Comments on Entry Technique: "Front-on"

Forum to discuss CQB entry tactics / room clearing, with other registered users.

Moderators: jimothy_183, Admin

Post Reply
User avatar
Ryan
Posts: 2810
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:10 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Comments on Entry Technique: "Front-on"

Post by Ryan » Sat Jul 14, 2012 5:08 am

:lol: My drawings are amazing. I've mentioned this drill in a front-on topic and the TAG topic but I thought I'd post up the entry here.

Front-on, also known as direct or immediate threat technique.


Forget the hard corner! (At least for the initial drill!) This drill is for a threat towards the centre of the room, a front-on threat as you enter. Most front-on drills are just modified versions of other drills changing small things like location and paths of travel but working around the key philosophy: A threat to your direct front or centre of the room, not in the corners OR the front is priority as compared to the corner threats. Where will a threat most likely be? Who knows? All I know is in a surprise situation no one sits in a corner of an empty room: Shoot House Theory crap!!! In a quick contact they'll be startled, but probably won't rush for a corner if they've got a bit of cover/concealment, a few couches and such in the room, they'll use them hence why barricade and front-on drills become so important. If people are talking in a room they don't talk from corner to corner. If a ship captain if on the bridge, he's most likely up front in the middle, not in a corner. Get where I am going?

Now: CLEAR FRONT. CLEAR CORNERS. The pattern of this drill.

As expected I believe this drill would be used for specific situations and specific units, i.e. CT units as opposed to conventional infantry as their purposes, mindset, skills and real-time intelligence, countless other factors allow it to be more of a success.

The whole point of clearing the corners is you sweep the whole room, you see part of it as you enter, when you enter you see the EC and centre, you sweep into the HC and you've cleared a large portion of the room BUT there is very little in terms of drills that prepare you for going head-on for a threat. If you used corner clearing drills then you may encounter huge problems such as trying to engage the immediate threat then swing into the corner (time, effort, hard to do) or ignore the immediate threat (dead, injured, lucky). This is for mitigating those risks to take on a few other associated risks based on benefits of taking out the immediate threat and clearing the immediate sector of the room.

#1 Moves and takes front. Allows space to bypass. Clears front AOR and secondary clears HC/EC. From this point he can collapse into a corner (corner flood) or move towards a far corner.
#2 Moves and clears HC. Moves to POD. Has to move further before sweeping into centre due to #1 being in the way, hence why crouch for #1 is a pro.
#3 Moves and clears EC. Moves to POD. Creates opposing corners. Doesn't have to move as far as #2 to sweep into the far EC.

Pros:
Destroys immediate front threats in centre of room or infront of the doorway.
Allows wings to move to clear barricade, as per opposing corners, as #1 covers stationary or moves up on a front axis.
Allows for a small-version of running the rabbit with #1, allowing #2 and #3 to back-up with minimal flak from a shooter (who would be fixated on #1). This can allow a heap of people into the room.
#1 can clear both EC's and cover one.
#1 can swing into any corner or carry on moving into the room.

Cons:
If point is out of the fight it can rapidly go down hill such as clogging up the FF and creating a funnel of fire.
Moving front-on means you are still in the fatal funnel even if further away from it, the only way to really negate it would be offsetting from it, moving on more of an oblique angle into the room but maintaining covering the centre.
Possible crossfire on opposing corners.
Negating potential threats in the corners by blissful ignorance until the secondary sweep takes place (once AOR is clear).
Over-penetration risk as #1 moves further into the room to create space to bypass.

Image
If it used against a centre fed it's more risky due to more corners and you're not clearing the bigger portion of the room. I wouldn't recommend that.
If you do this though and move further into the room you end up create either a line formation or an upside down V, like a horse-shoe formation; which can be very good for sweeping the rest of the room. You can turn this into a V by pushing the wings to opposing corners to clear middle room barricades.


3:43. As videoed a short room therefore the drill is facing more inwards as the EC is already clear.


1:00.


FDF UWTC. They are taught to engage immediate threats and ignore corners until IT is down.
They are also taught to visually clear, say on a corner fed, and then ignore that HC if they've already seen it pre-entry.


2:46.


1:55.


25:30+.

I asked an apparent ex-TAG/SASR operator for the name of the drill and he replied he didn't know, "As for the CQB drill, I have seen a variety in my time, all have their strengths and weaknesses bottom line is use what works and discard what doesn't. It's best to validate it with SIM/FX training and the real test is when your down range. As we have found out the hard way on a few occasions", "No we don't ignore the immediate threat we deal with it !! And then keep moving , the lead guy has priority 234.... Just fill the blanks no matter what side he goes to you go opposite it's that simple. Don't have a clue what it's called doesn't really matter it's just a drill... "

In my opinion front-on drills are used when there is a high probability of a front-on threat, i.e. you have used threat detection techniques or visual/audio to isolate the threat area and have decided therefore to use an entry in which you can engage front first before worrying about anything else. There should be more entries for such threats. If there are corner threats you can collapse on the corner and corner flood -- well the same goes with threats centre and front. If there was no official drill for hitting something direct front then that negates a good number of situation where you may come across it, it's just these drills have added risks for that benefit.

It reminds me quite of a double envelope or penetration technique.

Of course you have other options such as fighting from the door but this is an entry version which gets the whole team in and ready to back-up as you may get hit fighting from the door and that loses all momentum. Going front on means you either have to stop a certain distance in the room or carry on until you reach a target destination, i.e. the far EC. Once you stop you can crouch, you secondary check your secondary AOR after the front is clear, that being the HC and EC for #2 and #3 back-up.

See this post for further reading: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=38&p=88 ...
CQB-TEAM Education and Motivation.

"Pragmatism over theory."
"Anyone with a weapon is just as deadly as the next person."
"Unopposed CQB is always a success, if you wanted you could moonwalk into the room holding a Pepsi."

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 335
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 6:07 pm
Contact:

Re: Comments on Entry Technique: "Front-on"

Post by Admin » Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:54 am

Nice post

The move patten is close to "3 man with a shield" and"2-4man imidiat threat"

Again Nice post.
http://CQB-Team.com
http://www.youtube.com/user/CQBteam
Tactical education and motivation.training info for the soldier that wish to learn the art of CQB.

seal236
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2012 2:56 pm

Re: Comments on Entry Technique: "Front-on"

Post by seal236 » Wed Aug 01, 2012 10:00 pm

Clearing corners are paramount.
Center of the tool is the responsibility for the 3 man and on. I can think of many reasons why
Go in a room and wait for an entry team...in an empty room you feel exposed so you would wait in the corner for the best chance of survival.
Doors to the left or right of the entry door.
Open spaces on the working wall
and so on
If the door is open upon entry you can visual clear a lot before and choose your entry direction
But it should be to the opposite corner that you haven't seen
This of course is dynamic style.
In a non dynamic style it doesn't matter

I know different units have different methods but most ct units do it this way

User avatar
Ryan
Posts: 2810
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:10 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Comments on Entry Technique: "Front-on"

Post by Ryan » Tue Oct 02, 2012 4:06 am

SEAL: "Unopposed CQB is always a success, if you wanted you could moonwalk into the room holding a Pepsi." I've had a another SEAL say the same thing to me but that doesn't mean it's correct. This isn't an evidence-based practice and all units do it differently, even if slightly via IOPs. SOFREP, 'from the history of Delta part 5..', " An ex-Delta operator described the Unit’s CQB style as “free flow, instinctive, and explosive,” as compared to ST6′s “more controlled and rigid” tactics.



If it's this type of argument, of course I get you. But...

I can think of many reasons why the first and second man would be dead before your third "front-heavy" does anything and before he even gets into the room. It's called a front-on threat with an AK who isn't to be reckoned with, especially if your primary counter is a drill that clears corners first, or is made for that and allows space for hesitation on clearing that front threat before working into your corners. I'd never go in with an assumption of clearing the corners first will be alright. Those techniques and tactics give adequate reasonable doubt for a front-on threat and it doesn't take a lot of research in force on force to show the coloration between clearing corner tactics and loss when engaging in a front-on confrontation.

It's a contest for the room. What is my primary concern? Securing the room with minimal casualties. Sure, clearing corners works! You could say buttonhook works, yeah, for those 99.9% entries where nothing happens or you're just damn gifted. In a surprise situation a target will probably not be stood in the corners, in a contact situation that has just happened seconds with no gaps before you move into room then the targets will probably not have enough time to curl up in a ball, in the corner of a room but will use cover/concealment such as ducking behind their nearest couch.

Any objects such as wardrobes, drawers, etc, tend to be away from the centre and running along the walls so if they use them then hell yeah a corner drill would see that part of the room first. But this isn't a one-step drill, you clear centre and then clear around you, that would be one of the walls and both corners on that wall.

The same argument has been stated for arcs of fire and triangulation of fire within CQC. In non-dynamic, if you have precise intelligence on internal locations then you're going to change your entries anyway, such as automatically going for the front-on threat. In a dynamic style with known room layouts then you take it as it comes, you have your modified entries for certain locations such as a ship bridge. If it takes you 5 seconds to clear a room, that gives the bad guy enough seconds to shoot you, it is the fatal funnel after all. Plus if there is an object in the way of your corner then you'll snap to the immediate threat and take actions-on that object to clear your corner. If you're pushing into your threat with #3 man threat infront of you then you're up for injury or death during that initial entry and for the time it takes for #3 to get up and into his sector, never mind actually take out the threat; sometimes you have to take them as you come across them then feed back into your sector before finally checking the centre of the room for a second time and from your POD -- the problem with that being that when you come in the muzzle normally takes up your sector and the target transition to immediate threat and back to your sector whilst moving gives you very limited time and hence why movement speeds for these scenarios have to be perfected. If an enemy is lower than you, much more static and literally hugging (inefficiently) cover then a corner drill can eliminate these threats because of the speed and movement advantage you have. You should note the difference between prepared and unprepared enemy and adjust accordingly, from the OPFOR perspective in a Force-on-Force scenario you tend to note these differences and pitfalls in entries.

At some stages I bet a prepared enemy could look at the fatal funnel, then close their eyes and engage, it is not hard to hit someone coming from a small gap. It is hard to get the whole team in-room when a bad guy is controlling the avenue of approach, channeling you into a point of entry and is camping it out but some teams train for this and actually train for hits, whilst keeping on rolling. But, hey, you can argue either way and I'd agree with some points. Now, on corner fed rooms your hard corner clearance may be directly infront of you, allowing for a front-on drills automatically: sometimes situation forces it on you. At most you want to clear from outside the room, even when moving into the room crossing the fatal funnel line. Lateral entries are also good if you have isolated the target, especially to a hard corner. Take it or leave it but keep a spare one for the toolbox.

Image
The information is credible: You may have a front on threat.
If you practice regularly you will be able to counter a front-on threat better through other tactics rather than corner clearance priorities.
It is a realistic setting to come across a threat in front, being middle, of the room.
Train to win. You don't want to create a tactical dilemma. You don't want to do a corner clearance and expect different or better results when the threat is infront of you. It's a big thing the Israelis and South Africans do. Even some Southern American units who are in contact nearly every day.


3:00 as an example. Prepared = clear from outside the room. Unprepared = front-on can be done. If not then you're looking at a higher casualty rate.
Note: Airsoft so he does not target transition or hold the fatal funnel when he should well of done, there could of been 3+ casualties if he did so.


0:51. Dead, dead and dead.


An example here to clearing the corner and pushing back into the room and how slow it can really be.


2:00, an example of stopping pre-FF to engage IT. I note that yes, this lessens the aspect of surprise but surprise can be met with other counter-forces such as diversion.
CQB-TEAM Education and Motivation.

"Pragmatism over theory."
"Anyone with a weapon is just as deadly as the next person."
"Unopposed CQB is always a success, if you wanted you could moonwalk into the room holding a Pepsi."

User avatar
Ryan
Posts: 2810
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:10 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Comments on Entry Technique: "Front-on"

Post by Ryan » Thu Dec 06, 2012 12:54 am


An example of modern CQB problems and why corner clearing is sometimes getting your priorities totally wrong.
Impulsivity (Empiricism) leads to...

I note that's the main problem with room clearing 'tactics' and entries. Most of them are developed on how to CLEAR a room faster, clear being defined as make it safe or secure, usually in the quickest way possible. That usually means clearing all one spot that allows you to clear the rest quicker, example POD. But the problem with that against a thread is no one gives a shit about the rest of the room, they care about the threat. It's not working to clear my area without first taking out the threat or making that the next on the priority list. At the same time 'just to be safe' comes into it, with reclearing and checking what has been ignored.


0:35+ Two engage immediate threat and position themselves properly for bypass. Three and four bypass to clear HC's.
CQB-TEAM Education and Motivation.

"Pragmatism over theory."
"Anyone with a weapon is just as deadly as the next person."
"Unopposed CQB is always a success, if you wanted you could moonwalk into the room holding a Pepsi."

Post Reply

Return to “CQB entry tactics / room clearing”