http://www.maxvelocitytactical.com/

Has anyone heard of these guys / trained with these guys.  Their name came up in another thread on another site.

Yes, GTG.  Read some of the AAR's.

Where can I find any off their site?  I'd like some unfiltered feedback.

As in not on his site?

Yes - I'm sure he's a great guy, but lets face it - people don't generally send negative feedback directly to the trainer, and if they did most people would generally choose not to post that on their website.

If there's any out there, I'd like to read and assess for myself.

I've been a reader of his site for a long time.  I'd definitely go to any of his classes if the opportunity was available.  Even John Mosby likes him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_S._Mosby?

I am reading his book, "Contact" right now.  He seems to know his stuff.  And let's face it, not a lot of instructors are teaching small unit tactics these days.  From what I can tell it is this guy or Yeager.

http://www.maxvelocitytactical.com/ There is a training facility about a half hour from me. Romney,Wv. I was thinking about going to some classes. Just haven't found the time. There is another facility even closer that I have taken training at from a team member. Max Velocity does them in different locations as well. Sorry no hot link..

https://mountainguerrilla.wordpress.com/

I was yanking your chain.  I get his email newsletter.

These are from a pretty sketchy website but I know some of the guys that posted the reviews and will say they are GTG--  Ymmv....


http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_9_19/234308_AAR__Max_Velocity_Combat_Patrol.html



http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_9_19/234291_AAR___MVT_Combat_Team_Tactics_and_Mobility_Drills___18_22_Feb_2015.html

My supervisor took a class in brady texas area with him and recommended it.

Nice finds, thanks!

Hoping to be able to take a class in the spring when time off work is easier (and I'm in better shape).  

I've had "Contact" in hand for a couple months now but haven't gotten around to it yet.  Finishing up some other reading.  I plan to take Contact with me to the deer stand this fall and read it then.  Thinking about possibly getting into one of the MVT classes sometime in '17.



 

Have buddies that have taken his courses ..he's g2g from them.
Contact is an awesome book...at least for what it is. His fiction book ties it together.
In hard copy damn thing is two inches thick.LOL

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

It depends on what you're looking for.  Max specializes in teaching courses for civilians living in uncertain times.  There are many on this site and others that scoff at people who teach civilians SUT.  So depending on your outlook, you may see what he's doing as prudent, or tin hat foolery.  If you are interested in learning skills in how to fight and defend yourself in uncertain times read on.  If not, then disregard.  

I have trained with both Yeager and Max.  If you want skill sets that teach you team tactics and patrolling skills, then I'd go to Max.  If you want good square range training that is also very entertaining, go see Yeager.

Max is the real deal, coming from the Brit Paras, and has in-depth knowledge and experience of light infantry skills and tactics.

I have taken CTT, NOD-F, CP, Land Nav, and competed in the Rifleman Challenge, earning a Rifleman tab.  This training was quite frankly better than what I got active duty in the Marine Corps.  

So I would highly recommend taking a course from Max.

In the interest of full disclosure I am a mod at his forum, the designer of his MVT gear, and consider him a friend.  But I don't recommend anybody, buddy or not, unless I truly believe in what they're doing.

Contact me for more info if you like.    

Thanks for your recommendation and information.  I've plenty of range time classes, and in fact have 3 more in the next 5 months already scheduled.

I'm more interested in knowing what do with when you're not firing your rifle, and that includes everything from SUT to basic skills & knowledge (medical, build/repair, store/prepare/cook, etc.).

I don't know that I have more specific questions right now, but would like to take a class with Max - possibly in the spring.  First though, I need a lot of PT.  Being an office worker with young kids, the time to devote to keeping/getting myself in shape have shrunk to near-zero.

Yeah, that's what MVT does, is takes you beyond the square range manipulation drills and teaches how to shoot, move, and communicate with 2, 4, then 8-man teams in the CTT class.  The CP course will then build on this by teaching you patrolling procedures in realistic scenarios.  The RC is a real butt-kicker, but you get TC3, along with some CQB training.  

I want to stress that while it is challenging, it's not impossible.  I'm 60 yrs old and successfully completed all this stuff.  Beyond a basic level of physical fitness, which I'm sure you have, it's all about combat mindset.  Come with the right attitude, and put out hard, and you'll do just fine.  Max and the other instructors are very good with tailoring training to your fitness level; they don't try and bust your balls just for drill.

If you are wondering about the PT, I would recommend the MVT fitness plans.  I've done the Intermediate combat fitness, and currently doing the RC fitness plan.  You get them through Training Peaks, just like triathletes, cyclists, and runners.  These are the most functional fitness plans, that addresses what you need to have in order to fight, that I've ever found.

Good luck in your training.  Hope to see you out there sometime.

I've been to his classes twice. MVT is the real deal in small unit tactics. I highly recommend it. Here are my AARs:

https://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=9&f=19&t=232891

https://www.ar15.com/mobile/topic.html?b=9&f=19&t=233791

You can get square range training from dozens of guys but I don't know too many that teach team tactics to this degree. I If you have some serious buddies that want to train as a team, this is the place to take them.

