The best entry technique

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

Moderators: jimothy_183, Admin

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 332
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 6:07 pm
Contact:

The best entry technique

Post by Admin » Fri Feb 22, 2008 8:40 am

What is the most fevered entry technique used by you and your team? What makes it the best?

User avatar
jimothy_183
Military
Posts: 1030
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 7:55 am
Location: Australia

Post by jimothy_183 » Fri Feb 22, 2008 10:21 am

The "Hook and cross" otherwise known in this site as the "modified" is the most favored entry technique used in a tactical gaming clan I used to be in. This is because it offers the most versatility. But our SOP has a slight variation that the first man ALWAYS hooks first and second man crosses.

This is so that when first man enters, after he hooks he will have cleared out a large portion of the room already, leaving the second man with just one corner to clear out.

Although the SOP also states that the "path of least resistance" will also be a tactical consideration when deciding who hooks and who crosses, but it's still mainly the hook first technique.

We also used criss cross and button hook but only seldom, one example where we must use these types of entries is when we're in a situation where we are forced to split stack on a door.

Jack
Law Enforcment
Posts: 402
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:27 pm

Post by Jack » Sat Apr 12, 2008 10:02 pm

I like the fact that you have thought through this a lot. I don't think there is a right or a wrong way to do it. I think the trick is to be on the same page and to get through the door quickly. We leave it up to the point man. Which ever way he wants to go the second guy gose the oposite way. That way there is nothing to remember. Most of the time the first guy goes to the heavy side of the room. This is might mean button hooking or crossing, it depends on which side of the door you are staged up on.

One thing to consider if you have a large team stacked up in the hallway. If the point guy button hooks into the room and the suspect starts firing at him, which is likely. Those shots might go through the wall and hit your team mates in the hallway.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 332
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 6:07 pm
Contact:

Post by Admin » Sun Apr 13, 2008 6:14 pm

Jake wrote: One thing to consider if you have a large team stacked up in the hallway. If the point guy button hooks into the room and the suspect starts firing at him, which is likely. Those shots might go through the wall and hit your team mates in the hallway.
A very good point to remember.



The techniques you use is it like wallflood?
http://www.cqb-team.com/4%20man%20wall%20flood.html

Ore Imidiat threat?
http://www.cqb-team.com/4%20man%20imidiat%20threat.html

Jack
Law Enforcment
Posts: 402
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:27 pm

Post by Jack » Sun Apr 13, 2008 6:58 pm

It is a little of this and a little of that. I would say that for better or for worse we use the imidiate threat. This may not be a perfect system, but I have to admit it works well. We clear rooms and houses very quickly.
Last edited by Jack on Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 332
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 6:07 pm
Contact:

Post by Admin » Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:26 pm

Hmm I must ask… The point man decides when he stands in front of the door. How does he signal his choice to the rest of the team. Hand signal? Radio? Or do they have to guess when he enters?

Some times you go to the suspects and some time you stay on the wall is there any criteria then to do what? I have never seen this before, I suppose you have a very strict AOR, is your technique limited to a number of people in the room like 4 operators, ore is it a swarming technique.

Jack
Law Enforcment
Posts: 402
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:27 pm

Post by Jack » Mon Apr 14, 2008 8:54 pm

He dose not decide in the doorway. He decides before he gets to the door way. There is no pause and yes the second guy has to anticipate which way he is moving and go the other way.
Last edited by Jack on Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 332
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 6:07 pm
Contact:

Post by Admin » Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:26 pm

Ok i get it, it is like you said imidiate threat. This is also the technique they teach at the ISTC school, ore was 5 years ago.(NATO school in germany for special forces).

Jack
Law Enforcment
Posts: 402
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:27 pm

Post by Jack » Tue Apr 15, 2008 3:31 am

I have been trying to figure out how you would do points of domination/flood technique, clear a whole house and do it without taking all day. I like the fact that everyone stops and has a sector of fire, this would reduce the risk of shooting your partner in the back, but it just seems like it would take too long to clear each room. I don't know. Any thoughts?

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 332
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 6:07 pm
Contact:

Post by Admin » Wed Apr 16, 2008 12:16 pm

I’m not sure about your question!

