# The Value of training with odd-ball weapons



## geezer (May 31, 2020)

The recent thread on the Chinese "Monk's Spade" evoked some debate over _why people would ever bother to train with such an oddball weapon_ in this day and age. Of course there are a number of reasons, ranging from _tradition_ (in any traditional art regardless of culture), to _conditioning_, to _reinforcing certain basics_ of movement, stance, steps, and so forth.... But, I also see value in training with oddball weapons, even in a practical and contemporary system such as the pragmatic style Escrima I train.

Our basic training is with short sticks and empty hands, then we branch out into bladed weapons, little palm-sticks, long staffs, etc., adapting the same fundamental concepts to exploit the attributes of whatever we can lay our hands on.

Recently, I tossed out a couple of old PR-24s and a pair of tonfas I found in the back of a closet, probably collected in the early 80s. I told my students (just the last two guys I'm still meeting with during these times) to take some time and figure out how to best use these things for self-defense, _based on what we already know and do. _

The results were pretty interesting. We tested some of their ideas with each other, on the bag and with a striking shield, we analyzed problems, and finally put together some striking exercises and a little practice form for solo training.

The point was not to make anybody expert in a police tool that is little used these days, but to be able to grab whatever object is available, assess its attributes and use it effectively as an improvised weapon of self-defense. Everybody seemed to find the exercise challenging, useful, and fun. Any thoughts?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 31, 2020)

This idea is the main principle behind the weapons training I do. The basic weapons are sticks (single and double, same sticks you use - a carry-over from my FMA training) and a staff. Forms exist for single stick, double stick, and staff. I encourage students to do what I do: attempt the forms with different sticks (jo vs. bo, hanbo on either form, can I do a staff form with an escrima stick??). We dabble a bit with flexible weapons (mostly cloth), and occasionally just play with whatever is handly (like your "found" weapons). The idea is that some sort of stick is often handy, and working out how to use various objects (and how to defend against them) builds basic principles that can be applied with (and often without) other weapons.

I don't expect anyone to learn expert weapon technique from me. That'd be a miracle, given I don't have that to transfer to them. But then, I don't think you need to be an expert with a stick to make good use of it. Most folks can figure out how to hit with it, and the training is just to help them hit better, retain better, and defend better.


----------



## Danny T (May 31, 2020)

Outside the box thinking and innovation with different shaped, weighted, length, sturdiness, flexibility types of objects and how to incorporate them within one's strategies and tactics. Becoming comfortable with objects of opportunity as a weapon or force multiplier.


----------



## jobo (May 31, 2020)

geezer said:


> The recent thread on the Chinese "Monk's Spade" evoked some debate over _why people would ever bother to train with such an oddball weapon_ in this day and age. Of course there are a number of reasons, ranging from _tradition_ (in any traditional art regardless of culture), to _conditioning_, to _reinforcing certain basics_ of movement, stance, steps, and so forth.... But, I also see value in training with oddball weapons, even in a practical and contemporary system such as the pragmatic style Escrima I train.
> 
> Our basic training is with short sticks and empty hands, then we branch out into bladed weapons, little palm-sticks, long staffs, etc., adapting the same fundamental concepts to exploit the attributes of whatever we can lay our hands on.
> 
> ...


 how odd ball ?

to be really useful in combat a weapon needs to have at least one of the following qualities

sharp, long heavy hard or chemical

short blunt soft light, inert things are a real challenge. to use as a weapon give them a paper handkerchief and see what they come up with, you best hope   is a covid bio weapon, though you might make a case for a length of rope, but even that has to be long enough


the best use should really be obvious from what qualities it has in what percentage

by far the best improvised self defence weapon ive come up with, was as a kid when some big kid was insisting on fighting me, i picked up the biggest dog turd in the park, suddenly he didnt want to fight any more


----------



## geezer (May 31, 2020)

jobo said:


> how odd ball ? ...by far the best improvised self defence weapon ive come up with, was as a kid when some big kid was insisting on fighting me, i picked up the biggest dog turd in the park, suddenly he didnt want to fight any more



That´s really _gross_ ...and actually pretty good thinking. When we were kids, my brother (a really little guy, only about 5' 3" tall as an adult) used the same tactic with good results. Later he became a fanatical weight lifter and state champion wrestler. That worked too. 

Anyway _Jobo,_ you clearly have no problem thinking "outside of the box". But a lot of people are more boxed-in by their perceptions. If somebody _threatened _them ...at say ...a desk, they would look down and see their monitor, keyboard and mouse, maybe a coffee cup, a stapler, some pens and pencils, an electric pencil sharpener...

Under similar circumstances, you or I might see exactly the same things ...as a bunch of _potential weapons._ Mind-set or perception can make all the difference.


----------



## geezer (May 31, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> ...We dabble a bit with flexible weapons (mostly cloth)...



I knew a Chinese martial art instructor back in the 80s who taught ...mostly Chinese kids behind his restaurant in south Phoenix after closing time on Saturday nights. I was friends with a couple of his students, and he knew my old sifu from Hong Kong ...so I hung out there. We also got to eat the left-overs from the buffet for free! One time while I was chowing down, he told me that when he was younger, and working in restaurant kitchens in Hong Kong he saw an older cook defend himself against a knife slash with a large dish-towel.

When some angry kitchen help approached the cook brandishing a knife, the cook turned to face his attacker and flicked his dishtowel into a pot of boiling broth next to him. When the attacker closed and crudely chopped downward, the cook sidestepped the awkward strike and whipped the end of the towel soaked in boiling broth right into the guy's face ....ending the attack.

Apparently, they didn't make a big deal out of it afterward, and the scalded waiter healed up OK. The thinking was that if somebody _really _wants to kill you with a knife, you won't see it coming.

Now do I believe all these stories? No. But I still like to retell them!


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 31, 2020)

geezer said:


> I knew a Chinese martial art instructor back in the 80s who taught ...mostly Chinese kids behind his restaurant in south Phoenix after closing time on Saturday nights. I was friends with a couple of his students, and he knew my old sifu from Hong Kong ...so I hung out there. We also got to eat the left-overs from the buffet for free! One time while I was chowing down, he told me that when he was younger, and working in restaurant kitchens in Hong Kong he saw an older cook defend himself against a knife slash with a large dish-towel.
> 
> When some angry kitchen help approached the cook brandishing a knife, the cook turned to face his attacker and flicked his dishtowel into a pot of boiling broth next to him. When the attacker closed and crudely chopped downward, the cook sidestepped the awkward strike and whipped the end of the towel soaked in boiling broth right into the guy's face ....ending the attack.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I've had folks on forums challenge that you can't defend against specific kinds of attacks like a knife attack from behind without warning. I just agree with them, and tell them we're just looking for principles that might improve the odds a bit when we can see it coming.

I've done some experimenting with wet towels. Those things can get heavy and make an effective bludgeon. Not likely to create direct trauma, but it'll certainly move the head and knock legs around. Never experimented with boiling broth, though. I keep eating the training tools.


----------



## Gweilo (May 31, 2020)

I think this is a very useful debate, use and train with as many things as possible, if someone is coming at you with a weapon, you are better using an equaliser, a chair, a picture frame, a fire extinguisher, anything that comes to hand, this is one of the things I like about FMA, the training movement is the same, be it fist, knife etc, similarities will become self evident.


----------



## isshinryuronin (May 31, 2020)

geezer said:


> Mind-set or perception can make all the difference.


This is it in a nutshell.  The object is not to take down with this or that, joint lock, punch or kick.  The object is to defeat the opponent.  In any fashion.  Perception of "odd" objects as potential weapons is useful.  Right now, I am at my desk and I'm looking at a coffee mug, pencils, phone, wooden bill organizer, pen and full gallon water jug.  All of them are within arm's reach and capable of being an accessory to my karate techniques.  Spending a minute or two to visualize how they may be used is time well spent.

gpseymour mentioned a wet towel.  Aside from a nasty snap, it can be used to block, trap and lock.  A little similar to nunchaku is this regard.  There is a story of Tomari-te expert, Matsumora (a teacher to Kyan and Motobu) defeating a Satsuma samurai with a wet towel (although he lost a pinkie finger in the process).  As Jobo hinted at, there are objects/weapons that can be grouped into categories of shared qualities.  By knowing how to use one, others in the same category can often be used effectively.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jun 1, 2020)

I dont think there really is a odd ball weapon, depends how you define it.   Priority wise its ones you would most often come across or use, then going to least common, and least common soemtimes exists as a experts weapon to drill in better refinement to basic principles etc.     Like whips are usually the last thing you get and that really is a experts weapon or are put in so you can better understand body mechnics and some other principles, or something like that.  (could probbly write a paragrapgh for all the justifications of inclusion of something)


----------



## jobo (Jun 1, 2020)

isshinryuronin said:


> This is it in a nutshell.  The object is not to take down with this or that, joint lock, punch or kick.  The object is to defeat the opponent.  In any fashion.  Perception of "odd" objects as potential weapons is useful.  Right now, I am at my desk and I'm looking at a coffee mug, pencils, phone, wooden bill organizer, pen and full gallon water jug.  All of them are within arm's reach and capable of being an accessory to my karate techniques.  Spending a minute or two to visualize how they may be used is time well spent.
> 
> gpseymour mentioned a wet towel.  Aside from a nasty snap, it can be used to block, trap and lock.  A little similar to nunchaku is this regard.  There is a story of Tomari-te expert, Matsumora (a teacher to Kyan and Motobu) defeating a Satsuma samurai with a wet towel (although he lost a pinkie finger in the process).  As Jobo hinted at, there are objects/weapons that can be grouped into categories of shared qualities.  By knowing how to use one, others in the same category can often be used effectively.


 sorry to be stating the obvious, but some times its required to stop flights of fancy,

on selecting a weapon from a choice of objects or just to have or have not, its necessary to consider if the weapon is of more value than the hand you have given up to hold it

grabbing a coffee cup for instance is of limited value to be honest, id sooner have my hand free, your not going to knock them out cold, rather just be left holding the handle

that is of course if you can hit them with it, whats likely to happen if the weapon now becomes the focus of the tousle and they have two hands free to your one

ive taken various weapons of people over the years based on numeric hand superiority, by which time they were helpless


----------



## O'Malley (Jun 1, 2020)

After having been on the receiving end, I can definitely say that, during my childhood, my father displayed remarkable skill in using his shoe as a blunt and ranged weapon. However, his training regimen remains a mystery to this day.


----------



## Buka (Jun 1, 2020)

geezer said:


> The recent thread on the Chinese "Monk's Spade" evoked some debate over _why people would ever bother to train with such an oddball weapon_ in this day and age. Of course there are a number of reasons, ranging from _tradition_ (in any traditional art regardless of culture), to _conditioning_, to _reinforcing certain basics_ of movement, stance, steps, and so forth.... But, I also see value in training with oddball weapons, even in a practical and contemporary system such as the pragmatic style Escrima I train.
> 
> Our basic training is with short sticks and empty hands, then we branch out into bladed weapons, little palm-sticks, long staffs, etc., adapting the same fundamental concepts to exploit the attributes of whatever we can lay our hands on.
> 
> ...


_
The point was not to make anybody expert in a police tool that is little used these days, but to be able to grab whatever object is available, assess its attributes and use it effectively as an improvised weapon of self-defense. Everybody seemed to find the exercise challenging, useful, and fun.
_
That right there. That says it all. Nicely done.


----------



## Brian King (Jun 11, 2020)

geezer said:


> The point was not to make anybody expert in a police tool that is little used these days, but to be able to grab whatever object is available, assess its attributes and use it effectively as an improvised weapon of self-defense. Everybody seemed to find the exercise challenging, useful, and fun. Any thoughts?



Something else to look at after 'assessing attributes and using effectively' drills with odd or unusual weapons is to also throw in using the weapon other than as effectively as possible  type of drills. For instance, have the students wrestling on the ground but after 30 or 40 seconds surreptitiously give one of the wrestlers a tool but give it to them so that they are holding it some way other than the natural or most efficient way.  The benefit is that they now get the experience of having to use it, as is, while in the fight and the benefit for their partner is that they start to learn intuitively when a weapon has been added to conflict and how to or if to deal with it, while in the fight.  Another lesson is how to do the work while holding something that is clumsy and ineffective but if let go of might give the other a tool that is neither clumsy or ineffective. Restricting the use of 'hand' while providing other rarely tried options can be liberating and mind/body expanding. 
Regards
Brian


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 11, 2020)

Brian King said:


> Something else to look at after 'assessing attributes and using effectively' drills with odd or unusual weapons is to also throw in using the weapon other than as effectively as possible  type of drills. For instance, have the students wrestling on the ground but after 30 or 40 seconds surreptitiously give one of the wrestlers a tool but give it to them so that they are holding it some way other than the natural or most efficient way.  The benefit is that they now get the experience of having to use it, as is, while in the fight and the benefit for their partner is that they start to learn intuitively when a weapon has been added to conflict and how to or if to deal with it, while in the fight.  Another lesson is how to do the work while holding something that is clumsy and ineffective but if let go of might give the other a tool that is neither clumsy or ineffective. Restricting the use of 'hand' while providing other rarely tried options can be liberating and mind/body expanding.
> Regards
> Brian


Excellent idea. Thanks for sharing that.


----------



## geezer (Jun 11, 2020)

Brian King said:


> S Restricting the use of 'hand' while providing other rarely tried options can be liberating and *mind/body expanding*.
> Regards  -Brian



^^^^ You know, _that's _something I really like about training MA to begin with. The problem-solving and mind expanding bit. The older I get, the less likely it is that I will ever use this stuff "on the street", and the lower my odds are of getting away without injury if I did.

On the other hand, like you said, training this kind of problem-solving is good for the mind and body  ...and can be applied way beyond the narrow confines of "self defense". I could even see it's use in the corporate world ...although I'll never be part of that!  An old Escrima instructor of mine did offer FMA themed corporate "team-building" workshops at one time. But then, his day job was in that world.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 11, 2020)

geezer said:


> ^^^^ You know, _that's _something I really like about training MA to begin with. The problem-solving and mind expanding bit. The older I get, the less likely it is that I will ever use this stuff "on the street", and the lower my odds are of getting away without injury if I did.
> 
> On the other hand, like you said, training this kind of problem-solving is good for the mind and body  ...and can be applied way beyond the narrow confines of "self defense". I could even see it's use in the corporate world ...although I'll never be part of that!  An old Escrima instructor of mine did offer FMA themed corporate "team-building" workshops at one time. But then, his day job was in that world.


I tell my students I hope those are the only lessons they ever actually need to apply in real life from my classes.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 11, 2020)

I train with a bunch of odd balls.

Some of them are weapons.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 11, 2020)

O'Malley said:


> After having been on the receiving end, I can definitely say that, during my childhood, my father displayed remarkable skill in using his shoe as a blunt and ranged weapon. However, his training regimen remains a mystery to this day.




You.

You were his training regimen.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Jun 15, 2020)

Rat said:


> I dont think there really is a odd ball weapon, depends how you define it.   Priority wise its ones you would most often come across or use, then going to least common, and least common soemtimes exists as a experts weapon to drill in better refinement to basic principles etc.     Like whips are usually the last thing you get and that really is a experts weapon or are put in so you can better understand body mechnics and some other principles, or something like that.  (could probbly write a paragrapgh for all the justifications of inclusion of something)



Weird weapons are my favorite kind.

This thing is bizarre, but still devastatingly effective, like the name suggests.

Shock and awe works, so the odder the weapon, the more confounding to the enemy.  Like knocking someone out with a wet towel.  I've seen it happen.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jun 16, 2020)

Oily Dragon said:


> Weird weapons are my favorite kind.
> 
> This thing is bizarre, but still devastatingly effective, like the name suggests.
> 
> Shock and awe works, so the odder the weapon, the more confounding to the enemy.  Like knocking someone out with a wet towel.  I've seen it happen.



See those arent that odd to me, they are just big bolos.     Or what ever they are called the name eludes me currently.      Now days a lot of non odd weapons are considered odd down to them becoming obsolete pretty much, like most primitve weapons.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Jun 17, 2020)

Rat said:


> See those arent that odd to me, they are just big bolos.     Or what ever they are called the name eludes me currently.      Now days a lot of non odd weapons are considered odd down to them becoming obsolete pretty much, like most primitve weapons.



They're never obsolete.  This thing could spill your brains a thousand years ago, or today.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jun 17, 2020)

Oily Dragon said:


> They're never obsolete.  This thing could spill your brains a thousand years ago, or today.



