Hand-to-hand in combat

[William F. Owen]

Because manpower is the most expensive item in any defense budget and politicians are always trying to impose strength cuts on the Forces. .

Very true, so why was the 1924 platoon smaller than the 1995 platoon?

Actually in the UK it is not the Politicians. It's the senior officers who make incredible data free descisions, and then hide behind blaming the politicans. No UK politician ever specified a platoon level weapons set, or made up data to support the 8-man section. It was all done by soldiers.

[Coldstreamer]

Big time agree with data-free decisions....living the dream every day.

Most of the issues with excessively heavy radios, underperforming kit, suboptimal organisation, I believe, is because we have an equipment-centric defence policy which is fundamentally tied to supporting UK defence industries rather than getting the best pragmatic solutions for todays needs...re-enter Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs debate about procurement - but largely true.

[William F. Owen]

Big time agree with data-free decisions....living the dream every day.

Most of the issues with excessively heavy radios, underperforming kit, suboptimal organisation, I believe, is because we have an equipment-centric defence policy which is fundamentally tied to supporting UK defence industries rather than getting the best pragmatic solutions for todays needs...re-enter Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs debate about procurement - but largely true.

Didn't the Director of Infantry say "We equip the man, not man the equipment!"

...so when I pointed out all the problems with PRC-354 at a School of Infantry Study day, I was very politely told to shut up.

[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...

[slapout9]

This is a little short clip of a retired NYPD detective who teaches Fairbairn methods for self defense. Here is how to survive a grappling situation or what the enemy will do to you if don't stop learning the Girlie Man Combat........ Eye gouge, crush his balls, then break his neck.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__FX8...eature=related

[Coldstreamer]

Except that in H2H and unarmed combat of all forms, operational context remains everything - as in all else. If my blokes start ripping out peoples windpipes in a COIN context, it will raise eyebrows and probably see me on a plane home quite quickly. So the ability to restrain, control and physical manage people from non-lethal up to lethal remains a requirement.

I suspect we're all violent agreeing, but our people need to be prepared, through training and conditioning, to apply the appropriate levels of force whether with weapons or without. Its actually remarkably easy to kill a man with your hands. Neutralising appropriately begins to require a training bill, but one that still needs to be addressed.

As a Guards officer, this is less of a problem personally. An icy stare and a raised eyebrow is enough to make most forms of life burst into flames. Faced with large public order situations, a dismissive shake of the head usually has the unwashed retiring in embarrassment and shame. You'll also notice the original master often relied on non-kinetic forms of deterrence...

http://www.chucknorrisfacts.com/

[Ken White]

In 1966, I was sitting in a Hotel lobby in Kuala Lumpur when a Malaysian Army staff car pulled up, disgorging a British Army Guards Major in jungle Green. Without looking at anyone or any thing he swept into the Lobby at 120 steps to the minute and the two doors were opened by a passerby and a Bellboy at great speed and with agility that was impressive and said Major proceeded through the doors without breaking stride or a sideways glance, head erect, presumably communing with his friend God to be greeted by a deeply bowing Malay Assistant Manager...

Awesome. Post colonial or not, the effect lingered.

Of, course, he was a Grenadier...

[slapout9]

Here is the new hit CD to go with the Combatives manual

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A0W-...eature=related

[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.

[selil]

I'm getting the impression that most soldiers don't do a lot of hand to hand combat. I figure the few police officers/corrections officers on here likely have a greater understanding of non-fire-arm combat which actually kind of surprises me. One comment that put me on my heels was the idea that restraint or arrest training could be done in only a few hours. How many layers to the ladder of force are their in an arrest situation? Remember Fairbairn who has been oft quoted was a Shanghai policeman when he developed most of his system. I know the Royal Marines claim him closely, but he was only in the Marines for a short time, and a police officer nearly 30 years. I'm just more and more surprised at the numerous issues like going to ground (ever heard of between a rock and a hard place?), and other things that make zero sense. In a jail riot you want to end the capability of an adversary rapidly not spar. Every technique I was taught in several years of training (Combined Arts Training System), was mostly based off actual fights and how to end them quickly. Just chalk this up to quietly puzzled.

[Ken White]

"I'm not disagreeing with you that we should kill the enemy quickly, I just disagree that its so easy to do."

As I said above, "Street fighting, restraining persons to be detained and hand to hand combat are three very different things" You keep trying to roll them into one package.

That and this:

"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..."

Indicate an idealistic or a fictional view of a skill that everyone doesn't need -- Wilf is correct on that score. That makes you correct on this:

" Unforchanly, most people don't have this ability..."

Because those taught it have be folks that will NOT use it in that street fight -- or on someone we're trying to detain. Which is why it is not taught to most people in the Armed Forces in peacetime (and for the nation, this is peacetime). What's being taught is adequate for the average troop -- with the exception of getting on the ground.

"...and I'm unfamiliar with any system that offers such knowledge?"

There are several out there; Tae Kwan Do for example teaches you to kill -- but it requires a lot of practice and some heavy calluses. With other methods a little knowledge of the body can be acquired easily and that body has a lot of vulnerable spots besides the neck so no great amount of practice is required.

[Coldstreamer]

In 1966, I was sitting in a Hotel lobby in Kuala Lumpur when a Malaysian Army staff car pulled up, disgorging a British Army Guards Major in jungle Green. Without looking at anyone or any thing he swept into the Lobby at 120 steps to the minute and the two doors were opened by a passerby and a Bellboy at great speed and with agility that was impressive and said Major proceeded through the doors without breaking stride or a sideways glance, head erect, presumably communing with his friend God to be greeted by a deeply bowing Malay Assistant Manager...

