Effective Instructor: "Combat" Experience Required?

[Jackson]

Is combat experience required for someone to be an effective instructor? I am referring to people teaching students to react to a violent situation with a firearm. Tell us why or why not?

How will a class with a combat-experienced instructor be different than one without?
What are some specific things they bring to the class that a person without it cannot teach?
What will be the differences in the curriculum?

Sway me one way or the other.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Experience doesn't always translate to the ability to be an instructor. Since this is hands-on that does lean towards experience, but if they can't communicate in a manner the class understands all the experience in the world won't help. Adapting a teaching style to the class (based on age, experience, etc.) is also very important.

I remember the commandant of a school in the Air Force (did a lot of Command and Control Systems training) saying that he'd prefer people from operational specialties, but would take someone who could read a syllabus and speak in front of groups.

 

[Jackson]

So how will that experience translate in to differences in the class as compared to the instructor who just learned from people with experience? What will the instructor with real experience do differently with the students?

 

[jdhaines]

We've discussed this before, it may be worth trying to find a link to that thread...I'll see if I can find it.

I'm firmly in the "not needed" side. If the topics were developed by the person teaching the material, and that material requires experience in that realm to develop...then it's needed. If someone takes material from multiple sources, and integrates it into something else, then they don't need the "been there done that" experience, they simply need to have a mastery of the material.

I'm also all about testing. If a little tiny guy says I'm going to teach you the best way to box...then the proof is in the pudding. Is what he teaches me actually effective when I try to punch someone and they try not to get punched. If Mike Tyson taught me to box, I could be 100% certain that HE is capable of doing it...but what if he can't TEACH me to do it. The material is solid, but the instruction could be good or bad. With the little guy, he can't physically do it, but the material could still be good or bad. Physical skills are all about ability to teach.

A seminar about mindset, will to win a fight, etc meant a lot more coming from a guy like Frank White than it would have from someone like me repeating the same material...because he's been there and done that.

If we're talking about a pistol class, being a physical skill, I care about how the guy can teach me. I'll look at his training history, number of students taught, and look over some of his material to be sure he's teaching the types of things I want (among other things). I could completely care less if he's actually had to shoot people in his previous (or current) job.

Of all the people I've met in the industry, pretty much the only guys who beat the drum of real life experience are guys trying to grab market share. The guys I know who have the most real world experience and are truly scary monsters of men that would defeat 99% of the population in any sort of competition imaginable never talk about their "real world experience." They simply let the quality of their experiences and information speak for itself. An LEO could be an excellent instructor, but I'd propose he'd also be an excellent instructor if he worked at Dollar General. He is good instructor who happens to be a LEO.

The biggest difference in ability to convey material seems to be mastery of the material. I've seen time and time again where someone takes a class and then decides to teach some of that material. It's not that it can't be done, but most of the time they hit the buzzwords but the concepts fall apart with the slightest bit of questioning. If a guy has a mastery of the material because he's used it in the real world...perfect. If he has mastery of the material because he's been taught that, worked it, drilled it, taught it and corrected/learned over and over...then that's also good enough.

 

[cedartop]

You have been to a lot of training Jackson, how do you feel the two differ? Of all of the training I have had both recently and going back to the Army, Police Academy, and Corrections Academy (such as it was), I have noticed very little if any differences in the classes with the possible exception of war stories. I have had Cops with shootings under their belt and lots of street experience give horrible advice, and I have had guys with no notches on their grip give great information and super coaching. I will even give specific examples. Pat Mcnamara has plenty of combat experience and puts on a great class. Randy Harris has never been in the military or LE and his classes are just as good IMHO. More? Dave Spaulding I believe has shot someone in the line of duty yet I found his class no different than a hand full of others I have attended with Instructors who have shot no one. I have fought people when arresting them and almost shot a few people. By almost I mean pressure on the trigger. Josh has had nothing like that yet he is still able to teach the much of our Managing Confrontations class better than me. Why? Because he knows the material better and has put more time into it. The things that happen in combat can be taught by anyone, but they can only be experienced by those who have been there.

As a side note, define combat. Military theater, Law Enforcement, Gang Banger, Someone who grew up in the bad part of town, an abused spouse who fought back, NHB fighter?

 

[Jackson]

We've discussed this before, it may be worth trying to find a link to that thread...I'll see if I can find it.

I know we've covered it in the past. It's come up a few times recently in other threads and I thought it would be worth rehashing. Most of the threads on this topic never get to specifics. People give their opinion without ever really saying what, specifically, this experience brings to the class. I never hear how exactly it influences the curriculum. What will I see different as the student in those classes? What more will I take away as the student in a class from an "experienced" instructor vs one who just learned from other experienced instructors. That's what I'm interested in hearing. I want to get in to the specifics.

