This is a good way to explain modern high threat room clearing.

MVT

Mods if not allowed please let me know. Thanks!

Nothing in that article is really "modern" or new. As far as policing goes, those techniques are more patrol level than SWAT. Any police officer who has been to an active shooter class will probably recognize the diagrams in the article.

Don't get me wrong, for an ad-hoc team those techniques have merit but it's not some whiz bang "game changer."

True. It's not new. That much was said in the article. It is however not widely known where as flooding the room is commonly understood. The idea is to show that there is a better way. Old hat to LEO and Mil sure but your average civi might find it interesting.

The article is basically stating that as a civilian conducting CQB in a team context, for whatever reason, fighting from the doorway might be better than trying to flow into the room.

The target clientele are explained on the home page:



In my experience, doors do in fact tend to be bullet magnets in CQB, and few construction methods out there do much to stop bullets, so even if you are barely concealed outside the frame, you will take rounds.

There is a commonly-overlooked asset that deals with barricaded threats extremely well, and isn't a robot or my support-by-fire position.  It already knows where the threats are before entering the building, and instills a lot of fear into the occupants before it ends them.

I see this is an old thread, but it popped up with a recent comment.

Be very careful considering the techniques in this article. "Fighting from the door" is a UK Army technique that is not used by any Tier 1 unit in the US military, nor is it used by the part of the British SAS that actually performed  the "black roles" at the JSOC level (that's right, not all of the SAS is actually on the "Tier 1" level teams). I would never consider fighting from the door unless full length ballistic shields are being used.

I personally saw this technique when I ran a schoolhouse for the UAE special operations forces on my first contracting gig after getting out from the Brit SAS guys who primarily served in the "Green Roles" troops. They thought is was great because Simmunitions exercises told them so. I didn't allow it.

It is useful to note, that even at the Unit we moved away from dynamic entry "hostage rescue" style CQB to what we refer to as combat CQB. We will slowly pie corners until the point that you are committed to the threshold, at what point you dynamically clear the "fatal funnel" (yes, they are a thing- regardless of what you may have been told). They key to the combat technique, is that the number one man will chose to enter or not to enter based on what he sees. Obviously, if he doesn't like it and we pull back- the room is either getting fragged or we pull completely out and drop the roof on their heads with some thermobaric love. Neither of those options are going to work for home defense, Law Enforcement, Active Shooters, Hostage Rescue, etc. I generally don't even teach this technique in the CQB courses I run in the US, because it isn't a useful technique stateside.

The technique discussed by the OP is not condoned for use by any Security Contractors/Close Protection/PSS/whatever term you want to use. Doorways are not considered ballistic protection and should not be used as such.  No agency I've heard of or worked for has every allowed this technique.

Always consider the source of your information. Any instructional advise should come from a well vetted source (arfcom and other internet sources don't count).

When I first read about this technique last year and the "success" guys at 10th Mtn were having with it at thier Lightfighter school during Sims training, I brought up the danger of stating something is a success based off of sim engagements. This is especially true when it comes to the non-penetrating nature of sims eliminating one of the weaknesses of said method.

I saw 'dopushups' quoted on another thread in the general training discussions forum by 'NCPatrolAR.' This is what i said to him over there:

Oh come on NCPatrol! Talk about hanging off someones words who you assume knows everything because they are 'former CAG'. This illustrates a real problem in 'the community.' I am sure Mr CAG is great at what he does but that is plain inaccurate.

So now we are arguing, inaccurately, about levels of 'tierness' within the SAS? That's just total BS. There are no 'only green' SAS who are somehow at a lower tier than the men in black. All the guys are trained in CT operations and they simply rotate the squadrons on the CT role.

But that isn't even really the point. It's not about the latest techniques employed by the highest speed DA units. Way to illustrate a problem! No one here is training to be in a top tier DA team with all the support, equipment and training that entails. We are training civilian who may have to fight in structures, and we are teaching them techniques that actually work in combat, that troops in combat will use because flooding the room against barricaded enemy doesn't work.

And to criticise a technique for being British, which in fact it isn't because it is used widely by US Forces, is the height of hubris, because it was the SAS that pioneered all this DA CT capability (and are the basis for CAG!)

Wow, just wow.

Amazed.



The level of childishness and dick measuring seen here is quite amazing. Rather than discussing valid techniques that are proven in combat as THE ACTUAL WAY THESE THINGS HAPPEN, we get which higher speed unit does or does not validate this. What also amuses me is that given that I cut my teeth in BritMil, the assumption is that this is a UK vs. US technique thing, whereas fighting from the door, limited penetration, and high threat tactical clearance against barricaded threats are techniques that are well know to have come into play in combat, because flowing into room against a tactical threat does not work. Unless you have surprise, concussion, flashbang, explosive breach...get my point?

There are again, some inflated resumes here. We already covered Scott and his inflated 4 years in Ranger battalion, into 20 years in SOF.

