When we're slicing the pie on a doorway, we're trying to solve as many of the room's problems before entering it. We are tempted to take our time, minimizing our exposure in the doorway's aperture. When/how do tactics change, during this process? If we're presented with a room with multiple hostile occupants, in a structure made of lumber and drywall, do we change the approach once the first occupant has been engaged, and the other starts reacting? I would think that continuing a slow, deliberate slicing would be ill-advised, if the wall you're concealed behind doesn't serve as cover. I think entering would be a bad idea too, though. Do we slice faster, engaging along the way, and enter once we've arrived at the other side of the aperture? This is in the context of a solo situation; no teammates in play.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,

The real question is will duct taping multiple plates to my back really stop multiple .338 Lapua shots?

From a technical perspective, a position of advantage is a key on the “slicing the pie” or “Variable Threshold Assessment”. The VTA for single person starts on one side of the doorway and forces the person to cross the doorway to see the other side of the room.

Now, with too many factors on a question like this to give a specific answer, from a technical sense, the guiding principle is that a single person HAS to keep their own security, the VTA will stop when the person has more threats than a single person can handle.

IE- a the person will never see the “room full hostiles” because they would have stopped from a position of advantage after coming across the first couple. They then have more threats than they can manage no matter how good they are. You have to keep your own security and keep the footing of advantage for it to work.

From a technical sense….

So, if you're slicing the pie, you see and eliminate a threat, and continue to eliminate threats you encounter, you're only ever presented with one threat at a time, so you maintain a manageable advantage? But, if you encounter, engage, fail to eliminate, and are then presented with a second (or after elimination of the first, you're engaged by a second and third), you've lost any expectation of advantage, and withdraw as best you can?

The first scenario seems unlikely to me: that a second, and perhaps third, bad guy wouldn't begin to merely engage the doorway itself, knowing you're there. I guess that's why teams overwhelm the room as they do. There are examples of "one man room clearing" on the internet, and I always thought that the scenarios that have multiple bad guys in the room are shit sandwiches. It seems they always approach them as though the bad guys would never consider just shredding the door frame (that and/or the walls are solid cover).

But, even if you take fire at the doorway, you have an “out” the way you came. Very, very few instances to where you’d need to enter the room after taking fire at the doorway. In a Team environment, outside of HR or active shooter, I’m not sending guys into a room that we have taken fire from.

One man techniques, I’m sure as hell not going in. This internet idea that your tactics have to allow you to go into a room always is the type things that will get people killed.

The generic “room clearing” on the internet is about likes and clicks. Not about tactics that bear out common sense.

VERY VERY few LE teams make entry these days unless they have to. Surround and call out, then gas the shit out of it if they don’t comply, is the flavor of the week. If a military SOF unit takes fire at the breach point, they toss a frag or move to another location and create an unconventional breach point. Nobody runs to their death these days if they don’t have to.

I managed to get temporary access to a vacant and mostly empty "for lease" property. Myself and two others spent a couple hours there last night, working through some tactics brainstorming, trying to establish some fundamental "foundation" of sorts, solely in the context of approaching, slicing, and entering a run-of-the-mill room. Lot's of moving pieces; it really can't be overstated.

It seems the first rule of CQB, in the minuteman or "prepared civilian" context, is avoid entering a building you have reason to believe is occupied at all costs, unless your life or the life of a loved one depends on it.

The second rule might be don't attempt building entry and clearance with any less than "X" number of people, taking into account both entry and outside security elements.

quote:

outside of HR or active shooter, I’m not sending guys into a room that we have taken fire from.

110% agree there. That makes a nice third rule.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,

Another video from this dude. The video is objective, though not especially thought provoking. I have been under the impression most folks had abandoned the "dumping" tactic altogether by now.

As jljones has said before: there is no way one can master CQB, without it being his full-time profession; even then, there's likely no mastering it. There's things Jo Blo can learn from considering CQB tactics though, IMO.

I have participated in force-on-force exercises, in the context of a cookie-cutter room entry, using blanks. It's a shit sandwich. That's not a good reason to abandon CQB training. You can improve your chances of success with even arguably minimal training, IMO.

Having worked through techniques on a "square range", using rope on the ground and hung tarps to illustrate walls and thresholds, I can say that it is very important not to forget to impose the limitations of realistic confines on your training. The inside of a residential structure is often much tighter than we're prone to making our mock-ups. Doorways and halls are narrower; two men are going to quickly realize alternate techniques may need to be adopted, when confines get tighter, and gear is worn.

Also, the exterior of a room can pose more problems than it's interior. Whether a room is center or corner fed matters less, IMO, than it's exterior approach. I may only be able to pie 50% of the usual interior space, if the doorway is in a corner on the outside of the room.

Target identification is a big deal. Because a CQB situation is so stressful, and speed is so important, we're naturally prone to being on the very brink of bringing the weapon to bear and firing. Taking the time to implement drills that force target ID is important; preferably in a way that's a bit subtler than solid white no-shoots with hands up.

I am not an expert, and none of this is advice. I have just-so-happened to have done more CQB-oriented stuff than is typical, these last few months, so it's interesting to share and discuss.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
You can improve your chances of success with even arguably minimal training, IMO.

That’s something I concluded was true a long time ago after I crossed in front of someone just as he was getting ready to (dry) fire.

I seem to have a more active imagination than many people and therefore I can envision situations in which it would be useful for non-LEOs to have some knowledge of CQB procedures even as I fully realize how unlikely such situations would be.

Regardless of how likely something might be, I am convinced that training with others provides valuable benefits. Things like room clearing drills require much more thought and awareness than simply running around shooting (such as not stepping in front of someone else who’s about to shoot). Any real life defensive situation will involve more than that, even if it’s no more than being aware of where other people might be. Drills that require us to think help develop our ability to do that. And of course we learn from others when we’re in a group, or even with just one other person.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:


I seem to have a more active imagination than many people and therefore I can envision situations in which it would be useful for non-LEOs.

It is.

The thing I have found is that the procedures aren’t a hard sell. It’s the processing that is required to be successful that is. I can tell a new guy gets it when they can abide by the fundamentals and process the room he’s in, in real time. A guy becomes “advanced” when he is not only processing the room he’s in but he’s processing upcoming rooms simultaneously. That comes with reps.

A very good IG channel policepoststraining weekly reviews and breaks down BWC footage, mainly from beat coppers. I saw a video yesterday that I believe was from LAPD where 6-8 officers respond to an aggressive man with a knife call inside of a structure. Now, keep in mind that these videos are always posted from the perspective of learning from them and not being critical of the officers mistakes. The officers stack up outside of the room that the BG is in. They have less lethal at the ready. They use what appears to be good tactics. They begin a call out procedure. Then the strangest thing happens. The dude comes out. Just like they told him to. And then a circular firing squad begins because no one could process “Hey, we’re asking this guy to come out, we should probably be ready if he actually does what we ask”. They wind up shooting him with lethal and less lethal at close range when the guy strolled in the middle of them with a knife. All while pointing guns at one another. One P3 sees an opportunity and wades in from the back and goes hands on with the guy and ends it.

Processing is the problem. Or learning to process in real time more likely.

These tactics are beneficial for everyone. Learning to process and get above tactics is the must.