Close Quarter Combat (CQC) [Merged]

[alfie]

The most impotant thing in a fight is the will to win, techniques make that easier. I have seen many a brawl where the winner used what ever means nessecary including the use of tables, bottles and bricks. The consequences of such a fight can land one in crowbar for a long time and out of the military so be forewarned practice is ok but save the real thing for when you need it.

 

[COBRA-6]

While on this thread has anyone heard of Gus Michalik  of the Black Arts society (http://www.black-arts-society.com/michalik.htm) I met him on a martial arts chat forum
some years ago..he said he was a hand to hand instructor for one of the battalions of the RCR.

I did a CQC instructor course with Gus and the Black Arts guys about a year ago. It is a very effective system for soldiers and works when you are wearing a lot of gear, unlike some of the sport-oriented disciplines. Did some pressure point work (not so much the control tactics, more like where and how to strike for maximum effect), simple hand to hand techniques, empty hand vs weapons, disarms, etc... 
Quick, violent and dirty! The only unfair fight is the one you loose...

 

[medaid]

I had recently been certified as a Control & Defence and Improvised Weapons Instructor with Jim Wagner's Reality Based Personal Protection System.

http://www.jimwagnertraining.com/

The courses which were two days, one 10 day each, were intense fast and simple. It's effective, and I will attest that after having roughly 10years of traditional martial arts background, this system is truly a revolution. Jim's techniques are collected from all over the world, and he's instructed many SWAT, Ranger, USMC Sniper and GSG9 units, and many others, and is repeatedly used by all of their respective governments.

Any technique is only as good as the operator who employs it. You can be an encyclopedia of moves, locks and kicks, but if you don't know how to employ them properly, you're down for the count. Physical fitness, agility, and other factors all come into play. Being good at one simple technique and being able to deploy it fast, accurate and smoothly, will save you more then fancy handwork (which I've learned) of traditional martial arts.

In the end, the preference is on the learner. However, if you want a proven system that works, look into the one I'm in now. Sports martial artists will often lose in a fight because they have no will to do actual harm and will stop as soon as they make contact.

The difference between some of us and the casual sport martial artists are that we have to survive when we deploy this. We're willing to do what's necessary. The question now is, are YOU?

 

[edgar]

I clicked on ALL and my computer choked. Must be time to clean the BS filter. Reading through page by page, I think some bandwidth could be saved by noting that there already exists a discussion site solely devoted to the effectiveness of the various martial arts, known as Bullshido.com.

As far as the Canadian Forces is concerned, I think the "don't bring a knife to a gunfight" argument can be dismissed. To say why bring a rifle to a tank and artillery fight would be the same argument.

I think whatever unarmed combat is useful for the cops the army can adopt, without any need for changes, except for maybe compressing the course. Anybody on the forum done both Police College and CF unarmed combat quals?  Are they similar?

 

[medaid]

The police use of force courses would not be adequate for a military application. The idea of a police use of force, empty hand control tactics are to disable for arresting purposes. Which have good grounding and the basics are indeed all there for a military application, but do not include techniques to permanently disable an opponent. Using the police use of force empty hand control techniques would be useful in establishing a baseline for a program, however other more 'advanced' techniques would need to be added. When I say advanced I do not mean complicated, I merely mean techniques which would do more damage and could cost the threat their lives. I agree that we need to teach knife fighting as it is an important skill to learn, practice and retain. Truth be known, everyone is a knife 'expert'. Anyone who has seen a knife fight on t.v. Can use a knife quite adequately. Speed, agility and surprise are what's going to get the opponent. What's hard about knife is how to defend against such an attack. Remember the 10 angles of attack of the human body.

 

[Reccesoldier]

The average soldier needs an effective toolbox of simple, proven and universally applicable moves, trained to the point of muscle memory, that's it, that's all. 

I do believe however that EVERY soldier needs the same toolbox available and UC should be taught as a matter of course.

 

[medaid]

The average soldier needs an effective toolbox of simple, proven and universally applicable moves, trained to the point of muscle memory, that's it, that's all. 

I do believe however that EVERY soldier needs the same toolbox available and UC should be taught as a matter of course.

Agreed. Fast, hard and 110% aggression when needed. Its all about how fast and effective YOU can be to take you opponent down. But it also comes to the willingness to do it, failure to act is the difference between life and death. In comparison it may be easier to shoot someone from afar and never see their deaths, but it is something else to take the life with your bare hands inches away from your own eyes.

 

[edgar]

The penitentiaries are full of people who are proven to be fast, hard, and 110% aggressive. Who are willing to take lives inches in front of their eyes. Perhaps we should turn to them for instruction. I'm sure Timmy Taliban is just as much the hard man as you are.

