Talk:LINE (combat system)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the LINE (combat system) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Formatting
[edit]Why is there a period in the title? --mav 07:30, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
good question
[edit]Why the capital letter in "combat" but not in "system"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.84.86.62 (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2003
Comment
[edit]It's probable that LINE is not taught with the described method, simply because even three hundred pounds of force directed at an opponent's face isn't going to kill reliably. Situations of non-lethal utomobile accidents include force that exerts anywhere from eight hundred pounds of force, driving a person headfirst through a windshield, and against concrete. Even an athletic marine trained to kill by stomping on someone's face will, at most, exacerbate blood loss and cause disfigurement and pain -- but could not kill the average healthy adult soldier with this method.
I suspect that whoever labelled this an official military text is spouting fiction in their vanity, and it's not an ego-boost that Wikipedia is here for. A lethal manuever would be blunt force on the throat.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.17.73 (talk) 11:36, 11 July 2006
- So very wrong. I don't know much about physics so bare with me. In a car accident you are usually hit in the face with an airbag while it hits you with alot of force it also gives which cushions and spreads the blow across a larger surface. Non-airbag impacts such as flying through a windshield also has teh advantage of give where the glass gives out (shatters or cracks) and also spreads teh force across a larger surface. Also there are incidenst where the head is knocked back by the blow being able to reduce the damage by "rolling" with the hit. But if your head is stomped on effeciently and powerfully by a muscular soldier wearing combat boots you cant roll with the blow and most of the force is under the hell not the whole foot. This means you have force at a smaller area not being absorbed by the whole surface and that the head cant "roll" with the blow because the ground prevents this. ALso sign your comments. And powerful force to the temple is often fatal.Eno-Etile 09:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
This page is written horribly. Random sentence fragments like "With the sudden rise of popularity in grappling and MMA." Also, the only system to incorporate killing as it's primary method of dealing with close combat? Sounds like un-informed hype. Some citation of the evaluation of the system as too violent, and therefore to be replaced, would be nice. Some reference to a congressional review or something. 38.98.155.132 16:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The information concerning the LINE System is completely in error. I am the founder of the system. Whoever wrote this definition is completely ignorant of its content and history. If anyone is in doubt of this go to linecombatives.com , the official website of LINE Combatives and e-mail me any questions that you have and I will be happy to answer them. Ron Donvito —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdonvito (talk • contribs) 04:26, 29 June 2007
Furthing this article
[edit]Thank you to whoever edited the page back to its previous content.
I would like to add that we need to expand the article. I myself have downloaded the manual and I am currently researching it to add information to the article. However, I would like to ask anyone who has experience to add into the article. I fear the influence by my Marine recruiters' opinions of the system may make my view point biased.
I would like to ask Ron Donvito, to participate in this also, giving important dates, history, ect, in order to further the article. Please add more than what can easily be found on your site Master Sergeant, I am currently looking for depth in articles which deal with hand to hand combat and the Marine Corps.
-Ninja Adam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.54.213 (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2007
The information that has been inserted into the article comes from my eyewitness testimony. The members of both CCRB's can be researched through USMC channels. The members of the Armed Forces Medical Examiners Office can be researched through the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. The information concerning the system itself can be found at linecombatives.com and is documented in the LINE Basic Close Combat Instructor Course manual. The insertion of LINE Combatives into the SFQC can be researched through the contracting office regarding close combat instruction contracts for the year 1998 with 1st SWTG, Fort Bragg, NC. The replacement of LINE Combatives with Army Combatives has not yet occurred, however, this event was announced in December of 2006 in a meeting discussing the current combatives contract between myself and Major Eric Patterson, S3 1st SWTG. I am not sure if this documentation fills the requirements necessary for Wikipedia. My only concern is that the information is factual. All information that I have included is completely factual and I have been either the author or an eyewitness to all events stated in the article.
- Ron Donvito —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdonvito (talk • contribs) 02:49, 30 June 2007
Moved from body of article to talk page - discussion of sources
[edit]The text below was deleted from the body of the article and moved to this talk page - a more appropriate location. It was also copied above.}}
| “ | References
The information that has been inserted into the article comes from my eyewitness testimony. The members of both CCRB's can be researched through USMC channels. The members of the Armed Forces Medical Examiners Office can be researched through the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. The information concerning the system itself can be found at linecombatives.com and is documented in the LINE Basic Close Combat Instructor Course manual. The insertion of LINE Combatives into the SFQC can be researched through the contracting office regarding close combat instruction contracts for the year 1998 with 1st SWTG, Fort Bragg, NC. The replacement of LINE Combatives with Army Combatives has not yet occurred, however, this event was announced in December of 2006 in a meeting discussing the current combatives contract between myself and Major Eric Patterson, S3 1st SWTG. I am not sure if this documentation fills the requirements necessary for Wikipedia. My only concern is that the information is factual. All information that I have included is completely factual and I have been either the author or an eyewitness to all events stated in the article. - Ron Donvito, MSgt USMC (ret) |
” |
Response: See the following on sources and citations:
Telling one where they can research it is not sufficient citiation. Citing reliable sources is. First person accounts do not meet the criteria. — ERcheck (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Advert: This article, as written before 15 Mrach 2012, is clrealy an advertisment. All information about why both the USMC and the Army SF has been expunged at some point and references removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.223.119.129 (talk) 03:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The name
[edit]In the article it is stated LINE stands for "Linear Involuntary Neuralogical overriding Engagement". However, in the source article it is said it stands for ”Linear Infighting Neural-override Engagement”.
So which one is correct? The first phrase also contains the incorrect word "neuralogical".
--Arny (talk) 10:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know which is "correct" but I have restored the version given in the magazine.fighttimes.com source. If other published sources give different backronyms then the article could mention those too, with their sources. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)