fbpx

The term “survival” incorrectly used for military self defence and close quarters combat

While you survive in the great outdoors including against adversity you certainly don’t want to have a survivor mentality up against a formidable foe in an actions on combative encounter.

Often I read the term survival specialist or the like included in civilian combative training providers titles and terminology.

While these terms are mere words it does describe a lack of knowledge of the modus operandi and objectives of military self defence military close quarters battle and close quarters combat.

To merely survive in actions on encounter is to lose and winning is all that matters when up against a formidable foe determined to cause your grievous bodily harm.

Winning could be by using tactics of escape and evasion or other means of out smarting the enemy but the option of surviving an assault is certainly not a primary practice and not a fitting title as such.

The military term combat survival is twofold and refers to surviving by your prior survival training and determination in a potentially hostile environment.

The combat term in combat survival in regards to close quarters combat actions is descriptive of neutralising your foe by combative means.

While saying to a victim of violence well done your a survivor may be a way to make them feel better the reality is they lost.

They know if they are honest with themselves that survivor sentiments mean little when they know they lost and possibly because they took a survivor mentality in to a combative actions on encounter that required a combative winning mentality.

If you train the combative way and train the way you intend to go combative everything should be combatively correct starting with titles and terminology that reflect winning not merely surviving.

You are best at your primary practices and if that is dirty and deadly take out not take on military combative and military self defence skills this will provide your best chance of winning over merely surviving which honestly means losing.

It is important that such skills are current proven primary practices and surely are best titled as such.

To not get the title right may well be a result of not being trained tested and qualified and fully understanding what military self defence and military close quarters combat and close quarters battle really is by name and practice.

Article written by Tank Todd

Special Operations CQB Master Chief Instructor. Over 30 years experience. The only instructor qualified descendent of Baldock, Nelson, and Applegate. Former instructors include Harry Baldock (unarmed combat instructor NZ Army WWII), Colonel Rex Applegate OSS WWII and Charles Nelson, US Marine Corps. Tank has passed his Special Forces combative instructor qualification course in Southeast Asia and is certified to instruct the Applegate, Baldock and Nelson systems. His school has been operating for over eighty years and he is currently an Army Special Operations Group CQB Master Chief Instructor. His lineage and qualifications from the evolutionary pioneers are equalled by no other military close combat instructor. His operation includes his New Zealand headquarters, and 30 depots worldwide as well as contracts to train the military elite, security forces, and close protection specialists. Annually he trains thousands of exponents and serious operators that travel down-under to learn from the direct descendant of the experts and pioneers of military close combat. Following in the footsteps of his former seniors, he has developed weapons, and training equipment exclusive to close combat and tactical applications. He has published military manuals and several civilian manuals and produced DVDs on urban self protection, tactical control and restraint, and close combat. He has racked up an impressive 100,000+ hours in close combat.