Modern Army Combatives Program

[Aikironin]

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.

Interesting that you bring up Systema, it started to become somewhat popular in Aikido circles awhile back due to Stan Pranin and the Aiki Expos, and being a DT guy and interested in "real world" applications, I picked up some DVD's and was totally not impressed. In fact I became some what cynical on it. Also picked up some "combat Sambo" and was interested in what they had to offer.

I see Systema as hard sell for DT instructors in Military/LEO work, but Sambo as an easier sell. Those two target audiences don't really have the time in their training schedules to devote to H2H, in the military it makes some sense, as weapons based systems are tantamount to their mission. In Law enforcement it makes NO SENSE whatsoever as hands on a suspect is such a commonplace circumstance it begs the question as to why not? But again Police Departments have X hours of inservice a year, and take away those hours for Cultural diversity, Cultural Awareness, Sensitivity training, Sexual Harrasment, Hugging puppies training, and so on and so on, they may be lucky to get 4-8 hours a year. So styles like Systema, Sambo, Aikido, BJJ or whatever need to be pared down to gross motor skill movements, retainable and able to be performed in full gear.

Again, is MCMAP and Army Combatives the end all be all, by no means, but it is a step towards codifying a system that can as you say be tweaked and revisited based upon Soldier/Marine feedback from the field.

 

[chinto]

I think that the reason for so much grappling is that they see it as something that they can both condition with and get less injury's with. I also see it as some kind of thing of well the " MMA sport competitors do it and it must be good" thing in there to.

now with a pack, and weapons and ammo and things I want to strike first, lock and brake and grapple standing, but on the ground last!
First of all because just like on the street they come in groups on the battle field. Second, because with all that gear on, and my weapon and things I would not want to be rolling around on the ground where a less skilled man might not be so encumbered and have an advantage that way and it would not be as great when standing. but the main reason is that while I am down there with him, any one, his buddy or just some one who does not like GI's can kick my kidneys, skull, face and spine in with out effort.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

I think that the reason for so much grappling is that they see it as something that they can both condition with and get less injury's with. I also see it as some kind of thing of well the " MMA sport competitors do it and it must be good" thing in there to.

now with a pack, and weapons and ammo and things I want to strike first, lock and brake and grapple standing, but on the ground last!
First of all because just like on the street they come in groups on the battle field. Second, because with all that gear on, and my weapon and things I would not want to be rolling around on the ground where a less skilled man might not be so encumbered and have an advantage that way and it would not be as great when standing. but the main reason is that while I am down there with him, any one, his buddy or just some one who does not like GI's can kick my kidneys, skull, face and spine in with out effort.

Or stick a bayonet or knife in you or well just shoot you. Grappling on the ground on a battlefield should be a last resort.

 

[SocorroLDM]

I understand what you are saying. I am a Level II MACP Instructor. The Level I and II course are all ground fighting techniques. As a MACP instructor you can also teach the standup techniques as well as the knife and stick techniques, it is all up to the instructor.

 

[Draven]

As a Navy Individual Augmentee the subject was part of our training at FT Sill, OK before we deployed almost a year ago. I recall our instructors stating that 90% of fights go to the ground.

Now I have trained in various MAs throughout my life, the most practical training received thus far before MACP was at Centerline Martial Arts Academy in Neptune Beach, FL. I recall one teacher of mine there, a former cop, saying that statistic of ground fights is true if the combatants don't know what they're doing.

MACP tends to start with training in groundfighting first then working up to standup fighting, based on the above logic. Far be it from me to question Army training methods, but wouldn't it be more practical to teach how not to go to the ground (i.e. practical takedown defenses and the like) before teaching groundfighting? Any thoughts on that?

I think the 90% rule is 100% BS, I'm fond of saying "90% of all fights go to the ground if your the loser." By this I would like to point out that a) no such statistic has ever been taken but anyone and anywhere; its a marketing slogan taken from the Gracies and nothing scientifically researched, and b) allot of the cases of fights going to the ground under real world conditions is mostly one person stapping on the other & the many time the guy on the ground is unable to defend himself due to lack of contiousness. Ever hear of a curbie?

