Help Me out Here: MACP = Not battlefield effective?
I didn't know exactly where to post this, so Mods feel free to move as needed.
So I am in a semi-pissing contest with some guy on martial talk about whether or not the Modern Army Combatives Program is effective on the battlefield.
Gist of the discussion is as follows:
Him; MACP is nothing but MMA/Combat Sports which has rules and is limited by those rules which hinders your ability to save your ass for real. It can't be used effectively in all the gear and armour.
Him; i was a Ranger for 4 yrs at Benning, been involved in martial arts my whole life, have instructor certs in some, been a bouncer, I know what works.
Him; better to heel stomp the knee, eye gouge, crush the larnynx, etc.
My argument is that given the constraints of time to teach the material, they picked the best methods that can be recalled when TSHTF. And Matt Larsen would disagree with him.
I then posted a story from a few years ago where a guy used the clinch and threw some uppercuts/knees against a bad guy that helped him until his buddy showed up and they shot said bad guy.
So am I wrong here, is MACP ineffective in the field? I would be interested in hearing from the active duty fellows (paging Gezere) on this.
Thead to be found here: