Found this link on the UG. Kind of interesting to read.-ED
http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/3-25.150/toc.htm
What do you think? I had a small hand in this. Plus I currently teach this to my Brigade. with a few changes since I didn’t completely agree with the FM
I like it. You can practice it full speed practically anywhere there are mats or grass. That’ll make it that much easier to use under a stressful situation.
Asia,
It is really well done. I recommend everyone check it out. It goes into everything from defending strikes while in the guard to takedowns to striking on the gound, very good stuff and it is free to boot.-ED
Thanks. I was against a lot of BJJ in the manual since I don’t think Bjj is suitable for War time combat. (The BJJ was mainly due to the Graices giving a seminar to the SF and Ranger in 96~97)
I find it to be a pathetic example of when a commerical NHB venture becomes the required training to reflect a current trend.
I am all for ground survival tactics, that is if you are taken down, learn to get up and get out, not to take someone to the ground on purpose in a battlefield, it is absurd to note that they devoted 3 chapters to such nonsense, it is not close combat by any means, it is only based on the fact that the rangers are sold on GJJ, because I would bet that a few of the officers liked what they saw on the UFC, and were students of the system.
They replaced most of there close quater hand blows with a assortment of GJJ techniques, not to mention that the LINE system, a system geared towards the more serious battle focused h2h principles was moved to the SF forces and out of basic training.
I think this goes with the objective of training liability, plus a focus on peackeeping/low intensity conflict missions, not to mention what people think they see in a martial arts tourney is what is acceptable in the real world.
I can see it now, a GI giving a terrorist a triangle choke, in the middle of a overrun battlefield. The same thing happened with HRD in the 70’s with Michael Enchanis, and his combatives.
At least his stuff made sense from a tactical standpoint, so does groundfighting if one looks at it from a escape perspective, and not one of submission.
They NEVER should of changed the old close combat syllabus from the 40’s and 50’s if you ask me.
I personally think ground and pound is a quicker and safer tactic for their line of work then looking for submission unless it is a quick choke maybe. Learning how to grapple is key, and obviously it’s a requirement for them.
This leads me to an interesting note. I think A LOT of people are grappling these days. A lot of TOUGH guys are learning the BJJ and groundfighting systems. You may even run into a “joe blow” on the street who suddenly does clinch with you and take you down to mount. You’ve got to know what to do down there, and it won’t be with a seminar or two, you’ve got to train, join schools, train with resistent partners, etc. This is the only way to be able to defend yourself against other “not so nice” guys who look to grappling for a “tough bad ass UFC” type persona.
Gotta be careful. People are training everywhere…not just the good guys in my opinion.
Grappling, like it or not, is now a fundamental part of what we think of as fighting, and I think the non-martial arts community is NOT ignorant to this either… If you want to box, fight with a knife, use guns, bite, eyegouge, etc. Go ahead. They work.
BUT get your foundation in groundwork. Make it a strong foundation because if you’re caught not knowing what to do…
well you lose. Sorry. It’s as simple as that.
Ryu
Ryu, the last paragraph of your post almosts appears to be threading on the idea that we should be walking around in fear of the guy accross the street so to speak. To begin with, not that many people are training these days. For those that are, the percentage of them that are looking for people to show off their tough guy skills on are very few.
One is welcome to train for whatever reasons they see fit, and if the motivation to train is to be able to defend yourself when the “time comes so to speak” then that’s ok, it’s up to you really.
- Nexus
I guess it really depends on where you live. Here is So Cal there is a BJJ school on almost every corner and two kickboxing schools next each one.
It is kind of funny but everytime I go out, I am always checking out people’s ears.-ED
Hi Nexus,
I didn’t mean to sound so paranoid. No, I don’t think we should be in fear, and of course not everyone is a “Gracie trained” killer LOL. 
(actually, that last paragraph might have appeared more dark than I wanted…I’m writing a story, and was listening to some foreboding music…haha it might have had something to do with it sorry.. 
)
But I do want to say that even though many people are not training, there are “tough guys” who are, and who may indeed want to prove themselves. The people who enjoy fighting, enjoy bullying, etc. These people aren’t blind to effective means of beating people up. If they are training in BJJ or something similar, it makes them that much more dangerous.
I guess all I was saying is that you should train for the person who is going to be skilled… it’s similar to what MerryPrankster always says. But I didn’t mean to be so “armageddon” about it.
Sorry about that. =)
(for what its worth, the story I’m working on is coming out pretty good so far…)
Ryu
Thank’s for the link :]
Although I don’t train in BJJ (I’m a Hapkido and TKD student) I’m also interested in what other styles are teaching – especially in military application.
Question for Blackjack
Out of curiosity, what is/are the definitive manual(s) in your opinion?
Thanks in advance,
-crumble
Black Jack,
Rangers do BJJ now as well. Two of my Ranger buddies were telling me about how much fun they were having with it before they got shipped out to Egypt this past summer. They are back in the US now after a stint in Afghanistan, so I can’t wait to get the stories!
Fortunately they left out the chapter on death touches.
Asia,
Good work on the book. Although I have to agree with black jack.
The inclusion of ground tech in ch3 seems a little out of place. The old manual was old but very direct and simple.
The idea of submission for a soldier also seems misplaced,
diffrent mind set.
Worked out with a guy who learned tang so do from the Koreans in the white horse div. In Nam. The rock late 70s.
His approach was very brutal, simple but very brutal
Bamboo,
Its not the GJJ I have a problem with, its how, not why, but how they are presenting the material in the manuel. GJJ can provide a good deal of ground fighting tactics to the army, with that I have zero doubt, how that material is presented concerns me though.
