What is your thought on Modern Army Combatives?

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 02 Apr 2014 14:36:14 -0400

I am a Level IV combatives instructor. I believe that being in the number 1 fighting force in the world ALL Soldiers should learn at least Level I. There are many Soldiers of all ranks against it. I can not understand why they are. We are in the US ARMY not the girls scouts, not food services, not office work persay. Is it injury? More Soldiers are hurt in Basketball than anything else in the military with football right behind it. Yet we support the playing of sports. Your thoughts?

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Apr 2 at 2014 2:38 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Wed, 02 Apr 2014 14:38:08 -0400

We need to stop trying to create MMA fighters and start teaching how to kill or incapacitate quickly..

Response by SFC Stephen P. made Apr 2 at 2014 2:53 PM

SFC Stephen P. — Wed, 02 Apr 2014 14:53:10 -0400

If I'm lucky, I get to do combatives training once a year.

During that 1 hour annual period, I'm expected to unlearn some 4 years worth of Aikido training.

While I would love to train on a regular basis, it is not practical in my current assignment. Without regular practice, I think it is a waste of time, and resources, and a unjustifiable safety risk.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2014 2:58 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 02 Apr 2014 14:58:38 -0400

Like I said before We are SOLDIERS not gas station attendants. Soldiers will deploy to a combat zone and you got to be ready. Yes I love Modern Army combatives no I am not a MMA fighter. It is a Warrior Task for those of you that still do those Army things. Should we stop training warrior tasks all together? We dont need to know how to move under fire, perfom life saving steps, call up a 9 line, talk on a radio, or any of that right? Where are my real Soldiers at?

Response by SFC William Swartz Jr made Apr 2 at 2014 3:11 PM

SFC William Swartz Jr — Wed, 02 Apr 2014 15:11:29 -0400

Funny, I think I did ok for the first 20 or so years of my career without it, especially being a Tanker. For me I guess I was too "old" and set in my ways and really didn't care to learn it, and never was into any kind of martial arts, boxing or wrestling before hand so that added to not having the desire to learn it. For younger Soldiers, NCOs and Officers of todays Army, I suppose it is a good thing if the individual puts forth the effort to learn it.

Response by SPC Christopher Smith made Apr 2 at 2014 3:18 PM

SPC Christopher Smith — Wed, 02 Apr 2014 15:18:53 -0400

Personally Army Combatives is for the few. I'd much rather learn boxing techniques. Maybe a few elbow and knee techniques just to give a competitve advantage. Really if someone has great punich power and understands how to throw a solid punch to knock someone out, it works much better than rolling around on the dirt hoping you get the top side leverage point.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2014 3:24 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 02 Apr 2014 15:24:01 -0400

The problem, at least in the National Guard, is time and implementation. We have time to do combatives one day out of the year, unless on a deployment cycle. This is not enough time to learn anything, much less make it instinctual enough to use in a real fight. Generally speaking we learn just enough to get us hurt if we tried to do in a life or death situation.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2014 5:45 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 02 Apr 2014 17:45:58 -0400

Every day I have ever spent in a TRADOC Combatives class is a day of my life I will never get back. That, and the money I spend on a week's worth of Motrin pretty much sum up the usefulness of Combatives in my life.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2014 5:46 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 02 Apr 2014 17:46:23 -0400

I honestly think combatives is a joke. As someone who has done Krav Maga, Jiu Jitsu, and Muay Thai (NOT at an MMA gym) along with dabbling in some other forms like Kali and JKD I think if you try to take combatives into a fight with someone that knows what they're doing you'll have a bad day. With that said, I think the Army should mandate that everyone be certified in Level I if nothing else then to just open the door to some that may have no experience in hand-to-hand. I have more confidence in MCMAP than combatives.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2014 6:37 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 02 Apr 2014 18:37:15 -0400

Level (I) would be a great standard to have for all the soldiers out there. The only problem is, as with any martial arts or sports, if you don't stick with it and train at least semi-regularly, your form and functionality will suffer. An NCO of mine once told me that "Level (I) will teach you just enough to get your ass kicked." I'd have to agree with that on a basic level. If we were able to implement monthly or quarterly combatives training, it'd have more of a fighting chance. Pun totally intended.

