Army combatives

Posted by: kman

Army combatives - 11/20/05 02:35 PM

Over the year + that I've been following this site, I've noticed a lot of interest in military combatives.. At the moment, I'm sitting at Camp Shelby Mississippi doing my training prior to deploying to Iraq in the near future. I'm a Staff Sergeant, Ive got 17+ yrs in the army,,and I'm no spring chicken. my military background is infantry, and as a cavalry scout assigned to the brigade recon team.
We've recently completed the required 1st block of combatives, now known as CQC. Close quarters combat. Time to litterally throw the book away. It was taught by a civilian contractor. Warrior School out of Phoenix AZ. And the reference is on DVD.(hence the wisecracking). It assumes, that the student will be fighting in full combat gear. Body armor with sapi plates, equipment pouches and magazines, kevlar helmet, butt packs, camelback and all the little doodads we like to hang on ourselves, and last but not least, an empty or jammed M-16, M-4 or M-9. This is what we wore to train in.
We practiced 2 takedowns which resembled Osoto gari and Ogoshi with gear off, then with gear on we did techniques starting with empty rifle, rifle with bayonet, empty pistol, knife, carabiner,and rope sling. All were intended to be leathal. there are no control holds or intermediate techiques. The primary target is the jugular notch. (below the adams apple and above the top of the sernum). the secondary target was the leg below the knee and high on the calf in a "walkdown" kind of take down.
All techniques were built on a simple concept. A turning parry combined with a fast strike at what ever the enemy has sticking out at you (weapon or arm) followed by a full body weight strike at the J- notch combined with a rushing charge to get the oppent off his feet. Contact with the J notch maintained all the way to the ground. Follow on strike also to the J notch. Follow on strikes to his arms if he has a weapon. Then back on your feet, weapon cleared and reloaded (or take his and make it operational) and GET BACK IN THE FIGHT.Pivoting in or out was determined by the distance. In a standing grapple the forestock of the rifle transitions past his neck and is used in a neck breaker takedown. If it's the knife instead of the rifle the two handed grip (one on unsharpened edge the other on handle) is used to apply the technique so you saw his head half off instead of breaking the neck.
As a lontime martial artist, I was favorably impressed. It's simple, easy to teach and learn. Does not overburden the student with a plethora of techique. The same techique modifies only slightly depending on what happens to be in ones hands. We also did them with the bayonet in place. (wooden dummy duct taped on.) and used our Kevalr helmets as offensive weapons using the same technique. Twoards the end of the class we practiced disarms for pistol and long gun, and retention for same.
This non martial art was developed by a retired SF officer and was previously classified and taught only to SF.
I hope that answers a few questions for the curious out there.
P.S. Last year an army Sergeant was #3 man into a house in Afghanistan, he dropped a bad guy with a double tap on entry. As he moved past the bad guy came "back to life" and jumped on his back, stuck him with a blunt object knocking his kevlar off right into his hands. The sergeant caught the helmet, pivoted out and beat the guy to death with the helmet. Just like class.
K-
Posted by: globetrotter

Re: Army combatives - 11/21/05 07:02 AM

I was just about to reply to the "advanced combatives" thread that when I was in the army, about 20 years ago, we didn't train for standard hand to hand (or to be more accurate, I served in a scout unit of the israeli military. we have two functions - one was to be infantry scouts, and the other was for anti-terror. for anti terror, we trained with krav maga for the possiblity of going into a small space without full gear, but that is something else). we always assumed that we would be in full gear, helmeted and armed with a jammed rifle, and that it would be the best course of action to use the rifle as a club rather than a knife or to carry a back up. I also remember specifically discussing the value of knife fighting - that it assumed that both you and your opponent would have jammed weapons at the same time, while you were in short range, and was pretty unlikly

I like this idea, though, that sound very very effective.
Posted by: Bushi_no_ki

Re: Army combatives - 11/23/05 12:58 AM

Ok, first I have a point of semantics I want cleared up, I thought "Camp" was USMC, and "Fort" was US Army? Mayhaps you could explain that please.

