Current US Army Combatives manual (FM 3-25-150)

[boris]

An online copy can be found here: www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-25-150/index.html

This is an interesting take on military context self-defence, unarmed combat, restraint etc. It is not intended as a primary warfighting system (obviously guns win –v- hands) but as a support system when dealing with detainees or in the unlikely circumstance of finding yourself rolling around in a trench or bayonet dueling…

If we carefully remove the military context, it may (or may not) have direct relevance to civilian self-defence.

Before this manual/training program there was a mix of Combatives being taught, often based on who could sell what. Much of it was rightly criticized as unrealistic and irrelevant –often too complicated too.

The Army looked carefully at martial arts and considered what they needed, and which styles were most effective.

The actual training starts with basic groundfighting, based largely on Brazilian Jiujitsu. This is followed by advanced groundfighting, then takedowns and throws. This latter chapter is a mix of Wrestling (/MMA) and jujitsu (/Judo).

Next comes striking. This is based on boxing/Muay Thai plus a sidekick. The sidekick is the only move in the system which could sensibly be likened to Karate.

Next weapons takes in bayonet and asymmetrical improvised weapons (entrenching tool etc). The knifework is a mix of Filipino and Bowie-knife influences. The weapons defences (unarmed) tend to be jujitsu.

Unarmed defences against chokes/holds tend to be MMA influenced and build on the jujitsu/Muay Thai building blocks.

It ends up with group tactics.


All in all the manual is not bad (IMO) although it has come in for criticism from the likes of Phil Elmore who would like to see less grappling. One fair criticism is that many of the moves, whilst robust, do not account for the personal equipment that a US soldier carries in hostile environments.


I wonder why they didn't base it on Shotokan Karate?

[AngelaG]

boris said:

I wonder why they didn't base it on Shotokan Karate?

Or pankration?

[boris]

Interesting question. There are some Pankratiasts in US, notably Jim Avanitis with his "Modern Pankration". Pankration of old, as in Ancient greece, has of course died out. Contemporary Pankration tends to be MMA.

The Combatives in the manual are not dissimilar to contemporary Pankration, or MMA at large for that matter. If they'd have based it on jim Avanitis' Modern Pankration then it would have been generally similar to how it is.

[jones]

I think the US army should master fireing their weapons at the correct targets before they worry about unarmed combat.

[Aefibird]

boris said:

Interesting question. There are some Pankratiasts in US, notably Jim Avanitis with his "Modern Pankration". Pankration of old, as in Ancient greece, has of course died out. Contemporary Pankration tends to be MMA.

The Combatives in the manual are not dissimilar to contemporary Pankration, or MMA at large for that matter. If they'd have based it on jim Avanitis' Modern Pankration then it would have been generally similar to how it is.

Hmmm......

[searcher2]

As with all martial arts, you see what you want to see.

I think they are doing Karate. Karate like Fairbarn & Sykes did. (If you think they weren't doing Karate just redraw their manual to have the practitioners wearing gi).

Side issue: Why is it that grapplers techniques are "based on Brazilian Jiu Jitsu", when BJJ is based on Judo? Why isn't the manual "based on Judo"?

Side, side issue: Jiu = free, Jitsu = day.

JGB

[AngelaG]

on this page in Figure 3.7 I was interested to note that in "Fighters Stance" the guy has his feet pointed in a different direction to where his head/top is facing (in fact is back foot is WAY out). IMO it would make a lot more sense if his feet face the opponent - this way all is energy will be going forward in to his opponent. It would also protect the more vulnerable area of the inner ankle. He would also IMO look better if his lead hand was turned more in towards him, because at the moment he is showing the softer, more vulnerable part of his forearm.

[searcher2]

Yet, as a military combative, he's interested in balance, which might well have his back foot turned out, and minimising his body area available to be struck from the front.
The chances of him coming up against someone who wants to reap the inner gate are going to be rare.
Aggression levels will be high when he gets stuck in - without much thought for defence. He's not thinking of a martial science and having all the angles covered; just a pose that sets the basic posture for him to execute "headbutt technique 4".
I'd have my back foot turned in, but then I'm not a soldier.

[darkstar]

angelag said:

on this page in Figure 3.7 I was interested to note that in "Fighters Stance" the guy has his feet pointed in a different direction to where his head/top is facing (in fact is back foot is WAY out). IMO it would make a lot more sense if his feet face the opponent - this way all is energy will be going forward in to his opponent. It would also protect the more vulnerable area of the inner ankle. He would also IMO look better if his lead hand was turned more in towards him, because at the moment he is showing the softer, more vulnerable part of his forearm.

that looks like an ok fighting stance but he's looked slightly to his left of his direction of attack just as the camera took the pic to me.

if his gaze was through his hands it would be fine.

interesting book.

[random]

The US the be all and end all of fighting, is this aimed at the Allies or the enemy, thy never really manage to tell the difference between the two when it really matters.

[MasterH]

I am former US Army, my sources tell me that they are about to introduce Krav Maga to basic training. Anyone else here this?

[andym]

If you're close enough to the enemy to have to fight them with fists you've definately taken the wrong fork in the road. The Bristish Army don't teach unarmed combat - there are Police based arrest and restraint courses you can go on, but unarmed combat isn't taught, simply because you should never find yourself at grappling distance with the enemy! Why would you grapple/fight....why not just shoot/stab them?!

IMO their training could be used for something more useful...like target recognition. This isn't meant as an insult, I just don't get why the US Forces need to trainin in grappling methods!

[MasterH]

I can tell between you and Jones, Jones was an insult.

Your point is well taken, but to train a well rounded soldier hand to hand combat should be taught. A) you never know what's going to happen. B) teaching hand to hand also reinforces good spirit.

[andym]

I'd really like to agree with you but I just can't ;D

I was a well rounded soldier yet I didn't need to be taught hand to hand combat, I also worked at close quarters to any 'enemy' as I was in an Armoured Reconnaissance Regiment, closer than any Infantry Regiment.

Modern warfare and massive technological advances has made days of 2 factions standing on either side of a field and meeting in the middle a thing of the very distant past. I think maybe it's just 2 different cultures working in two very different ways. The US Forces obviously have a need to teach their soldiers how to grapple during a fire fight, the British obviously have too much confidence in their firepower....either that or hand to hand lesson happen down the town centre on a Saturday night! hehe ;D

[darkstar]

The US Forces obviously have a need to teach their soldiers how to grapple during a fire fight...

lol tap out more like. ...it's mainly so the GIs don't get too badly owned by the locals whilst out of camp drinking i think.

the British obviously have too much confidence in their firepower.. ..either that or hand to hand lesson happen down the town centre on a Saturday night! hehe

i'm taking it you're not counting milling in this discussion, or the inter Regimental boxing?