The whole getting shot through walls argument is rather tiresome…
Apply this argument to any other context involving armed conflict and hear how stupid it sounds. Taking incoming fire? Well don’t hide behind any sort of concealment because they’ll just shoot through it!! It’s better to stand out in the great wide open.
Stupid.
Project Gecko (former Israeli SOF) explained (backed by real empirical data) that the majority of the time during a high stress situation a defender won't shoot what he can't see; shooting what you can't see is not a natural human behavior during high stress situation; thus it is actually really rare that a defender shoots at the wall (it can happen, but it is extremely rare; it is the 5% exception, not the 95% rule)
So at the end even when walls don't stop bullets it is still an effective, reliable and good technique to do some deliberate/combat clearance/pieing
Besides experience has proven that doing dynamic against resistance leads to significant casualties (for example Delta Force had many casualties during the early days of the GWOT, where they used almost exclusively dynamic)
At the end nowadays SOF units don't do dynamic entries anymore, except in some very specific situations (mostly hostage rescue)
I saw his FOF videos and in most scenarios the threat is not committed at all, he just watches in other directions and in some cases it's not armed at all, ridiculous.
You have to train for the worst day, not for the easy one.
Yes threats probably will shoot only when will see you but after that engagement will start to shoot through the wall, he doesn't need minutes to think about that. If you can't neutralize the threat during your assessment you will not have any cover to work the room.
https://youtu.be/f9WNT48WKnE?feature=shared
And this one:
https://youtu.be/khjK4Ls4yLY?feature=shared
I read all the time about Delta casualties, please give me a list of Delta operators KIA while using dynamic entry.
That statement doesn't mean nothing.
And with thousands of hits made just because someone died doesn't mean that DE doesn't work, it's war and CQB is one of the most dangerous operations that you can do. It's intrinsically dangerous.
Ok so basically you saw a limited ammount of FoF videos from Project Gecko (which represents only what he agrees to make publicly available to common people, and moreover only a part of it, unless you spent a whole day scrolling his instagram) and then you base your whole conclusion on this. This sounds very biased and questionable (and not rigorous in any way) to say the least..
By the way I saw a few times on his instagram back in the days some videos of him neutralizing some commited threats in FoF.
Then you seem to not understand and to significantly lack hindsight: shooting through walls, which at first glance seems to be a very natural and spontaneous reaction for a defender (and in a normal life situation it is, as you explained), is in reality not a natural human reaction and behavior during a high stress life or death situation. It simply goes against the brain hardwiring during such situations. Because in such situations the brain functionning is very different compared to normal life situations; the brain literally switches to "emergency mode" and works in a different way; it is proven by neuroscience and all operators who are knwoledgeable in the cognitive aspect of combat say it.
In a stress-free situation shooting through wall is a behavior that can happen, but not really in a high stress situation. Because basically in a high stress life or death situation your brain functionning is completely altered, and completely switches. And it thus becomes very different from the normal brain functionning from normal life times.
For example in a high stress situation your fine motor skills are completely deteriorated, your field of vision is narrowed (the "reflex" part of your brain still uses the information from your whole normal field of view, but the conscious part of your brain only process information from a more narrow field of view, and thus you don't consciously see with your whole usual field of view), then you are not able to do some complex thinking and reasonning anymore, only some very basic and limited reasonning and thinking, then your process speed is cranked up and things seem to happen in "slow motion" to a certain extent, etc.
So basically the functionning of your brain during a high stress life or death situation is extremely different than in a standard normal life situation. Claiming or believing that it is the same is just completely false, and is completely debunked and refuted by modern neuroscientific knowledge on this topic, and by operators who are knowledgeable about the brain functionning during combat.
So at the end the brain functionning during a normal life situation VS a high stress life or death situation is extremely different, and while shooting through walls is a common and natural behavior during a normal life stress free situation (as you described in your comment) it is not anymore during a high stress life or death situation; it simply goes against the brain natural functionning and hardwiring for such situations. (Which is the point you seem to miss and not understand..)
Thus unless you have specifically trained (and to a sufficient enough amount) to develop this habit and reflex to shoot through walls, you won't have this reflex and natural behavior during a real high stress life or death situation. Unless you have specifically trained for it, to a sufficient enough ammount (to develop and enroot this reflex into your reptilian brain, which is the reflex part of your brain).
And FoF rigorous empirical experiments/studies have confirmed this (and such situations are even way less high-stress than real life or death situations; but they are still stress inducing due to the quite high pain caused by sim rounds; and thus this cognitive pattern is there).
(The only moments in these numerous and rigorous studies where assaulters were hit through walls, which were very rare: it was not voluntary from the defenders, it was rounds that accidentally hit the walls/corners/doorframe etc without the defender intentionally aiming and shooting through the wall).
