- This topic has 26 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Re: Differences between KM and military/police training
Hope you’ll find something. I’m sure you’ll like it. Maybe you could even become a KM military instructor one day.
_________________
GiantkillerRe: Differences between KM and military/police training
quote downforlife76:I think that the Army combatives program needs some serious restructuring. Apparently they are throwing a lot more into it now, but I haven’t seen any of that come down.The only stuff we worked on in the Army (outside of basic, where we did bayonet fighting for one day and pugil sticks a few times) was straight up grappling. No strikes, no kicks, no weapons defenses…. Nothing. Our main focus was basicly to smash the opponents face open with the butt of our rifle and then choke that bastard out.
I definately prefer Krav. A lot more realistic if you get caught off guard.
J-
I may be incorrect about this, but my understanding was that the Army Combatives program was based on BJJ for the simple fact that it would be best for keeping people training without endangering injury, bringing unit cohesion, and easily transitioning to competition…in other words, it had several well-thought out reasons…but one reason that was NOT in mind when it was designed was actual direct combat application.
Re: Differences between KM and military/police training
All,
New to the board.
A few notes on Modern Army Combatives. Level 1 is all the vast majority of soldiers will ever be exposed to. It is comprosed of very basic BJJ skills. In Level 2 you build on this and start to see some striking. If you go through all levels you will train in standup, weapons defense, stick fighting, etc. It is a comprehensive system based on simple technique that can be effective if trained intensely and regularly. That of course is the key to any system of H2H being useful in a life and death situation.
The reality of military training is that commanders have to decide how they are using their unitís time. Do I spend time training on the mission I know my soldiers will be doing each day while deployed or on a skill that will almost never be needed? It is easy to see why combatives is moved down the priority list for training events. This is true even in combat units. The number of H2H engagements in combat is ridiculously small when compared to the number of small arms engagements.
Ranger Regiment began using combatives competition (basically BJJ tournaments) as a way to motivate leaders and soldiers to spend more time on combatives training. Unfortunately, in my opinion, this leads you to train to win the competition instead of training to survive a fight. That said, it is still better than not training at all.
DRe: Differences between KM and military/police training
Welcome to the board, D.
********* Warning: :soapbox:**********
I am aware that they do have some better training at the higher levels of the Army Combatives program, but as you said, most soldiers are never exposed to it. We did a bit from a higher level at IMLARM (urban combat train-the-trainer course at Ft. Drum), but even that didn’t get too in-depth. and there still wasn’t any striking. As far as I’m concerned, that whole system is a complete waste if it’s not getting down to the junior enlisted soldiers. They are the ones most likely to have to use it anyways.
I definitely understand your argument about training on what you are going to need in country. I think that most Infantry leaders don’t even spend enough time going over the essentials. I hear the excuse that there just isn’t enough time over and over again. From my experience, that usualy comes from incompitence, inefficiency, micromanagement, or just plain lazyness within the chain of command. I could rant for days about this, but I’m sure you’ve seen the same things I have.
I’ve seen several real-world situations where a better combatives program would have greatly helped unit. Luckily we always came out on top because my platoon was full of a bunch of hard chargers and in these cases, aggression was enough to counter the threats, but luckily is the key word.
One of the other main issues I have is that we had some real “winners” get sent to the combatives course, and they came back and gave us jacked up training. Once again a leadership failure, but a very common one.
While I agree it’s better than not training at all (at least it teaches some technique and gets the soldiers in an aggressive state of mind), I’m definitely a big advocate of bringing in Krav Maga. It’s simple, it’s easy to learn, it’s VERY effective, and the begining stages teach techniques that are extremely relivent to a real-world situation.
Re: Differences between KM and military/police training
quote KravMDjeff:I may be incorrect about this, but my understanding was that the Army Combatives program was based on BJJ for the simple fact that it would be best for keeping people training without endangering injury, bringing unit cohesion, and easily transitioning to competition…in other words, it had several well-thought out reasons…but one reason that was NOT in mind when it was designed was actual direct combat application.Oops… Didn’t see your post.
Anyways, that does make sense if that’s what they were thinking. We weren’t as focused on the urban combat stuff when it was developed as we are now. It is great for being able to compete within the unit, but I don’t see why we would stick with it when our needs have drasticly changed. Above my pay grade I guess :confused:
Re: Differences between KM and military/police training
I have to agree the Army program stinks and sadly now the Airforce is going to adopt it thanks to some officers that had no combat experience and choose not to listen to the only people in a conference with combat experience. “Virgins teaching people how to F**k.” It was the best way I could have described it after hearing an instructor walk in to class after he came out of that meeting and explaining what happened. He was shooting for the AF to try and impliment the LINE system, while another airmen (OSI agent) was shooting for Krav (which is what they are taught for combatives ) both far better not only for the airmen but budget wise for the AF. The Army should have taken into account that combatives isnt on the top list for training since you have so much to do. So it shouldnt have solely focused on ground fighting as the Level 1 and instead should have mixed it up knowing that. After looking at the LINE system and being shown some of it they were just better off having soldiers learn that. But nowadays people just dont seem to have theyre priorities straight.
