Modern Army Combatives Program

[LoneRider]

Too true. But I do know the Army's AAR system does work. Good units always send their AARs to the appropriate authorities for action and a lot of improvements are coming as a result of them (for instance the IOTV, which is far superior in terms of distributing all the weight of SAPI and the like than the OTV (or Interceptor Vest)).

 

[Josh Oakley]

The differnece is that MACP is very BJJ and MMA influenced and seeks to puttl from those worlds, a mistake overall.

MCMAP as it was founded , was influenced heavily by Koryo (Japanese Battlefeild arts), Judo, JUJUTSU, Karate and other Military Combatives and founded by a Marine Officer who looks at martial arts as something for combat first and not for sport.

MACP is good insofar as it gets soldiers doing something but it really should be a system that looks at the conditions a soldier faces and stars there.

Even the Military becomes star struck by MMA and BJJ's success in sports and beach brawls.

Heck, look how many units used to do TKD? Lots of soldiers got into Ninjutsu in the 80s and 90s.

Fads effect them too, sadly.

Actually, Aikido was a major contributor as well for MCMAP

 

[Josh Oakley]

I'll take a stab (pun intended) at it. Well with the vest and helmet, the amount of areas he has to stab you are less. And as far as 'striking' goes, I'd say using the rifle as a striking tool (muzzle strikes, butt strokes, shoving with the center of the weapon) can work.

No way would I trust my vest to stop a stab wound.

 

[Josh Oakley]

I agree absolutely.......but that begs the question, however, if you DO end up in a situation where an enemy combatant is at close quarters range, it's not likely he's going to be trading punches........my guess would be that he's either attempting to disarm, or attempting to put a knife in your gut, all while avoiding the end of the muzzle, which means he'll get extremely close, to grappling range.

I could be wrong, but I don't see a lot of punches or kicks being thrown in that format........the real question is how 80 pounds of gear is going to effect all of that.

Uh... add a lot of power to a hook punch? but you make a point. Even if I'm clinched or grappling, though, my chances of survival are higher if I can stay OFF the ground.

And I have trained in full gear to figure out how it'd affect. Punches are relatively fine, kicks and grappling drastically impaired, and clinch is reasonably sound.

 

[arnisador]

If you're off base in a combat zone, no one is wearing soft armor though. At the least, the plate in IBAs will stop stabs - not that it improves the situation, there are still plenty of targets, plus the bricking idea...and on top of that, the plates and IBA only serve to slow you down and make you less mobile.

There's some mention of a 2003 knife attack on an Army officer in an article referenced here. His main injury came from tripping and falling as he evaded the attack, apparently.

 

[Skpotamus]

I think the reason they do the grappling first is to allow the soldiers to train all out without risk of injury. It's a lot easier to go balls out while grappling without injury than it is to go even lightly striking without injury. This promotes going all out in their training and gets them better conditioned. You can see the military doing the same thing in WW2 with some of the things they were taught then, like the infamous Timetable of Death and the ridiculously short times to incapacitate. it instilled confidence in their techniques, while not necessarily being accurate.

Most of the chokes the program teaches work standing as well as on the ground. Teaching a soldier to try to choke his opponent will probably serve him better than having him break his hand punching at a guy in full kit and hitting his helmet.

You can grapple anywhere (my buddy at fort campbell? said they would have people randomly grapple in different environments, regardless of garb and location). You can't punch, kick, knee, and elbow with any type of power without protective gear. Using weapons in H2H is a similar situation, you have to back off and go light, or risk injury.

Not saying I agree with it (I personally think they should use more firearms for CQB work), but I think I can see them reasoning this way.

