Best books on WWII Combatives?

Igor_R. · 17-02-2008 11:31pm #1

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?

hypnosisdublin · 18-02-2008 2:02pm

Check out this link to Dennis Martin's site.

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

Paul

Igor_R. · 18-02-2008 7:41pm

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

Igor_R. · 18-02-2008 11:31pm

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.

john kavanagh · 19-02-2008 12:42am

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

Roper · 19-02-2008 10:34am

john kavanagh wrote: »

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

love the names

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"

Still, you couldn't sell that!

Dragan · 19-02-2008 11:48am

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.

Baggio... · 19-02-2008 1:03pm

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.

Baggio... · 19-02-2008 1:24pm

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)

David Jones · 19-02-2008 3:22pm

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.

Roper · 19-02-2008 3:38pm

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.

Baggio... · 19-02-2008 3:44pm

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.

Baggio... · 19-02-2008 3:59pm

David Jones wrote: »

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.

Roper · 19-02-2008 4:35pm

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.

john kavanagh · 19-02-2008 5:05pm

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

Roper · 19-02-2008 5:20pm

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

Igor_R. · 19-02-2008 6:51pm

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

Baggio... · 19-02-2008 7:26pm

No worries mate.

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

Igor_R. · 20-02-2008 10:29pm

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

Baggio... · 20-02-2008 11:32pm

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.

Scramble · 21-02-2008 12:14am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhUdTeo7gYA

Baggio... · 21-02-2008 12:50am

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.

john kavanagh · 21-02-2008 1:10am

Scramble wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhUdTeo7gYA

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

21st century Rangers training

Baggio... · 21-02-2008 1:32am

john kavanagh wrote: »

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.

kenpo_dave · 21-02-2008 1:41am

john kavanagh wrote: »

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.

Baggio... · 21-02-2008 1:44am

kenpo_dave wrote: »

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

LOL

Scramble · 21-02-2008 10:25am

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.

Baggio... · 21-02-2008 11:01am

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.

Roper · 21-02-2008 11:12am

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.

Colm_OReilly · 21-02-2008 11:14am

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.

john kavanagh · 21-02-2008 11:25am

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

Scramble · 21-02-2008 11:32am

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.

Baggio... · 21-02-2008 11:38am

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.

Scramble · 21-02-2008 1:57pm

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.

kenpo_dave · 21-02-2008 2:03pm

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.

Roper · 21-02-2008 2:04pm

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?

kenpo_dave · 21-02-2008 2:12pm

Roper wrote: »

No problem, I wasn't offended

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

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

Roper · 21-02-2008 2:27pm

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

Baggio... · 21-02-2008 2:57pm

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".

kenpo_dave · 21-02-2008 3:00pm

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.

Roper · 21-02-2008 3:08pm

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!

kenpo_dave · 21-02-2008 3:15pm

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.

Roper · 21-02-2008 4:06pm

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.

Scramble · 21-02-2008 11:08pm

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).

Baggio... · 21-02-2008 11:24pm

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

Scramble · 21-02-2008 11:58pm

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.

Baggio... · 22-02-2008 12:08am

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.

Scramble · 22-02-2008 12:08pm

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.

Baggio... · 22-02-2008 12:40pm

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.

Roper · 22-02-2008 7:06pm

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?

Igor_R. · 22-02-2008 9:45pm

What about this DVD: Office of Strategic Services (OSS) Training Center

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.

Best books on WWII Combatives?

Comments