What level of emphasis should Combatives have in Soldiers' training requirements, regardless of MOS?

2015-04-27T08:50:04-04:00

2014 post combat survey extract 1

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 27 at 2015 9:08 AM

2015-04-27T09:08:01-04:00

I'll state my own views...To me, EVERY Soldier needs to be able to defend themselves AND their buddies should the need arise, and as such, combatives should be integrated into weekly PT sessions so that it comes as second nature should the need arise. What does everyone else think?

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Apr 27 at 2015 9:10 AM

2015-04-27T09:10:13-04:00

There's a reason we have the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program.

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made Apr 27 at 2015 10:18 AM

2015-04-27T10:18:47-04:00

In Basic training there was a passing attempt to train new troopers in basic hand-2-hand and even some knife fighting. The instructor made a comment that we were learning just enough to get ourselves killed. This seemed a bit ridiculous to me. I assume that the Inf got a lot more with they got to AIT. But as is stood from me, without my side arm I was worthless as a fighter.

To be a skillful hand-2-hand fighter needs a LOT of training. Look at what it takes to get a serious belt in Karate (or other belt) or win your skirt in Aikido. This is a serious level of training.

So why not substitute this for a day (or more) of PT? Not that I don't well and truly love PT Exercise #10, but I don't think anyone won a fight with a push-up contest.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 27 at 2015 10:23 AM

2015-04-27T10:23:52-04:00

Sending a bunch of Clerk Typists, Doctor's, Dentists, Lawyers to combatives is a horrible waste of energy, time and money.

Let's keep the combatives training available to those type of Soldiers that would benefit it the most. Or stated another way it's better to have Combat MOS very familiar with combatives training than to have all MOS's pitifully experienced.

Hand to Hand combat simply requires too much time and effort for it to be worthwhile across the service. Success is more determined by personality than any sort of two hour training session could provide.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 27 at 2015 10:24 AM

2015-04-27T10:24:41-04:00

You are a soldier (general term, no need to get panties in a wad here), therefore you need to be able to fight. Just because you are sitting in an HQ filing papers does not mean that you do not need to be able fire a weapon, or get down & dirty w/ someone if it comes to that.

Combatives can also be a way to keep your fitness level up!

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 27 at 2015 10:36 AM

2015-04-27T10:36:41-04:00

My thought on this extends beyond just soldiers... Everyone in the military has the potential, in today's deployment environment, to be deployed to an area where one may need to fight the enemy in hand to hand combat. Because of this, everyone should be trained regularly in hand to hand combat. After all, a green on blue attacker is not going to care if you're in the Air Force, Navy, Army or Marines.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Apr 27 at 2015 10:39 AM

2015-04-27T10:39:31-04:00

Soldiers? Who knows. Marines? Tan belts for all MOS Green Belts for all Combat Arms MOS. We are warriors. The loss of one weapon system does not take us out of the fight. One mind, any weapon.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Apr 27 at 2015 10:47 AM

2015-04-27T10:47:16-04:00

We never had combatives training and damn I wish we did. As an MP unit the troops went through riot control as part of an annual refresher and LTL training when we went to GTMO. The Os in relevant positions -PLs/CCdrs were able to go but not everyone. Combatives would have been nice and very relevant because anyone of us at anytime could be in a position to need that type of training in uniform or as a civilian.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Apr 27 at 2015 11:07 AM

2015-04-27T11:07:42-04:00

I think we need to train on it, but only after the program has been redesigned... It needs to be less MMA and more "rip his F'in throat out and move on to the next enemy quickly"...

Response by SGT Curtis Earl made Apr 27 at 2015 11:13 AM

2015-04-27T11:13:33-04:00

I'd love to get combatives into our training. The question is which mission are we going to drop to get this done? Short of extending the work day, there really isn't time.

Response by SSgt Joe V. made Apr 27 at 2015 11:14 AM

2015-04-27T11:14:07-04:00

I remember not understanding how I could sweat that much going through Combatives on Ft. Benning in 2002 or so...Best. Workout. EVER.

10 years later, I got to chicken-wing some thug's arm while helping a cop who was fighting with the guy and got a pretty plaque for making sure the guy couldn't get to a gun in his waistband because his elbow and shoulder didn't work right anymore...Thank you very much Combatives!

Response by Capt Mark Strobl made Apr 27 at 2015 12:25 PM

2015-04-27T12:25:22-04:00

"Combat" training - It was one of the many things that set Marines apart: Regardless of MOS, we were all riflemen first. I always applauded the Admin staff when they practiced hand-to-hand, martial arts, or generally kicking each others' butts for a PT session. Of course, the aviators, motor-t, etc... had annual "warrior" training: tactics, small unit leadership, and the like. If you weren't an "03," such training certainly reminded one about why (and who) we were supporting --the gun-slingers!

