I can't really say that I can recall an instance where -- at least during my watch and probably, you know, months leading up to my watch -- that a service member had been required to use combatives. So their hand-to-hand training, I mean, it is -- it is there if needed.... you know, a unit that conducts combative training, they kind of go into the training knowing that they're going to have some soldiers injured -- and, you know, hopefully not seriously injured, but someone that's going to probably miss some training hours within the next, you know, few days because of sprain, pulls or things like that.If the intent is to increase confidence and avoid crippling injuries, the program must be considered a success. One area where it has really boosted confidence is for female soldiers, because there is no separation in competitive class by sex. There is separation by weight, so women don't end up fighting men who are much larger than they are, but that is all.
And that comes from, you know, it comes from a number of things, but mostly from just working something that you haven't worked in a while, or not learning how to fall, because we've got to teach you how to fall before you start doing flips and kicks. So yes there is a concern about the loss of training time due to injuries sustained doing combative training.
Several women who fought in this year's tournament were interviewed by Sports Illustrated, and talk about their experiences and thoughts on the issue of men and women in combat, and in combatives. It makes for interesting reading given our occasional discussion of the issues. The women seem to be strong advocates of not dividing the sport by sex, and appear to be commonly more put-off by men who won't fight them equally hard than by men who try to beat them down. Yet -- SI says "perhaps because of" their experience fighting men in their weight class -- they aren't interested in joining the infantry.
Perhaps because of their fighting experience, female competitors express nuanced views on the roles of women in combat. "If we can meet the demands, if there's absolutely no changing the standards, there shouldn't be an issue," Carlson says. "Do I see myself breaking down that barrier? No, I don't."De Santis is right about the body type difference. With weight equalized, more of the male body will be muscle and bone. That's something that she's had to come up against directly. I wonder what answer they would get if they asked the men who fought these women the same question.
De Santis, who finished her five-year service with the Marines last January and is pursuing a professional MMA career, says her experiences as an instructor make her hesitant to advocate placing women on the front lines with the Marine Corps. No woman had been able to complete a specialized, seven-week, hand-to-hand combat course at the Martial Arts Center for Excellence. "I'm a female fighter and I'm all about female rights but I've pushed myself to my limits and beyond," she says, "But [men and women], physically, they are two different body types. To offer up, to force females into that [combat] field, isn't a good idea. But on a positive note, I see it progressing. I see more women trying to focus and learn in the mixed martial arts."
I've taught women martial arts -- not sport stuff, but killing stuff -- and trained with female students while learning new arts myself. I am neither one of those who won't hit them, nor one who tries to crush them. I think you owe it to your training partner to give them the full benefit of the training, but we didn't break out by weight, either, so some restraint was necessary to avoid gratuitous injury. I try to give them as much as they can handle and a little more, so they get the full benefit of the training, but aren't forced out of the program by injury and remain encouraged to continue.
All the same, I don't think you can argue with this statement from Staff Sergeant Spottedbear, a female drill instructor:
"Imagine what it's like whenever a female gets in the arena with a man and she starts to lose," says Larsen. "It's a fight. He's on top of her, punching her in the face. You have to be hardened to the idea -- you have to really believe -- that women can be treated equally to be able to put up with that. To accept that as the cost of equality."I have to admit that I've never punched a woman in the face or the head, but that's part of the restraint issue given the weight and muscle differential. You can really hurt someone that way. I have struck women in the head with training swords, though, because the fencing mask is adequate protection.
I have punched other men in the head, and it's really satisfying when you land a good blow and they roll on the floor. I have to admit that I don't think I'd enjoy it if it were a woman I'd just hit. My commitment to equality, I suppose, doesn't go as far as equally enjoying punching them!
What I get from this is that people will come to more sensible conclusions if you don't exclude them from competition, and they are forced to face the evidence of their own experience.
ReplyDeleteDo the men all fight within their weight class? Do they also get some training in what to do if they're unlucky to come up in battle against a much bigger opponent?
That's what guns are for.
ReplyDeleteThat's what guns are for.
ReplyDeleteSometimes you don't have a gun. It's why serious training in unarmed combat is necessary--for civilians as well as for soldiers: Krav Maga and haganah.
These also let soldiers--or victims--fight above their weight class in a live situation with a chance of winning.
Eric Hines
I noticed the shift from ACP to MCMAP and the inherent conceptual differences therein. The ACP is a wonderful system for keeping the Bn Aid Station in business (my personal opinion). As for a combat effective martial art it's conceptual base is "They guy who wins is the guy who's buddy gets there first" and that's an inherently poor starting point. MCMAP on the other hand is rooted first and foremost in surviving the encounter (killing the bad guy) and then addresses the other less lethal options.
ReplyDeleteAs for women in infantry units... I don't know of any historical examples of it working for reasons covered above as well as the psychological impact of men dealing with women in line units.
William sends.
That's what guns are for.
ReplyDeleteIt's also what knives are for. A knife in the hands of a skilled opponent can obviate any weight or strength advantage, because it greatly elevates the severity of the strikes or stabs you do create. And you should always have a knife handy, unless you're actually in an airport or courthouse.
Tex, Eric B. is right that the Army is chiefly thinking that you won't really be using this stuff in combat -- at most (as William says) you might try to hold them until your buddy gets there. As William says, the Army wants to build your confidence, but not get hurt. The Marine Corps wants to teach you to kill people close up.