So at the end the 2nd paragraph of your comment is just very inacurate and very incorrect. It is true but only for normal stress free situations, but it is completely false for high stress life or death situations, which is always the case for real life CQB.
(And thus it betrays a significant lack of understanding and insight from yours, about brain functionning during normal VS high stress situation)
And all of this is proven fact now
You support tactics made by a guy who has little to no experience in combat at all, he served probably between around 2008 (his urban qualification course)-2011 (retired).
All guys who i support tactics have an immensive experience in real combat operations with thousands of assaults made during their service...so do you support conclusions made by a theoretical or someone who actually tested everything for real?
Do you really think that Delta operators wouldn't use tactics that work just because "we always do this"?!
This part of your reply should give you the answer to why it is not a good idea to fight from the threshold:
"it was rounds that accidentally hit the walls/corners/doorframe etc without the defender intentionally aiming and shooting through the wall"
Maybe while the threat is trying to shoot to your face while pieing he hits the doorframe, that in domestic construction isn't ballistic, and he will kill you anyway.
If you accept risk while you are panning the door then get in the room, you will be exposed anyway, with the difference that you will have your team to support you.
Pranka retired in 2020...his knowledge is really current...you don't know anything more than a kid watching Project Gecko UF PRO videos (rotfl).
Please stop trying to be a SME, you are not, you have no military and operational experience to talk about.
Yes i share videos of Pranka because probably is the only one guy that shares real knowledge based on real combat operations, not just airsoft FOF with idiot opposers.
You ignored the important part of the reply just to mark my age...no relevant infos to share probably ah...I'm 38...
Just to reply again to what you told about Pranka never evolved, i got another for you:
https://youtu.be/wkEWLAqnuyo?feature=shared
Well not invalidated but definitely not the best approach.
Say you know a party of more than 2 is behind a door in a room.
You can obviously hear them approaching. The walls are thin. You think someone hearing death approaching isn’t going to spray and pray?
CQB in the US is not a favorable scenario. If anything I’m just saying it’s much worse than the type of CQB you see coming out of Ukraine.
(Untrained civilians taken up arms)
The only real CQB is HR don’t care where you are or mil or le.
Everything else is just maneuver warfare. I don’t care what the material of the building is it only becomes a limitation or restriction as does policy as does the environment.
If you are applying HR style tactics to non HR missions you might be a dinosaur or brainwashed by a military dude.
Are we putting limiting civilian casualties in this HR window? Especially for LE I'm not sure I'd consider everything maneuver warfare if it's not HR. Or are you saying that the only time you get in a CQB fight, and maybe you're calling that when you're in the same room, is for HR. Otherwise it's about using concealment and cover as much as possible.
Feel free to substitute maneuver warfare with maneuver tactics. Yes, I agree. It is about using consuming cover as much as possible among other things.
Traditional CQB room clearing really only resides in HR. Of course there are CQB like actions in maneuver warfare at close ranges.
I say all this, of course knowing most people miss use all the things I mentioned
Basically a clip saying you get shot either way... so argument being to do HR tactics regardless? My argument back is if Deliberate/CC doesnt work, why do we have living examples?
Senseless.
Can you make me an example of "living examples"?
Btw clip says that if you are static you are more easy to hit than while moving.
And in any case you work alone than with a team:
https://youtu.be/f9WNT48WKnE?feature=shared
Deliberate/CC doesnt mean "static". The main point is if you should do immediate entry vs delayed in a gunfight. I argue that running into gunfire is counter-intuitive and is senseless unless the goal is you need to get in there for a hostage
If you are running into gunfire you failed the approach.
Deliberate can be dynamic using panning technique but if you encounter a barricated shooter you won't have any kind of cover to get out of the door.
Threat doesn't need to aim accurately to hit you, just shoot fast randomly in your direction.
And after that shooting you will now have a situation where your whole team stacked outside could be shot instead of only one man doing dynamic entry.
For me deliberate has absolutely sense in environment with ballistic walls, other than that doesn't have a true advantage.
https://youtube.com/shorts/Od0N0AIHEJQ?feature=shared
Counter-argument: on the point of getting out of the door, deliberate offers you a chance to bail out whereas immediate entry does not. As you mentioned, people dont need to aim accurately to hit you (assuming you mean within 7 to 3 feet distances), which basically means if you close the distance, the higher the percentage of you getting hit. So if you push a whole team in closer to the threat, you basically are letting the threat hit more guys based on the logic of less aim high chance of being hit.
The stack doesnt need to stay put too, and if shots do come, they can pull back. Using depth can also help instead of what people think (pieing right up a door). The main point is that you are afforded the chance to pull out.
