks engaged in an armed hostile action are going to be required to maim or kill their "enemy." Period. Or they can exercise their option to die for their country. Either way, it is blatantly obvious that war isn't about rolling about on the ground with the bad guy hoping the time limit runs out... (cheap jab at GJJ there, sorry)

The second part is something only the Veterans out there will understand. The Army (and somehow I guess the other branches of the US Armed forces) tends to try to bottle up a "task," identify the "conditions" under which the task will most likely be performed, then determine the "standards" of performance for that set of tasks and conditions. After all this, Army doctrine says that you present the material to the students, they train in it, somehow they remember it, and are tested on it immediately to determine a GO or NO GO, pass or fail, grade. Fine. But then that is it! Now you are in the maintenance phase of training. After a brief class wherein you were provided what amounted to open book testing you are supposed to remember enough of it to go into MAINTENANCE training. Sorry, no dice. How long did it take most of us to learn how to punch right? Somehow I don't believe many of us got it right the first class...

So while we can debate the technical methodology of "style," ultimately that is not the problem. Army Combatives already contains guidance (no matter how little) on striking training of sorts. Most Americans have grown up watching violence on TV, so throwing a punch is a fairly natural thing (they would most likely break their fist on the chin of the bad guy, but John Wayne seemed to always pull it off...). Train what they already know! Work the strikes, work the kicks, sure, no problem. But WHATEVER it is you end up training them to do has to be REGULAR and FREQUENT. Again, how many of us develop remarkable skill while not training for weeks at a time, then hitting the training hall for one night every few weeks or so? Not many, I'm sure...

In the modern age, we are deployed into many NON combat related environments. I can see where GJJ/BJJ would be a viable skill in detaining combatant non-combatants, or in effecting riot control or other nonlethal tasks. But as a combat martial art/skill where the enemy is a target for lethal force? Probably not.

Sorry for the rant. As a Drill Sergeant and Instructor, I have had my share of "issues" with Army Training Doctrine and the "alleged" reality of our Zero Tolerance Safety training. Combat is dangerous, training is so safe as to no longer resemble combat, but our training is supposed to be realistic... Like the ancient argument of Olympic TKD being valid for street self defense (not too many muggers let you put on your head, chest and shin pads before they attack...).

Just my 2 yen...

[Neil Hawkins]

Joe is right it's starting to get crowded up here but at the risk of continuing the arguement, I'll make a few points.

Self Defense (SD) is totally different from CQC. The surroundings, environment and intent of the attacker are much more complex in CQC. There are similarities sometimes, but SD training does not equate to CQC training.

Brazilian Jujutsu is NOT (IMO) effective in SD (and therefore CQC), as it is lacking in standing techniques. Ground fighting is a necessary part of SD training but you should avoid going to the ground at all costs. SD is about disengage and escape, it's not about fight to submission.

As has been previously pointed out CQC needs to be practiced under real conditions, this is very rare these days. There is a very real need to kill the opponent in CQC, the powers that be will deny this, seeing as how we're in a touchy feely world. But often that is your only choice, prisoners, especially injured ones, are a burden that the small unit cannot afford. BJJ and SD are not primarily designed to kill and the training does not allow for the many pschological aspects that this entails (neither do a lot of CQC courses, but that's for a different soap box:))


Bob asked what the goals of military CQC are and the answer is far from simple. In many instances self defense is enough, that helps the off-duty GI Joe or Joanne keep their money or whatever, this training is good for moral, helps build unit cohesion and can be fun. But I must stress this is not CQC. Military Police need a system of CQC that is identical to the stuff civilian LE's require, subdue the opponent, restrain or detain him/her and so on. This is a specialised area of CQC it is primarily non lethal in nature.

Real CQC starts with your combat troops, the ones likely to come into close contact with the enemy. In large unit or general infantry (I include Marines here) it is again primarily defensive, but has to escalate to lethal techniques. It utilises bayonet, rifle butt, clubs, knives whatever is at hand. SF units need a higher level again, they should be taught offensive tactics as well as those mentioned previously. The need to take out sentries or whoever silently is addressed.

