# Coordinated Attacks



## bujuts (Jan 28, 2006)

I'd posted this on other forums and was met with varying responses, given the intent of this particular forum I wanted to offer it up to see what you all might throw in.  Thanks in advance for any input.

Kenpo always deals with handling mutliple assailants, but how would you use kenpo to coordinate, say, 3 on 1 or 3 on 2? How would you train this in your school? Or do you train this already? What facets of the system would apply, what would not? What would be some of the principle tactics? What would you consider monumental mistakes? 

Its an unusual topic, really, few if any systems address it. Its especially foreign for those of us (myself included) in the civilian arena whose likeliehood of needing it is even more remote than getting into a 1 on 1 scrap. At the same time, it rings in the minds of some as "unfair", "dishnorable", "not the martial way", etc. Whichever one's opinions, its not entirely unrealistic, and if life or serious harm is on the line, its not entirely undesirable to have an understanding of such tactics.

Once again, I'm just putting the idea out to see what others think, and how some kenpo principles might be applied, taught, and trained to develop these skills.  Your thoughts?

Cheers,

Steven Brown
UKF


----------



## Michael Billings (Jan 28, 2006)

We train it in the context of our upper belt techniques for 2-man attacks, however, this really just introduces the principles for fighting multiple opponents.  As you progress, the flow between opponents by grafting into appropriate techniques, while employing the principles and concepts introduced in the 2-man techniques, and angle changes taught in the upper forms starts to serve you.  Remember, what does a Kenpoist call multiple attackers?  ANSWER: A target rich environment!

That being said, there is nothing that substitutes for actually fighting multiple opponents.  Unfortunately, this is extremely difficult to practice successfully without maiming someone to win.  We do successive approxomations of multiple attackers in half to three-quarter speed sparring unpadded.  This allows for execution of contact manipulations and controlled strikes.  With good partners, you get an idea of what may work and what will get you killed.

For Brown Belt, in my old lineage, and still at my school, as part of your test, you have to spar single opponents (3 rounds); two opponents simultaineously (2 rounds); and a single round of fighting 3 men.  Then do your long form.  This of course is after your basics, techniques, sets & forms, and freestyle basics.  I look for strategy and heart ala Sigung LaBounty's lineage.

It is all good so long as nobody gets injured, NOTE, I said injured, not HURT.  Everyone is exhausted and hurts after their Brown test.  In some ways it is more physically demanding than the 1st Black test.  But boy can you be proud when you wrap that brown belt around your waist.

-Michael


----------



## jdinca (Jan 31, 2006)

We also teach multiple attacker techniques at the upper colored belt levels. The last 40 techniques before BB are multiple attacker situations (2-5). One of the things required for BB is new multiple attacker techniques.

We also teach "Mass Attacks". We consider it a hallmark of our system. They start out as a simple two man at the lower belt levels and are typically designed and taught to the students. As they advance, a student can develop their own, keeping it to two attackers until they are at least a Blue Belt. Those of us stupid enough to enjoy being dummies are the recipients of these techniques. Strikes to lethal targets are modified, 'cus otherwise we'd all stop dummying. 

Instructor Trainees typically dummy for the lower level students, in part to help them learn how to take a strike. Instructors dummy for each other and for the upper colored belts.

All Mass Attacks utilize the kenpo principles taught in the rest of the curriculum and all of them have to make sense, i.e., you can't kick somebody in the head when you've already dropped them with a groin shot(or whatever), unless the kick as waist level, etc.

We also will often throw together a multiple attacker situation in a group class, basing the complexity on the makeup of the class.


----------



## bujuts (Jan 31, 2006)

jdinca said:
			
		

> We also teach multiple attacker techniques at the upper colored belt levels. The last 40 techniques before BB are multiple attacker situations (2-5). One of the things required for BB is new multiple attacker techniques.
> 
> ...
> 
> We also will often throw together a multiple attacker situation in a group class, basing the complexity on the makeup of the class.


These sound like excellent classes for learning how to deal with multiple assailants.  We perform many excercises and drills to deal with multiple attackers as well, its invaluable training.

Not to detract from your post, the intent of my original post was to learn if others utilize kenpo principles to _coordinate attacks _on smaller numbers.  How do three *effectively* take on one or two?  Etc.

To get the ball rolling, the following is one response to this topic.  Let me know what your (the plural you) thoughts are on this subject.