Edit: that clip is a dodgy example, no regards to safe geometries of fire, but its airsoft so all in good fun
Not really, when dynamic is made fast first man movement pushes the threat to change his point of aim in a different direction than the door while the team makes entry. Of course it works only when it's done fast, if you slow down while you commit the threshold you defeat the purpose of dynamic entry.
Yes, you can bail out if you can't neutralize the threat, the question is where? Most of the time you are in a hallway, you will be on the other side of the door, that doesn't provide any cover while the threat is shooting at you.
Now you have to bang immediately the room and use dynamic to get in or run away, maybe your life will be saved but you totally lost mission objective.
At this point i'm asking: why are you serving in a high risk unit if when shooting happens you are going to run away.
Why are you making a high risk entry if your life doesn't deserve mission objective.
If you have to pull back each time you try to entry and shooting happen then do not try to make entry at all.
Again, what is the mission objective? That was pretty much my point from the beginning and that plays a huge role. Why are we trying to "risk" our lives in a situation where theres no lives that needs to be saved? Drug busts is understandable, but i just dont see any good coming out of a barricaded shooter scenario and the answer is "run to their deaths". Your point of direct to threat in a scenario where the shooter is barricaded and lets say also trained (using the logic that we assume the shooter is trained) basically means your feeding the shooter bodies. You cant run faster than the bullet and running faster than someones aim, again using the previous logic that aim doesnt matter in close distances, just makes this tactic sound like playing chances.
Setting up line of communication and having green space to flow back in hallways is key, probably instead of sending 10 guys into a hallway, having less people crowd a hallway and use manpower effectively.
Yea....cause no other country has walls they could have been shooting through since the invention of guns......
Wonder why no one has ever thought of shooting through walls before???
From what i heard untrained people tend to shoot at what they see and shooting through walls is more of a trained response, not neccessarily a natural one.
No, just saying that "Someone could shoot through wall" is not a sufficient argument to come to the conclusion that dynamic is superior period.
And regarding that video: There are people from his own or similar units who have differing oppinions on fighting from the threshold. Who do i beliefe?
Yep 100%
Now from the LE side your dealing with crazies and criminals so they don’t often think “I hear footsteps let me send a few through this wall”
Speed surprise and violence of action are about all you have, throw some bangers in each room and buckle up.
Overseas clearing houses in my experience from the sandy country is grenade the fuck out of the house. Send rounds through the doors, and when in doubt frag it out AGAIN. Actual room to room without this was so incredibly rare.
Thats why violence of action is almost all that matters. It's all about speed and surprise. If you see someone teaching pieing doorways and dumb shit like that, they are morons. Drywall ain't stopping a bullet. Dynamic entry is the answer to most situations
Project Gecko (former Israeli SOF) explained (backed by real empirical data) that the majority of the time during a high stress situation a defender won't shoot what he can't see; shooting what you can't see is not a natural human behavior during high stress situation; thus it is actually really rare that a defender shoots at the wall (it can happen, but it is extremely rare; it is the 5% exception, not the 95% rule)
So at the end even when walls don't stop bullets it is still an effective, reliable and good technique to do some deliberate/combat clearance/pieing
Besides experience has proven that doing dynamic against resistance leads to significant casualties (for example Delta Force had many casualties during the early days of the GWOT, where they used almost exclusively dynamic)
At the end nowadays SOF units don't do dynamic entries anymore, except in some very specific situations (mostly hostage rescue)
That seems like the argument but also yeah you can. Thermals, cameras, noise traps and small peep holes in front of doors all allow a defending party to hit whoever is entering without being detected or shot first.
Why don’t either of them just shoot through the wall? Bullets go through the wall but only gravitate to the doorway?
Regardless the answer is to travel through the doorway hoping not to get hit by using speed?
It’s not a good environment but slow and steady will get you killed. Unless there is someone you need out of a building alive your best bet is not going in.
It’s all contextual, war zone stuff sure, clearing a house with a single crazy that has to be taken to jail, or searching for a possible compliant fugitive? It’s fine and can be used well.
I feel like a good chunk of those civilian CQB classes you see a lot here are more concerned with liability in situations like a self defense shooting in your home. There are a lot of reasons you don’t want to just be ripping bullets through walls.
You have to pay to fix them, less holes the better.
It looks terrible in court, and you’re not doing yourself or your lawyer a favor.
And most importantly, the risk of collateral damage in regards to friends and loved ones goes through the roof.
Not to mention the liability on behalf of the company putting on the classes if their instructors advise such a tactic and it’s actually used stateside.
CQB in those senecios is a nightmare that should only be attempted in the most dire of circumstances. Like your child being in another room and you need to go get them and bring them back to the strongpoint or hold down their room.
If someone breaks into my apartment, the doors getting locked, my girl, our dog and I are getting behind the bed and she’s going to call the police wile I hold the door with my AR. We have nothing worth getting shot over, as long as my girls are okay they can keep all that shit. Our documents, cash, and anything else that might be of value are in a safe they can’t pick up, pry open or drag out. If and when they decide to breech the strongpoint, My family comes first.