Term obsolete doesnt mean it doesnt work anymore, its just surpassed in ability and use.      Try fighting a modern army with a musket for example, they are obsolete.   (if you only have that you will use it, but you still wont have a fun game)


----------



## jobo (Jun 17, 2020)

Rat said:


> Term obsolete doesnt mean it doesnt work anymore, its just surpassed in ability and use.      Try fighting a modern army with a musket for example, they are obsolete.   (if you only have that you will use it, but you still wont have a fun game)


 well yes muskets are obsolete in the concept of warfare, but then armies are becoming obsolete, you could argue that they have been so since the invention of the Abomb, but its becoming increasingly so. tanks are obsolete, fighter jets are obsolete, you can just shoot them out of the air, helicopters are no use at all

mean while the AK 47 is holding up quite well and 50 mil guns on the back of pick up trucks are all the rage


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jun 17, 2020)

jobo said:


> well yes muskets are obsolete in the concept of warfare, but then armies are becoming obsolete, you could argue that they have been so since the invention of the Abomb, but its becoming increasingly so. tanks are obsolete, fighter jets are obsolete, you can just shoot them out of the air, helicopters are no use at all
> 
> mean while the AK 47 is holding up quite well



That premise is dubious.  Until such things are obsolete it is speculation when they will or if they will ever become obsolete.         The AK is a modern generation of rifle, thats why its not obsolete, it is directly comprable to its contemporaries and sits in the same role.   Battle rifles also arent obsolete, all though their days of being a service rifle to most countries are over so they are delegated to DMR duty pretty much.(technically making them DMMR's not BR's, accuracy demand is diffrent for the two though)     How ever bolt actions would be obsolete and anything before them. (this is as a service rifle, they(bolt actions) still have some use outside of being a infantrymans rifle)


----------



## jobo (Jun 17, 2020)

Rat said:


> That premise is dubious.  Until such things are obsolete it is speculation when they will or if they will ever become obsolete.         The AK is a modern generation of rifle, thats why its not obsolete, it is directly comprable to its contemporaries and sits in the same role.   Battle rifles also arent obsolete, all though their days of being a service rifle to most countries are over so they are delegated to DMR duty pretty much.(technically making them DMMR's not BR's, accuracy demand is diffrent for the two though)     How ever bolt actions would be obsolete and anything before them. (this is as a service rifle, they(bolt actions) still have some use outside of being a infantrymans rifle)


the AK 47 is very old and outdated technology, its about as incubate as its possible to be, its popularity is on its robustness and ease of repair in bicycle shops and that the fall of the soviet union meant millions of them appeared on the black market

any battle between super powers will be fought  with high technology not big armies or tanks, Tank battles are very 1940s, they wont happen again, why would they when you can take out a tank division with ground to ground missiles

fighter jets are only any use if the other side has fighter jets otherwise they are useless, and very easy to shoot down with high tech, any body with a rocket launcher can take a helicopter or a tank out

and battles with miner nations are generally l lost through attrition, the combined might of the British and american military  and formerly the Russian militarily lost to a few goat hurdlers with AK 47 in Afghanistan . thats the very definition of obsolete and im not even citing Vietnam


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jun 17, 2020)

jobo said:


> the AK 47 is very old and outdated technology, its about as incubate as its possible to be, its popularity is on its robustness and ease of repair in bicycle shops and that the fall of the soviet union meant millions of them appeared on the black market
> 
> any battle between super powers will be fought  with high technology not big armies or tanks, Tank battles are very 1940s, they wont happen again
> 
> ...



Firstly, the AK47 was pretty much a russian clone of the STG (more to that, this is just gross summary).   The design itself as the name implied was 40's technology and has since been updated, namely to the 74 which rechmbed it to 5.54x39.   The basis for its inaccuracy comes down to bad ammo and worn out rifles.  It is acceptable as a service rifle though, it can hit relible to the ranges expected of a service rifle.

The U.S contemporary (M16) started off as the AR10 which was made in the 50's, then adapted into the AR 15 and then adopted by the U.S around 67 (if i recall) the M16 its self has gone through many design changes and has been updated and largely improved, or at least updated to fit in with military doctrine and complaints.      

So with that out of the way, they are equally as old and firearms technology doesnt usually change that often, now and then a revolutionary design crops up which changes the game, but until then its usually based on the previous revolutionary concept.   For example, there is only so much you can do to make a musket better, thus when rifling cropped up that introduced a new concept that revolutionized the system. The usage of outdated implies there is something that can replace it as well. 


As for superpowers, there is currently only one superpower, and what they did was what was done in the cold war, largely proxy wars down to the fact if the U.S was inavded by the USSR they would have more than likely nuked them edventually, and vice versa.  (story for any country with nuclear weapons, status of super power or not)    And then there were still convetional wars during the cold war. ie Vietnam, Yugolavian war, Falklands war, Iraq Iran war and the invasion of Iraq.  (the latter one was after the cold war though)  More than that, just the ones i know off by heart, as well as a big african war between pretty much all the countries on the contintent. 


Modern Air superiorty aeroplanes are not obsolete, they work to maintain sir superiorty, granted they are closer to muilti roles with a focus on air superiorty now days, outside of warfare they can be used to shoot down hijacked aircraft and smugglers and for SAR.   Modern aircraft for military use are fitted with devices to counter act any smart munitions in addition to pilots learning evasive action, now and then somone does shoot down a helicopter without a smart weapon but its usually while its landing or taking off from a lack of better words "hot LZ".

So fundementally, a military is built to fight another military in a conventional war.  But also fundementally a army is prepared for the last war it fought.   NATO for example is still (granted less so now, and pending country) adjusting from focusing everything to fight the soviets and counter act the soviets and that being the main threat, to something else now that they no longer exist and arent a major threat anymore.   

I have effectively answered the last point with the other points made here.


----------



## jobo (Jun 17, 2020)

Rat said:


> Firstly, the AK47 was pretty much a russian clone of the STG (more to that, this is just gross summary).   The design itself as the name implied was 40's technology and has since been updated, namely to the 74 which rechmbed it to 5.54x39.   The basis for its inaccuracy comes down to bad ammo and worn out rifles.  It is acceptable as a service rifle though, it can hit relible to the ranges expected of a service rifle.
> 
> The U.S contemporary (M16) started off as the AR10 which was made in the 50's, then adapted into the AR 15 and then adopted by the U.S around 67 (if i recall) the M16 its self has gone through many design changes and has been updated and largely improved, or at least updated to fit in with military doctrine and complaints.
> 
> ...



well just reproducing wikipedia doesn't alter the point that the AK 47 is 40s technology ?????? or thats its been massively outdated by rifle technology of the last 70 yeas

you also dont seem to think china has a high tech army and isnt a supper power, the Russian can still make an impressive dent in china's or Americas militarily, they still have lots and lots of nuclear bombs.and high tec devices


the fact that one of the few uses you can find for 200 million dollar fighter jets is to catch smugglers,is telling.why would you need a plane that can double the speed of sounds for that. you could do it in a twin prop.

the main and really only use for fighter jets is to fight other fighter jets. you need air superiority to bomb or stop you being bombed by planes other than fighter jets, if the fighter jets are hard to shoot down the bomber arnt and who needs bombers, when when you can target specific building with missiles, just take the airstrips or carriers out, lets see you land one of them in a field


''conventional wars'' , if by that you mean anything vaguely resembling the second world war, wont happen, its a simple as that,

 they could have recaptured the Falklands with half a dozen drones and a few patriot missiles if  happened now,

 wars in Africa etal are fought with ak47s and pick up trucks and machetes,, not a lot of tank battles

and as ive already suggested, wars between super/ major powers and others tend to go towards *Guerrilla warfare* , for which tanks and fighter jets etc are useless


----------



## Oily Dragon (Jun 17, 2020)

Rat said:


> Term obsolete doesnt mean it doesnt work anymore, its just surpassed in ability and use.      Try fighting a modern army with a musket for example, they are obsolete.   (if you only have that you will use it, but you still wont have a fun game)



Obsolete is contextual.  You, me, a dark room, and my meteor hammer means I have the state of the art, and you're probably gonna die.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Jun 17, 2020)

Any weapon capable of effectively taking out the enemy is not obsolete.  In a hand weapon, that means rate of fire, accuracy and range, low maintenance and high durability.  Regarding tanks, the same criteria apply, with the addition of survivability.  US tanks in Desert Storm and Shield won the day.  They may still have a role vs Russia and N. Korea.  Perhaps even China in the future.  Air superiority trumps all.  Whether manned or drone.  Again, this was proven in Desert Storm.  Tech war is a tennis match of new weapons versus new defenses.  Computers are not obsolete because they can be hacked.  The answer is better firewalls and such.  However, the occupation of territory, the true measure of dominance, depends on ground troops. 

Conventional versus guerrilla warfare can perhaps be likened to long range striking versus close up grappling.  The former of each relying on clean ranged shots and the other being more down and dirty.  Obviously, not an exact comparison, but close enough.  The point is one needs both skill sets and capabilities as the theaters of battle and enemies change.  Politics are as fluid as a fight is.

A real scarry weapon is the lone wolf or small cell terrorist group with a black market A bomb.  And Bio/Chemical warfare makes any power one to reckon with.  Evil is seemingly never obsolete, but then, neither is justice.  The fight goes on.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jun 18, 2020)

isshinryuronin said:


> Any weapon capable of effectively taking out the enemy is not obsolete.  In a hand weapon, that means rate of fire, accuracy and range, low maintenance and high durability.  Regarding tanks, the same criteria apply, with the addition of survivability.  US tanks in Desert Storm and Shield won the day.  They may still have a role vs Russia and N. Korea.  Perhaps even China in the future.  Air superiority trumps all.  Whether manned or drone.  Again, this was proven in Desert Storm.  Tech war is a tennis match of new weapons versus new defenses.  Computers are not obsolete because they can be hacked.  The answer is better firewalls and such.  However, the occupation of territory, the true measure of dominance, depends on ground troops.
> 
> Conventional versus guerrilla warfare can perhaps be likened to long range striking versus close up grappling.  The former of each relying on clean ranged shots and the other being more down and dirty.  Obviously, not an exact comparison, but close enough.  The point is one needs both skill sets and capabilities as the theaters of battle and enemies change.  Politics are as fluid as a fight is.
> 
> A real scarry weapon is the lone wolf or small cell terrorist group with a black market A bomb.  And Bio/Chemical warfare makes any power one to reckon with.  Evil is seemingly never obsolete, but then, neither is justice.  The fight goes on.



