19
19
0
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?
Physical Training
Training
Combatives
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 62
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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).
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).
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
CW2 (Join to see)
That's good stuff! Don't forget AR 350-1 also says "combatives is the bridge between physical training and tactics".
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
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.
1
1
0
MSG (Join to see)
I think it is a good program. however, as a reservist most people use it more as a promotion point tool then anything else. there just isn't enough time in our limited schedules to squeeze in everything so it has to be done on your personal time or some other requirement has to be limited or cute back. I think everyone should at the bare mimimum be level 1 qualified.
(1)
(0)
2
1
1
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.
(2)
(1)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
CW2 (Join to see)
SGT Rockwell,
For you personally, you can never have too many tools for your toolbag, so I commend you on actively training.
My question would be, do you feel it would be a practical replacement in a 11 week or less certification system?<-(probably less with how we are structured). Do you have a program outline I could look at?
For you personally, you can never have too many tools for your toolbag, so I commend you on actively training.
My question would be, do you feel it would be a practical replacement in a 11 week or less certification system?<-(probably less with how we are structured). Do you have a program outline I could look at?
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
I am a health care provider who has deployed 3 times. I have seen far more injuries in training from MACP than any use on the Battlefield. Its trained in "hollywood" gear (no equipment) until you gete much further in the program than most Soldiers go. I more agree with the Marines program which focuses on techniques that always end in "get to the gun" if you can. Unfortunately what i have seen is a culture of young men and women who attend level I combatives, then believe they are now MMA fighters and instigate combat in either the barracks or downtown and someone always suffers the consequences. The CONCEPT is good. All Soldiers should know close quarters combat. I just dont think this is the program. Many (most) of the techniques do not translate well to a Soldier in full gear where the enemy has the advantage of all those hand holds and maneuvarability
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
And in combat, if he puts me in a guard, I'm going to get that self same knife and cut his hamstrings and quadraceps. No more guard after that....
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
CW2 (Join to see)
Keep trying. Look on ATRRS and see if a MTT is coming to your post or one close to your installation. Or if you have enough people on your installation, try to request your own MTT. Find a LVL IV in your area and ask about it.
(0)
(0)
SFC(P) (Join to see)
Will do sir. I was supposed to go to one last February and the class was all set up but they cancelled a week before the start date. Funding was cut from the program on post.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
However, if I see one more Soldier wearing a TapOut shirt, i'm going to lose it. Sorry, but if you're not directly sponsored by TapOut, take the shirt off.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
-
Ask questionGet expert advice and
tips for your questions. -
Post updatePost pictures, personal updates, plans, or anything you like!
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google