Re: Differences between KM and military/police training
This is a long reply, but I just had this same conversation in a training meeting last night. I’m not disagreeing, I’m explaining where I am coming from on this topic.
I absolutely agree that Level 1 Combatives is not going to prepare someone for every possible scenario they may face. I also feel there is no system in the world that will accomplish that in a couple of days a year training plan, which is the real problem with training H2H in military units. Choosing a H2H system for an organization the size of the Army or AF is not easy. The intent was never to teach every single soldier how to be an expert in unarmed combat. That would be impossible. Instead, Level 1 is designed to be a foundation that would: 1. establish a baseline of training for all service members 2. be trainable at the unit level with minimal resources and a high level of frequency 3. instill a fighting spirit and 4. spur interest in additional training. If you want and/or need additional training, it is there for you. One of the major concepts behind Modern Army Combatives is that units do not need formal classes and instructors to do the training. Combatives should be part of a unit’s PT program. Train your team or squad every chance you get. If you are a team leader then all of your soldiers should be good to go on Level 1 coming out of FT Benning, DFL76 I believe you are an 11B. Learn and start teaching Level 2 and 3 techniques to your teams. You will be surprised to learn that it isn’t much different than KM or any other system. Find the time and make it happen, there is no General that will come down and train our squads and platoons. That is our job.
As for priorities, there have been countless soldiers that have used their weapons in combat. The list of soldiers that have used H2H is considerably smaller (I do not consider physically restraining a detainee to be the same thing). With that said, it would be foolish for a leader to spend equal time on weapons and battle drills as they do on H2H training unless they realistically thought they would be using H2H about as often as actions on contact with a sniper or IED. Think about your next deployment. Go to a unit that spends most of its time on the mat training (insert whatever martial art you want) and little time rehearsing battle drills and working on reflexive fire techniques. I am sure that once the fun factor wares off you will start questioning whether or not your unit is ready to deploy.
Also, having combat experience doesn’t make you an expert in H2H or anything else for that matter. It just means you had the experience you had. Having been there does not count nearly as much as what you did while you were there. If you didn’t engage in H2H while there then you are in no better a position to discuss the topic then someone who hasn’t deployed. Consider that 75 to 80% of deployed soldiers never set foot outside the wire, most can’t even tell you what an Iraqi street looks like. Not being critical of them, we all have different jobs to do and different experiences. To put it a little differently, my KM instructor has never been in combat. Should I dismiss what he tells me? Should I find a wheeled vehicle mechanic who deployed but never left the FOB and learn from him instead?
Last point. Remember what makes a H2H system work… the aggressive execution of fundamental skills. To get that you need to train frequently, intensely and as realistically as you can. The exact techniques taught are secondary. My introduction to KM came 2 years ago, just prior to my last deployment, from the KMWW Force Training Division. I got into a discussion with one the instructors about controlling an opponent’s head. The class taught both hands on one side of the head and I was using both a collar and elbow grip and the plum position because that is what I am used to. One of the instructors corrected me and we discussed the issue. I didn’t change what I was doing and he didn’t change what he was teaching because it really doesn’t matter. The point is to control the bad guy’s head and knee him into unconsciousness. If what you are doing works consistently and you will do it without thinking when your life is on the line then it is right no matter what you call it or where your right thumb is in relation to your opponent’s left ankle.
This is like a bad Kung Fu movie. “My teacher’s style is better than your teacher’s style. Let’s fight!”
DRe: Differences between KM and military/police training
quote D-Rex:This is a long reply, but I just had this same conversation in a training meeting last night. I’m not disagreeing, I’m explaining where I am coming from on this topic.
I absolutely agree that Level 1 Combatives is not going to prepare someone for every possible scenario they may face. I also feel there is no system in the world that will accomplish that in a couple of days a year training plan, which is the real problem with training H2H in military units. Choosing a H2H system for an organization the size of the Army or AF is not easy. The intent was never to teach every single soldier how to be an expert in unarmed combat. That would be impossible. Instead, Level 1 is designed to be a foundation that would: 1. establish a baseline of training for all service members 2. be trainable at the unit level with minimal resources and a high level of frequency 3. instill a fighting spirit and 4. spur interest in additional training. If you want and/or need additional training, it is there for you. One of the major concepts behind Modern Army Combatives is that units do not need formal classes and instructors to do the training. Combatives should be part of a unitís PT program. Train your team or squad every chance you get. If you are a team leader then all of your soldiers should be good to go on Level 1 coming out of FT Benning, DFL76 I believe you are an 11B. Learn and start teaching Level 2 and 3 techniques to your teams. You will be surprised to learn that it isnít much different than KM or any other system. Find the time and make it happen, there is no General that will come down and train our squads and platoons. That is our job.
