For close to 3 decades my work has included observing and assessing fighting systems. This is an important aspect of identification of combative primary tactics and skills and also familiarization with potential enemy fighting arts. I have also had to process military close combat instructor applications for the International Close Combat Instructors Association including observing applicant instructors instructing CQC and demonstrating their combative skills as part of their application.

Military CQC instructors have records of qualification courses reports and proof of training in various forms that provide considerable information as to prior training levels of competency achieved rank and instructing service records as a general rule.

I have all too often heard from civilian enthusiasts the military close quarters combat, close quarters battle, unarmed combat, hand-to-hand combat and military self-defence titles and terminology being used by individuals that have never trained qualified and been instructors with long term instructor service records to the military. Conducting demonstration training that is the start and end of an individual’s involvement with a particular service does not make them a military qualified instructor or a contract instructor to the military.

In some cases, my observations and assessments of styles and systems have been jointly conducted by myself and other instructors with long military service records and long-term involvement with military close quarters battle and military close quarters combat. What we are looking for when undertaking such duties are battle proven skills that meet military requirements and that are highly effective and include minimum risk in objective achievement. We are also looking for the system to have commonality and cohesion throughout as well as being applicable to military roles, applications, battledress, load bearing, weapon carrying, and weapon retention for military CQC actions on encounters.

The styles and systems that we have observed and assessed over the past 30+ years outside of the military have by majority been Eastern martial arts based over European military combative based. Many of the practices are effective for combat sports or civilian fighting arts or martial arts requirements but provide increased risk for battlefield and specialist purposes military close quarters combat. Others have been simply techniques taken from traditional martial arts or are hybrid bastardized traditional martial arts or combat sports techniques based.

What we are looking to identify and determine

We are looking at maximum risk reduction so skills that include throwing techniques where you turn your back on your enemy or sweeping skills over stamping skills are deemed not only less than the most primary effective means of objective achievement but also considered increased risk options for CQC.

You simply don’t want to turn your back on an armed formidable foe and expose the nape of your neck as well as lose sight of your foe. Clenched fist striking without sap gloves or brass knuckles increase the risk of boxers fractures and cuts that can be problematic in battlefield situations where the risk of infection must be a definite consideration in skills selection.

Clenched fists unarmed offensive actions can not only cause increased risk of injury and infection but also tie up valuable medical resources and reduce manning capabilities in a hostile environment.

It’s a no-brainer and anyone with the combative smarts must realize that reducing the risk to the lowest level humanly possible is a must and this begins with skills proving and selection.

Incorporating techniques from various martial arts fighting arts and combat sports may well be adequate and very much superior to specific civilian styles that are based on say stand up or ground fighting only technique options but for military life or death roles CQC packages must provide the best of battle proven means of threat neutralization by a take out not take on means when combatants lives are under threat.

Military close quarters combat skill sets must have commonality cohesion and fluid action under combination executions of skills including in transitions in relation to threat changes and escalation levels. This includes from unarmed to armed options transitions and employments.

Stamp kicks below the knee joint are the highest kick we would consider appropriate and ground stomping kicks the only head kicks in military CQC.

Battle dress, boots, carrying a pack and weapons on difficult terrain eliminates martial arts and combat sports type kicks to the upper quadrants.

Grappling techniques and submission techniques are usually not primary practices as they can reduce or eliminate momentum and make the combatant a static target as well as vulnerable to being wounded or killed by close quarters weapons.

Who will want to keep grappling or wrestling while being stabbed eye gouged or having their air targeted with potentially lethal strikes.

Any clinching or upright grappling skills including detainee handling restraining controlling and containment skills as well as takedowns as a general rule must provide the capability for threat neutralization upright between upright and the ground and on the ground.

Harry Baldock and Charles Nelson, two of my former instructors and both WWII military unarmed combat and hand-to-hand combat instructors respectively, would always reiterate that in military unarmed combat and hand-to-hand combat that any detainee handling skill or battlefield take down must also be capable of providing enemy incapacitation or elimination from point blank body contact seizure and securing through and including ground contact and in ground combat.

