Effective Instructor: "Combat" Experience Required?

[the1kidd03]

Not required but a good instructor with combat experience is a plus. Quite a few of our range staff attended Paul Howe's CSAT class and he has been to our range teaching. I wished I was able to attend the class. Some of the things he has taught has made it to our rifle in services. I would put his experience in Delta and with the Blackhawk Down battle as invaluable when it come to teaching rifle and handgun combat.

He gives a lot of good info on mindset. In the situations I've been in throughout my life, everything he says about the topic is accurate and makes sense (IMO) even for a newbie to the industry. Of course, his military mindset is quite obvious so a lot of civilians may find it difficult to listen to him for long with the common use of military lingo and such.

 

[the1kidd03]

I recommend to folks to to avoid people who talk up their prior .mil experience excessivly. Usually the HS/LD types are reluctant to advertise their roles in the service.

THIS.

I wasn't fortunate enough to make such a cut. Prior to getting injured I was interviewed for selection process to an advanced unit, but was DQd due to an arbitrary question which they don't care if you can explain or not. However, I was fortunate enough to make several connections with those who did serve in those roles. Personal friends prior, friends made during boot camp, etc. Two of my primary combat instructors were SF before taking on their instructor assignment. Of course, I did everything I could to leverage those opportunities and learn from them, but you're exactly right. The men who actually serve in those roles, don't typically talk about it outside of the circle. In most cases, the more they talk, the less is true.

 

[cedartop]

Although I'm not familiar with Army processes, especially at your time (as I'm not sure when that was) but DIs were certainly not where the combat instruction took place. That part is handled by experienced combat veterans at the School of Infantry (for Marines). Many are highly decorated, some were SF (MARSOC, Recon, etc.), ALL are well experienced.

..)

I gotcha, but you have to think when I went in fall of 89, the vietnam guys were already getting a little older and there wasn't much else going on. For reference when I got to my duty station at Ft. Ord, 7th ID (light), they has just got back from Panama (Operation Just Cause) and thought that was a pretty big deal. .

 

[the1kidd03]

I gotcha, but you have to think when I went in fall of 89, the vietnam guys were already getting a little older and there wasn't much else going on. For reference when I got to my duty station at Ft. Ord, 7th ID (light), they has just got back from Panama (Operation Just Cause) and thought that was a pretty big deal. .

Fall of 89, nothing like my wife to make me feel old and INGO to make me feel young.

I think they all are in their own right. Each series of events or confrontation we enter present their own unique challenges to the men involved if not the services entirely. Just can't predict them all and train up for those challenges/environments in as advance as we would like to all the time, especially the ones which are reactionary. I listen to anyone with value to add, especially with the experience, but always with a salt shaker handy as well LOL.

 

[Rob377]

Depends on what I want to learn from the instructor.

If I want to learn about the mindset required to decisively shoot an attacker the face, I'm looking for an instructor that's done it. Multiple times, preferably.

If I want to learn how to shoot better, I'm looking for an instructor with demonstrated and proven skills shooting.

.mil experience generally is a poor proxy for both of these things.

Call me cynical, but after 7 years of so-called higher education, I'm done paying for "instruction" from 'experts' with no demonstrable skills or experience in the subject matter.

[video=youtube;YlVDGmjz7eM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlVDGmjz7eM[/video]

 

[David Rose]

Rob377,
who is this instructor who keeps getting attacked and shooting people in the face? Seriously, I may have to add them to my list of people to train with.

 

[Rob377]

Rob377,
who is this instructor who keeps getting attacked and shooting people in the face? Seriously, I may have to add them to my list of people to train with.

You've never heard of instructors that have actual experience in violent encounters?

I suppose watching some youtube and a 2-day CFS franchise orientation course is probably just as good, if not better though.

 

[VERT]

Does Rodney teach a pistol course? He strikes me as a shoot you in the face sort of guy.

 

[Rob377]

Does Rodney teach a pistol course? He strikes me as a shoot you in the face sort of guy.

After getting no respect for as long as he has, it makes sense that he would be.

