There is a major difference between skills that are simple and proven and those that are simply high risk and suicidal in a life or death actions on military close combat.
It shouldn’t take only an expert to be able to identify techniques that will or could get you killed.
The military close combat mind set is specific to the realities of close combat which is very different to civilian sport or self-defence.
Those of you with practical hands on smarts should be able to easily identify errors and faults in techniques that increase risk and as such reduce the chances of threat neutralisation objective achievement.
While to those that don’t know better suicidal techniques like staying put in the kill zone on the confrontation line under incoming dagger assault may seem less physical, easy and simple, the true reality is such actions amount to being suicidal against an unpredictable formidable foe.
The combatant’s tendons, arteries and major internal organs are no match for a razor sharp dagger.
Often false confidence in such doomed to failure practices is achieved through studio training with dummy weapons that is more or less just choreography.
This type of predictable staged training is nothing like dealing with a dagger armed formidable foe that is bent on taking you out by unorthodox irregular over kill means.
One reason why some do not identify faults and errors in techniques selection is because they know no better through never having been privy to the best of battle proven training and certainly not real life actions on.
The reasoning why primary battle proven skills are best objective achievement options for operational threat neutralisation includes the following.
Mil primary proven CQC/MSD threat neutralisation means and methods are often principle based providing a simple means of overkill increased safety in effectively combating or countering entire threat categories not just individual threats by means of individual techniques.
Interestingly I have never witnessed any self-proclaimed edged weapon disarming expert that promote such a suicidal dagger disarming technique as previously outlined having the conviction and intestinal fortitude to test their expertise against a live blade in the hands of someone that will cut them.
You need to remember that all knives are always loaded and the effects of stab wounds can be devastating.
Promoting techniques that are tactically flawed when it comes to operator’s safety and chances of objective achievement convey volumes of promoters of such high risk actions knowledge expertise and lack of real life actions on experience.
The approval and delivering of such techniques hardly fits with best practices and a duty of care for mil CQC/MSD.
Individual techniques for single threats neutralisation can equate to major problems with training masses in such singular individual threat neutralisation methods inside training time restraints. Having a different technique to neutralise every specific threat in relation to skills retention and confusion under threat with decision making are negatives over a singular primary principle based means of an entire threat category neutralisation.
A very quick evaluation from a mil qualified Master-Instructor soon identifies what that has been described as simple equates to suicidal in a life or death actions on.
If true depth of knowledge and professional evaluation was applied the facts of the matter would reveal a very different situational status.
Less is more and having singular same system principle based means of neutralising an entire threat category where applicable makes best sense. Primary skills that comprise of close combat primary proven trade-craft proven practices that have commonality and are cohesive are the mil CQC trade-craft modus-operandi in skills selection.
The reality is you get what the instructor is trained and qualified in and if that is not proven primary trade-craft CQC you are not getting armed with best threat neutralisation capabilities.
Regardless of if it is through false belief, ego, attitude, or a hidden agenda like trying to gain credibility by instructor association, the truth of the matter is that the end user is being put at increased risk and their chances of threat neutralisation are decreased if they are not armed with the best trade-craft proven primary practices.
Nothing is guaranteed in life or death encounters but only a fool would opt for less than skills that provide the highest chances of threat neutralisation.
Often the self-proclaimed start up their own style as chief instructors having never come up through the military close combat ranks and they base their training provision on traditional or competitive techniques or hybridised variations of such techniques for mil close combat.
The battlefield including urban operations are nothing like the studio or competition floor and should never be confused with them.
Just because something is downright simple and requires minimal effort doesn’t make it safe or an effective means of objective achievement.
There are many traditional and competitive practices that could put you at grave risk or get you killed on the battlefield.
History didn’t always get it right and what is worse is when the techniques listed below and many others are delivered as military close combat when they have never been proven in life or death actions on.
The below are just some examples of stupidity and suicidal stupidity at that.
How many practitioners of X blocks against edge weapons would be willing to test the effectiveness of this high risk suicidal technique against a razor sharp blade in the hands of a formidable foe?
Why would an operator take one handoff their primary weapon and use it to struggle with an unarmed enemy in an actions on reducing their weapon retention and offering their weapon to the enemy for the taking?
Why would a skilled combatant turn their back on an enemy bent on killing them to try and throw them in combat?
Why would anyone in their right mind under enemy threat wrestle or grapple with the enemy in the heat of battle on the ground when you consider they could be armed, have comrades and how vulnerable you are grappling on the ground at your enemies comrades boots?
Why would any skilled combatant practice techniques in PT kit or clean fatigues only that would not be viable in full battle dress/body armour?
