Hand-to-hand in combat

[sullygoarmy]

I'm a day late on this one but I'll throw a question out there regarding hand-to-hand. The Army's new combatives training emphasizes going to the ground with your opponent. While I find this to be an interesting exercise in PT gear on a matted gym floor, I wonder why we are teaching the techniques when, in reality, most of the hand-to-hand combat actions are going to take place with a soldier wearing full body armor, helmet and assorted other gear to weigh him down. So you want me to train soldiers to go to the ground with their opponent when, in reality, your opponent most likely will have little to no extra weight on his person, and quite capable of maneuvering away from our poor, heavily weighed down turtle?

Am I off base here or is the purpose of this new combatives program to teach our soldiers no kidding, useful hand-to-hand skills or to make them feel better about themselves and learn just enough to get their asses kicked in a bar fight?

[Ken White]

...
Am I off base here or is the purpose of this new combatives program to teach our soldiers no kidding, useful hand-to-hand skills or to make them feel better about themselves and learn just enough to get their asses kicked in a bar fight?

-- and to get kids who haven't played team sports or had much physical contact to learn a sprain, a cut lip or a bloody nose won't kill you.

Re: your first paragraph above, I may have been misinformed but I thought that grappling / Brazilian judo bit was just introductory and that later follow on training got them out of the "go to ground" mode. I sure hope so; with or without looking like a Ninja Turtle, the ground is the last place you want to be in a serious fight...

[sullygoarmy]

Good point Ken. It is amazing how many kids joining the military have never gotten into any sort of physical altercation. I'm a big believer in boxing and hand-to-hand training...enough to build your confidence that you can in fact, handle yourself and survive.

[slapout9]

Good point Ken. It is amazing how many kids joining the military have never gotten into any sort of physical altercation. I'm a big believer in boxing and hand-to-hand training...enough to build your confidence that you can in fact, handle yourself and survive.

This is kind of a personal rant with me. Going to the ground was warned against in both Fairbarns and Applegates books some time ago. I never understood it myself...why would you want to be on the ground as a matter of choice??? especially since some of that stuff looks like it belongs in the don't ask don't tell part of the Army. I certainly never saw anything like that in Montgomery...the ones that were put on the ground tended to stay there for awhile and theyt didn't do any huggie buggie boo type moves either....more like Mike Tyson on acid.

[slapout9]

Some of you will remember awhile back about a 72 year old Marine that beats up a pick pocket. Here are the actual security tapes of the incident from several different views. Some hand strikes, a couple of elbows and looks like he slipped a good knee strike in there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mafN9...eature=related

[Ron Humphrey]

Good point Ken. It is amazing how many kids joining the military have never gotten into any sort of physical altercation. I'm a big believer in boxing and hand-to-hand training...enough to build your confidence that you can in fact, handle yourself and survive.

The old saying about being able to take a lickin and keep on tickin probably takes on a whole new meaning when the one giving the licking will literally finish you off if you don't.

[Rifleman]

Sad story; slightly off topic, but it sort of goes along with this thread:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,326148,00.html

[Coldstreamer]

An enormous degree of excellent analysis in all of this, but I must say a few -namely the gallant Will F Owen (holding his ground in the best infantry traditions) fail to understand the real utility of all unarmed combat, with edged weapons or otherwise.

Its for throwing your weight around when you're off duty, showing off in front of chicks in your boxer shorts once you've lured them back to your 'love dojo', and escaping from yobbos on the Kings Road after you've provoked them into violence by your Alpha Male vibes.

Most specialist forms of this art: FISH (fighting in some one's house), FIBAR (fighting in bars and restaurants) and RAWD (running away with dignity). The latter involves a few hand chops at the air, possibly a roll or two before fleeing at top speed.

[slapout9]

Check out these counter terrorist/ hostage rescue police dogs not sure what language they are speaking but they certainly know their H2H combat or is that Paw2Paw combat

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfi5F...eature=related

[William F. Owen]

An enormous degree of excellent analysis in all of this, but I must say a few -namely the gallant Will F Owen (holding his ground in the best infantry traditions) fail to understand the real utility of all unarmed combat, with edged weapons or otherwise.

Its for throwing your weight around when you're off duty, showing off in front of chicks in your boxer shorts once you've lured them back to your 'love dojo', and escaping from yobbos on the Kings Road after you've provoked them into violence by your Alpha Male vibes.