As for priorities, there have been countless soldiers that have used their weapons in combat. The list of soldiers that have used H2H is considerably smaller (I do not consider physically restraining a detainee to be the same thing). With that said, it would be foolish for a leader to spend equal time on weapons and battle drills as they do on H2H training unless they realistically thought they would be using H2H about as often as actions on contact with a sniper or IED. Think about your next deployment. Go to a unit that spends most of its time on the mat training (insert whatever martial art you want) and little time rehearsing battle drills and working on reflexive fire techniques. I am sure that once the fun factor wares off you will start questioning whether or not your unit is ready to deploy.
Also, having combat experience doesnít make you an expert in H2H or anything else for that matter. It just means you had the experience you had. Having been there does not count nearly as much as what you did while you were there. If you didnít engage in H2H while there then you are in no better a position to discuss the topic then someone who hasnít deployed. Consider that 75 to 80% of deployed soldiers never set foot outside the wire, most canít even tell you what an Iraqi street looks like. Not being critical of them, we all have different jobs to do and different experiences. To put it a little differently, my KM instructor has never been in combat. Should I dismiss what he tells me? Should I find a wheeled vehicle mechanic who deployed but never left the FOB and learn from him instead?
Last point. Remember what makes a H2H system workÖ the aggressive execution of fundamental skills. To get that you need to train frequently, intensely and as realistically as you can. The exact techniques taught are secondary. My introduction to KM came 2 years ago, just prior to my last deployment, from the KMWW Force Training Division. I got into a discussion with one the instructors about controlling an opponentís head. The class taught both hands on one side of the head and I was using both a collar and elbow grip and the plum position because that is what I am used to. One of the instructors corrected me and we discussed the issue. I didnít change what I was doing and he didnít change what he was teaching because it really doesnít matter. The point is to control the bad guyís head and knee him into unconsciousness. If what you are doing works consistently and you will do it without thinking when your life is on the line then it is right no matter what you call it or where your right thumb is in relation to your opponentís left ankle.
This is like a bad Kung Fu movie. “My teacher’s style is better than your teacher’s style. Let’s fight!”
DI don’t know you, but I sure as hell like what you’re saying. If you’re ever in Simi Valley, come by and let me buy you a beer!
Re: Differences between KM and military/police training
D, I understand what you are getting at, but it just seems that we have had completely opposite experiences with the Army combatives system. The higher levels of the program were never made available to us. Every time it was requested that we get someone certified to instruct the higher levels, we got shot down. If they were more accessable, I would probably do a 180 on my opinion of the system. Leadership failure within my unit? Probably, but you’re one of the first people I’ve talked to that seems to have ready access to the ciriculum above level 1.
I’m not too sure what you are talking about when you mention training for a couple of days per year. You are correct in guessing my MOS (I just reclassed when I went into the Guard, but I’m basing my comments on my experience in the Infantry). We did combatives as a company every week, excluding the “no-balls-challanges” in the barracks. I’m sure that other non-combat units do h2h training with much less frequency, but they are, as you said, not likely to need it.
H2H is a reality in an urban combat environment. I do agree with you that it’s not as common an experience as small arms fire or IEDs. However, people randomly get a wild hair up their ass and think they’re going to fight their way out of getting tossed in the back of the truck and when you’re in the middle of detaining someone who is unarmed, you can’t usualy resort to deadly force. I never meant to imply that it should be an equal (or even close to equal) part of the METL as weapons training. This actualy supports my argument for a more reality based system at the first level. Once again, the other levels may be great, but they need to be more accessable. Maybe a restructuring of the program or easier access of other levels to junior NCOs would completely fix the problems I’m having? Quite frankly, it’s above my pay grade. I’m just stating my opinions and experiences.
I went back and read my previous post. I don’t see where you are getting that I think combat experience in general makes someone an expert in anything. Once again, I stated that, from the experiences I’ve had, I think that the combatives program is in need of repair. That doesn’t mean I think I’m an expert. I’m just an NCO who sees something that I feel could improve. Could I be wrong? Sure I could, but there are a lot of people out there who strongly agree with me.
