Immediate vs. limited entry in a team environment

Moderator: jimothy_183

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

Immediate vs. limited entry in a team environment

Post by DTas » Fri Apr 24, 2015 4:01 pm

Hello guys, I've had the pleasure of both training on, using and instructing both methods, and wanted to share some of my insights on this issue.
Well, lets start with this, there's much debate going on about the limited vs. immediate entry issue, much of it started with the excellent videos made by HTLE CQB.
Those debates mostly concentrate on the drill/entry itself, overlooking major issue regarding the technique/house clearing itself.

Just to make sure we're talking about the same things, i'll add those definitions i posted erlier:
1. Drill - a set of actions which is trained and rehearsed again and again until it becomes automatic.
The drill is first in the chain, and is done without thinking.
For example - all the entry types specified above are drills.

2. Technique - a set of drills which may be combined in a few ways due to a decision made by the leader.
The technique involves thinking which can create an advantage in some scenarios.
For example, covering a hallway from the left side while clearing the right side, allowing the clearing force extra security.

3. Tactic - the use of specific set of principles in order to give myself an advantage.
The most known are surprise, speed, violence of action, but there are other principles as well.


I'll start by examining both entry types on the drill level and present the pros and cons.

Limited entry:
pros:
1. probably less people in harms way in a case of a prepared defender.
2. better chances of disengaging.
3. ability to process and give feedback about problems in the room (another room, furniture, suspects).

cons:
1. flagging the barrel can reveal your position and get shot at immediately.

Immediate entry:
pros:
1. Speed.

cons:
1. probably wont work against a prepared defender.
2. a 4 men element will probably not be able to disengage after being wounded.
3. usually cant pre-process.

Now, let us examine the best case and worst case scenarios upon entry:
Limited entry:
best case - working on the door, identifying a threat, shooting, threat down.
wors case - working on the door, flagging, being shot at through the wall, 1-4 men wounded outside the room.

Immediate entry:
best case - entry, threat, threat down.
worst case - entry, prepared defender, 4 men down inside the room.

Lets continue on how each technique can remedy the worst case scenario.
Limited entry:
1. ability to shoot back at the threat through the wall.
2. ability to close in and get a frag grenade in.
3. some ability to extract the wounded.

Immediate entry:
1. some ability to shoot through the wall.
2. no ability to use a frag grenade (due to wounded guys inside).
3. no ability to extract the wounded.

After looking at the scenarios above, we can conclude that the limited entry is more suited to the classic combat scenario.
So, what is the place for the Immediate entry then?
Well, it's simple. speed.
The immediate entry is much quicker and therefore is more suitable to a hostage rescue situation, or a law enforcement situation.

That was the conclusion of the drill level, now lets go on to the technique.
There are no many videos regarding usage of teams in CQB, for me a team in a CQB environment is a squad sized element (2 fire teams of 3-4 men + squad leader) each fire team is able to conduct a building clearing by itself, the second fire teams allows to continue combat despite casualties.
the Leaders job is to coordinate between the fire teams and to act according to combat doctrine and principles (Speed vs. Security).
There are not many videos of both entry types on the team level, but from my experience i can calssify two methods.

1. Simultaneous method:
Each fire team acts relatively independently, entry is done simultaneously and quickly in order to clear the building as fast as possible.
The leader doesnt play a significant role untill the point of extraction.
This method is suitable to where speed is key.

2. Deliberate Method:
In this method each rooms are entered one at a time, all coordinated by the leader.
Although this method is significantly slower it allows the leader great control over the fire teams, which is a significant plus in combat situations.

some videos: (mostly immediate and simultaneous).
https://youtu.be/r9BPHQH-lIg
https://youtu.be/bNj3wcOAy8A
- 3:25

On the tactical level, the deliberate method allows the leader to execute different principles and use his toolbox.
On the other hand, the simultaneous method uses a preset set of principles (surprise, speed, violance of action) since the control is not in the hands of the leader.

Again, we can see that the deliberate method is more suitable for combat, and the simultaneous is better with hostage rescue and other environments where speed is crucial to the mission success.

