Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Best books on WWII Combatives?

  • 17-02-2008 10:31pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16


    Which are the best (maybe the top 5) books on Combatives? Here are some examples of the books on the subject:
    - Get Tough by W.E. Fairbairn (1942)
    - Kill or Get Killed by Rex Appelgate (1943)
    - Cold steel by John Styers (1952)
    - Do or Die by Anthony Drexel-Biddle (1937)
    - Shooting To Live by Fairbairn and E.A Sykes (1942)
    - Arwrology by Gordon Perrigard
    - The Close-Combat Files of Colonel Rex Applegate by Chuck Melson
    - The Red and Gray Manuals by Charles Nelson
    - Defendu by W.E. Fairbairn (1926) [re-printed as Scientific Self Defence in 1931]
    Which of these books are worth to buy (highly recommended)? Which of the above books are highly recommended?


«13

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 79 ✭✭hypnosisdublin


    Check out this link to Dennis Martin's site.

    http://www.cqbservices.com/?page_id=46

    Paul


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16 Igor_R.


    Great site :-).
    But, which are the best books?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16 Igor_R.


    My last choice is to get the main 3 books of WWII Combatives (Get Tough!, Kill Or Get Killed and Cold Steel), plus the one on Combat Shooting (Shooting to Live), plus the one on Combatives history (The Close Combat Files of Col. Rex Applegate).

    As I read on internet (and many feedbacks) these are »the main« WWII Combatives books.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,639 ✭✭✭john kavanagh


    Igor_R. wrote: »
    My last choice is to get the main 3 books of WWII Combatives (Get Tough!, Kill Or Get Killed and Cold Steel), plus the one on Combat Shooting (Shooting to Live), plus the one on Combatives history (The Close Combat Files of Col. Rex Applegate).

    As I read on internet (and many feedbacks) these are »the main« WWII Combatives books.

    Get Tough!, Kill Or Get Killed, Cold Steel, Shooting to Live

    love the names :D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,448 ✭✭✭Roper


    Get Tough!, Kill Or Get Killed, Cold Steel, Shooting to Live

    love the names :D

    LOL. The funny thing is that the actual WWII survival tactics manuals were probably called things like "Correct Operation of the M1 Rifle", or "Pincer Movements and their applications in urban environments" :D

    Still, you couldn't sell that!


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,497 ✭✭✭✭Dragan


    I thought the whole point of World War 2 was that people were being drafted and put on the battle field so quickly by about 2 years into it that training was minimal?

    Also, any biographical account of World War 2 i have ever ready makes very little mention of any typed of skilled hand to hand combat.....more bludgeoning and the general horrors of trench warfare.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,085 ✭✭✭Baggio...


    Igor - Get you hands on "All-IN Fighting 1942" It's a small book, but it's very good. "Cold steel" is a must, as well as "get tough" and "Kill or get killed".

    Have a look at http://www.paladin-press.com/

    While a lot of the WWII material is still very valid (the basic strikes, and mentality). Their "situational offense" (the Jujitsu side) would be less applicable for todays environment in my opinion. Most of the Combatives exponents of these days seem to be looking to more effective methods.

    Don't get me wrong though - there is still some top class principles in those books you mentioned that will never date.

    Some modern People you should look to (In case you missed any of them) would be guys like:

    Lee Morrison
    Carl Cestari
    Jim Grover (AKA - Kelly McCann)
    Den Martin
    Nick Hughes
    Marcus Wyn

    Just my opinion - hope it helps! :)

    Rob.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,085 ✭✭✭Baggio...


    These books are also interesting from a historical perspective:

    One I forgot to mention earlier was - "Defendu" by W.E. Fairbairn, and also "Scientific Self-Defense" by W.E. Fairbairn.