Obsolete is again not strictly a measure of if it works or not.    It refers to outdated things and by merit of being out dated less effective than their replacements.    There is a reason why no military worth anything has isseud out bolt action rifles or (especially) muskets in the modern day.

The invasion of iraq was a convetional war that saw combined arms used on both sides, yes.   That doesnt mean a WW2 tank with no upgrades to modernise it, is not obsolete because it might still be able to destroy buildings and works. (case and point all the WW2 tanks used and done by a actual military were last gens of it and/or got upgraded to modernity.  Or were delegated to being a Mobile gun for infantry rather than a true tank)  The other key thing about the iraq war is the Soviets/Russians dont export their top of the line vehicles its usually last gen and alterted versions of it, that and the countries they export to might not have good doctrine, training ammuntion etc or have a contary doctrine to the russians to which the tank is designed to serve. 

Irregular forces pretty much use what they can get, most countries arent built for irregular warfare on its start, so its generally a long learning curve, lots of variables here though.  At one extreme they can be a modern high tech force at the other they can just be armed with sticks and crude firearms that have no place on the modern battlefield.




Oily Dragon said:


> Obsolete is contextual.  You, me, a dark room, and my meteor hammer means I have the state of the art, and you're probably gonna die.



Its not that contextual.  Automatic firearms are objectively superior to non automatic firearms in fighting.   Bolt actions are only a hold over down to tradtion/mistrust of some places and for sniping, and specfically stalking in that.    But that doesnt not make them obsolete as no one is going to use one as a infanty rifle and DMR's are largely automatics.    (automatic is to mean self repeating)   Just because its the only thing you have, doesnt not make it obsolete.

If we want to use that example, in the modern day if you did that, what stops a grenade just being thrown in, or artillery removing the room you are in?


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jun 18, 2020)

jobo said:


> well just reproducing wikipedia doesn't alter the point that the AK 47 is 40s technology ?????? or thats its been massively outdated by rifle technology of the last 70 yeas



The number in the name "AK47" denotes its adoption date in the soviet military.   That is 1947, given it was designed post WW2 based on the STG and finished in 1947, means its "40's technology".  I double checked this before writing this.    

Age does not define its usefulness, to replace something you need a valid replacement, and as i told you firearms generally work on a system of, there is a plateau, you get to the best you can in said plateau, then a breakthrough technology is made and forms the next one, rinse and repeat.  The browning pistol design is 100 years old or close to it, it hasnt died out because there isnt a superior replacement to it yet.

Your statement also implied these designs arent improved throughout their lives to be the best of said desgn they can be. (which they are)



jobo said:


> you also dont seem to think china has a high tech army and isnt a supper power, the Russian can still make an impressive dent in china's or Americas militarily, they still have lots and lots of nuclear bombs.and high tec devices


Who told you the PRC is a superpower?    The term is, who can express itself military in any continent in the world, the U.S is the only one that can do that currently, the last 2/3 were the USSR, U.K/France.   China does indeed have a modern military, it has no bearing on anything however, nor does anything stated here, i just needed to correct that incorrect piece of information.



jobo said:


> the fact that one of the few uses you can find for 200 million dollar fighter jets is to catch smugglers,is telling.why would you need a plane that can double the speed of sounds for that. you could do it in a twin prop.





jobo said:


> the main and really only use for fighter jets is to fight other fighter jets. you need air superiority to bomb or stop you being bombed by planes other than fighter jets, if the fighter jets are hard to shoot down the bomber arnt and who needs bombers, when when you can target specific building with missiles, just take the airstrips or carriers out, lets see you land one of them in a field



Doesnt have a bearing on if they are obsolete or not.    Like i wrote the military generally exists to fight another military, if the countries military has a more law enforcement focus then their spending and intrests are diffrent, they would focus on more things like that.  (all through jets are still used in the role as they can generally outrun prop aicraft that most civilians tend to use)  

Modern air superiorty aicraft are usually muilti role and capable of ground attack missions, they have indeed been designed as fighter bombers for some time now.   Now bombers as in what you think of when you use the word (medium and heavy) are basically obsolete now days, strike aicraft have replaced them alognside muilti roles.  The last few in service exist as delivery systems for nuclear weapons if maintained (only like 2 countries maintain a air bourne nuclear system, maybe france still does i dont recall)   The term bomber applied to strike aicraft isnt incorrect  but its pretty much synonomous/slight diffrences that dont matter between the two.

I would hands down state for air superiorty and strike aicraft roles, props are obsolete.   But then there are several diffrent designs what comes to my head when you use the term pro" is a cessna or king air.   Rather than a  C130 or Airbus A380.   (the C130 is turboprop)



jobo said:


> ''conventional wars'' , if by that you mean anything vaguely resembling the second world war, wont happen, its a simple as that,



Iraq-Iran war, Falklans war, Invasion of Iraq, the huge war in africa in the cold war, The yugoslavian war.  These are all convetional and i listed off several convetional ones for you all ready, largely the same ones.  That is pitched battled and combined arms usage  as oppoed to gurillia warfare. 



jobo said:


> they could have recaptured the Falklands with half a dozen drones and a few patriot missiles if happened now,


Baseless speculation, and no they couldnt.  Its pointless to speculate on this matter as it cant happen now as the Argentinian military is not able enough and wont for the foreseeable future unless a miltiaristic party takes over. 




jobo said:


> wars in Africa etal are fought with ak47s and pick up trucks and machetes,, not a lot of tank battles


Sudanese Armed Forces - Wikipedia
Chadian ground forces - Wikipedia
Nigerian Army - Wikipedia
Nigerian Army - Wikipedia
List of equipment of the Angolan Army - Wikipedia

Its also like most african countries either had their own arms program, or brought/were supplied equipment from the other powers or a mixture of.   Curious that.   (some of them are really badly equipped, but the statement brought tanks into question, that is suffcient evidence of combined arms being in africa)



jobo said:


> and as ive already suggested, wars between super/ major powers and others tend to go towards *Guerrilla warfare* , for which tanks and fighter jets etc are useless



I dont dispute they go to proxy wars, but its any country with nuclear weapons.  Butproxy war and gurillia war are two seperate things, proxy wars are wars fought through third parties without the country proxing being at risk.  ie indo china, korea,malayan emergency.  The Cold war is pretty much defined by being proxy war heaven, but there have been some pretty open wars between great powers, just not over their territory.

Most of this doesnt have anything to do with if X is oboslete or not or arguing about obscelence.   I just couldnt let some of the military overlookings go.


----------



## jobo (Jun 18, 2020)

Rat said:


> The number in the name "AK47" denotes its adoption date in the soviet military.   That is 1947, given it was designed post WW2 based on the STG and finished in 1947, means its "40's technology".  I double checked this before writing this.
> 
> Age does not define its usefulness, to replace something you need a valid replacement, and as i told you firearms generally work on a system of, there is a plateau, you get to the best you can in said plateau, then a breakthrough technology is made and forms the next one, rinse and repeat.  The browning pistol design is 100 years old or close to it, it hasnt died out because there isnt a superior replacement to it yet.
> 
> ...


the last tank battle in Africa was us and the Germans, having tanks and no tank battles means the equipment is obsolete

the UK government has mothballed the tanks because they are obsolete, if they ever get them out of mothballs come back to me


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jun 18, 2020)

jobo said:


> the last tank battle in Africa was us and the Germans, having tanks and no tank battles means the equipment is obsolete
> 
> the UK government has mothballed the tanks because they are obsolete, if they ever get them out of mothballs come back to me



No idea what the point is for the first one as it makes no sense.  There have been tank battles since WW2, that is undisputable fact.    If you use what you have issued or not does not reflect on its obseleance.  That statement is just astonsighly illogical.

Second: Any mothball if it exists is not down to obselence, its down to the last armoured usage being in Iraq and the U.K*  underoing reforms in the military and changing its focus to be about supporting operations.  This is a discussion on politics.  

Third: You are now attemping to strawman me and you will not be getting another reply to this.  