I've had a total of 16 classes from Yeager, Pat Rogers, Larry Vickers, and Paul Howe...  plus CTT/Mobility from MVT in Texas last February.  Good analogy: The other guys had me learning their techniques for hitting a heavy bag, and Max's course was 5-days of sparring with a pro boxer.  

That doesn't mean I was in a real fight, doesn't mean that the pro was getting his jollies kicking my arse (brit talk there), and it doesn't mean that all those other guys are bad trainers!  It just means that the "tactical training" world for civilians is about 99% dancing around in a gym hitting a punching bag.  If you are comparing MVT to all those other guys, it's really sort of an apples vs. oranges comparison.

Bottom line - Max is definitely good to go, if you want to learn to apply all the stuff you learned from the other guys about shooting, reloading, clearing malfunctions, etc.  Hell, Max teaches you most of the same stuff on Day 1, and then goes right to the "sparring", so you don't really need to have ANY training before rolling into his program.

Yeah, what he said below.  I've attended a few classes, most with former and some active duty guys (SF, Rangers, USMC).  I always made a point of asking those guys their thoughts vs. what they have done in the service.  Without hesitation, all indicated that they did more live fire, SUT, fire-and-move, (whatever you choose to call it) in 3-5 days at MVT than in many years of active duty (short of the SF guy that has done 6 deployments).  Not quite scientific, but I think gives a good summary of the training and enough of a sample size to validate things.  I'll go back again.

I'm calling BS on your statement.  Coming from Ranger Bn and knowing that all day, every day is working on the big 5 (PT, marksmanship, medical, SUT, and CQB), there is no way possible that a 3-5 day course even comes close to what we do on a daily basis. JUst getting to Ranger Bn, guys have gone through 8 weeks of RASP doing that stuff plus more (breaching, jumping, insertions, etc...).  SFQC is similar.  Additionally, anywhere that does more live fire than dry fire and walkthroughs is just ballistic masturbation and a sales ploy for weekend warriors.  

MVT does not teach all the jumping, breaching, rucking for umpteen miles, etc in a 5 or 6 day course...  The focus is just basic small unit tactics.

I will say that I have seen a bunch of comments from former combat arms mil guys who have attended MVT courses along the lines of this:  "I am impressed... you don't get this level of SUT training in the military short of Ranger Bn..."  That doesn't mean that MVT turns out "Rangers" in 5-6 days.  It means that they think MVT turns out students that have a better grasp of SUT than the vast majority of grunts and ground pounders at squad level in the  Army or USMC.  I believe them.

As to your comment on dry fire vs live "ballistic masturbation", I respectfully disagree.  A bunch of intelligent, highly motivated students doing basic react to contact, break contact, and hasty assault drills on a controlled range, mostly in groups of 2 to 4 under the watchful eye of one or two very professional instructors can get a LOT of valuable training in a short time out of live fire vs dry walk-throughs.  Courses are stuctured with lecture to explain what you're going to do and why, followed by brief dry rehearsal, followed by live fire execution of the concept.  Then a little more complexity is added with each exercise.  It works, and if you could see it in person, I am 100% sure you would be amazed at how far a bunch of individuals can get in a few days.

Below is a link to a video of the MVT "Rifleman Challenge", which is a 3-day compettition/training event open only to MVT alumni.  It gives you a condensed overview of most of the stuff MVT teaches:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD-fXT2iGb4

It's not bullshit.  If you go to the site there are several threads by veterans, both current and old school that have said this very same thing.  The vast majority of veterans do not have the depth of experience that is assumed they have.  Most guys on active duty do not get the level of live fire training that you can get at MVT in a 3-day course of CTT, and  3 days of CP.  Yes, there are exceptions to this rule.  If you are in a Ranger Batt, or above, of course you get more training, nobody is arguing that.  But for the VAST majority of guys who served in the military, the training you receive at MVT is actually superior to what they got active duty.

I'm not trying to troll here, in fact, I thought long and hard before posting here, because I knew this kind of reaction was possible.  All I can say is go to the website, read some of threads from veterans who have trained there, and decide for yourself.  I know on the face of it, it's a pretty bold statement, but after training there I had to admit it was true.  I was a cold war era Jarhead.  The vast majority of my training was blank fire.  What live fire we did do was at company level or higher.  At MVT you get more live fire training, at the squad or fireteam  level, in 3 days, than I did in a year of active duty.

As painful as it is to admit, most veterans don't know as much as most people ASSume they do.  Your average civvy just thinks anyone who has served has trained up to Ranger Batt level, when in truth, that's just not the case.  And a lot of guys sorta "inflate their resume" when asked about their military service.  When asked, a lot of guys in the Arrny were "Airborne Ranger";  in the Corps, they were "recon".  We all know that's just not true.  Most were truck drivers, cooks, supply, etc. And even the combat arms guys didn't get as much training, as is assumed, unless you get to Ranger Batt, or higher.  