Response by SSG V. Michelle Woods made Apr 2 at 2014 6:42 PM

SSG V. Michelle Woods — Wed, 02 Apr 2014 18:42:16 -0400

<div>I hate combatives because I don't like fighting or wrestling people. It's hard for me to even get angry. </div><div>However I will say the only time I ever won a fight was because I had taken Combatives I. </div><div>My big sister and I were in the river and she was drunk. She's kept trying to get me to wrestle! So I wrapped her up using the exact moves I learned in class and that was that. </div><div><br></div><div>It also happens to be the most badass thing I've ever done. </div>

Response by SGT Travis Swenson made Apr 2 at 2014 6:42 PM

SGT Travis Swenson — Wed, 02 Apr 2014 18:42:21 -0400

It's important for all people to know how to defend themselves. Combative training is important and may be the difference between life and death whether in combat or at home.

Response by SSG Daniel Deiler made Apr 2 at 2014 6:44 PM

SSG Daniel Deiler — Wed, 02 Apr 2014 18:44:07 -0400

Personally I do not see the purpose to have ALL Soldiers be Level I certified. I do however believe, understand and support the program for some; Mostly Combat Arms Soldiers who benefit from being instilled with that aggressive fighting spirit and being taught effective hand to hand combat fighting techniques.

On the flip side, for those Soldiers who are support Soldiers or who normally find themselves in support roles, do not benefit when it is not practiced on a regular basis. The knowledge, skills and subsequent actions taught by Army Combatives does not become second nature when practiced on a consistent basis. It actually becomes more of a liability than an asset (ie should I put my hand here? Or was it there? Am I supposed to push or pull?). Should it be scrapped altogether? No way. Should 100% of Soldiers be required to be certified and re-certified annually? I don't think so. Keep the combatives program for the Combat Arms personnel and those who will find themselves interacting with the local population of the country they're deployed to.

Last but not least, (this is directed at EVERYONE) remember that while this is a "social media" site, it is still a PROFESSIONAL forum. Speak and write accordingly. Do not call people names or make personal attacks. We are all currently or have served this great country. We can have a difference of opinion and still have a productive discussion without degrading one another.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2014 6:53 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 02 Apr 2014 18:53:00 -0400

https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/what-do-you-think-the-importance-of-a-robust-combatives-program-plays-in-the-army-s-combat-readiness-future?from_groups=false

RallyPoint | What do you think the importance of a robust Combatives program plays in the Army's Combat Readiness future?

What do you know about the Army Combatives program right now and what direction is the army going with it? Do you think the program took a wrong turn doing the last 13 years of combat? Do you think th...

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2014 6:54 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 02 Apr 2014 18:54:43 -0400

Where to start.... when the program was started it was heading in the right direction but the rise of the UFC was almost hand in hand inline with MACP. (Just my pers perception) This may have taken the program off track a little bit, but as with everything in the Army it has since been back on the path of self correction. Ask yourself this question about OEF, has the ROE loosened or tightened down on freedom to employ weapons?

Of the documented cases, some were just the immediate hand to hand action to create space to employ the primary weapon system! Some was weapons retention... These are cornerstones of combatives and is a big difference between "MMA" and MACP.

Benefits of the system are not measurable. The SME's are able to provide Tactical training that is both relevant and aligns with the commanders METL. Think of MP's, can they employ weapons while working the road on a military installation. Sure they can, but combatives is a way to give them more tools for there toolbag, to give them options other than shoot. Everyone likes to say use OC or the X26, but when your taken off your feet and you've never been on your butt you may panic and use the next level force... Think medics doing AVPU and the patient panicking, you must be able to gain positive control of the patient to prevent injury to yourself and possibly the patient. Again, the list can go on and on. Im not saying everyone is doing the right thing, but there is more to combatives than MMA, Competitions and Certification....

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2014 9:50 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 02 Apr 2014 21:50:05 -0400

I believe Level I and II should be taken by all Soldiers. Learning how to control an opponents body is beneficial against an enemy combatant who may drop his weapon in close quarters because he understands our ROE. With that being said, the failure of the program is not the program itself; it is the leaders in the unit. I for one continue to send Soldier in my PLT to Combatives. In addition, our 1SG, senior medic and one of our SPC are all Level IV certified and we as a unit started implementing combatives once a week for PT.

