Caution: The contents of this article are for education purposes only. The principles described are extremely dangerous and are for military close combat training and operations only. Their application applies solely to the military.
Reasoning
Armed and unarmed close quarters combat may well be only a small part of the overall training of a soldier but it is a very important part.
Combative training provides many benefits ranging from developing controlled aggression and a killer instinct through to providing the individual soldier with the necessary skills to defeat an enemy and achieve their objective when no better option is available or applicable. You could compare it to navigation in an age where the GPS has replaced the trusty compass. However knowing how to use a compass if your GPS is not an option could be the difference between life and death. The same could be said if your trusty compass was not available and through your knowledge of unassisted navigation you would be able to effectively navigate. The same comparison could be made of communication devices and methods. While close quarters combat training may well be not as prevalent or of the same extent as in past times it is still a vital military skill as an emergency option or a specialist option where primary weapons may not fit the bill. Military close combat is a wide-ranging subject skill set in its own right and incorporates armed and unarmed options for roles such as special operations, battlefield CQC, close personal protection, law enforcement, security forces roles and urban self-protection.
The advent of sophisticated high powered weapons and equipment that provide major advantages in enemy detection like night vision and thermal imagery has in some situations led to some units downscaling or even making their close combat training dormant or redundant. The massive advances in technology for the military give far more information and advance warning than could ever have been imagined possible by our ancestors.
The enemy can be simply detected and dealt with from a far if required or totally avoided ending any close quarters conflict.
The highly motivated heavily armed specially equipped very tough and aggressive combatants that have had to prove themselves on selection courses and training cycles in some cases have been considered more than enough capabilities at close quarters especially when combined with modern firearms. Obviously the reasons for downscaling making dormant or completely eliminating such training will vary from one country to another and from one service or unit to another. Time is one reason when you consider just how many specialist subjects other than close combat must be learnt and another reason is there simply are not that many military qualified combative master level instructors that are in fact trained and qualified specifically in all the unarmed and armed subjects that make up military close combat.
There has been considerable loss of subject expertise and skills fade since the end of World War II in European military close combat in regards to master level instructors trained and qualified in military close combat by expert qualified military combative instructors.
The considerable time and expense that goes into training a combat soldier would not usually justify utilizing a highly trained combat soldier as a full-time close combat instructor.
Many elite forces units of today however still know the value of maintaining a combative program for special purpose employments and Oh Shit Situations. Identifying training testing and qualifying instructors and setting up a school or cell specifically for CQC in the modern Military may not be practical or possible for some forces.
The master instructor that would need to be made chief instructor of such a specialist school would need to have considerable expertise experience and a high level of instructing service. He would need to have been trained and qualified in military close combat and be at the forefront of current combative skills principles and training concepts as well as having present knowledge of not only allied close combat programs but also enemy fighting arts.
He would be responsible for the doctrine training and management packages and the role specific programs as well as overseeing the basic advanced specialist and instructor training courses of instruction. The position would also require the overseeing of the testing and assessment phases as well as working on role specific training equipment and weapons requirements as part of research development and equipping requirements.
Managing the instructing team and staying at the forefront of this specialist and deadly trade would be a considerable task on its own and would be vital to ensure that the skill selection would be the most proven role specific options and as guaranteed as humanly possible.
You'll realize by now that to initiate such a program, staff and operate such a cell or school of instruction is a major undertaking and would require considerable establishment and most importantly the services of the very best and most highly qualified experts in the field if it is to be done right.
Unfortunately because of such experts being few and far between many militaries have had to forego the establishment of such training or settle for variations of fighting arts based on traditional or competitive martial arts often based on former enemy fighting arts or some bastardised version of a martial art.
This has been a common occurrence since post-World War II and has been at times influenced by current trends or what is deemed the most effective competitive sports fighting or traditional style of the time.
The reality is while all styles and systems have positive physical aspects many of them are simply tactically flawed for military close combat or do not provide armed or specialist role combative practices.
The other disadvantage of non specific and complete military combative packages is that they may not cover all the required training modules in unarmed and armed subjects for all roles or the content they do cover may well be less than the best role specific options as the subject matter experts expertise is in their martial art and not in specialist military combative subjects.
You take any elite combatant’s and train them in any physical skill set and they will excel. The reality is many of the styles instructed by non military combative instructors to the military are well-known by their potential enemies and it could very much come down to a take your enemy on encounter over the tried and true take your enemy out military combative primary terminal options to achieve your objective.
Military close combat is a specialist military science in its own right and where in many fighting styles throws, ground fighting, clenched fist punching and kicks above the knee joint may be regarded as primary options, for true military CQC they are considered risky to say the least by European military combative master level instructors.