    Combat Conditioning: The Classic U.S. Marine Corps Physical Training And Hand-To-Hand Combat Course

    Also, Hand-To-Hand-Combat United States Naval Institute. (wesley brown)


  • Registered Users Posts: 899 ✭✭✭David Jones


    During several summers training in California I trained with several guys who were marines currently or had done their 4 years, also some Navy guys and a ranger and a seal. Buck Greer, Adam Lynn, Gerald Strebendt for example all went on to fight MMA in UFC, King of the Cage, Jungle Fight, etc etc. All of them thought the Marine / Armed Forces combat system was a complete waste of time. Completely impractical techniques and applications. Just an interesting observation from guys who were immersed in some of the above "systems" of combat.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,448 ✭✭✭Roper


    Baggio,

    Just re: the historical perspective, history books they ain't. History books items which take years of research by men and women with titles such as Dr., Prof. etc. etc. and in those you will find occasional references to hand to hand combat, usually how little infantrymen did. The books you're talking about are sensational accounts rather than historical ones.

    If you really think about it, why would someone publish a book, in 1942, which had the army's "secret" hand to hand techniques in it? Not to mention the limitations and censorship of publications in wartime countries.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,085 ✭✭✭Baggio...


    Roper,

    I'm just passing on a few books that might interest Igor (he did ask). I don't really care about the other issues you brought up.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,085 ✭✭✭Baggio...


    Completely impractical techniques and applications. Just an interesting observation from guys who were immersed in some of the above "systems" of combat.

    Can't say I'm to fond of the latest USMC stuff either.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,448 ✭✭✭Roper


    Baggio... wrote: »
    Roper,

    I'm just passing on a few books that might interest Igor (he did ask). I don't really care about the other issues you brought up.

    Yeah whatever. Just trying to establish that they have no historical value. I have a vested interest in that.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,639 ✭✭✭john kavanagh


    well in fairness they are historical in the sense that they show the beginnings of 'combatives'?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,448 ✭✭✭Roper


    :D

    Thats two LOLs in one thread from me Kavanagh you ought to be proud.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16 Igor_R.


    Thanks Baggio for yours recommendations!
    I already have the DVDs of Lee Morrison, Carl Cestari and Kelly McCann. Great stuff!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,085 ✭✭✭Baggio...


    No worries mate.

    I was training with Lee over the weekend, had a great session. :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16 Igor_R.


    Are aviable any historic videos about WWII Combatives training? Are recommended? Where can be buyed?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,085 ✭✭✭Baggio...


    Igor_R. wrote: »
    Are aviable any historic videos about WWII Combatives training? Are recommended? Where can be buyed?

    Hey Igor,

    For some classic vintage vids have a look out for;

    Hand-to-Hand Combat - With Wesley Brown, US Navy. Available on Vid or DVD.

    The USMC Combat Conditioning Series, Bayonet, Club and Knife Fighting. Available on Vid or DVD.

    They are both available from http://www.paladin-press.com

    There is some vintage footage of Fairbairn training the OSS back in the day, but I don't know if it's available to buy.

    Hope it helps,

    Rob.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 255 ✭✭Scramble




  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,085 ✭✭✭Baggio...


    Yep! That's the one I remember. That's the one where he's teaching the spies (or OSS) - hence the bizarre masks. Not sure if it's available to buy. Very cool considering it's age.

    It's interesting to see how the stuff has evolved over the years. Chin jab is class!

    Love the old British gentleman's accent as well. :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,639 ✭✭✭john kavanagh


    Scramble wrote: »

    yes those masks would make it impossible to identify a spie lol

    21st century Rangers training

    :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,085 ✭✭✭Baggio...


    yes those masks would make it impossible to identify a spie lol

    Like I said it's evolved. Remember it's over 50 years old!!

    I've seen that Rangers stuff before. Wouldn't be my cup of tea tbh. That said, at least there is some decent pressure testing going on. Also, that's just the Rangers - there are plenty of of other units that do very different stuff. I remember having the same argument with the guys on boards the last time that clip was posted - not much point in going over it again. :)

    Like I said, I'm just passing on a few Books and clips to Igor (who wanted to know) from a historical point of view.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 426 ✭✭kenpo_dave


    yes those masks would make it impossible to identify a spie lol

    21st century Rangers training

    :)

    That really gives a hint as to why American soldiers are so quick to shoot.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,085 ✭✭✭Baggio...


    kenpo_dave wrote: »
    That really gives a hint as to why American soldiers are so quick to shoot.