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Apr 27 at 2015 1:35 PM

2015-04-27T13:35:55-04:00

Train to immobilize or kill. There are so many ways to take down an opponent, and if you don't know them, then you are at great risk against a skilled fighter.

Response by PO2 Kevin LaCroix made Apr 27 at 2015 1:55 PM

2015-04-27T13:55:10-04:00

I believe all Soldiers, Sailors, Airman and Marines need basic initial combat training and personal defense training, regardless of MOS, and continual development throughout their career.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 28 at 2015 3:41 AM

2015-04-28T03:41:27-04:00

I would support further integrating combatives into our training schedules. However, it needs to go beyond level I. The Level I combatives program teaches you just enough to get your ass kicked. Completing level II at Ft. Benning was what changed my mind about the combatives program. It was excellent training. If we're going to make combatives a priority then at a minimum that is where we need to be.

Some may argue that combat skills are not valuable to our S1 types and loggies, but I disagree. Instilling more of a warrior culture within those occupational specialties would be a good thing. Furthermore, in the era of asymmetric warfare you never know who's going to end up in the fight.

Response by SPC Charles Brown made Apr 28 at 2015 11:07 AM

2015-04-28T11:07:14-04:00

What many fail to realize is that no matter what you MOS is you need to be combat ready. I was supply in my last enlistment, this did not eliminate me from being put in harms way. IMHO, EVERYONE in the service should be trained in hand to hand combat.

REASON:

Working in a rear area does not necessarily mean that you will not be exposed to enemy attack. The goal of some unfriendly units is not necessarily to close with and destroy the enemy, to the contrary, some units are specifically designated to destroy or disrupt the infrastructure that keeps the military machines rolling smoothly along. This would include supply/logistics, rear area support such as mess halls, recreational facilities, and the like.

Saying that only combat arms MOS's needs to learn combative is like saying that only they need to learn how to use a weapon. If this were true they would be the only people ever put into harms way. I am not saying that non-combat MOS's will engage the enemy on a daily or regular basis, but admit it, they need to be able to defend themselves as well.

Case in point, supply convoys that are/were attacked by insurgents and enemy forces in Iraq and Afghanistan led to wounds and the death of many soldiers, and destruction of materials needed for combating the enemy. This is a common thought process among the combat arms professionals.

While in basic training I and other who were going to the less hooah schools were still taught the basics of hand to hand combat. If we as REMF's didn't need to defend ourselves we should not have been exposed to this training.

Look at it this way; if none of the non combat arms were taught self defense then the infantry and other bang bang units would have to provide security for their supplies and other needed items. Wouldn't this spread them even thinner than they are now, and hinder, to say the least, their ability to close with and destroy the enemy, which admittedly is their primary mission.

Your Turn.

Respectfully
C.

Response by 2LT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 28 at 2015 11:49 AM

2015-04-28T11:49:36-04:00

I believe that modern combat places more of an emphasis on CQB than prior conflicts. COIN calls for a lot of interaction with the local poopulace, which puts personnel in close proximity with potential enemy combatants. On top of that ROE/ EOF has become an increasingly stressful topic for many, that being said I think there should be greater emphasis on hand to hand combat because it prepares soldiers to defend themselves using EOF

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 28 at 2015 12:02 PM

2015-04-28T12:02:44-04:00

None. I have never seen anyone train in battle rattle. If you teach out for self defense, then sure name everyone do it and make it important. But don't tell me it's for combat Ops down range

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 28 at 2015 12:26 PM

2015-04-28T12:26:16-04:00

It isn't about the specific discipline (BJJ, Muay Thai, etc) it is about instilling the proper mindset. When dealing with an attacker, fight back instead of getting into the fetal position.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 28 at 2015 12:43 PM

2015-04-28T12:43:21-04:00

Sadly combatives is heavily criticised these days and it seems like there is more than enough people who want it thrown away. I love combatives its a very important skill to have as a soldier,marine,sailor,etc etc. And the main argument is thats its too dangerous to train or its not relevant, of course its dangerous your learning how to fight and possibly kill another human being with your hand or weapon in very personal combat, if its not dangerous then it isnt effective, so yes safety is a huge concern but its no more safety you have to apply than you would at a live fire range, and as far as relevance i imagine people who say it isnt relevant probably never been hit in the face of feel like the possibility of personal combat will never happen and convince themselves that someway somehow if that event were to come they would just simply shoot them or thier buddy will take care of them, everyone has a plan till they get punched in the face.