After all why would you turn your back on your enemy to throw them and offer them the nape of your neck or why would you fight them on the ground employing submission skills when you could simply employ deadly armed or unarmed force immediately and why punch with a clenched fist when you could break your hand or cut your knuckles leading to infection in the field or why would you kick above the knee when you are fully kitted and load bearing.
Why would you kick to muscle mass or bone on bone where the degree of difficulty and the likely outcome is much less guaranteed than stamping the knee joint out with your combat boot.
Why would you clinch with an enemy combatant in battle dress that could have a multitude of weapons available, and while you grapple with them they could be using their weapons against you.
Many of these less than battle specific practices are included in combative programs as primary options and are instructed by experts in combat sports or traditional fighting arts simply because this is their knowledge base but may well not be based on military operational deadly primary option close combat.
The late legendary Col Rex Applegate referred to this as the flowing robe brigade and could not understand why the powers that be could let anything but the best of battle proven be instructed to those whose lives may depend upon it. Operators in training do not have the time to become expert martial artists and so need dirty and deadly battle proven skills that if employed will incapacitate or eliminate even the highly trained.
You must remember that the specially trained and armed soldier will carry primary secondary and improvised weapons and will often wear hardened protectors not to mention the availability of situation or terrain available improvised weapons.
Why would you punch or kick it out when you can shoot, stab or bludgeon your enemy to death.
Military combative proven practices must fit the bill in relation to role, operator, battledress, load bearing and of course the threat and situation not to mention the specific objectives that need to be achieved.
Even when armed options are not available to you, you must opt for dirty and deadly practices that are simple gross motor skills and not complex techniques and that require minimum levels of physical effort to achieve your objective.
Basically destroying your enemies ability to breath circulate blood maintain sight or attacking the brain, spinal cord or destroying the knee joints are primary options.
Always remember the rule in combat if you’re wrestling your wrong as you don’t wrestle with armed combatants bent on killing you.
The instructor to the military must be proficient in everything relating to military combative requirements and conditions. You must also remember that to employ take on fight techniques when you are injured or suffering from starvation and dehydration like in the case of being a prisoner of war is not a primary or combat smart option.
We all know how much physical ability is required in combat sports and we also know that dirty fighting that neutralizes the threat quickly and quietly is a far easier and a more effective option when you’re faced with a formidable threat.
You must also remember that you must never underestimate your enemy and should believe he is bigger faster fitter highly skilled armed and bent on killing you and only employ the best of battle proven dirty tricks brigade primary take out options employed quickly and quietly.
While you can take any committed specially selected trained and tested military combatant and make them effective at what ever physical pursuit you train them in one must remember that if you practice only a competitive or traditional fighting art and if that fighting art does not include all the required actions on and emergency combative modules such as fighting with secondary and improvised weapons and weapons disarming under attack or ambush you may well not be prepared to deal with a life-and-death situation or be armed with the required knowledge for specialist combative applications. The role of the master instructor is to ensure the training package is made up of skills principles and tactics that are the most humanly effective safe and battle proven.
We all know that take for example knife fighting that the knife is always loaded and that your objective can be achieved with less than the primary option. However in military close combat it is recommended that the method of employment should be your primary option unless the situation dictates the employment of your secondary or emergency options. Still using knife fighting as an example and in knife combat all things being equal the quickest way between two points is straight and the knife itself should be double-edged etc.
You will see by now the principles and skills must be based on the very best and safest of battle proven options not on any particular martial art or combat sport. While it may not be an exact science it is a military science comprising of the very best of battle proven for the battlefield and special operations.
You will always be best at what is your primary practice and if it is for military close combat then you would want your primary practice to be dirty and deadly military close combat.
I have included the previous brief subject description so readers can understand there is a very large difference between an expert qualified in military armed and unarmed combat and an expert in combat sports or traditional fighting arts offering training in such practices to the military.
Instructors Trained and Qualified in Military Close Combat
This article will cover the subject matter expert trained tested and qualified up to master instructor level in European military close combat.
In the past when there has been subject loss and skill fade usually through peace time complacency and then when faced with the reality of pending or immediate conflict the reality is that such training needs to be re-established pronto.
Sometimes former military instructors will be called back or even individuals identified and tasked with learning all they can from allied military experts or military combative subject matter experts as quickly as possible and trained and qualified in order to establish lines of instruction for the troops.
Such expert instructors have been drawn from former veterans trained by former military close combat Master instructors in some cases.
Civilians that have been trained and qualified by expert military qualified Master instructors have been in past times enlisted solely for their close combat expertise.