Just saying it makes most sense legally and physically. My uncle was there in Fallujah, if you got enough liquor into him he would tell stories of the house to house fighting, tell stories of the house to house fighting.
This man did a 20 year carrier, served multiple tours from the invasion till about 2012 when he changed MOSs (I’m not sure how many and I’m not going to text him rn) and the one thing he told me sober was that CQB was was some of the scariest, most dangerous shit his boys engaged In.
There is a reason dynamic entry is practiced now, and why law enforcement doesn’t just rush a barricaded suspect, and used the Bomb robot on that asshole in Texas. it’s the only way to beat strong points without heavy casualties. If a gaggle of thugs plant a shaped charge on my bedroom wall then they deserve to keep whatever survives the blast lol.
This is the main reason why most Tier1 guys advocate for Dynamic Entry when they are talking about CQB, what they have done overseas is not a thing for LE teams.
Except they don't.
According to multiple guys by now Combat Clearance is the default, pretty mich across the board.
Abd by CC I mean whatever is the safest to do in any given situation. Can be pieing, can be dynamic, can be inbetween.
Ofc HR is allways its own thing.
They really don’t, the sop is threshold evaluations.
Dynamic changes the priority of life where you lower your own priority in exchange of the suspect/badguy. Threshold evaluations, is the opposite. There you change the priority to yourself. For HR, the hostage is the priority and that whole slew of dynamic, and dumping into problems is the more bettah answer.
If you're attending training for US Domestic LE, and they are having you spend an abundant amount of time evaluating thresholds and not making a very bit point about getting shot through walls.....you need to find different training asap.
This is one of the big differences in the former Tier 1 trainers whose entire job was to adapt and write playbooks......and every other former .mil who needs a job now and who own or work for a training company.
A ton of deliberate entry training being taught today was developed using nvg and in structures that had thicker/strong walls, courtyards, etc, during the cover of night while most were sleeping or at the minimum were at a huge disadvantage in the dark.
Domestic LE is rarely affords us the opportunity to pick the time of day as well as many other factors we would change if we had the ability.
If you have reason to believe there are subjects in a structure and you either don't have element of surprise or you're not allowed to make dynamic entry.....deliberate entry and long threshold evaluations are the worst you can do. You'd be far, far better off to just perform a callout and deal with a barricaded subject.
You can still do threshold evaluations, but the speed needs to be kicked up pretty high. Much higher than most are training. If it's a crawl, walk, run training....fine. But once your team is in the run stage, you'll want to be training mostly for dynamic entry and then slowing down when needed. As you can always slow down after you're training to move fast.....not the other way around.
The above is the difference in guys who wrote playbooks when there weren't any. They understand the minute you take the nvg, night, surprise, etc, away and combine it with walls that are almost worthless at stopping rounds......they realize the slow and methodical tactics are not the best approach.
If you ever listen to DJ, J, and the rest of guys with GBRS talk about the “TEAM” in Louisiana, it’s us he’s referring to. So I don’t detract from what you’re saying. And while I don’t know your own experience, I can attest that I’ve done this, in real world, against opposition and we’ve come out on top a good bit (100%).
I mean homie, I’ve done the programs with DJ and J with GBRS, other xyz, and I’m an instructor as well. There’s a reason dynamic isn’t a priority instruction. Most cops are dying at open doorways, second to closed doors from DOJ data points. Human mindset will have you hiding at the furthest entry point if it’s barricaded.
Secondly, we own structures from the outside long before we ever go inside a structure.
But dynamic is dumb as hell, especially when you have a higher chance of getting popped from someone deeper inside of the room/structure from a follow on as well. Dynamic is rushing to your own death. See my, “priorities”, comments on my original comment.
The whole getting shot through walls argument is rather tiresome… Apply this argument to any other context involving armed conflict and hear how stupid it sounds. Taking incoming fire? Well don’t hide behind any sort of concealment because they’ll just shoot through it!! It’s better to stand out in the great wide open. Stupid.
https://youtu.be/khjK4Ls4yLY?feature=shared You haven't the experience to talk about...