As for the Basic Level of training; I disagree with the heavy focus on ground fighting period (did my 11B time in Basic and MAC wasn't upto to par for me) Personal I think their needs to be a basic set of stand-up, striking, throws and takedowns & groundfighting that should be taught initially, from that you can expand those techniques and fill in the gaps at more advanced stages. Takedown defense would be an filled in subject.

Under realistic terms you could/should be able to seriously injure an opponent in stand up combat without going to the ground and if you go to the ground you should be able to end the fight in seconds and get back up, given that you caused some injury before going to the ground or by going to the ground. Yes, I believe you should try to cause serious injury before or during the attempt to go to the ground. I think stand up fighting is just as important as groundfighting and both need to be enbraced to make a complete system.

 

[Skpotamus]

I think the 90% rule is 100% BS, I'm fond of saying "90% of all fights go to the ground if your the loser." By this I would like to point out that a) no such statistic has ever been taken but anyone and anywhere; its a marketing slogan taken from the Gracies and nothing scientifically researched, and b) allot of the cases of fights going to the ground under real world conditions is mostly one person stapping on the other & the many time the guy on the ground is unable to defend himself due to lack of contiousness. Ever hear of a curbie?

As for the Basic Level of training; I disagree with the heavy focus on ground fighting period (did my 11B time in Basic and MAC wasn't upto to par for me) Personal I think their needs to be a basic set of stand-up, striking, throws and takedowns & groundfighting that should be taught initially, from that you can expand those techniques and fill in the gaps at more advanced stages. Takedown defense would be an filled in subject.

Under realistic terms you could/should be able to seriously injure an opponent in stand up combat without going to the ground and if you go to the ground you should be able to end the fight in seconds and get back up, given that you caused some injury before going to the ground or by going to the ground. Yes, I believe you should try to cause serious injury before or during the attempt to go to the ground. I think stand up fighting is just as important as groundfighting and both need to be enbraced to make a complete system.

http://ejmas.com/jnc/2007jnc/jncart_Leblanc_0701.html
This is the LAPD study the gracie stats were supposedly taken from.
Nearly 2/3's of the fights the officers got into resulted both teh officer and subject on the ground.

Bruce Siddle did a study (same link, farther down) asking how many times officers had someone try to take them to the ground. Over half had someone try to push, pull, or tackle them to the ground.

Another study someone did with something like 300 street fights, less than half went to the ground (42%) with both people down. 72% had one person go down. What was most interesting: of those that hit the ground first, 59% lost, 33% had no clear "winner".
http://jiujitsu365.wordpress.com/2008/03/11/do-most-fights-go-to-the-ground-research-i-conducted/

So while learning to fight on the ground is a good thing IMHO (at least from the perspective of how to defend and get back to your feet), the 95% thing is BS.

Now, if you have the skill level of say, a Gracie in a streetfight, probably 95% of your fights do go to the ground, and you probably win them all as long as they stay one on one (you have buddies there to keep it "fair").
where fights happen regularly.

I think they do it (train groundfighting first) because it conditions people quite well, it's pretty easy to learn, and it installs greater confidence than the crap they used to teach them that didn't work all that well.

 

[Draven]

http://ejmas.com/jnc/2007jnc/jncart_Leblanc_0701.html
This is the LAPD study the gracie stats were supposedly taken from.
Nearly 2/3's of the fights the officers got into resulted both teh officer and subject on the ground.

Bruce Siddle did a study (same link, farther down) asking how many times officers had someone try to take them to the ground. Over half had someone try to push, pull, or tackle them to the ground.

Another study someone did with something like 300 street fights, less than half went to the ground (42%) with both people down. 72% had one person go down. What was most interesting: of those that hit the ground first, 59% lost, 33% had no clear "winner".
http://jiujitsu365.wordpress.com/2008/03/11/do-most-fights-go-to-the-ground-research-i-conducted/

So while learning to fight on the ground is a good thing IMHO (at least from the perspective of how to defend and get back to your feet), the 95% thing is BS.

Now, if you have the skill level of say, a Gracie in a streetfight, probably 95% of your fights do go to the ground, and you probably win them all as long as they stay one on one (you have buddies there to keep it "fair").
where fights happen regularly.