    LOL :D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 255 ✭✭Scramble


    I know we've had this same topic come up before, and I probably linked to this: http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10166

    It's a thread on E-budo where Matt Larsen, the founder of the US Modern Army Combatives programme, discusses the thinking behind it and answers some questions. Well worth reading.
    Our criteria for success were simple. The average soldier in the army had to know what their literature said they should know, and they had to produce their own experts independent of continuing outside instruction. We found that there were very few instances of successful programs in large armies, and that in most cases where there was a successful program there were underlying societal reasons that the program was successful. For instance Judo training is very common in the school system of Japan so it stands to reason that the Japanese would have an easier time than some having at implementing a program. The same thing holds true for Korea with TaeKwonDo. The biggest exception to this rule was the Russians with SOMBO. Almost alone in the world the Russian army takes an untrained populous and successfully trains them on their program. We then asked ourselves what it was about SOMBO that made them have success teaching it to soldiers. The most obvious thing was competition.
    It is my opinion that among the many reasons that the army has not had a successful combatives program since WWII., the two main ones are;

    1. Any one motivated enough to expend the personal and professional energy to change the system probably has an extensive martial arts background and therefore has the pedagogy of his system ingrained into him. The unfortunate thing is that most martial systems come from a time when Warriors were raised and not recruited. If you were to get your recruits when they were twelve and you did not need them to be proficient fighters until they were eighteen, you would train them completely differently than if you got them when they were already eighteen. When I was a young recruit the first thing that we were taught was one hour of ukemi, and then we went straight into osotogari (otherwise known as the cross hock takedown), and seoinage (otherwise known as the over the shoulder throw) both of which are excellent techniques. Neither of which can be learned in a half of an hour.

    2. The second reason is that few can see past the obvious question of what techniques soldiers need to know to the less obvious question of how do we get them to know what we think they should know. We catch allot of criticism from martial artist for teaching the ground grappling from Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. "Soldiers don't need to be rolling around on the ground", "The ground is the last place you want to be on the battlefield", "blah blah blah blah blah". The reason that we teach that stuff first is not because we think that it is a soldier's first option, or the preferred place to be, or "90% of fights etc.". The reason is that in the amount of time we have we can actually teach them something useful. From the beginning of time martial arts enthusiasts have been saying that if commanders would give more time, etc. etc. But the truth is that they will not. Commanders are under the same pressures now that they were 100 years ago and that they will be under 100 years from now. They will not give more time.
    There has to be another answer, and we think we have found it.

    But actually one of the things I'm most surprised about is that Larsen got it adopted in the first place. It's a distinct break with the old approaches, and I would have thought that the army, like most large organisations, would be too conservative to do that.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,085 ✭✭✭Baggio...


    The stuff Kelly McCann did with the Marines is a lot better. Him and a guy called Bob Casper re-wrote much of the USMC's combat manuals at the time. Can't remember which one it was now but it was fairly recent.

    Much better approach IMO.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,448 ✭✭✭Roper


    kenpo_dave wrote: »
    That really gives a hint as to why American soldiers are so quick to shoot.

    Yeah I mean, you'd imagine, young, stressed adrenaline filled men in a hot combat zone would ask questions first wouldn't you... wait though, you know what their problem is, it's sports fighting!


    I'm no fan of American foreign policy, but I don't agree with the slating of American troops who are fighting the sort of people who send mentally handicapped women as suicide bombers. End of political discussion.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭Colm_OReilly


    Baggio... wrote: »
    The stuff Kelly McCann did with the Marines is a lot better. Him and a guy called Bob Casper re-wrote much of the USMC's combat manuals at the time. Can't remember which one it was now but it was fairly recent.

    Much better approach IMO.

    Surely any post like that should be backed up with an argument or hypothesis rather than just opinion without base. Posts like that don't lend themselves well to a discussion on combatives.

    Now, I know that the thread started as a inquiry into books/DVDs on combatives but has since grown to this current discussion.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,639 ✭✭✭john kavanagh


    Baggio... wrote: »
    Like I said it's evolved. Remember it's over 50 years old!!

    if it was 500 years ago, the masks are still dumb
    Baggio... wrote: »
    Like I said, I'm just passing on a few Books and clips to Igor (who wanted to know) from a historical point of view.

    fair enough :)


Advertisement