			
				Eric Howard said:
			
		

> [FONT=Verdana, Times New Roman, Helvetica]1.  Past the point of de-escalating, calling the police, or crowd control.
> 2.  Unless you have had time to sit down and plan, 3 people attacking simultaneously will step all over each other.
> 3. The leader of the 3 (and there will always be a leader/best fighter whether formally established or defacto) engages and maintains engagement.
> 4.  Remaining 2 then move in to strike an open/uncovered meridian or weak point (neck, spinal, kidney, etc).
> 5. Engagement must be maintained or the enemy may attempt what a Kenpoist would execute: temporarily disable the Alpha attack, move thru Bravo and Charlie, then return to finish Alpha.[/FONT]





			
				Marcus Buonfiglio said:
			
		

> [FONT=Verdana, Times New Roman, Helvetica]While using the method you describe and I agree with what you said, it is also important to consider the formation off your attack group. With alpha in the middle there are two formations to consider. A "V" formation (looking at it from the perspective of the bad guy)in which the Alpha is in the middle with the other two split to his left and right rear flanks or the reverse "V" formation whith Alpha in the middle and the other two to Alpha's foward left and right flank. Were I the bad guy I would enjoy a tactical advantage to the "V" formation for it allows me the advantage of splitting up the attackers by engageing Alpha and moving off to Bravo providing me with distance and time on Charlie. I have the advantage of maneuvuring to line up and then seguentially defeat my attackers. *In the reverse "V" formation I do not enjoy that tactical advantage. In taking on Alpha, Bravo and charlie simply tighten up on me and force me to engage all three simultaniously*. If I attack Bravo first Alpha attacks my exposed flank while charlie circles behind Alpha and Bravo to maintain formation and join in the attack. As stated by UKFMAC The key for the attackers is to maintain engagement. Good topic and thanks to Scott for sharing his expierence. The process is so much easier when the degree of force you can use is not restricted. [/FONT]


Let the good times roll.

Steven Brown
UKF


----------



## jdinca (Jan 31, 2006)

Originally Posted by *Eric Howard, Lt Col.*
_[FONT=Verdana, Times New Roman, Helvetica]1. Past the point of de-escalating, calling the police, or crowd control.
2. Unless you have had time to sit down and plan, 3 people attacking simultaneously will step all over each other.
3. The leader of the 3 (and there will always be a leader/best fighter whether formally established or defacto) engages and maintains engagement.
4. Remaining 2 then move in to strike an open/uncovered meridian or weak point (neck, spinal, kidney, etc).
5. Engagement must be maintained or the enemy may attempt what a Kenpoist would execute: temporarily disable the Alpha attack, move thru Bravo and Charlie, then return to finish Alpha.[/FONT]
_

Great points! No we don't train for this situation.


----------



## Ross (Apr 10, 2006)

Good topic!

Just a couple of things to add.

1. You must also take into account the state of the attackers. What I mean here is that their adrenalin levels will be through the roof and you must try to reduce these through your own posture, body lanugage and tone of voice.  Remember it is the reaction of the individual that will set the tone of the fight. If you are jumping around (your adrenalin is increasing but so is there's) this will impede you. So take control of the situation.
2. I personally would not employ positioning my opponents into a V formation. This will still leave you with two flanks that you cannot defend from. Instead we train by manoeuvring them into an I formation, use them as shields to the other attacking. This can be achieved through effective footwork and body positioning (we all already do this in sparring - apply it here). 
3. Look for an opening, if the Alpha (as you describe them) is engaging you verbally, ask them a question then strike them when they are thinking or answering. Deal with them swiftly, then turn your attention to the other "2". Their response will either be "oops, picked on the wrong guy here - look what he did to (Alpha) and he's harder than me" or "get him", either way you will have one less to worry about or none.

But I'm open to any thoughts or discussions on this.


----------



## Doc (Apr 10, 2006)

I think a couple might have missed your question. I presume from your question that injury to the individuals are not an issue. In the circle I run with, 3 on 2 would engage 1 on 1 with the 3rd standing by to assist where needed. It is possible the 3rd would move between the 2 engaged groups, inserting whatever necessary to assist the primary to conclusion.

In law enforcement they teach a technique called the 'swarm,' where officers overwhelm a suspect with body weight attacking high low and middle simultaneously. This technique exists because of the desire to not inflict significant injury on a subject. It is not a methodology used outside of similar circumstances.


----------



## Ceicei (Apr 10, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> I think a couple might have missed your question. I presume from your question that injury o the individuals is not an issue. In the circle I run with, 3 on 2 would engage 1 on 1 with the 3rd standing by to assist where it is needed. It is possible the 3rd would move between the 2 engaged groups, inserting whatever necessary to assist the primary.
> 
> In law enforcement they teach a technique called the swarm, where officers overwhelm a suspect with body weight attacking high low and middle simultaneously.



It is not unusual for Kenpo to teach when your attackers "waits their turn" or are close enough to for one to defend against two simultaneously.

However, with the "swarm", you brought up some thoughts.  What would you do to defend yourself if the "wolf pack" (say, a gang, a drunken group, or a riot) attacks all together at once?  (Of course, awareness would hopefully indicate to never be there in the first place, but for the sake of discussion, how would this be handled?)