Now, as to techniques that work. Discussions of this nature are tricky, I don't like going into techniques when there is no way of illustrating them, but in general: I tend to stay away from kicking as it is hard to do with a 25kg pack on your back. Knees are possible but require some setting up. Punches are also of limited use when the opponent is wearing body armour and a helmet. I like simple takedowns, and techniques that attack the vulnerable areas like joints, the throat and so on. Most of the time though you should rely on the weapons you already carry. A rifle can be very effective for striking. Knives or bayonets do a lot of damage, but again you need to know where you are attacking. Kevlar is as good for stopping knife slashes as it is for stopping bullets, though thrusts are a different story, believe it or not. You should avoid going to the ground and try to put your opponent there, preferrably in a way that precludes him getting up again.

Bob mentioned the crux of CQC training. Time. Very rarely is enough time dedicated to training, there are many reasons for this, too mant to list here. But these skills are perishable, they need to be constantly practiced and updated. Units will spend hours a month at the range practicing shooting, but won't allocate any time to CQC. This is a problem, and I don't have any answers. The Combatives manual can be effectively taught in a limited time frame, but only scratches the surface. Practice, practice, practice that's what will save your life.

Regards
Neil

[Scaramouche]

No, the goal of military training is not to kill the enemy. It is to eliminate the enemy as as a threat. There _is_ a difference. Often eliminating the enemy as a threat entails killing, but it is often better to wound the enemy. That way, you take out the enemy, plus one to four of his friends who have to carry the wounded soldier off the field.
Wounding an enemy and luring his buddies to rescue him can also provide more targets for your side to shoot at. Often it is much smarter not to kill, or at least to put off killing for a bit for tactical reasons.

If killing the enemy was the main point of fighting wars, we'd seldom if ever bomb bridges, ports, communication centers, or railway intersections. If killing was all their was to war, there would be no psychological warfare, which attempts to break enemy morale. Military victory often entails disabling the enemy, either on a macro level, or on a micro level.

Marco Subias

[DJM]

Originally posted by Scaramouche
No, the goal of military training is not to kill the enemy. It is to eliminate the enemy as as a threat. There _is_ a difference. Often eliminating the enemy as a threat entails killing, but it is often better to wound the enemy. That way, you take out the enemy, plus one to four of his friends who have to carry the wounded soldier off the field.
Wounding an enemy and luring his buddies to rescue him can also provide more targets for your side to shoot at. Often it is much smarter not to kill, or at least to put off killing for a bit for tactical reasons.
Marco Subias
I'm not a soldier, nor do I have any experience in CQC, but...
;)
I seem to recall the use of 'light' rounds (I think the NATO 7.62mm rounds fall into this category?) in order to have them spin/break up on entry in order to cause more severely incapacitating injuries - hence using up more resources, both in men and medical supplies..
Just confirming the above point I guess, but it does seem relevant in deciding what the military's purpose is (in war at least, as opposed to single battles, where resource usage will be a bigger factor).

My 2p worth there..

Peace,
David

[Jeff Cook]

Marco,

Basic individual combative skills training for all United States Army personnel involves different ways to kill the enemy, not wound him. ("Aim for center mass." "What is the spirit of the bayonet? To kill!" etc. etc.) CQC, which this discussion is about, falls into this category. The ground pounder knows little about the differences between "tactical" and "strategic."

However, what you say is true on a grand scale, at the general officer level. It just has little to do with this current discussion.

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

[IchiRiKen1]

There are several issues I feel I need to address:

1) When the enemy is "in the wire" and fighting me in my foxhole, I am REALLY not concerned with giving him a nasty hangnail that will require several weeks worth of attention and rehab in a rear area medical treatment facility! He will get the business end of my bayonet, entrenching tool (a steel folding shovel for you civilian types ^_^), or helmet if there is nothing else sharp and nasty lying about!

2) The 7.62mm is NOT a light round (hence its use in machine and chain guns worldwide). It is the 5.56mm that was being referenced as a light round for personal weapons. If you convert the metric to the English system of measurement, a 5.56 is roughly the same as a .22 (i.e. .223 caliber), and the 7.62 is roughly the same as a .308 caliber round. Big, deer huntin', bear shootin', punchin' holes in the sides of stuff bullet.