This thing about the walls not being cover is well known and taught if you were actually at a class. Most wall structures in the US are concealment, not cover, we know that. But for example, this drill is not a slow drill, and I would rather be  not seen on the outside of the room than seen flowing into the muzzle of the BG. Or the BG shooting through a murder hold in the next room who is unaffected by your Frag. You are not supposed to f'ing hide there, you are supposed to do a quick pie depending on the technique and the situation, and if you meet too much resistance you can pull back, consider another breach point, or an alternative way to reduce the threat if the situation avails itself.

This is where this BS goes off the reservation: a bunch of guys with inflated resumes trying to work out who is higher speed than the other, and that is when most if not all of you were never in these units anyway - not even anything to do with any of these units. As posted by some commenters here with a higher level of intelligence, this technique is (although used) not designed to be a rip-off of some super-high-speed DA unit, it is teaching the best techniques for civilians who may have to do structure clearance.

I mean, seriously, read the article before slinging your monkey poop. And don't tell me that anyone seriously worth their tactical shit would not recommend this technique, describe it as worthless, even if they didn't (opinion) think it would be used by them all the time in all circumstances? That's just selling people short, it really is. And to hint that this has only been tested with simunition is such total BS - it is combat proven, and in fact has been shown to be COMBAT NECESSAARY to live on countless occasions. Disingenuous bullshit.

Just for shits and giggles, here's a video of an SF guy, not a CAG DA team, just in combat having to clear a structure when it goes to shit for the ANA guys he is with. Notice his technique? Notice that speed is optional and relative.

(But yeah, he's *ONLY* SF, not super-high speed Direct Action etc etc...so how valid is his off the cuff shit some guys are trying to kill me and got the jump on the ANA dues...techniques).

Nutsacs.

Edit: I just noticed that what 'dopushups' described as Combat CQB ('like he did in the unit') sounds exactly like what we at MVT call Tactical Clearance. This comes from Combat Clearance as proved in Iraq/Afghan. Ask any modern Ranger doing this night after night - all the way up to the thermobaric! So absent all the inaccuracies about the SAS, what's the deal? The speed of your pie is optional depending on the situation, but it ultimately ends up fast, as you can see in the MVT videos, unless you are forced to back off.

Deleted- withdrawing from any conversations with the OP

Ok, dopushups, this is better. Good. This is a much better approach that I have seen from a couple of others. Although this type of comment:



...is pretty unhelpful. If you could see me sitting here typing, you would get an impression of my actual mental state, which is not out of breath or bickering, but instead intent on clarifying, and yes a little peeved by the type and nature of some of the comments. So I would prefer that you refrain from commenting on what you think I am thinking, where tone on an internet post is hard to ascertain.

There is something that I think many don't understand: Yes, I care about training students. Some will only look at this from the point of view of business and making money, and they assume that is what MVT is all about. So they put their motive in my mouth. However, I opened  my school after writing my manual, because of my concerns about the uncertain times we live in, and out of a desire to 'keep good folks alive.' I will only run my school so long as citizens want training. If they don't want it, I'll do something else. So my concern is not commercial for MVT, but to ensure the word gets out to civilians about good TTPs and. if they want, where they can receive the training. In fact I have considered stopping open enrollment classes and simply making myself available to private bookings so I can spend more time writing and with my family. Mosby has done this.

As to this CQB thing, this is always a hot topic online. There are many, mostly the ones who have never had ti enter a room for real, who have exhibit visceral rage against anything that is not standard CQB - I know, I have experienced it. Now, there is a nuance missing here: I have never said that I am trying to replicate, with this tactical clearance training, current TTPs from anyone. There is often confusion online and the idea that everyone is 'trying' to be just like (insert high speed unit) and they only want to replicate exactly what they think they are doing. What I am doing is taking my and other experience, as well as techniques, and producing training that is better than standard CQB. There is much of this that is opinion and TTPs will vary across units and teams. I have a certain 'take' on it. You of all people should know that 'opinions are like assholes' in a team at times, or across teams.

(I have run this drill with two people on the door in the videos, because that is a fast intro at the Rifleman Challenge, but the slides clearly show 4 man teams entering the room -it is an option - also, you have to consider that in a civilian setting, two may be all that is available. husband and wife? This is not a CAG DA team - context is vital).

Now, there is a risk to being outside a door in concealment rather than cover if you hang about there once the enemy knows you are out there. Part of this is stealth / tactical surprise and part of it is speed, just like normal CQB. There are nuances that cannot be shown on slides in an article. But this is proven as a better technique than flowing into the room into a barricaded enemy, or where you whole team is taken out by an enemy in another room shooting through a murder hole. Back to my comment about context and nuance - you can get away with a lot of flooding if you lose tactical surprise but use explosive entry or frag (concussion, banger etc0 because you are a CAG DA team etc...but even if you are doing normal CQB and you are heard stacking you are still vulnerable to fire through the walls. So doing the limited penetration technique (which isn't necessarily about fighting fro the door) gives you the opportunity to back up and consider an alternate breach etc if you do experience strong resistance on your original pie.

