Talk:Hand-to-hand combat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Martial arts (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of the Wikipedia Martial arts Project. Please use these guidelines and suggestions to help improve this article. If you think something is missing, please help us improve them!
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Comments[edit]

Several Inconsistencies with this main topic...

1. No unit whatsoever is required to attend the MAC program at Ft. Benning. Army manuals merely say that training could be done there OR seek training by an outside company.

2. Brazilian Jiu-Jutsu is not a combat art at all. It is a sport. It would've been a combat art if they didn't rape the Japanese Jiu-Jutsu system from which they were founded. The Japanese Jiu-Jutsu systems are the only Jiu-Jutsu systems that have been battle tested. Many people forget that the root Japanese systems were (with exception to Aikido or any other art created during the Meiji era or later) designed for, created for, and applied on the battlefield. Before the Tokugawa Shogunate took power in Japan, all they had was a fuedal system of warring states.

3. And most importantly... No soldier goes into combat unarmed, EVER. You may run out of bullets, but you still have your knife, tomahawk (if issued), shovel, bayonnet, shoe strings, flashlight, sand, dirt, etc... If you don't use them, your enemy will. Out of all the images on FM 3-25.150 (for example), not one image shows an effective technique to disarm someone with so much as a plastic picnic knife. All of the pictures, with exception of a handful, are involving ground fighting. If you try mounting an enemy during a firefight, you expose your entire body, and you get shot; it's that simple. Never let the fight get to the ground. If it happens to go there, you don't stay there and wrestle with him. I guarantee that if for some reason you don't have the mental capacity to use everything on you as a weapon, you're the wrong one in the combat zone. If you're not learning how to use weapons and disarm enemies with weapons, effectively, you're not going to survive in a real situation. Go somewhere that teaches realistic combat techniques in realistic scenarios. Some are located right outside the gates to some of the bases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1nstructor77 (talkcontribs) 15:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Doctrine, Army Regulations, Warrior tasks and Battle Drills... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.202.78.251 (talk) 16:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

MACP training is required not only in basic training, as a prerequisite to graduation as per AR 350-6, but in every NCOES and OES course it is required every day as a part of PT by order of the TRADOC commander GEN Wallace. I will find a link to the TRADOC policy letter. In fact AR 350-6 specificaly uses the phrase Modern Army Combatives.

The basics of MAC are also one of the Warrior Tasks and Battle drills (WTBD) wich are described by the Army as the fundemental building blocks of training the Modern Soldier, and wich proficiency in is part of the US Soldier's Creed

The rest of your argument is simply an opinion and it is not in keeping with US Army Doctrine. Simply put, the doctrine is to teach Soldiers how to grapple and then teach them how to put it in the contaext of their unit's mission. If you were interested in learning enstead of selling you would look at the US Army combatives School web page or the numerous articles that are linked from this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.202.78.251 (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


Blatant advertising[edit]

There have been several attempts lately to hoist "U.R.B.A.N. Combatives", a comercial proprietary system who have trained a few units, to the level of the doctrinal systsems of both the US Army and Air Force. Can we not do any better than to have a constant barage of unsourced claims and advertising?

I can agree with blatant advertising. H2H is a commercial proprietary term and the way the "Military Combatives" page is written is set to advertise the H2H MACP. So to ensure accuracy, the URBAN system was mentioned as it is used currently by DoD components and other systems were also mentioned. So, to add reference, the Army Regulations were also added. The regulations show that H2H is not mentioned neither is MACP by name either. The methods of selecting combatives instructors is still in the hands of the individual unit commanders. If the blatant advertising from the H2H and MACP folks goes away then corrections will not be needed. The URBAN program is a legitimate DoD recognized and fully registered military system. If we are trying to accurately describe the state of Military Combatives then this should be included. If photos depicting sporting style techniques are posted, please label them correctly as such. Otherwise the public is being mislead.

If H2H or MACP wants to advertise thier system then the page should be labeled as such. Military Combatives is too broad for that. In fairness and accuracy the currently used systems should all be mentioned.

If this seems too much to ask then remove everything except for the Army Regulations describing it. The references to a commercial off the shelf, for profit book, H2H need not be thrown in there for advertising. H2H is not a common term.