3) What is at issue here is the disparity in the training concept and the training need. What the soldier on the ground (and this is ALL soldiers, not just SF and combat troops) needs, is the ability to fight. Whether death or serious injury results is like debating which bullet kills better... death is death. But the fact is that the higher levels want something that takes no money to invest in, takes little time to develop skill in, and looks cool. What the soldier wants is something that passes the BS test... it is nasty, fast, and keeps me from getting dead. (I am severely allergic to dead, by the way ^_^)

The fact that the Army thinks BJJ/GJJ looks cool is fine. The fact that they think I am going to roll about cuddling my enemy is fine. The fact that they think I am going to get anything useful out of an hour a week after a week's training in ANYTHING is not. I might be able to garner a 27th dan in McKarate/Kung Fu/Tae Kwon Leep in a week DOES NOT mean that I know what I am doing (I shall allow previous posts concerning the legitimacy of McDojos to qualify my last statement...)

Bottom line - as a soldier, I am trained to SURVIVE combat. I need a systematic approach to all ranges of combat, including striking AND grappling AND the use of my equipment AND training realistically (which entails contact and some minor injuries) AND training in the proper clothing. BJJ/GJJ just doesn't fit the entire bill.

Just my 2 yen...

[Neil Hawkins]

Marco, Jeff beat me to it but to add a little extra. Yes it is good at a high level to encourage wounding for the reasons you mention, however, by the time you get to CQC either you are in the enemies area or he's in yours. Either way the casualty is going to end up your responsibility. If you are in their area he can give your position away, if he's in your area, well it's your medics that will be treating him. The Geneva Convention says that you have to help the injured, you leave him to die (even if you think he'll live) and someone finds out your going to be in all sorts of trouble. The last thing I needed when I was LRRP'ing was an injury, even amongst my own men let alone one of theirs. In the real world it's kill or be killed.

Matt, well said, that last paragraph of yours should be sent to the powers that be with lots of signatures below it! :)

Regards
Neil

[Scaramouche]

Well, if the Army is teaching BJJ as a form of close combat training, then by pretty much by definition Policy says that killing the enemy is not the only desirable outcome at close range, and that disabling them is a viable option. In addition, while I am not by any means any sort of expert on the history of CQC in the U.S. military, I have seen an old film of the Big Red One training in preparation for WW I (A&E or the History Channel), and in their close quarter training they were doing what was very obviously a judo hip through - not known as a "deadly" technique.

I am also under the impression that throws taken from judo and Japanese JJ were an important element in WW II CQC, and that the after the Second World War the military offically imported judo teachers to train troops for CQC. From what I have seen, judo throws have played a central role in CQC in the U.S. military for at least around half a century. These throws are not killing techniques (though of course if one does the throw well pulling out a knife or following up in some other deadly manner is always an option), but were a central element of the U.S. military's CQC program for a large chunk of the twentieth century.

The Geneva convention was in force when judo was a major inspiration for U.S. CQC, but it was still used. After a throw or arm break, one can still assume that the enemy is dangerous, and follow up with deadly attacks, which are more likely to be effective if the opponent has the wind knocked out of them, or has a broken arm.

I am also rather sure that the U.S was not the only power whose military drew heavily from judo or other grappling arts for its CQC training.

As for soldiers being unlikely to benefit greatly from any quick martial arts program, I agree. Learning any physical skill well enough to be able to employ it under great pressure requires both an appreciable initial amount of time, and regular practice.

Though he did not mean to do so, in at least one respect, Jeff's example seems to support my observations. If one is told to "aim for the center of mass" when shooting, one is not being told to "aim between the eyes," or " shoot for the heart." On is essentially being told to aim in such a way to maximize one's chance of hitting, but not to bother going for extremely precise shots more likely to kill if they hit their intended target. In other words, you are being told that it is best to maximize your chance of hitting your target, even if it results in "only" wounding your enemy.

Still, perhaps Jeff would argue that, this discussion of firearms has little to do with this discussion ;)

Marco S. Subias

PS, IchiRiKen1, if you do take out your enemy by hitting him with your helmet and clearly put him out of commission but don't actually kill him, do you keep expending your energy on him, or do you concentrate on other enemy soldiers that are still a threat?

