[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 583: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 639: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions.php on line 4516: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3262)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions.php on line 4516: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3262)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions.php on line 4516: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3262)
CQB-Team.com • Rigid Team vs Fluid Element
Page 1 of 1

Rigid Team vs Fluid Element

Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 9:46 pm
by vic
I read Jim wanted to make such thread but I can not find it anywhere here. The subject is interesting. I'd like to hear some opinions about having static and flexible formations.

Here's some example scheme for crossing the dangerous area with bounding (leap frogging), the movement is begun by #2 after #1 calls clear and covering, then comes the rest and #1 as the last:
Image
Image

[different color is a team leader]
In this situation the team finishes in disorder, do you think they should restack before continuing or just reset 3 as 1, 5 as 2 and so on?

I was convinced that FE is not a part of military techniques so what do you think? Some video or text feedback would be appreciated.

Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 2:34 am
by jimothy_183
Why didn't you just post this here?

Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 9:14 am
by vic
that thread obviously didn't sound like a case study but more like "what's the color you like the most"

Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 9:42 am
by jimothy_183
Well that doesn't mean your "case study" is not suitable for that thread but I will continue using this thread anyway.

I like the non rigid system better. And the beauty about it is that you don't need to reform in the set order of operators when you have to split up when entering rooms or crossing T sections etc.

And I am quite sure it is used IRL, the amount of teams that use it however I have absolutely no idea about.

Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 11:18 pm
by jimothy_183
Posting a question on the behalf of one of our team members:
I was wondering how we'd do a double stack with a static entry when alwas the same guy has to enter first.
Also reforming after a T-section would take too long in my opinion.

Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 8:01 am
by jcheng14
You shouldnt have to. For sake of redundancy, each member should know and be proficient at multiple spots. Thus a rigid system is not really needed. Rigid systems might work out in field to keep command and control better, but in CQB environments the team must be able to respond quickly to events. Thus, the difference between team members with a primary job in a CQB environment is much less then the difference between team members with a primary job in a "field" environment.

One person will always be better then another at this or that, but everybody should be good enough to do everything.

I can't promote cross-training enough. cross-train, cross-train, and cross-train.

Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 8:06 am
by jimothy_183
Well said.

Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 1:35 am
by Jack
It is important to act quickly and to be able to fill in for other operators, but I don't know that I would do it as an SOP. Yes you want to KISS the operation, but often times it is simpler to use a "ridged" system.

I'm all for bounding when appropriate, usually in an outdoor environment. But it could be used in large open areas such as malls, and for clearing multiple levels of stairs. But I don't know that I would use it all the time.

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 7:55 pm
by JW417G
Definitely fluid...

If you are fluid, then that means you understand the principles behind what you are doing. It means you are a "thinker", and you can adapt on the move. You can change your tactics in an instant while keeping the principles on course...definitely the best kind of operator.

Rigid team formations are easier to teach, easier to learn, and easier to control from a supervisor or command perspective. BUT, the reason it is easier to teach and learn is because it doesn't require any thinking. It's memorized "dance steps". Not every line dance works for every song. Hence, not every rigid formation will work in every situation or environment. Those who only practice rigid team formations will typically experience hesitation in the decision-making process when they encounter an unfamiliar situation or environment because they're trying to figure out how to make their "dance step" work. Or, the team members realize the formation will have vulnerabilites in the environment they are about to enter, but will enter the environment anyways and accept the increased risk, because they don't know how to adapt.

In my opinion, fluid is better. But, it takes more training and repetition to be good at it. Paul Howe said it best..."I want shooters who are thinkers, and thinkers who are shooters."

Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 12:24 am
by jimothy_183
JW417G wrote:Or, the team members realize the formation will have vulnerabilites in the environment they are about to enter, but will enter the environment anyways and accept the increased risk, because they don't know how to adapt.
Just like to add here that even if the operator is a thinker in a rigid element they are still in a "dance routine" that they cannot change or they will stuff up the entire "routine".

Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:07 pm
by Buzzsaw
My team train to start in a rigid formation, and try to keep it when possible, but practice in each position. This way, we can quickly transfer over to a fluid formation. All around, a well trained fluid formation will work better than a well trained element only use to a rigid formation.