The conclusion to this thread is as follows, I presented two methods on the drill level, two methods on the technique level and the interaction with the tactical level, each one is better suited to a specific task, one is military, the other is law enforcement.
It is up to the unit level to decide which one is best suited for them.

Hope you had a nice reading.

User avatar
Ryan
Posts: 2787
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:10 am
Contact:

Re: Immediate vs. limited entry in a team environment

Post by Ryan » Sat Apr 25, 2015 2:00 am

DTas wrote:cons:
1. flagging the barrel can reveal your position and get shot at immediately.
This can be avoided standing-off from the door or having muzzle awareness and raking in.
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: Immediate vs. limited entry in a team environment

Post by DTas » Sat Apr 25, 2015 8:28 am

Here is an example of a deliberate and limited entry by the russians, the exercise includes advancing, contact, disengagment, wounded, further disengagment.
First, notice the different mindsets between what youve seen here and the immeidate entry.
Also, notice minimal amount of people receiving contact which is done by the tactical spacing between fire teams.
Ultimately, they've done a few mistakes from my point of view, but non the less, this training is very realistic.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ve1yy_Riad4

User avatar
Ryan
Posts: 2787
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:10 am
Contact:

Re: Immediate vs. limited entry in a team environment

Post by Ryan » Sat Apr 25, 2015 1:28 pm

Very nice video with bunker up front. I like the way they have multiple teams on through-doors allowing a 'tunnel'-like access with security at each point. I also like the quick shoulder transitions by rearguard.
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: 2787
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:10 am
Contact:

Re: Immediate vs. limited entry in a team environment

Post by Ryan » Sun May 17, 2015 5:57 am

One question I have is on teaching. Do you expect people to have a background in immediate entries before teaching limited? Where or what are the SOPs to state the initiation of one over the other?
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: Immediate vs. limited entry in a team environment

Post by DTas » Sat Jun 13, 2015 7:46 am

The main problem where I teach is there are too many different methods taught to soldiers.
There is a simultaneous and immidiate entry for hostage rescue missions.
There is a simultaneous and limited entry for hostage rescue Missions.
And there is a deliberate and limited entry for CQB combat.
In some places they even use the American technique.
Most SF units know at least 2 of these techniques.

In an ideal world I'll choose either a limited or immidiate drill that I'll use always, and then start practicing it on HR type missions and later move on teaching the same entry drill at a more deliberate pace.

User avatar
DareTactical
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat May 02, 2015 6:24 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Immediate vs. limited entry in a team environment

Post by DareTactical » Sat Jun 13, 2015 8:19 pm

Ryan wrote:One question I have is on teaching. Do you expect people to have a background in immediate entries before teaching limited? Where or what are the SOPs to state the initiation of one over the other?
Honestly Ryan, i've only ever taught British Army soldiers, and a few civies off-duty. I've usually expected them to have learnt immediate entries and if not, have taught them immediate entries as this is the method the British Army teaches and it is a staple of FIBUA.

I hope now that most have realised that I although I fully support the training of immediate entries, in my honest opinion, it should only be used as a 'if all else fails' entry technique, second to limited penetration entries.

This is why advocate the use of the '45-90-180' limited penetration entry after seeing something similar done by UKSF during my time at Pontrilas. Max Velocity also came to create the same/similar technique as me, independently, and it's great that that i'm not the only Brit that realises the risks of current SOP (immediate entries).
"train hard, fight easy"

User avatar
Ryan
Posts: 2787
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:10 am
Contact:

Re: Immediate vs. limited entry in a team environment

Post by Ryan » Wed Jul 15, 2015 5:33 pm

DareTactical wrote:I hope now that most have realised that I although I fully support the training of immediate entries, in my honest opinion, it should only be used as a 'if all else fails' entry technique, second to limited penetration entries.
Interesting way of putting it. I'm working with Nathan on SOPs with LE vs IE and where to differentiate them in real-time. I.e. how do you when all else has failed? Where's the point where we decide to blast on in rather than stay out the door or scoot it? These are questions that still bug me.
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: 59
Joined: Sat May 02, 2015 6:24 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Immediate vs. limited entry in a team environment