End of rant

Response by SSG Michael Bryant made Apr 28 at 2015 12:49 PM

2015-04-28T12:49:57-04:00

I would schedule it twice a month for an extended PT session. It reinforces and strengthens the warrior spirit. The competition is good for building the team and comaraderie.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 28 at 2015 12:55 PM

2015-04-28T12:55:07-04:00

Should be drillinig after a PT section for 10 minutes. NO hard rolling

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 28 at 2015 12:56 PM

2015-04-28T12:56:08-04:00

To everyone that wishes the Army had more combatives as say, PT (which I am an advocate of), but can't seem to get enough........look around your post or town for a Jiu Jitsu dojo. That's all Army Combatives is, modified Jiu Jitstu. When then-LTC McChrystal instituted combatives at the Ranger Regiment, he sent the first cadre to train in Jiu Jitsu.

Response by PVT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 28 at 2015 1:17 PM

2015-04-28T13:17:41-04:00

Murphy's law in full effect, if push comes to shove (literally) you want to be able to fight for your life or at least be able to put space between you and and your attacker so you can safely reach for your weapon w/o leaving yourself vulnerable

Response by MSG Morgan Fiszel, CPCM, CFCM made Apr 28 at 2015 1:21 PM

2015-04-28T13:21:00-04:00

Combatives is nothing more that a "cool thing" or "nice to have" for a significant percentage of Soldiers. Soldiers need to spend time learning things they will actually or likely use. What about bachelors degrees, graduate degrees or playing instruments? Should all Soldiers learn to play the guitar? Probably not.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 28 at 2015 1:26 PM

2015-04-28T13:26:19-04:00

I think it needs to be part of the core fundementals all soldiers are expected to know. The ACoS has been preaching for a flexible, adaptive, and expedionary army. But, the army is not moving in that direction.
We are almost like a fat kid who wants to be tone, but won't give up the once a day donut splurge. We can give ourselves a cool Ethos, design great programs, but if we don't create the warrior atmosphere at every echelon across the formation then this is all for not.
We see this everyday in he army. Look at the training being conducted by the different segments of BCT. That BSTB is not training like those line BNs. Training your MOS is very important, but having the warrior atmosphere and training is also impotant.
Most folks have lost or don't even know what combatives is about or how it came to be in the army. Several folks in the comments have illustrated this. Combatives is supposed to be a multi-approach training that challenges soldiers, brings some Es sprite de corps, and teaches a valuable skill. Soldiers are not supposed to stop after being sent to level one. They are supposed to progress. Very often this does not happen. Level one starts with bJJ fundementals because they are easy to grasp and allow for the merger of outside technique introduced in later levels. In older doctrine, if I entered a room from a stack and had a weapons malfunction, the drill was to take a knee and move from the action until resolved. Combatives moves that to the side. Combatives is supposed to allow me to transition to fist distance, close upon the enemy, and still be part of the violence of action. It is not all about ripping out throats and breaking necks.
Who knows, if Jessica lunch and the rest of crew had combatives and warrior atmosphere, that convoy could have gone differently.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 28 at 2015 1:31 PM

2015-04-28T13:31:19-04:00

We're all soldiers. Enough said.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 28 at 2015 1:37 PM

2015-04-28T13:37:26-04:00

As a 68P, my need for combatives is limited. I've seen a number of injuries come through from combatives training. So from that perspective I think we need to calculate the cost of all the injuries and lost duty time due to combatives and weigh that against the benefits of it. In an MP unit it makes a lot of sense. I also think the trainer/coach/leader in combatives needs to ensure that the exercises are taking soldier safety into account.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 28 at 2015 1:38 PM

2015-04-28T13:38:27-04:00

Does combatives really work in combat? I think the program is so focused on MMA that it loses street fight credibility. If someone tries to put me in an armbar, I'm bite them in combat. Just as many of the other moves. It does help a lot, but a street fight has no rules. Grappling is good when there is a referee there to manage rules. When you're face to face with a guy that wants to kill you, there are no moves. I'm sure as hell not gonna be trying to put someone in an armbar when I need to kill them to save myself.

Response by SFC Dennis Yancy made Apr 28 at 2015 1:42 PM

2015-04-28T13:42:02-04:00

If you are in military you are in the business that may require violence. To survive you had better be prepared. Does not matter what your specialty is. In today's world there is no safe place.

Response by MSG Brian Allen made Apr 28 at 2015 1:45 PM

2015-04-28T13:45:44-04:00

Ah, combatives. I believe combative training should most definitely be incorporated into a Soldier's training regiment. Is it something that should be performed as part of PRT? No.. but perhaps as a supplement to the overall Soldier's physical and mental wellbeing.