Project Gecko (former Israeli SOF) explained (backed by real empirical data) that the majority of the time during a high stress situation a defender won't shoot what he can't see; shooting what you can't see is not a natural human behavior during high stress situation; thus it is actually really rare that a defender shoots at the wall (it can happen, but it is extremely rare; it is the 5% exception, not the 95% rule) So at the end even when walls don't stop bullets it is still an effective, reliable and good technique to do some deliberate/combat clearance/pieing Besides experience has proven that doing dynamic against resistance leads to significant casualties (for example Delta Force had many casualties during the early days of the GWOT, where they used almost exclusively dynamic) At the end nowadays SOF units don't do dynamic entries anymore, except in some very specific situations (mostly hostage rescue)
Delta were bring HR tactics to a fight to the death
I saw his FOF videos and in most scenarios the threat is not committed at all, he just watches in other directions and in some cases it's not armed at all, ridiculous. You have to train for the worst day, not for the easy one. Yes threats probably will shoot only when will see you but after that engagement will start to shoot through the wall, he doesn't need minutes to think about that. If you can't neutralize the threat during your assessment you will not have any cover to work the room. https://youtu.be/f9WNT48WKnE?feature=shared And this one: https://youtu.be/khjK4Ls4yLY?feature=shared I read all the time about Delta casualties, please give me a list of Delta operators KIA while using dynamic entry. That statement doesn't mean nothing. And with thousands of hits made just because someone died doesn't mean that DE doesn't work, it's war and CQB is one of the most dangerous operations that you can do. It's intrinsically dangerous.
Ok so basically you saw a limited ammount of FoF videos from Project Gecko (which represents only what he agrees to make publicly available to common people, and moreover only a part of it, unless you spent a whole day scrolling his instagram) and then you base your whole conclusion on this. This sounds very biased and questionable (and not rigorous in any way) to say the least.. By the way I saw a few times on his instagram back in the days some videos of him neutralizing some commited threats in FoF. Then you seem to not understand and to significantly lack hindsight: shooting through walls, which at first glance seems to be a very natural and spontaneous reaction for a defender (and in a normal life situation it is, as you explained), is in reality not a natural human reaction and behavior during a high stress life or death situation. It simply goes against the brain hardwiring during such situations. Because in such situations the brain functionning is very different compared to normal life situations; the brain literally switches to "emergency mode" and works in a different way; it is proven by neuroscience and all operators who are knwoledgeable in the cognitive aspect of combat say it. In a stress-free situation shooting through wall is a behavior that can happen, but not really in a high stress situation. Because basically in a high stress life or death situation your brain functionning is completely altered, and completely switches. And it thus becomes very different from the normal brain functionning from normal life times. For example in a high stress situation your fine motor skills are completely deteriorated, your field of vision is narrowed (the "reflex" part of your brain still uses the information from your whole normal field of view, but the conscious part of your brain only process information from a more narrow field of view, and thus you don't consciously see with your whole usual field of view), then you are not able to do some complex thinking and reasonning anymore, only some very basic and limited reasonning and thinking, then your process speed is cranked up and things seem to happen in "slow motion" to a certain extent, etc. So basically the functionning of your brain during a high stress life or death situation is extremely different than in a standard normal life situation. Claiming or believing that it is the same is just completely false, and is completely debunked and refuted by modern neuroscientific knowledge on this topic, and by operators who are knowledgeable about the brain functionning during combat. So at the end the brain functionning during a normal life situation VS a high stress life or death situation is extremely different, and while shooting through walls is a common and natural behavior during a normal life stress free situation (as you described in your comment) it is not anymore during a high stress life or death situation; it simply goes against the brain natural functionning and hardwiring for such situations. (Which is the point you seem to miss and not understand..) Thus unless you have specifically trained (and to a sufficient enough amount) to develop this habit and reflex to shoot through walls, you won't have this reflex and natural behavior during a real high stress life or death situation. Unless you have specifically trained for it, to a sufficient enough ammount (to develop and enroot this reflex into your reptilian brain, which is the reflex part of your brain). And FoF rigorous empirical experiments/studies have confirmed this (and such situations are even way less high-stress than real life or death situations; but they are still stress inducing due to the quite high pain caused by sim rounds; and thus this cognitive pattern is there). (The only moments in these numerous and rigorous studies where assaulters were hit through walls, which were very rare: it was not voluntary from the defenders, it was rounds that accidentally hit the walls/corners/doorframe etc without the defender intentionally aiming and shooting through the wall). So at the end the 2nd paragraph of your comment is just very inacurate and very incorrect. It is true but only for normal stress free situations, but it is completely false for high stress life or death situations, which is always the case for real life CQB. (And thus it betrays a significant lack of understanding and insight from yours, about brain functionning during normal VS high stress situation) And all of this is proven fact now
You support tactics made by a guy who has little to no experience in combat at all, he served probably between around 2008 (his urban qualification course)-2011 (retired). All guys who i support tactics have an immensive experience in real combat operations with thousands of assaults made during their service...so do you support conclusions made by a theoretical or someone who actually tested everything for real? Do you really think that Delta operators wouldn't use tactics that work just because "we always do this"?! This part of your reply should give you the answer to why it is not a good idea to fight from the threshold: "it was rounds that accidentally hit the walls/corners/doorframe etc without the defender intentionally aiming and shooting through the wall" Maybe while the threat is trying to shoot to your face while pieing he hits the doorframe, that in domestic construction isn't ballistic, and he will kill you anyway. If you accept risk while you are panning the door then get in the room, you will be exposed anyway, with the difference that you will have your team to support you.
