Via Hell In A Handbasket I am introduced to “Modern Combatives.” I do like what they write on their webpage introduction:

There are a couple of basic tenants of Modern Combatives that are important to understand. The first one is that the winner of the hand-to-hand fight in combat is the one whose buddy shows up first with a gun. This is important thing to remember because it puts combative training in perspective. If you drop an enemy dead at your feet with the Vulcan death touch, and his buddy comes in with a gun, you still lose. As Rex Applegate said in his book Kill or Get Killed “Unarmed combat is just what the name implies- a system of fighting intended for use when weapons are not available or when their use is not advisable” Where then does combatives training fit? It must be an integral part of the close quarters fight. Too often “hand-to-hand” is treated as if it were a side note to the actual training. When your weapon malfunctions three feet from the bad guy is no time to start integrating your techniques. Noted Firearms instructor and author Massad Ayoob said it best, “At close range it’s not a shooting contest; it’s a fight.”

The man behind this group is Matt Larsen, who apparently authored FM 3-25.150, the US Army’s latest Combatives field manual. If you look at the manual, it seems to be based heavily on BJJ. While I believe BJJ is great for what it is and I think some sort of empty-hand martial training is better than none, I’m not so sure this is the best thing to teach for battlefield combatives. Perhaps I’m showing my ignorance here (and folks are welcome to enlighten me), but if going to the ground in a streetfight isn’t a sound thing (attacker’s friends mob you, stomping your head into the pavement), I just can’t see how going to the ground in a battlefield is any more sound. This isn’t to say the stuff in FM 3-25.150 isn’t sound in and of itself, and there is more in the manual than just groundfighting; perhaps the way the course is taught gives a proper perspective, different from the manual.

Either way, I do enjoy reading military manuals such as these. Always chock full of good information.

Update: Allow me to clarify something.

I am not saying it’s unwise to learn ground fighting skills. I think it’s quite important to know how to do takedowns, defend against takedowns, fight from the clinch, fight on the ground (all positions: mount, guard, half-guard, etc.). Ground skills are certainly an important aspect of being a well-rounded fighter and lacking them leaves a big hole in your skills.

What I am saying is I’m not sure it’s wise to have combatives stressing ground-fighting as the primary means of unarmed hand-to-hand combat. If the new teaching is “take it to and keep it on the ground”, then you better hope that insurgent you’re wrestling with doesn’t have a bunch of friends nearby to stomp your head in… or that you’ve got a bunch of friends with M4’s backing you up. Do your best to put your opponent on the ground. If you wind up on the ground, you want to get up off the ground. 

This is why I wonder about the actual classes and how the combatives are taught. If the approach is more of having a well-rounded skillset, then that’s great. Just the field manual makes it appear the new teaching is emphasizing “take it and keep it on the ground”. Hopefully I’m wrong and it’s just my ill perception.