In short, we can do better. We can accurately describe military combatives without needing to flourish the H2H. Ensure that the other systems are mentioned. A lot of the students of these systems are taking insult to the gaps in information on this particular page. They have been attempting to correct these gaps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by URBANlvl4 (talkcontribs) 01:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

MACP is taught at the US Army Combatives School at Ft. Benning Georgia which is the proponency for Combatives training within the Army and responsible for writing FM 3-25-150. Army Regulation 350-1, which you quoted says that Combatives training should be done in accordance with the Field Manual. It is the official doctrine of the United States Army. H2H is a commercial product like the U.R.B.A.N. system. Getting a contract to train a unit does not make it a ligitimate DoD system or their would literaly be thousands of military systems. That is the reason the military has doctrine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.250.8.159 (talk) 11:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


MACP is just an incumbent contractor for the US Army Combatives School. URBAN also has schools that the Army uses. I see no difference. You have not addressed any of my key points of debate as to the descriptions or definitions of Military Combatives. If there are thousnads of systems , then make that mentioned. If only a few are commonly taught, URBAN, MACP, and the MCMAP then make those known. The field manual is not not called H2H. Training multiple units and delivering train the trainer standards that exceed all of the FM and Army Regulation Standards does make it legitimate. If there are thousands as you have claimed then mention them all. The persons teaching at Fort Benning are lead by a contracting company. I fail to see any rebuttal that addresses any of the points brought forth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.77.140.216 (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Doctrine v contractors

MACP is not a contractor it is US Army Doctrine, as MCMAP is US Marine Corps doctrine. They are in a diferent class than the other systems you mentioned because they are the official doctrine. There is even an additional skill identifier (ASI) for US Army combatives instructors, that is graduates of the school at Ft. Benning where level III and IV combatives instructors are taught. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.202.78.251 (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting points. The URBAN Program also graudates Level 3 and 4 Instructors at their locations as well. What difference are you implying? The ASI can be applied through any system that meets or exceeds the standards laid forth int eh AR and FM. Then the second point of contention seems to be the misconception that grappling all out is equated to "live" training. This is a falsehood. Any system or technique that fails to injure or kill a combatant when applied full force is obviously not going to do much good when a soldier's life is on the line. Engagements need to be ended as fast as possible. the techniques taught and practiced with MACP fail to do that. The expose soldiers to unnecessary risk. To say a drill is done "live" is not accurate. Not once is there actual eye gouging, groin striking, or blunt trauma damage being done. It is not live unless all of the elements of the fight are kept in the training. Please, explain to me how you have come to believe that a wrestling match comes anywhere close to a "live" application? For example, "live" fire drill involve "live" ammunition. Like that which is used in the URBAN program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by URBANlvl4 (talkcontribs) 20:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

We both are clearly very passionate about ensuring US Soldiers receive nothing short of the absolute best possible training. In doing so, I am doing my part to ensure that common misconceptions about "live" training are laid to rest instead of our fighting men and women. In all fairness, I may misunderstand your definition of "live" training though. My definition is simple, Live= performing the same movements you would in a real life or death situation without holding back and ensuring no level of force is omitted when doing so. For example, in the URBAN curriculum soldiers are placed in special protective gear that allows this level of force. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.77.140.216 (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Understand that I am in no way denigrating what is taught in the URBAN system. I am only trying to explain what the US Army doctrine is. Your assertion, for example that the ASI can be awarded for systems other than MACP is simply wrong. MACP is the official US Army system. The definitions I have stated are from FM 3-25.150 which is written by the US Army combatives school at Ft. Benning. They are the proponent for hand-to-hand combat training in the US Army in the same way that the airborne school is the proponent for airborne operations doctrine. You have some very large misconceptions about what MACP is. While it is true that MACP uses sport competitions as a motivational tool, it is also true that it teaches how to conduct scenario training. The high end of MACP training is full kit, simunition and electricity to simulate bladed weapons, all done completely live, meaning against fully resistant OPFOR who are trying to shoot/stab/strike you. In fact the Army, through PEO Soldier, is issuing MAC Kits consisting of various gear to enable the higher end of training to every battalion in the Army that has a MACP certified level III instructor. The Army, at least most of it, has realized that for their to be a successful combatives program it must be treated like any other kind of training. That means standardized, non proprietary and focused on training methods rather than techniques or TTPs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.220.42.248 (talk) 12:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a definition of "Live" training from an article in the Infantry Buglar writen by Matt Larson

It is an excerpt from the new version of FM 3-25.150 that is out in draft form right now.