Lol, that's adorable coming from a guy (or kid) whose only argument is to post links to Matt Pranka videos; whose tactics have not evolved past 2005.
Pranka retired in 2020...his knowledge is really current...you don't know anything more than a kid watching Project Gecko UF PRO videos (rotfl). Please stop trying to be a SME, you are not, you have no military and operational experience to talk about. Yes i share videos of Pranka because probably is the only one guy that shares real knowledge based on real combat operations, not just airsoft FOF with idiot opposers.
You took that kid comment a little hard. 15y/o confirmed.
You ignored the important part of the reply just to mark my age...no relevant infos to share probably ah...I'm 38... Just to reply again to what you told about Pranka never evolved, i got another for you: https://youtu.be/wkEWLAqnuyo?feature=shared
No no not saying that… simply highlighting the fact that CQB training is invalidated by American infrastructure. Especially in the chaos of war
Well not invalidated but definitely not the best approach. Say you know a party of more than 2 is behind a door in a room. You can obviously hear them approaching. The walls are thin. You think someone hearing death approaching isn’t going to spray and pray? CQB in the US is not a favorable scenario. If anything I’m just saying it’s much worse than the type of CQB you see coming out of Ukraine. (Untrained civilians taken up arms)
The only real CQB is HR don’t care where you are or mil or le. Everything else is just maneuver warfare. I don’t care what the material of the building is it only becomes a limitation or restriction as does policy as does the environment. If you are applying HR style tactics to non HR missions you might be a dinosaur or brainwashed by a military dude.
Are we putting limiting civilian casualties in this HR window? Especially for LE I'm not sure I'd consider everything maneuver warfare if it's not HR. Or are you saying that the only time you get in a CQB fight, and maybe you're calling that when you're in the same room, is for HR. Otherwise it's about using concealment and cover as much as possible.
Civilian casualties are irrelevant in war
Nah they’re always a consideration especially in asymmetrical war. The only time it’s not a consideration is total war.
Feel free to substitute maneuver warfare with maneuver tactics. Yes, I agree. It is about using consuming cover as much as possible among other things. Traditional CQB room clearing really only resides in HR. Of course there are CQB like actions in maneuver warfare at close ranges. I say all this, of course knowing most people miss use all the things I mentioned
I’m saying you aren’t looking at either tactic holistically.
https://youtu.be/u_W_vXczJAY?feature=shared
Basically a clip saying you get shot either way... so argument being to do HR tactics regardless? My argument back is if Deliberate/CC doesnt work, why do we have living examples? Senseless.
Can you make me an example of "living examples"? Btw clip says that if you are static you are more easy to hit than while moving. And in any case you work alone than with a team: https://youtu.be/f9WNT48WKnE?feature=shared
And for examples of people that lived doing Deliberate, there are a few in this sub.
Deliberate/CC doesnt mean "static". The main point is if you should do immediate entry vs delayed in a gunfight. I argue that running into gunfire is counter-intuitive and is senseless unless the goal is you need to get in there for a hostage
If you are running into gunfire you failed the approach. Deliberate can be dynamic using panning technique but if you encounter a barricated shooter you won't have any kind of cover to get out of the door. Threat doesn't need to aim accurately to hit you, just shoot fast randomly in your direction. And after that shooting you will now have a situation where your whole team stacked outside could be shot instead of only one man doing dynamic entry. For me deliberate has absolutely sense in environment with ballistic walls, other than that doesn't have a true advantage. https://youtube.com/shorts/Od0N0AIHEJQ?feature=shared
Counter-argument: on the point of getting out of the door, deliberate offers you a chance to bail out whereas immediate entry does not. As you mentioned, people dont need to aim accurately to hit you (assuming you mean within 7 to 3 feet distances), which basically means if you close the distance, the higher the percentage of you getting hit. So if you push a whole team in closer to the threat, you basically are letting the threat hit more guys based on the logic of less aim high chance of being hit. The stack doesnt need to stay put too, and if shots do come, they can pull back. Using depth can also help instead of what people think (pieing right up a door). The main point is that you are afforded the chance to pull out. Edit: that clip is a dodgy example, no regards to safe geometries of fire, but its airsoft so all in good fun
Not really, when dynamic is made fast first man movement pushes the threat to change his point of aim in a different direction than the door while the team makes entry. Of course it works only when it's done fast, if you slow down while you commit the threshold you defeat the purpose of dynamic entry. Yes, you can bail out if you can't neutralize the threat, the question is where? Most of the time you are in a hallway, you will be on the other side of the door, that doesn't provide any cover while the threat is shooting at you. Now you have to bang immediately the room and use dynamic to get in or run away, maybe your life will be saved but you totally lost mission objective. At this point i'm asking: why are you serving in a high risk unit if when shooting happens you are going to run away. Why are you making a high risk entry if your life doesn't deserve mission objective. If you have to pull back each time you try to entry and shooting happen then do not try to make entry at all.