By the same token, the Army has abandoned bayonet training. The Marine Corps, on the other hand, has conducted several bayonet charges in recent years. Not only do they continue to train for it, they seem to look for excuses to actually do it. :)
A knife in the hands of a skilled opponent....
ReplyDeleteI agree, but there is a distinct emphasis on that skilled part. For the civilian environment, where the skill generally is in the showy-flippy claptrap of a butterfly knife, I actually prefer an encounter with a knife-armed...person...to one with an unarmed person. The one with the knife both overestimates the value of his blade, and he actually thinks that's the only weapon he's got. Sure, I'm going to get cut, but he's going to get mauled. It's also pretty easy to tell whether the guy knows what he's doing with a knife.
...Army has abandoned bayonet training.... Marine Corps, on the other hand, has conducted several bayonet charges in recent years....
The rap on the VC and the NVA--possibly apocryphal--was that they folded more readily against a bayonet charge than a rifle assault.
Eric Hines
The Army wants to build MY confidence? I doubt it. When it comes to combat eligibility, I'm an un-person -- no relevant capabilities or attitudes.
ReplyDeleteMy question is more theoretical. I wondered how the armed services dealt with the question of disparity in size in combat when the complicating factor of sex was not at issue.
The difference is largely the one sketched. The Marine Corps intentionally puts smaller Marines up against larger ones in pugil stick matches, and larger ones up against more than one opponent. The intention is to force you to overcome unfair odds, and push you to the point of failure so you have a sense of where that point happens to be.
ReplyDeleteThe Army... does not, at least, not for the majority of the force. Certainly some of the combat arms have much more punishing standards, as do the special operations forces. The Army is concerned with maintaining a much larger force, which means that they cannot require the same standards, but must take steps to ensure that the only-slightly-above average person can succeed.
The Air Force and the Navy aren't concerned with hand-to-hand combat as such (excepting special operators again). They tend to treat these things as sports; boxing is big in the Navy, or used to be (and also segregates by weight class).
My own personal philosophy is closest to that of the Marine Corps, as you can probably tell. I want women to learn to fight, although I certainly don't intend to insist that they must fight, or must have natures that are readily capable of violence, in order to be good people who are worthy of respect. (I am far readier to insist that men fight to be good people, although I gladly except those with sincere religious objections: if you would rather give your life by dying for your right to be nonviolent, as the Quakers, I find that a courageous and respectable position.)
ReplyDeleteBut if a woman does wish to learn, I want to help her learn. Even if she cannot outright defeat a man in a fair fight, she can learn to escape from his grasp. She can also learn how to un-level the playing field in her favor through the use of weapons and tactics designed to give the smaller an advantage.
If you want her to learn to do that, you've got to give her -- as the original post says -- all she can handle and a little more. Learning where the breaking point is marks an important part of the lesson; then, learning how to structure the battle so as not to get to that point if at all possible.
That's the introduction to the military science, really: everything follows from it. Maneuver, commitment, concentration of force, cover and concealment, proficiency with your weapons, all of it arises from that principle. It is why the smaller can sometimes beat the stronger, and why defeat in detail is possible even for the largest force.
What I find the most interesting, from my vantage, is the difference in actual injuries between MCMAP (Marines) and ACP (Army) from introductory training on. ACP is good for regularly injuring people, shoulders and elbows mostly in my experience, to the point of surgery, long term medical profile, and/or discharge. Given that Marines train to kill and Soldiers train to delay or tie up an opponent I would expect the results to be reversed. I can understand the "why" of it in that in many parts of the Army, Combatives training is voluntary, not mandatory, and that quality control is difficult if not impossible to maintain with the large numbers of both instructors and students. Add to this that the Level 1 (1st course) is one week long with many young headstrong men not used to real leadership many of whom have something to prove and injuries follow naturally.
ReplyDeleteWhat amazes me the most is that no one higher up the food chain has run the $$ on exactly what these injuries are costing the service in terms of disability, lost productivity, cost of medical care/surgery, and loss of functional service time when a soldier has to be dismissed from service before his/her obligation is up. I would think that someone would have noticed. But then again, the Army is a big place and ACP is just one of many programs...
William sends.
On reading my comment above I find the need to clarify a few points for the non-military amoung us:
ReplyDelete1) Due to size a focus there is no accurate direct comparison between The Army and The Marine Corps. A more fair comparison could be made between the Ranger Battalions and The Corps but even that has it's limitations.
2) The culture of each organization is vastly different and has a huge impact on what I wrote above. (Very loosely it's Management v Leadership)
3) The 1 week timeline that the Army allows for Level 1 Combatives training would be sufficient if everyone showed up already in shape, trained to be aware of their body, it's limitations, and how to be aware if your opponent during the fight. They don't, accidents ensue.
4) If a service member in almost any Occupational Specialty gets out for any reason before their initial commitment the Nation looses money ($$ to train/work actually done). Some Occupations take even longer to recoup investment.
I'm typing tired so please forgive any typos. If there is confusion on what I have said please let me know.
William sends.
I had an interesting experience with combatives in Basic at Ft. Jackson in 92'. Before we began, my Drill SGT had us all list the various equipment we carried that could be used as a weapon. He then said, "so if you ever find yourself in combat with no ammunition, no bayonet, and no other options, use ANY of that before you use your hands. Now, let's get on with what I'm required to teach you."
ReplyDelete