Awesome. Post colonial or not, the effect lingered.

Of, course, he was a Grenadier...

If he'd been a Coldstreamer someone would have offered him a drink and a girl...

[slapout9]

I'm getting the impression that most soldiers don't do a lot of hand to hand combat. I figure the few police officers/corrections officers on here likely have a greater understanding of non-fire-arm combat which actually kind of surprises me. One comment that put me on my heels was the idea that restraint or arrest training could be done in only a few hours. How many layers to the ladder of force are their in an arrest situation? Remember Fairbairn who has been oft quoted was a Shanghai policeman when he developed most of his system. I know the Royal Marines claim him closely, but he was only in the Marines for a short time, and a police officer nearly 30 years. I'm just more and more surprised at the numerous issues like going to ground (ever heard of between a rock and a hard place?), and other things that make zero sense. In a jail riot you want to end the capability of an adversary rapidly not spar. Every technique I was taught in several years of training (Combined Arts Training System), was mostly based off actual fights and how to end them quickly. Just chalk this up to quietly puzzled.

Hi Selil, both Fairbairn and Applegate were police officers (Applegate was an MP). After retiring from the Army Applegate did extensive work in Central and South America as a Riot Control specialist which is why the later editions of his book "Kill or be Killed" have large sections on Riot Control. And like everything else he wrote it is as valid today as it was back then.

[Ken White]

I'm getting the impression that most soldiers don't do a lot of hand to hand combat. I figure the few police officers/corrections officers on here likely have a greater understanding of non-fire-arm combat which actually kind of surprises me.

They don't and they should not. It can and should be generally avoided. There are however a few units that have a greater probability of such contact and need to be trained accordingly. For the bulk of the Army or Marines, that isn't necessary -- or desirable.

I don't know why that would be a surprise; sort of figures if you ask me. The soldiers job, essentially is to kill the bad guys; the cops is to restrain them with minimum damage.

One comment that put me on my heels was the idea that restraint or arrest training could be done in only a few hours. How many layers to the ladder of force are their in an arrest situation?

Take off your Cop hat and put on your Marine cover. The first has many constraints in law and practice, the second has very few. A bruise in the wrong place can kill a cop's career. Not nearly as likely for the Marine. The Cop's job is to protect and to serve; the Marines to kill or be killed.

I'm just more and more surprised at the numerous issues like going to ground (ever heard of between a rock and a hard place?)...

So was I...

...and other things that make zero sense. In a jail riot you want to end the capability of an adversary rapidly not spar. Every technique I was taught in several years of training (Combined Arts Training System), was mostly based off actual fights and how to end them quickly. Just chalk this up to quietly puzzled.

The difference between the Cop and the Marine yet again. The Cop really, really wants to end that fight quickly and without undue harm to all involved. The Marine wants his fight to end even more quickly (because he invariably has other worries and things to do) and he is not and should not be too concerned -- not unconcerned in the case of detaining someone, just not too concerned -- with damage to the opponent.

[Ken White]

If he'd been a Coldstreamer someone would have offered him a drink and a girl...

two girls?

[Rifleman]

You seem to be self-conscious and lacking esteem, Coldstreamer.

Not to worry, it's not too late for you to become something special.

After all, there's still G Squadron, 22 SAS.

[Ray]

The posts here have got me thinking.

I have experience both in war and in Counter Insurgency. But seriously, I have never given this a thought.

Unarmed Combat is taught in our Army. It includes disarming a sentry as also attacks on a soldier by the enemy in a variety of situations. Initially, it is taught in PT gear and then in sandpits, but it graduates to being in combat gear.

Is it useful?

I presume in a raid, it is, where silence is the key to success – at least in the initial part where one has to enter the area by disarming those on guard. Obviously, noise would not help. I have been in such a raid in war time, though I will confess that it did not work out totally because the surprise had been lost as another party on a complementary raid had botched up the timings. They claimed that the unarmed combat stuff had worked for them.

In a Counter Insurgency environment and our army follows the procedure of “talk first and shoot later”, I think Unarmed Combat does help. Many a suspect who is fleeing the scene and may not be actual terrorists could be “downed” thorough unarmed combat, rather than be accused by the Human Rights and others of being unduly aggressive and killing the “innocent”! Like it or not, a “bad press” creates such a stink that it is not worth the trouble!

A soldier has to have an aggressive mindset and I think that Unarmed Combat assists him to be able to maintain this mindset even if he is without or has been deprived of his weapon. Further, it builds the psyche of “never say die”!

[slapout9]

Couple of further points. A soldier if he is to hold the title of one should no how to fight with any weapon. I always thought it was very fitting for the Marine Corps Martial Arts program motto as "One Mind..Any Weapon."

The original H2H system of the WW2 taught by Fairbairn and Applegate was called Close Combat and started at handgun/sub machine gun range(point shooting) then to the Bayonet, then to the knife, then to the stick, and finally as a last resort H2H. Marine Historian Chuck Meslon wrote a book on this subject called "Combat Conditioning" which reviews the H2H,PT,and Obstacle courses used to condition Marines in WW2, he points out that one of the most serious problems with modern combatives is that they have left out the firearms part and it is a problem that should be corrected. The book is available from Paladin Press and is pretty cheap, has many drawings and pictures and the complete syllabus for the close combat course as taught to Marine officers.