I think they do it (train groundfighting first) because it conditions people quite well, it's pretty easy to learn, and it installs greater confidence than the crap they used to teach them that didn't work all that well.

The LEO study is worthless as LEOs have been training in "restraint techniques" for the past 50 years if not longer & generally try to bring an assailant to the ground to be restrained. There is even a subset of Kodokan Judo that focuses on LEO Restraining Methods used by LEOs. The Less then half study & the over half study pretty much go with what I learned in sport jujitsu back in the 90s its fifty.

As for the less effective stuff in military H2H you'd have to be specific, there because I have found some aspects of older systems of combatives to be far better then the current system.

 

[jks9199]

I think the 90% rule is 100% BS, I'm fond of saying "90% of all fights go to the ground if your the loser." By this I would like to point out that a) no such statistic has ever been taken but anyone and anywhere; its a marketing slogan taken from the Gracies and nothing scientifically researched, and b) allot of the cases of fights going to the ground under real world conditions is mostly one person stapping on the other & the many time the guy on the ground is unable to defend himself due to lack of contiousness. Ever hear of a curbie?

As for the Basic Level of training; I disagree with the heavy focus on ground fighting period (did my 11B time in Basic and MAC wasn't upto to par for me) Personal I think their needs to be a basic set of stand-up, striking, throws and takedowns & groundfighting that should be taught initially, from that you can expand those techniques and fill in the gaps at more advanced stages. Takedown defense would be an filled in subject.

Under realistic terms you could/should be able to seriously injure an opponent in stand up combat without going to the ground and if you go to the ground you should be able to end the fight in seconds and get back up, given that you caused some injury before going to the ground or by going to the ground. Yes, I believe you should try to cause serious injury before or during the attempt to go to the ground. I think stand up fighting is just as important as groundfighting and both need to be enbraced to make a complete system.

Actually, it is scientifically researched. There are just quite a few details left out when you simply the research done to a single sentence. The numbers came from analysis of LAW ENFORCEMENT encounters, and many of those do indeed go to the ground because the specific goal is to subdue and arrest the person, and taking a resisting subject to the ground eliminates many avenues of escape. The Gracies simply latched onto the briefest summary to make their claims in support of their system...

 

[Draven]

Its just me but thats bordering on false advertising and comes close to down right lying. But, one my many issues is that I have a very serious distaste for martial arts as a commercial enterprise I think it takes away a great deal & creates several problems as well. The case in point.

As for the Modern Army Combatives, I think the best bet would be a mix of Kill or Get Killed's vital point striking methods and the current MAC program. Of course one of the reasons I left the military was the political nature of every action taken. I often see the political nature of using the Gracie system far more commonly then the merit of the system, and its a good system. I actually liked the older LINE system but think it rarely got taught properly.

 

[jarrod]

as i've said before, troops around the world & throughout history have trained in sport combat. it can instill conditioning, mental toughness, & aggression. the actual techniques are secondary.

jf

 

[Draven]

I hate to tell you this but conditioning, mental toughness & aggression don't count for much if you don't have the technical skills to back it all up. More so, I'm not arguing the effectiveness of the material presented only the over all worth of this material as its presented. The issue as I see it isn't the groundfighting material (thats all sound technique-wise) but the lack of effective material on striking and stand up grappling techniques is an issue for me.

Being proficient in one's tasks, whether its marksmanship, battle drills or hand-to-hand combatives simply doesn't matter because one is conditioned, aggressive & mental tough, is the wrong answer.

The simplist response to this is that conditioning is not based on combatives training but morning PT every morning. Aggression is good except that the aggression of other soldiers; such as the Viet Cong & Chinese soldiers in Viet Nam, as well as that of the insergents in Iraq & Affgahnistan, did little against the superior battlefield skills of US Soldiers. Mental Toughness is likewise a similar matter you can be mentally tough but a physical damage will still cause an injury and the worse the injury and more likely death. Being proficient in your skills whether small teams tactics, hand-to-hand combatives techniques or marksmanship might be better with Mental Toughness, Conditioning & Aggression but it doesn't replace them.

