Unarmed Combat in the ADF: "The Next Evolution"

Abstract

As a Military Self Defence Instructor, I have noted over the last five years a variation in levels of enthusiasm towards this fundamental skill set. Commanders and Physical Training Instructors alike have demonstrated everything from willing acceptance to total indifference. This article aims to generate discussion at all rank levels as to the success or not of Military Self Defence within the Australian Defence Force, to look critically at what has been achieved and, most importantly, propose options for the development of this fighting system in the future to grow a strong balanced system that allows all soldiers to defend themselves. An effective system gives combat soldiers the necessary confidence and skill sets to close with and neutralise their opponent even when personal weapons have been removed from the equation.

---

The defining characteristic of a warrior is the willingness to close with the enemy. We do not win wars because we are better at hand-to-hand combat than the enemy, we do however win wars because of the things it takes to be a good hand-to-hand fighter. Confidence comes from competence. It is not enough to simply tell soldiers to be aggressive; they must have a faith in their abilities built through hard and arduous training and know that they are going to win; so that when that weapon does malfunction three feet from the bad guy, they will instinctively attack.

- SFC Matt Larsen

Maintaining the Initiative 

One of the four principles of Military Self Defence (MSD) is to maintain the initiative when involved in close combat with the enemy. This article discusses the approach the ADF has taken to unarmed combat, where it has succeeded, and areas that need to be improved to enable us to maintain the combat mindset that was displayed when MSD was first introduced into the Australian Defence Force in 2007.

Unarmed combat in the Army has traditionally gone in cycles, rotating from strong endorsement through to aversion, influenced by such diverse factors as the personal experiences of the key leadership team, budgetary constraints, the Army’s commitments overseas and even society’s perception of ‘acceptable violence’. At present, the ADF is walking a middle ground by just ‘covering the basics’ or ‘ticking boxes’. It should be aiming to inculcate a complete fighting attitude that becomes second nature to all our soldiers regardless of an individual’s corps, role or rank. Recent overseas experience has demonstrated that the nature of modern warfare has actually increased a soldier’s need to acquire close quarter combat skills to operate effectively. US forces conducted surveys of returning soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan and have recorded over 900 cases of individuals engaging in hand to hand combat.¹

... the nature of modern warfare has actually increased a soldier’s need to acquire close quarter combat skills to operate effectively.

One Mind Any Weapon

As well as dealing with the bad weather conditions, the fighting around the eastern Afghan town of Gardez has in some cases been hand to hand. Maj Gen Richard Cody reported that some of his soldiers were involved in a knife fight which ended quickly when his soldiers ‘got in there and took it to them’.

- CBC News, March 2002.

Unarmed combat in the Australian Army is collectively known as Close Quarter Self Defence (CQSD), which is broken into three disciplines:

1. Defensive tactics used by the Military Police to safely and successfully enforce Army rules, regulations and legislation. Defensive tactics are only used by Military Police when required for their day to day duties.
2. Military Self Defence (MSD), which was developed as an Army-wide system to allow a soldier to apply the appropriate and proportionate level of force to a situation, is aimed more towards the arrest and detention of an enemy rather than his destruction by the direct use of lethal force. The MSD course is conducted over five days. The trainee is introduced to basic techniques which are then reinforced by reflex training and scenarios that condition the trainee to apply proper techniques while under pressure. A qualified soldier (an exponent) who receives a recommendation and achieves non-commissioned officer rank can then attend the MSD Instructors course. This comprises two days of instructor development followed by assessment in giving lessons and the coordination and control of reflex and scenario training activities. As an instructor, the soldier will be required to requalify once every 12 months to maintain currency. The responsibility for this system currently resides with the Army School of Health coordinated by Physical Training Instructors (PTIs).
3. Close Quarter Fighting (CQF) encompasses a more offensive role that allows soldiers to physically control or apply skills—up to lethal force—in situations where the use of a primary weapon system has been negated by circumstances. The responsibility for this system currently sits with Special Forces Training Centre. This course is currently only available to Special Forces.