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Apr 2 at 2014 10:25 PM

SSG Robert Burns — Wed, 02 Apr 2014 22:25:23 -0400

One question.  If MAC is supposed to prepare you for combat and we train as we fight; then why are we doing it in PT's, gym clothes, or stripped down ACU's?  Why not full battle rattle with plates, a weapon, and a full combat load?  Start training like that and maybe I'd take it serious.  But unless your running down range in your PT shorts and a TAPOUT shirt, I'd rather just butt stroke you to the head and hold.<div>Should soldiers be trained?  Why not?  While we are at it we should all know Arabic, we should all know how to do an emergency trach, and interrogate a prisoner too.  My point is that there are MANY other things the Soldiers need to focus on as well.  Things that maybe more applicable to their MOS.  There is no point for an X-ray tech to be combatives level IV.  There are other things that he should commit his time to aspire to that will benefit the Force much more than his combatives certification.  This is applicable to most of the MOS's.  Whatever baseline training you think that we should all have should be gotten in basic training.  Otherwise the juice aint worth the squeeze.   Just my opinion.</div>

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Apr 2 at 2014 10:28 PM

SSG Robert Burns — Wed, 02 Apr 2014 22:28:43 -0400

Ninjas.....we need ninjas.

Response by MSG Jason Sikes made Apr 2 at 2014 11:20 PM

MSG Jason Sikes — Wed, 02 Apr 2014 23:20:01 -0400

<p style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;" class="MsoNormal"><font color="#000000" size="3" face="Times New Roman">

</font></p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; line-height: normal; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;" class="MsoNormal"><span style='font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";'><font color="#000000">WOW,
I can believe what I’m hearing. Although, Comabitves is not the end all to a
fight at the bar (which is what I tell my Students), it is the basics of what
the Army thinks you need to know. If it’s not being trained at the unit level,
that's on your command, it states in AR 350-1 that Soldiers will in both the
Operating Force and Generating Force will establish Combatives program
consistent with this regulation, FM 3–25.150, and unit missions. Combatives
programs will include individual training, competitions, and scenario based
training. <i>b. </i>Soldiers must be willing and able to fight when called
upon. Every Soldier should experience the physical and emotional demands of
hand-to-hand fighting prior to engaging in combat.I have trained many Soldiers
and every time I start out I tell them that its not to turn them into MMA or
UFC fighters but to make sure they have a firm understanding of what it is they
need to know out of a level I course. Every Soldier is a Warrior first and then
MOS specific later. I have seen many Combatives classes were the lead
instructor need a refresher on what all needs to be taught to a level I class
but I don’t control that nor do I QAQC the units to ensure the right training
is being done. When taught right and trained at the unit like it is supposed to
be, just like with all training taught right, its effective. Just my two cents!
SFC Brummett, I feel your pain of trying to enlighten Soldiers and CDRs of the
important of conducting this training, even in a strategic or tactical unit. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></font></span></p><p style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;" class="MsoNormal"><font color="#000000" size="3" face="Times New Roman">

</font>

</p>

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 3 at 2014 3:20 AM

GySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 03:20:04 -0400

I know nothing of your Army Combatives but I know a little bit of martial arts from both civilian and military. I am a Black Belt in Tae Kwon Do and a Black Belt in Marine Corps Martial Arts Program (MCMAP). Before I get into all this and FYSA, the belts Marines wear on their trousers are martial arts belt, you will see them wearing either tan, grey, green, brown, black, and belts with tan or red tabs, all represent specific completion of MCMAP and/or instructor qualifications.

The link I posted has a short and sweet explanation of what Marines do in this area and will better explain it than I can. I personally believe that everybody should know the basics in hand to hand combat, using weapons of opportunities, and using non-lethal techniques for a few reasons. Every Marine is a combatant unlike the Army, Navy, and Air Force and it is required of us to have completed the first level of MCMAP and earn the tan belt, it's a requirement. Grunts have used it in combat (read the Navy Cross citation of a Corporal using hand to hand combat in Afghanistan), MP's have used it on base, Marine Security Guards at U.S. Embassies as well, and it's a tool that is better to have and never use it then to not be trained in it and need it.

Valor awards for Clifford M. Wooldridge

The President of the United States of America takes pleasure in presenting the Navy Cross to Corporal Clifford M. Wooldridge, United States Marine Corps, for extraordinary heroism while serving as Veh...

Marine Corps Martial Arts Program

Driven by the philosophy of "one mind, any weapon," the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program (MCMAP) combines some of the most effective unarmed techniques from various martial arts with armed techniques...

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 3 at 2014 3:22 AM

GySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 03:22:37 -0400

You never know when you may use a little bit of that hand to hand

Valor awards for Clifford M. Wooldridge

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 3 at 2014 3:23 AM

GySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 03:23:27 -0400

Can somebody post a video or something so I can get a better idea of what your combatives is like? This is what the Corps does.

Marine Corps Martial Arts Program

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 3 at 2014 3:34 AM

GySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 03:34:26 -0400

injuries are preventable, through all 5 courses I've been through in the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program (MCMAP) I was not hurt and rarely would I see others hurt other than something minor that is healed in a day or two. All these broken bones and crazy injuries is most likely due to instructors not enforcing rules to protect it's students, and students not listening to the instructors. The biggest things I always saw were students who had to go 100% on each other because they did not know how to control themselves and end up hurting somebody or people not knowing their limits and push themselves too far resulting in injury. Put out 50% strength slow and steady, 100% effort. Drop your ego and tap or you will break something.

Response by SPC Charles Brown made Apr 3 at 2014 3:24 PM

SPC Charles Brown — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 15:24:26 -0400

I don't know much about modern Army combatives, but it seems to me that it would be a great idea. As soldiers we need to be well versed in hand to hand combat. Not all battles end with the last bullet fired, many come down to close quarters battles. Come on people why do you think they issue you a bayonet to put on the rifles? It sure isn't decoration, they even teach you how properly use it. Being able to keep control of the emotions and harness the adrenalin pumping through the body is absolutely necessary. Hand to hand combat may be the only way to stay on top and keep control of the battlefield. Modern Army Combatives seems to be the way to go.

Response by WO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 3 at 2014 9:15 PM

WO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 21:15:33 -0400

I would love to go through the training, but there is never any classes wherever I have been.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 4 at 2014 12:40 AM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 00:40:56 -0400

<font color="#000000" size="3" face="Times New Roman">

</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"><font size="3"><font color="#000000"><font face="Calibri">I am not against combatives but I think too many soldiers
think that once they get LVL 1 they are all of a sudden an expert or trying to
do MMA. We should start teaching soldiers how to kill/incapacitate an enemy IE
5lbs of pressure by grabbing someone by the ear and pulling down swiftly will
ripe that sucker right off, punching someone in the throat with 10lbs of
pressure will collapse the airway, or just punching someone with 7lbs of pressure
with a palm directly upward to the nose can kill someone. But hey that’s just
my thoughts!!<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></font></font></font></p><font color="#000000" size="3" face="Times New Roman">

</font>

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 4 at 2014 6:32 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 06:32:34 -0400

I love MACP! I am hoping to get level 2 out here in arifjan. We should keep the program, we are the strongest force in the world

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 4 at 2014 10:35 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 10:35:19 -0400

I agree with the level I certification requirement. I would say any Soldier who wants to be an NCO should be required to. The Marines require, or at least they did when I went through, that every E-5 was required to attain their green belt in MCMAP. With everything, I hope the the Combatives program continues to evolve for the better. I started with Jiu Jitsu along with the MCMAP. The base level of what can be taught to a beginner has evolved so much in a decade I have can barely keep up. Also, as SSG Woods eluded to, these "moves" you're being taught actually do work.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 4 at 2014 11:21 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 11:21:41 -0400

In my opinion, MACP is some of the best physical training a soldier can do. It trains hand eye coordination, builds confidence (even if you loose you gain if you look at it correctly), and is a true full work out if c. All that said, it must be done correctly to be effective and participants must at least desire to get something out of it. I would say use it as part of a unit's PT and training program.

Response by SGT James McCue made Apr 4 at 2014 4:22 PM

SGT James McCue — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 16:22:59 -0400

Coming from active duty to National Guard, there is no combatives in the Guard.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 4 at 2014 5:02 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 17:02:41 -0400

I am Level III certified and a 19K. Most of the opposition I receive is the false idea that you don't need it because you have a firearm. Others just view it as grab ass. Realistically, I think it's because they are afraid of being humiliated by losing to someone since they don't know how to fight. Many leaders especially avoid it unless they have already been through the course. American culture is against most forms of violence so many Soldiers are weak when it comes to confronting violent situations and they freeze up. Personally, I found combatives training useful in situations where ROE forbid me from discharging my weapon. Not because I needed to use it, but because stopping someone who knows you can't shoot them is impossible with out physical intervention.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 4 at 2014 11:34 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 23:34:30 -0400

I love being level 1 and have been trying to get level 2 for a while. I wish we had something to distinguish between the levels like the Marine Corps does. I think it's something that we should stress more. Especially for us Combat Arms MOS's since our whole job is to fight the enemy

Response by SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 5 at 2014 6:32 AM

SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 05 Apr 2014 06:32:51 -0400

I agree with you SFC Brummett. All soldiers should be at least Level 1 certified. I feel it is an important aspect in the Army.Yes, there are injuries that occur with combatives. However, the lessons that the classes teaches us is great. Not only technique for fighting, but the discipline we learn from it.