 

[Streck-Fu]

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.

A quick refresher.

Take a look at the OP and how the question is qualified.

I am referring to people teaching students to react to a violent situation with a firearm.

He is not looking for pure marksmanship. He is not looking for 3-gun, IDPA or USPSA training. He is looking to competently employ a weapon as a reaction to a violent situation or threat.

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?

Odds are, the weapons handling and shooting content of the courses will be very similar. The differences will be how the instructor is able to provide supporting context. They will provide expanding justification for why something works or does not work based on experience.
Also, curriculum is evolving, or should be. The way our military personnel are trained today is not the way it was in 2000 or even 2006. many prior military instructors also teach classes to military personnel and their courses are more likely to updated according to the requirements of the active duty personnel they are training. They may be more up to date on effective tactics and lessons learned. Training scars will be removed from instruction. This is not to say that you will receive the same instruction as those units but the course will probably be updated with elements of it.

Many non-military instructors are quite capable of teaching you to be a very good shooter and provide a base of knowledge and skills for you to build on. If you plan to take more than one course or periodically take another course to improve, you do not need to start by taking a class from a combat vet instructor. Learn to walk before running. Start with the NRA Self Defense Inside/Outside The Home or visit the Boone County Sheriff for one of his course offerings.

However, if you think that you can only take one course, or your priority is to get a better understand of how respond tactically, you will be better served with former military instructor. Look for someone that actually taught in the military. Pat MacNamara was a firearms instructor on active duty while by contrast Kyle Defoore didn't start teaching until after leaving active duty but is very open about how teaching made him a better shooter and how he can translate that growth into his instruction.

If you think you want to take the plunge with a military instructor, start with Alias Training: LINK Their military instructors are vetted and proven.

If you want to start with the basics and build, there are a ton of good instructors around. One option to get a one month (or even explore a free trial) subscription to Pantaeo Productions (LINK )They have a ton of streamable courses from a variety of instructors. Watch several to get a feel for the instructors, what, and how they teach. See what makes sense for you. Try some of the drills or skills they try to communicate. Then see if you want to attend a class offered by Pat Rogers or head down to Texas to see Paul Howe.
Watching it online is clearly not the same as attending the class but you will get see some new material and practice it.

If you watch only one course from Pantaeo, make it the Combat Mindset from Paul Howe. Especially not being military, it will wake you the fvck up.

 

[Coach]

There is a difference between experience being an asset and being necessary.

 

[David Rose]

You've never heard of instructors that have actual experience in violent encounters?

I suppose watching some youtube and a 2-day CFS franchise orientation course is probably just as good, if not better though.

That's cute rob, but I'm still waiting on a real answer.

 

[Streck-Fu]

Call me cynical, but after 7 years of so-called higher education, I'm done paying for "instruction" from 'experts' with no demonstrable skills or experience in the subject matter.

You may want to improve your research.

 

[Rob377]

You may want to improve your research.

How so?

 

[the1kidd03]

Many non-military instructors are quite capable of teaching you to be a very good shooter and provide a base of knowledge and skills for you to build on....

However, if you think that you can only take one course, or your priority is to get a better understand of how respond tactically, you will be better served with former military instructor. Look for someone that actually taught in the military.

Completely disagree. I'm not saying military personnel cannot teach well, but rather they are few and far between. They can teach well in a military environment where the students don't have a choice to leave necessarily and choosing to do so imposes negative consequences many times which the teacher can use to their advantage. Also, this is completely ignoring the cultural differences between citizens and military which makeup their subconscious understanding of things and expectations, including their lack of understanding in adult learning "theory."