Operation Granby - Wikipedia
Battle of Norfolk - Wikipedia

*In regards to a (convetional)war, tanks have been deployed on operations though.  This is the most recent   Baltics


----------



## jobo (Jun 18, 2020)

Rat said:


> No idea what the point is for the first one as it makes no sense.  There have been tank battles since WW2, that is undisputable fact.    If you use what you have issued or not does not reflect on its obseleance.  That statement is just astonsighly illogical.
> 
> Second: Any mothball if it exists is not down to obselence, its down to the last armoured usage being in Iraq and the U.K*  underoing reforms in the military and changing its focus to be about supporting operations.  This is a discussion on politics.
> 
> ...


 so when was the last tank battle, you know a division of tanks on either side having a battle ? im betting the 1960s, but you tell me,

if it was the Baltic thats near 25 years ago, so not exactly recent, but im pretty certain there were no tank battles, just tanks not being used, so obsolete


----------



## Oily Dragon (Jun 18, 2020)

Rat said:


> Its not that contextual.



Everything is contextual.  

You don't have a gun, a grenade, a tank, let alone an army in this scenario.  \

Good luck, you're going to need it.


----------



## Hanshi (Jun 18, 2020)

I did train fairly extensively with most traditional Japanese and Okinawan weapons.  One thing - I was a LEO for years - that has to be understood is that most of the traditional weapons cannot be carried out in public.  Some of them are simply illegal and others make one look as though they are searching for trouble.  One must be reasonable about weapons.

Knives, cane and what my sensei called "enviornmental" weapons were a great part of my training.  Basically every and any thing can be used as a weapon.  The average individual carries several of these weapons on their person virtually every day.  Sensei also taught "weapons first" before empty hands.  He also taught "fight the man, not the weapon".  I need to use a cane whenever I go out due to being disabled.  I also always have on me *at least* one knife and usually two.  But even with these "everyday" items as weapons, restraint in some degree must be observed.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jun 19, 2020)

jobo said:


> so when was the last tank battle, you know a division of tanks on either side having a battle ? im betting the 1960s, but you tell me,
> 
> if it was the Baltic thats near 25 years ago, so not exactly recent, but im pretty certain there were no tank battles, just tanks not being used, so obsolete



Strawman, but 2014 with the civil war in ukraine was the last war i recall with armoured vehicles.   The one before that 2003 with the invasion of Iraq.

The baltic operation i cited was done in 2016.   EFP is its name

This is a fundementally flawed point as usage doesnt soley define obseclence.  You wouldnt argue a military force is obsolete because it hasnt been used in 10 years, its  doing one of its jobs as a detterent for invasion by existing.

For everyone else here, i belive there has been a  great misunderstanding of what obsolete means and denotes and my examples have failed to bring it into context for some people.     If you only have for example a sword, that does not make the sword not obsolete in the modern world.   Would you honestly equip a military force with a swords in the modern day and deem it effective at all?  (nobody cite Taiwan, we dont talk about Taiwan,plus that wasnt in the modern day and that was auxiliaries that everyone knew would be massacred)  You can still use outdated weapons and if you only have outdated weapons learn to use them the best you can, but they are still outdated. (hopefully the change to outdated clears up the point)


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jun 19, 2020)

Hanshi said:


> I did train fairly extensively with most traditional Japanese and Okinawan weapons.  One thing - I was a LEO for years - that has to be understood is that most of the traditional weapons cannot be carried out in public.  Some of them are simply illegal and others make one look as though they are searching for trouble.  One must be reasonable about weapons.
> 
> Knives, cane and what my sensei called "enviornmental" weapons were a great part of my training.  Basically every and any thing can be used as a weapon.  The average individual carries several of these weapons on their person virtually every day.  Sensei also taught "weapons first" before empty hands.  He also taught "fight the man, not the weapon".  I need to use a cane whenever I go out due to being disabled.  I also always have on me *at least* one knife and usually two.  But even with these "everyday" items as weapons, restraint in some degree must be observed.



Civlian usage is just wacky, but good luck with specfically Japanese weapons, they are usually the focus of bans etc.  (the bulk of weapons on the list in the U.K are Japanese, or were done because of japanese weapons)      At least for some western countries.

The great thing about some of the laws etc civilians get, is the fact there are usually loopholes, so all sorts of wacky creations or reasons crop up to exploit the loopholes.   eg Wrist braces being used as stocks so its not technically a SBR.   Its just intresting what people can come up with, same with improvised firearms and weapons in general.


----------



## jobo (Jun 19, 2020)

Rat said:


> Strawman, but 2014 with the civil war in ukraine was the last war i recall with armoured vehicles.   The one before that 2003 with the invasion of Iraq.
> 
> The baltic operation i cited was done in 2016.   EFP is its name
> 
> ...


 a military force is obsolete if there no one to fight, as there isnt currently, thats why its been down scaled from the cold ware level, apart from america that keep finding people to fight for something to do, with this big army they have. but even that has much more to do with economics than actually ever needing that many people at one time

that you need some troops is a fact of life unfortunately unless your swiss who seem to get on with out them just fine, you just dont need very many with the high tech weapons we have now, your never again going to get a million a side battle again or even 50,000 aside. probably not 5000

nor are tank battles a thing, turning up with a 100 tanks will just see them destroyed with missiles, you dont need a 101 tanks to fight them, one or two might come in useful, as mobile artillery or bulldozers


----------



## Danny T (Jun 19, 2020)

They are obsolete! But you may need them so they aren't obsolete you just don't need as many so they are obsolete. LOL!!


----------



## jobo (Jun 19, 2020)

Rat said:


> Civlian usage is just wacky, but good luck with specfically Japanese weapons, they are usually the focus of bans etc.  (the bulk of weapons on the list in the U.K are Japanese, or were done because of japanese weapons)      At least for some western countries.
> 
> The great thing about some of the laws etc civilians get, is the fact there are usually loopholes, so all sorts of wacky creations or reasons crop up to exploit the loopholes.   eg Wrist braces being used as stocks so its not technically a SBR.   Its just intresting what people can come up with, same with improvised firearms and weapons in general.


thats disingenuous, in THE UK ALL weapons are banned in public, with out some in-transit or police  excuse, some weapons are doubly banned and some triply banned. but they are all banned

the only loop hole as you put it, is ( in public)'' instant arming'' were you find an everyday object that isnt normally consider a weapon comes to hand at your time of need.

walking canes being a classic example


----------



## jobo (Jun 19, 2020)

Danny T said:


> They are obsolete! But you may need them so they aren't obsolete you just don't need as many so they are obsolete. LOL!!


ive got an obsolete mircowave that i use as a bread bin, that it comes in handy for a use it wasnt designed for doesn't mean its not now obsolete

america has 1.3 MILLION active troops, an army that size is obsolete, if all your going to do is invade tin pot nations full of goat herders or if a real war actually arises they are mostly all dead in the first couple of hours, before they can even get the tanks filled up with fuel and moving

having a standing army capable of fighting a world war, is indeed obsolete, if as seems likely there  wont be one in at least the medium term or if there is, they nuke you of at least ballistic missile your army to bits, whilst they are still lacing their boots. AMERICA IS NOT OUT OF RANGE ANYMORE


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jun 19, 2020)

Danny T said:


> They are obsolete! But you may need them so they aren't obsolete you just don't need as many so they are obsolete. LOL!!



Thats what i thought he wrote.   Numbers cannot be obsolete, you need as many as you need.    And then you can get as many as you can affford.   Its a 10/10 strawman though.  Same with below.




jobo said:


> thats disingenuous, in THE UK ALL weapons are banned in public, with out some in-transit or police excuse, some weapons are doubly banned and some triply banned. but they are all banned




Re read what i wrote, the statement was  banned weapons, thus the banned weapons list.  Of which there are only 19 listed items.  (at least on the list that you can find publically)  They key word here is BANNED, NOT restricted.   You cannot buy, sell, import, export, own or possess anything on that list. (defences and exemptions apply, but depends on the act/bill that banned them)  Where as the restricted items you mention, are only restricted in public. (and then depends on the item in question as to specfics)


----------



## Steve (Jun 19, 2020)

Oily Dragon said:


> Obsolete is contextual.  You, me, a dark room, and my meteor hammer means I have the state of the art, and you're probably gonna die.


How did we get from the OP discussing oddball weapons as an intellectual problem solving exercise to two people (one with a meteor hammer) being together in a pitch black room, or even less likely, folks travelling along the Oregon Trail and dying from dysentery?  i mean, sure, context matters, but we're getting into the realm of ridiculous here.  Are we not?


----------



## jobo (Jun 19, 2020)

Rat said:


> Thats what i thought he wrote.   Numbers cannot be obsolete, you need as many as you need.    And then you can get as many as you can affford.   Its a 10/10 strawman though.  Same with below.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


there are no weapons that are BANNED to own in the uk9(well nuclear bomb and bio weapons and IED and assault rifles perhaps), some require a licence, which you probably wont get, but that not the same as being banned,
the list i think you mean, doesn't ban ownership, just the import selling( and possibly reselling), so a least most of the weapons on the list are fine in your own home, you can even have a flame thrower if you can get them to give you a licence

perhaps you posted the law your referring to i could be clearer


----------



## geezer (Jun 19, 2020)

Oily Dragon said:


> Weird weapons are my favorite kind.
> This thing is bizarre, but still devastatingly effective, like the name suggests.