I am level 2 at the moment. Been trying to get Level 3 for a long time.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 5 at 2014 11:49 AM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 05 Apr 2014 11:49:02 -0400

I tend to agree with the train of thought that MACP is too focused on the "Sporting" aspect of MMA. I have routinely seen Soldiers in some areas attend Lvl I training, cop an attitude with a local in Hawaii, and the next thing that happens is the leadership visits them in the Hospital.

We need to get back to the mentality that Hand to Hand combat is to kill or be killed. If an enemy gets me in the mount, I am not going to try and "shrimp" my way out of it, I will pull out my knife, and stick the pointy end into the other guy until he's done.

Response by WO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 5 at 2014 12:33 PM

WO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 05 Apr 2014 12:33:05 -0400

I have only heard rumors as to what the Army plans to do if it does scrap the current program. From what my Level 3 instructors have told me, they are going to a basic set of 16 core moves that every Soldier is supposed to learn. I can only laugh when I think of what those are going to be. REGARDLESS, the people who hate the current program are the ones that are scared, plain and simple.

I do believe that some people try to become MMA fighters, and that is not the purpose of the program. At Fort Hood's fight house, there are a group(of great guys first of all) that work there and that is all that they do...train for amateur MMA fights and teach basic combatives.

I'm a huge fan of the program, but it's probably because I'm combat arms and I'm sort of wired that way. The Support and Service Support MOS's are the ones that hate it(for the most part), because they didn't sign up for the Army to actually do the fighting.

As far as Leaders being "down" on the program. This is a whole other discussion. You want to lead Soldiers but pick and choose which programs you support???? I almost got into a fist fight at WLC because this supply SGT told me he didn't need to learn or be able to teach his Soldiers Land Navigation because he's supply and that's not his job. So if someone doesn't support the SHARP program can they just choose not to enforce it? C'MON MAN!

Be a damn leader and stop being an individual letting your personal opinions influence how you train and lead Soldiers. I'm really getting worried about the state of our branch.

Response by SGT Drue Rockwell made Apr 5 at 2014 6:38 PM

SGT Drue Rockwell — Sat, 05 Apr 2014 18:38:58 -0400

I agree with the basic premise of requiring ALL soldiers to learn to take a punch, and operate under pressure and assault. Beyond that, I much prefer Krav Maga for various reasons, but if not that, we need something. Until we get something better, MACP is better than nothing and I train my guys any chance I can. I throw in krav as well but pretty much whatever works goes.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 5 at 2014 8:15 PM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 05 Apr 2014 20:15:16 -0400

MACP is a valid and relevant program. The core of it teaches the Warrior Ethos, and instills the fighting spirit. The excuses by CS and CSS that they will never have to engage in a fight is erroneous, the same goes for land nav, pt, and weapons qual. Combatives is a basic Soldier skill, and should be reinforced throughout your career. PME has reduced the emphasis on the program, but without justification. I am all for reinvigorating the program, and cant wait until I can attend the next higher level of training.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 6 at 2014 5:23 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 17:23:17 -0400

I am against it because I have NEVER seen it done professionally. My first experience was in Basic training. The first few classes were fine, but eventually the instructors pushed the envelope too far. They held a platoon vs platoon take down competition. Two soldiers would close the distance and attempt to take down their opponent. One soldier did not graduate with the rest of us because he suffered a broken rib. I won my take down but I injured my shoulder doing so (never reported or treated). It hurt bad enough to wake me up several times through the night for more than 6 months. My next experience also went well for the first couple of days of training. The clutch drill was out of hand. Instructors were throwing hooks to the body and uppercuts. They were running backwards to escape clutch attempts so they could keep pounding the soldiers. I passed the course but with bruised ribs that took months to heal. The cons outweigh the pros. The risk outweighs the reward. I'm LvL 2.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2014 10:39 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 08 Apr 2014 22:39:50 -0400

I could care less about it, I'm not going to roll around with someone!