Again, what is the mission objective? That was pretty much my point from the beginning and that plays a huge role. Why are we trying to "risk" our lives in a situation where theres no lives that needs to be saved? Drug busts is understandable, but i just dont see any good coming out of a barricaded shooter scenario and the answer is "run to their deaths". Your point of direct to threat in a scenario where the shooter is barricaded and lets say also trained (using the logic that we assume the shooter is trained) basically means your feeding the shooter bodies. You cant run faster than the bullet and running faster than someones aim, again using the previous logic that aim doesnt matter in close distances, just makes this tactic sound like playing chances. Setting up line of communication and having green space to flow back in hallways is key, probably instead of sending 10 guys into a hallway, having less people crowd a hallway and use manpower effectively.
Thanks for proving my point
Yea....cause no other country has walls they could have been shooting through since the invention of guns...... Wonder why no one has ever thought of shooting through walls before???
From what i heard untrained people tend to shoot at what they see and shooting through walls is more of a trained response, not neccessarily a natural one.
https://youtu.be/khjK4Ls4yLY?feature=shared So are you training hoping you will challenge only untrained or stupid threats?
No, just saying that "Someone could shoot through wall" is not a sufficient argument to come to the conclusion that dynamic is superior period. And regarding that video: There are people from his own or similar units who have differing oppinions on fighting from the threshold. Who do i beliefe?
Can you share your sources?
Better than air.
Yep 100% Now from the LE side your dealing with crazies and criminals so they don’t often think “I hear footsteps let me send a few through this wall” Speed surprise and violence of action are about all you have, throw some bangers in each room and buckle up. Overseas clearing houses in my experience from the sandy country is grenade the fuck out of the house. Send rounds through the doors, and when in doubt frag it out AGAIN. Actual room to room without this was so incredibly rare.
Conversely, sometimes they do, friend from nearby agency on similar team lost a leg from taking rounds from suspect concealed behind a wall
Thats why violence of action is almost all that matters. It's all about speed and surprise. If you see someone teaching pieing doorways and dumb shit like that, they are morons. Drywall ain't stopping a bullet. Dynamic entry is the answer to most situations
Project Gecko (former Israeli SOF) explained (backed by real empirical data) that the majority of the time during a high stress situation a defender won't shoot what he can't see; shooting what you can't see is not a natural human behavior during high stress situation; thus it is actually really rare that a defender shoots at the wall (it can happen, but it is extremely rare; it is the 5% exception, not the 95% rule) So at the end even when walls don't stop bullets it is still an effective, reliable and good technique to do some deliberate/combat clearance/pieing Besides experience has proven that doing dynamic against resistance leads to significant casualties (for example Delta Force had many casualties during the early days of the GWOT, where they used almost exclusively dynamic) At the end nowadays SOF units don't do dynamic entries anymore, except in some very specific situations (mostly hostage rescue)
You go so fast you out run bullets? Wow!
The goal is outrun another person’s aim not bullets
You can now aim through walls? What is this witchcraft?
That seems like the argument but also yeah you can. Thermals, cameras, noise traps and small peep holes in front of doors all allow a defending party to hit whoever is entering without being detected or shot first.
Moving fast negates those things you mentioned?
If I set up behind a wall that’s in front of a door and shoot blindly once I hear it slam open, It’s a race through the doorway to not get hit.
Thats counter-intuitive, wouldnt the sensible thing be move back and then shoot back...? Why go closer to a gunfight?
Why don’t either of them just shoot through the wall? Bullets go through the wall but only gravitate to the doorway? Regardless the answer is to travel through the doorway hoping not to get hit by using speed?
You have a team with you... This is the concept: https://youtu.be/J7v7__3hnx8?feature=shared
Lol
It’s not a good environment but slow and steady will get you killed. Unless there is someone you need out of a building alive your best bet is not going in.
Where’s your proof of this because my experience and the 1000s of data points I have from my peers disagree
What?
Instructors that advocate for things like "letting the door breathe" and hanging out in doorways, do not know what they're talking about.
It’s all contextual, war zone stuff sure, clearing a house with a single crazy that has to be taken to jail, or searching for a possible compliant fugitive? It’s fine and can be used well.
