- Joined
- Mar 8, 2007
- Messages
- 9,402
- Reaction score
- 1
Why do people assume that military unarmed training is effective? Most of the times military unarmed combat is just as aggression exercise and PE.
Modern soldiers who find themselves alone in the field without weapons (their own or something they can pick up along the way), have seriously failed somewhere, and need more training in keeping their guns with them at all times.
Two similarly failed soldiers meeting on the battlefield is not a common thing, and I think we can all agree on the odds of a unarmed soldier defeating an armed one.
Armies hardly even train bayonet fighting anymore. And that if anything is the form of combat outside of shooting they could possibly find useful.
You could use unarmed combat in taking out guards from behind and so on quietly, I guess (I mention this because Ive seen such scenarios in military hth demo
Exactly. The entire purpose of H2H, if your unit actually trains it, is to build aggression, toughness and esprit de corps, not build unarmed fighting skills.
As for SEALs and SF and such, since they have about 10x the amount of basic skills to practice as the average infantry soldier or Marine and the same amount of hours in a day, they are probably spending even less time on H2H.