Response by SSG James Flynn made Apr 10 at 2014 1:16 PM

SSG James Flynn — Thu, 10 Apr 2014 13:16:14 -0400

I love the program. The problem is not with the program but with leaders not emphasizing the importance of the program. I have seen to many leaders go to Level I and come back to the units and will only mention the punch drill and who got hurt instead of encouraging their soldiers to go. That is the number 1 cause of the decline in interest IMO. I had a commander that was the post instructor who not only encouraged us to go to get certified but he also incorporated the program into our PT program and everyone in the unit was fired up to participate. I just wished I was able to get certified up to level IV but even with a lower back injury, I continue to motivate my soldiers into going. I support all you do and thank you all for doing it.

Another issue is for those who want to kill quickly in combat. One thing to remember. If you kill someone, it only takes 1 person out of the fight but if you incapacitate someone, it will take a minimum of 4 people out of the fight. This is the direction and thinking the Army has been going towards. The MACP is a means to accomplish this and should be supported 100% by leaders at all levels.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 12 at 2014 10:25 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 12 Apr 2014 22:25:09 -0400

Great program! I believe level 1 should be mandatory. If anything besides learning the basics not everyone has been punched in the face and it teaches them at least to close the distance and have a fighting chance in a given situation.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 13 at 2014 4:30 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 13 Apr 2014 16:30:34 -0400

MACP is great! I was fortunate to have SFC Brummett as my level I and II instructor. If the programs done effectively as frequently the benefits are amazing. I currently conduct 2 APRT sessions a month doing combatives (I know fm 7-22 says to keep combatives and APRT separate but that's just a recommendation) and I conduct one all day react to man to man contact training each quarter and one detainee operations class once a quarter. It helps a lot to have a command that supports it. All the soldiers in my unit love combatives and we have had zero injures in the past year from it.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 13 at 2014 8:07 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 13 Apr 2014 20:07:01 -0400

I support the MACP, but believe that it must be changed. It seems to me that the endpoint of level 1 is to restrain. It is fine in a 1 on 1 instance, but I don't think it has saved any lives in combat. I would love to see level 1 become more inclusive to kill or disable tactics. Why? Because I can think of very few situations where level 1, as it is taught, is effective in defending or attacking a combatant enemy without very near term assistance from another friendly.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 21 at 2014 1:54 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 21 Apr 2014 01:54:09 -0400

I grew up in some rough neighborhoods and can take care of myself. We grew up fighting each other, not shooting each other. With that being said, I have Soldiers that would benefit from the training and I highly encourage it. I remember the AIT Soldiers at Ft. Gordon and their motivation when they were going through Lvl 1.

Many of today's Soldiers grew up with no "physical contact". Many have never thrown a punch or had to defend themselves from some serious bully, like I did. A little experience in self defense knowledge can't hurt. Knowledge is power.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 21 at 2014 5:05 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 21 Apr 2014 17:05:09 -0400

I love combative I am only level 1 and have been trying for months to get level 2. I think level 2 should be a requirement for all combat mos and level 1 for all.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made May 8 at 2014 4:28 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 08 May 2014 16:28:33 -0400

SFC,
Just finished Level 3 about a month ago and i must say it is an awesome school to attend. In our class we did not need to be the fastest, strongest, etc. However we did learn how this could be applied during normal days and down range. I am now getting ready to go to level 4 in august so that I can also teach this program because i believe every soldier should fight as we train. If we do not practice this enough like with any other skill it will fade away.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Jun 16 at 2014 5:47 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Mon, 16 Jun 2014 17:47:35 -0400

I come from a background in Kali/Arnis/Escrima and Silat. In those styles, the weapon application is almost always taught first. Why? Because the thought is, if you are going into combat, you don't go emptyhanded. You are ALWAYS going to have a weapon, trying to get your hands on a weapon or improvising a weapon. As such, I think combatives should start off with weapons then work towards empty hand. Weapons training doesn't need to be fancy (even with Kali, there is a tendency to do the fancy stuff when presenting material). Rifle and Bayonet. Impact and edged weapons. The initial mechanics can be trained fairly easily (angles of attack are natural and once the concept is learned, quite easy to apply), and refined over long term as needed. Once soldiers are familiar with basic strikes with weapons, move to strikes with empty hands. Depending on the training structure, strike movments with empty hands are going to be similar if not the same as strikes movement with weapons. THen move to takedowns and grappling. The reality is, being on the ground wrestling with an opponent is the last place you want to be, especially in a fight where weapons are going to be involved. Again, must my $.02.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 27 at 2014 11:56 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 Jun 2014 23:56:34 -0400