 

[Hudson69]

I can only speak from an LE Combatives standpoint (I do have a copy of the Army Combatives manual) but the whole; most fights go to the ground theory is prevalent with my department.

Luckily though we understand that a fight can go to the ground but the ground is not a good place to be; too much chance of a bandit having a "friend." This means that we can train as much to avoid going to the ground (against single or multiple opponents - worst case scenario) as to winning a fight on the ground.

If you are looking for something will work well with a military type of combatives that is probably easy to find you might want to look at Krav Maga?

 

[Draven]

Well the thing about the army combatives system is that there where several issues with combatives from the previous systems and the modernized systems. As with anything the DOD there is a political component to the choice. The reliance on Gracie Combatives (GC for short) for the bulk of the MAC system is based on some political issues as well as some practical ones as well.

Political Issues effecting the choice;
1. The bulk of wonnabe tough guys who join the military right out of high school are heavy supporters and admirers of MMA competition. Its the New Tough Guy sport as it were.

2. Most of the high school crowd who are recruited into the military simply lack the real world experience at fighting, hence the basis for appealing to the MMA imagery. I personally think it's less the sport and more the individual but hey...

3. Its a ready made system, that doesn't require the Army to research and adapt previous systems, which some units & branchs still do. The USMC MCMAP uses Gracie Combatives as well but included additional source info to make the system more well rounded.

Personally I think taking the striking techniques from kill or get Killed and combining it with the current US Army manual gets a good blend. I also think the MCMAP is better if only more well rounded, including techniques from Gracie Juijutsu, Combat Jujitsu, Karate & Kick Boxing, plus more info on the use of weapons.

 

[MattNinjaZX-14]

The Modern Army Combatives Program effective Feburary 2009 can be seen here:

FM 3-25.150 Combatives - 2009 Pt I

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21005335/FM-3-25-150-Combatives-2009-Pt-I

FM 3-25.150 Combatives - 2009 Pt II

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21002372/FM-3-25-150-Combatives-2009-Pt-II

 

[jarrod]

agree to disagree, draven. but you realize we lost vietnam right? & i hate to tell you this, but all the technical skill in the world won't help you if you are too tired or mentally beaten to execute. technique shouldn't be disregarded, but if you have a limited amount of time to get someone ready to fight, there is only so much technique you can develop.

jf

 

[Draven]

The Modern Army Combatives Program effective Feburary 2009 can be seen here:

FM 3-25.150 Combatives - 2009 Pt I

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21005335/FM-3-25-150-Combatives-2009-Pt-I

FM 3-25.150 Combatives - 2009 Pt II

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21002372/FM-3-25-150-Combatives-2009-Pt-II

New stuff looks better but I just glossed over it it looks like a the same stuff but with pictures. Where the older manual just slapped some stuff from the old and the new together. I'll reserve my judgement until I get a better look at it.

agree to disagree, draven. but you realize we lost vietnam right? & i hate to tell you this, but all the technical skill in the world won't help you if you are too tired or mentally beaten to execute. technique shouldn't be disregarded, but if you have a limited amount of time to get someone ready to fight, there is only so much technique you can develop.

jf

I'm guessing you never been in the military, right? There is this thing in the Army called sergeant's time where every thurday NCOs conduct combat focused PT; Combatives Sparring, Pugil Sticks, Bayonet Courses, Ruck Marches, etc. if you been in a year you've had plenty of times to work on combatives. Plus guys with pior training in MA are allowed to teach from various systems during that time or in their free time. My old squad had training in MAC, Sport Jujitsu, Muay Thai, LINE Training, TKD, Hapkido, Boxing & Karate between myself the other team leader & a few guys who where studying TKD, Hapkido & Boxed prior to and during their enlistment.

As for Viet Nam; we lost the politics of the war but won every battle. So what? Soldiers aren't politicians & losing political support back home doesn't mean losing the fight on the battlefield.

 

[jarrod]

i was in the marine corps.

