Modern Army Combatives Program

[Brian R. VanCise]

The Modern Army Combatives Program has a glaring weakness in my mind and that is they at this point do not really teach their soldiers the blade. Take for instance the Force Marine Recons in the Philippines. They learn PTK and it looks a little like this:

[yt]gvtusTnmcRQ[/yt]

[yt]GvD0ebc1MAE[/yt]

 

[MattNinjaZX-14]

Both MACP and the MCMAP really need to be taught no flashy moves, just go straight for the veins and be taught to really stab with force so vicious. None of that fancy slashing b.s.

The hand to hand combat course should do one thing. To kill or be killed.

No politics, no gimmicks. Only what really works.

 

[jarrod]

my only critique (& it's a pretty minor one) on teaching kali to the modern soldier is that slicing is not going to be as effective in a lot of scenarios due to clothing. i think a point-based blade system would be a little better. but once again, anything that get's people used to the general idea of opening someone up with a knife should be a good enough start. but the point remains (see what i did there? very punny) that some sort of knife training should make up the bulk of close quarters combat.

i just started arnis a couple months ago, & i love the knife work! fun stuff, very different from what i learned in the marine corps & various knife combatives systems.

jf

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Hey Jarrod,

I would definitely agree if the Modern US Military continued to utilize the blades that are in current use. However if they went to some thing bigger like a ginunting then well those slashes would be great. (the clothing would be inconsequential)

 

[jarrod]

true dat! i was always kind of wished that the smatchet had caught on.

jf

 

[jks9199]

Both MACP and the MCMAP really need to be taught no flashy moves, just go straight for the veins and be taught to really stab with force so vicious. None of that fancy slashing b.s.

The hand to hand combat course should do one thing. To kill or be killed.

No politics, no gimmicks. Only what really works.

Not so. Not with the variety of missions today's military handles. And probably not even in the past; there has always been the need for prisoners, for example. Even for a soldier, it's just not always necessary or appropriate to kill someone they're forced to fight.

 

[MattNinjaZX-14]

Not so. Not with the variety of missions today's military handles. And probably not even in the past; there has always been the need for prisoners, for example. Even for a soldier, it's just not always necessary or appropriate to kill someone they're forced to fight.

The lethal portion of the curriculum is not hardcore enough.

Too much emphasis on non-lethal options. They can be a good tool for what it is.

The political correctness that has crept into the MACP curriculum is just plain ridiculous and stupid. Not only that it can get guys killed.

A good limitus test is will this work in the barroom, the battlefield or prison ?

This is where people really die everyday.

The U.S. Army really needs to get back to what works.

The army does not need to go chasing after the asian dragon of the marital arts. ( no offense intended here )

The focus should be on what works.

 

[Hudson69]

Wrong. Most of a cop's fights do go to the ground, because if we pin the bad guy to the ground, we take away a significant amount of their mobility and ability to resist and fight.

And we can definitely punch, kick, and otherwise strike, when the situation merits it. You won't find many cops kicking very high, for lots of reasons, not least of which is the gun belt... but kicks and punches are certainly in the range of defensive tactics options.

I might have already posted on this but I think that this is venturing into new ground (for me). There is a new study out there (FBI maybe?) that indicates that fighters who are untrained go to the ground and most of the fights that police get into only end up on the ground when they want them too; handcuffing is #1 and "pig-pile" is #2, meaning that they are just using a mechanical restraint or there is enough officers and a lack of weapons that will simply make it a simpler approach to arrest. Otherwise it is a stand up fight/confrontation so the handcuffing portion might not be a valid indicator on the "90% of fights going to the ground."

Many local LEO DT Instructors/agencies seem to be following the concept of fight smart, take out your opponent as quickly as possible, going to the ground seems to extend a fight (in my opinion). My agency, and I am an assistant DT Instructor, we teach to avoid taking it to the ground unless you have too. With the two main reasons being the advent of the MMA/UFC jujutsu type fighting arts which have taken off; so you never know who you might encounter (not that you should take anything lightly anyhow) and more importantly you never know when your opponent might have a friend nearby.

 

[Tez3]

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.

I shall leave the inter service arguing to you guys though I could unite you by saying our Army and Royal Marines are better trained lol! that would get you both going!
No my point is that here you seemed to have missed the point of MMA, it is striking and groundwork not just one. By saying that some MMA fighters mix in striking seems to me to be saying you think MMA is just groundwork?
Grappling and striking arts were often used in the past as training usually non lethal for troops, Gengis Khan who's troops were mounted of course had his soldiers wrestle, it was good fitness, encouraged competitiveness and aggression plus kept the soldiers occupied.