Combative training is an absolute must if you are a SOLDIER. I was fortunate enough to get to level three of foreign combatants course. It kick my butt. But it change my life and the way I look at things both military and civilian. The problem is resources ( MONEY). Most units overlook combatants or rely on train the trainer. But if the trainer comes back to the unit and combatants is put on the back burner then what. It takes consistent training to acquire muscle memory. Train as you fight. Remember the enemy won't be so nice. And that's an understatement.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 29 at 2014 9:24 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 29 Jun 2014 09:24:25 -0400

Reasons why some Soldiers don't support the MACP:

Reason #1: In its current form, it doesn't seem to address an actual training need.

Reason #2: SSG Robert Burns nails the response to this: "If MAC is supposed to prepare you for combat and we train as we fight; then why are we doing it in PT's, gym clothes, or stripped down ACU's? Why not full battle rattle with plates, a weapon, and a full combat load? Start training like that and maybe I'd take it serious." MAC doesn't train how we fight; ie, we do combatives in pt clothes or otherwise not in full battle gear--probably because most MAC moves and techniques can't be done while wearing a boots, ACH, IBA, and with a weapon in a 3-point sling. When one tries to have a combatives session wearing full battle gear, one is derided by those with Level II or higher MACP qualifications, yet one quickly sees the ridiculousness of MACP.

Reason #3: It is poorly taught with wide-ranging standards across the force.

Reason #4: It sometimes takes priority over other more important training, events, or other things (my best example of this: as a company commander in Iraq, instead of sending water to the company combat outpost as I and the XO had requested, the weekly LOGPAC arrived with a truck full of combatives gear, mats, and the like. We were nearly out of water, and the battalion had to send another LOGPAC to deliver emergency water).

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 14 at 2014 11:33 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 Aug 2014 11:33:36 -0400

I have always been on the mindset that I have an M16/M4/M249/240 for a reason. If I have to use some sort of Combative-esque training, something has gone seriously wrong. Now, I understand, when clearing a room or MOUT situation, you won't have that 300+ meter range to take somebody down, but that is when you butt-stroke or whatnot.

Response by MAJ Javier Rivera made Aug 16 at 2014 12:16 PM

MAJ Javier Rivera — Sat, 16 Aug 2014 12:16:32 -0400

Here are my $0.02. The Soldier’s ultimate job is to engage and kill the enemy regardless of MOS. The Modern Army Combatives goes beyond hand to hand combat; it is not to make Soldiers be the next MMA star but to support/improve an emotional attitude required while doing the hard things Soldiers are required to do; combat. Remember: “The All-Volunteer Army will remain the most highly trained and professional land force in the world. It is uniquely organized with the capability and capacity to provide expeditionary, decisive land power to the Joint Force and ready to perform across the range of military operations to Prevent, Shape and Win in support of Combatant Commanders to defend the Nation and its interests at home and abroad, both today and against emerging threats. The Army’s Strategic Vision 2014.

Response by 1SG Michael Minton made Aug 19 at 2014 7:30 AM

1SG Michael Minton — Tue, 19 Aug 2014 07:30:06 -0400

It is common sense to teach soldiers anything that may help them survive. all that needs to be done is the same thing when we went from vietnam era hand to hand combatives to the current training. while i was in drill instructor course, we were trained and certified in the new combatives, then once we got to our basic training units the new training replaced the old. its that simple to emplement. it can also be taught during PT to familiarize permanent party soldiers.

Response by MSG Floyd Williams made Aug 20 at 2014 10:37 PM

MSG Floyd Williams — Wed, 20 Aug 2014 22:37:12 -0400

I believe Combative Training Level 1 should be mandatory training, during the Cold War it was called Hand-to-Hand Combat and every soldier got flip and thrown around.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 21 at 2014 12:40 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 00:40:22 -0400

Pure awesomeness. Exhausting, but useful training.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 23 at 2014 11:36 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 23 Aug 2014 11:36:09 -0400

I have found that more and more soldiers daily are missing out on this training. I have never received the training as I am prior service Air Force. I was looking forward to the training when I attended ALC but we never did it then either. MY new soldier coming from AIT also have never completed the course. I think me unit would like to try to have you (if available) come over and train us all up on it.