Why would a combatant seized and secured in a potential spinal cord destructive hold like a full nelson drop down in an attempt to escape a forcefully applied spinal column/cord dangerous and self-destructive status?
Why would a combatant take an enemy on over taking them out in a life or death actions on?
Why would a combatant in battle employ unarmed techniques in a life or death actions on when heavily armed with weapons capabilities that could neutralise a formidable enemy in an instant?
Why would a combatant opt for higher physicality greater physical attributes required means and methods of threat neutralisation over a best of dirty or deadly tricks brigade modus operandi for life or death operational/battle field actions on?
Why would a combatant even though of superior physical attributes opt for out muscling an enemy that could be armed/concealing weapons when you consider the danger of the weapon you can’t see but will certainly feel the deadly effects of?
Training the mil close combat way means just that in regards to primary considerations such as tactics and skills selection, trade-craft training safety factors, battle dress, kit, weapons considerations, terrain and all other major and minor considerations in relation to maximising the combatant’s chances of fast and safe overkill threat neutralisation.
While not all situations may be kill or die surely the aim and objective for those with the smarts is safe and quick threat neutralisation.
To employ techniques that require excessive physicality that have been derived from practices that are not mil close combat primary practices for the modern battle field simply does not make sense.
The reality is the correct and best tools and techniques to get the job done maximises safety in objective achievement.
When you consider in civi styles/codes of competition gender categories age and weight divisions that are designed to increase safety and provide a fair playing field are far removed from the realities of operational/battlefield actions on, it should be clear that the correct best means and methods for objective achievement should be a must.
The facts of the matter for mil close combat come down to the correct/best tools to achieve the objective of threat neutralisation.
Unfortunately not everyone is highly skilled in military close combat specific tradecraft means of threat neutralisation or for that matter even in primary practices threat evaluation and threat neutralisation considerations and best practices decision making.
Practical realists with the smarts will soon identify risks, weaknesses and dangers of techniques that do not provide the highest chances of formidable foe threat neutralisation especially if they get to observe/partake in mil CQC/MSD training.
Sadly sometimes individuals that should know better base their endorsements of styles and techniques on high profile public promos where civi instructed styles may well be promoted as mil CQC trade-crafts when in fact they are not.
In the low to no profile trade-craft of mil CQB/CQC the best means come from those that are high ranking mil close combat instructors with long records of mil instructor service who instruct trade-craft specific skills that are or have been employed in combat/operationally.
If the enemy is foolish enough to adopt less than the best of battle proven most effective means of threat neutralisation, so be it and that’s all good, but surely no one should ever want their own combatants training in high risk low level chances of formidable threat neutralisation tactics and techniques when it may well come down to life or death.
Many of the old mil programs threats were based on the enemy applying tactically flawed techniques like prisoner taking with the muzzle in the prisoners back.
Once again history didn’t always get it correct and how times change in relation to weapons and threats and as such so do combat and counter measurers need to be evolving trade-craft practices to stay ahead of enemy threats.
Unfortunately often techniques that are considered simpler than best of battle proven skills equate to stupidity and suicidal stupidity as far as mil closer combat actions on go.
Often it comes down to instructor’s primary skills base being other than best of battle proven military trade-craft close combat and very different to the mil close quarters kill or die modus operandi.
It doesn’t get closer than hand to hand combat where boots battle dress body armour primary/back-up weapons, blades and bludgeons are the reality not bare feet studio training controlled by rules and safe-guards.
Anyone that believes and put their trust in less than the best of threat neutralisation in a life or death battle field actions on, obviously is not highly mil close combat smart and competent.
The unfortunate reality is that some proponents and instructors only know what they know and even if it is suicidal like the above-listed questions they either know no better or have their own agendas or preferences that may well not be based on striving for close combat excellence and high level knowledge.
Such individuals certainly could not be highly qualified mil trade-craft close combat Master-Instructors if they promote such high risk low chances of effective threat neutralisation practices.
While they may be able to convince those that have not been privy to true mil close combat that their techniques are simple and will get the job done the facts of the matter are very different when facing a formidable enemy that has only one objective that being to kill.
There is no place for egotistical tendencies, preferences for high risk low chances of objective achievement suicidal stupidity or any agenda other than commitment to primary proven training provision in best of military close combat training provision.
Those that base their decisions on public audience released claims and promos over trade-craft expert knowledge and expertise are falling for flash and dash and the boom of an often hollow drum.
There should always be a driving duty of care to provide only the best of primary proven mil close combat trade-craft skills sets training and nothing lesser as close combat is a deadly business.