Every Soldier needs to know how to fight hand to hand. With or without weapons.. Albeit the situation didn't present its self in our last two campaigns, I Soldier needs to be adeptly able to close in close and defeat his enemy thru any means possible.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 28 at 2015 2:10 PM

2015-04-28T14:10:01-04:00

I also think it should be included into leadership training, level one is already taught in BCT, teach level two at WLC, three at ALC, etc... This would ensure that every unit had sufficiently trained NCO's to lead and supervise the training.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Apr 28 at 2015 2:15 PM

2015-04-28T14:15:05-04:00

We need to learn how to get people down, strike, and choke.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 28 at 2015 3:26 PM

2015-04-28T15:26:00-04:00

The general view a civilian has of the Army is that we can kick someone's ass. How can we live up to that name? Learn Combatives! Yes learning how to shoot and run are important regardless of MOS, but learning how to close with the enemy when using a rifle is not an option is a very important skill.

I got Level 1 and 2 certified, and it was the best practical training I've ever had.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 28 at 2015 3:33 PM

2015-04-28T15:33:48-04:00

MPs should focus on Military Police Unarmed Self-Defense, which is better suited to their missions, especially Law and Order Operations and Detention Operations.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 28 at 2015 3:44 PM

2015-04-28T15:44:48-04:00

Regardless of MOS, we are all Soldiers and must be just as familiar with fighting without our weapon as we are with it. If you don't think it's necessary, then you're just scared to train.

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Apr 28 at 2015 4:11 PM

2015-04-28T16:11:17-04:00

I feel combative's could be useful if is taught all the way through, but it is not. It is IMHO a hap hazard class maybe taught at annual training, maybe not. Some troops have had it many haven't. It looks like High School wrestling half the time instead of something designed to kill an attacker.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 28 at 2015 4:11 PM

2015-04-28T16:11:25-04:00

I believe every Soldier, regardless of MOS or rank, enlisted or commissioned, should know how to defend themselves. At the bare minimum level 1 should be mandatory.

I went through the level 1 instructor's course almost a year ago. I thought it was going to be a breeze. Needless to say it was a much more difficult course I had originally expected it to be.

Response by SSG Jason Neumann made Apr 28 at 2015 4:17 PM

2015-04-28T16:17:30-04:00

MOS is irrelevant, all Soldiers should be conducting Combatives regularly (whatever program it may be with in each service). This should include: H2H, knife, pistol, rifle as well as retention of each weapon.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 28 at 2015 4:23 PM

2015-04-28T16:23:07-04:00

I went to Ft. Jackson, our infantry DS told us combatives weren't as important to learn because most of us would never see combat.
Regardless of MOS when crap hits the fan, it hits the fan, and every soldier should know how to defend themselve and the person next to them.

Response by MSG(P) Thomas Finn made Apr 28 at 2015 4:26 PM

2015-04-28T16:26:56-04:00

Are we not in the Army? What am I missing here? Do you think the enemy will quickly bow down because we are not efficient in combatives. We must prepare for all scenarios to include all MOSs. When did our Army become so soft?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 28 at 2015 4:33 PM

2015-04-28T16:33:53-04:00

Soldiers need to be able to defend themselves in any situation, even when unarmed.

Response by SGT Lawrence Corser made Apr 28 at 2015 4:35 PM

2015-04-28T16:35:15-04:00

I would love for the military to make more hand to hand training, more combat type of training, and realistic shooting for qualification. But it would cost more money and honestly most people are too lazy to do it that much.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 28 at 2015 4:47 PM

2015-04-28T16:47:18-04:00

Anyone on here know how to upload a PDF?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 28 at 2015 5:53 PM

2015-04-28T17:53:53-04:00

If not for it's combat effectiveness. Then for the fact that it can greatly improve moral by giving a healthy constructive way to eleviate stress and get out the frustration you have with your peers and supirors alike

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 28 at 2015 6:06 PM

2015-04-28T18:06:34-04:00

I am a firm believer in hoping for the best but preparing for the worst, and physical threats and altercations can result in anything from a bad day to loss of life. Years ago my diligence in Karate training really paid dividends on a few occasions, but all of that hard training was imbued with respect of humanity and the humility to walk away from occasions where the only thing being threatened was your pride. As a former commander I know how the testosterone level among a group of guys is greater than the sum of its parts. Consequently, I feel that if you were to teach combatives without that component of humility and respect, you'd soon be sending the SGM downtown to bail your guys out of jail....or to scrape them up off of Bragg Blvd. So yes, teach combatives. Teach them regularily as a large part of the organized PT program. Mitigate the risks but do not be risk adverse. If I were in command again I'd even allow my soldiers to compete in organized events. However, I would ensure that my instructors were demanding respect among soldiers during the training.....and I would do my best to impart the attitude among my soldiers that their combative training should only be employed in grave situations where there are no other alternatives.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 28 at 2015 6:20 PM

2015-04-28T18:20:59-04:00

To me combative a was just a fad. I am not big into MMA so I might be biased on this one. I was forced to be Level 2 for when I was an AIT PSG and had to train the PVTs on combativesa, never certified them as there was a push from TRADOC to incorporate combatives as part of the Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills. If big Army was serious about Combatives we all would be doing it regularly. However, very few get to be certified beyond level 1 and level 2. Combatives is a skill that gets lost without constant training. You need time for that training that most commanders, both company and battalion, will not give as it's not seen as a individual skill that is needed. That's my two cents.

