Thread: U.S. Army MMA
6/07/2005 12:07pm, #11
Think about situations in Iraq right now.
I would suspect that many instances that soldiers deal with is an escalating use of force in more of a police action role. Sure they are in gunfights. But more often they are probably in a heated argument with a civilian that they have to control, detain, or move. In short, much of the work done in Iraq is police work. And obviously shooting everyone in every situtation is not an option.
So in terms of practical applicability I would say that MMA style training would prepare them better than standard BS.
6/07/2005 12:16pm, #12
I agree that MA training probably does more to develop a warrior mentality than shooting. However, in a combat zone I'd rather be confident in my ability to consistently hit my target at 200 meters, than my ability to apply a JUJI GATAME.
6/07/2005 12:19pm, #13
Never underestimate the power of juji gatame.
6/07/2005 12:20pm, #14
6/07/2005 12:36pm, #15
Guy Who Pays the Bills and Gets the Death Threats
- Join Date
- Jun 1998
- Cow Town
- MMA (Retired)
The current military doctrine is to use overwhelming technology (better weapons with greater range/accuracy) to destroy the enemy. But the military isn't stupid, and recognizes that you're occasionally going to end up fighting hand-to-hand, and also has always recognized the value of "alive" training.
Hence, why MMA-based cirriculum is appealing. The more you fight, the better you get at it.
6/07/2005 12:38pm, #16
But they get an XP bonus modifier for being in Iraq depending on MOS.
6/07/2005 12:40pm, #17
I understand marksmanship is not being replaced. My point is that if the army is looking for ways to improve the effectiveness of its soldiers, I think there are much better ways than putting them through 20 or 30 hrs. of MMA training. I would begin by attempting to raise the marksmanship skill of the average soldier to that of the average Marine.
6/07/2005 12:47pm, #18
Also, if it were something other than an abbreviated course in hand-to-hand, I'd think it were awesome.
If it were something required to be undertaken by every member in a combat capacity for the entire term of enlistment, so as to become a part of the military culture, I'd think it were a great development.
But, I guess they have to start somewhere.
6/07/2005 6:45pm, #19See, I'm not sure how much I understand this. I've been doing MA for a much longer amount of time than the length of this Army program, but I'd feel pretty helpless going unarmed against someone with an AK 47 or RPK. I mean, unless the RPK man is going to be stupid enough to walk up to me when he could just as easily hose me down from 25 feet away, the martial arts background is still kind of a moot point. Like, if you had Soviet machine gun with a big drum of ammunition, and your enemy was unarmed, why would you take a single step towards your enemy when you could just shoot him from a distance?
What if your enemy DOESN'T have a machine gun, and neither do you?
Also, the Army is actually trying to take steps to increase the troops' ability as riflemen at the moment as well. For instance, new recruits are now required to learn to strip and care for an M16 or M4 much earlier in the program and from then on carry the rifle with them for most of the day (maybe all.) They load the rifles with blanks so that negligent discharges will be loud and obvious, then dare the recruits to carry these rifles safely. That's a HUGE improvement.
(No, I don't know much about the military, but I know enough about guns. Forcing people to ingrain safe practices into their daily routine is a fantastic idea.)
6/07/2005 6:49pm, #20Originally Posted by lawdog
***ears perk up***