What conidtions was TKD made in?

[Earl Weiss]

Hang on your rolling the goal posts in to a Different field, your statement was it had never been used in combat, n,

I did find this at post #10 "Since the dawn of time no military sent soldiers into battle without weapons. ."

 

[jobo]

I would like you to specify the post where I said "Never" . I may have said rare and even referred to anecdotal accounts.

I was paraphrasing, you keep changing your mind about what you said and what you meant so I though if sUm that up as " never" Are you now accepting of the fact that it's most likely been used in every conflict in the last 100 years,? That's a long way from your original claim it's rarely been used in the t in the last 100 years

 

[now disabled]

Conflicts are wars not battles, so I'm saying that in every War in the last 100 years there MUst have been at least one situation where somebody fought an enemy with out being armed, I'm not even claiming that they won, just that it must have happen

Strictly speaking conflicts are not wars. Wars are when war has been declared and I may be wrong but I think the last time either the UK or the USA actually declared war was WWII but that is being pedantic however you do seem to like that lol.

As far as fighting is concerned then every military person from the cooks and clerks to the frontline are fighting so it could be argued that if the cook feeds the infantry guy that goes out and "wins" then he has fought and he was not armed (ok his personal weapon would be tucked under somewhere ) just another pedantic point for you to comeback on

The last time to my mind that any UK forces may have fought hand to hand would be Korea or maybe Aden or Malaya the US Korea Vietnam but again I am maybe wrong

 

[Earl Weiss]

I was paraphrasing, you keep changing your mind s

I am not changing my mind. Your "Paraphrasing" is a moving target. I will stick with it being rare and anecdotal vis a vis military combat in the last 100 years using empty hand techniques. I define conflict as each time military combatants face each other on the field of battle. This is different than classifying a "conflict" as perhaps an entire war spanning many years, and thousands of conflicts. I don't know if I can be more clear. Other posters have expressed their opinion. I will leave it at that./

 

[jobo]

I am not changing my mind. Your "Paraphrasing" is a moving target. I will stick with it being rare and anecdotal vis a vis military combat in the last 100 years using empty hand techniques. I define conflict as each time military combatants face each other on the field of battle. This is different than classifying a "conflict" as perhaps an entire war spanning many years, and thousands of conflicts. I don't know if I can be more clear. Other posters have expressed their opinion. I will leave it at that./

No a conflict is by definition where two parties have a conflicting opinion, about who say, owns poland, follow by a difference if opinion about who owns Holland france,North Africa and russia, the conflict then lasts till they reach agreement, in that case when the Germans surrendered, saying each battle is a separate conflict is nonsence, they are still fighting the original conflicting views and only finishes when they both agree

North Korea have been in conflict about the partition for an awful long time, even though no battles have been fought for half a century or more

 

[Earl Weiss]

No a conflict is by definition where two parties have a conflicting opinion, ae

You have chosen to dissect and address only a part of a term to try and make your point. The entire discussion involves the Military so the discussion
as noted and explained involves Military conflicts. For you to use the generic definition for the excerpted term "Conflict" which as you explain has nothing to do with combat is just silly.

 

[jobo]

You have chosen to dissect and address only a part of a term to try and make your point. The entire discussion involves the Military so the discussion
as noted and explained involves Military conflicts. For you to use the generic definition for the excerpted term "Conflict" which as you explain has nothing to do with combat is just silly.

A military conflict is the same as any other conflict, with the minor exception that it involves the millitary, so when war was declared in 1939, nothing happen For 8 months , we were however at war, though no shots were fireD, army's were equipped and mobilized,

For your definition to work, you would have to claim that though Britain and Germany were officially at war, that waR doesn't count as being in military conflictAnd that is silly a war is the very definition of a military conflict,

 

[now disabled]

North Korea have been in conflict about the partition for an awful long time, even though no battles have been fought for half a century or more

Ummm technically they are still at actual War with the South.

Ok no battles but umm they have sunk South Korean navy ships and I think did they not shell one of the South Korean Islands and I'm sure the folks that were on the receiving end thought they were in a battle

 

[pdg]

Ummm technically they are still at actual War with the South.

Indeed.