6. LIVE TRAINING Live training is performed against a fully-resistant training partner. This is the only kind of training that approaches the reality of combat. There are many methods, and several approaches must be combined to ensure proper training, just as various training methods such as live fire, simulated munitions and MILES are combined to teach fire and maneuver. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.220.42.248 (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


OK. I have spent several days now pouring over every DA, Regulation, Field Manual, etc. regarding the ASI you mentioned. I have contacted DA G-3 and several Unit level S-1s and S-3s as well. In short, the argument of legitimacy based upon the awarding of the ASI is flat out wrong. The ASI doesn't exist. There is an Instructor ASI that can be signed off by any CPT or higher. This ASI applies to anything from Power Point to any other not covered ASI. The Actual Army Regulations pertaining to Army Combatives at no place mentions MACP. Just MAC. Defined as such as any professional Combatives Instruction that is in accordance with FM 3-25.150. This Field Manual was edited by Matt Larsen true. Written by, not true. He supplemented the previous version with the addition of the BJJ techniques. Also by the FM previously mentioned, there is no requisite for the training to be conducted at the US Army Combatives School. All Department of the Army Regulations state clearly that the unit commanders can select their instructors based upon their ability to professionally instruct in accordance to the techniques laid forth in the Field Manual. That means, ANY school is MAC qualified if it is in compliance with the instructional methods of the Field Manual. By proxy, as the URBAN methods comply and exceed those FM directives, we are also allowable through this doctrine. Since this particular article is about Hand to Hand not MACP and several other providers are mentioned why is there a problem with a Doctrine accepted system that is in use by Active Duty Special Operations Command and Special Forces Units being mentioned as part of the Hand to Hand developments? the URBAN system was called for because the base line Doctrine of the MACP doesn't fully address the combat needs of the soldiers deployed to combat according to the Unit Commanders that sought out the training and developed the requirements. To accurately describe the history of development of Military Combatives and Hand to Hand combat, this system needs to be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by URBANlvl4 (talkcontribs) 21:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This came out on MILPER Message 08-113, dated 21 Apr 08

AP. PDI CODE H4--COMBATIVES LEVEL 4. ADDED. ESTABLISHED WITH PDSI H4B (COMBATIVES LEVEL 4) TO IDENTIFY OFFICERS, WARRANTS AND ENLISTED SOLDIERS IN ANY AOC/MOS WHO HAVE COMPLETED THE COMBATIVES LEVEL 4 COURSE 9E-F13/950-F9 CONDUCTED UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE U.S. ARMY INFANTRY SCHOOL AT EITHER FORT BENNING, GA OR ON SITE BY MILITARY TRAINING TEAMS (MTT). (P-0904-05). ROSTER’S OF QUALIFIED SOLDIERS MAY BE SUBMITTED FOR AWARD OF PDSI H4B BY: (1) COMMANDANT, U.S. ARMY INFANTRY CENTER AND SCHOOL, ATTN: ATSH-IPP, FORT BENNING, GEORGIA 31905-5000; OR (2) COMMANDERS IN GRADE LTC AND ABOVE OF SOLDIERS TRAINED BY MTT UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE U.S. ARMY INFANTRY CENTER AND SCHOOL, BEGINNING ON AND AFTER 1 APRIL 2008.

There is a PDSI, the precursor of an ASI, for level III and IV Army combatives instructors for Os Es and WOs. At some point you will realize that the little part of the Army you are contracted to teach is simply conducting non-doctrinal training. The following definitions are from the draft FM 3-25.150 that is out for review right now.

FUNDEMENTAL DEFINITIONS 1-1. Hand-to-hand combat- Hand-to-hand combat is an engagement between two or more persons with or without hand-held weapons such as knives, sticks, or projectile weapons within the range of physical contact. 1-2. Combatives- Combatives are the techniques and tactics useful to Soldiers involved in Hand-to-hand combat. Proficiency in Combatives is one of the fundamental building blocks for training the modern Soldier. 1-3. Combatives Program- The Combatives Program is the system by which the Army ensures the proficiency of every Soldier in Combatives and is fundamental tool to develop the warrior ethos. 1-4. Combatives Instructor- A graduate of a US Army Combatives Instructor Course.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.200.21.203 (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC) 


Could you please post the entire MILPER msg? The Army G3 does not have those ASIs listed at all. Why is that? I know we are both bouncing heads on this but, I feel we both have the troops best interests in mind and that puts us on the same side even if only going about it in different angles. I want to have a rock solid understanding of your point of view and this isn't solidifying things much.

It is too long to post the whole thing, and most of it is about totaly unrelated MOS changes, but here is the portion for the level III.

MILPER MESSAGE NUMBER : 08-113 AHRC-PLC-C FY 09 OFFICER MILITARY OCCUPATIONAL CLASSIFICATION AND STRUCTURE (MOCS) PERSONNEL RECLASSIFICATION ACTIONS ...Issued: [04/21/2008]...