Post by DareTactical » Thu Jul 16, 2015 5:55 am

Ryan wrote:
DareTactical wrote:I hope now that most have realised that I although I fully support the training of immediate entries, in my honest opinion, it should only be used as a 'if all else fails' entry technique, second to limited penetration entries.
Interesting way of putting it. I'm working with Nathan on SOPs with LE vs IE and where to differentiate them in real-time. I.e. how do you when all else has failed? Where's the point where we decide to blast on in rather than stay out the door or scoot it? These are questions that still bug me.
"All else has failed"
Good question, poor choice of words on my part. What I meant was upon approaching the doorway, the team is able to assess the situation. "Do I still have element of surprise?" "Does the door swing inwards or outwards?" "Is the door self-closing or not?" "Do I have enough men to successfully complete my next immediate objective?"
and based on these questions the final assessment of "Can I do a limited entry for this upcoming room?" Yes / No

When assessing the room / doorway,if the team concludes that Limited Entry will not be optimal for whatever reason (Self-closing door, or two parallel doorways looking into one another, or you still have element of surprise combined with the knowledge that your intel is solid and you know for certain your team outnumbers the threat in the room by a factor of at least 3 vs 1), then this is where Immediate Entry can be used.

"blast on in rather than stay out the door or scoot it"
To answer "Where's the point where we decide to blast on in rather than stay out the door or scoot it". You would probably 'scoot' or cancel your entry for that moment if someone gets hit Pieing or Limited Entrying a doorway. In order for the team to make a rational decision to reattempt an entry, there has to be a change in the situation. An example of this would be the use of a flashbang or frag grenade just before the 2nd attempt. This grenade could disorient, wound or kill the threat in the room, at the very least it will probably cause the threat to instinctively try to get low or to cover. Right after the explosion goes off, your team will have a second to gain entry and kill the threat while he's still in a disadvantaged position (hopefully). "why wouldn't they just frag/flash the room the first time?" There are a hundred reasons why a team would not do this, so im just gonna say that the team may not have felt it was initially necessary.
"train hard, fight easy"

User avatar
Ryan
Posts: 2787
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:10 am
Contact:

Re: Immediate vs. limited entry in a team environment

Post by Ryan » Thu Jul 16, 2015 7:47 am

DareTactical wrote:What I meant was upon approaching the doorway, the team is able to assess the situation. "Do I still have element of surprise?" "Does the door swing inwards or outwards?" "Is the door self-closing or not?" "Do I have enough men to successfully complete my next immediate objective?" and based on these questions the final assessment of "Can I do a limited entry for this upcoming room?" Yes / No
This is exactly what I was looking at when I said, earlier last year ( :lol: ), that we should have a "mental checklist" for risk assessment before entry other than "okay, which way does it open for me to go". It should be "okay, which does way does it open therefore where am I at risk and how should I adjust myself?". This would change conventional stacking against a wall to offset stacking, determining positions on the fly.

Nathan is working on a risk assessment tool for guys on-the-job. He's also looking at a screening tool for instructors to look at what to include and exclude in content based off what works in common reality (most likely scenarios and responses in common situations). By the way, interesting point on outnumbering the threat. A lot isn't said about this apart from the 3:1 rule often cited from the Marines/US connections. I wonder if Nathan has this in his mental checklist. I like it because it's looking at contingencies and man-down situations. They're going to occur at some point, no matter what.

I think two Parrnell doors isn't as big a problem as made out. Eli (Project Gecko, IDF) advocates having hallway security, with one man on the "far" side of the door with the clearer, checking behind him at all times. This even allows for a three man entry, but I haven't put this into practice yet and checked it out. I don't think this is a bad way of thinking for target rooms with determined routes, but it carries risk. Risk exposure to two or three separate danger areas? Bad news.

