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?

2

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 255 ✭✭Scramble


    Any footage of this Kelly McCann / Bob Kasper material on-line?

    I once saw a Kelly McCann DVD and it was two hours of him beating the hell out of a rubber dummy.


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


    Scramble wrote: »
    Any footage of this Kelly McCann / Bob Kasper material on-line?

    Dunno' - have a look.

    I forgot to say that "McCann and Kasper" have nothing to do with the new Marine stuff (MANCAP) or whatever it's called. IE - the stuff on that "Human Weapon" program.

    [/QUOTE]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./QUOTE]

    Well, I'm not trying to sell you combatives Col. (and if you want to get technical about it Combatives is not even a system) Like I said, I no longer get into "protracted" arguments with the MMA boyo's. The truth is out there - do some research if your that interested. But I'm not going to cover old ground, and waste time typing out the same old arguments.

    Sorry bud. I'm just passing on stuff to Igor.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 255 ✭✭Scramble


    Final observation- On this board there's always been an underlying assumption that combatives has little to do with combat sports / competition and anything resembling MMA. It seems ironic that both the US army and the marines have now pretty much redefined their 'combatives' as something MMA-based using competition as a main training tool. Ironically, this could leave the only people still taking a more WWII-type approach as being the odd group of civillian enthusiasts.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 426 ✭✭kenpo_dave


    Roper wrote: »
    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.

    Sorry for offending you Barry. I didnt mean to slate the American troops. My comment was meant as a poke at Jiu Jitsu.


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


    kenpo_dave wrote: »
    Sorry for offending you Barry. I didnt mean to slate the American troops. My comment was meant as a poke at Jiu Jitsu.
    No problem, I wasn't offended :)

    I don't get the poke though? Why would that be a poke at BJJ?:confused:


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 426 ✭✭kenpo_dave


    Roper wrote: »
    No problem, I wasn't offended :)

    I don't get the poke though? Why would that be a poke at BJJ?:confused:

    'Cos if they dont get a chance to shoot and have to go hand to hand, theyre screwed :p


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


    LOL, okay I suppose you're right if they used flying eagle of death from Kenpo they'd be better off!


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


    Scramble wrote: »
    Ironically, this could leave the only people still taking a more WWII-type approach as being the odd group of civillian enthusiasts.

    Incorrect... There are plenty of Military units still using "Combatives" (in a more evolved form). The Ranger and the USMC are not the only ones in existence. :rolleyes:

    Also what is "Combatives?". It's NOT a system or a collection of techniques. It's ANYTHING that works in a real situation. Or as McCann describes it, "a one sided beating"... What you use is irrelevant as long as it works. It however must not include "theoretical" concepts that have not been used for real, or at the very least - well pressure tested.

    So if you use techniques (from whatever system you do) that falls into the above criteria then it's "Combative".


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 426 ✭✭kenpo_dave


    Roper wrote: »
    LOL, okay I suppose you're right if they used flying eagle of death from Kenpo they'd be better off!

    LOL:D

    Actually I haven't trained in Kenpo in months. Not really sure if I'm going to go back. I do really enjoy it, but I learn so much more from Shane. I'm pretty much Kokoro all the way now, though I don't have enough time to train as much as I would like to.


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


    kenpo_dave wrote: »
    LOL:D

    Actually I haven't trained in Kenpo in months. Not really sure if I'm going to go back. I do really enjoy it, but I learn so much more from Shane. I'm pretty much Kokoro all the way now, though I don't have enough time to train as much as I would like to.
    Sure that's worse you do submissions down there and they're all really from Jiu Jitsu anyway!


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 426 ✭✭kenpo_dave


    Roper wrote: »
    Sure that's worse you do submissions down there and they're all really from Jiu Jitsu anyway!

    Jiu Jitsu is not the only style with submissions, as I've no doubt you know.


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


    kenpo_dave wrote: »
    Jiu Jitsu is not the only style with submissions, as I've no doubt you know.

    I'm only messing with you, as I've no doubt you know.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 255 ✭✭Scramble


    What I was trying to say (perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could have been) is that in the US two of the biggest combatives programmes on the go at the moment (US Army modern combatives programme and Marine Corps Martial Arts) are both pretty much MMA and competition based and represent the antithesis of the old WWII "too deadly to spar" mentality. So it seems to me ironic that there is still such a fascination in some quarters with the older methods that the US army and marines have discarded as inadequate.