 

[BLACK LION]

You can train to strike targets without injuring your partner. It is a mutual relation ship in which you promis not to actually go full on and injure them and in turn they will do thier best to pretend they are injured. It should be done slow and smooth as all training should be done. People forsake accuracy for speed out of fear.
I see reference to punches and kicks which alerts my radar again. I see no use for elastic movement found in striking and retracting on impact. I see the benefit of puuting hard parts into thier soft parts projecting ones entire mass through the target area. I also see great benefit in striking to get a break and a dump, drop or throw....Some of the biggest injuries served hand to hand will come from impacting the ground or by utilizing the earth as a blunt object. Also I see a great benefit in learning how to strike opponents that are on the ground... not trying to wrestle them. I would rather drop a knee on thier bladder and palm thier face when they sit up from the trauma... or deliver a well placed kick to the live to get them to curl over so I can stomp the neck.... just some ideas and some more mindless rambling


take care out there guys.

 

[Skpotamus]

You can train to strike targets without injuring your partner. It is a mutual relation ship in which you promis not to actually go full on and injure them and in turn they will do thier best to pretend they are injured. It should be done slow and smooth as all training should be done. People forsake accuracy for speed out of fear.
I see reference to punches and kicks which alerts my radar again. I see no use for elastic movement found in striking and retracting on impact. I see the benefit of puuting hard parts into thier soft parts projecting ones entire mass through the target area. I also see great benefit in striking to get a break and a dump, drop or throw....Some of the biggest injuries served hand to hand will come from impacting the ground or by utilizing the earth as a blunt object. Also I see a great benefit in learning how to strike opponents that are on the ground... not trying to wrestle them. I would rather drop a knee on thier bladder and palm thier face when they sit up from the trauma... or deliver a well placed kick to the live to get them to curl over so I can stomp the neck.... just some ideas and some more mindless rambling

take care out there guys.

Thats kind of my reasoning for them NOT doing the striking as heavily and why grapplers were able to dominate the challenge matches. Strikers have to pull back their power, speed and contact to not damage their partners. Meaning that they are going less than full speed and power when training with a partner most of the time. Grapplers can go all out, full speed and power when applying thier techniques. As can their partners when resisting, the feeling of making something work against live, full force resistance lets them get a lot more quality training in a shorter time.

You can get around this in striking by using pad drills, but you have to double the amount of training time to teach students how to hold and feed to mimic real life encounters and get some sense of realism in the pad drills. This usually takes a few months to get down. You can get a grappling move down in an hour if you rep the hell out of it.

Everybody knows how much it sucks to get a holder that doesn't know what they are doing, you might as well be shadow sparring. With grappling, all you need for a partner to know is that they are supposed to grab, push, pull and squeeze as hard as they can to stop you from doing what you are trying to do.

 

[LoneRider]

If it does go to H2H for me (really bad, because that means my gun trucks are down, QRF has also gotten stomped on, weapons are down, and the like) I'll use WFF (whatever f---ing works). I'll likely go for striking with either my weapon(s), improvised weapons, knives or going after vulnerable areas.

 

[BLACK LION]

Thats kind of my reasoning for them NOT doing the striking as heavily and why grapplers were able to dominate the challenge matches. Strikers have to pull back their power, speed and contact to not damage their partners. Meaning that they are going less than full speed and power when training with a partner most of the time. Grapplers can go all out, full speed and power when applying thier techniques. As can their partners when resisting, the feeling of making something work against live, full force resistance lets them get a lot more quality training in a shorter time.

You can get around this in striking by using pad drills, but you have to double the amount of training time to teach students how to hold and feed to mimic real life encounters and get some sense of realism in the pad drills. This usually takes a few months to get down. You can get a grappling move down in an hour if you rep the hell out of it.

Everybody knows how much it sucks to get a holder that doesn't know what they are doing, you might as well be shadow sparring. With grappling, all you need for a partner to know is that they are supposed to grab, push, pull and squeeze as hard as they can to stop you from doing what you are trying to do.