Response by SPC Christopher Smith made Dec 11 at 2014 6:33 AM

SPC Christopher Smith — Thu, 11 Dec 2014 06:33:56 -0500

I don't like wrestling, or mma. Bring back boxing and I'd go through all the levels or whatever. I have no intention on doing combatives it does not interest me, and because of that I would get injured by the one high speed guy in class..

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 12 at 2014 12:32 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Dec 2014 00:32:19 -0500

MY reserve unit gets 3 hours of annual training at level 1. That is not nearly enough to become proficient in it. I don't feel that it does any good to train in the techniques, taught at a crawl rate and not get enough reps throughout the rest of the year to maintain a basic level of proficiency

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 3 at 2015 3:56 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Nov 2015 15:56:33 -0500

My thing with it is that a) you learn just enough to get your but kicked and b) half those moves they want you to do you have a hard time doing it in full gear and c) why the hell do we have guns and battle buddies if not for these scenarios

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Nov 3 at 2015 4:47 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Tue, 03 Nov 2015 16:47:50 -0500

As I understand it, it is a check the block program. It take a lot of training to grow a soldier in to a fighting machine.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 11 at 2017 3:42 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 11 Jun 2017 15:42:55 -0400

The argument, by most instructors (they watch the UFC far too much), in MACP, is always to dominate on the ground; in real life, that's a terrible idea, especially in combat. You want the ability to flee to a defensive position, or the ability to overtake a position. The Krav Maga mentality is much more effective. In KM, they believe that If you're on the ground, you're captured, or dead vs multiple assailants. MACP just seems like trumped up MMA for the military. Grappling is a VALUABLE skill, on the ground and especially in a clinch on your feet, but there needs to be MUCH MORE emphasis on staying on your feet. Fight Quest did an episode on KM with two established MMA fighters... check it out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bt8w92ilbVM

S 01 E 09 Fight Quest Krav Maga isreal

S 01 E 09 Fight Quest Krav Maga isreal. If there are 1,500,000 subscribers to the channel by December 29,2017; this video will remain on the free channel if ...

Response by SFC William Stephens A. Jr., 3 MSM, JSCM made Sep 29 at 2017 8:24 AM

SFC William Stephens A. Jr., 3 MSM, JSCM — Fri, 29 Sep 2017 08:24:57 -0400

Someday we may meet our enemies face to face and they train with out weapons to kill with Combative styles I think it is a great idea that we train in this style because we never know what our next war will be like.

Response by SFC Jim Ruether made Sep 29 at 2017 8:45 AM

SFC Jim Ruether — Fri, 29 Sep 2017 08:45:49 -0400

I think its a great idea to revisit hand to hand combat training subjects during Initial Entry Training. The Marine Corp takes hand to hand combat seriously and the other branches should do it too.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 23 at 2017 7:59 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 23 Nov 2017 07:59:43 -0500

Are you still a combatives instructor? I have a slot for the combatives master trainer course. I'm trying to figure out what I should do to prepare.

Response by 1SG Chuck March made Dec 26 at 2017 12:55 AM

1SG Chuck March — Tue, 26 Dec 2017 00:55:36 -0500

SSG P
The purpose of the MACP program is to give a Soldier a basic fight plan. No plan and your dead or worse yet your battle is dead because you failed to act. It is to instill the warrior spirit and confidence in a Soldier. I don't care if you have a 300 PT score and are an expert at the range. If you dont have the willingness to close with and destroy the enemy, your no good to me and all those numbers mean nothing.
SSG/P
Have you gone through at least lev 1 or lev 2 training? I was a MACP instructor. I never failed to motivate or impress the importance of this training on any sceptical Soldier. There is literally a practical application for all areas of your life.
I do see how the MACP program can be misrepresented by some instructors. I am sorry if that was your experience. I ask you to look at the purpose of the program. Analyze the fundamental value it has with some critical thinking. There is no better way to learn about what kind of man you are than to challenge another man in a combatives setting. You learn very quickly that a real fight requires a real plan, some basic knowledge.

(R)MSG March

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 2 at 2020 4:53 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 02 Mar 2020 16:53:40 -0500

Its a waste of time. And it teaches people to think they have the option to tap out. How about more time on teaching stealth, surprise attack or dirty fighting. You think I would go toe to toe with a combative practitioner or throw dirt in that fool's face and hit him or her with the nearest skull cracking object and try to get away. Besides, why do some men like rolling on a mat with another sweaty dude straddling them.