I don't have a specific opinion on it. I can see it both ways. I know some people feel strongly about it one way or the other.

 

[Jackson]

You have been to a lot of training Jackson, how do you feel the two differ? As a side note, define combat. Military theater, Law Enforcement, Gang Banger, Someone who grew up in the bad part of town, an abused spouse who fought back, NHB fighter?

I do get a little different tone and feel from classes with instructors who've had significant war-time combat experience. There's an intensity and sense of urgency about the training I don't feel from other instructors. Its nebulous and difficult to define. I'm thinking of people like John Farnam and Henk Iverson. But I also see it in people who've studied under those people. They have a little different focus. From cops or individuals with minimal experience, maybe a gunfight or two? Not so much. Do I think it adds to the class? Maybe a little, but its not a critical part if the other instructor is doing things right. The class with the non-experienced instructor may be much better in terms of conveying the right information, just as you pointed out.

You make a great point at the bottom. I was waiting for some more responses before I brought that up. What makes the right kind of experience? Does one quick and fairly one-sided shooting as a SWAT officer on an entry count? Does it have to be 3 tours in a combat zone having racked up hundreds of individual engagements? Does the experience have to be similar to the stuff being taught? Will any "combat" situation do? And who's to say it was skill and not luck or good backup that allowed the person to survive and prevail? What if the person was wounded and basically "lost" the gunfight but happened to survive? I'm sure that person has something to teach, but it probably isn't the best way to win a gun fight.

 

[Shay]

This might be considered self-serving, but I don't believe that "combat" experience is necessary to be a good instructor.

The ability to effectively transfer usable information to the student is the most critical skill of teaching.

 

[VERT]

No. My reasoning might seem a bit silly but here goes. Because civilian firearms instructors are not teaching people to go into combat. I understand the mindset discussion (and certainly a person that has been there and done that is arguably more qualified to lead such a discussion) but we are not waging war on each other.

 

[Jackson]

This might be considered self-serving, but I don't believe that "combat" experience is necessary to be a good instructor.

The ability to effectively transfer usable information to the student is the most critical skill of teaching.

Yeah, but how do we know its usable if you haven't done it for reals, on the street?

 

[Shay]

Yeah, but how do we know its usable if you haven't done it for reals, on the street?

We test it in the lab.

 

[Expatriated]

I'm also in the definitely not necessary camp.

By combat experience, I initially thought you meant just deadly force encounter, be it a shooting at a gas station or whatever. So, I was thinking that it is not necessary. But, if you mean actual wartime combat, then I think that is definitely not necessary. With the exception of some components (taking of a life, stress, physical and psychological reactions), the rest is not that applicable to the average civilian who operates under different laws and policies. Offensively assaulting a city with a kitted up team is not the same as a suspicious person knocking on your door at 3 am and you trying to determine what's going on. There are different mental evaluations that need to be completed.

I have trained with many people that have at one point in their careers been involved in a shooting. Most of them are no better instructors than those that have not been involved in a deadly force situation. However, they can certainly offer valuable insight into the mental and emotional aspects that occur during and after the incident.

Those that I've trained with that have actual military combat experience have been no better or worse than those without. They just have more experience. But experience doesn't automatically equate to a good instructor.

I would draw a parallel with instructors that are super great at competitive shooting. Do they make better instructors? Not necessarily. In fact, most competition instructors I've been around could all shoot great but most could not teach ME how to shoot great. I was talking with Yeager about this at Blade. There are so many instructors out there that have great skills but can't get those skills into their students, for whatever reason. Be it poor communication or an issue that the student is having that the instructor never had when he was learning.

As others have said, it is more the ability of the instructor to communicate, to identify faults, and to be able to show me appropriate steps to rectify those issues.

If you want to count a certain experience that makes a good instructor, I think the shooter that started out with zero natural ability and sucked until he worked through all the issues and now shoots great. All else being equal, I'd rather train under that guy than a guy with combat experience.

 

[the1kidd03]

I know we've covered it in the past. It's come up a few times recently in other threads and I thought it would be worth rehashing. Most of the threads on this topic never get to specifics. People give their opinion without ever really saying what, specifically, this experience brings to the class. I never hear how exactly it influences the curriculum. What will I see different as the student in those classes? What more will I take away as the student in a class from an "experienced" instructor vs one who just learned from other experienced instructors. That's what I'm interested in hearing. I want to get in to the specifics.

I don't have a specific opinion on it. I can see it both ways. I know some people feel strongly about it one way or the other.