I've known/come across a great deal of military experienced persons who think they can teach well, but are flat out wrong. They don't know what they don't know. They just assume that experience is knowledge and supreme knowledge at that, because that is the culture of the military in order to serve the hierarchical structure. So, this perspective of reality becomes the way in which they judge everything in life (cognitive bias). They don't know what they were taught as an expectation in a military culture comprised of authoritative hierarchy doesn't work so well in a civilian context without that authority to back it up. There is a great deal of aspects that play into this topic to consider, but ultimately very few military guys transition well to civilian market, let alone can teach well. That is all part of my professional career and studies (to help them transition and build skills for civilian employment). I research the psychology behind organizational contexts to apply it to training curriculum development and analysis (as well as many other facets) to measurably increase desired results for businesses. More often than not, military guys (especially those with longer careers) have developed a number of cognitive biases which affect the way they view the world entirely and that they struggle to overcome to improve their lives back in the civilian world. One such example, is their unwavering belief in the superior value of experience over knowledge, which you're clearly demonstrating here. While there are certain key aspects an experienced person can share their experience on, it does not mean that what served them well in one situation will for any and all others. Yet they often fail to understand this when teaching, and when they are challenged on this they can't handle it well because they don't expect their experience to be questioned thanks to the authority they could previously hold over subordinates, but not over students in a different environment.

Watching it online is clearly not the same as attending the class but you will get see some new material and practice it.

If you watch only one course from Pantaeo, make it the Combat Mindset from Paul Howe. Especially not being military, it will wake you the fvck up.

Absolutely agreed.

However, note that as valuable as Howe's input is, because of his background he has developed in a way that limits his ability to communicate to as many people as well as he could. In other words, he is likely to bore people or otherwise "rub them the wrong way" and thus devalue his own input and eliminate their interest or ability to listen to him. Many people (especially in this industry) pass this off as simply different personal preferences or communication styles, but that is what professional training development is all about; effectively reaching and retaining the majority of your people's interest and effectively communicating the information to achieve the desired results.

Understanding everything it takes to reach and retain the majority is where military training is seriously lacking, because they don't need it. You stay at your training, show up and stick to it or you will have to pay repercussions. That's not how civilian training or the corporate market work at all. Yet, they feel their experience is still completely applicable because they subconsciously subscribe to the belief in the supremacy of experience even when they are often lacking a great deal of knowledge. In effect, it's a cycle or conundrum. Often, you can even show them the numbers as to how effective or true something is, but because it doesn't pass the test of having worked in their experience, they discard the information or are unwilling to adapt, learn further, and improve themselves; they always want to apply a "what if" to prove it wrong which we all know is ineffective. The reverence to the "experience test" is in turn limiting to one's personal growth and development. This is a common issue I tackle with hiring/HR managers and veterans attempting to transition or advance in career. Overcoming the cognitive biases they've learned in the military is a difficult task, and employers willing to help them do it or understand it are few and far between as well.

Hope this make sense. When I get on certain topics in general discussion I tend to ignore things that most don't know or realize and seem to not make sense from that disconnect.

 

[the1kidd03]

How so?

I was simply going to say you should find a better school, LOL.

I've actually come across only a handful of professors who don't have considerable experience in industry. Most are rather experienced and several teach out of passion and hold other full time and revered positions of employment.

 

[Rob377]

I was simply going to say you should find a better school, LOL.

I've actually come across only a handful of professors who don't have considerable experience in industry. Most are rather experienced and several teach out of passion and hold other full time and revered positions of employment.

The ones that did have real world experience were much better than the ones that never left the ivory tower, most definitely.


and that's the point, really.

Personally, I'm not going to pay for a class on mindset from a dude that's never even been in a fistfight, but thinks he's an expert because he read grossmans book, got a participation cert from gunsite, and hung out a trainer shingle. ( not saying that applies to anyone specifically, just an example)

YMMV.

 

[Streck-Fu]

Completely disagree. I'm not saying military personnel cannot teach well, but rather they are few and far between.

This is why I recommended first looking at the instructors working with Alias. All of them have reputations that can be verified and there are numerous discussions about their courses online to include AARs from people of all experience levels from first class attendees to agency SWAT teams.

Nationally successful private instructors are successful because they have made that transition from teaching the captive military students to the private citizen and agencies that can choose where to spend their money.

Larry Vickers, Howe, MacNamara, Defoore, etc are successful for a reason.