The longer combatants grapple or wrestle the higher the risk in military combative actions on environments.

Non-ballistic weapons disarming especially penetrative edged weapons where the extremities or potential bodily vitals are exposed to wounding eliminate such techniques for military close quarters combat.

The reality is hard and sharp stainless steel will always win when it comes in contact with human tissue muscle tendons and arteries.

Disarming skills are options when armed threat neutralization or escape and evasion options are not available or applicable. Unarmed disarming must as a primary practice provide evasive clearing of the kill zone combined with the most battle proven disarming disabling and disposing of the threat to be considered for military CQC.

Self-defence skills that do not provide the best combative chance of threat neutralization including skills that compromise stability and balance or expose human bodily vitals to impact contact or penetration simply discount themselves as military close quarters combat practices.

Unarmed or static ambush weapon disarming skills including point blank range firearms disarming skills that promote high vertical or over shoulder rear flank grasping reaching and grasping and pushing the weapon vertically skyward directly above the head compromising balance and stability and causing a lost visual during the disarming are dangerous tactically flawed practices.

Techniques that require the enemy to conduct themselves under threat in a specific non-human reactionary manner that are reduced chance of threat neutralization identified are likewise eliminated as primary options.

Fine motor skills options for gross motor skills required threat neutralization eliminate themselves.

All too often our observations have included demonstrations where the instructor and his demo team assistants conduct predetermined choreography. What we look for is unpredictable threat reality and threat neutralization competency when unaware of the specific unarmed or armed threat to be faced. It is expected and required that the demo must provide proof of competency in unknown threat neutralization through prior training in sound skills employment tactics beginning with fast threat assessment making the D and going with it.

This includes when human error increases risk being able to continue with threat neutralization by means of contingency competency.

While demonstrations of martial arts and fighting arts choreography may impress those that are not aware of the realities of military battlefield and special roles requirements, they certainly to us expose a lack of military close quarter’s combat actions on knowledge by the instructor and his assistants.

Demonstrations where the punching arm is left extended post execution of a punch or a knife holding hand and arm in disarming is left outstretched and not secured utilizing a tactically flawed unarmed block against a dagger armed enemy per show a lack of smarts and competency. The reality is a dagger armed military enemy should never leave the weapon static and outstretched and would retract it as quickly as extending it slicing the tissue tendons and arteries. In military dagger combat multiple unpredictable thrusts and sometimes tight line slashes that are rapid close and unpredictable are the modus operandi.

When you consider the instructors conducting these demonstrations are trying to impress with the intention of gain, the conclusion can only be they are demonstrating their considered best techniques for the role requirements and as such self-expose a lack of military CQC capabilities.

Some have hidden but obvious agendas such as gaining credibility by association and show a lack of integrity but even worse and duty of care of providing safe and proven combative capabilities to those whose lives may depend on CQC skills. Many are not familiar with writing CQC TMPs or instructing CQC drills training or battle handling exercises as well as not understanding military CQC terminology or commands.

While styles and systems made up of wide ranging martial arts, fighting arts and combat sports techniques may well be perfectly acceptable and satisfactory to and for civilian enthusiasts more than often they are far less than the best and safest means of threat neutralization that is a must requirement for military life or death close quarters combat actions on encounters.

Military close quarters combat battlefield actions on primary skills must provide threat neutralization capabilities against a formidable enemy or more than one enemy even when the combatant is fatigued wounded and up against a highly skilled and more physically capable aggressive enemy or enemies.

Military close quarters combat is a military science not an exact science and provides methods of objective achievement and threat neutralisation ranging from the primary most effective option through to emergency options when compromised. Amazingly most of the training demonstrations we have observed always opt for their unarmed fighting techniques over armed enemy take-out threat neutralization. In the few times that armed options have been demonstrated as a primary option they have been primarily by means of traditional weapons usage practices.