Response by 1SG David Lopez made Apr 28 at 2015 6:26 PM

2015-04-28T18:26:39-04:00

My entire career as an NCO I always trained my young Hoo-Ah's how to fight. I packed the boxing gloves and head protection, and every opportunty we had during long hours of hurry-up-and-wait, we would practice boxing / fighting skills. My personal thought was, you joined the Army, you had better learn to fight, that's what the Army does, "Fight." Also, it kept us busy when we did not have planned training. We practiced in garrison, in the field, on deployments, while traveling, basically any down time was filled with training combatives. In my opinion, if you are an NCO who loves and cares for your Soldiers, you will train them to fight.

Response by LTC Peter Hartman made Apr 28 at 2015 6:37 PM

2015-04-28T18:37:25-04:00

Army combatives is much better than the hand to hand combat training of the late 1980s. You have to get Soldiers past the basics before it is really worthwhile. As with all things, it can be improved, but it is a step in the right direction. If units have qualified instructors, once a week for PT would be a good start for Soldiers with additional classes offered perhaps in the evenings for those who want to excel.

Response by CSM Donald McGlasson made Apr 28 at 2015 6:38 PM

2015-04-28T18:38:26-04:00

I absolutely believe that all IT should be taught skill level 1. In my day hand - to - hand combat was taught during BCT and as we've seen during the last 12 years it's a necessity in my opinion. A refresher should be taught every 2 years as it is a perishable skill. Since the beginning of time and even in the future we will always have BOG.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 28 at 2015 6:41 PM

2015-04-28T18:41:43-04:00

Many experienced people think that Combatives is an unwise choice of hand-to-hand and close quarters combat techniques, as opposed to the Marines. For that reason, I voted this way. I did Level I, and would prefer if the Army acquired the Marines Martial Arts Program.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 28 at 2015 7:46 PM

2015-04-28T19:46:45-04:00

Some leaders want to make it a requirement to go to soldier of the month boards and promotion boards, but so far it has never been available to soldiers even tho it was requested. I think that monthly training should be available to soldiers who want to do it to make them stronger, more capable soldiers.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 28 at 2015 8:39 PM

2015-04-28T20:39:17-04:00

Would like to say Impactful, but I know it is not feasible with current training time demands, at least for my unit. Annual refreshers would be a good way to keep it in a soldiers mind. It would be up to them to pursue higher level training.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 28 at 2015 9:24 PM

2015-04-28T21:24:24-04:00

Consider this from the 2014 Post Combat Survey

Response by SPC Steven Garcia made Apr 28 at 2015 9:24 PM

2015-04-28T21:24:49-04:00

Combatives played a large role in my 70% VA rating. Comatives is very hard on the body. X-rays don't lie.

Response by CPO David Baldwin made Apr 28 at 2015 10:10 PM

2015-04-28T22:10:57-04:00

I was always a warrior. I used my leadership authority to always get my men trained. As I moved up the ladder I made some enemies in my chain of command by pushing my men to be warriors. Very few of my men had to fight, but none of them got killed.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 28 at 2015 10:49 PM

2015-04-28T22:49:05-04:00

There are many reasons for having a competent combative program. The emphasis should be on the aerobic and anaerobic benefits of a well structured program. Lots of pad work, jump rope, and light grappling. You are not going to create ninjas training once a week, but if it is done right it can make boring PT more interesting. It could also inspire folks to pursue combative arts in their free time.

Anything that builds personal confidence is a win win.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2015 1:02 AM

2015-04-29T01:02:19-04:00

Combat mos jobs I think level 3 atleast

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2015 6:17 AM

2015-04-29T06:17:15-04:00

I disagree with the majority, and I am sure that people will point out why the combatives training is important. However, my opinion is mine, and I am allowed to have it.

When I was at my first unit, I had a 1SG that absolutely hated the M9 training. His reasoning was, "If I have to use the 9mm, then things have gone horribly wrong." We are trained to shoot targets 300m out. While I understand the battlefield is constantly changing, re-shaping into something completely different from the day before, that does not change the fact that every Soldier carries at least 1 weapon at all times.