Maintain a Combat Mindset

In the outposts of Lashkar Gah, Helmand Province, battles have been known to result in hand-to-hand combat with the Taliban, so you need to know how to disarm, do take-downs and master counter moves to escape grips or holds.

- former Royal Marine James Sullivan

Originally, MSD was intended to be available to the entire Army. Its implementation was coordinated by the Military Unarmed Combat (MUC) Cell, which had overseen development of the course and training standards. Development of core techniques evolved from interaction with subject matter experts and foreign CQSD styles. The Army Military Unarmed Combat Cell was established in November 2006, with COMD TC-A Directive 04/06 – Introduction of Military Self Defence Training Capability.

The establishment of the cell at ALTC and RMC-D was achieved in January 2007. Once the Physical Training Instructor and Supervisor capability was established the MUC cell was drawn down to a steady state, manned by one course manager and one training development officer. The MUC Cell officially ceased on 1 November 2008. In the two years since its inception it trained 1577 personnel as MSD exponents and 168 MSD instructors. The management of MSD was handed over to ALTC Development Group in January 2009. Up until early 2010, QCF was still available to any arms corps unit that identified a requirement to conduct the training; however, with a scarcity of qualified instructors and the nature of the course, it soon became the norm for commanders to choose to train their soldiers in MSD as a more viable alternative.

With the excellent work by the MUC Cell to produce enough instructors that the system could be self-supporting seemingly complete, ownership of the Trade Management Package was passed to the Army School of Health. The TMP had been under development by the MUC Cell and the PTIs assumed the role of subject matter experts for MSD. MSD exponent level training is also conducted at the School of Infantry and the Royal Military College – Duntroon. This system provides the opportunity to complete the exponent course but fails to provide a system that maintains skill levels. Once the five-day course is complete, the majority of soldiers will have little to no contact with any of the techniques again. For those that do, the time frame will usually be so great that their skill loss renders any attempt to employ MSD either incorrect or unsafe. This causes soldiers to lose confidence in the system.

A recent study conducted by Royal Military College – Duntroon revealed that 12 months on from graduation, 84 per cent of lieutenants had not been involved in MSD since their initial course. Anecdotal evidence, drawn from many soldiers, is encapsulated in statements such as ‘Oh MSD, that doesn’t work. It worked on the course but I couldn’t remember it later’. It is disappointing that not all commanders and PTIs have taken to this important task as expected.

The relevance of MSD in the modern high tech army has been questioned by some, with a common view being that there is little chance soldiers would have to engage in hand to hand combat on the modern battlespace. This judgment is based on a false understanding of the full range of combat benefits arising from competence in MSD. ATI 6-5/10 HQ FORCOM Policy on the conduct of MSD states, ‘In our current operating environment there is a justifiable need to refocus training so as to rebuild the skills necessary to win in combat’. Unarmed combat skills are an essential building block to producing warfighting skills and the required confidence to execute these skills.

Unarmed combat skills are an essential building block to producing warfighting skills and the required confidence to execute these skills.

When asked about the unarmed combat training he received during the Second World War, a former Royal Marine Commando stated, ‘The training gave us more and more self confidence which grew into a sense of physical power and superiority, I would have willingly tackled any man. I could face the possibility of a fight without a tremor of apprehension, a state of mind which is often half the battle’.²

Maintain Dominance

With the drawdown at the end of World War II Combatives training in the Army virtually ceased. The lack of a train-the-trainer program, virtually all of the training had been done by a very small amount of instructors..., and the lack of a follow on training plan other than continuing to practice the same limited number of techniques led to the slow death of any meaningful training. There was a Field Manual, however, actual training was reduced to initial entry training and was taught by drill sergeants with very little official training. Quality inevitably plummeted.

- US Army Combatives History³

Is the ADF reaching a point with MSD similar to the US Army in the above example? It is time to re-evaluate the curriculum and determine how the training could be better delivered, so that as soldiers in the battlespace, we continue to operate at our peak by getting the best value from our limited training time. I have included four separate proposals that would contribute to the growth of the fighting arts within the ADF without the burden of a major restructure in training or time consuming introduction of new techniques or training methods.