There have always been civilian experts enlisted with special skills expertise in a wide range of subjects required by the military.
These include experts with firearms, hunters, climbers and a wide range of trade experts like electronics and communication technicians.
In more recent times such civilian subject matter experts with their training and qualifications in military close combat have been contracted to provide such training.
Unfortunately post-World War II many of the military expert master level instructors simply would not train civilians in skills used to kill in war.
Another reality was that very few civilians were interested or committed enough to seeking and undertaking such extensive and intensive training.
The previous has been a general outline of the military requirements for close combat training and the available avenues for sourcing such instructors and training.
My personal position and status as a military combative master instructor and chief instructor to the military is unique and will be the basis of the remainder of this feature.
For military operators that are also close combat master instructors, close combat for a majority of their service career will usually fill a far lesser part of their duties and service.
Once again it comes back to the old fact that close combat is only one subject of a long list of subjects necessary and in the reckoning of some of the powers that be a not that important subject for the individual soldier.
Master level combative instructors are usually operators with considerable rank and service that are far too valuable to be solely utilised as combative instructors.
The advantage a seasoned military combatant and also qualified military close combat Master level instructor has over a civilian such as myself that has qualified in military close combat but has not been a serving soldier is that they have battlefield and operational real-life experience and that is the ultimate test of man and skill.
The advantage I have had as a civilian instructor to the military is that I have been able to commit my entire work time to military close combat and have not had to sacrifice my instructing time away from my role as the chief instructor of CQB for any other duties or to be deployed.
I spend my entire work time and more working as a CQB instructor and even when I am not instructing on a military course I am working with research and development with my training team and have been doing this for over thirty years.
I've also had the full support from the units I train from the operators and training wing staff ensuring their input in regards to military aspects relating to CQB.
My role as chief instructor includes developing new skills to combat new threats and to do this I have at my disposal the full support and assistance of the training wing, which ensures the outcome is the very best and most relevant to military requirements and specialist roles.
Being privy to information in regards to threats and situations faced as well as post employment reports in regards to the use and outcomes of CQB provides me with the ability to develop skills based on the most current combative considerations.
I've spent my entire working life training testing qualifying and instructing military armed and unarmed combat and have volunteered for my specialist military close combat qualification course and because of my unique status, I have been accepted and respected for my professional abilities and capabilities as an instructor by those in my field.
I know my role and the perimeters and boundaries it extends to and I am proud of my position and status as a civilian qualified as a master instructor of military armed and unarmed combat.
I always wanted to be the very best military combative instructor I could be and I was prepared to go to any and all lengths to achieve this.
I could never have perceived that I would end up the last trained instructor qualified descendent of some of the evolutionary expert pioneers of military close combat and now taking their place.
Coming from New Zealand about as far south as civilization gets I found it hard to believe that post-World War II foreign citizens interested in CQC from the super powers did not seek out their fellow countrymen that were the expert instructors in World War II.
It was very hard to understand how there had been so much loss of such skills and expertise since the end of World War II.
I was totally surprised when I inquired into training from such expert pioneers to find out that I was in fact the sole exponent that had requested and undertaken such training from them to such a degree since World War II.
I believe you create your own fate and destiny and it was my objective to be trained by the very best military expert instructors past and present and then and only then continue with a career as a military close combat instructor.
Originally I had considered joining the armed forces to achieve this objective but had this notion quickly denounced when Harry Baldock advised me there was no slot for a full time instructor of close combat in the military at that time and no means of being trained and qualified to take up such a role in the military.
I did consider it again while I was actively involved as a military contract close combat training provider and I was once again provided with the facts of the matter by my close friend and fellow close combat instructor Ron Evans.
He not only advised me that there was no slot for a full-time CQB instructor but he also pointed out the fact of the matter that I was respected for my expertise as the chief instructor and why would I want to change that especially at this stage of my life.
He reminded me I had volunteered and passed my military combative instructor and master instructor training years before and had nothing to prove or gain.
He was totally correct and his advice along with other individuals that I respect and hold in the highest regard ensured I did not deviate from my career path. My previous instructors being the best of the best in the business had prepared me well not only providing me with the skills training but also teaching me how to assess and decide on skills and principles and write training and management programs.
I consider it the greatest privilege honour and my duty to ensure the security continuation and development of the doctrine as the current caretaker.
There are many instructors that conduct training to the military around the world in their particular style of martial arts or combat sports that have never qualified on military exponent and instructor combative qualification courses. I also realize that my unique position and status would be unlikely if not impossible to be duplicated in modern times.