People may say, hey, this situation rarely happens.  I'm thinking back to the times when there were riots in college, and what about those California riots where people and stores were attacked en-masse?

- Ceicei


----------



## Doc (Apr 10, 2006)

Ceicei said:
			
		

> It is not unusual for Kenpo to teach when your attackers "waits their turn" or are close enough to for one to defend against two simultaneously.
> 
> However, with the "swarm", you brought up some thoughts.  What would you do to defend yourself if the "wolf pack" (say, a gang, a drunken group, or a riot) attacks all together at once?  (Of course, awareness would hopefully indicate to never be there in the first place, but for the sake of discussion, how would this be handled?)
> 
> ...



Not only does it rarely happen, it statisically doesn't exist. First in a group mentality there is always one spokeperson who will begin the confrontation.  

In a 'mob mentality' it is usually property that is attacked not people. But However, a discussion of how to defend yourself against a mob absent mobility would seem to be along the lines of, "I was standing there in a neutral bow and a plane crashed into my back when I wasn't looking."


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 10, 2006)

If it is a real gang or mob attacking you specifically, I'd say an escape route is your only real hope.  Maybe you can hold off a couple of them for a short while so you can create an escape, but without an escape you are doomed, unless the gang is truly the Three Stooges.  I think there are limits to what you can do, no matter how good you are.  When the numbers are stacked against you, it can be all over in a hurry.

If you are caught in a mob that isn't specifically attacking you, I'd say make yourself as inconspicuous as possible.  Look for a place to hide until danger passes and then get out.  Don't do something like engage with someone, 'cause that will probably just attract unwanted attention from the rest of the mob.


----------



## DavidCC (Apr 10, 2006)

Ceicei said:
			
		

> However, with the "swarm", you brought up some thoughts. What would you do to defend yourself if the "wolf pack" (say, a gang, a drunken group, or a riot) attacks all together at once? (Of course, awareness would hopefully indicate to never be there in the first place, but for the sake of discussion, how would this be handled?)


 


			
				Doc said:
			
		

> Not only does it rarely happen, it statisically doesn't exist. First in a group mentality there is always one spokeperson who will begin the confrontation.
> 
> In a 'mob mentality' it is usually property that is attacked not people. But However, a discussion of how to defend yourself against a mob absent mobility would seem to be along the lines of, "I was standing there in a neutral bow and a plane crashed into my back when I wasn't looking."


 
Well, you might have to defend yourself against the swarm :idunno: of course the right thing to do in that situation is peacefully surrender to the arresting officers and explain your innocence to the Judge, right?


----------



## Blindside (Apr 10, 2006)

Um, back to the origininal question....

The way we usually do it is have one of the group attract attention, and one of the flankers rushes in and controls the opponents upper body.  Ideally, he pins one or both arms, and slams up against a vertical surface.  The grabber then just stays there, tucks his head close to the opponents head, and waits for one of his buddies to pound the lone guy's head in with elbows.  Surprisingly effective for such a simple tactic.

Lamont


----------



## bujuts (Apr 10, 2006)

Blindside said:
			
		

> The way we usually do it is have one of the group attract attention, and one of the flankers rushes in and controls the opponents upper body. Ideally, he pins one or both arms, and slams up against a vertical surface. The grabber then just stays there, tucks his head close to the opponents head, and waits for one of his buddies to pound the lone guy's head in with elbows. Surprisingly effective for such a simple tactic.
> 
> Lamont


 
Good information, thanks for the response.  You bring up an interesting point here.  An enemy doesn't necessarily need to beat us, or even be better than us.  By simply tying up our attention or body or limiting our options, such as you've described, he helps swing the favor of the fight to his group.



			
				Doc said:
			
		

> In law enforcement they teach a technique called the 'swarm,' where officers overwhelm a suspect with body weight attacking high low and middle simultaneously.


 
That's good information.  I spoke to my teacher briefly about this sort of tactic, and he taught the same approach to both his military and his law enforcement students.  He pointed out the lessons one gains by simply watching the discovery channel, or animal planet.  Watch a few lions, hyenas, jackels, etc. take out a large ox.  One on one, the ox can often kill a single predator.  The first one or two usually aren't strong enough to take it down, but they latch on and tie up the legs, cancelling the ability to run.  Another takes the throat, and very soon it goes to the ground.  

This is valuable, I believe.  There is no such thing as "fair" when officers need to take down a most wanted, nor when two soldiers are within physical range of an enemy.  Perhaps some parallels may be drawn to our understanding of our own craft, though the applicability may not be the same.

Good discussion gentlemen.  Thank you for the input.

Steven Brown
UKF


----------



## Blindside (Apr 11, 2006)

Take a look at the mass attack video on this page, particularly on strategies of how to one.

http://www.atienzakali.com/pages/videogallery2.html


----------