Yes, the BCL can deplete, but a squad (7 - 10 persons) x 210 = 2,100 round. Not to mention when was the last time that a TIC was occurring that did not have some sort of aerial support called in? So, 2,100 rounds of 5.56, CSW mounted, some sort of aircraft... that is a lot of ammo.firepower to take out the enemy. Depending on the size of the element you are dealing with, if that much ammo is used and there are still people standing, something went wrong during your weapons training. Combatives should never even come into play. I am not saying it will never come into play, but at that juncture how many Soldiers do not carry a knife or an all-purpose tool on them?

In my opinion, it should be optional, much like any 'self-defense' course. A vast majority of the time, it will be used during off-duty time to subdue some random jackhole who is getting overly rowdy at a bar/club, etc. Also, for combatives to be effective, it would require weekly training, if not more.

Response by SPC Geoffrey Jenkins made Apr 29 at 2015 7:33 AM

2015-04-29T07:33:03-04:00

It is very important to train in hand to hand combat.Some would say why get close to the enemy when you can shoot from great distances.

Response by SPC Shannon Dupre made Apr 29 at 2015 7:47 AM

2015-04-29T07:47:34-04:00

Training to fight isn't just for the fighting skills. It's just as much about the warrior mindset and building confidence. We used to have "boxing smokers" for PT every now and then. Not sure if they do it any more. The platoon forms a ring and the PltSgt picks 2 guys who put on gloves and go at it for 3 minutes. The problem with that was every one was actually physically beat up with black eyes & bloody noses after PT. I think those boxing matches were a bad idea just because of the possible injuries, but they built a ton of confidence and kept trash talking and in fighting to a minimum.

I think a more advanced and combat focused style like Krav Maga or basic self defense with knife fighting techniques would be the most effective for the training time it would take to get proficient.

Response by SPC David Shaffer made Apr 29 at 2015 8:16 AM

2015-04-29T08:16:24-04:00

I think martial arts is essential to making a complete warrior regardless of MOS. I hold belts in Tae Kwon Do and Hapkido, but I have trained in many martial arts through the years. I believe every SM should be efficient in hand to hand fighting.

Response by SSG Kenneth Lanning made Apr 29 at 2015 8:38 AM

2015-04-29T08:38:52-04:00

Modern Army Combatives is a lot better than the "thumbstroke to the face" crap we did when I went through basic, but anyone saying it is an MMA driven fad that's passing through I tend to agree with.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2015 9:33 AM

2015-04-29T09:33:37-04:00

Who the heck voted in the 3%?

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2015 9:37 AM

2015-04-29T09:37:28-04:00

The most fun I ever had in the Army was Tigerland Basic Combat Training...but then became a "staff" NCO. Yet, even as a military journalist, I taught hand-to-hand combat and martial arts in several military units. Oddly, except for the Marines where everyone is a basic rifleman first, we tend to have two thirds of our people in combat support or other support roles, including HQ staffs, medical, training, etc. That said, everyone should know their specific job, plus how to move, shoot, communicate, cooperate, and graduate. Trouble is, we should also understand the importance of the other fellow's job....we must all understand interoperability of branches and respect other specialties--something not always well appreciated. We cannot afford to be one-dimensional as many are....

Response by CH (COL) Geoff Bailey made Apr 29 at 2015 10:26 AM

2015-04-29T10:26:04-04:00

The Army Combatives program is highly important in keeping us trained, sharp, and focused on why we exist. In Kuwait I coordinated with the Marines to conduct Marine Corps Mixed Martial Arts Program training for the Unit Ministry Teams.

The Marines did an excellent job of teaching Chaplains how to break out of an attack or chokehold by an assailant and either detain the person until a combatant was available to assume responsibility for the assailant, or break contact and place enough distance between themself and the assailant so that a combatant (I.e. their Chapalin Assistant or RP) could engage and remove the threat. This is one item I've never seen in the Army Combatives program and would highly encourage services to conduct joint training due to the increased exposure to various methods of combatives.

No MOS should be exempt from basic Combatives or MCMAP training so long as it is does not endanger the non-combatant status of the Chaplain.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Apr 29 at 2015 1:22 PM

2015-04-29T13:22:47-04:00

Actually, I think Combatives are great for PT and necessary (Highly Impactful), but not for all Soldiers. You have to pick and choose what train on, as you can't do it all. For some MOSs this is more important, for others... not so much. Yes, I know we are all Soldiers first, but you can't do it all, and many MOSs have a low probability of facing the enemy in close combat.