Most specialist forms of this art: FISH (fighting in some one's house), FIBAR (fighting in bars and restaurants) and RAWD (running away with dignity). The latter involves a few hand chops at the air, possibly a roll or two before fleeing at top speed.

Thank you, the House Hold Division Representative. Having spent a bit of time conducting FART (fighting around town) in can only concur with your analysis.

I have no problem skilling the boys up with a few shrewd moves, placed in the context of an operational reality, but I cannot, and probably never will see the point in teaching line infantry how to use a bayonet, or giving him one to use! - and I can'e see the point in foot drill either!!

[Shek]

I'm a day late on this one but I'll throw a question out there regarding hand-to-hand. The Army's new combatives training emphasizes going to the ground with your opponent. While I find this to be an interesting exercise in PT gear on a matted gym floor, I wonder why we are teaching the techniques when, in reality, most of the hand-to-hand combat actions are going to take place with a soldier wearing full body armor, helmet and assorted other gear to weigh him down. So you want me to train soldiers to go to the ground with their opponent when, in reality, your opponent most likely will have little to no extra weight on his person, and quite capable of maneuvering away from our poor, heavily weighed down turtle?

Am I off base here or is the purpose of this new combatives program to teach our soldiers no kidding, useful hand-to-hand skills or to make them feel better about themselves and learn just enough to get their asses kicked in a bar fight?

We had a NCO in a sister battalion in Mosul back in 2004 kill an insurgent with his knife (the insurgent pulled a knife as well) after grappling on the ground. I believe this soldier had done some BJJ outside of the combatives program within his battalion, so he was better than the average bear, but I think the key is that the new combatives program recognizes the fact that most fights end on the ground. As they say, train as you fight, and the old school judo throw way simply wasn't realistic.

[Ken White]

... but I think the key is that the new combatives program recognizes the fact that most fights end on the ground...

Being old and from an era where bar fights and such were far more common than they are today and having indulged in hand to hand with sundry folks with hostile intent in several parts of the world, I can agree that some fights end up on the ground but I think most don't and those that do generally end up with someone REALLY getting hurt -- and which one is a coin flip.

I know in most cases anyone who wants to stay alive should avoid the ground to the maximum extent possible..

...As they say, train as you fight, and the old school judo throw way simply wasn't realistic.

True, it was not -- and it wasn't taught to or used by anyone who might have to get seriously engaged; other techniques were. Ranger School used the old stuff as a teaching vehicle in much the same mode that grappling is used today, from there it sort of permeated the Army. Both were/are bad ideas. Train as you'll fight requires teaching everyone how to kill people with their hands or feet or, better, using any object that comes to hand (including your car keys) as a weapon -- not a well accepted idea in western society...

I have no problem with teaching grappling as a way for the kids to learn getting hurt is not life threatening -- but teaching anyone to go to ground if it can be avoided in a real life threatening situation is a very bad idea.

[Jedburgh]

Being old and from an era where bar fights and such were far more common than they are today and having indulged in hand to hand with sundry folks with hostile intent in several parts of the world, I can agree that some fights end up on the ground but I think most don't and those that do generally end up with someone REALLY getting hurt -- and which one is a coin flip.

I know in most cases anyone who wants to stay alive should avoid the ground to the maximum extent possible..

True, it was not -- and it wasn't taught to or used by anyone who might have to get seriously engaged; other techniques were. Ranger School used the old stuff as a teaching vehicle in much the same mode that grappling is used today, from there it sort of permeated the Army. Both were/are bad ideas. Train as you'll fight requires teaching everyone how to kill people with their hands or feet or, better, using any object that comes to hand (including your car keys) as a weapon -- not a well accepted idea in western society...

I have no problem with teaching grappling as a way for the kids to learn getting hurt is not life threatening -- but teaching anyone to go to ground if it can be avoided in a real life threatening situation is a very bad idea.

What he said.

I also strongly disagree with the assertion that most fights end up on the ground. Going along with that, it was never my experience that the old judo throw way was ever part of serious H2H for combat soldiers.

As Ken stated, train as you fight means teaching the young'uns to kill the bad guy in a close encounter by the most expeditious means available. This is not just base skills training, its also awareness training - awareness of the bad guy, awareness of the surroundings and how to physically exploit both to the detriment of the former.