This is a tricky one. I you need a blueprint of the building, to plan the team movements. Here you have to decide if you will use 1 point of entry ore more, if you use more then one it is very important that the operators know the different safe lines of fire, for the different teams. And you need a lot of operators maybe 60 men isn’t enough.
A good example is en Iranian embassy rescue preformed by SAS in 1980


this is good in a hallway:
http://www.cqb-team.com/Saturation%20Hallway.html

This is good in stacked rooms:
http://www.cqb-team.com/Saturation%20Rooms.html

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 332
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 6:07 pm
Contact:

Post by Admin » Wed Apr 23, 2008 3:32 pm

I have seen a technique used by a HRU… I will try do describe it.

A element stack on the front door, the operator that first will se some of the room when the door opens is in a kneeling position, while pointing his mp5 at the door and having a flash bang ready to throw in as soon as the door is opening. On the other side stands an operator also securing the door with his mp5.
A breacher come up and breach the door. As soon as the door opens the flash bang is thrown in and the two operators scan the room while waiting for the bang to go of. If they see a threat they will shoot from this position, this way thy will have cleared a big part of the room with out entering. When the bang detonates they will cross ore buttonhook in the door and clear the hard corners, while they go for the corners the rest of the element will enter the room going left and right. When the corners are cleared the first 2 operators move along the wall to the next door ore barricade, the rest of the element moves along behind the first two. If they pass a place where a person might be hiding ore another threat would appear for example a closet, the front operator drop down on one knee and secure this with his muzzle. The rest of the element pass by and clear the next room, and so on. The same goes when a person is on the floor one man covering on his knee. When the manpower allows, a team member will stack up at the kneeling operators and they will perform a 2 man clearing on the closet/barricade/person.

This is a quite fast technique but needs a lot of operators.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKyGmbyOxUs
Last edited by Admin on Tue Apr 29, 2008 10:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

Jack
Law Enforcment
Posts: 402
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:27 pm

Post by Jack » Fri Apr 25, 2008 8:45 pm

This is interesting and gives me a lot to think about. Thanks for the post.

User avatar
Alan
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 10:23 am
Location: Wales

Post by Alan » Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:50 am

Jake wrote:like it would take too long to clear each room. I don't know. Any thoughts?
I always see this as a misconception. I think that both Wall Flood and Immediate Threat should take an equal amount of time to fully clear/secure a room.

I see the difference as being the time it takes to put down the first threat. If you consider both techniques:

IT: Operator goes from Doorway ---> threat
WF: Operator goes from Doorway ---> POD ---> Threat

logically IT is faster to secure the first threat, simple pythagoras can prove that.

The main problem i have with IT is the increased uncertainty in the room caused by it. It is my opinion that a highly trained team should use IT and all others use WF.

User avatar
jimothy_183
Military
Posts: 1030
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 7:55 am
Location: Australia

Post by jimothy_183 » Sat Apr 26, 2008 11:07 am

Alan wrote:
Jake wrote:like it would take too long to clear each room. I don't know. Any thoughts?
IT: Operator goes from Doorway ---> threat
WF: Operator goes from Doorway ---> POD ---> Threat

logically IT is faster to secure the first threat, simple pythagoras can prove that.
Maths is a very beautiful language.

I like to think that CQB is very analogous to maths. It's all about logic and problem solving. The main difference is that maths has limited ways of solving a problem while in CQB there are thousands of ways of doing the same thing.

In school you learn maths through the processes: Teacher teaches you how to do something, you do excersises in a text book to practice what you have learned and then you apply it to the real world.

In a CQB training centre you go through the processes: Instructor teaches you how to do something, you do drills to practice what you have learned and then you apply it to a real life situation.

In terms of problem solving, in maths you solve problems by using your logic and the techniques you learn in school. In CQB this is the same, for example your problem is there is a suspect in a room. What do you do to this problem? You solve it. How do you solve it? You use your logic and the techniques you learn in training.

Sorry to go off topic a little bit but this is just my philosophy on CQB and I just thought I would share it with you all. :wink:

Jack
Law Enforcment
Posts: 402
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:27 pm

Post by Jack » Mon Apr 28, 2008 2:59 am

I think that the wall flood method is a fast way initially clear the room. You move to your point of domination and shoot any threats that are present. But this is when everything slows down. Now what?