Aside from some minor cultural details that make the "Meteor Hammer" seem "bizarre" to us, this is an ancient and common category of flexible weapons with weighted ends, like a manriki kusari, an Argentine Gaucho's bolo, a slinger, who when overrun could use the sling and rock in H2H (striking with the rock still in the pouch), or just beating somebody with a bar of soap in a long tube-sock.

Here's a scene from the old move "Martín Fierro" (1:44:30 - 1:46:00) were the gaucho Fierro, armed with facón (long knife) y poncho, fights a Mapuche (Araucano) with his bolo.


----------



## geezer (Jun 19, 2020)

Speaking of unusual weapons (that are really _not _unusual at all) consider the use of the poncho in the previous clip. The gaucho's style of fighting owed a lot to Spanish methods, and in old European fencing, a cape or cloak was often used in combination with a knife or sword. HEMA practitioners often play with that today.

Here's some guys in Argentina working to preserve the old gaucho methods (Escrima Criollo):





And here's Vigo Mortensen briefly using a cape in a duel in _Capitán Alatriste _(1:45-2:05):





Here's a self-defense enthusiast adapting these ideas to fit contemporary clothing:


----------



## geezer (Jun 19, 2020)

jobo said:


> ...in THE UK ALL weapons are banned in public ...the only loop hole as you put it, is ( in public)'*' instant arming'' were you find an everyday object *that isnt normally consider a weapon comes to hand at your time of need ...walking canes being a classic example



^^^^ That's what we are (or originally _were_) talking about here. Thanks for getting back on topic, guys! 

...Training with "oddball" things, (traditional, "obsolete", or just "improvised") can be very usefull. So, if you can use a short staff well, then you can use a cane, an umbrella, a broom handle, a piece of 2 x2,  a length of rebar, pipe, or similar construction debris, etc. etc. more handily than if untrained. Similarly, working with less intuitive shapes like the PR-24 / tonfa, flexible weapons, articles of clothing like a jacket, or perhaps a woman using her spiked high heeled shoes (you can't run in the darned things anyway, or_ so I'm told_) ...that's what this thread was about.


----------



## Buka (Jun 19, 2020)

Steve said:


> How did we get from the OP discussing oddball weapons as an intellectual problem solving exercise to two people (one with a meteor hammer) being together in a pitch black room, or even less likely, folks travelling along the Oregon Trail and dying from dysentery?  i mean, sure, context matters, but we're getting into the realm of ridiculous here.  Are we not?



Oh, I don't know, I kind of like it, brings me back to my catechism classes as a youngin'. Buncha guys, sitting around a table, complaining the fish doesn't go with the wine, downing shots in toasts to the Oregon Trail, the music of Pontius Pilot and the Naildrivers coming from the Bose, all the while the boys passing around a meteor hammer bong under the table so the gals in the other room don't yell at them. 

Yes, I know that's the realm of the ridiculous - because you KNOW the girls are going to yell at them anyway.


----------



## Steve (Jun 19, 2020)

geezer said:


> Aside from some minor cultural details that make the "Meteor Hammer" seem "bizarre" to us, this is an ancient and common category of flexible weapons with weighted ends, like a manriki kusari, an Argentine Gaucho's bolo, a slinger, who when overrun could use the sling and rock in H2H (striking with the rock still in the pouch), or just beating somebody with a bar of soap in a long tube-sock.
> 
> Here's a scene from the old move "Martín Fierro" (1:44:30 - 1:46:00) were the gaucho Fierro, armed with facón (long knife) y poncho, fights a Mapuche (Araucano) with his bolo.


Okay.  How did you happen to come across that movie?  I have to know how a movie that obscure made it into your life.


----------



## Steve (Jun 19, 2020)

Buka said:


> Oh, I don't know, I kind of like it, brings me back to my catechism classes as a youngin'. Buncha guys, sitting around a table, complaining the fish doesn't go with the wine, downing shots in toasts to the Oregon Trail, the music of Pontius Pilot and the Naildrivers coming from the Bose, all the while the boys passing around a meteor hammer bong under the table so the gals in the other room don't yell at them.
> 
> Yes, I know that's the realm of the ridiculous - because you KNOW the girls are going to yell at them anyway.


Boy, does THAT bring back the old days.


----------



## jobo (Jun 19, 2020)

geezer said:


> ^^^^ That's what we are (or originally _were_) talking about here. Thanks for getting back on topic, guys!
> 
> ...Training with "oddball" things, (traditional, "obsolete", or just "improvised") can be very usefull. So, if you can use a short staff well, then you can use a cane, an umbrella, a broom handle, a piece of 2 x2,  a length of rebar, pipe, or similar construction debris, etc. etc. more handily than if untrained. Similarly, working with less intuitive shapes like the PR-24 / tonfa, flexible weapons, articles of clothing like a jacket, or perhaps a woman using her spiked high heeled shoes (you can't run in the darned things anyway, or_ so I'm told_) ...that's what this thread was about.


i once beat someone unconscious with a small tin of spam in a plastic bag, which was my lunch, honest officer


----------



## geezer (Jun 19, 2020)

Steve said:


> Okay.  How did you happen to come across that movie?  I have to know how a movie that obscure made it into your life.



It's based on the classic work of gaucho literature, a long poem by the late 19th Century Argentine writer José Hernandez. I probably had to read an excerpt in high school, or maybe college. Later I watched the move.

These days "I can't remember what I had for breakfast."   ....OK, actually, I _can _today.... but generally it does take me longer to learn new stuff like forms, drills, training sequences, etc. On the other hand, I can remember old stuff like this, no problem. Especially the fight scenes ...like the way the Mapuche Indian grabs one end of the bolo _with his toes_ for greater control. That would have been natural for the poor, shoeless mestizo gauchos and the pure-blooded Indians they often fought. Not so much for modern people raised their whole life wearing shoes, like these guys:






BTW - Nice little _disarm_ at the end of this. Maybe I should also post it down on the FMA thread on "defanging the snake"?


----------



## geezer (Jun 19, 2020)

jobo said:


> i once beat someone unconscious with a small tin of spam in a plastic bag, which was my lunch, honest officer



Good Lord Jobo, that's utterly _brutal!_ Like something the psychotic character "Rorschach" in "The Watchmen" would do. 

So what is wrong with _me_ that I find that impressive?  Anyway, thanks for sharing. 

BTW - That just goes to show, _Spam_ really is as versatile as they say!


----------



## isshinryuronin (Jun 19, 2020)

Interesting videos, all.  They say "Necessity is the mother of invention."  I guess nothing is more necessary than survival, hence the many ingenious uses of "non-weapon" weapons being adapted and developed.  From farm tools to walking aids, to ponchos being used in a pinch, and actual working, to save some guy's life.  So he thinks "awesome" and practices with that item and it gets incorporated into whatever martial art he's into. 

In hot and humid Okinawa, the fishermen just wore loincloths.  Not much to strip off and use as a weapon.  (Yes, several jokes can come into play here.)  But they did have oars _(eku_)_._  There are a few katas that teach to use it as a weapon.  Another thing they had was sand, and using the oar to flip it into the opponent's face is one of the techniques. I have seen bo katas using the same idea.  I have even seen an empty hand kata where a handful of sand or dirt is thrown to the face as well.  So, even dirt can be an "oddball" weapon.  There's plenty, and it's cheap, too. 

Let's expand the concept. (Not to stray, and please forgive if I get too involved in my revelations) These aren't weapons, but weapon enhancers:  Taking the high ground, back to the sun, keeping the rocks or mud to your weak side.  The point I'm trying to make is this:  In survival, there are few things that are unimportant.  Anything, and everything available that can be useful should be employed.  If starving in the wilderness, "non-food" things suddenly become food. 

Just as many people have starved in the woods, where food was under their very feet (they just didn't recognize it as food), no doubt people have died by not recognizing things that could have helped them defend themselves.  Many people don't recognize how their body parts can be effectively employed as weapons as well.  For them, an elbow or forehead may be an oddball weapon.

By perception of your assets, a will to survive and training, nothing is "oddball." 

If it saves my life, I will not insult it by calling it "oddball."


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jun 20, 2020)

geezer said:


> ^^^^ That's what we are (or originally _were_) talking about here. Thanks for getting back on topic, guys!
> 
> ...Training with "oddball" things, (traditional, "obsolete", or just "improvised") can be very usefull. So, if you can use a short staff well, then you can use a cane, an umbrella, a broom handle, a piece of 2 x2,  a length of rebar, pipe, or similar construction debris, etc. etc. more handily than if untrained. Similarly, working with less intuitive shapes like the PR-24 / tonfa, flexible weapons, articles of clothing like a jacket, or perhaps a woman using her spiked high heeled shoes (you can't run in the darned things anyway, or_ so I'm told_) ...that's what this thread was about.