Slap has mentioned Fairbairn a number of times on the board. Fairbairn's methods are simple to teach, learn and execute - and they are meant to kill. Fairbairn understood the dangers of ending up in grappling contest or going to ground, and stressed eliminating the threat as quickly as possible. This, based on countless real world life or death encounters.

Sometimes I think that current combatives was more influenced by UFC/cage fighting than it was by anything to do with the cold necessity in a close encounter of killing your enemy as quickly as possible.

[Ron Humphrey]

What he said.

I also strongly disagree with the assertion that most fights end up on the ground. Going along with that, it was never my experience that the old judo throw way was ever part of serious H2H for combat soldiers.


Sometimes I think that current combatives was more influenced by UFC/cage fighting than it was by anything to do with the cold necessity in a close encounter of killing your enemy as quickly as possible.

I have often ended up in discussions with my siblings about that very thing as I try to explain that real fighting which ends up in one winner and one permanently losing. These bouts would be considerably different than what they see on TV.

I think thats the overwhelming point, for military there is no other point to H2H then to win at all cost thus any training should reflect that, not what we watch on Saturday night.

[Ratzel]

What he said.

I also strongly disagree with the assertion that most fights end up on the ground. Going along with that, it was never my experience that the old judo throw way was ever part of serious H2H for combat soldiers.

As Ken stated, train as you fight means teaching the young'uns to kill the bad guy in a close encounter by the most expeditious means available. This is not just base skills training, its also awareness training - awareness of the bad guy, awareness of the surroundings and how to physically exploit both to the detriment of the former.

Slap has mentioned Fairbairn a number of times on the board. Fairbairn's methods are simple to teach, learn and execute - and they are meant to kill. Fairbairn understood the dangers of ending up in grappling contest or going to ground, and stressed eliminating the threat as quickly as possible. This, based on countless real world life or death encounters.

Sometimes I think that current combatives was more influenced by UFC/cage fighting than it was by anything to do with the cold necessity in a close encounter of killing your enemy as quickly as possible.

US Army combatives IS based on UFC fighting. The "inventor" of modern Army combatives went to the Gracie school (sometimes known as the "Lions Den") in order to learn and develop this new style. I attended "Phase One" training at Ft. Benning and watching UFC fighting is part of the curriculum. There's a reason for this.

UFC is the closest thing to real street fighting. The UFC started with the idea of seeing which martial art was best. When it started, all kinds of Kung-Fu masters and Karate folks showed up and tried using the leg sweeps and spin kicks they had been using for hundreds of years. After Hoist Gracie won the first one-using Brazilian Jujitsu- it didn't take long to see that Karate and Kung-Fu were not very effective in a real fight. Today we see no Kung-Fuers in UFC as pretty much everyone in the sport uses Kick Boxing/Maui Tai for striking and grappling for the ground. Occasionally you'll see people like "Tank-Abbott" who used what was known as "ground and pound" which was basically a street fighting form which features getting someone to the ground and beating the crap out of them.

US Army combatives has 3 phases. 1. Ground Phase 2. Throwing/take-down phase 3. Striking Phase.

Many people wonder why the Army starts with ground phase? The reason is simple. Everyone knows how to throw some kind of a punch (although probably wrong). So to try to reteach something like throwing a proper punch, would take a long time and most people can hurt someone with their fist regardless. Instead, the Army teaches a skill in which people have a large learning curve; grappling. Most people know nothing about grappling. Someone can be very powerful and very tough, but if his opponent knows a little about ground fighting, there's a very good chance he'll lose.

While in the school, we talked about the myth of "90% of fights going to the ground." The creator of the program said he'd never seen actual statistics to back this claim up. Many fights do, or at least the two fighters get a hold of each other. It is at this point (while holding on to each other) that the trained man has the advantage. After learning about grappling, I would say that I would prefer to take someone to the ground in a fight. As long as his friends don't outnumber mine (more on this later). So the point is, go ahead and bash your enemy with fists or M-16's or Hockey sticks, but if you get into a position where you're holding on to him, now you know what to do.

Now to the secret of winning h2h combat in real combat situations. The key is to have your friends show up first before the enemy's friends show up. You don't even have to win the fight, you just need to control the man until your buddy comes and places his barrel to your opponents scull. This is why learning "The Guard" in grappling is key. If you can control your opponent, and get him into a position where YOU are controlling him, your chances of winning (or surviving) is much higher.

