UnderGround Forums
 

SoldierGround >> Changes to MACP Program...


9/11/07 11:40 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
durnil
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 11-Sep-07
Member Since: 11/08/2006
Posts: 18
1) Fort Bragg is lucky to have Yurk. And Yurk is lucky to be at a post that recognizes the value of the program. I am sure this is the product of Yurk's dedication. This is sadly not the case at all posts in the Army. There several thousand soldiers here in Kansas, among them current Level IVs, Level IIIs, and ALL ARMY CHAMPIONS that would have not received this training without the involvement of civilian instructors. 2) I personally have witnessed civilian instructors conducting certifications with no job security, no health insurance, no benefits and for pay not comparable to teaching gigs with 1/3 less hours. Instructors have quit jobs, left their homes and moved hundreds of miles for the amazing privilege to serve those who serve our country. Also keep in mind not all civilians involved are not without experience in the military. What of their work, talent and experience? 3) All civilian instructors who certify Level Is and IIs are training their replacements when they train soldiers. That is the healthy product of our work. The question is when the present level of quality can be matched with an all military instructor model....Army wide.
9/12/07 10:04 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MMABORIQUA
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 12-Sep-07
Member Since: 08/17/2007
Posts: 5
My ideas are the same as many of the other people that want to take MACP to its next step. But I think the only to get it there is not makeing new gmicks to get soldiers to train. It is to get commanders at the higher levels to support the program. When commander are getting asked why the only have x minimal number or level 1and level 2 much like when they have there MEDPROS low or there numbers are not where they need to be. So they hold a mass formation ask who is level 1 and 2 and why they are not trained. When they have to answer to the Division commander on why they are not at 70% of solldiers under them trained level 1 and level 2. When they are getting asked Why the dont have a TOURNAMENT on the calendar. That is when I will feel the program is grown and we need to get to that point before we get a little ahead of ourselfs with tabs, belts,ect. But I still think we are heading in the right direction all we need is a big push from someone that has more pull then a level 3 SGT. Marcano
9/12/07 4:23 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
durnil
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 12-Sep-07
Member Since: 11/08/2006
Posts: 19
I also support the creation of division/post positions of authority.
9/13/07 12:02 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
DaveBarron
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 13-Sep-07
Member Since: 02/07/2005
Posts: 137
At the end of the day the point of the program is facilitate unit training. Unit training has nothing to do with certification, other than planning and oversite. Unit training must be conducted by leaders and troops. The idea of having a post instructor has more to do with assisting and advising units on conducting realistic, safe training that is METL specific. There are great civilian instructors that can help units get better with high end training, however, unit leaders are the ones who must plan for and conduct METL training. Dave
9/13/07 2:55 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
durnil
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 13-Sep-07
Member Since: 11/08/2006
Posts: 20
Daddy Dave, I couldn't agree more. I hope that the ASIs really provide some more teeth to get the right people in the right places. Guidance on a post level in understanding the specific needs and challenges is essential in providing good quality instruction that can be available and sustainable. -Dave
9/13/07 10:02 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
JSMHP
9 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 13-Sep-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 2644
^^^ is correct both daves
9/14/07 11:04 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
DBrallier
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 14-Sep-07
Member Since: 09/12/2007
Posts: 0
This is my first post on here so hopefully I can make a little bit of sense. First I would like to say I have read all of the threads and everyone has great points and I don't know all of you on here but I "know of" you and really respect what you all have to say. Being here on Fort Riley I have had the great pleasure of working with Mr. Durnil and Mr. Menke and have learned a great deal from both of them in just a few months. Having said that after reading some of these posts I think some people are losing focus on what determines a successful combatives program. Some people assume because a post sends 12 or 14 guys to fight in a tournament and do really well that the post has a great program. All that means is that they have 14 good fighters and an excellent coach to turn them into better fighters. What we should remain focused on is training the Soldiers that are deploying and need these skills to destroy the people that are trying to destroy them. So the definition of a post with a successful program should be one that has units training at the lowest level all the way up to the Division Commander. That training should include all types of scenario based training that is unit METL specific like SFC Barron stated. Unfortunately here we have a Division that puts emphasis only on having all troops level 1 certified prior to deployment (which we all know will never happen) rather than integrating combatives into real world scenarios. Unfortunately Dave Durnil was limited by his employer to only doing certification and NOTHING else, which gives us highly trained level 1's and 2's but no system to ensure units on post are training to standard. Not trying to bash tournaments as I'm participating in All-Army myself this year but we just need to keep focused on all aspects of a good program. As for civilians as instructors, I think Yurk has some valid points and definetely believe the Army has to be autonomous. HOWEVER civilians in the correct role working in conjunction with a level 4 army guy could bring your program to a whole new level, so I do think they should continue to have a role. Possibly the Army guy filling the NCOIC / OIC role and the civilian as an advisor / QA-QC guy. Just my thoughts, go easy on me.
9/15/07 1:13 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
JasonKeaton
3 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 15-Sep-07
Member Since: 03/12/2002
Posts: 2324
Good points all around

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.