MMA is a good, general introduction to the fight game for your basic-trained soldiers & marines who may not have much MA exposure IMO. if they want to focus on other arts from there that is just terrific & they should have every opportunity to do so. it also gives those with another background exposure to a different ranges they may not be used to.

maybe i'm a slow learner, but a year just doesn't seem like that much time to develop technique for someone with no prior MA experience.

i wasn't saying anything against those who served in vietnam; that war wasn't lost by the people in the field. but the mental toughness of the VC still allowed them to carve out a communist regime, even with our brave veterans & superior technology.

jf

 

[Draven]

Well thats what your missing a) we won every fire fight in Viet Nam because of higher proficiency of skill sets & b) we only lost the war because our politicians failed us and our soldiers. Just like Nam we see Al-queada crossing the boarder to Pakistan to regroup & unlike Nam we are currently conducting air strikes into Pakistan to reach them. We allowed the commies to carve out their regime because our politicians (not the guys on the ground) were weak willed.

Now I might disagree with you on the year thing, first off few military men world wide trained extensively for extreme close combat or hand-to-hand combat regularly. Those who do are the more poor countries or those with a heavy MA culture; Korea, China, Japan, Russia, the Balkan Nations ect.

As for a year being enough time, the Gracies claim that Gracie Combatives can teach you basic proficency within 2 weeks. You get that in basic & then have a year of sergeants time training to suppliment that training. Plus what soldoers do on their own, most of the MMA fans trained on their own in the same GC format that the Gracies say will make you a "GJJ Blue Belt."

My issue with the Army stuff isn't the MMA, I'd love to see some Muay Thai or something with a better striking base added to make it more rounded, plus some basic instruction on throws, takedowns & sweeps. Most Army Soldiers are taught nothing but bare bones ground fighting & don't even cover the whole manual. Even then the politics of the MAC is that it isn't intended to teach combat skills but (from FM 3-25.150, 1-2 PURPOSES OF COMBATIVES TRAINING) "More importantly, combatives training helps to instill courage and self-confidence. With competence comes the understanding of controlled aggression and the ability to remain focused while under duress. Training in combatives includes hard and arduous physical training that is, at the same time, mentally demanding and carries over to other military pursuits. The overall effect of combatives training is-

• <LI itxtvisited="1">The culmination of a successful physical fitness program, enhancing individual and unit strength, flexibility, balance, and cardiorespiratory fitness.
• Building personal courage, self confidence, self-discipline, and esprit de corps."

Not much is said about killing the enemy at close range. It talks about the purpose of hand-to-hand combatives being used to condition the soldier with self-confidence, personal courage, and so on. Yet, everything in Military culture is about doing just that; Ruck Marchs, Bayonet Courses, FTXs (Field Training Exercises), Simulated Combat Exercises, & so on.

Many times & especially for Infantry Soldiers/Marines this training occurs during an 8 hour work with FTXs lasting from 30 to 90 days. So then where does the need for mental toughness via MMA based training have a need in the Military Culture?

Now if you look at the MCRP 3-02B: Marine Corps Martial Arts under Introduction, section 1. Purpose it reads; "Marines are also engaged in many military operations other then war, such as peace keeping missions & noncombantant evacuations, where deadly force may not be authorized. During non-combatives engagements, Marines must decide if a situation warrents the use of deadly force." The same paragraph goes on to state plainly "To make the right decision, Marines must understand both the lethal & non-lethal cloase combat techniques needed to handle the situation responsibly without escalating the level of violence unnecessarily."

There is already a fundamental difference in that MCMAP, unlike US Army MAC, is based on the ability to subdue or possibly kill an enemy in combat. MCMAP unlike MAC makes use of closed fists, knife hand strikes, palm strikes & finger jabs. Standing joint locks and breaks plus the additional ground fighting techniques. Also the MAC's Hand-to-Hand Philosophy towards lethal force is (as per FM 3-25.150 Chapter 9 Group Tactics, Section I Lethal Force Scenarios) is "The fundamental truth of hand-to-hand fighting is that the winner will be the one whose buddies show up first with a weapon." MCMAP's lethal force philosophy is explained Overview of Close Combat Section, 1. Purpose of Close Combat; "Close Combat is the physical confrontation between two or more opponents. It involves armed & unarmed & lethal & non-lethal fighting techniques that range from forced compliance to deadly force."

