Page 2 of 5
Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 10:46 am
I have bin studying a little on the net, and to my surprise I found that when military units do a 2 man entry they like for the first man to go around the doorframe and the second man to cross, when police do the same thing, they like for the first man to cross and the second man to buttonhook.
The police explain that the first man needs to se his route so there isn’t any furniture in his way, and because he moves very fast to take the focus from the rest and make space for the second man to enter. Another thing was that he can’t process all the info he got while he button hooked around the frame.
Any comments on that?
Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 2:05 pm
Hard to say what is right and what is wrong. There is logic for both methods, so I think it comes down to SOP or personal preference.
Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 4:12 am
I find that that is true in hooking around doors. As you are sweeping a large part of the room whilst moving fast (assuming the team is in dynamic mode) it can be hard to take in everything in the room when moving around the doorway.
I guess the idea is to sweep the room and see if there is any contacts so you know whether or not there is any and also get an idea of how many contacts there are. Then you are supposed to clear the hard corner and then face the front of the room to deal with anyone you might have seen while sweeping during the initial entry.
I might be wrong but this is what I suppose is how it works in real life.
“Slicing the pie” vs. “button hook” for room entry
Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 10:19 am
Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 6:53 pm
Regardless, in a single stack one person must hook (that is, if the first crosses then the second must still hook.)
The military's logic (and my team's) would likely be that the entry side corner is the most dangerous area and is best to be cleared first. Also the initial hook allows you to clear a good portion of the room.
We don't like having the second person hook because the opposite corner must be cleared as quickly as possible to minimize the lead's exposure to the corner that will be behind him. Thus to our logic since it would be faster for the second to cross rather then hook, we do it in this way.
The difference is in the defenders. Police method is better if complete surprise is achieved. Military method if one only has tactical surprise (that is, they know that you are coming, they do not know when). The most dangerous person to be is the second through because when firing at the first while in the funnel, late rounds may hit the second. Having the first hook and the second cross allows the second to get out of the funnel faster, and has the advantage of having a portion of the room cleared already by the first.
In the police method, the second though has a greater amount of danger from late rounds as well as having to clear a larger portion of the room while swinging through. This is acceptable when defenders are less prepared because they are less likely to get rounds off.
This isnt to say that the military style only has pro's and no con's. Having the lead hook and the second cross takes more timing and also keeps the group tighter in the funnel. Should you not move fast enough, your team may be caught in the funnel. High Risk - High Reward
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 5:25 am
Exactly, teams should strive to minimize the amount of uncleared space they expose themselves to, and also to minimize the time that said space stays uncleared. Whichever way your team in particular can do faster and more efficiently is the best way. There is no "one" way for things to work.
Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 12:04 pm
Jake wrote:There are no perfect systems. This one allows us to clear a lot of rooms quickly and is an in your face style. It works for us because of the size of team we have and our missions. We don't always use this technique, but most of the time we do.
How many operators would you recommend for Immediate threat?
The size of my entire team is 6 people but usually there is only 4 or 5 of us when we get together and play. Yes I know there are only a few of us but we like to keep it small.
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:24 am
It depends on the mission. How quickly must you dominate the structure and locate the suspect? Quick enough to keep him from executing a hostage, or just quick enough to keep him on the defensive and keep momentum in your favor?
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:55 am
Jake wrote:It depends on the mission. How quickly must you dominate the structure and locate the suspect? Quick enough to keep him from executing a hostage, or just quick enough to keep him on the defensive and keep momentum in your favor?
I always thought speed is always necessary in CQB or at least in dynamic mode.
Although I do know some situations would call for more speed in order to, for example, prevent the loss of further lives in a hostage rescue scenario. And something like a barricaded suspects scenario might allow for the team to be slightly more laxed in the speed of which they are clearing the structure (in dynamic).
Would to goal of trying to stop someone from executing a hostage or trying to keep him on the defensive cause much difference in speed and the time to dominate the structure and locate the suspect?
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:50 am
Well speed is definitely a more critical factor in some cases than others. Even when speed is used as a tactic.
Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 4:19 am
LAPD doing "immediate threat" technique. Cool video.
Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:24 am
Very cool video, nice found.
But if you look closely in the video, I think this is noting more then a public demonstration.
They know the layout of the building, and they don’t clear hard corners, behind the bar and so on. But it looks cool, very dynamic.
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:14 am
Yea, a friend of mine I showed the video to, pointed out the exact same things. This could be something that they are doing on purpose, in order to get quickly from room to room(not something that I agree with).
But either way, there is some cool stuff in this video. It is a live fire demonstration of an immediate threat type entry. There are a hundred videos of points of domination, but this is the first I have seen on immediate threat.
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:22 am
Speaking of types of CQB vids that are scarce I think there aren't that many vids of room clearing by a professional team in the more advanced rooms, as in rooms with heaps of clutter, obstacles or unusually shaped rooms.
(not all) of the vids that I have seen are done in easy square rooms that amatures like myself and my team can clear. Otherwise it might be I'm not looking hard enough or in the right places.
Then again that's maybe it's because the pros like to hide their advanced stuff, which is understandable seeing how the advanced stuff should be hidden from public eyes.
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:43 am
Certainly lots of clutter is realistic. Dirt Bags don't usually have house keeping high on their priority list. This is another reason why I usually keep my muzzle in a safe direction/low ready and concentrate on mobility and observation rather than "Eyes muzzle gun."
Some times things work great in training and even make sense, until you try and use them in a real situation. A long gun that is carried in the contact ready position obstructs the view of what is right in front of you. This isn't so important if you are training in empty rooms. However you do need to see what is right in front of you on most real operations, because it is usually a maze of junk.
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:25 am
Thanks Birddog for the other new video.
Here is another video of a team using direct threat/immediate action in a live fire shoot house. This is GSG9.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWR6PnsN ... re=related
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 3:16 am
Good video, gotta love YouTube huh?
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 5:26 pm
Ok guys here are another entry technique for you.
Compare it to the 4 man wall flood and let me hear what you think.
It is called combination flood and is a mix of wall and penetration flood.
4 man stack up on a centre feed door.
1 man enters and moves to the mittle of the room, left side about 3 feet in the room. He clears the middle of the room and then sweeps to the left.
2 man enters and move to the mittle of the room, right side about 3 feet in the room. He clears the middle of the room and then sweeps to the right.
3 man enters and move to the left hard corner and then sweeps to the centre of the room
4 man enters and move to the right hard corner and then sweeps to the centre of the room.
It is like the wall flood only in backwards
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 11:03 pm
Hmmm, this one definitely sounds like a weird one to me. I'm having a hard time understanding it in words, perhaps you could draw up a quick diagram?
Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 2:11 am
There are pros and cons to every technique.
The pros are that getting to the center of the room first and clearing that, probably reduces the amount of time it would take to locate and put rounds on the bad guy, because he is most likely not going to be in the hard corners.
The cons are that if your bad guy is in the area that the point man is looking at and the bad guy returns fire, all of his rounds are going towards the doorway that all of your other team members are entering through. In case you were wandering that is a really bad thing.
Interesting idea, but I say thumbs down in my book.