From there, the student is free to go as far down the rabbit hole as they choose.

 

[iChokePeople]

Completely disagree. I'm not saying military personnel cannot teach well, but rather they are few and far between. They can teach well in a military environment where the students don't have a choice to leave necessarily and choosing to do so imposes negative consequences many times which the teacher can use to their advantage. Also, this is completely ignoring the cultural differences between citizens and military which makeup their subconscious understanding of things and expectations, including their lack of understanding in adult learning "theory."

I've known/come across a great deal of military experienced persons who think they can teach well, but are flat out wrong. They don't know what they don't know. They just assume that experience is knowledge and supreme knowledge at that, because that is the culture of the military in order to serve the hierarchical structure. So, this perspective of reality becomes the way in which they judge everything in life (cognitive bias). They don't know what they were taught as an expectation in a military culture comprised of authoritative hierarchy doesn't work so well in a civilian context without that authority to back it up. There is a great deal of aspects that play into this topic to consider, but ultimately very few military guys transition well to civilian market, let alone can teach well. That is all part of my professional career and studies (to help them transition and build skills for civilian employment). I research the psychology behind organizational contexts to apply it to training curriculum development and analysis (as well as many other facets) to measurably increase desired results for businesses. More often than not, military guys (especially those with longer careers) have developed a number of cognitive biases which affect the way they view the world entirely and that they struggle to overcome to improve their lives back in the civilian world. One such example, is their unwavering belief in the superior value of experience over knowledge, which you're clearly demonstrating here. While there are certain key aspects an experienced person can share their experience on, it does not mean that what served them well in one situation will for any and all others. Yet they often fail to understand this when teaching, and when they are challenged on this they can't handle it well because they don't expect their experience to be questioned thanks to the authority they could previously hold over subordinates, but not over students in a different environment.




Absolutely agreed.

However, note that as valuable as Howe's input is, because of his background he has developed in a way that limits his ability to communicate to as many people as well as he could. In other words, he is likely to bore people or otherwise "rub them the wrong way" and thus devalue his own input and eliminate their interest or ability to listen to him. Many people (especially in this industry) pass this off as simply different personal preferences or communication styles, but that is what professional training development is all about; effectively reaching and retaining the majority of your people's interest and effectively communicating the information to achieve the desired results.

Understanding everything it takes to reach and retain the majority is where military training is seriously lacking, because they don't need it. You stay at your training, show up and stick to it or you will have to pay repercussions. That's not how civilian training or the corporate market work at all. Yet, they feel their experience is still completely applicable because they subconsciously subscribe to the belief in the supremacy of experience even when they are often lacking a great deal of knowledge. In effect, it's a cycle or conundrum. Often, you can even show them the numbers as to how effective or true something is, but because it doesn't pass the test of having worked in their experience, they discard the information or are unwilling to adapt, learn further, and improve themselves; they always want to apply a "what if" to prove it wrong which we all know is ineffective. The reverence to the "experience test" is in turn limiting to one's personal growth and development. This is a common issue I tackle with hiring/HR managers and veterans attempting to transition or advance in career. Overcoming the cognitive biases they've learned in the military is a difficult task, and employers willing to help them do it or understand it are few and far between as well.

Hope this make sense. When I get on certain topics in general discussion I tend to ignore things that most don't know or realize and seem to not make sense from that disconnect.

Cliff Notes: Some snake-eaters don't pander well to the masses.

For the record, though, in MY experience, many former snake-eaters are excellent instructors, just maybe don't fit everyone's learning style or expectations. Not every instructor is the right fit for every student.

 

[the1kidd03]

The ones that did have real world experience were much better than the ones that never left the ivory tower, most definitely.

Certainly agreed. I'm working with one such professor now. Usually, when they base a student's grade on their ability to properly cite a source rather than their content or understanding of material, it's a giveaway IME. Like the ones who ask for a paper on "your opinion" about something, but want you to support it with citations from others, as if you can't have an opinion based on personal observation, it must be based on someone else's ideas.

Those professors irk me....