I like your thought-process, Dare. Wait for the situation to change - in your favour. Grenade, flashbang, wait-out, runner, EKIA. The only thing I can say is contingencies - do not over-penetrate, probe-to-contact with enough speed to pass (standards need met on this, i.e. 45-90-45 would work quick and allow you to follow-up). The case involving Sgt Baird of 2CDO here in Australia had this situation happen THREE TIMES. There has to be a point where we say - okay, pull out. There has to be a point where the "far" door guy has to pull back, crossing the door. Danger. It's a good example of when you expect something to happen - enemy hug cover, allow entry, etc - and it doesn't. So - wait for situation to change, if no change on follow-up pullout? Sounds reasonable? Needs timeframes and standards though. Also, principles often not taught are vital here like THREAT ISOLATION, SEGMENTED SEARCHING. Work out where they are in the room, isolate them to that area, own your angle.

Image
There were 6 Taliban in this room with a PKM at the door. >6 grenades and 3 attempts at entry later. Australian Commando killed.

This is a system I once thought of. Sharing is caring so here goes:
"Black - ROOM IS UNSAFE EVEN AFTER RED ENTRY. PULL OUT. Conduct a Stand-off Attack from distant with HMG, GMG, AT, vehicles and other assets. Enemy runners are to be engaged or captured; all exit points are to be covered if possible ("No Clear").
Red - ROOM IS UNSAFE TO ENTER OR FIGHT THROUGH. CONTESTED ROOM. Grenades and other HE ordnance used to clear. Limited entry (or limited incursion) techniques utilized. If still unclear then may be designated as black as ground situation dictates ("Hard Clear").
Orange - ROOM IS POTENTIALLY UNSAFE WITHOUT ENTRY AID. Noise-flash distraction device utilized under caution to enter room or safely allow a limited entry before immediate entry occurs or for an immediate entry to occur taking the known risks after an expedient risk-benefit analysis in an emergency entry.
Green - ROOM IS CONSIDERED CLEAR. NON-CONTESTED ROOM. Civilians may be present. Entry as per SOP. If engaged on a green entry, the team commander is to decide whether or not to fight through or escalate the awareness to a different entry type of disengagement ("Soft Clear")."
Thoughts?

This allows escalation of force and standards to meet every room entry. It's a bit like code-colour systems in NATO and with gun safety and shooter mindset so it's easy for people to work it out. I see a problem with it in regards to surprise-on-contact... being shot as a Green occurs meaning therefore the whole system failed itself to prevent casualties. Therefore there has to be criteria into what an Orange, Red and Black is more so than a known threat, but examples of potential threats. I.e. "civilians left area" = Orange target rooms or known enemy hotspots? I'm still unsure. Also, if shot on Green then... what? Pull out? Situation dependent. Allowing interpretation and independent solutions is a must, people thinking on their feet. Initiative-based tactics, really. But there should be standards or examples for soldiers to get their head around in preparation. By the way I know the British Army and NATO use similar to this but this example works with more than HE. It works with limited entries and stand-off attacks. Something not seen collectively.

Example: If the entry is initially GREEN but you encounter resistance it turns to RED skipping ORANGE. If the threat has not been killed, entry team is dead or retreated then HE methods, limited entry techniques and the use of assets such as vehicles must be be utilized to clear the threat. Precaution must be made into the room after this and deadchecks must be thorough. If the threat cannot be cleared, awareness BLACK, the building and any ports must be engaged or made.

Another example: If the structure is a known hotspot with suspected insurgent activity - and you have already been spotted or compromised - then ORANGE may be conducted on dangerous rooms, as may other probing methods OVER immediate entries.
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: Immediate vs. limited entry in a team environment

Post by DTas » Fri Jul 24, 2015 10:36 am

I really like what you wrote, actually you're talking about taking the CQB taught from the drill to the technique level.
It is more advanced since you'll have to teach both immediate and limited entry methods, develop drills to use grenades, shoot through walls, using K-9s ETC.
but, it will become a technique full of drills to deal with specific situations, based on human behavior, and not an all out run into the room and shoot drill that would work only in kill houses against paper targets.

User avatar
Ryan
Posts: 2787
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:10 am
Contact:

Re: Immediate vs. limited entry in a team environment

Post by Ryan » Thu Sep 24, 2015 12:27 pm

I believe the colour system is an easier way to teach people how to transition to limited or immediate entries, do you agree?
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 Team TTP/S”