In phase 3 of the school, you learn some basic kicks and punches but also learn how to use weapons found in the street. But the most important thing the school teaches is to get over fear. When I went through, the instructor had a real cage fighter strap on the boxing gloves and you had to tackle him while he punched you in the head. This was very important for people who had never been punched before or who had never been in a fight. Getting over that fear of being hit was very important. The instructor even told us of people who failed the class due to refusing to be hit.

So overall, I believe the Army combatives program to be a good one. Its important to remember that the point isn't to take every fight to the ground. If you can finish someone on your feet then do so. But if it does go to the ground, then you'll know how to finish off your opponent.

[Jedburgh]

UFC is the closest thing to real street fighting.

There's the initial mistake. Street fighting bears no approximation to H2H in combat. Or, at least, what H2H in combat should be. The intent is to kill, period. As quickly and efficiently as possible. If you're in a situation where you have to go H2H, or use expedient weapons, you're in a potential world of hurt anyway, and any second thoughts about subduing or capturing the bad guy are deadly mental weaknesses. Current combatives does not effectively address this, and puts the wrong mindset into soldiers. As a physical training and motivational program, fine. But it is a mistake to posture it as true combat H2H.

Now to the secret of winning h2h combat in real combat situations. The key is to have your friends show up first before the enemy's friends show up. You don't even have to win the fight, you just need to control the man until your buddy comes and places his barrel to your opponents skull. This is why learning "The Guard" in grappling is key.

This speaks to what I just stated above. Training someone to "control" the bad guy in H2H until his buddies arrive is a huge and potentially deadly training mistake. Let's not go down the road of relative size, differences in carry load, adrenaline vs crazed, etc. That concept is fine for LE purposes - but in a world where the next bad guy with a gun wanting to put you down is potentially just as close or closer than "your friends", you need to kill the sonuvabitch. Immediately.

If you can control your opponent, and get him into a position where YOU are controlling him, your chances of winning (or surviving) is much higher.

Kill him and move on.
- W.E. Fairbairn.

[Ken White]

"Kill him and move on."
- W.E. Fairbairn.

Street fighting, restraining persons to be detained and hand to hand combat are three very different things. The first is essentially training for itself, the second requires only a few hours of training and the last only two or three days -- and no throws, judo tae kwan do or kung fu moves are entailed though some elementary physiology is...

[Ratzel]

There's the initial mistake. Street fighting bears no approximation to H2H in combat. Or, at least, what H2H in combat should be. The intent is to kill, period. As quickly and efficiently as possible. If you're in a situation where you have to go H2H, or use expedient weapons, you're in a potential world of hurt anyway, and any second thoughts about subduing or capturing the bad guy are deadly mental weaknesses. Current combatives does not effectively address this, and puts the wrong mindset into soldiers. As a physical training and motivational program, fine. But it is a mistake to posture it as true combat H2H.

I'm not sure I agree? The only difference between the two is the law. If there was no law in place, more people would be killed in steet fights. You're still trying to hurt the other person bad enough that they can no longer hurt you. Usally street fights get broken up before any real damgae can happen.


This speaks to what I just stated above. Training someone to "control" the bad guy in H2H until his buddies arrive is a huge and potentially deadly training mistake. Let's not go down the road of relative size, differences in carry load, adrenaline vs crazed, etc. That concept is fine for LE purposes - but in a world where the next bad guy with a gun wanting to put you down is potentially just as close or closer than "your friends", you need to kill the sonuvabitch. Immediately.

The point isn't just to control the other guy, if you can't do anything else due being weaker or less experienced, then this would be your last resort. While developing the US Army combatives program, the creator conducted case studies and found this (the buddy helping out) most often.

Kill him and move on.


Yes indeed, kill him and move out, better yet, kill him, chop off his head and hang it at the market. I like the move that John Matrix uses in Commando when he turns the guys head real fast and snaps his neck. Unforchanly, most people don't have this ability, and I'm unfamiliar with any system that offers such knowledge? I would hope that most people would kick for the groin and punch for the throat, bite off the ear or gouge out the eyes. But if you get rapped up with someone and you have the ability to choke him out or break his arm-with an arm bar-then you'll be in good shape to "kill him and move on." I'm not disagreeing with you that we should kill the enemy quickly, I just disagree that its so easy to do.