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
3
3
0
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.
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.
(3)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
My experience is similar to yours. I am level II in combatives but have outside training in martial arts that has been trained into muscle memory. If given the opportunity I would rather take out a knee. I still believe that Combatives I is beneficial for Soldiers, but as you note, it requires practice. If practice time is not going to be afforded then the initial training investment is a waste.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
SFC John Gates angels of attack are incorporated into combatives (kinda) but at a much later stage in training. I would argue at that point it's too late.
(0)
(0)
CPT Lawrence Cable
I study various martial arts for years, mainly Shaolin Karate, but also Judo, Boxing, and a number of other Korean and Japanese styles as well. I even used to spar on occasion with some Professional Full Contact Karate guys (there are not enough pads in the world to keep that from not hurting). I taught the old style hand to hand classes in the Army. While I think it can be a decent motivational tool and can certainly decrease ones fear of confrontation, it really takes continual training, aggressiveness and very good physical conditioning to be effective at it. I'm not sure that I don't feel that teaching anything beyond the basics would be time better spent on weapons training. The one thing that I've learned over the years is that I've never walked away from a real fight uninjured, so the best strategy is to keep that distance, which means a firearm. So teach the basics and spend the rest of the time teaching people how to shoot. That seems to be a more realistic scenario, how many people do you know coming back from a combat zone that have said they went hand to hand with a bad guy? I don't know any.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
What I find kind of ironic is that the Army gets rid of bayonet training (which actually still has use) but institutes combatitves where the first thing we teach soldiers is to go to the ground and grapple without a weapon.....
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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...
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...
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
With a doubt SFC, I just think the Army is trying to institute a generally useless program. I think we should do Krav Maga or Sambo in the Army instead of MAC.
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
I hold a black belt in Kick Boxing, a black belt in Karate, A blue belt in Jiu jitsu. I am level IV combatives, been to the SOC P - Special Operations Combatives Program. I recognize the need. Im not the average Combatives instructor
(2)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
I think if people had a basic understanding of Jiu Jitsu, Army Combatives would be a little more useful. To start Soldiers on "scenario based training" isn't the best idea in the world. Then again, I really don't have an opinion on how to fix it either.
(1)
(0)
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)
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