# Army Combatives Program (Video)



## Sapper6 (May 29, 2006)

Below is a video highlighting the combatives program the Army currently teaches.

My apologies if this has been posted somewhere else around here.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1462151077277855734&q=martial+arts

Thoughts?


----------



## Andrew Green (May 29, 2006)

cool, thanks 

Will watch that when I get home.


----------



## green meanie (May 29, 2006)

_VERY_ cool. Looks _A LOT_ like what we're doing here. :asian:


----------



## Henderson (May 29, 2006)

Thanks Sapper!


----------



## Sapper6 (May 29, 2006)

the video quality is better if you download from the Infantry website located at: https://www.infantry.army.mil/videos/video16/

to learn more about the Modern Army Combatives program, check out http://www.moderncombatives.org/pages/1/index.htm .


----------



## green meanie (May 29, 2006)

Excellent. Thanks for the links.


----------



## Henderson (May 29, 2006)

Cool.  I'll check them out.


----------



## Cruentus (May 29, 2006)

I am very familiar with the program; I had to learn the basic Modern Combatives model in order to effectively work with the army.

It has its strengths and weaknessess. It is important to remember that the main goal of the program is to develop what they call a "willingness to close" in a soldier. The hand-to-hand combat doctrine is that, "the one who wins the fight is the one who's buddies arrive 1st with a gun."

So, that is why they went in favor of a grappling based model. 

Interesting to say the least.

Paul


----------



## Cruentus (May 29, 2006)

Also note the interesting trend of the military (both Army and Marines in particular) being much more public and in a sense commercial then ever before. There was a time when Army Ranger hand-to-hand training (for example) was almost considered "top secret," and there was a lot of mythology behind what the military was doing for hand-to-hand as far as the public was concerned. Now, the combatives programs are used kind of as a selling piece. There is a lot of public information promoting the army modern combatives program, and a lot of hype surrounding it that started with the Gracies and the UFC. Public information was never promoted as such in the past with the old combatives. The Marines dumped their old line system in favor of a belt based program. All this stuff is designed to confidence build, gain public support, and act as a selling piece for recruiters.

It is very interesting to observe the trends, I think.

Paul Janulis


----------



## stone_dragone (Jun 12, 2006)

An interesting comparison between the *Modern Army Combatives* program and the *Marine Corp Martial Art Program* as they are respectively known is the primary doctrine and reason for training.  While they both agree that the winner in a fight is the "guy whose buddy shows up first with a gun," the Army system specifically teaches that striking is an inefficient method of ending a fight, while the MCAP teaches that grappling, while important, is an inefficient way of ending the altercation.

I have done a great deal of comparison between the two and, although I serve in the Army, I have to say that the Marine program is more feasable and usable for the multiple-threat arena.  The Army program is designed as a usable program which is geared more toward MMA competition.

Both are solid and excellent programs, but each goes in its own direction.  The current Army program is an improvement over the previous one in that it is no relatively mantdatory all the way to the Platoon and Squad level for soldiers to train in it as opposed to the 90 min of instruction that we got at Basic training.   Something good is better than a great nothing.

My two cents.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jun 12, 2006)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Also note the interesting trend of the military (both Army and Marines in particular) being much more public and in a sense commercial then ever before. There was a time when Army Ranger hand-to-hand training (for example) was almost considered "top secret," and there was a lot of mythology behind what the military was doing for hand-to-hand as far as the public was concerned. Now, the combatives programs are used kind of as a selling piece. There is a lot of public information promoting the army modern combatives program, and a lot of hype surrounding it that started with the Gracies and the UFC. Public information was never promoted as such in the past with the old combatives. The Marines dumped their old line system in favor of a belt based program. All this stuff is designed to confidence build, gain public support, and act as a selling piece for recruiters.
> 
> It is very interesting to observe the trends, I think.
> 
> Paul Janulis


 
Definately it is now being used as a recruiting benefit.  Both the Army and Marine programs hopefully will instill confidence in our armed forces and help them in those violent and dangerous moments.

