Teaching Limited Entries to Immediate Entry Enthusiasts

Moderator: jimothy_183

Post Reply
User avatar
Ryan
Posts: 2810
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:10 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Teaching Limited Entries to Immediate Entry Enthusiasts

Post by Ryan » Mon May 25, 2015 2:13 pm

Here is a topic to discuss how to teach limited entries to those taught only immediate entries. DareTactical and I have discussed this previously. I believe a basis of immediate entry is a good building block but an often dogmatic one with concepts like "pushing through the fatal funnel", "digging your corners", etc. I talked with an IDF mate who said:

"Hi Buddy. Our next CQB course is in June, Belgium this time. well regarding the learning curve and the rest..

Im a big believer in the fact that a lot could be done from the frame. Of course depends on the situation & circumstances. often im dealing with reserv soldiers or cops which have a problem to agree and follow this way.

eventually they do that,and they go that way. the problem is that their mind,and the whole approach is just around running in,dominating corner and repeating the same idea again and again.

So many people have problem, to adjust themselves into the idea of limited penetration or the mindset of using the frame

i came up with couple of ideas of how to close those gaps with all those ''go go'' people. its not easy, especially when mentality kicks in...but it works.
'
Sory for my English by the way"

We then went on to discuss, quite extensively, the differences between these mindsets and how to preach one or the other. It's funny because those trained mainly on limited entries understand when they need to just move in but are often like "NO WAY I'D BE KILLED! I could do something better". And the people mainly trained on immediate entries are like "NO WAY I NEED TO PUSH IN! I could be killed if I didn't." So, here's a topic to discuss this. I'm going to try put together a few PowerPoints dedicated to the pros and cons of each, real-world examples and techniques.
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: Teaching Limited Entries to Immediate Entry Enthusiasts

Post by DareTactical » Sat Sep 05, 2015 6:23 am

I think one of the ways the techniques differ is the way they are scalable to different team sizes.

It feels like Limited Entries / Limited Penetration Entries (LPE?) were based on 1 man tactics that were scaled up, so that it could accommodate 1-4 man elements. In the end, LPEs are essentially a 'slicing the pie' technique that has been sped up and made more incremental in order to allow for synchronisation with a partner and to split the areas of responsibility. On the other hand, Immediate Entries were always intended for a section / squad /fireteam element down to at least 3 men, and serious problems with the technique get more obvious when the team size goes down to 2 man or 1 man.

I think the first approach to teaching LPE to those who were taught immediate entries is to ask them what they would do if they were on their own and had to clear a room.

If they were smart, they would realise that their squad mentality no longer applies and that they would not be able to use overwhelming force, speed and aggression in the same way they could if they were in a fireteam. Once they understand that one-man immediate entries are not a good idea, then you can replace this foundation with slicing the pie / LPEs, which will form the foundation for team size LPEs.

They have to understand that the only time they will outnumber a threat in a room, when they're on their own, is if the room has no threat. When the room is occupied, they're dealing with at best 1 vs 1, which is when they need to realise they will have to use every force multiplier available to them in order to ensure you come out on top.

So to those who still don't get it:
Speed and surprise are great, if you know your opponent does not see you coming, but you can't always be sure of that. Flash bangs, grenades and distractions are also great, but you may not always have one on hand. So what's left that is available for you to use? Cover. You have a doorframe and walls which provide at least, cover from view, and hopefully, cover from fire. Controlling how much you expose yourself will allow you to deal with threats sequentially, allowing the higher possibility for 1 man to take out 3 threats occupying a single room. This would be highly improbable when using a 1 man immediate entry.
"train hard, fight easy"

User avatar
Ryan
Posts: 2810
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:10 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Teaching Limited Entries to Immediate Entry Enthusiasts

Post by Ryan » Sat Sep 05, 2015 7:21 am

DareTactical wrote:I think one of the ways the techniques differ is the way they are scalable to different team sizes.

It feels like Limited Entries / Limited Penetration Entries (LPE?) were based on 1 man tactics that were scaled up, so that it could accommodate 1-4 man elements. In the end, LPEs are essentially a 'slicing the pie' technique that has been sped up and made more incremental in order to allow for synchronisation with a partner and to split the areas of responsibility. On the other hand, Immediate Entries were always intended for a section / squad /fireteam element down to at least 3 men, and serious problems with the technique get more obvious when the team size goes down to 2 man or 1 man.
In this sense you could say that one was to meet resistance and take casualties but be able to sustain itself but the other was to meet resistance and prevent casualties.
DareTactical wrote:I think the first approach to teaching LPE to those who were taught immediate entries is to ask them what they would do if they were on their own and had to clear a room.

If they were smart, they would realise that their squad mentality no longer applies and that they would not be able to use overwhelming force, speed and aggression in the same way they could if they were in a fireteam. Once they understand that one-man immediate entries are not a good idea, then you can replace this foundation with slicing the pie / LPEs, which will form the foundation for team size LPEs.
Great thought-process. Although this can fail in the dogmatic who say, "Well I would never clear a room on my own." Some people need reality driven into their skulls where you may just have to clear on your own or be the first in for a number of valuable seconds, essentially clearing by yourself until mutual support. A lot of this is about relearning.
DareTactical wrote:They have to understand that the only time they will outnumber a threat in a room, when they're on their own, is if the room has no threat. When the room is occupied, they're dealing with at best 1 vs 1, which is when they need to realise they will have to use every force multiplier available to them in order to ensure you come out on top.

So to those who still don't get it:
Speed and surprise are great, if you know your opponent does not see you coming, but you can't always be sure of that. Flash bangs, grenades and distractions are also great, but you may not always have one on hand. So what's left that is available for you to use? Cover. You have a doorframe and walls which provide at least, cover from view, and hopefully, cover from fire. Controlling how much you expose yourself will allow you to deal with threats sequentially, allowing the higher possibility for 1 man to take out 3 threats occupying a single room. This would be highly improbable when using a 1 man immediate entry.
Exactly. I feel like there should be an escalation, de-escalation in force when it comes to this. And an acronym of course. The colour system I suggested a while ago works just as well.
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: Teaching Limited Entries to Immediate Entry Enthusiasts

Post by DareTactical » Thu Sep 10, 2015 8:27 am

Ryan wrote:In this sense you could say that one was to meet resistance and take casualties but be able to sustain itself but the other was to meet resistance and prevent casualties.
Very well put. If you think about the period during which the Immediate Entry method was adopted by the US and NATO militaries, it was during the Cold War when the threat of a full on war with the Soviet Union was anticipated. Both sides built up their armies, and if you look at cold-war era platoon level tactics then versus today, armies back then would take it for granted that they would suffer more casualties and therefore, losses up to certain extent were acceptable, if not, inevitable. This meant that if you lose a section/squad upon entry, you could just send another in until the room is taken.

I also read a forum post somewhere (sorry I don't have a source, so you just have to take my word) about an individual who went to a tactical training school in the '90s, run by law enforcement (former or active) and being surprised to find a number of Navy SEALs and SF members who were also there to receive training. Supposedly, there were so few urban conflicts at the time that the SF community was not receiving the real world experience it needed to maintain its skills, and so, looked to Law Enforcement community, who had experience dealing with these situations on a daily basis. I reckon this must have been the case before the '90s as well.
"train hard, fight easy"

Post Reply

Return to “Training, General Discussions”