Should all soldiers be required to at least be Combatives Level 1 certified, no matter the MOS?

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 17:52:40 -0500

Response by SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL made Jan 3 at 2016 5:54 PM

SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 17:54:55 -0500

SFC Private RallyPoint Member it wouldn't hurt, its like your weapon and APFT, it should be a requirement. What if it comes down to hand/hand? The ROE can change anytime, why not be prepared?

Response by LTC Yinon Weiss made Jan 3 at 2016 6:21 PM

LTC Yinon Weiss — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 18:21:42 -0500

I'm surprised it's not already? Seems like something that should be done at basic training. The Marines do this really well with requiring Tan belt completion at basic.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 3 at 2016 6:25 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 18:25:33 -0500

Not necessarily required but more of knowing the skill! Just like out here in the world , the way you're trained go out the window as soon as something happens depending on what it is!

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 3 at 2016 7:37 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 19:37:39 -0500

Sure, it would be nice. But how will this be facilitated? For example, I would LOVE to get my Soldiers to be CLS certified, but being a TPU, just can't rightly find the time to get the 40 hr training done. And, higher ups certainly won't authorize Soldiers to come in on orders to get CLS certified. So, there is no way Combatives certification is going to happen.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 3 at 2016 8:10 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 20:10:07 -0500

I think that would be an excellent idea. Regardless of your MOS, when the SHTF, you need to know how to fight and defend yourself. When it comes down to it, we are all just Infantry at heart! Hooah!

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 3 at 2016 8:54 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 20:54:22 -0500

Don't they all get it in Basic Training? I do see a lot of value in this. In the past we did the bayonet course to develop the warrior spirit.

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Jan 3 at 2016 10:01 PM

SGM Mikel Dawson — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 22:01:42 -0500

There was a time when "hand to hand" combat was taught in Basic, then it was taken away. I know bayonet training was taken away from Basic (other than infantry) for a while, but was again added, (I don't know today). This would be a tough thing to teach in the Reserve/Guard because I believe it needs to be taught continuous, not broken up and devoting that many days continuous other than annual training is tough in the Reserve Forces. If they are going to teach and certify in Basic, then BT will need to be extended and I don't see TRADOC doing this in the foreseeable future.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2016 12:21 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 00:21:03 -0500

Yes, I was suprised to learn that many did not do that in basic training through another thread here on RP.

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2016 12:54 AM

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 00:54:15 -0500

I was certified 10 years ago. Never used it since. No different than shooting 40 out of 40. I'll never get the chance to shoot anyone either. The fact is that not every job in the Army needs those skills. Short-sighted leadership fails to acknowledge that fact, but still pump resources into training that will never be used. Then they tell us about budget cut backs and there's no toilet paper in the bathroom. I can choke you out, but I can't wipe my ass! I guess after I choke you out, I'll take your brand new OCP blouse and wipe my ass with it. Did I mention OCP? Another thing we spent tons of money on that not everyone needs?

Response by MSgt J D McKee made Jan 4 at 2016 3:01 AM

MSgt J D McKee — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 03:01:31 -0500

Yeah, and all USAF, too. A sort of quote, because I can't remember it right, from Sir Winston Churchill: "Every airfield should be a hive of well-trained, well armed infantry soldiers". He probably didn't use hive, but that's what he meant. The USAF suffered for that in Korea, sort of learned it's lesson by VietNam, but not really, still doesn't do it right and never has.

Credit to the Belgians, their air force is that way. A fuel truck driver will have the best of battle rifles and will be able to tell one, not what the textbook range is on the rifle, but what he, personally, can do with it at what range.

During Desert Storm, 250 ish people were guarding a major war wing of several thousands in Saudi Arabia, not exactly a "friendly" country, in spite of all the lies. And one idiot, who happened to be an E9, wanted THEM to turn in their weapons to an armory when "off-duty". Huh?? There is an "off-duty" in a war? Thank god for intelligent commanders, he was shot down, thank you, Colonel, Sir, wherever you are.

Oops, now I see, "Combatives" means hand to hand. Sorry. But I already wrote it, so leaving it here. To me, martial arts is an M60, an M16, or if closer, a Beretta.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2016 10:29 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 10:29:02 -0500

Personally, I don't think it should be required unless they are going to actively teach it on a consistent basis to continue updating and working that particular skillset. I can only speak from the National Guard side of the house but I can tell you it doesn't help most soldiers because they get certified and then never get to work on it. They generally learn just enough to get themselves hurt. If you can't do it often enough to where it is somewhat instinctual I don't think it is beneficial. When you are in a fight for your life you aren't going to have time to think moves through.. you are going to act according to your skillset. If they are going to make it mandatory then they must allocate more time though out the year to hone in the training.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jan 4 at 2016 1:41 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 13:41:19 -0500

What is the investment in attaining Level 1 certification?

Response by SGT Chris Hill made Jan 6 at 2016 12:19 AM

SGT Chris Hill — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 00:19:26 -0500

No, because it's just another school to "check the block". How many times have you heard an SIR report stating "soldier arrested for tapping out civilian using the straight arm during a bar fight"? or "wife saves her and childs life by placing husband into the "rear naked choke"? I just do not see it as something that majority of soldier use as a tool outside the army. All soldiers should be required to complete some college courses or a troop school that will carry over to college credits.

Response by SGT Jerrold Pesz made Jan 6 at 2016 12:40 AM

SGT Jerrold Pesz — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 00:40:04 -0500

Yes.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 6 at 2016 12:40 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 00:40:09 -0500

Combatives...unless you keep up with it on a regular basis it isn't worth the effort. It isn't a one time deal. Your unit has to invest funds into the equipment and facilities to conduct the training. They also have to invest into the training of combative instructors and they have to fence these instructors off from virtually everything else so they can focus on combatives. You cannot justify the cost and time (and microtrauma) to achieve and maintain (focus on the maintain) for the military to require Combatives Level 1 certification for everyone.

Response by WO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 6 at 2016 7:49 AM

WO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 07:49:40 -0500

I do think all soldiers should become Combatives level 1 certified. Unfortunately, it is an opportunity not always affored to soldiers. I've wanted to do Combatives level 1 for the last two years, but my units either won't send the soldiers because of slot availability or by cause of mission constraints.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 7 at 2016 10:53 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 07 Jan 2016 10:53:03 -0500

The answer is absolutely. You are Soldiers and therefore warriors. Combatives breeds that warrior ethos that all Soldiers should have and when fighting an asymmetric war sometimes the MOS doesn't matter. Anyone of our Soldiers could end up in a combat situation. It also is great PT and builds unit cohesion. I made it mandatory in my Squadron for all Soldiers.

Response by CW4 Angel C. made Jan 7 at 2016 3:52 PM

CW4 Angel C. — Thu, 07 Jan 2016 15:52:56 -0500

I like the old school bayonete course and pugil sticks better but I can see how some Soldiers without prior fighting and wrestling experience can benefit. If nothing else I'd make it a basic training requirement. This is one of those Army things that if not done during PT, SGTs Time, or an FTX can take too much productive time away from the shops.

Response by CPT John Ioia made Aug 15 at 2019 7:08 PM

CPT John Ioia — Thu, 15 Aug 2019 19:08:09 -0400

I see a lot of comments for certification. I do not disagree as the Army Combatives program needs constant refreshing, many moves and holds. I for one say scrap combatives. Try those moves in a full kit, not too easy. Now Krav Maga... it is a no nonsense, violence of action, easy to remember fighting style. No way the being on your back with someone in the “guard” would be a win in a combat zone.