    As regards Rob's definition of what combatives is: I've heard that one, but on the other hand, you could also argue that it should just refer to whatever actual militaries are using. And obviously that's changed quite a bit down the years (In with the grappling and muay thai, out with the lone ranger masks and chin-jabs).


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


    Scramble wrote: »
    I've heard that one, but on the other hand, you could also argue that it should just refer to whatever actual militaries are using. And obviously that's changed quite a bit down the years (In with the grappling and muay thai, out with the lone ranger masks and chin-jabs).

    But that's what it is - "Anything that works" just have a look at Dennis Martin's definition - which I've posted before. Originally, it was just called "close combat" or "close quarters combat" (back in the day). Combatives is a relatively new term, but the name is irrelevant. If you think it's a collection of techniques - you'd be wrong. Don't get too hung up on the Marines and Rangers either, doesn't matter how big they are. Those guys are notorious for havening some dubious training methods. I mean they were well into "American Kenpo" at one stage. It was called "American Kenpo Combatives" by Grandmaster Pick. Of course it couldn't really be called "combatives", because it was never proven to work (well, I've never seen any legitimate information, regarding it's effectiveness other than "here say").
    I remember asking one American instructor what it was about, he said it would involve the yellow and orange belt techniques - then taken up to "lethality". Hmm... poor Marines I thought. It just reflects that the USMC follow trends. I mean look at MCAP or whatever it's called. While it's kept some aspects of MMA it also incorporated some dodgey traditional techniques, if anything it seems to have regressed (they are going back to blocking for god sake) - why? I'm not too sure.

    Also you are misinformed abut sparring. While it depends on the individual practitioners, many modern instructors don't "spar" in the way you see it in MA clubs. They tend to "mill", which is more how an actual fight takes place anyway (100% power not too unlike G. Thompson's animal day). So in one way you could say it's a form of sparring.

    To say that the US Military doe's not use Fairbain's Close Combat lineage of training, is incorrect. While I'm not a huge fan of "American Combatives" per se. (there's better material out there IMO). You can see from his CV he's trained many of the elite units, and branches of the US Military. Including the Marines (2nd Battalion 25th Marine Scout Sniper Unit).

    http://www.americancombatives.com/instructors/John_Kerry.php


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 255 ✭✭Scramble


    Baggio... wrote: »
    But that's what it is - "Anything that works" just have a look at Dennis Martin's definition - which I've posted before.

    Yes, I've read Dennis' definition- but who says it's definitive?

    I'm not sure his understanding of the role of combatives would square with that of Matt Larsen, for example.

    I'm still inclined to argue that pretty much whatever an armed forces is using could be classed as combatives, whether it's based on judo, tae kwon do or brazillian jiu jitsu, good or bad.

    Yes, militaries pick all kinds of dubious methods and discard them as their needs change, but equally to me it seems obvious that they must logically lead the pack when it comes to redefining and pushing the boundaries of what 'combatives' are- Because obviously they're the ones actually putting this stuff to use in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is why I think it's bizarre that clubs in the civillian sector would be looking down on what actual soldiers have selected for their fellow troops to train in.
    Also you are misinformed abut sparring. While it depends on the individual practitioners, many modern instructors don't "spar" in the way you see it in MA clubs. They tend to "mill", which is more how an actual fight takes place anyway (100% power not too unlike G. Thompson's animal day). So in one way you could say it's a form of sparring.

    Well, if you're sparring at all the ranges then that's great.


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


    Scramble wrote: »
    Yes, I've read Dennis' definition- but who says it's definitive?

    Well, he is one of the world leading authorities as well as many of his peers they all say the same thing.
    Scramble wrote: »
    This is why I think it's bizarre that clubs in the civillian sector would be looking down on what actual soldiers have selected for their fellow troops to train in.

    That's not an absolute and many clubs don't go for that military stuff- hence the term "self-protection" (not to be mistaken with self-defense).
    Scramble wrote: »
    Well, if you're sparring at all the ranges then that's great.

    Hmm... "three ranges" is not a term I like.

    If you want to "spar" (another term I wouldn't generally use) for the street then you practice the actual range that violence will occur - not the Dojo manufactured range.

    This "street" range would also include a support system if things went wrong. Such as being Tangled up (clinch type) or anti-grappling - then to ground fighting.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 255 ✭✭Scramble


    Well, he is one of the world leading authorities as well as many of his peers they all say the same thing.

    Who are his peers, though, and do they really all agree with him?