Brian R. VanCise
www.instinctiveresponsetraining.com


----------



## Dark (Jun 12, 2006)

I'm sorry but I think the Army Combatives program is B.S. not because of whats taught but how its taught. Had a buddy try to disprove me and he tapped from a fish hook, there is too of a focus on good sportsmanship and not killing the SOB your fighting. I'm more of a fan of the philosophy "The winner of a hand-to-hand situation is the guy who gets to HIS gun first..."


----------



## Andrew Green (Jun 12, 2006)

I'm sorry... a fishook?

People might tap because it hurts and they don't want to damage their mouth, but to put that up as a claim of deadliness is not going to fly, in a combat situation you will succeed in really annoying the guy by ripping that.

I'm not going to argue submission grappling is a good plan for a battlefield, cause well, any unarmed stuff is not a good plan for a battlefield, but those little pain compliance things are not going to do anything to put a guy out of action with those stakes on the line.


----------



## Dark (Jun 12, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> I'm sorry... a fishook?
> 
> People might tap because it hurts and they don't want to damage their mouth, but to put that up as a claim of deadliness is not going to fly, in a combat situation you will succeed in really annoying the guy by ripping that.
> 
> I'm not going to argue submission grappling is a good plan for a battlefield, cause well, any unarmed stuff is not a good plan for a battlefield, but those little pain compliance things are not going to do anything to put a guy out of action with those stakes on the line.


 
Oh no I'm not claiming super-deadly-ninja-fish-hook stuff, I'm talking about intent. Pesonally I like to shootfighting if it has to sportish, that way you get a mix of stand-up and ground. What I'm talking about is intent, the poor kid never considered that as an option nor did try to bite my fingers which I expected him to do. Hey I would have.

It the way the stuff is being taught, driven toward sportsmanship and not that down and dirty fighting you need on a battlefield. Most of the guys in these forums are in their thrities, I'll be there soon. We all have the real world experience to fight dirty, these 17, 18 and 19 year old boys don't. Allot of them only use what they are taught, if they keep that mindset they will get torn apart by more experienced insurgents.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Jun 12, 2006)

Not sure of the intensity of the training today but i am glad they are getting better training then years befor.  I watched part of the viedo and will go back and watch the whole thing later


----------



## Andrew Green (Jun 12, 2006)

Dark said:
			
		

> It the way the stuff is being taught, driven toward sportsmanship and not that down and dirty fighting you need on a battlefield.



Maybe they value agression and pushing through things more then dirty tactics, which can not safely be trained at high intensity.


----------



## Dark (Jun 12, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Maybe they value agression and pushing through things more then dirty tactics, which can not safely be trained at high intensity.


 
I value my life and using whatever works, prefering my M4, here is the thing... Good sportsman like conduct means squat on the battle field, 90% of good technique is about useless against a knife. The Army wants use to close with the enemy, yet every other country focuses heavily on CQC, Russa, China, North & South Korea, Isreal, and Thailand are the top level guys in the world. 

The major thing we would have to our advantage is the body armor, however most units no longer carry bayonet knives or fix them in close quarters, the stick fighting is never covered and we spend 15 minutes on basic boxing in basic training, so you don't see any muay thai like they claim just BJJ, which isn't a bad thing but they focus solely on it.

I consider myself more a streetfighter then a martial artist because my solution is usually my knives, I carry four don't ask why  I want to win, if you can out grapple me on a mat great, can you out fight off of it. I sparring match is about pride and skill, all good things, but a fight; a real down and dirty fight for your life, is about survival and most of these kids have no clue about that kind of fighting.


----------



## Dark (Jun 12, 2006)

tshadowchaser said:
			
		

> Not sure of the intensity of the training today but i am glad they are getting better training then years befor. I watched part of the viedo and will go back and watch the whole thing later


 
It just lacks delievery on the promises they make at the beginning. I'm more for using the judo and karate based USMC training from WWII.


----------