There is a ceasefire in place (more or less) but the lack of a signed treaty means that they are officially still at war.

 

[now disabled]

Indeed.

There is a ceasefire in place (more or less) but the lack of a signed treaty means that they are officially still at war.

The more ceasefire being adhered to by the South the less by the North

 

[JR 137]

You have chosen to dissect and address only a part of a term to try and make your point. The entire discussion involves the Military so the discussion
as noted and explained involves Military conflicts. For you to use the generic definition for the excerpted term "Conflict" which as you explain has nothing to do with combat is just silly.

Don’t bother. It never ends.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Don’t bother. It never ends.

Thank you. You are correct. Silly to think that any of this discussion had to do with whether Military empty hand training was useful for military combat.

 

[oftheherd1]

Many military MA instructors will concede that empty hand MA training in the military is for mental toughness and esprit de corps. For combat they give you stuff like guns and knives. I think it was some US Navy Seal who was asked to comment on the empty hand training and his comment was something to the effect that if you need to engage in empty hand combat things have gone horribly wrong.

I can agree with the quote attributed to the Navy Seal, as that would be normal for some type of units. Airborne units, Air Mobile units are good examples of units who cannot always be assured of timely resupply. They are in between regular ground pounders and specialized units. Units like Seals start out with a lot of firepower, and don't like to be stranded anywhere if at all possible. If possible, they want to get in, do their thing, and get out without contact. Granted, that isn't always possible and things then may have gone horribly wrong. Special Forces are more like Seals, and Delta Forces are more like Airborne, but different.

Regardless of what plans are made, if in fact things do go horribly wrong, I would think hand to hand combat training would be a handy backup. I can't imagine giving MA training just for mental toughness and esprit de corps. There are other ways to do that which are frankly probably more effective.

 

[punisher73]

I can agree with the quote attributed to the Navy Seal, as that would be normal for some type of units. Airborne units, Air Mobile units are good examples of units who cannot always be assured of timely resupply. They are in between regular ground pounders and specialized units. Units like Seals start out with a lot of firepower, and don't like to be stranded anywhere if at all possible. If possible, they want to get in, do their thing, and get out without contact. Granted, that isn't always possible and things then may have gone horribly wrong. Special Forces are more like Seals, and Delta Forces are more like Airborne, but different.

Regardless of what plans are made, if in fact things do go horribly wrong, I would think hand to hand combat training would be a handy backup. I can't imagine giving MA training just for mental toughness and esprit de corps. There are other ways to do that which are frankly probably more effective.

When the Army Rangers first brought in BJJ to train in, it was for this exact reason (mental toughness). They knew that with all the gear that they had on, ground grappling was not a wise battle tactic. If you look at previous military combatives, it was down and dirty fighting of how to disable and put down an attacker as fast as possible. If you look at police defensive tactics, they are completely different because they have a different purpose. Your environment will dictate your strategy and therefore your tactics.

 

[oftheherd1]

When the Army Rangers first brought in BJJ to train in, it was for this exact reason (mental toughness). They knew that with all the gear that they had on, ground grappling was not a wise battle tactic. If you look at previous military combatives, it was down and dirty fighting of how to disable and put down an attacker as fast as possible. If you look at police defensive tactics, they are completely different because they have a different purpose. Your environment will dictate your strategy and therefore your tactics.

Wow, how we live and learn. When I was in the US Airborne, we didn't have martial arts to teach us mental toughness. We learned it it different ways, but no martial arts. We were forced to do things (physical fitness was a big part) and if we couldn't do them, we got extra "training" for, or if totally unconcerned to develop mental toughness, probably didn't even get out of jump school. Before I got into jump school, my unit trained a bunch of us together. We had to exceed the jump school standards for PT. We were often pushed into making mistakes for which we had to do 25 push ups. When we couldn't do push ups any more, we did sit ups, 25 at a time. When we couldn't do those any more, we did squat thrusts 25 at a time. When we couldn't do those any more, we went back to push ups. NCOs who were training us seemed to delight in getting in our face and yelling to belittle us. We had to take it.

Come to think of it, maybe we already had mental toughness and they were just confirming it before we were allowed to go to jump school.

Now they teach it?