Now, this thread is of some interest, as I'm joining the Army, and I've been thinking about the H2H and CQC aspect. I've got 6+ years of AKK, plus I've trained with several different types of weapons, and I know the PT aspect will serve me well, especially in BCT. I've heard a few bits and pieces, but I've wondered what Army H2H/CQC/CQD is like these days. From what you wrote, it looks pretty basic, and the DoD should probably just import KM as the style used.
Posted by: kman

Re: Army combatives - 11/23/05 12:32 PM

Army posts under the control of the national guard are refered to as camps. Active duty posts are forts.
As to importing KM? maybe thats whats actually happening in a roundabout way. What I like about what we're doing is that the avaerage Joe seems to be much more engaged. And there's a lot less to remember or distract the student from the core. Most joes just show up and go through the motions. This seems to be getting through a little better. K-
Posted by: PPST

Re: Army combatives - 11/24/05 05:57 AM

Quote:

Army posts under the control of the national guard are refered to as camps. Active duty posts are forts.
As to importing KM? maybe thats whats actually happening in a roundabout way. What I like about what we're doing is that the avaerage Joe seems to be much more engaged. And there's a lot less to remember or distract the student from the core. Most joes just show up and go through the motions. This seems to be getting through a little better. K-




Kman,

When did USMC Bases such as Camp Lejeune, Camp Pendleton, Camp Johnson, Camp Geiger, Camp Butler and etc. become under the control of the Army National Guard?

Better do a little more research!

Sincerely,
Teacher: Eddie Ivester
Posted by: BrianS

Re: Army combatives - 11/24/05 06:39 AM

Quote:

Army posts under the control of the national guard are refered to as camps. Active duty posts are forts.





Don't think so. Ft.Chaffee,AR. Army National Guard Training Center.
Posted by: globetrotter

Re: Army combatives - 11/25/05 02:47 AM

Quote:

Ok, first I have a point of semantics I want cleared up, I thought "Camp" was USMC, and "Fort" was US Army? Mayhaps you could explain that please.

Now, this thread is of some interest, as I'm joining the Army, and I've been thinking about the H2H and CQC aspect. I've got 6+ years of AKK, plus I've trained with several different types of weapons, and I know the PT aspect will serve me well, especially in BCT. I've heard a few bits and pieces, but I've wondered what Army H2H/CQC/CQD is like these days. From what you wrote, it looks pretty basic, and the DoD should probably just import KM as the style used.




I can't tell you what it is like in the 'US army, although I am guessing it is like the army I served in. Dont assume that anything you bring with you, except a good attitude to your personnal ego, and a good set of lungs, will serve you. from the army's perspective, you are a vessel to be filled.

good luck
Posted by: kman

Re: Army combatives - 11/25/05 10:22 AM

I don't claim to speak for the Marine Corps at all. They can call their installations what ever they chose. Lets cut to it. Do you doubt that there's a Camp Shelby MS? ( you can google it and get the homepage) Do you doubt that Im in the Army or what I've related to you? Lets not get sidetracked ok?
It would appear that CAMP Chaffe was redesignated Fort Chaffe in 1956 and was an active duty post until 1995 when it was partially closed and the remainder redesignated as a Joint Manuver Training area in Sept of 1997. Currently utilized by Guard , reserve and active army. Command of the installation is as you said turned over to the Guard. It's anybody's guess if thet'll rename it. Same set of questions apply here. K-
Posted by: Fletch1

Re: Army combatives - 11/25/05 02:30 PM

Glad you enjoyed your training and found it useful. Military units have funds available to bring in contracted instructors to provide additional information and training that is not part of any military curriculum. Many of these contractors were prior military themselves.

The only confusion comes when someone erroneously claims that what they are teaching is the official program of some elite group, which is quickly disproven when someone contacts the group itself.
Posted by: exceptionist 2

Re: Army combatives - 06/19/06 10:15 PM

Camps are smaller Military installations period. Active or reserve has no relevance. I am active duty on a Camp Zama, Japan.
Posted by: Bushi_no_ki

Re: Army combatives - 01/24/07 08:25 PM

I still don't completely get the whole camp/fort thing, esp. since some of our larger facilities in Iraq are called "camps" (eg Camp Victory, which is supposedly the same size as Ft. Carson).

Kman, I hope the Army is changing over to the CQC syllabus soon, I found MAC to be an absolute dissapointment. Bayonet training is more valuable.
Posted by: kman

Re: Army combatives - 01/26/07 04:12 AM

Bushi, the camp/fort thing doesnt make any sense over here either. I'm at FOB (forward operating base) Taji, formerly Camp Cook. There's no "Camp Victory" there's Victory base complex which is camps liberty, Seitz, Cropper and Sather Field inside the same (large) perimeter.
Taji was one of saddams army bases. I'm guessing that this piece of real estate will be somebody's base for a very long time to come. So why not call it a Fort? go figure. K-