 It is time to re-evaluate the curriculum and determine how the training could be better delivered ...

Proposal 1. Close Quarter Fighting Training for MSD Instructors

LWD 7-7-21 CQSD Chapter 4.34 states, ‘MSD Instructors should be able to demonstrate all techniques correctly and instinctively and have greater knowledge than the level being taught’. The majority of junior non-commissioned officers who attend the MSD Instructor course will only have the exponents course to fall back on as a source of knowledge and in many cases the actual exponents course will be the last time that the member has employed the techniques. This situation does not allow the instructor to develop a deep level of knowledge with the techniques and in some cases has led to incorrect drills being taught and unsafe practices slipping into the conduct of training. It is up to individual units to organise and run MSD courses, so the number of courses held throughout the Army will vary greatly, depending on other training commitments, availability of instructors, facilities and equipment.

If CQF courses were available for MSD Instructors to attend, this would allow the instructor to build a more complete understanding of the techniques available and increase knowledge to a higher level than the MSD exponents. This would have the duel benefit of producing higher quality instructors, who would be motivated to see their units undertake regular continuation training, as well as providing more opportunities for exponents to build experience, as MSD is a building block to higher level techniques to which exponents can aspire. The other advantage of this method is that if the individual instructor performed well he could go on to complete CQF Instructor qualifications, thus growing the pool of available instructors for a skill set that is often hard to find when needed. 

Current system:

The term self defence tends to imply a reaction to another’s aggression which is acceptable in the civilian environment but not always preferred when closing with an enemy, killing or capturing him. For ease of training the system is broken into four levels.

Proposed system:

This system is titled Close Quarter Combat (CQC) as it encompasses both the self defence and fighting aspects in both MSD and CQF. The advantage of this proposed system is that all the course structures and training management packages are already in place. All four levels already exist within the ADF. There is no requirement to retrain or requalify anyone as all existing qualifications would continue to be recognised.

Proposal 2. Instructor Development Training (IDT)

IDT would consist of the remaining MSD and MSD Instructor training curriculum and qualified instructors would complete a series of short courses (2–3 days) that would develop the instructor’s knowledge and skills, and improve instruction techniques. Many of these IDT packages would be lifted straight from the CQF training management packages and then presented as a separate package. Some possible examples of IDT packages could include:

1. Bayonet fighting
2. Knife fighting/knife defence
3. Improvised weapons/weapons of opportunity
4. Weapon retention/weapon disarm
5. Ground fighting
6. Takedowns/throws
7. Striking techniques
8. Finishing (lethal) techniques
9. Extendable baton/stick fighting
10. Arrest and detention

Each of these packages would begin with the participants being assessed on the standard MSD techniques to demonstrate proficiency, and from there concentrate on a particular package to ensure a more in-depth understanding of the MSD techniques, applications and limitations. This would allow an instructor to develop a more rounded knowledge base and improved instructor skills. This 2–3 day modular approach would also be beneficial as soldiers could conduct suitable modules as part of pre-deployment training for particular theatres.

The other advantage to modularising training in this way is that it can reduce instances of fatigue-related injury. The short duration training focuses on a limited number of techniques being introduced, and the trainee gets better results throughout the training period by not being hindered by injury.

Proposal 3. Outsourced Training

The ADF in recent years has partnered with civilian organisations like CUBIC to provide assets to the Combat Training Centre that greatly enhance training outcomes for soldiers involved in mission rehearsal exercises. Civilian contractors also conduct a large part of the medical training that occurs prior to a soldier’s arrival in the Middle East Area of Operations. Unarmed combat is an area where there is already a great deal of knowledge available in the civilian world. There are a number of field tested, effective close quarter combative systems that are currently used throughout Australia and the world by military and law enforcement agencies. The ADF could draw from their experience to develop a syllabus to suit Army’s needs, and then bring in subject matter experts to pass on their knowledge and specific skill sets when required.