I think that in the Military a TL comes into the room and starts giving orders, you do this and you do that. This makes sense from a safety standpoint if you are only clearing one room. You have one person experienced person directing everything, making sure that it's done right and that nobody shoots each other.
Last edited by Jack on Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Alan
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 10:23 am
Location: Wales

Post by Alan » Wed Apr 30, 2008 9:17 am

Jake wrote:As apposed to everyone getting in the room, not stopping at a domination point and on their own with no direction from a TL; shooting the threats, cuffing, clearing closets, stacking on another door and so on. But when you move that quick, you have to have dedicated, experienced Operators, and even then it is dangerous.
I would have thought most people have a bad day in their job, a day where things seem to go against them (illness, other preoccupations). With this in mind there are glaring concerns such as friendly fire and lack of co-ordination (on unusual room shapes) to be considered when an operative is not at his peak of performance and using IT.

I have a feeling you will just discard this argument under the heading "have to have dedicated, experienced Operators, and even then it is dangerous.", and you may be correct to do so, but I think it is important to mention.

I personally do not see how a chaotic set of rules can result in anything except for chaos.
Jake wrote:But so is taking too much time going from room to room
I agree with this point.

Jack
Law Enforcment
Posts: 402
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:27 pm

Post by Jack » Thu May 01, 2008 3:58 am

It is like anything else, you have pros and cons to each method. One might say that the cons to using direct threat out weigh the pros. Another guy might say it the other way around. I am sure not the expert on either method. But I do know that both methods are in use and used everyday somewhere in the world.
Last edited by Jack on Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

Jack
Law Enforcment
Posts: 402
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:27 pm

Post by Jack » Sat May 10, 2008 2:06 am

Ok. Admin. I watched your video on special police. I will not say that it is bad, because their is some new stuff here that I haven't seen before. But here is the major issue I had with it.

You stated that:

As soon as the door opens the flash bang is thrown in and the two operators scan the room while waiting for the bang to go off. If they see a threat they will shoot from this position, this way they will have cleared a big part of the room without entering. When the bang detonates they will cross ore buttonhook in the door.

Problem:

The door is opened by the number three man. Number one throws in the flash bang. Number two is observing a part of the room that number one can not see. He notices a lethal threat takes aim and pulls the trigger, just as the bang goes off and number one starts moving through the doorway. Bang. You just killed your point man.

Or, you both notice the threat, number two shoots, number one decides to move in on the threat instead of shoot from cover.

Solution:

Good technique but save it for slower more methodical searches. Get into position, have number three pop the door. Forget the flash bang and maybe even have number two slice the pie back to your location before communicating with number two that you are ready to enter. That way you go in together at the same time and you don't shoot each other. Maybe even have number three use a mirror on the room before you enter. This would be a great technique for clearing buildings like schools or other places that generally have brick walls that provide good cover.

P.S.

I obviously don't know everything, and the technique seems to work well for the team in the video.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 332
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 6:07 pm
Contact:

Post by Admin » Sat May 10, 2008 1:53 pm

I get your point.
If you look closely in the video you can see that the door opens, the bang goes in and number 1 and 2 scan and engage from here. when operator 2 is satisfied that his sector is clear, he raises his muzzle and with his non firing hand he forms a thumbs up sign that he holds so number 1 can see that 2 is ready. Number one always go in first but he will not move before he sees this signal.

Jack
Law Enforcment
Posts: 402
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:27 pm

Post by Jack » Sat May 10, 2008 7:21 pm

Yea. I did notice him raising the muzzle, and I wandered if this was a signal.
I think it all works. I understand wanting to take care of the treat in the hallway and not walking into a meat grinder. I do think that this is the wrong mindset though for Hostage Rescue.

I still think that the technique should be used for slower searches and that the point man should signal the time for entry (verbal or no verbal) and not the second man(by raising his muzzle up. Because when he raises that muzzle the point man may not be ready to go yet.

I think I will get some guys together sometime and try it, just like it is shown in the video, maybe I am making a bid deal out of nothing?

Post Reply

Return to “CQB entry tactics / room clearing”