There is only so much nuance I can convey in a comment online. However, the tactical logic is irrefutable. Particularity in the context of either a civilian group, or a green army team, faced with having to clear structures where potential active resistance/barricaded enemy is inside.

I am no stranger to this (what I see as institutional) resistance to these techniques. Many schools teach classic CQB and see this as something to be stomped on. I have no issue with you and Green Eye tactical. You are doing one thing, I am doing another. I want to make sure statements are accurate, and we can thus discuss things like adults and in a constructive manner. I do feel that there is a lack of understanding of what we actually do teach.  And, for example, the comments on the SAS were not accurate.

Now, your video below shows what you teach, which is classic CQB. Each to his own. I could easily say that this shows excltly why we do what we do - because the guys are flooding room unsighted straight onto the guns of the waiting enemy. What if the enemy were barricaded or in cover? It's a basic course, I get that, and they are not explosively breaching or using any kind of shock device, which puts them pretty much in the boat of a civilian team doing similar. This is why I do not teach classic CQB. Rather: breach, pie from the door, engage/fight if necessary, enter/flood or not, pull back and think again if necessary. Dying only happens once!

Here's a couple of thought provoking videos on high threat CQB showing both different and limited/dynamic penetration techniques. I just searched and pulled these from youtube. No doubt there are many more.None of these are affiliated with MVT:



Note the mix up of pie-ing and dynamic techniques in this video from about 2 minutes:






Here's a dose of reality to counter the 'high-speedness' CQB/MOUT against barricaded enemy in Iraq:

Deleted- withdrawing from any conversations with the OP

I am more than familiar with people taking video of students, where they are going at a designated speed (i.e slow) and focusing on certain basics, totally out of context! I can see that you are training people in the video, but many don't. They will look at that and say: Oh, that was not really high speed at all...because they have no experience conducting it, or are not good at it, and miss the point.

Yes, I have posted on GOOD SOLID BASICS. I agree.

Briefly on the fatal funnel point: I don't think I say it doesn't exist. (Just to digress: in fact given that we are used to mainly thicker walls (i.e. cover) overseas, and we don't have that here on the whole, it still behooves us the stay out of the line of fire in the doorway, even if it is only concealment, due to what you say, which is that once the door is breached fire will be directed at the door opening). So back on topic: my thought process is that i don't want to try and flow through the door (fatal funnel) into what i see as unchecked enemy fire. I don't see the ability to dominate the room until you are inside it, by which time the enemy can have been engaging you, particularly if he is in cover and /or you didn't have any way of shocking the room.

So I want to breach, pie, engage from the door (this is a fast action) before making a decision about entering or not. If rounds are coming trough the door/walls and I cannot reduce the threat, I'm not entering, we are pulling back along the walls and thinking out options. Rounds can go both ways through walls, so unless there are innocents you have a lot of options in MOUT, including fire!

Now, if I have surprise and the ability to explosively breach and/or shock the room then I will consider using the speed of the initial classic CQB entry. But even if that happens, it will probably be tactical clearance from then on, unless I can afford to shock all the rooms. Nuances and circumstances. what's that favorite phrase: METT-TC!

Deleted- withdrawing from any conversations with the OP

Lots about wall thickness, but nothing addressing how to 'flow' through a door with enemy within, unengaged, without taking rounds in the fatal funnel?

What about (for example) the guy who goes left, and the second guy isn't quick enough on his ass, and the enemy in the near right corner shoots number 1 in the back?

How about engage rapidly from outside the room (not synonymous with 'posting in the doorway, like some sort of palace guard!) before making entry, leaving your options open?

I'll stress again, it is a mis-characterization to say this is camping out in the doorway.

But I want to flip this: I want to know why classic CQB is, in your mind, a better technique for not dying that combat/tactical clearance?

Deleted- withdrawing from any conversations with the OP

What do you teach here? I've been to an active shooter/room clearing class with one of my local instructors and would love to see the differences in what he teaches, if any.

Deleted- withdrawing from any conversations with the OP

No worries - had I read the rest of the thread before posting, I likely would have retracted or changed my question.

Our class focused on 4- and 2-man teams, but (as we were all civilians) we discussed options for when you need to go it alone (such as working towards a spouse or children). It was obvious (and the instructor was clear) that this was just scratching the surface, but I was surprised at how much I picked up over a weekend - so I can only imagine the extensive volume of knowledge you need to do this successfully and in varying/unknown situations. Props to all the door kickers out there.

It all boils down to being able to process information quickly and knowing how to problem solve in an efficient manner

Agreed, but at first there seems to be a lot to learn/remember.  Once it is committed to memory and then moved to reflex, the processing speeds up as you automatically discard irrelevant info.  For beginners, you're trying to process it all, trying to figure out what you're forgetting, combating the unfamiliar adrenaline - and so everything has to go at a very slow pace (or a fast, ineffective one).