Did you forget that the prototypical RBSD course of instruction was taught to the commandos by a Shanghai policeman? Ask your police pals how their will to live and defeat the threat differs from that of a soldier. The only difference is cops (and pen guards) get lots more practice.

If arrest techniques are irrelevant to a soldier, why did 3VP give me all those zip ties when we went to Croatia?
Cops in the real world tend to ground and pound anyway, but I don't see how "disable for arrest" differs from plain old "disable". The significant difference is cops learn to explain their actions in legalese where soldiers would say, "kick him in the balls until he gives up", when what they really mean is "kick him in the balls until he gives up".

 

[medaid]

The penitentiaries are full of people who are proven to be fast, hard, and 110% aggressive. Who are willing to take lives inches in front of their eyes. Perhaps we should turn to them for instruction. I'm sure Timmy Taliban is just as much the hard man as you are.

Did you forget that the prototypical RBSD course of instruction was taught to the commandos by a Shanghai policeman? Ask your police pals how their will to live and defeat the threat differs from that of a soldier. The only difference is cops (and pen guards) get lots more practice.

If arrest techniques are irrelevant to a soldier, why did 3VP give me all those zip ties when we went to Croatia?
Cops in the real world tend to ground and pound anyway, but I don't see how "disable for arrest" differs from plain old "disable". The significant difference is cops learn to explain their actions in legalese where soldiers would say, "kick him in the balls until he gives up", when what they really mean is "kick him in the balls until he gives up".

The Shanghai policeman was a British Officer named Fairbarn hence the commando blade. I never said that their will to live was different it's the same. All members go home to their families, and all soldiers do too. I never said that they were different. I also never said that arrest techniques are irrelevant, I said that the entire police UoF empty hand control techniques are GOOD BASICS for the grounding in a MILITARY application. Members in real life don't tend to 'ground and pound' anyone who purposely ground themselves is stupid. They are dragged into that situation when the subjects become combative and have somehow brought the members to their ground with them. Anyone in a ground fight with THEIR backs to the ground is in a weak position, and unless properly trained will not be able to adequately defend and neutralize the threat. I've been on the streets next to my 'police pals' and not once did either of us get dragged to the ground, and we didn't POUND either. The only time my knees have touched the ground was to arrest an uncooperative suspect that was put to the ground by us.

The difference in my point of view between 'disable for arrest' is that you cause the necessary amount of pain compliance in order for you to effect an arrest, and the term 'disable' to me at least means to take them out of the action. It does not mean to arrest, it means just that, disable. But that's arguing over semantics. Soldiers need to be able to explain their actions too, that's the whole reason why we have ROEs. Someone who could've been taken down with an empty hand control hard, the soldier decided to buttstrike them or even use deadly force would not be looked upon kindly. To think that soldiers are in someway less accountable in legal terms with what they do and what they say, is something that may get people into trouble.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Quick, violent and dirty! The only unfair fight is the one you loose...

This is my favorite comment in this thread. 

As far as police techniques used in a combat situation, it would be pretty hard to generalize.  We get training on various strikes and combinations, but nothing terribly technique oriented.  IMO that is a double edged situation (pun unintended, but a bonus in any case).  We don't get all hung up on some sweet looking form or technique and thereby derail the practical aspects of what we have learned.  By the same token, I have seen a few members that would be having to dig a lot deeper than some if they didn't have back up or their LTL options.  As far as defending against a knife in a critical situation, there is plenty of proof that a knowledgeable knife wielder can do tonnes of brutal damage in no time flat.  Bad guy has a knife?  Shoot him.  I would hope our soldiers are doing the same thing (ROE's and verbal interaction issues aside).  If the bad guy gets the drop on you and you can't get to your firearm, our current technique against the knife is grab the hand with the knife and hammer away with your knees, feet or whatever you can.  Whatever gets the knife away. 
That being said, I know I'll have my own stabby thing on me when I'm over on tour.  But things will have had to go to a real dump for me to have been separated from both my rifle and my pistol. 
As far as articulation goes, that should be an entire class (maybe it is, and I am not aware  :-\)  All I can say is if anyone is asked to speak to the level of force used, use the language of the ROE's to explain and illustrate what your belief of the situation was and your perceptions of your enemies abilities and means.  And then get someone senior that you trust to look it over before you hand it in.  There are heaps of brutal decisions and case law against the police where guys were doing the right thing for the right reasons, but they failed to transmit it to paper in the right manner and got their arses handed to them in court.  Doubtless our Blackwater friends are working at this very issue as we speak.   

 

[edgar]

To think that soldiers are in someway less accountable in legal terms with what they do and what they say, is something that may get people into trouble.