Thety were most likely being dominated because they still utilized "elasticity" in thier kicking and punching and they are looking for places like the face or some other social area of fisticuffs which is probably why they are seemingly holding back. If one understands the anatomy and the physiology behind it then there would be no reason to hold back. What may seem like holding back or pulling punches may just be a lack of understanding of targeting and striking with weight and mass. What you find is that it doesnt take much force to drop a man to his knees with a well placed elbow to the trapezius or brachial plexus and not even come close to the vertebrae. Fingers in eyes sockets move even the strongest heads... finger strikes to the anus will make a man flop like a fish and there goes his arm bar(got me out of a tough one once).
Training to grapple and use strength, size and speed to overcome an adversary sets the mindset that there is equality in combat when there is none...zero. There is alwasy someone bigger. stronger and faster and thats why learning and training in an unconventional ferocious manner is so beneficial becuase it negates the bigger stronger faster all together.
All men are equal in the sense that they can all be injured, traumatized, broken and killed.

 

[BLACK LION]

I am not saying there is a right and wrong here btw. I understand both sides as I trained that way for a long time.

 

[shihansmurf]

I'll weigh in on this topic as I've been taught levels 1 and 2. I don't agree with all of the logic that went into designing the program but I can relate was was explained to me by various instructors.

1. Hand to Hand is a tertiary skillset for all of us, MP's being an exception. The intent of the Combative program isn't to create kung fu fighting machines, but to give people tools that will enable them to survive violent encounters untill they can re-engage with their weapon system. The combatives are also used to foster a "warrior" mindset in a soldier.

2. With the amount of gear and its weight dispersal it is remarkably easy for one of us to lose our balance should we find ourselves struggling with an assailant. Now, I personally think the methods for passing the guard that they teach don't work in armor, but that is a chunk of the reasoning.

3. Ground work and grappling is taught first due to the fact that most people grow up wrestling with friends and siblings and the inate familiarity of the skillset maps well to the skills taught in level 1. In addition to that it is much safer to teach grappeling and ground work to the point of fully resisting opponents to a large group of people with as wide ranging levels of ability and fitness as entry level soldiers. Ground work also requires no safety equipment,although most posts do have sand pit(some have combative pits that use finely shredded tires-its really comfortable). When we start adding striking in level 2, there is reticence on the part of most students to really throw hard shots at each other. There is almost never that same fear of full on wrestling.

4. Later level incorporate weapon disarms and much more striking but the focus is always on recovery to dominant position so as to be able to bring a weapon system to bear. As soldiers we are much better at shooting people, after all, and combatives are a last ditch effort. MP's work under a different set of restrictions and learn a different methodology of hand to hand that I, frankly, and not privy to having nevey worked with them aside from basic riot control training during QRF train up.

If you are a martial artist, I think that you are not going to find much in the combatives system that is going to make you stand up and say WOW!
Like I stated earlier, hand to hand is a tertiary skill for us, keep that in mind, and take what the Army(and the Marines with MCMAP) teaches in that light. The goals that the Army has for its martial arts may not be what you have for yours.

Mark

 

[BLACK LION]

Understood.

Take care out there guys.

 

[LoneRider]

1. Hand to Hand is a tertiary skillset for all of us, MP's being an exception. The intent of the Combative program isn't to create kung fu fighting machines, but to give people tools that will enable them to survive violent encounters untill they can re-engage with their weapon system. The combatives are also used to foster a "warrior" mindset in a soldier.

Strange. I'd figured Infantry, Scouts, SF, and others would have that as a major skill set as well.

Like I stated earlier, hand to hand is a tertiary skill for us, keep that in mind, and take what the Army(and the Marines with MCMAP) teaches in that light. The goals that the Army has for its martial arts may not be what you have for yours.

I understand that. I learn the skill sets as required, but also apply what I've learned in other MAs as well to subsequent training sessions and just keep discussion/practical training going.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Truthfully when I look around I think the Pekiti Tirsia system incorporated into the Force Recon Marines in the Philippines is a better example of a functional military hand to hand and weapons system. Just throwing it out there!

 

[Aikironin]

Well to touch on what Shihansmurf was saying. I started out in 75th Ranger regiment when Larsen was just beginning his program of grappling to the army. And he makes some valid points in his methodology.
1. No one wins a war based upon how good thier hand to hand skills are, but the skills that make someone a good hand to hand guy, are the same skills that win wars, namely the desire to close distance and engage the enemy.
2. The winner of a hand to hand battle is the guy whose friend shows up first with a gun.

