which is more important? hand to hand combat training or self aid buddy care?

2014-07-28T13:49:08-04:00

In the training of new recruits which is more important for a new soldier to learn? Hand to Hand Combat.....or Self Aid Buddy Care? and why do you feel that way?

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 28 at 2014 1:55 PM

2014-07-28T13:55:28-04:00

First Aid!!!! Not to say hand to hand is unimportant or not fun. But chances of being that close to the enemy in my mind is slim to none. Things like IEDs are more prevalent so being able to care for ourselves and each other is a stronger need...who know how close a medic is.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Jul 28 at 2014 1:58 PM

2014-07-28T13:58:59-04:00

Both?

Response by MSG Wade Huffman made Jul 28 at 2014 2:11 PM

2014-07-28T14:11:24-04:00

Not to take take anything away from combatives training, but between the two, I would have to say that first/self aid would have to me more important. I agree with MSG Private RallyPoint Member in that the odds are much greater that you would be in a position to render aid than to be engaged in hand to hand.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Jul 28 at 2014 2:28 PM

2014-07-28T14:28:09-04:00

I think a lot depends on the MOS of the soldier and in the bigger picture both are important. For any combat MOS, combatives is more important, in my mind. The dead can not care for anyone. The training of either will go toward the mind set and, I say, we want our warriors thinking about destroying the enemy, with their bare hands if needed.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 28 at 2014 5:48 PM

2014-07-28T17:48:41-04:00

First Aid, to me, is definitely more important. It's a skill that you can use away from the military. Most, okay, MANY of us may never encounter a situation in which we will use combatives, but every one of us gets injured from time to time!

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 28 at 2014 5:52 PM

2014-07-28T17:52:13-04:00

You will save more people with CPR than kill with hand-to-hand.

Response by COL Randall C. made Jul 28 at 2014 8:03 PM

2014-07-28T20:03:29-04:00

While both are important, for the overwhelming majority, SABC (or the service equivalent) would be more beneficial as employment on and off the battlefield is a lot more likely than H2H.

For most military members to get to a position of H2H combat they would most likely be off the battlefield and in the very uncommon position of having someone attacking with a close combat weapon (as all the active shooter instructions say, if he has a gun and you don't your best course of action is to hide or get away).

On the battlefield? I have a gun, you have a knife ... old saying applies.

Response by SFC Walter Mack made Jul 28 at 2014 8:41 PM

2014-07-28T20:41:04-04:00

Let's discuss it in a matter of man-hours. You can spend a week becoming very proficient in BASIC life saving measures. To become proficient in combatives requires hours upon hours throughout each year to gain and maintain proficiency. I would say both are important, but combatives should receive more of our time in training. Combatives aids in developing confidence, fitness and overcoming fear. Combatives is also an effective tool in preventing and overcoming PTSD, due to the ability to survive in stressful situations.

Army leaders need to quit discouraging combatives simply because they are afraid to get on the mats. You can't ignore the regulations that you don't like (actually, you can apparently). Stop being weak willed and push Soldiers to overcome their fears and develop into mentally, physically and emotionally strong men and women. Hit the mats!

Combatives.