I was very much not only fully committed to striving for excellence in close combat but I was also around at the right time to achieve my objectives.
The right time in history and making the right connections and being prepared to travel the world and undertake the training testing and qualifying is something that will never be repeated.
The following is an outline of my career and history in military close combat from exponent to Master/ Chief instructor.
I initially became interested in learning how to fight because as a rather large child I was set upon by much older bullies.
As a youngster I tried my hand at boxing and martial arts but found with all the rules and rituals up against more likely lads it simply didn't make much sense.
I found through an attitude of hating to lose back in those early days doing anything that wasn't an accepted practice was my best option.
While the bullies were punching kicking and grappling with me I found stomping gouging head butting and biting as well as using any improvised weapon against them to give me a real advantage was my best means of victory. Unfortunately as my reputation grew so did the size age and ability of the bullies.
I simply out of necessity would resort to anything and everything and would never run away as I found running away physically more demanding than fighting dirty. I started to get well-versed in the dirty tricks brigade practices to the point where I was dealing with brothers of the bullies over ten years my senior.
I was watching TV one day back then and saw a short piece on Special Forces hand-to-hand combat. ight away I could see its value and was convinced I should seek out such training.
I found out that Harry Baldock was the primary instructor of unarmed combat to the Army during World War II and now had his own facility the Baldock Institute.
Harry Baldock
I visited his facility after school and asked if he would teach me unarmed combat.
He refused saying it was too violent for peace times but he would teach me physical culture wrestling boxing and jujitsu. Even in those early days my plan was to accept the training on offer and as time went by endeavour to convince Harry to teach me his unarmed combat package.
In the mid-70s I began working as a bouncer and met people that trained in various martial arts.
I was keen to train and try any fighting art but it was close combat that best suited me and that was my career goal.
Back at the Baldock Institute Harry eventually agreed to teach me his unarmed combat. Around the same time I had met Miles Singe a friend of my bouncing partner Jon Moke and a former Vietnam veteran who had served with the U.S. Army Special Forces (Green Berets).
Tank Todd (left) with Jon Moke
Miles Singe (centre)
He had loaned me his copy of Colonel Rex Applegate’s book Kill or Get Killed which only fuelled the fire more for me to want to travel and train from such experts.
Col. Rex Applegate
After years of training under Harry Baldock and learning not only his complete military combative system but also being trained in the required subjects in order to take over the facility on Harry's retirement I asked Harry where I could further my pursuit of knowledge in military close combat and self-defence.
He showed me information on Charles Nelson a World War II US Marine who was a senior hand-to-hand combat instructor to the US Marine Corps and who had seen action in World War II in the Guadalcanal.
He told me Charles Nelson had established his school of self-defence in New York City post-World War II and it was the only school of its kind in America at that time and in the world today.
Tank Todd with Charles Nelson
He put me in contact directly with Charles Nelson and recommends I travel to New York City and train from him.
By now I had left school was operating my own facility as well as training at the Baldock Institute and was working as a labourer and a bouncer.
I used my earnings to buy food businesses to supplement my income so I could travel and train in close combat.
In the mid-80s I travelled to New York City for the first time to train from Charles Nelson.
I consider then and still consider today that Charles Nelson knew more about self-defence than any other instructor.
I trained from Charles Nelson from the mid-80s annually for between two and four weeks everyday from when he opened the school until it closed including on Sundays with his most senior and closest fellow instructor Herb Kantrowitz.
Tank Todd, Charles Nelson, Herb Kantrowitz
I trained there right up until Charlie retired and closed the school and he moved to Arkansas in 1998.
He asked me if I was interested in moving to New York and continuing with his work and put me in contact with an immigration lawyer.
I graciously declined his offer as I was by now committed to the Baldock Institute and to my loyal understudies and military instructing duties.
I assured Charlie as the only life member instructor that was operating a full time combative and self-defence facility back then that I would continue with his work.
Part 2 includes more on Harry Baldock, Charles Nelson and my association with Col Rex Applegate. Click here to read.
Interested in Close Combat Training? Todd Group Depots are located throughout New Zealand and at various overseas locations.
For more information on Todd System of Close Combat see the following books, dvds and cds:
- Close Combat Books
The Do's and Don'ts of Close Combat – Tactical C&R – Control and Restraint – No Nonsense Self Defence – Military Close Combat Systems Phase One – Combative Masters Of The 20th Century - Close Combat DVDs
Self Defence of the Elite – 80 Years of Combative Excellence – Primary Option Control & Restraint – Military Unarmed Combat – Phase 1 - Close Combat CDs
Technique To Command – Combative Code of Conduct
