Why do a lot of units not like training soldiers in combatives?

2022-11-05T14:06:27-04:00

Is it conflicting issues? Afraid of the established pecking order? Worried about soldiers getting hurt? Don’t think it’s relevant? I’m curious to know. If you comment and just wanna start drama and be insulting then do not comment.

Response by SFC David Reid, M.S, PHR, SHRM-CP, DTM made Nov 5 at 2022 2:12 PM

2022-11-05T14:12:16-04:00

I think they are afraid of injuries
and overall mood of conducting battle task skills!

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Nov 5 at 2022 2:39 PM

2022-11-05T14:39:57-04:00

SSG Private RallyPoint Member Combatives? I'm a Liberal Hippy Peacenick! Also a Bad Tempered Kraut, Bad Tempered Scotsman. "Green Hat" Combat Systems Training Team for Electronic and Information Warfare. On Three Security Alert Teams, #1 Shooter On the First. Don't Look for Easy Answers!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 5 at 2022 3:01 PM

2022-11-05T15:01:52-04:00

1. Commanders don't like their Soldiers getting hurt. Combatives have a high injury rate, even higher when you have young Soldiers with big egos. Even higher when you have unqualified instructors working on the ground without mats.
2. Most units don't have anyone qualified to instruct. A commander isn't going sign off on a risk assessment for training where there isn't a qualified instructor.
3. Most large posts have a fight house where you can arrange training, units simply don't arrange the training. Commanders aren't going to dictate what you do for PT, so the failure is on the NCOs who don't arrange the training.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Nov 5 at 2022 8:03 PM

2022-11-05T20:03:10-04:00

To me combative training is an afterthought. You need good instructors and time for repetitions to master moves and techniques. I have seen little invested in the program thus little positive results.

Response by SFC Casey O'Mally made Nov 5 at 2022 8:10 PM

2022-11-05T20:10:32-04:00

My answer is simple: When?

We already do not have enough time on the training calendar to accomplish all of the necessary training to maintain proficiency in ALL of a Commander's METL, PLUS all of the 350-1 training, PLUS rifle range, prep for an ACFT that changes every 3 months, white cycle taskings, higher echelon good idea fairies, and also have an actual day off every now and then to be with family.

Combatives is ELECTIVE training. Yes, it can be done during PT time. But you show me a GOOD Combatives training session - INCLUDING all of the necessary safety instructions, AND including proper warm up and cool down to prevent (or at least reduce) musculoskeletal injuries - that can be done in 45 minutes (by the time you fall in, report, listen to day's announcement, and then move to the actual training area) or maybe even less. I'll wait.

So, if we can't wedge it into the "normal" PT time, it means we are cutting in to other training time. For elective training. With VERY limited usefulness.

Yes, combatives CAN be the difference between life or death. But only in very specific, very limited, and highly unlikely circumstances.

I deployed to combat 4 times and to peacekeeping once. I have over 4 years deployed on real-world missions. Including my first deployment (the peacekeeping one) as an actual 11 bulletstopper. I have run only a few combat patrols, but I have run literally hundreds of logistical ones. I have also paricipated in a few dozen semi-clandestine ones in a "non-permissive" environment. I literally cannot count the number of times I have been shot at. And yet....

Not only have I never used combatives, I have never had the opportunity to do so. And no one I deployed with has either. At least not during my deployment with them. And that includes the folks in the SF unit doing all levels and types of missions. I am pretty damned sure *they* knew how, if they had needed to. But even they never needed to.

So why should we dedicate our precious, PRECIOUS training time to this mostly useless skill?

Response by COL Randall C. made Nov 6 at 2022 12:16 PM

2022-11-06T12:16:52-05:00

I'm very much with SFC Private RallyPoint Member's comments about time being a finite resource.

When I was a Battalion Commander, I remember telling my Brigade leadership during a QTB that my job was to manage failure.

After getting the stare of death from him I went on to explain that the requirements I had exceeded the amount of time I had to accomplish them and it was my responsibility to determine what tasks could be dropped without (too many) consequences and which ones were critical tasks that had to be done.

So, why no emphasis on combatives? While this would be an unpopular opinion to some, I really didn't care about them and my O6/O8 didn't care about it either. Sure, it might be a fun thing to do for the Soldiers (maybe), but from the leadership side, I cared about mission accomplishment, resource allocation, and Soldier development.

Frankly, combatives don't fit into any of those categories for me. I'm not saying that it would be the same for some other unit that would focus on a close-combat mission, but for me, having a focus on a 'fun activity' would just be a waste of resources.

Response by 1SG Rick Seekman made Nov 6 at 2022 12:37 PM

2022-11-06T12:37:45-05:00

Injuries, unqualified instructors.

Response by CSM Darieus ZaGara made Nov 7 at 2022 5:43 AM

2022-11-07T05:43:09-05:00

All that need be done is that a motivated NCO look into the installation resources and internal personnel, after analysis, determine viability and discuss with the 1SG and commander. Submit all of the right paperwork, show the work behind your request, manage within the mid term training plan and life should be good. Leadership likes to see that you have stayed within all of the training guidelines and have a plan to resource the entire process.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 7 at 2022 10:56 AM

2022-11-07T10:56:57-05:00

My eyes are starting to open as I go on in my time in the military. Granted, it's limited as a reservist, but I think I am starting to get it.