This clearly necessary for Infantrymen, and others who operate with them in close proximity. Also for Military Police for both garrison and deployed missions. I am sure there are others who need to focus on this, and some who can probably not worry about it aside from familiarization.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2015 2:36 PM

2015-04-29T14:36:31-04:00

I think Combatives is very important for several reasons. 1st its a very good workout and it can be competitive which will keep soldiers motivated. It builds mental toughness and helps soldiers overcome their fears of being punched or crushed by another person. I think there are more real world scenarios besides just running out of ammo in a firefight to where Combatives would be useful such as detaining EPW's & controlling unarmed individuals during MOUT Operations.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2015 2:40 PM

2015-04-29T14:40:34-04:00

It should be a new requirement, that all soldiers should be level 1 certified before graduating basic combat training.

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Apr 29 at 2015 2:40 PM

2015-04-29T14:40:38-04:00

Combatives is not just physical, but trained mental toughness. A quality beneficial on the dental hygienist working on her 15th prophy exam of the day while being deployed to Bagram Air Base, missing her dog at home and nothing to look forward to but an hour in the gym, a shower and mediocre food in the DFAC, than another 20 exams tomorrow or the 11B standing guard in the tower at the end of a 6 hour shift, his 125th such shift where NOTHING previously happened, but he must be mentally tough and preserver on though the last minute until properly relieved.

Combatives trains mental and physical toughness.. I dare anyone to state why this is a bad thing for ANY MOS, and Service Member or DOD civilian working for a deployed unit.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Apr 29 at 2015 2:57 PM

2015-04-29T14:57:52-04:00

I do not think you can fairly answer this question when "regardless of MOS" is inserted. The amount of emphasis is going to be impacted by MOS BUT all soldiers should have a certain level of training.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2015 4:35 PM

2015-04-29T16:35:00-04:00

Combatives is not just teaching a Soldier how to fight and protect themselves but it instills confidence and motivation. If taught correctly with the correct safety procedures Combatives can be fun. Besides it truly is the only hand to hand martial arts that you can perform at combat speed with no pads; just you and your opponent, male or female. It should be a part of a unit's weekly PT program.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2015 5:05 PM

2015-04-29T17:05:52-04:00

The ability to self-defend and function in a small unit combat environment requires a certain level of combative skill in the MMA realm. Reinforcement through training will give young soldiers the confidence to operate and function even if the likelihood of actual use in engagement is rare. The key is not make the training requirement additive, but rather make it integrated to other types of training, PT, and readiness activity.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2015 5:20 PM

2015-04-29T17:20:29-04:00

Well let's see the Russians train sambo their whole time in the military. Israel has krav magow, French train Savate. I believe if u are going to train hand to hand train hand to hand 3-4 times a week to become very proficient. We never will its not important enough.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2015 5:27 PM

2015-04-29T17:27:41-04:00

We are all Combat Soldiers, Sailors/Marines and Airmen first. Combatives teaches and develops a "soldier's" ability to engage, defend and defeat an opponent. Critical skills for confidence and combat. Critical skills to develop as a warrior.

Response by Sgt Justin Taylor made Apr 29 at 2015 7:04 PM

2015-04-29T19:04:25-04:00

Unarmed combat is still an important aspect of being a warrior. Just like a soldiers primary weapon has to be shoot to maintain proficiency which more rounds should be allocated to units anyways. More time on unarmed, bladed and impact weapons should also be in any units training schedule. Even here in America a soldier is responsible for defending him or herself, their buddies and aid civil authorities if the situations calls. Overseas depending on the situation; a rifle may not be the best option at the 10th of second you have to neutralize a situation. It is not technology that saves lives, it is skill that saves more lives and gives the soldier a better chance of surviving first contact. White space shouldn't be filled with getting online media completed it should be warrior skills being trained to higher levels.

Response by SFC Walter Mack made Apr 29 at 2015 7:28 PM

2015-04-29T19:28:40-04:00

Most people focus on the self defense aspect of combatives. This is not the greatest benefit combatives provides to our Soldiers.

It is no secret that our skill as leaders in providing discipline is far less than in years past. In fact, we suck at providing young service members the most valuable skill set they need during basic training. The ability to perform while experiencing mental and emotional stress is a quality our leaders no longer seem to value.

Combatives can still provide this to our Soldiers. Being in a bad position, yet forced to continue working towards mission accomplishment is an indispensable benefit of combatives. It provides the mental stress and intestinal fortitude required to be successful in combat. There's nothing worse than finding out your 240 gunner can't pull the trigger in a stressful situation when the enemy is actually shooting at you. That happened to us twice during OIF I. Had we provided that Soldier with more adversity in life beforehand, then he may have been able to respond and be successful as a Soldier.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2015 9:07 PM

2015-04-29T21:07:36-04:00

If you don't want to be a warrior, go be a civilian.