Often the weapons option demonstrations increase risk by using less than direct target destruction lines and have no dirty tricks set ups or are complex motor skills over immediate overkill gross motor skills methods.

The weapons themselves are often less than considered primary choices. Lightweight sticks over rebar, e-tools, or star pickets are a good identifier that the instructor does not understand the difference between effective and less effective improvised impact bludgeon type weapons for military CQC.

A stick as an improvised weapon that breaks on contact or does not neutralist the threat leaving time them to employ a primary weapon capability is such an example. Demonstrations of edged weapon disarming utilizing joint lock disarming in close proximity to a razor sharp weapon are risk increasing and as such reduce safety. Often they never consider the enemy’s free hand and boots head butt and teeth.

It is the duty and responsibility of the close quarters combat Master Instructor to ensure approved and adopted options are the safest most effective and proven means of threat neutralization and that training packages are made up of the capability to achieve threat neutralization in situations ranging from compromised unexpected actions on encounters through to deliberate expected actions on encounters and in covert employments of objective achievement threat neutralization by means of close quarters combat tactics and skills usage.

Considerations such as silent threat neutralization or 1 to 3 second threat neutralization to maximize risk reduction and enhance threat neutralization capabilities are primary considerations of military close quarters combat skills selection.

Military combative instructors know the realities of battlefield military close quarters combat actions on requirements and know that a savvy enemy will not conduct themselves in a suicidal manner by leaving extremities extended and exposed or sacrifice their safety by the utilization of dangerous tactically flawed techniques. When we get to observe an instructor that knows military close quarters combat skills and requirements, this is a rear and satisfying occurrence.

The civilian self-defence enthusiast can be easily impressed by fast and flashy combination flowing partner cooperation techniques that are presented by means of the demonstration participants predetermined choreography. The true military close quarters combat instructor looks for demonstrations where there is no pre-decision of specific threat options and prior knowledge of employment details. The participants must assess decide and threat neutralize under realistic actions on encounters with the factor of confusion ever present under high intensity actions on encounters and against unpredictable rapid committed threat. This is the realities of military threat and the required primary combative practices required to neutralize such threats.

The reality is that tactics and skills that do not work in demonstration against the realism of adversity provided by a willing unpredictable enemy per stand to fail up against formidable enemies in real life CQC actions on encounters.

Clearly there are techniques very good for combat sports, fighting arts and martial arts that are not safe or effective enough for war. Likewise military close quarters combat dirty and deadly threat neutralization would never be acceptable or legal in even no holds barred combat sports but they are the first choice best combative chances of winning options of military close quarters combat Master instructors for military close quarters combat training packages.

That is why in civilian martial arts fighting arts and combat sports participants are not armed wearing combat boots and battle dress and do not put at risk fellow practitioners by loss of limbs or life.

While undertaking observations assessments we know what to look for to ensure military pers best chance of threat neutralization and as such objective achievement and we will not compromise battle proven standards in regards to the best means of threat neutralization or except unnecessary increased risk.

In conclusion, by majority civilian training enthusiasts do not have hands on military CQC high level experience and base their decisions on martial arts fighting arts and combat sports. The techniques evaluations that I have seen being conducted outside the military for public viewing have consisted of martial arts and combat sports techniques evaluations for self defence capabilities and not military CQC skills.

This could well be because military CQC is a more restricted less known and accessible military practice and not a general civilian practice but more likely it is because of the civilian martial arts mind set when in comes to civilian consideration of self defence styles and techniques. Often the best known or most current are the subject sources.

When you analyse skills for effectiveness military CQC skills provide maximum overkill human destruction with minimum high level of physical input and are simple gross motor skills.

CQC stamp kicking a piece of firewood with a combat boot is a primary means of objective achievement over punching it with a bare fist, kneeing it, or kicking it with a bare foot. Such a destructive means providing also high level safety I have not seen included in the civilian studies I have looked at where force and effect of technique is measured.

Human destruction capabilities and tradecraft safety are the very things we are looking to identify in demonstrations of combative skills by military CQC claiming instructors.

Source: CQC Times