Unarmed combat is an area where there is already a great deal of knowledge available in the civilian world.

Proposal 4. A Belt System

The US Marines have the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program (MCMAP, which uses a belt ranking system. There are five basic levels: tan, grey, green, brown and black. Each coloured belt level identifies the exponent’s level of physical skill and lethality. This program has character development, core values and leadership training built into the syllabus. Incorporating elements from proposals one and two, a simple ranking system could be introduced which ties in with the members rank and experience level.

Other Factors

Some other points that would aid in the development of unarmed combat into a more complete system are:

Army Reserves

The only time Reservists receive MSD training is ‘just in time’ for a deployment where a requirement has been identified. It is inherently flawed to be giving a soldier a brand new skill set immediately prior to deployment. Unarmed combat training helps to instil courage and self confidence. With confidence in the system comes the understanding of controlled aggression and the ability to remain focused under duress. These types of courses are traditionally popular within the Reserves as they are not time or resource intensive. Many non-commissioned officers within the Reserves would also bring a different perspective to the standard level of instruction, often coming from civilian police or security backgrounds. This would be an ideal area to build a pool of instructors that could be employed to conduct both ARA and Reserve courses.

Competition

A successful program must have a competitive aspect in order to motivate soldiers to train and that it must include ‘live’ sparing in order to be useful in growing a combative culture.

- US Army Combatives History

The American Army Combatives system and MCMAP have both been successfully integrated into their respective training curriculums, and part of that success has been because of a well structured competition that allows soldiers to represent their company, battalion or brigade against other soldiers with similar experience levels. The system is great for building esprit-de-corps amongst the soldiers; it is highly regulated and controlled, with injuries minimised due to tight control by the highly trained referees. A major benefit of a competitive component to a system is that it allows the exponent to experience the speed and full paced impact of a ‘fight’. This competition would exclude the more dangerous techniques used in the system.

... part of that success has been because of a well structured competition that allows soldiers to represent their company, battalion or brigade ...

There are two basic mistakes often made in relation to military combative competition. The first is having no form of competition at all, usually because the techniques being considered are ‘too dangerous’ for use outside of the battlespace. Although there are many techniques that are too dangerous for live competition, there are many more benefits to be gained by competing even with a limited set of techniques.

Although there are many techniques that are too dangerous for live competition, there are many more benefits to be gained ...

The second mistake is that once a competition using the selected techniques has been instigated, training will then begin to focus on winning the competition rather than winning in combat. To avoid falling into this trap, it is better to have a graduated set of competition rules. This would ensure a safe set of techniques available to each level of competition, with no advantage gained by the fighter who masters a level but then finds himself unprepared for the next. Overall this will ensure that the combat focus is not lost. Example of competition structure:

Basic level

• Entry level soldiers (MSD exponent qualified).
• Start on knees, fight for submission or time limit (3 minutes).
• If time limit is reached, the win goes to the fighter with the best technique/aggression.
• No striking.
• DPCU/mouth guards.

Secondary level

• MSD exponent with 12 months or more experience.
• Start in standing 50/50 clinch, fight for submission or time limit (6 minutes).
• If time limit is reached, the win goes to fighter with the best technique/aggression.
• No striking.
• DPCU/mouth guards.

Standard Level

• MSD exponent (18 months experience), required to demonstrate ability to qualify.
• Start in standing, fight for submission or time limit (8 minutes).
• Points scored for each technique; for example, take down = 2 points, take down to mount = 3 points, etc.
• If time limit is reached, the win goes to the fighter with the highest score. If a draw, the fight will restart and go until the next point is scored or deducted.
• Kicks allowed/no strikes to head.
• DPCU/mouth guards/groin guard/8 ounce MMA gloves.