    There are obviously lots of different approaches to combatives in use by different armed forces, with two of the best-known ones being the US modern army combatives programmes and the MACMAP.

    I think it's fair to say that their conception of what combatives is about does seem pretty different to private-sector civillian trainers like Dennis Martin, John Kary et all whose approaches could be described as being much more closely related to older type combatives that the US army and marines have replaced. I think what makes a lot of guys in the civillian combatives community uncomfortable is that when major players like the US army and marines basically adopt an MMA / combat sports base then it challenges some of their assumptions about what is or is not 'real' combatives.

    I'm still inclined to argue that it is probably actual military guys who should be given the final say in what is or is not 'combatives'. I agree self-protection would be a much better way for a lot of guys out there to describe the approach they are trying to take.


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


    Scramble wrote: »
    I'm still inclined to argue that it is probably actual military guys who should be given the final say in what is or is not 'combatives'. I agree self-protection would be a much better way for a lot of guys out there to describe the approach they are trying to take.

    Hmm... I can't say I agree with any of your points really. Think I've said everything I wanted to on this thread. Not much point in re-hashing or repeating my previous arguments.


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


    Baggio... wrote: »
    This "street" range would also include a support system if things went wrong. Such as being Tangled up (clinch type) or anti-grappling - then to ground fighting.

    Hi I was wondering what you mean by this? How is this not clinch range?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16 Igor_R.


    What about this DVD: Office of Strategic Services (OSS) Training Center
    OSSTRAIN.jpg
    The DVD is about 60 minutes. 20 about, "how to use high frequency communication system", 10 about "a dramatized film report" and 30 about "OSS Training Center".
    The part on OSS Training Center was produced in 1942. OSS soldiers (wearing masks to protect their identities) are trained in guerilla warfare at a "secret camp." The instructor in the film is Lt. Col. William E. Fairburn.


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


    Igor_R. wrote: »
    What about this DVD:

    Nice one... I must pick that up - cheers Igor.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16 Igor_R.


    Are aviable similar videos?


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


    Igor_R. wrote: »
    Are aviable similar videos?

    There probably is, but I don't know where you could get any (besides the stuff from paladin Press, and the place that you mentioned).

    Tell you what though, I'll email Lee Morrison and ask him. He's got a masses if knowledge when it comes to all forms of CQC - old and new. :) And I'll let you know how what he says.

    Cheers,

    R.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16 Igor_R.


    Somebody knows from where are these videos:
    Combat shooting WW2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GauPompSmJ0
    Bayonet Training - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eI2Ef7sH8c
    British Close Combat - Weapon Retention - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRnmgeMJII8
    British Close Combat - Gun and Knife Disarms - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Acz58vtl-K4


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


    Hmm... Not too sure Igor to be honest. I know it's Fairbairn, Biddle and Applegate material - but I don't know how or where you could get these vids.

    Try this forum, I'm sure you'll get the answers There.
    http://combatives.forumotion.com/

    Cheers,

    R.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16 Igor_R.


    I am interested for the simple and effective WWII Combatives (FAS methods). The best (that I have) are "Get Tough" and "Kill or Get Killed". Also very good and recommended are "Cold Steel", "Shooting To Live" and "Close-Combat Files".

    There are also some others books that could be interesting. Here are some (Paladin Press) reprints:
    - Arwrology - All Out Hand to Hand Fighting" by Dr. Gordon E. Perrigard
    - "Hand-To-Hand-Combat" - United States Naval Institute
    - "Silent Killing" - Nazi Counters to Fairbairn-Sykes Techniques
    - "Do or Die" by Lt. Colonel A J Drexel-Biddle
    - "Bullseyes Don't Shoot Back" by Col. Applegate and Michael D. Janich
    - "The Tactical Skills of Hand-to-hand Combat" by Bradley Steiner
    Is any of them recommended or essential from the "WWII Combatives" point of view? Any suggestion?


  • Registered Users Posts: 346 ✭✭Martin25


    I would recommend a few people from my experience and research
    Lamar Davis
    Hock Hocheim
    Mick Coup
    are all good instructors who have a strong track record in the world of reality self defence and combatives


  • Registered Users Posts: 346 ✭✭Martin25


    I should have mentioned Dennis Martin as well


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16 Igor_R.


    And what about the above books? Is any of them essential from the "WWII Combatives" perspective?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 346 ✭✭Martin25


    I have books by Fairbairn,Sykes and Applegate and they are all worth a look


Advertisement