I would say that when it comes to gun mechanics/manipulations and fundamentals it doesn't really matter. You don't need to get shot at or attacked to learn those aspects well. In the converse, it's important to note that the military culture is one comprised of respect to hierarchy and authority, and therefore, the more experience one has the more they are revered for that. This mindset sticks with them well into their transition back to the civilian lifestyle and often limits their personal career growth because they cannot differentiate between the correlation/importance of knowledge vs experience. Hence, it is likely that those who preach the belief in need of an instructor having experience have probably in many cases been prior military. It develops a subconscious cognitive bias that they will tend to hold for long periods of time and possibly without realizing it.

Where the experience comes into play IMO is in what's being taught. Mechanics and manipulations?; no. mindset or effects on the body?; of course. I revere the person with the experience when it comes to their input on mindset, reaction, and other various physiological/psychological affects that come into play, how they dealt with it, and to what extent it affected them. That's not to say someone cannot simply repeat what they've heard time and time again, but there's a component one simply cannot convey without having felt it. I'm not sure how else to describe it. I have felt it more than once and as typically well spoken as I am, I sometimes find difficulty in describing the effects the first time(s) because it's difficult to truly grasp how much it can significantly impact your ability to perform if one hasn't truly felt it. In those first times, luck has as much to do with it as anything and there is always a degree of it involved.

 

[Expatriated]

I would say that when it comes to gun mechanics/manipulations and fundamentals it doesn't really matter. You don't need to get shot at or attacked to learn those aspects well. In the converse, it's important to note that the military culture is one comprised of respect to hierarchy and authority, and therefore, the more experience one has the more they are revered for that. This mindset sticks with them well into their transition back to the civilian lifestyle and often limits their personal career growth because they cannot differentiate between the correlation/importance of knowledge vs experience. Hence, it is likely that those who preach the belief in need of an instructor having experience have probably in many cases been prior military. It develops a subconscious cognitive bias that they will tend to hold for long periods of time and possibly without realizing it.

Where the experience comes into play IMO is in what's being taught. Mechanics and manipulations?; no. mindset or effects on the body?; of course. I revere the person with the experience when it comes to their input on mindset, reaction, and other various physiological/psychological affects that come into play, how they dealt with it, and to what extent it affected them. That's not to say someone cannot simply repeat what they've heard time and time again, but there's a component one simply cannot convey without having felt it. I'm not sure how else to describe it. I have felt it more than once and as typically well spoken as I am, I sometimes find difficulty in describing the effects the first time(s) because it's difficult to truly grasp how much it can significantly impact your ability to perform if one hasn't truly felt it. In those first times, luck has as much to do with it as anything and there is always a degree of it involved.

That's some great insight in that post. Thanks!

 

[Jackson]

I'm also in the definitely not necessary camp.

By combat experience, I initially thought you meant just deadly force encounter, be it a shooting at a gas station or whatever. So, I was thinking that it is not necessary. But, if you mean actual wartime combat, then I think that is definitely not necessary. With the exception of some components (taking of a life, stress, physical and psychological reactions), the rest is not that applicable to the average civilian who operates under different laws and policies. Offensively assaulting a city with a kitted up team is not the same as a suspicious person knocking on your door at 3 am and you trying to determine what's going on. There are different mental evaluations that need to be completed.

I don't necessarily mean any particular type. I mean whatever type other people mean when they ask instructors "have you actually done x", as has come up in a couple recent threads. I intend for this thread to be a discussion of the differences and what experience is applicable, if any.

 

[Jackson]

I would say that when it comes to gun mechanics/manipulations and fundamentals it doesn't really matter. You don't need to get shot at or attacked to learn those aspects well. In the converse, it's important to note that the military culture is one comprised of respect to hierarchy and authority, and therefore, the more experience one has the more they are revered for that. This mindset sticks with them well into their transition back to the civilian lifestyle and often limits their personal career growth because they cannot differentiate between the correlation/importance of knowledge vs experience. Hence, it is likely that those who preach the belief in need of an instructor having experience have probably in many cases been prior military. It develops a subconscious cognitive bias that they will tend to hold for long periods of time and possibly without realizing it.

Where the experience comes into play IMO is in what's being taught. Mechanics and manipulations?; no. mindset or effects on the body?; of course. I revere the person with the experience when it comes to their input on mindset, reaction, and other various physiological/psychological affects that come into play, how they dealt with it, and to what extent it affected them. That's not to say someone cannot simply repeat what they've heard time and time again, but there's a component one simply cannot convey without having felt it. I'm not sure how else to describe it. I have felt it more than once and as typically well spoken as I am, I sometimes find difficulty in describing the effects the first time(s) because it's difficult to truly grasp how much it can significantly impact your ability to perform if one hasn't truly felt it. In those first times, luck has as much to do with it as anything and there is always a degree of it involved.