Units are measured on a metrics of mission and readiness standards they are required to meet. That drives everything in the DoD. If combatives are not a critical measure of the responsibilities of those that control the training of the unit then it falls into many of the "nice to have" if we can get it things in life.

All things required to feed into executing combative training are going to be negatively impacted as well because each and every single one of those takes time and resources as well. All that is Time and Resources needed to just continue to try and barely meet the measurements commanders are evaluated upon.

Make it a measurement of leadership's ability to succeed in their career and mountains will be moved. Otherwise it's staying at the bottom of priorities.

***************
I saw this in my civilian life as well. I administered the bonus pay outs for sales staff. Like a light switch when bonus payout rules are changed, even if the intent is something else all staff members follow the path of least resistance to activities that increase their paycheck with the least effort. Be that actual sales of indented product, or manipulation of overlooked administrative processes.

Everyone goes through the path of least resistance that best serves their means to personal success (organizationally speaking).

Response by SSG Eric Blue made Nov 7 at 2022 2:17 PM

2022-11-07T14:17:12-05:00

THAT is a GREAT QUESTION! I could have easily trained back when I was in! I fought to get Combatives and never got it, but they would immediately send whoever was getting out of the military in my unit.

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made Nov 8 at 2022 12:55 AM

2022-11-08T00:55:34-05:00

I remember when XVIII Airborne Corps used to focus on Small Arms Marksmanship, to the point that there was a Marksmanship Training Unit on Fort BRAGG (1986-87 I worked there). Then Gen John Foss took over XVIII Abn Corps and thought that training a cadre of Small Arms SMEs and the post having its own Sniper School as well as Competitive Marksmanship teams was a waste of manpower. So the 82d lost 20+ Sniper School slots per quarter, small arms marksmanship was no longer apriority on post and much institutional knowledge went away.

It is the work of a "Good Idea Fairy" that causes things like this. Like TRADOC canceling heavy machinegun training in the early 2000s for all IET Soldiers. Then a unit gets ambushed in Iraq and the M-2 HB Machineguns mounted on their vehicles were not loaded correctly, headspaced or timed properly and none of the E-4s and below actually knew how to employ them. TRADOC had canceled that Combat Critical skill training because a G.I.F. someplace thought that IET needed 8 more hours of Consideration of Others Training but could not find the money to extend BCT/OSUT by one day...Something had to go and it was Ma Deuce and Mk-19 (I was there at Fort Benning when the committee was shut down.) I along with several other NCOs had to stand it back up right before I was allowed to retire.

The US Army has a habit of listening to Good Idea Fairies on a regular basis. Decisions like the ARPAT Digital ACU, Getting rid of the .45 ACP Pistol, the list goes on and on. This is why the Good Idea Fairy is such a danger to the Army. If you find one, squash that little bastard before he can strike again.

Response by CSM Richard StCyr made Nov 8 at 2022 1:16 PM

2022-11-08T13:16:01-05:00

The main reason I encountered was units not having a trained NCO to properly conduct the training.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 10 at 2022 6:32 PM

2022-11-10T18:32:38-05:00

All the answers in here "There's no time" or "Too many injuries" or "You won't ever use it"

OK, let's look at the data from a Safety officer standpoint: ultimate Frisby and off duty sports and rec account for 50% of non battle class C and D injuries... so that's out the window. Next

"There's no time" and yet there's time for unlimited PowerPoint on MRT and lean six sigma buisness courses that have ZERO to do with killing the enemy (your real job).

So let's look at it this way. It's a human weapon system enhancement. The Airforce took close in weapons systems of aircraft and found out that they needed them desperately in Air to air combat. To much dependence on tech and not enough training on what to do if it all falls apart. Tell me how lean 6 sigma green belt training or MRT fits into you fighting for your life and only having a Kevlar. We haven't fought near peer adversaries in a while, but we will and we may be short listed.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 10 at 2022 10:32 PM

2022-11-10T22:32:03-05:00

I will preface my comment by saying I've literally never done Combatives.
My understanding is much like the ACFT is Army Cross Fit, Combatives is Army martial arts.

Neither directly relates to unit mission effectiveness.

Response by CW5 Michael Tuman made Nov 17 at 2022 11:00 AM

2022-11-17T11:00:06-05:00

1. If you get that close to the enemy you are pretty much wrong. Try calling in air support, a fire mission, use your rifle, use your pistol, or fix your bayonet. 2. They train in pt clothes. What happened to all your Battle Rattle try fighting hand to hand in that. 3. Some people are perverts and no one wants to wrestle around with them. 4. And Finally, the reason to end all reasons the ultimate mike drop COVID. I hope this helped.

Response by 1SG John V. made Jan 7 at 2023 9:27 PM

2023-01-07T21:27:18-05:00

Combative kicked off after I retired (May 1995). However I would think Soldiers getting hurt would be a major consideration

Response by SSG Rubin William's Jr made Jan 12 at 2023 6:03 PM

2023-01-12T18:03:00-05:00

The military isn't the same anymore. The reserves or the NG don't train like they use too! Sad.... It's like we lost touch with being the super power of the past!!!!!!!