Stack vs Stackless Entries

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

Moderators: jimothy_183, Admin

Post Reply [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1275: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
User avatar
Ryan
Posts: 2796
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:10 am
Contact:

Stack vs Stackless Entries

Post by Ryan » Fri Apr 10, 2015 7:08 am

I believe this is an important topic to throw out there. Stack versus Stackless entries.

This is important because there is a lot of dogma surrounding stacking. Guys on the internet always talk about stacking as if it's unstoppable and highspeed.

The stack is used for multiple reasons - your safe stacking distance (standoff or minimal safe distance) from an explosive charge, to keep the team together moving in cohesion, to limit the gap of dispersion as people enter the room.

Stackless entries is used for multiple reasons - you are conducting an unsupported entry during warfighting/COIN drills, you are continuing from one entry to the other in a follow-on room or building, you are moving quickly to avoid fire or a direct engagement without cover, etc.

As Tireiron (member of this forum) wrote, "DYNAMIC entry/clearing is done in a “blast”. The room is quickly dominated through speed and aggression. Dynamic entry has been broken down into two different methods – “stacking” and “stackless”. Case in point – while you are all running to the building you have chosen – you don’t want to “stack” outside the front door and waste precious time getting in “stack”. From: http://mainepatriot.tripod.com/id77.html.


24:24.

Your thoughts?
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."

jcheng14
Civilian
Posts: 69
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 7:52 am
Contact:

Re: Stack vs Stackless Entries

Post by jcheng14 » Fri Apr 10, 2015 9:35 am

I think it really depends on the situation. If you're SWAT and you have the building isolated and you have control of the area stacking is great and improves your chances.

If you're making breaches in a war zone moving into an enemy occupied city you might not want to take the time to get your perfect stacks while people are shooting at you from other buildings.



We do some force on force exercises where teams are studs inside a building, flow nicely and have a good TTP and all that, but when you take them into a multi building environment where you can't take the time to prepare your perfect entry things go to shit. Get 2 people to the door and make that entry.

User avatar
Ryan
Posts: 2796
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:10 am
Contact:

Re: Stack vs Stackless Entries

Post by Ryan » Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:44 pm

jcheng14 wrote:I think it really depends on the situation. If you're SWAT and you have the building isolated and you have control of the area stacking is great and improves your chances.

If you're making breaches in a war zone moving into an enemy occupied city you might not want to take the time to get your perfect stacks while people are shooting at you from other buildings.
These are two great examples. None the less there are always going to be scenarios to redirect this train of thought in either direction - pros and cons. An example is that I have read case studies of SWAT entries from the stack into rooms or initial entry but stackless internally to conduct a "toilet rush" (get the drugs before they're flushed!) and two SWAT members dying on entry to the toilet, the third injured but killing the bad guy if I remember correctly. Either way bad example of a stackless. Compare that to many cases of teams being shot trying to get coordinated on an entry in Fallujah and other high threat areas with close combat where stackless was adopted because of these fatal errors. So you're completely right, it is entirely situational. That said it's probably just numerous active errors and latent errors working together, stacks may not be the cause for the effect but they certainly contribute in their own way. THINK: Target rich environment, shot at through walls.

I think it also can depend on whether you have a supported or unsupported entry - supported by snipers, vehicles, machinegunners, etc, or not. Stacks are therefore in theory safer to organize outside the building. That said I do not entirely agree with my own thought process there, as not every angle can be covered and enemy engaging on narrow angles can fuck up a fireteams day. This is very similar to fluid vs rigid concepts. Fluid would be more stackless when you're close and you're moving, you may conduct more limited-incursion techniques without being bunched, guys may cover main threat areas like windows and move more methodically as compared with rigid stacks that may halt with limited security in the open, bunched, with everyone being ready and moving as a unit limiting the gap of dispersion and attempting to triangulate fire.

Everyone also thinks dynamic or direct entries will be 'stack on every door' but stackless entries may occur when they are moving through a structure, room-by-room or flowing into mutlirooms and follow-on rooms. This is the same for subdued entries where a compromise may mean you enter, not yet prepared in a stack.
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
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1275: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1275: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Return to “CQB entry tactics / room clearing”