Response by SPC David Hannaman made Apr 30 at 2015 8:50 AM

2015-04-30T08:50:46-04:00

I agree... it's the military, not a civilian job. Either you have a warrior spirit and welcome the opportunity to train, or you don't and you need to move to a civilian job.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 30 at 2015 9:51 AM

2015-04-30T09:51:14-04:00

I say, as long there are trained soldiers giving the classes, why not! Good training, creates motivation, and helps with unit cohesion. My Platoon Sergeant back in the day would always say, "just enough training to make U think Ur a bada$$, but U might get Ur a$$ whooped!"

Response by SSG Greg Rivera made Apr 30 at 2015 10:51 AM

2015-04-30T10:51:53-04:00

I agree that every Soldier should be able to defend themselves but combatives is not an effective form of defense in a crowded situation. How often will a Soldier confront a single attacker? How often will that Soldier be alone to confront a single attacker? Getting decidedly engaged in a "combat" situation using combatives "grappling" exposes the individual to attack from others. Sure it seems cool and gives you confidence but a more effective type of Linear attack would be more beneficial. Something that doesn't require you to become entangled with your enemy. Hands on and defeat quickly!

Response by SGT Bryon Sergent made Apr 30 at 2015 11:36 AM

2015-04-30T11:36:36-04:00

Kinda like the old hand to hand. What was wrong with it that congress said that we didn't need to know how to kill the enemy. Was it to brutal? well its war! I rather know how to kill the enemy on the ground or hand to hand than be laying there bleeding out wondering what went wrong, and why didn't I know how to defend from the attack that just killed me!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 30 at 2015 12:51 PM

2015-04-30T12:51:34-04:00

Combative can be incorporated into daily physical fitness activities.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 30 at 2015 2:11 PM

2015-04-30T14:11:32-04:00

I think all members of the military should receive some combatives experience. Especially with the disarray we live these days our members should have a baseline experience to defend themselves regardless their location or specialty

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 30 at 2015 3:33 PM

2015-04-30T15:33:38-04:00

It depends what your mos or assignment is.

Response by SGT Suraj Dave made May 1 at 2015 4:35 AM

2015-05-01T04:35:40-04:00

Lol brings back vivid memories of when I was a PFC and I was in a medical company. We did combatives for PT once a week up until half the company was on profile, and the PA told our 1SG to stop making us do it.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made May 1 at 2015 10:34 AM

2015-05-01T10:34:34-04:00

I'd say only a minimum refresher training but combatives is a very perishable skill and doing it that infrequently is just as pointless as only teaching it in PME schools.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 1 at 2015 3:10 PM

2015-05-01T15:10:42-04:00

Combatives is a great tool to boost confidence, morale, and unit cohesion.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 1 at 2015 4:33 PM

2015-05-01T16:33:36-04:00

learning how to fight isn't one of those things where you do it annually like once a month to "ensure combat readiness" once a week is minimum if you are serious about soldiers learning how fight. I did mma and brazilin jiu jitsu and competed in bjj tourneys on the civilian side. those skills fade fast. and you can learn them slow, if you only do it once a week. but at least your learning. the only thing I noticed from level 1 was taht it sparked an interest learning how to fight. level 1 guys still lost to people who had never done combatives 1 though. "im lvl 1 certified, I want to challenge people." so if your going to do it, then do it, don't pretend to do it. (using it as a "refresher" to "maintain combat readiness", actually have your soldiers roll with eachother during pt)

on a side note. another benefit of learning combatives, is it will give pride to the soldier, which I think soldiers privates like myself could use more of in the army. if you do it regularly like once a week, the fat out of shape lazy soldiers will be having to roll too, being dominated by another human being will give them the motivation to get in shape, or at least learn combatives more, which will get them into shape, guaranteed. I know soldiers who would respond well to thatm because since I know bjj and some mma they come to me to learn but then they lose the motivation to continue learning over time. then combatives rolls around 4 months later and they want to learn from me again. also the sgts the can beat there own soldiers in combatives when we did roll had the most respect. its huge reason why people listened to me as a pfc actually, thats what it felt like at least.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made May 14 at 2015 11:25 AM

2015-05-14T11:25:00-04:00

Soldiers should take every opportunity to prepare themselves for combat, no matter the MOS. Tired of hearing the excuse "We're just support not direct combat troops".

Response by SPC David S. made Nov 26 at 2015 11:44 AM

2015-11-26T11:44:46-05:00

As we never know how things are going to go down when ammo goes black it goes black. There no hold up a second I need more ammo. As well every soldier should be able to shoot on target and fight with hands if needed. The best part of hand to hand training is that its cheap so why not.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Nov 26 at 2015 2:21 PM

2015-11-26T14:21:11-05:00

We need to train to the point different moves and strikes are instinctive.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 23 at 2015 2:09 PM

2015-12-23T14:09:45-05:00

I hear combatives is going away