Exactly. Lives are at stake, pain compliance only works if it can lead to injury when resisted, and we are all subject to the criminal code. In terms of the use of force decisions, and the physical technology, and the paperwork afterward, the gap has narrowed to negligible.
For that reason, there are logistical economies to be had sharing systems with cops. Given how far down the do list unarmed is for a soldier, I think the time and money budget allocated to it is ample.

PS: The best antidote to believing fancy knife defence techniques will work is a burly friend with a red jiffy marker. You see for yourself that the Zipperhead cop's training was correct. (This comment is aimed mostly at the ninjas. They are invisible of course, but you know they are here). Cops put you on the ground for a while, then they put you in the car. Whether they pound depends on whether you give up and accept the cuffs. If you're lucky the dog don't get in it. Contrary to popular belief, some Brazilians like to be on top.

Zipperhead you reminded me of the Brinks guy in California got charged for running over a guy with his truck. When the cop asked why he did it he said "cuz he just shot my buddy". Busted. What he should have said was "I reasonably believed he immanently was going to shoot my buddy if I failed to act with the only means available to me at that point in time" (or something like that). 

 

[edgar]

As far as articulation goes, that should be an entire class (maybe it is, and I am not aware  :-\)  All I can say is if anyone is asked to speak to the level of force used, use the language of the ROE's to explain and illustrate what your belief of the situation was and your perceptions of your enemies abilities and means.  And then get someone senior that you trust to look it over before you hand it in.  There are heaps of brutal decisions and case law against the police where guys were doing the right thing for the right reasons, but they failed to transmit it to paper in the right manner and got their arses handed to them in court.  Doubtless our Blackwater friends are working at this very issue as we speak.   

I think the use of force lectures the cops get should be given to the troops in their ROE and Laws of War lectures too. People seem to forget that the Criminal Code sets the minimum ROE for us as Canadians, the wallet card is bonus. As they learn about the levels of force and the sections of the code regarding the use of force they will not only be better equipped to understand what's on the wallet card, but they will learn the terms and concepts they need to explain themselves after the poo hits. All you'd need to change is the background for the ppt slides. Or maybe they already do a better job of this now than when I was in.

 

[Greymatters]

The CF already has its own ROE, blessed by the Solicitor General.  And ROE for police forces are not adequate for CF duties overseas.  I.e. Police officers rarely have to worry about standing a guard duty and firing warning shots at possible attackers armed with suicide vests.

 

[edgar]

The CF already has its own ROE, blessed by the Solicitor General.  And ROE for police forces are not adequate for CF duties overseas.  I.e. Police officers rarely have to worry about standing a guard duty and firing warning shots at possible attackers armed with suicide vests.

Read the whole post. The wallet card is bonus. The code sets the minimum standard we all adhere to.

 

[Greymatters]

The code sets the minimum standard we all adhere to. 

That I can agree with...

 

[a_majoor]

I think we need to remember the "unarmed combat" stuff is only one tool in the kitbag, and the applications would be fairly limited in scope (Arnold Schwarzenegger movies aside). I could see takedown and holds useful in CCO, or if some clown tries to grab your rifle away from you while you are doing a presence patrol. I'm sure lots of other scenarios can be mooted, but in most cases alternative scenarios that I have seen or read are usually covered under escalation of force and more practically dealt with that way as well.

Even the notorious "Silent Sentry Take-out" scenario is best done with a silenced weapon (and the people most likely to do a silent sentry take-out probably carry them as well......)

 

[ArmyRick]

The CF currently teaches the 5 levels of the continuum of force to CQC (B) and CQCI students. The continuum of force is used in conjuction with Thaeter ROE and definately used in domestic operations as it is based on what civilian police do.

Does the continuum of force have military application. Yes, it does.

In theater would you shoot an enemy soldier who is willfully surrendering? No. he is compliant.
Would you shoot an enemy soldier shooting at you? Yes. It is a deadly force assault.

Above all, CF members have the right to protect themselves and fellow CF members. Now it does get a bit different in each theater with some specifics (Stealing mission essential equipment, riots, etc, etc).

Once again, the continuum of force is used in conjuction with the ROEs.

As far as what is effective and what is not? We teach a basic and advanced level program in the CF CQC and the techniques are simple, easy to learn but must be practiced often. Are they effective? It will depend on each soldier and their ability to employ the techniques and the expirience level of the opponent he deals with.

I will say this. I have taught alot of basic CQC serials and most of the techniques are picked up quite quickly and easily.

 

[SoldierInTheMaking]

I was wondering what kind of close quarter combat training they do in the infantry training....for example do they do any mixed martial arts, or boxing or anything like that? and is there any like boxing tourneys or anything that goes on?

 

[aesop081]

What does this have to do with basic training ?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

It's been covered, do a search.........and please do one for the rest of your questions before you ask them.

Milnet.ca Staff