The last army FM combative manuel was from the early 90’s and though it was not bad, it still had close quarter blows, atemi-waza, simple and effective strikes, it still was not as good as the original material, I did not like the disarment section at all, it was based on Aikido, and I had a few problems with some of the other capters as well, but it still had value for what is was intended for.
Crumble,
Classics like Kill or Get Killed, Get Tough!, Cold Steel, Do or Die, Wesley Brown’s Navy V5 manuel, WWI stuff from Smith, there are many others as well but those are a example of what I consider true military close combat.
Here is a free-online/earlier printing of Get Tough! by Fairbairn.
This is the real deal bar none but you should get the book for more info if you are serious about the subject.
http://www.vrazvedka.ru/main/learning/ruk-b/fairbairn-01.shtml
Black Jack - Good stuff. But I wonder, has there ever been any adoption of ‘flow drills’ in military combatatives? It seems to me that these texts contain good ideas for what to do in a fight, but have little to say about actually how to fight - that is, it seems to me there is a wide gap between a body of techniques, even excellent ones well practiced, and being able to employ them with maximum efficiency in a real situation. Granted, simply ‘sparring them out’ will teach the rudiments of timing, distancing, reaction, etc. However, I’m of the opinion that there are ways of training out ‘how to fight’ that have synergy with sparring and can create a significantly more refined sense of these basics. Things such as kali’s hubud lubud, wing chun’s chi sau, taijiquan’s push hands (while you certainly could find fault with specifics in each case) seem to be the kinds of things that fit the bill - in that they teach students to react spontaneously, incorporating the techniques they have learnt based upon the flow of force in the engagement. Again, I think such things would be highly synergistic to simply ‘sparring out’ the techniques. Have any of them been employed? Would you / the authors / military combatative proponents disagree? Or perhaps is only a matter of the minimal needs and limited training time of the soldier?
Actually, now that I think about it, I remember hearing somewhere, some american military body was learning some kali. Would be interesting to know though…
For those commenting on the book, how many have actually been in US Army combat unites?
How much do you really think H2H plays a role in what they actually do or expect to do.
Used to work in a place called combat developments, so I have a little idea of tactics and doctrine used by us at one time, probably out of date now.
Also have been through escape and evasion courses / commando courses and assisted supported many sf unites in indirect roles during my time in the green machine. Combatives plays a part in training but not as much as many seem to think. If it gets down to that things are not going well.
The idea of what and how soldier’s train is often far different then what is portrayed in the movies.
The the basic mission of grunt unites is very simple.
Find and destroy the enemy and his equipment.
The thought of making him submit or learning submission type tech, IMHO, teaches a mindset that is incompatible with the this simple idea.
The manual is put together pretty well from what little I read of it just now. It’s a lot different than the army’s previous manuals, that’s for sure. I had copies of the army and the marine corps’ H2H manuals from a few decades ago, and unlike those, this new manual seems geared toward the army’s evolving sense of the use of force. This manual seems more diplomatic and idealized than previous versions, and seems to have evolved from bare minimum H2H training to a more stylistic approach. I think the groundfighting tactics section is a great addition. On the other hand, the standing defense and striking sections are sadly lacking in basic and fundamental techniques. I would suggest a serious redesign of those sections. Older manuals focused on vital point strikes to areas such as the neck, for instance, which are most definitely effective strikes and can quickly end a confrontation. Also, things like breaking the bridge of the nose and the collar bone seem to be missing and they are very effective as well. While it is put together nicely, the overall tone seems to indicate that the army has begun teaching their recruits sport martial arts instead of how to really fight.
Braden,
On the topic of fighting applications/flow drills and military combatives/close combat you should not take the conceptual aspect of a book and mislead it into what was/is trained in real time.
A flow drill is just that, a drill, be that a FMA drill like hu-bud, sumbrada, cuatro ****os, sinawali, or a chinese method like chi sao, don chi, push hands, those drills are just coordination methods that “help” to build body mechanics, conceptual understanding, reaction and rythem but are onto themselves not real world fighting methods.
Military methods use a lot of drills to build the same attributes, offensive attack drills, defense counter drills, impact drills, situational drills, atheltic conditioning and of course sparring.
What is so great about military based combatives, in this case I am talking about the purest, its pinnacle, the close combat techniques of WWII is that anybody, and I mean anybody can use them, based on simple gross motor movements they are very easy to retain and execute under extreme pressure, that means the standard person of average ability can use them to overcome a violent situation, no commerical bs, anybody can pick them up and hack them out with a group of training partners, no secrets to purchase, just common sense and a good deal of sheer aggressiveness.
The body of work behind these methods, both unarmed, armed, firearms and silent killing, specific being the Fairbairn/Sykes methods, is legend. In all of its 3 or 4 different incarnations of growth, from police defendu to close combat, it has seen more real world application than I would bet any system on the planet.
From the Shanghai Muncipal Police, the Shanghai Riot Squad (first swat team), Cyprus police, Royal Marines, 4th Marine Regiment, O.S.S., British commando & covert units, SIS, SOE, British Home Guard, U.S. Special Forces, Marine Raiders, Army Rangers, Scouts, Office of Naval Intelligence, the “Devils Brigade”, taught in secert in Scotland, Camp X in Canda, Area B in Maryland, to the teachings of such other WWII cqc instructors as Colonel Rex Applegate, Fairbairn’s American counterpart, Wesley Brown, U.S.M.C. Colonel Drexel Biddle, John Styers, Dermot O’Neill, Sgt. Kelly, Ben Mangels, Charles Nelson, and a horde of other fighting men, not so well known.
Just my thoughts on what I hold dear and I hope I answered your question in there somewhere;)