AO. PDI CODE H3--COMBATIVES LEVEL 3. ADDED. ESTABLISHED WITH PDSI H3B (COMBATIVES LEVEL 3) TO IDENTIFY OFFICERS, WARRANTS AND ENLISTED SOLDIERS IN ANY AOC/MOS WHO HAVE COMPLETED THE COMBATIVES LEVEL 3 COURSE 9E-F12/950-F8 CONDUCTED UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE U.S. ARMY INFANTRY SCHOOL AT EITHER FORT BENNING, GA OR ON SITE BY MILITARY TRAINING TEAMS (MTT). (P-0904-05). ROSTER’S OF QUALIFIED SOLDIERS MAY BE SUBMITTED FOR AWARD OF PDSI H3B BY: (1) COMMANDANT, U.S. ARMY INFANTRY CENTER AND SCHOOL, ATTN: ATSH-IPP, FORT BENNING, GEORGIA 31905-5000; OR (2) COMMANDERS IN GRADE LTC AND ABOVE OF SOLDIERS TRAINED BY MTT UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE U.S. ARMY INFANTRY CENTER AND SCHOOL, BEGINNING ON AND AFTER 1 APRIL 2008.

The point I am making is simply this. The Army has doctrine for hand-to-hand combat. It is called MACP. The program, as any army wide program is generic and concentrates on teaching training methods rather than TTPs. There is plenty of room within the Army system for mission specific training and there are many vendors offering such training. We have discussed two, URBAN and H2H but there are many more most of which have no name and are unit specific. Each of them will claim to be an improvement on the basic MACP and as a marketing ploy to claim they are more wide spread than they are. The Army, however, has figured out that the principle tools they have to insure that every Soldier is well trained in hand-to-hand combat are standardizing what every Soldier must know, holding competitions to motivate them to train themselves hard and requiring commanders to conduct scenario driven mission training, all of which are part of the MACP.

It is not only a diservice to the Army to spread false information about the doctrinal system, it is dishonest, especialy in the context of Wikipedia's mission, to say that what any vendor is doing is comparable to the historic nature of adoption and standardization of the most successful combatives system the Army has ever had. I should point out that the combatives school has colected hundreds and hundreds of after action reviews from Iraq and Afghanistan form every part of the Army. That what they are teaching and the way they are spreading it around the Army works in combat cannot be creditably rebuted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.202.154.246 (talk) 11:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

WWII era Combatives systems[edit]

This page should not hold the WWII era Combatives Systems up as if they were the definative method of training. The military services have learned quite a lot about every aspect of training in the last sixty years. It is also false to claim that the modern systems are any less "Combat Proven". In fact, the modern systems are being proven effective and evolving every day.

External links on this article[edit]

Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. This particular article has a history of editors doing just that. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 17:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Name[edit]

Wouldn't it be better if the name was "Hand-to-hand combat" with dashes instead of spaces? -- Frap 22:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that would be closer to proper English than it is now. hateless 18:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge[edit]

I'm not in favor of merging Close quarters combat into this article, from my experiences, CCQ is closer to being a subset or a discipline of hand to hand combat rather than a synonym. CCQ has modern military connoctations which hand to hand does not. hateless 18:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No, don't merge[edit]

Close quaters combat can include weapons of all sort, this can't and they're totally different forms of combat.

82.3.245.220 21:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I second that. Close quarters comabat can be two soldiers with combat shotguns shooting each other, while hand-to-hand is well...hand to hand, generally without weapons. Patar knight 21:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Militarily, CQC is defined as ARMED combat in a limited space. HTH combat is less well defined as it can include edged weapons. In short, CQC concerns techniques involving firearms, and HTH is without guns.

NO to merge[edit]

Although Close Quarter Combat (CQC) and Close Quarter Battle (CQB) may include "hand to hand combat" (H2H), these terms do not expicilty imply H2H.

CQC and CQB imply ANY fighting conducting in a restricted or limited (tight) space and could include H2H combat as well a the use of other weapons (guns, explosives, etc...). In this case "close quarters" is relative to the weapons being utilized. If the primary weapons are medium to long rang weapons such as handguns and rifles, then "close quarters" could mean that you are engaged in or around buildings.

All hand to hand combat occurs "close quarters" but the environment could vary from the limited space on an airplane, hallway or parked cars or a space a large as a football field. The fighting is still "close quarters" because the parties engaged are close enough to strike eachother with their own body's, or edged and impact weapons.

Inconsistency[edit]

The article is inconsistent. The title uses "hand to hand" when the text uses "hand-to-hand". --Mika1h (talk) 09:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Systema[edit]

Is there any evidence to support the claim that systema has military origins? 80.229.221.14 (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Jousting?[edit]

Is obviously not a H2H sport. You use a lance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.161.212.7 (talk) 02:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


^There were different variations of jousting, which included hand-to-hand fights, often to the death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.220.49 (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]