Haha… As far as the Kung-Fu movie analogy is concerned, I’m not trying to get into a chest flexing competition. I give certain aspects of the system credit, but I think there are a lot of shortcomings. It was designed during a time when the kind of conflict we’re in now wasn’t even considered.
My final point… If we are going to train weekly in some kind of fighting system, shouldn’t it be something that’s applicable on the battlefield?
J-
Re: Differences between KM and military/police training
DFL76,
The comments about combat experience and training priorities were in response to Munster’s post. Not directed at you at all. I did not make that clear in my post.
I agree that my experience with Combatives has been different than yours. Our experiences influence our perceptions. If you believe that in an unarmed fight the worst position you can be in is on your back mounted by the attacker, then it makes sense to start Level 1 Combatives with BJJ skills. Drill #1 is an escape from the mount. The philosophy is to build a person’s confidence in their ability to handle the worst case scenario first. I am sold on this concept. This is opposite of teaching how to avoid the worst case and then teaching what to do in case that didn’t work. My belief is that self defense for women should start on the ground also. On your back with an attacker between your legs sounds a lot like the guard. My wife knows what to do in that scenario. Still standing with an attacker is cake in comparison.
What’s the worst case with an unarmed detainee? Detainee struggles and you both go to the ground. You realize that his hands are free because someone didn’t cuff him. The black flex cuffs are hard to see in low light which is why we are supposed to be using glow in the dark zip ties. Your cover man can not shoot because of ROE, risk he will hit you and he must also maintain coverage on 4 other detainees who hear (they are blind folded) this going on. This leaves you on the ground in a fight. My experiences have clearly influenced what I feel I should train on.
I look at handling detainees differently than H2H. Restraining, controlling, maintaining separation, weapon retention and escalation of force measures need to be learned and practiced like any other skill. It is about keeping the situation from escalating to H2H. This is something we are using every day and have received little or no training on. You already know this and I think this is your point about training techniques that are immediately applicable on the battlefield?
When I first entered the Army over 17 years ago H2H was a complete joke. It really was once or twice a year along with the bayonet assault course. This was in Infantry BNs, not non-combat arms units. Regiment came around in about 2000. In the last 4 years or so things have changed for the better across the board. Although I suspect support units are still behind. It is good to hear that your previous unit had implemented routine Combatives training, maybe not a leadership failure after all? You may not be completely satisfied with what you have seen so far, but it’s a far cry better than what I got. The fact that we are even having a discussion about H2H training is significant.
I have enjoyed the discussion.
Jeremy,
I may take you up on that.
DRe: Differences between KM and military/police training
D-Rex you do have many logical points, I’d like to elaborate on the Combat experience though I’m sorry I didnt elaborate on it due to time constraints. I was alittle disturbed when they told me that pilots and navigators in the cockpits that dont do MY job and have no experience on dealing with being the the ground other then dropping bombs are picking and choosing training for me that I wouldnt say be useless (because most of it could come in handy), but isnt prefered considering all the gear I have on and equipment the last place I’d ever want to be is on the ground esp in a CQB situation. It happens but with my 30 pound day pack with my radios and other various equipment, kevlar, body armor etc do I really want to be on the ground trying to put him in a arm bar? let alone be able to??? I’d like to learn something different on defensive techniques and tactics if that’s gonna be the case. I’m gonna blame politics for this one and hollywood for people thinking that just cause it looks cool means its gonna work. What really pisses me off is that they ordered are particular careerfield to stop training in LINE (which is ok for are needs) because its too violent….and dropping bombs isnt. lol It’s a sad thing inwhich the people appointed over us do us a disservice by not letting us run our show especially when lives are on the line.
Re: Differences between KM and military/police training
I am a former Krav Maga Instructor and Currently work for a Special Unit for the First Judicial District Court in Philadelphia executing high risk warrants on a daily basis. I also have taken over as the defensive tactics instructor at my unit. The primary differences between law enforcement defensive tactics and Krav Maga’s self defense techniques are the intentions of the individual applying the techniques. What I mean by this is that in law enforcement it is our job to end confilcts and be the ones running into something when everyone else is running away. As a civillian retreating is not only a practical defense it is often times the best defense. As LEO’s we are put in the position of having to neutralize the threat no matter how great. I believe that many techniques taught in Krav Maga can be useful to LEO’s in the course of their jobs if utilized properly. Another factor is that most law enforcement and military acadamys dont spend much time or effort on hand to hand training and often times they are more concerned with liability then the officers safety. In my classes I teach techniques that can be articulated in court (just like the justified use of ones firearm) and I back up everything I teach in litigation if necessary. Ultimately if you are attacked then you are justified in using force to defend yourself its is just a matter of making sure that you dont take it to the extreme and go too far.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