[IchiRiKen1]

Originally posted by Scaramouche
[QUOTE]Well, if the Army is teaching BJJ as a form of close combat training, then by pretty much by definition Policy says that killing the enemy is not the only desirable outcome at close range, and that disabling them is a viable option. In addition, while I am not by any means any sort of expert on the history of CQC in the U.S. military, I have seen an old film of the Big Red One training in preparation for WW I (A&E or the History Channel), and in their close quarter training they were doing what was very obviously a judo hip through - not known as a "deadly" technique.

I am also under the impression that throws taken from judo and Japanese JJ were an important element in WW II CQC, and that the after the Second World War the military offically imported judo teachers to train troops for CQC. From what I have seen, judo throws have played a central role in CQC in the U.S. military for at least around half a century.

If you look in the old version of the Combative manual for the US Army, you will see one of the most laughable documents on personal combat ever created. It was after the inclusion of this training for soldiers that the phrase "knowing enough to get him/her killed" became synonymous with Army Hand to Hand. The commando training of the WWII era dealt extensively with sentry removal, and remains a good portion of sentry removal today. These techniques were valid. But thinking, realistically, that while wearing Load Bearing Equipment, a helmet with chinstrap, having canteens, buttpack, protective (gas) mask, magazine pouches, etc., that a conventional hip throw is going to even work properly (i.e. gonna get him on the ground instead of grabbing your helmet as he goes over and breaks your neck with his body weight...) is silly. Judo is a sport, and while I will not deny it is rough and that injury can and does occur, it is not a "combat" martial art.

The Geneva convention was in force when judo was a major inspiration for U.S. CQC, but it was still used. After a throw or arm break, one can still assume that the enemy is dangerous, and follow up with deadly attacks, which are more likely to be effective if the opponent has the wind knocked out of them, or has a broken arm.

I work in JAG and I am familiar with the Geneva requirements, but I am not sure that the Convention documents necessarily had any impact on hand to hand. I will research that one further.

I am also rather sure that the U.S was not the only power whose military drew heavily from judo or other grappling arts for its CQC training.

So if we all jump off a bridge, jumping off a bridge is okay, right?

As for soldiers being unlikely to benefit greatly from any quick martial arts program, I agree. Learning any physical skill well enough to be able to employ it under great pressure requires both an appreciable initial amount of time, and regular practice.

Thank you. This is the main thrust of my rant! I was a Drill Sergeant, and during my training at Drill Sergeant School I was told that I did not have to be a Subject Matter Expert to teach hand to hand (i.e. I don't have to have an in depth knowledge of my subject to teach it). So I challenged my Drill Sergeant Leader to throw me with the hip throw he was trying to teach everyone. Later, after he failed, we discussed why. I simply told him that he had had weeks of training. I had had years.

It is simply unrealistic to believe that a person can attend ANY training, especially the kind dealing with developing neural pathways for performing intricate physical movements, for a short period of time and walk away an expert. If so, then I could have stopped my training a LOOOOOOONG time ago and been a black belt a hell of a lot sooner. Not to mention all those years of high school and college! No need for that anymore, since all you need is a short course to make you proficient! AAAAAGGGGGHHHHHH!!! (Can you tell this chafes me?)

Though he did not mean to do so, in at least one respect, Jeff's example seems to support my observations. If one is told to "aim for the center of mass" when shooting, one is not being told to "aim between the eyes," or " shoot for the heart." On is essentially being told to aim in such a way to maximize one's chance of hitting, but not to bother going for extremely precise shots more likely to kill if they hit their intended target. In other words, you are being told that it is best to maximize your chance of hitting your target, even if it results in "only" wounding your enemy.

No arguement there. Have you ever watched soldiers shoot? We only get to fire our weapons twice a year, sometimes more but rarely, and that is to qualify in their use, not to maintain proficiency. It is expected that we can go six months without firing the weapon, go out to the range, and fire 40 rounds and strike 40 targets. The Expert requirement is 36-38 or better (depending on the kind of range); the minimum requirement is 26 (I think; I score Expert usually, but I used to shoot a lot when I was younger so shooting comes easy for me). The number of soldiers that fail to qualify is astounding! Line them all up side by side, have them fire at will, and the safest place will be right in front of them! So the center mass thing is in the hopes that they run the risk of accidentally hitting their target so long as they point the rifle the right way... ("No Private, the end with the hole goes toward the bad guy, this side with the trigger and shoulder thingie go toward you...")

