Likes Likes:  4
Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 173

Thread: New Army Combatives manual

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Ft. Benning Ga.
    Posts
    61
    Likes (received)
    3

    Default

    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
    1. The defining characteristic of a warrior is the willingness to close with the enemy.
    2. The winner of the hand-to-hand fight in combat is the one whose buddy shows up first with a gun.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    The Great White North
    Posts
    7
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    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!
    With Respect,

    T. White

  3. Likes mkrueger liked this post
  4. #18
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Sarasota, Florida, USA
    Posts
    733
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    Matt, so I am not posting the same thing in both places, please see this link: http://www.budoseek.net/vbulletin/sh...&threadid=1460

    Jeff Cook
    Wabujitsu

  5. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Montgomery, AL
    Posts
    166
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    Thanks for posting. Really excellent work.

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

    Best,

  6. #20
    Robert Krone Guest

    Default



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




  7. #21

    Default

    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
    Elliot

  8. #22
    komichido Guest

    Default

    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

  9. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Ft. Benning Ga.
    Posts
    61
    Likes (received)
    3

    Default

    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
    1. The defining characteristic of a warrior is the willingness to close with the enemy.
    2. The winner of the hand-to-hand fight in combat is the one whose buddy shows up first with a gun.

  10. Likes mkrueger liked this post
  11. #24

    Default

    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
    Elliot

  12. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Ft. Benning Ga.
    Posts
    61
    Likes (received)
    3

    Default

    CPT Harris,
    The skill level three course is for any graduate of the level two course.

    Matt Larsen
    1. The defining characteristic of a warrior is the willingness to close with the enemy.
    2. The winner of the hand-to-hand fight in combat is the one whose buddy shows up first with a gun.

  13. #26
    komichido Guest

    Default

    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

  14. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Fort Lewis, WA
    Posts
    233
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default Non-11 Series MOS holders...

    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 Stone
    VIRTUS et HONOS
    "Strength and Honor"

  15. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Ft. Benning Ga.
    Posts
    61
    Likes (received)
    3

    Default

    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
    1. The defining characteristic of a warrior is the willingness to close with the enemy.
    2. The winner of the hand-to-hand fight in combat is the one whose buddy shows up first with a gun.

  16. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Fort Lewis, WA
    Posts
    233
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default Camp Zama Today

    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
    Matt Stone
    VIRTUS et HONOS
    "Strength and Honor"

  17. #30
    formerseal Guest

    Default lack of upright fighting

    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

Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Army Rangers dominate Army combatives championship
    By John Lindsey in forum Close Quarter Combatives
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 15th December 2005, 22:20
  2. US Army Unarmed Combat Training Manual
    By cheunglo in forum Shorinji Kempo
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 18th November 2003, 04:50
  3. Army Times Article
    By Matt Larsen in forum Close Quarter Combatives
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 28th October 2003, 14:22
  4. New US Army Combatives Manual
    By Juan Perez in forum Close Quarter Combatives
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 30th January 2002, 18:30
  5. army combatives manual
    By shinja in forum Close Quarter Combatives
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 19th April 2001, 18:10

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •