Incremental Method vs Slicing the Pie

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

Moderators: jimothy_183, Admin

Post Reply
User avatar
Ryan
Posts: 2795
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:10 am
Contact:

Incremental Method vs Slicing the Pie

Post by Ryan » Thu Apr 16, 2015 1:09 am

"This incremental method is actually a new technique, it's choppy and more stationary whereas slicing the pie is one fluid semi-circular motion. I got guff at the DHS FLETC Active Shooter course for saying "slice the pie"."

"When you "slice the pie" (or panning) you side step in a semicircle around a threshold at one steady even pace.

This new method is different in that instead of slicing the pie with one smooth movement, you step, stop, lean, step, stop, lean ("45-90-180"). In the same direction as pieing, but with a different pace and method."

"Slicing The Pie versus Incremental Method



"You said (@3:18) that, "Pieing a corner is where you slowly turn a corner scanning for enemies as you do so." This is not true.

Slicing the Pie, a smooth, fluid semi-circular motion, clearing small angular increments until defined*. You only expose what is necessary to engage singular threats. If this is done too fast you often push your body out and expose more than necessary. This can be done on approach to a room, on the near side of the door, corner or other object. This is good for covert or low-risk entries, but in an active firefight if you 'lose the angle' you often have to play catch-up and "peek-a-boo" to win the angle, against a muzzle, which is not good.

*I.e. until you make entry, until you see a threat, until you see an obstacle.

THINK: Taking small slices of the pie in order. Slicing.

Also known as: cutting the cake, partition drill.



Incremental Method, a stable, stop-start motion of clearing predesignated angles and micro-pausing at each, staying in cover or concealment at each point. It can be done very fast, taking large portions of the room or corner quickly. This allows you to fight for the angle and keep momentum going or pull away from the angle and back into cover or concealment. When this is done on a singular angle to be ready to engage immediately or visualize then pull into cover immediately it is known as a quick-peek. This is good for dynamic entries where speed is key. It also has pros in high-risk entries where the team may engage and work from the door. People often automatically revert to this when engaged and losing the angle whilst pieing and therefore wrongly perceive it as pieing.

THINK: Taking big, specific pieces of the pie. Increments.

Also known as: segmented search, "framework", "edging".



Differences revisited:

Pieing is a fluid semi-circular motion whereas the incremental method is a stop-start motion;
Pieing clears undefined angular increments whereas the incremental method clears predesignated angles;
Pieing often has no pause and is associated with making a direct entry the whereas the incremental method has micro-pauses at each angle and is associated with fighting from the door or fighting for the angle if you cannot make direct entry."

Similar to the Israeli's how they work on specific angles before taking the 90 degrees. It's not slicing the pie. You're taking increments and snapping to target. Any thoughts on this?
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
jimothy_183
Military
Posts: 1028
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 7:55 am
Location: Australia

Re: Incremental Method vs Slicing the Pie

Post by jimothy_183 » Thu Apr 16, 2015 11:14 pm

I never knew there was a difference? :?
semper acer , semper velox , semper trux , semper promptus

User avatar
Ryan
Posts: 2795
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:10 am
Contact:

Re: Incremental Method vs Slicing the Pie

Post by Ryan » Fri Apr 17, 2015 3:00 pm

For some there needs no differentiation, but to make it clear...

Slicing the Pie, a smooth, (semi-)fluid motion clearing every small angular increment until the person deems necessary to stop. You only expose what is necessary, often o a singular threat. You may cross the door, your weapon may not telegraph the threshold. This can be done on approach to a room, on the near side of the door or offset from it on a wide angle. Good for covert entries, in an active firefight if you 'lose the angle' you often have to play catch-up and peek-a-boo against a muzzle, not good.

Image
Slicing pieces of the pie. Cutting the cake. A partition drill.

Incremental method, a more stable, fast but stationary motion of clearing particular predesignated angles. You expose more but it is faster, taking large portions of the room. Hitting the nineties often telegraphs the barrel end so you need to be wary, you see this often with the IDF. You can shuffle-step into a simultaneous clear of the near corners from the nineties. You fight for the angle and keep momentum going.

Image
TT teaching this method, in the HTLE method known as the incremental approach.
As TT from HTS LLC says, "Gentlemen, this is football. 45-90-45."

Image
Taking the 45's, easy corners.

Image
Snapping to the ninety to engage immediate threats.
This is often seen in a "snap-bound" entry.


Here's a breakdown of multiple methods:


Here's one version hitting only the nineties:


Slicing the pie, you can clearly see the difference:
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."

DTas
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2015 6:32 pm
Location: Israel

Re: Incremental Method vs Slicing the Pie

Post by DTas » Sat Apr 18, 2015 9:47 am

I have a lot of experience teaching the Israeli pieing technique.
This technique involves three steps, "close, open, body weight transfer" and uses predetermined angles of scanning, either the 45,90 or the slower 30,60,90.
The big advantages are speed and synchronization between the no.1 and no.2.
Also, keep in mind that this is quite a difficult movement to teach, it involves moving the legs without transferring your body weight and then "opening" the angle by solely moving your weight from one leg to another. The feet have to be in certain angles and places, the back shouldnt be arched, there are a lot of little element to this in order to make it effective and quick.

User avatar
Ryan
Posts: 2795
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:10 am
Contact:

Re: Incremental Method vs Slicing the Pie

Post by Ryan » Sat Apr 18, 2015 12:36 pm

DTas thanks for contributing. Do you have any videos or pictures of this?
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."

DTas
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2015 6:32 pm
Location: Israel

Re: Incremental Method vs Slicing the Pie

Post by DTas » Sat Apr 18, 2015 1:48 pm

http://youtu.be/oWe0eZIXD1Y

Could have tucked the elbow a bit more, but that's about it.

User avatar
Ryan
Posts: 2795
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:10 am
Contact:

Re: Incremental Method vs Slicing the Pie

Post by Ryan » Sat Apr 18, 2015 10:05 pm

The torso articulation limiting exposure and cementing the feet as to not cross the threshold was nice to see. It's also nice the way he rolls into the angle and the speed increases at endpoint, ready to snap to threat. This looks like the incremental method more so than pieing that I was talking about. 45-90-180 or other variant. I still worry about telegraphing or over-extending the barrel end beyond cover with these techniques though both from the perspective of the enemy getting the drop on you and trying to pull to cover if you lose the angle. Pro to that is that you have a stable shooting platform. Thanks for the video!
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
DareTactical
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat May 02, 2015 6:24 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Incremental Method vs Slicing the Pie

Post by DareTactical » Sun May 24, 2015 12:21 pm

I'm glad to see this being discussed and as others have pointed out, there is a difference (i have taught both).
Not to repeat what others have said, but to reiterate and to add a suggestion of when to use each:

The "Incremental Method" Ryan mentions, namely 45-90-180 (180 is also known as a T), is used primarily (as DTas mentioned) for speed and synchronization WITH A PARTNER. Each one of those stepped increments are like checkpoints which allow you and your partner to check that you are both in sync and being properly covered. When you have a partner, speed is more likely to be your friend.
When it is done alone it becomes the 45-90-45 method followed by a button hook (if you decide to commit).

When going solo, Slice the Pie is preferred in most cases as it is slower, more thorough and more careful (and if you are alone against an unknown threat as well as an unknown number of threats, speed is less of a priority). 45-90-45 perhaps can be optimal when going alone when you are short on time, but this should be a back up to when Slice The Pie is not optimal.

A situation of when you might want to use slicing the pie while with a partner or team is when you are moving up to an open doorway and want to have a split/double stack. One or two guys can split from the main stack and pie off as they move to the opposite side of the door threshold. From this point the pair closest to the door can do the 45-90-180.
"train hard, fight easy"

User avatar
Ryan
Posts: 2795
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:10 am
Contact:

Re: Incremental Method vs Slicing the Pie

Post by Ryan » Mon Aug 03, 2015 12:26 pm


0:12.

The way Eli does the incremental method, "edging" from the doorway - or "framework".



How former YAMAM do it.
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: 2795
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:10 am
Contact:

Re: Incremental Method vs Slicing the Pie

Post by Ryan » Sat Aug 29, 2015 6:17 am



A better example of the incremental method. Similar to a roll-out, lean-out or step-out. Quicker than conventional pieing. Targeted angles to hit quickly and engage.
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
DareTactical
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat May 02, 2015 6:24 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Incremental Method vs Slicing the Pie

Post by DareTactical » Wed Sep 02, 2015 8:53 am

Ryan wrote:

A better example of the incremental method. Similar to a roll-out, lean-out or step-out. Quicker than conventional pieing. Targeted angles to hit quickly and engage.
Awesome stuff. You can see the '45-90-180' technique being used starting from 1:04. First time i've seen Aaron Cohen do this in his videos, since his other uploads only show him teaching the 90-180.
"train hard, fight easy"

User avatar
Ryan
Posts: 2795
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:10 am
Contact:

Re: Incremental Method vs Slicing the Pie

Post by Ryan » Wed Sep 02, 2015 10:56 am

DareTactical wrote:Awesome stuff. You can see the '45-90-180' technique being used starting from 1:04. First time i've seen Aaron Cohen do this in his videos, since his other uploads only show him teaching the 90-180.
I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, but his other demonstrations of it were mainly from the near-side of the door you started on. In this, he pushes to the other side of the door and therefore has to clear the unknown angles which included the 45. And in some of the other videos it was a setup drill with known threats to the front. At least that's my perspective. Still, great to see!
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
DareTactical
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat May 02, 2015 6:24 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Incremental Method vs Slicing the Pie

Post by DareTactical » Thu Sep 03, 2015 11:21 am

Ryan wrote:
DareTactical wrote:Awesome stuff. You can see the '45-90-180' technique being used starting from 1:04. First time i've seen Aaron Cohen do this in his videos, since his other uploads only show him teaching the 90-180.
I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, but his other demonstrations of it were mainly from the near-side of the door you started on. In this, he pushes to the other side of the door and therefore has to clear the unknown angles which included the 45. And in some of the other videos it was a setup drill with known threats to the front. At least that's my perspective. Still, great to see!
You're right that his previous demonstrations usually had threats setup to the front/center of the room, and watching again and seeing how he deals with closed door rooms, i can see that again, he only uses the 90-180 technique. Regardless of whether the door is open or closed, I still think a 45/cross-cover should be done first nonetheless, seeing as you may have threats in the far corners you may want to eliminate before exposing more of your body to deal with threats in the center of the room.

I guess a 90-180 on a closed door will give you more element of surprise than if using a 45-90-180, as the latter requires more time, and this may be why it is only used on open doorways in this video demonstration.
"train hard, fight easy"

User avatar
Ryan
Posts: 2795
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:10 am
Contact:

Re: Incremental Method vs Slicing the Pie

Post by Ryan » Sun Oct 18, 2015 11:34 am



Here's the 45-90-45.
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”