Yeah, i did not mean for that tangent to go on for that long.      I honestly dont see much qualm with training with sticks and knives as they arent really obsolete anymore, they are closer to being put in a auxiliary role. (there are others as well)

That point is not as solid as he made out though, as the qustions would flood in as to why you had XYZ, especially if its a item that is basically a weapon (cane for example) and you dont have a walking issue.  You would easily get away with it for something like a torch, phone coin purse etc.  If anything legally here you are better off grabbing a enviromental weapon if you deem it nessisary for your defence than using something on your person.

In a similar vein to this i like the concept of firearms training even if you cant carry them, one because i like firearms and its fun.   Two, appreciation for their usage to devise tactics and reactions to them, three if you end up disarming somone so you can use their weapon against them.  For the second point, firearms tactics classes seem to give you the best defensive education for firearms as well despite principly being about using a firearm in those sitations.


Somethings just are usless to learn how to use, they are too specfic and wont be worked into a complete system for you to find much use out of them, that or you would end up having to adapt it to the weapon you have.  ie longsword, you can adapt that to many objects, but of those many objects there might be a more direct application like quaterstaff or short staff.  



isshinryuronin said:


> Just as many people have starved in the woods, where food was under their very feet (they just didn't recognize it as food), no doubt people have died by not recognizing things that could have helped them defend themselves. Many people don't recognize how their body parts can be effectively employed as weapons as well. For them, an elbow or forehead may be an oddball weapon.



Read this out of context firstly, but there are several sayings for this.  That principly revolve around unless you know, leave it alone.     Fungus for example as a food is something you are advised to leave alone unless you are confident in Iding as it could very easily kill you.  You also should fight how you know how to fight. im not against picking up a piece of wood and smashing it over someones head if you need to though and would advise people do that irrespective if they have done a quater staff class.    I always found it slightly amusing when you mention say smashing a lamp over somones head and somone tells you "you should seek training in that".  Well, one who even does weapons anymore in this day and age for real life use?  And two, who the hell who does it would cover smashing a lamp over somones head?


----------



## jobo (Jun 20, 2020)

Rat said:


> Yeah, i did not mean for that tangent to go on for that long.      I honestly dont see much qualm with training with sticks and knives as they arent really obsolete anymore, they are closer to being put in a auxiliary role. (there are others as well)
> 
> That point is not as solid as he made out though, as the qustions would flood in as to why you had XYZ, especially if its a item that is basically a weapon (cane for example) and you dont have a walking issue.  You would easily get away with it for something like a torch, phone coin purse etc.  If anything legally here you are better off grabbing a enviromental weapon if you deem it nessisary for your defence than using something on your person.
> 
> ...


the laws very clear you can carry anything that isnt a ''weapon'', they may ask you a lot of questions if you brain someone with your walking stick, but thats not at all the same as you being charged or convicted of it. theres case law that carrying screwdriver is OK, just in case you need to undo some screws, noy a weapon and no excuse for carry is required, that must extend to walking sticks
there no requirement that you have to have a bad leg to use a stick, non at all, lots of people use them for hiking AND who is to say your legs isnt sore that day ?


----------



## jobo (Jun 20, 2020)

isshinryuronin said:


> Interesting videos, all.  They say "Necessity is the mother of invention."  I guess nothing is more necessary than survival, hence the many ingenious uses of "non-weapon" weapons being adapted and developed.  From farm tools to walking aids, to ponchos being used in a pinch, and actual working, to save some guy's life.  So he thinks "awesome" and practices with that item and it gets incorporated into whatever martial art he's into.
> 
> In hot and humid Okinawa, the fishermen just wore loincloths.  Not much to strip off and use as a weapon.  (Yes, several jokes can come into play here.)  But they did have oars _(eku_)_._  There are a few katas that teach to use it as a weapon.  Another thing they had was sand, and using the oar to flip it into the opponent's face is one of the techniques. I have seen bo katas using the same idea.  I have even seen an empty hand kata where a handful of sand or dirt is thrown to the face as well.  So, even dirt can be an "oddball" weapon.  There's plenty, and it's cheap, too.
> 
> ...


 its worth noting that the current India/ china border fighting involves thousands of troops per side fighting with clubs with spikes in ETAL. because guns are banned by agreement but beating people to death with reinforcing bar isnt, so carry on


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jun 20, 2020)

Rat said:


> Yeah, i did not mean for that tangent to go on for that long.      I honestly dont see much qualm with training with sticks and knives as they arent really obsolete anymore, they are closer to being put in a auxiliary role. (there are others as well)
> 
> That point is not as solid as he made out though, as the qustions would flood in as to why you had XYZ, especially if its a item that is basically a weapon (cane for example) and you dont have a walking issue.  You would easily get away with it for something like a torch, phone coin purse etc.  If anything legally here you are better off grabbing a enviromental weapon if you deem it nessisary for your defence than using something on your person.






jobo said:


> the laws very clear you can carry anything that isnt a ''weapon'', they may ask you a lot of questions if you brain someone with your walking stick, but thats not at all the same as you being charged or convicted of it. theres case law that carrying screwdriver is OK, just in case you need to undo some screws, noy a weapon and no excuse for carry is required, that must extend to walking sticks
> there no requirement that you have to have a bad leg to use a stick, non at all, lots of people use them for hiking AND who is to say your legs isnt sore that day ?


I just finished up a hike where I used a walking stick. I don'thave a disability, it'snot necessary, and I didn't want to use it as a weapon. But I find that it helps prevent my legs from getting sore the next day.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Jun 21, 2020)

Steve said:


> How did we get from the OP discussing oddball weapons as an intellectual problem solving exercise to two people (one with a meteor hammer) being together in a pitch black room, or even less likely, folks travelling along the Oregon Trail and dying from dysentery?  i mean, sure, context matters, but we're getting into the realm of ridiculous here.  Are we not?








It kind of depends on how familiar are you with Polynesian weapons.  Also odd, obsolete and utterly lethal.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jun 21, 2020)

jobo said:


> the laws very clear you can carry anything that isnt a ''weapon'', they may ask you a lot of questions if you brain someone with your walking stick, but thats not at all the same as you being charged or convicted of it. theres case law that carrying screwdriver is OK, just in case you need to undo some screws, noy a weapon and no excuse for carry is required, that must extend to walking sticks
> there no requirement that you have to have a bad leg to use a stick, non at all, lots of people use them for hiking AND who is to say your legs isnt sore that day ?



The issue is, it becomes a weapon very easily legally speaking.   The point i raised was, if you use a piece of wood around you, you only have to justify the use of force, not then the carrying of the object.          and then you are going to have to convince a magistrate of that or a jury pending what you get charged with.

Speaking in legalise here, if you dont have the object you dont have to justfy why you were carrying it.  



Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> I just finished up a hike where I used a walking stick. I don'thave a disability, it'snot necessary, and I didn't want to use it as a weapon. But I find that it helps prevent my legs from getting sore the next day.



Above, and that is probbly one of 2 reasons you would get a pretty much open and shut pass for carrying a stick, the second would be if you have a diagnosed and legitimate leg problem.       (other than religious reasons but that gets really muddy and i only know of one that actually carries a weapon and thats a dagger)


----------



## jobo (Jun 21, 2020)

Rat said:


> The issue is, it becomes a weapon very easily legally speaking.   The point i raised was, if you use a piece of wood around you, you only have to justify the use of force, not then the carrying of the object.          and then you are going to have to convince a magistrate of that or a jury pending what you get charged with.
> 
> Speaking in legalise here, if you dont have the object you dont have to justfy why you were carrying it.
> 
> ...


well its a faulty premise, your unlikely to find a suitable piece of wood lying about at the moment of attack unless your in a forest or a building site and even then you may not have the Warning you need to grab a piece

so the issue is, if you need a '' weapon''you need to have it in your hand or other wise close at hand, relying on total chance to find a weapon is stupid in the extreme

as ive pointed out you are perfectly entitled to have anything that isnt obviously a weapon on you in public, by obvious i mean it is design/sold or modified to be a weapon or a more effective weapon than its normal state, if you can walking into a hiking shop or mobility shop and buy that or a similar stick then that just fine and dandy

any questions will arise only after you have been attacked and successfully defended yourself, if you never attacked or you dont brain them with it, no one is going to ask you anything, if your skilled enough to attack limbs with it rather than wack them over the head with it, then its vanishingly unlikely anything will happen at all, your attackers isnt going to phone the police, is he, just limb off

instant arming is well established law, there are plenty of case law on it, you are extremely unlikely to be charged and even less likely to be convicted unless your stupid enough to admit it was carried as a weapon

even then you can carry things to use as a weapon against dog attacks say. there is absolute no need to have a bad leg to legitimately carry a walking stick, non at all and whos to say your leg isnt  sore today ?

but lets be clear if you do use it to brain an attacker, its a conversation thats worth having as you have not been kicked unconscious or stabbed etal

ive been through this conversation after i wacked an attacker with a pool cue i was carrying, the conversation was not about carrying the pool cue, it was about who attacked who, my attacker was playing the victim and there was a distinct lack of independent witnesses


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jun 21, 2020)

jobo said:


> instant arming is well established law, there are plenty of case law on it, you are extremely unlikely to be charged and even less likely to be convicted unless your stupid enough to admit it was carried as a weapon



didnt dispute that but this was pretty much my point. 