So again, at what point do soldiers need to rely on a MA system for dicipline, mental toughness & so on when the whole life style and military culture encourages and teachs such things?
Why is that Marines (who also draw some technical assets from BJJ) advocated using potentially lethal force & have far better striking & vital target point training for those strikes to make them effective, yet the Army ignores that possible added skill set?

 

[jarrod]

So again, at what point do soldiers need to rely on a MA system for dicipline, mental toughness & so on when the whole life style and military culture encourages and teachs such things?
Why is that Marines (who also draw some technical assets from BJJ) advocated using potentially lethal force & have far better striking & vital target point training for those strikes to make them effective, yet the Army ignores that possible added skill set?

let's just skip the whole vietnam thing for the sake of brevity, staying on topic, & not beating our heads against each others walls.

as for the first part, mental toughness comes in many varieties. everyone has their hang ups. i did great at firing drills, h2h, humps, & all that crap. but i hated swim qualifications to the point of near panic. but sometimes marines end up in the water, so i had to learn to deal with my phobia & get through it. some people just fall apart when someone is trying to beat the **** out of them. if they are in the military, that's a good thing to get over. mma as well as a host of other combat sports are a great way to face that.

as for the latter...well the army doesn't exactly have a long history of following the marine corps, does it? likely it's all politics. the higher ups in the usmc liked the stuff that ended up in MCMAP, the higher ups in the army like mma. once the decisions are made, it's very unlikely that one will change to conform to the other, even if the other's methods prove more effective.

that said, unarmed combat should virtually never happen in the field. it means your weapon failed, your team failed, & you somehow lost your blade. so i think anything that gets people scrappin' & gives them some confidence & a sense of what actual unarmed violence is like is just fine. if they choose to refine their unarmed skills from there that is terrific. but if the issue is practicality, then almost all close range training should consist of weapons retention & knife deployment.

just my opinion.

jf

 

[Draven]

let's just skip the whole vietnam thing for the sake of brevity, staying on topic, & not beating our heads against each others walls.

as for the first part, mental toughness comes in many varieties. everyone has their hang ups. i did great at firing drills, h2h, humps, & all that crap. but i hated swim qualifications to the point of near panic. but sometimes marines end up in the water, so i had to learn to deal with my phobia & get through it. some people just fall apart when someone is trying to beat the **** out of them. if they are in the military, that's a good thing to get over. mma as well as a host of other combat sports are a great way to face that.

as for the latter...well the army doesn't exactly have a long history of following the marine corps, does it? likely it's all politics. the higher ups in the usmc liked the stuff that ended up in MCMAP, the higher ups in the army like mma. once the decisions are made, it's very unlikely that one will change to conform to the other, even if the other's methods prove more effective.

that said, unarmed combat should virtually never happen in the field. it means your weapon failed, your team failed, & you somehow lost your blade. so i think anything that gets people scrappin' & gives them some confidence & a sense of what actual unarmed violence is like is just fine. if they choose to refine their unarmed skills from there that is terrific. but if the issue is practicality, then almost all close range training should consist of weapons retention & knife deployment.

just my opinion.

jf

I'm one of the its not the art its the individual that makes the Art, people. The thing is I'm fine with the idea of teaching mental toughness, self-discipline and all that but the underlining purpose of the Combatives Training should be Killing the Enemy.

See one political or recruiting based initiative for MAC is that the Marines, made a name for themselves with MCMAP, it was proven to help raise enlistment numbers because the Marines could brag about having better training. I did both and can say the USMC does have better training, the Marines focus on better training to make up for a lack of funding compariable to the other branchs. So the Army to draw attention comes up with MAC, and draws heavily from GC for the notority of the Gracie name & riding the UFC tough guy image. Its more posturing then profeciency.

See I think the Gracie stuff should stay there but I think its needs to draw effect stand up technques from another source to intergrate into it. Some the better MMA fighters often mix a striking system like Muay Thai with BJJ. They have a stand up game and ground game, where as the Army is a one trick pony with only a ground game. I'd love to see the MAC system be more effective at all three ranges, otherwise I just find it to be a political stunt & overhyped to offer soldiers a false sense of security. I've seen too many soldiers get into fights with other soldiers who had training in a striking system and watched them knocked stupid by trying to wrestle & not fight.