PS, IchiRiKen1, if you do take out your enemy by hitting him with your helmet and clearly put him out of commission but don't actually kill him, do you keep expending your energy on him, or do you concentrate on other enemy soldiers that are still a threat?

What is "clearly out of commission?" If I could be reasonably sure that he wouldn't get up, then I would move on. But I subscribe to the horror film school of thought that just cuz he's down don't mean he won't get back up with a chainsaw... ^_^ Seriously, I can't murder him if he is obviously without a hope of defense (i.e. both arms broken, blown off, etc.). But if he is still conscious and able to stand, then we still have work to do. I have a wife and two wonderful, beautiful children, and I certainly will not allow a person to have the opportunity to kill me and deny my return to them. If he is done, he is done, move on. If he ain't done, then we dance some more.

Please be aware that this is my "military hat" doing the talking. My martial style is a defensive style, and I am a pacifist at heart in that I am the last person wanting conflict of any kind. Like Miyagi says "In a fight, somebody always get hurt." ^_^ But war is a different thing, and it isn't like you can both just agree to walk away...

Sorry for the quotes and the long post.

Just my 2 yen...

[MarkF]

Originally posted by Matt Stone

Judo is a sport, and while I will not deny it is rough and that injury can and does occur, it is not a "combat" martial art.

I wasn't going to enter this discussion because I do not know enough about it. The Kodokan was the H2H school for quite a number of years. The US military leaders who brought it in are not with us anymore, and neither is judo in the military. Another note to Matt is: The "official" term for judo is "Combative Sport" and there still a few dinosaurs around like myself who still teach the original combative nature of judo. Some call it traditional. Other than that, this is a very nice discussion. Please excuse the audacity of a "sportsman" like myself for getting involved. Please continue:)

[Jeff Cook]

Mark,

You certainly are welcome and qualified to post on this subject!

Marco,

A number of points that I am going to make here; some will be reinforcing what has already been said, and I hope to expand on a few other previously-mentioned points.

First, THE US ARMY IS NOT TEACHING GJJ/BJJ AS CQC!!! One unit is teaching a severely watered-down version of BJJ as CQC that does not deserved to be called BJJ nor CQC. One unit only - not the army across-the-board. It is not the US Army's policy to teach BJJ. Again, one unit has decided to do it on their own without sanction, and what one unit decides to do on a whim does not determine Army-wide policy.

Second, what the US Army taught during WWI, WWII, etc., has no bearing on what current training doctrine is. They also used to teach horsemanship, but we don't ride horses into battle anymore.

Third, any unbalancing technique to set up a killing technique is valid - a throw is a beautiful technique to get your man to the ground quickly, where it is much easier to dispatch him or break contact with him if that is necessary for survival. A comparison: you don't teach troops just how to shoot a gun - you also teach them how to load it and clean it. Consider a throw in this "loading" context.

Fourth, look at the entire CQC picture in FM 21-150, which can be found online to get a basic idea of how the PRINCIPLES of CQC are taught.

Fifth, traditional judo taught traditionally has great combative potential, especially when atemi waza is emphasized in the curriculum. It is unfortunate that there are not many judo instructors around that teach this anymore. Hats off to Mark for still teaching this way!

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

[IchiRiKen1]

Let me start off by saying that I apologize in making my generalizations... Whenever you do so, you inevitably run the risk of stepping on toes. I meant no harm, nor disrespect, only that, by comparison, what is typically taken for Judo (i.e. competitive wrestling / grappling / throwing techniques) are not necessarily applicable to what the grunt in the field needs to do to the bad guy that is trying to disembowel him with a bayonet.

First, THE US ARMY IS NOT TEACHING GJJ/BJJ AS CQC!!! One unit is teaching a severely watered-down version of BJJ as CQC that does not deserved to be called BJJ nor CQC. One unit only - not the army across-the-board. It is not the US Army's policy to teach BJJ. Again, one unit has decided to do it on their own without sanction, and what one unit decides to do on a whim does not determine Army-wide policy.