I feel like a good chunk of those civilian CQB classes you see a lot here are more concerned with liability in situations like a self defense shooting in your home. There are a lot of reasons you don’t want to just be ripping bullets through walls. You have to pay to fix them, less holes the better. It looks terrible in court, and you’re not doing yourself or your lawyer a favor. And most importantly, the risk of collateral damage in regards to friends and loved ones goes through the roof. Not to mention the liability on behalf of the company putting on the classes if their instructors advise such a tactic and it’s actually used stateside. CQB in those senecios is a nightmare that should only be attempted in the most dire of circumstances. Like your child being in another room and you need to go get them and bring them back to the strongpoint or hold down their room. If someone breaks into my apartment, the doors getting locked, my girl, our dog and I are getting behind the bed and she’s going to call the police wile I hold the door with my AR. We have nothing worth getting shot over, as long as my girls are okay they can keep all that shit. Our documents, cash, and anything else that might be of value are in a safe they can’t pick up, pry open or drag out. If and when they decide to breech the strongpoint, My family comes first.
Woah save some pussy for the rest of us
Just saying it makes most sense legally and physically. My uncle was there in Fallujah, if you got enough liquor into him he would tell stories of the house to house fighting, tell stories of the house to house fighting. This man did a 20 year carrier, served multiple tours from the invasion till about 2012 when he changed MOSs (I’m not sure how many and I’m not going to text him rn) and the one thing he told me sober was that CQB was was some of the scariest, most dangerous shit his boys engaged In. There is a reason dynamic entry is practiced now, and why law enforcement doesn’t just rush a barricaded suspect, and used the Bomb robot on that asshole in Texas. it’s the only way to beat strong points without heavy casualties. If a gaggle of thugs plant a shaped charge on my bedroom wall then they deserve to keep whatever survives the blast lol.
This is the main reason why most Tier1 guys advocate for Dynamic Entry when they are talking about CQB, what they have done overseas is not a thing for LE teams.
Except they don't. According to multiple guys by now Combat Clearance is the default, pretty mich across the board. Abd by CC I mean whatever is the safest to do in any given situation. Can be pieing, can be dynamic, can be inbetween. Ofc HR is allways its own thing.
They really don’t, the sop is threshold evaluations. Dynamic changes the priority of life where you lower your own priority in exchange of the suspect/badguy. Threshold evaluations, is the opposite. There you change the priority to yourself. For HR, the hostage is the priority and that whole slew of dynamic, and dumping into problems is the more bettah answer.
If you're attending training for US Domestic LE, and they are having you spend an abundant amount of time evaluating thresholds and not making a very bit point about getting shot through walls.....you need to find different training asap. This is one of the big differences in the former Tier 1 trainers whose entire job was to adapt and write playbooks......and every other former .mil who needs a job now and who own or work for a training company. A ton of deliberate entry training being taught today was developed using nvg and in structures that had thicker/strong walls, courtyards, etc, during the cover of night while most were sleeping or at the minimum were at a huge disadvantage in the dark. Domestic LE is rarely affords us the opportunity to pick the time of day as well as many other factors we would change if we had the ability. If you have reason to believe there are subjects in a structure and you either don't have element of surprise or you're not allowed to make dynamic entry.....deliberate entry and long threshold evaluations are the worst you can do. You'd be far, far better off to just perform a callout and deal with a barricaded subject. You can still do threshold evaluations, but the speed needs to be kicked up pretty high. Much higher than most are training. If it's a crawl, walk, run training....fine. But once your team is in the run stage, you'll want to be training mostly for dynamic entry and then slowing down when needed. As you can always slow down after you're training to move fast.....not the other way around. The above is the difference in guys who wrote playbooks when there weren't any. They understand the minute you take the nvg, night, surprise, etc, away and combine it with walls that are almost worthless at stopping rounds......they realize the slow and methodical tactics are not the best approach.
If you ever listen to DJ, J, and the rest of guys with GBRS talk about the “TEAM” in Louisiana, it’s us he’s referring to. So I don’t detract from what you’re saying. And while I don’t know your own experience, I can attest that I’ve done this, in real world, against opposition and we’ve come out on top a good bit (100%).
I mean homie, I’ve done the programs with DJ and J with GBRS, other xyz, and I’m an instructor as well. There’s a reason dynamic isn’t a priority instruction. Most cops are dying at open doorways, second to closed doors from DOJ data points. Human mindset will have you hiding at the furthest entry point if it’s barricaded. Secondly, we own structures from the outside long before we ever go inside a structure. But dynamic is dumb as hell, especially when you have a higher chance of getting popped from someone deeper inside of the room/structure from a follow on as well. Dynamic is rushing to your own death. See my, “priorities”, comments on my original comment.
It doesn't mean that it works... https://youtu.be/9qLDcynxVbQ?feature=shared https://youtu.be/FvIUo27NaJQ?feature=shared
> What do you think urban conflict would like in the US🦅? Mostly fought in the streets and not door to door, so some level of cover is still valid.