If you arm yourself using a enviromental weapon you only have to justify your usage of force, if you carry it you have to jusitfy and get asked why you have X object.   And if you imply for self defence at any point it becomes a weapon pretty much.

Also for another point above i have heard the attackers routinely do try and contact the police first to get the benefit of the doubt and also try and get you charged with being the attacker.    (depends on how many witnesses etc, but if its just you and them more likely)   Thats just a correction as that does actually happen.


----------



## jobo (Jun 21, 2020)

Rat said:


> didnt dispute that but this was pretty much my point.
> 
> If you arm yourself using a enviromental weapon you only have to justify your usage of force, if you carry it you have to jusitfy and get asked why you have X object.   And if you imply for self defence at any point it becomes a weapon pretty much.
> 
> Also for another point above i have heard the attackers routinely do try and contact the police first to get the benefit of the doubt and also try and get you charged with being the attacker.    (depends on how many witnesses etc, but if its just you and them more likely)   Thats just a correction as that does actually happen.


 i dont know what your finding hard to understand,,,, it will be very unlikely that there is an environmental weapon available when you need it, if you need one and there isnt then your stuffed, saying its better is nonsense if there isnt one, its clearly not better

you dont have to justify your carrying of a stick, you just dont, if they go down that line, they have to prove you INTENDED to use it as a weapon, you have nothing to justify or prove NOTHING, the more mundane the object the less chance they have of proving that and walking sticks are about as mundane as they come

you still have to justify your use of force, this is just the same an an environmental weapon.
if you want an innocent and quick to deploy weapon a folded up newspaper or a chain link belt are good as is a mobile phone charger battery


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jun 22, 2020)

Anyway.

Palm sticks, do any of you think thats a oddball weapon or not?   I can think of a argument as to why and why not.   Why not if more that its fighting style mimicks several diffrent weapons and also if your stick breaks and are stuck having to pummel with it. And also just pummeling with your stick.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jun 22, 2020)

Rat said:


> Anyway.
> 
> Palm sticks, do any of you think thats a oddball weapon or not?   I can think of a argument as to why and why not.   Why not if more that its fighting style mimicks several diffrent weapons and also if your stick breaks and are stuck having to pummel with it. And also just pummeling with your stick.


Never heard of them, but a quick google search suggests they're the same as a kubotan, or holding a knife in pakal grip. Not oddball to me, and something you can turn a pen, scissor, key, or plenty of other things into.


----------



## jobo (Jun 22, 2020)

Rat said:


> Anyway.
> 
> Palm sticks, do any of you think thats a oddball weapon or not?   I can think of a argument as to why and why not.   Why not if more that its fighting style mimicks several diffrent weapons and also if your stick breaks and are stuck having to pummel with it. And also just pummeling with your stick.


they are right in the difficult to justify category,,,,,,, they are most certainly a weapon.

and i can see no set of circumstance where you walking stick will break hitting someone with it, if you want something like that then go for a mobile phone charging battery, clearly not a weapon but will do exactly the same job, but better


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 22, 2020)

jobo said:


> they are right in the difficult to justify category,,,,,,, they are most certainly a weapon.
> 
> and i can see no set of circumstance where you walking stick will break hitting someone with it, if you want something like that then go for a mobile phone charging battery, clearly not a weapon but will do exactly the same job, but better


I’m trying to picture that. Do you mean the rectangular charging packs? It seems those would be used much differently from something like a kubotan.


----------



## jobo (Jun 22, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I’m trying to picture that. Do you mean the rectangular charging packs? It seems those would be used much differently from something like a kubotan.


im taking about the ones that are 4/5 inches long and slim enough to fit in your fist, you can only strike one way with them( unless there are longer ones) , but then they weigh half a pound or so, so a hit will certainly hurt you can also tape a usb cable to them , so it doesnt get lost and you have a fairly effective flail


----------



## Steve (Jun 22, 2020)

jobo said:


> im taking about the ones that are 4/5 inches long and slim enough to fit in your fist, you can only strike one way with them( unless there are longer ones) , but then they weigh half a pound or so, so a hit will certainly hurt you can also tape a usb cable to them , so it doesnt get lost and you have a fairly effective flail


Like this?


----------



## jobo (Jun 22, 2020)

Steve said:


> Like this?


 yes, but mines a bit squarer, that looks better to be honest, though perhaps not as heavy


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 22, 2020)

jobo said:


> im taking about the ones that are 4/5 inches long and slim enough to fit in your fist, you can only strike one way with them( unless there are longer ones) , but then they weigh half a pound or so, so a hit will certainly hurt you can also tape a usb cable to them , so it doesnt get lost and you have a fairly effective flail


Yeah, those’d probably do most of the same stuff.


----------



## Danny T (Jun 22, 2020)

Rat said:


> Anyway.
> 
> Palm sticks, do any of you think thats a oddball weapon or not?   I can think of a argument as to why and why not.   Why not if more that its fighting style mimicks several diffrent weapons and also if your stick breaks and are stuck having to pummel with it. And also just pummeling with your stick.


Flashlight such as in the photo makes a great accessory for being able to see in the dark as well as a palm stick


----------



## Oily Dragon (Jun 23, 2020)

jobo said:


> im taking about the ones that are 4/5 inches long and slim enough to fit in your fist, you can only strike one way with them( unless there are longer ones) , but then they weigh half a pound or so, so a hit will certainly hurt you can also tape a usb cable to them , so it doesnt get lost and you have a fairly effective flail



A flail tipped with an explosive lithium ion battery.

Ingenious.


----------



## jobo (Jun 23, 2020)

Oily Dragon said:


> A flail tipped with an explosive lithium ion battery.
> 
> Ingenious.



a lithium ion battery.has an energy density not far off TNT, unfortunately devising a trigger mechanism has so far defeated me


----------



## geezer (Jul 20, 2020)

jobo said:


> they are right in the difficult to justify category,,,,,,, they are most certainly a weapon.
> 
> and i can see no set of circumstance where you walking stick will break hitting someone with it, if you want something like that then go for a mobile phone charging battery, clearly not a weapon but will do exactly the same job, but better



Heck you might as well just use the cell phone itself as a weapon. It's not much, but works about as well as a "palm stick". And if you bust it? Well if it saves you a beating followed by a trip to the ER, you've at least broken even.

For Jobo and any other Brits, Canadians, and Aussies on here, in the US a trip to the ER will often cost you more than a cell phone. I think I was out _nearly $800_ when I took my daughter in a couple of years back to be checked for falling and banging her head (the first stop at urgent care was cheap enough, but they referred me to the ER to check for concussion). Most cell phones don't cost more than that!


----------



## Brian King (Aug 8, 2020)

geezer said:


> Heck you might as well just use the cell phone itself as a weapon. It's not much, but works about as well as a "palm stick". And if you bust it? Well if it saves you a beating followed by a trip to the ER, you've at least broken even.
> 
> For Jobo and any other Brits, Canadians, and Aussies on here, in the US a trip to the ER will often cost you more than a cell phone. I think I was out _nearly $800_ when I took my daughter in a couple of years back to be checked for falling and banging her head (the first stop at urgent care was cheap enough, but they referred me to the ER to check for concussion). Most cell phones don't cost more than that!



@geezer, two of the cell phone classes we sometimes ran that you might adapt to your use. The students always appreciated both. One was drilling with a cell phone in your hand (older broken or not usable phones) that could be used if wished or protected also if wished. It was always interesting for the students to notice the difference of the movements with something in their hand (also would use their valuable necklaces/ crucifixes held very loosely in their hands to force different thinking and movement). Working with something valuable and/or fragile forces a different view of regular habitual movement.

Another very fun drill was to have a student using their cell phone call somebody they know and have a engaging conversation while doing drills, they were not allowed to tell the person that they were in class and drilling. This forced them to try to keep their breathing even and forced them to focus on the conversation while defending themselves. It was/is difficult for some but most got the hang of it after awhile. We often did this as a multiple person type of drill with two or three attackers (attackers would either attack one at a time or whenever depending on experience of caller) It sure pointed out breath holding and forced exhalation that many had developed as a bad habit.

Regards
Brian King


----------

