Wednesday, September 3, 2014
"Why X instead of Y?" "What about Krav?" "What do you mean MACP isn't ideal, if you are recommending it?"
OK, let's begin with a few simple definitions so we are all on the same page.
"Combatives" is fighting at close quarters without firearms. Other sidearms, such as your blades, are included in Combatives. The Japanese short sword, called a wakizashi, literally translates to sidearm. Improvised weapons such as a brick and a shield fall under the Combatives umbrella, for my purposes. If a physical distance helps you - I use 30 feet as my metric for what falls into "Combatives". Beyond 30 feet, you should have time to begin the fight with your firearm, or to run like hell with a little head start.
"CQB/CQC" is Combatives, adding personal firearms into the mix.
"Combatives" must be fundamentally intended to either take your enemy out of the fight, or give you enough time to deploy a personal weapon - to take your enemy out of the fight. "Combatives" should not be a stand-alone aspect of your skillset. If you can't transition from deflecting a man who wants to slip a garrote around your neck to breaking him with your body, drawing your knife, or getting your firearms into play, your Combatives suck.
Combatives is a bedrock skill. You build upon it. Just as you must learn fundamentals of your rifle before you begin sniper training, this candid exchange of political views begins and ends with your ability to stay alive when a man - or men - are trying to kill (or capture) you at contact range.
Here's the bottom line.
First: If you are able, get to a Krav Maga studio for a solid six months of real training. 1 class per week doesn't do you much good. One class per day, six days per week, for six months. Two classes each day - more better. I know most people can't commit to a 60-90 minute class every night. But try to find a way.
Next: The US Army MACP (Modern Army Combatives Program) is my recommendation for most of you who plan to train together in small groups. The primary reason I recommend MACP is because there is plenty of information available publicly for graduate-level study in SOCP (Special Operations Combatives Program), which is essentially geared for troops in full kit. I would suggest to you that if you ever face a stack, you'll probably be faced with an incoming team of guys who have trained, on some level, in some variation, of the SOCP system - plus your room/building-clearing techniques.
If you never plan to fight in full kit, MACP is still a solid, well-documented system of techniques, you just don't have to bother with the SOCP aspect. If you never plan to fight in full kit, you can also consider more fighting system options.
MCMAP: The Marine Corps Martial Arts Program is also a fundamentally solid system, with plenty of public documentation so small groups can adopt the system and work on developing skills.
Everyone: Krav for 6 months.
Teams/Militia: MACP/SOCP or MCMAP.
What about "MMA" schools and single-system schools such as Aiki or Brazilian Ju-Jutsu? You'll have to invest too many years in any single system to become combat proficient with them. The two .mil programs above include many techniques from several systems, assembled in a logical order that cuts away a lot of what you don't need to know to stay alive in a sudden scrum. They are, for all intents and purposes, MMA systems.
Downside to current .mil systems: First let me make it clear - there are more pros than cons regarding the .mil systems. My complaint with them is that they are designed more for a "Peacekeeping" force than for killing the enemy with an economy of motion and energy. Without a doubt anyone who is proficient in MACP/SOCP or MCMAP will fuck up your day if you tangle with him for too long. However, a man proficient in the Combatives taught by Fairbairn, Sykes, Applegate, Biddle and others in WWII will kill most MACP/SOCP & MCMAP fighters, most of the time.
Is the Fairbairn & Company system "better" than the modern .mil programs. As a whole, for killing enemies at close range in the shortest amount of time - yes. But you have to understand that there are Fairbairn & Company techniques in the .mil programs - but they are not the driving force of the systems. The Mission since the days of Fairbairn & Donovan has changed within our military, and that Mission shift is what drives the current curriculum. Believe me, the troops in the field when WWIII gets truly ugly, will shed most of their .mil CQB training and settle on about a dozen quick, lethal techniques when they get into bayonet range.
Where can you go to learn the techniques taught by Fairbairn & Company? Not too many places in America, today. Seattle. Prescott, Arizona. That's really about it.
Unless you are coming to Idaho...
III Percent Society, here.
Posted by K at 8:00 AM