As I recall, you are a combat vet with a fair bit of training. You also teach some classes. Do you think your combat experience influences what you teach and how you teach it? If so, how? What does it change about your material and presentation?

 

[David Rose]

War stories: yes
Everything else: no
I don't pay people to tell me stories.

 

[the1kidd03]

As I recall, you are a combat vet with a fair bit of training. You also teach some classes. Do you think your combat experience influences what you teach and how you teach it? If so, how? What does it change about your material and presentation?

I teach specifically from my experience and research, but not that from military. I apply my experience as a civilian in confrontations to what I teach those I work with and leave the military out of it. In fact, I have a short section in my introduction class which specifically addresses the topic of people assuming that having a badge or wearing a uniform make them at all knowledgeable in firearms and why it's a bad idea.

I didn't grow up on the "mean streets." In my early ages, my neighborhood would have been considered to be a suburb by most, but as I aged into and through my teen years it quickly grew out of that categorization. I'm also an introvert (contrary to what many people believe) and largely keep quiet/mind my own business. All that being said, luck is not something which seemed to have followed me much growing up. I was attacked by dogs 3 times (1 family's friend's, and 2 random, roaming strays), I've been jumped by gangs twice (once in broad daylight in a busy strip mall parking lot), I was witness to domestic violence at early ages, I had a random "hoodlum" barge in our door, I had guns aimed at me, been shot at, had to use aim my guns in defense, had to use rapid judgment not to shoot in the interest of bystanders....all long before ever joining the military which was around 24 years old for me.

It was those experiences which I learned the value of preparedness the hard way as well as many other lessons which I try to convey in anything I teach. It was those experiences which also ignited a passion in me for learning, training, being prepared, and wanting to help others avoid learning the hard way. I began studying, researching, and taking whatever training I could, however it was more difficult to come by then as this was prior to the big internet boom. I began studying psychology for these and other reason. I also had several close friends (women) in my life who were violently attacked. I helped them as much as I could from what I knew and this took off more so after several years of psychology studies that allowed me to better relate to such victims. Then through word of mouth I kept coming across more such victims, and began conducting my own psychology research into various aspects. Then that psychology would become an important component to my professional career prior to the military and even today which requires continued studies.

It is from all of this experience which I teach. Although I'm NRA certified, I don't really teach their classes. I don't often teach basics/fundamentals. There are dozens of guys capable of doing that in the area and I'm not interested in making an income from it. In fact, it's rare that I teach firearms specific curriculum at all (in terms of handling, marksmanship, etc.) though I have and do upon request for small groups like families. I focus on psychological aspects to help inspire people to want to learn more and come to the realization of the importance of being prepared. I use some of my own experience, some of that of victims I've worked with over the years, and a variety of aspects from my research to help people in this fashion. Essentially, I work with or "target" those who are afraid of guns, brand new to them, have been victimized, or are otherwise "on the fence" about guns or general preparedness because that's what I'm passionate about and it enables me to conduct further research.

So, I'm afraid my particular response probably isn't much help in what you're trying to drive at here, but I can certainly see/distinguish the value of experience coming into play. It's one thing to tell someone your vision narrows, etc. but quite another to convey it in a way which makes them truly understand how much it affects you and your ability to perform. That is where experience can make the difference; all internal of the person, not external.

 

[HardTargetFirearms]

As an instructor with combat experience, I will say that my experience overseas directly relates to my knowledge of what tactics and techniques work vs those that don't, and I bring that experience to my classes. I also cover a lot of mindset in my training. That being said, I feel I was an excellent instructor for the 5 years I conducted firearms training before I had any real world gunfighting experience and I know countless instructors who I refer people to without hesitation who have never seen combat. One is not required to be good at the other. Combst experience does not make a good instructor. A good instructor may not necessarily be a good warrior. When selecting an instructor, one should look at the total package and if at all possible, get word of mouth reviews from previous students.

 

[theblackknight]

Is is "required" or absolutely needed? Of course not.

Is it preferred?

Yes, experience matters. Every piece of the game matters. People who don't have anything try to downplay this. There are a good amount people out there who have everything. Experience, training, performance and the teaching ability to demonstrate and get a wide variety of students to conceptualize in a way that excels the learning process. When you have people passing around info like"your body won't/will do this" etc etc, it's pretty important to know wether that person simply watched a bunch of go pro/dashcam footage and tries to find something sciency sounding to explain what he's seeing vs. someone who's in those videos.