Likes Likes:  4
Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 173

Thread: New Army Combatives manual

  1. #61
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Melissa, TX
    Posts
    3,162
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    0853517,

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

    Genbukan Kusakage dojo
    Dojo-cho

  2. #62
    MMA Combatives Guest

    Thumbs up Army Combatives

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

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

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    28
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

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

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

    Johan Grönwall
    (of Sweden, a friendly country)

  4. #64
    JGApprentice Guest

    Default

    Hi, just wondering what sort of manual or techniques are our MARINES using these days to teach combat? Thanks.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Melissa, TX
    Posts
    3,162
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default Re: Army Combatives

    Originally posted by MMA Combatives
    Great job Matt. As a long-time practicioner of MA, and a Ranger (2/75 1979-81 and Ranger class 1-81) I'm glad to see my alma mater has come around to reality.
    Hi Kevin,

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

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

    Genbukan Kusakage dojo
    Dojo-cho

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Malibu
    Posts
    96
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default Re: Re: Army Combatives

    Originally posted by George Kohler
    Hi Kevin,

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

    Also, you might know the owner of E-Budo, John Lindsey, since he was in 2/75 during your time. He was there in Cco 78-82.
    And I was there from 1979-82 in B 2/75 Ranger Class 14-81. I also spent time on the Batt Hand to Hand Demonstration Team with Russ Preston ( Who I am still in contact with to this day) and Sam Edgar among others.

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

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

    William Hazen
    Last edited by aikihazen; 12th July 2004 at 20:13.

  7. #67

    Default

    - ©Phil Elmore 浪人
    315.391.1626

    Publisher, The Martialist™
    For Those Who Fight Unfairly

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Malibu
    Posts
    96
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

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

    William Hazen

  9. #69
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Sarasota, Florida, USA
    Posts
    733
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    It's a bit more complicated than that, gentlemen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Jeff Cook
    Wabujitsu

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Malibu
    Posts
    96
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Mr. Cook,

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

    William Hazen

  11. #71
    Hissho Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Aikibu


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

    William Hazen
    This is utterly and completely untrue.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Malibu
    Posts
    96
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by Hissho
    This is utterly and completely untrue.
    I await the facts to support your statement. To clarify BJJ has no place in any Major LE curriculum that I know of. However I have to no problem learning otherwise.

    William Hazen

  13. #73
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Sarasota, Florida, USA
    Posts
    733
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    Guys, this is important stuff, and I appreciate the civil argument.

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

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

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

    Jeff Cook
    Wabujitsu

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Malibu
    Posts
    96
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Mr. Cook,

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

    William Hazen

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Maryland, USA, by way of Bavaria, Germany, Texas, Indiana and Virginia
    Posts
    490
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default Army mindset

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

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

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

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

    Well said, and worth repeating.

    Chuck
    In Graf, listening to the boys play with things that go BOOM.
    Chuck Gordon
    Mugendo Budogu
    http://www.budogu.com/

Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 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
  •