Now his marketing has changed a bit since 98 when I first met him, and the insistence that BJJ was going to be a "battlefield art" has changed to point 1 above. Which is valid, as currently the military is recruiting vast majority of soldiers who have, never been in a fight, didn't play any contact sports, perhaps raised by a single mom. And combine this with the "oprahfication" of the culture and you have an unaggressive soldier who has never tasted his or her own blood. No wonder PTSD is through the roof!

Is the Combatives program an end all be all, by no means. But is it a massive step forward, yes. As previous to Larsen's involvement, there wasn't one at all, it was whatever local instructor or local expert taught at the Unit level, which may or may not have been command endorsed. But no simple way of taking 45 recruits and in 4 hours time, making them a lot better off, than say, trying to spend equivalent time, teaching kicks, blocks and punches.

 

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Truthfully when I look around I think the Pekiti Tirsia system incorporated into the Force Recon Marines in the Philippines is a better example of a functional military hand to hand and weapons system. Just throwing it out there!

I know a Marine who did that.

I crosstrain with one of Gaje's students, Dave Wink, Pikiti Tarsia is great stuff.

I like what 1st SF Group was doing before the war.

The would train 2 days a week with a BJJ instructor than 1 day with a FMA/IMA guy, then the next week the would train twice with the FMA/IMA guy and then once with the BJJ guy.

they had (or have) a good mix their, weapons, strikes, and Grappling.
That would burn in using a malfunctioned weapon as an impact weapon before going empty hand (Unlike the case of the Army troop who through his gun down and double legged a man who ended up stabbing him), knife skills and grappling if it all goes to Hell.

 

[LoneRider]

Well to touch on what Shihansmurf was saying. I started out in 75th Ranger regiment when Larsen was just beginning his program of grappling to the army. And he makes some valid points in his methodology.
1. No one wins a war based upon how good thier hand to hand skills are, but the skills that make someone a good hand to hand guy, are the same skills that win wars, namely the desire to close distance and engage the enemy.
2. The winner of a hand to hand battle is the guy whose friend shows up first with a gun.

Nice perspective and I do agree with you to a point. Is it not also true that soldiers will fall back on training under pressure or in battle. So if a soldier is trained in only ground fighting will he thus not resort to grappling as Gaius Julius Ceasar's reference states:

That would burn in using a malfunctioned weapon as an impact weapon before going empty hand (Unlike the case of the Army troop who through his gun down and double legged a man who ended up stabbing him), knife skills and grappling if it all goes to Hell.

Aikironin, I'm not totally disregarding your point but I think GJC's most recent point brings some interesting approaches to H2H training.

 

[Aikironin]

Lone Rider, no disrespect taken, insofar as the soldier tackling the guy who ended up stabbing him, haven't heard that particular, story and will give JGC the benefit of the doubt and assume it is true. Tackling a guy traditionally is the act of an unskilled opponent, and more often than not, as LTC David Grossman states, Soldiers don't rise to their level of training but sink to it. Secondly, you prove my first point regarding that BJJ or Army combatives as a "battlefield" art may not be the appropriate choice for that particular situation, much like bringing the knife to the gunfight.

If the soldier lacks the inherent will to win, Not just the will to survive, than any technique will fail in a critical incident. Much like the Olympic style TKD guy I knew, who got sucker punched in England and whose only response was to tackle his assailant.

Real fights are three dimensional in the sense that they are physiological, psychological and emotional facets to each altercation. If one cannot commit to all three facets, then they are outnumbered by their own doubt.

 

[LoneRider]

Interesting Akironin that you should bring this up. Personally I believe the MCMAP system and the Systema/Battle Sambo systems are good real world hand to hand combat training.

Compared to the old LINE system which I've had some exposure to I do like the MACP system I just think a few tweaks could make it more effective.