Advanced level

• MSD exponent (24 months experience), participated in five standard level fights, required to demonstrate ability to qualify.
• Start in standing, fight for submission or time limit (3 x 5 minute rounds), 1 minute break between rounds.
• Points scored for each technique; for example, take down = 2 points, take down to mount = 3 points, etc.
• If time limit is reached. the win goes to the fighter with highest score. If a draw, the fight will restart and go until the next point is scored or deducted.
• Kicks allowed/no strikes to back of head.
• Knee length shorts or bicycle tights/shin guard/head guard/mouth guards/groin guard/8 ounce MMA gloves.
• All fights at any level of competition will be supervised by an MSD Instructor or PTI who is properly trained and conversant with all the rules. At the standard and advanced levels there would be a referee and a score keeper. At the advanced level there would also be three judges. A comprehensive list of illegal techniques for each level would be available. Fighters would be matched according to experience level and weight class.

Oversight At All Levels

Each Rifle Company should have a representative who is at the minimum rank of corporal and MSD Instructor qualified, who would be responsible for ensuring that regular training is conducted either personally or with the help of other instructors. Regular training could be one PT session a week being devoted to technique revision, or a scenario afternoon in which every member of the company has to participate.

At battalion level there would be a representative who is a sergeant/warrant officer class 2 who coordinates the company reps and acts as the senior instructor/course manager for any MSD courses that the unit conducts. This person would be the unit point of contact for all things MSD and would coordinate with other units and brigade.

At brigade level this position may be filled by the Warrant Officer Physical Training Instructor or a member of brigade headquarters and would be responsible for ensuring that numbers of both exponents and instructors are meeting designated quotas. They would coordinate instructor development classes and the planning and conduct of inter-unit competitions as required.

MUC Cell

Hand in hand with the structure mentioned above, for any system to grow it requires someone to push it in the right direction and ensure it doesn’t become ‘bare minimum training’. A cell of dedicated and motivated soldiers from across the Army who would travel and observe courses to ensure technique continuity and standards are maintained. They would promote the system and look for ways to integrate aspects into other units’ training and courses; for example, grappling and close range strikes into the Urban Operators Instructors Course. They would examine other techniques/styles to ensure that our system stays current and relevant.

Conclusion

The Army took some great leaps forward when the MSD course was introduced, and the ‘old school’ unarmed combat courses with their notoriously high injury rates became history. We must be careful not to stagnate or settle for a reactionary self-defence system that does not build confidence in our combat soldiers to engage aggressively in hand to hand combat. We do not need to complicate what we have with more techniques or complicated variations, but we need to grow our instructor proficiency base by giving them a greater understanding of what each technique can achieve, when to use it (when not to), how to combine a series of techniques and what to do when it does not work the way they planned. This will result in high calibre instructors who inspire confidence and encourage young soldiers to want to gain similar levels of knowledge and skills.

We want to make unarmed combat skills second nature and build a culture where an hour’s spare time in barracks is spent practicing locks and holds, not staring at the walls waiting for knock-off. We want an environment where our soldiers are not only being introduced to these skills for the first time as they prepare to deploy overseas, but are already proficient and confident so they can concentrate on other requirements. We want a complete system that gathers the best training techniques and methods available, a system that endows physical and mental toughness and encourages initiative and resourcefulness.

We do not win wars because we are better at hand-to-hand combat than the enemy, we do however win wars because of the things it takes to be a good hand-to-hand fighter.⁴

About the Author

Warrant Officer Class Two Eddie James Walsh joined the Army in 1988 and he is currently posted to the Combat Training Centre – Live (CTC-L) where he is an Observer/Trainer. His other postings include 2/4 RAR; the School of Infantry; 4 RAR (Commando), where he was first introduced to Unarmed Combat; 1 RAR; 2 RAR; RMC-D; and 16 RWAR, where he gained his MSD Instructor qualification. Outside of the Army he trains in mixed martial arts and Krav Maga.

Endnotes

---

1     ‘A history of combatives’, US Army Combatives school website, US Army Maneuver Center of Excellence, <http://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/197th/combatives/&gt;

2     MRD Foot, SOE in France: An Account of the Work of the British Special Operations Executive in France, 1940–1944, Routledge, 1966

3     ‘A history of combatives’, US Army Combatives school website, US Army Maneuver Center of Excellence, <http://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/197th/combatives/&gt;

4     Ibid