History of the Modern Army Combatives Program
This paper traces the development of the Modern Army Combatives Program (MACP) from the earliest forms of hand-to-hand combat in ancient civilizations through its codification for American military forces in the twentieth century. It examines how a 1995 directive to revitalize martial arts training prompted a committee review of global combat systems, ultimately leading to the adoption of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu from the Gracie Academy as the foundation of the new program. The paper also covers the program's spread through Ranger units and Officer Candidate training, its codification in Field Manual FM 3-24.150 in 2002, and its eventual adoption by the U.S. Air Force and Marine Corps.
- Hand-to-Hand Combat: Definition and Scope: Defines hand-to-hand combat and military combatives
- Historical Origins of Military Combatives: Ancient roots and early American codification
- The 1995 Committee and the Search for a New System: 1995 directive prompts global review of combat systems
- Adopting Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and Building the Program: Gracie Academy training shapes new Army program
- Spreading the System Through the Army: Rangers and officer schools diffuse the new doctrine
- The Modern Army Combatives Program as Official Doctrine: MACP adopted across U.S. military branches
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper follows a clear chronological structure, moving logically from ancient combat origins to the formal codification of modern doctrine, making it easy for readers to track the program's evolution.
- It grounds claims in specific institutional sources — Army field manuals, National Guard bureau documents, and an Army Command and General Staff College report — lending credibility to the historical narrative.
- The paper effectively connects individual decisions (such as the committee's choice to train at the Gracie Academy) to broader organizational outcomes, showing cause-and-effect reasoning throughout.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates institutional history writing: rather than focusing on individual figures, it traces how a bureaucratic process — a committee review, cross-cultural comparison of combat systems, and phased implementation — produced a lasting change in official military doctrine. This approach shows students how policy-level decisions can be analyzed as historical events.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a definitional section establishing key terminology (hand-to-hand combat, combatives, close combat). It then surveys ancient and early-modern precedents before pivoting to the 1995 reform effort. Two body sections detail the committee's selection process and the Ranger-led diffusion of the new system. The conclusion documents the program's formal adoption as U.S. Army doctrine and its spread to other service branches.
Hand-to-Hand Combat: Definition and Scope
Hand-to-hand combat is a deadly or non-deadly physical encounter between two or more persons at grappling distance without the use of weapons (U.S. Army Combatives, 2012). The term refers mainly to military engagements in battle but also applies to unarmed physical confrontations between two or more persons, such as between police officers and civilians. When an encounter occurs beyond grappling distance, it is called close combat; when firearms or other ranged weapons used by military personnel are involved, it is referred to as close quarter battle. Combatives are military martial art combat systems applied specifically to hand-to-hand combat training (U.S. Army Combatives, 2012).
Historical Origins of Military Combatives
Hand-to-hand combat is the most ancient form of confrontation in human history (U.S. Army Combatives, 2012). Each culture developed its own form or method — including boxing, wrestling, gladiatorial tournaments, and jousting — in ancient Rome and throughout the Middle Ages. Chinese soldiers trained in this type of encounter as early as the reign of the Zhou Dynasty, from 1022 to 256 BC. Despite major technological advancements — including gunpowder, the machine gun during the Russo-Japanese War, and trench warfare in World War I — hand-to-hand combat training remained part of military preparation.
William Ewart Fairbairn and Eric Anthony Sykes were the first to codify American combatives. They helped teach police officers and marines a quick, simple, and effective hand-to-hand combat system for melee situations. Fairbairn called it the Defendu system, which he later revised into a method of rapid close-combat engagement he called "gutter fighting." Rex Applegate, a U.S. military close combat instructor, subsequently adopted and expanded this method for teaching to U.S. military and paramilitary forces. The British Commandos, the Devil's Brigade, the OSS, U.S. Army Rangers, and Marine Raiders all provided similar training. Applegate documented this new training approach in his book Kill or Get Killed (U.S. Army Combatives, 2012).
The 1995 Committee and the Search for a New System
An order to re-energize martial arts training in 1995 revealed the need for a more effective program (National Guard, 2011; Blanton, 2008; Curtez, 2012). In response, the commanding officer formed a committee to develop a replacement system and appointed SSG to lead it. In reviewing successful programs from around the world, the committee found that countries with indigenous national combatives programs tended to produce more capable fighters. Among the nations studied were Korea with Tae Kwon Do, Japan with Judo, and Thailand with Muay Thai.
Russia was not on the list of countries with a broadly trained population in martial arts, but its SOMBO system showed great promise, as it had been developed specifically for military application. The committee was drawn to the SOMBO's foundation in Judo and Greco-Roman wrestling. They found it similar to wrestling and relatively easy to learn, more adaptable to differences in size and strength, and structured in a way that allowed for progressive advanced training. On the whole, the committee concluded that the new system they were seeking should be based on grappling (National Guard, 2011; Blanton, 2008; Curtez, 2012).
References
Blanton, J. F. (2008). Hand-to-hand combatives in the U.S. Army. U.S. Army Command and General Staff College. Retrieved July 12, 2012, from
Curtez, R. (2012). The history of the modern army combatives program. Army Combatives: Army Combatives Program. Retrieved July 12, 2012, from
National Guard. (2011). The history of modern army combatives. National Guard Bureau. Retrieved July 12, 2012, from
U.S. Army Combatives. (2012). About hand-to-hand combat. USArmyCombatives.com. Retrieved July 15, 2012, from
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.