Kill can be a noun,too, as in "# of confirmed kills". In soldiermedic's example, I imagine the intent of the yell was something like "This was a proper kill".
Originally Posted by Bubba_The_SHY
Because the tires aren't being trained to die, the men are being trained to kill.
Originally Posted by Bubba_The_SHY
I went through Infantry school in Summer 2006. The bayonet training was definitely to build aggression and the killing mentality. When drilling the techniques, we would have stand opposite each other (at a safe distance) and perform the technique. Then we would have to hold the front site post to our helmets (so we don't stab each other) and charge and body check each other.
Then the cadre would shout things like "What is the spirit of the bayonet?" And we would have to shout back "To kill kill kill, with cold blue steel!"
The whole exercise was to build aggression.
So on the bayonet course when you leap out of a trench and charge a rubber target and the cadre shouts at you which techniques you are supposed to use to dispatch the target, you are supposed to passionately, angrily, aggressively stab like you are actually trying to kill that piece of rubber. So you are supposed to command yourself to kill, rather than command the tire to die.
Basically what everyone above said. You're taking (for the most part) complacent, chubby americans and trying to bring out that killer instinct that has been obsolete for generations. Its crude conditioning, and while for the most part later on we laugh it off(it was a big joke when I first started training at Ft. Sam to yell, "HEAL!!" when slapping on a field dressing or tourniquet), I think its a lot more effective than people would realize.
I am unsure if they still do the pugil stick battles, because usually bayonet training, the assault course, and the pugil sticks were all rolled into same block of instruction.
The system's not letting me +rep you.
I'm doing push-ups. It was well said.
I came across this video last night:
YouTube- Kill or Be Killed
It's a little cheesy by today's standards, but it was probably pretty brutal by the film standards of the early '40's.
I think it shows that certain threads of thought about combatives training in the US military are consistent. The training of regular joes off the street to turn them into soldiers. The "one mind, any weapon" idea. I also see hints of the idea that a fistfight's only going to last until someone shows up with a better weapon. Details may change, but the mentality is the same.
When I awent through RIP Larson taught us what is now considered Army Combatives. Back then it was bascially Gracie Combatives. Everything we learned was reinforced at the unit level. We would train BJJ usually twice a week for PT or after PT, or for afternoon PT. During Ranger Rendevous(sp?) there were boxing matches and grappling matches, now there are MMA matches. I think what Larson did was revolutionary by standards at the time and is leaps and bounds better then the Basic army Combatives I learned in Basic Training.
Ranger Joe I agree with you, mostly due to similar experience. Yes, what Larsen did was pretty good, at the time. Hell, there was a time when there was a Judo or a Karate club on every Post. They are hard to find now. Combat Arms troops tend to tackle the Combatives more, but all soldier/sailor/airman and marine types need it. There is no one size fits all and it comes down to the versatility of the chief instructor to find something to help each skill level. Now a days, the PT time and the training schedule for combative type training are there. It has improved, but it is not "there", yet. When I retired from the Army in 2002, I went back to law enforcement. The defensive tactics scene there is more dicked up than the combatives scene, big time.
The 2007 edition of Richard Strozzi Heckler's book "In Search of the Warrior Spirit" includes about 100 pages on the modern history of martial arts/CQC training in various branches of the US military. Heckler was part of a pioneering project in the mid-'80s to revamp the Green Berets' close combat, fitness and psychological training (the Trojan Warrior Project) and has remained on board as an advisor.
He makes the interesting point that in modern OOTW (operations other than war), traditional "phase-line" thinking simply does not apply. The "markers" of well defined enemies in identifiable uniforms, ordered units etc. are no longer reliable in NEO (non-combatant evacuation) and humanitarian aid operations. Basically, he says that the post-9/11 military actually has greater need of close quarters combat skills than was previously the case (re. non-lethal crowd control, prisoner restraint, military police operations, etc.) even as the actual "battlefield" application is less of a priority.
My MMA fight on July 31st is against a Canadian Special Forces Operative who has also completed the US Army Ranger Combatives Course.
Should I be worried??
Most people are not yudanja (same as yudansha, or BB holder) in TKD. A big number of them are, but definitely not the majority. Also, nowadays there are more TKD BB's walking around and as you've correctly pointed out, can't fight because their training was really subpar. Plus the style doesn't really lend itself to churning out fighters.
And from what I see today, the martial arts training in Korea's military isn't so great either. But then again I'm an AM fighter with way more fight experience than your typical battallion martial arts instructor in a Korea signal corps batt. I don't know how it would pan out against non-trained opponents. I can see group cohesion and spirit that comes from the reknown tough training helping out much more than martial arts techniques. (Bayonet training is still part of the training there, and I don't think it is going away anytime soon)
It is one of those things that I when I read what your army is doing I automaticly like to see what mine is up to.
So we are keeping our bayonets.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO