New Army Combatives manual

[Joel Simmons]

Aloha,

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

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

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

[aikihazen]

Originally posted by hawaiianvw67
Aloha,

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

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

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

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

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

[IchiRiKen1]

Originally posted by hawaiianvw67
I just completed basic training at Ft. Sill.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where are you stationed?

[Joel Simmons]

Alohas,

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

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

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

[rodgerd]

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

And the difference between subduing and killing said people will probably have a direct correlation to how many US soldiers end up dead as a result of car bomb, sneak mortar attacks, et al (see: Vietnam, Iraq).

[IchiRiKen1]

Originally posted by hawaiianvw67

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Joel Simmons]

Aloha Mr. Stone,

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

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

You have a personal message.

[IchiRiKen1]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by hawaiianvw67
Aloha Mr. Stone,

Aloha.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[kroh]

HOLY HUGE THREAD!

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,
Walt

[hjnorris]

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

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

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

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

Regards,

Henry Norris
Raleigh, NC

[Jeff Cook]

That's odd. Upon reviewing the FOUO DOD-restricted portion of the Center for Army Lessons Learned website, I see many references to the efficacy of the current combatives program:

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

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

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

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

Something smells fishy.

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

[Joseph Svinth]

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

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

[D Dempsey]

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

[Jeff Cook]

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

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

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

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

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

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

[TonyU]

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

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

Somehow, I doubt you will have to.