I am guilty of making it seem as though this singular instance is going to change Army wide training. Vets everywhere know that change in our world takes time, and the institution of ANY CQC training would be years in the making. This having been said, it is my understanding that the Special Ops units at Fort Lewis are the testing ground for much of the Army's new tactics, equipment, etc. So forgive me if the portent is interpreted by me as an omen of what looms on the distant horizon (I still have 13 years to go here, so I tend to look long term at some stuff ^_^). I just have a funny feeling that with the trend that exists in the Army currently, that I will end up with a "new and improved" combatives system that hearkens to the days of the first combatives manual.

Second, what the US Army taught during WWI, WWII, etc., has no bearing on what current training doctrine is. They also used to teach horsemanship, but we don't ride horses into battle anymore.

And we don't train in Judo anymore, either... Of course, for that matter we don't train in anything! Way too dangerous to train in combat stuff after all...

Third, any unbalancing technique to set up a killing technique is valid - a throw is a beautiful technique to get your man to the ground quickly, where it is much easier to dispatch him or break contact with him if that is necessary for survival. A comparison: you don't teach troops just how to shoot a gun - you also teach them how to load it and clean it. Consider a throw in this "loading" context.

In my Hsing Yi and Ba Gua training, my Sifu told us to "hit him to throw him to hit him." I know that typical hip throws (since this was the throw discussed earlier in this thread) are not "fatal," but when the throwee is tossed onto his cervical vertebrae, bad stuff is likely to happen.

Fourth, look at the entire CQC picture in FM 21-150, which can be found online to get a basic idea of how the PRINCIPLES of CQC are taught.

I am at home, my manual is at work. I will look at that again. Thanks for the cite!

Fifth, traditional judo taught traditionally has great combative potential, especially when atemi waza is emphasized in the curriculum. It is unfortunate that there are not many judo instructors around that teach this anymore. Hats off to Mark for still teaching this way!

I congratulate and thank Mark for being true to the spirit of martial tradition by not forgetting, nor allowing his fellows to forget, the original methods of our arts. We are all indebted to other arts and instructors in one way or another, and this instance is no different. Please accept my apologies for denegrating (or seeming to do so) Judo, or any other Budo/Bujutsu by my comments. It isn't those arts I mean to be critical of, only my own beloved Army's intention and execution of new and interesting fads.

Just my 2 yen...

[C. Park]

Here's my take (or my two sens):

There is no formalized CQB training incorporated DOD-wide. This is a good thing, the reason being that this training must be unit and mission specific. Just as each unit's TOE is tailored to their needs, CQB also has to be tailored to the mission. That is why this training decision has to remain at the unit level.

You don't teach the quick kill method to peacekeeping troops whose mission is to police civilians, or teach underwater H2H to a Ranger battalion that is planning an assualt on a iraqi military airfield. You definitely don't want to teach BJJ to a VIP security & protection detail.

If the mission necessitates H2H CQB, the scope of the mission, who the bad guys are, battle conditions, TOE and other obvious factors are taken into account. After factoring and researching the mission, they plan on preparing the unit for the mission.

They try to get the known best individuals available to them in to instruct in specific types of training. A good example is VBSS ship boarding, as it requires a wide range of skills. One has to be able to subdue/control prisoners, yet survive attacks in tight quarters with little or no light, Training in both tactical weaponry and non-lethal solutions(OC, ASP batons, sting bags)is part of ship boarding, as you don't want to start shoot into a hold full of explosives, fuel, or chemicals. No "off the shelf" system is going to work in a environment that is wet and unstable, you operate in tight, confined spaces with corners everywhere, subject to attacks from all sides including above and below. You get best training that's available, which is the people who have done it the most, like the Coast Guard.


I admit, this is a over-simplification of military training. While not prone to some pig-headed REMF that thinks he knows something screwing things up, but usually corrected by the true operators. Teamwork is more important than the tactics itself, IMHO. When you get so in tune with your team members that you know what they're thinking and how they move, one-on-one conflicts are a rarity anyway.

The way a battle-ready combat unit teaches H2H hasn't changed in pinciple, although the tactics constantly change with technology:

The old trains the new
Keep what work, throw out what doesn't
Each team member contributes
Constantly explore new tactics and methods
Most of all- Train, train, and then, train some more.

I'm not aware of a system that is a 100% effective that works in any and all conditions. It doesn't exist, although people keep making things up claimimg so. Leave it to the shooters to decide what they want to train in.

[Edited by C. Park on 07-28-2000 at 03:32 PM]