Look, not trying to start a flame war here.  All I ask you go over to the site, read the AAR's and other comments, especially by the vets, and see if they don't have a valid point.  I don't want this to turn into one of those epic 20-page arguments.  Mods, sorry if I keep referring to another site, but in this case, you need to read what's there before you decide whether or not this statement is bullshit.  

We will be training this weekend, from Thursday to Sunday, so if we don't reply, we're out in the bush, not ignoring you.

I'll post the BS statements again since reading, or lack thereof, seems to be an issue in this thread.



Any arguments on that statement bing BS?  It seems that the previous 2 posters agree.  Now if it is more live fire than the average grunt, I don't know.  Usually live fire exercises are scheduled every quarter so most grunts have a few life fire missions under their belt within their first year alone.  Since the majority of the post is BS, it would not be off to presume that the rest is made up as well.  Since the poster is not basing it off of his personal experience and not citing specific sources, other than "these guys I talked to," I'm lead to believe he is full of shit and spreading it here pretty thick.

Regarding the ballistic masturbation:  There is a reason that the DoD, unquestionably the world's largest and longest lasting tactical training entity, does NOT do life fire exercises in a short 3-5 day course.  The reasons are that a) the adult learner does not have enough time in only 3 days or so to allow the material to saturate fully.  They are not performing what they learned, they are just regurgitating what the remember from short term memory.  b) It takes time, through gradual progression, to get several people confident enough and competent enough to work together and perform a very high risk training exercise such as live fire tactics with break contact, react to an ambush, bail outs, etc... The DoD has been doing this for a few centuries now.  They have had studies done to best optimize training and have refined the process better than any singular training organization ever can.   During my time as a DoD tactics and urban warfare instructor, we followed the proven plans as they ensured the safety of the students and instructors, also allowing the students to actually learn the material.  Again, one does not learn after a brief powerpoint and a quick walk through.  (Do some research on the works of Malcolm Knowles for more info on this).  Even now, as I am a current instructor for DoS tactical programs, we do not allow life fire with that much movement until several weeks into the course, once the students have demonstrated the ability to learn and perform the tasks safely and to standard.

I have not been to any MVT course, nor will I, especially after hearing about the lack of safety and respect for the students at his courses.  There are defined procedures for this type of training, set by an organization  that performs BILLIONS of hours of training each year (not counting FLETC, Quantico, DoS, and other agencies)...but MVT thinks he/they are better.  While the students may be intelligent, they cannot comprehend complex tactics such as react to ambush and such within such a short amount of time to have learned it and be able to perform it safely.  So again, it is an unsafe fun camp with weapons, designed to attract those who could not get to do those tactics with any other organization.  It is a sales ploy to gain more money.  Nothing more.   While the POI may be spot on and great information, I will say that MVT is a joke, along the same lines as Yeager, and an accident waiting to happen.

Ah, well that explains a lot.  You're a DOD trainer so of course you "own" SUT.   I am talking from my own personal experience here.  I had one tour active duty USMCR, and one tour in the reserves, USMCR.  I also spent one year with the ArNG.   MVT has an instructor who was a Ranger Captain, and now is doing contractor work.  Another was a 1st Sgt in 10th Mountain.  Another was a Marine grunt, with Scout/Sniper experience.  And of course "Max" who comes from the Brit Paras.  I have trained 5 weekends in the past year and am talking of my own experience there as well.  

I can understand your reluctance to believe that someone other than .gov can train folks in SUT.  But when you pronounce utter disdain for a program you know nothing about, then you're acting like a gov bureaucrat.  "No one does it better than us".  You have all your studies, annotated and referenced of course, to back up the party line that .gov knows best.  

The fact is, you do more live fire training in 6 days at MVT, than the AVERAGE guy who was in the service.  Of course anyone at Ranger Batt, or above does more.  So let's define that.  SF, NSW, AF ParaRescue, and finally MARSOC.  All these ho-dads are getting WAY above average training.  But for guys like me, and a host of others, you actually do more live fire training, at the squad and fireteam level in 6 days, than I (and a lot of other guys)  did in an average year.

The funny thing is, I said much the same thing before I attended training there.  I was like "you need all these repetitions, and lots of dry fire, blah, blah, blah".  The truth is there's actually a better way.  It's like an accelerated course that cuts right to the chase.   I went through it.  And it works.  It's a hard thing to admit that you got better training from an outside source than what Mother Green provided, but alas, it is true.  

But hey, good luck in your training.  I hope you are successful in your endeavors.  I would welcome you to come train with us sometime.  

You failed to read my post. You saw a few key words and stopped reading. Come back when you can comete that simple task.

sigh...

typical f'n barfcom.  

Hasn't the British Army been doing tactical training for centuries longer then the US DOD?  Using that logic "Max" being a product of the Redcoat SF community and specifically part of their training community probably knows quite a bit more about it then anyone from the US DOD.  I only mention that because I like to point out logical fallacies when they are so blatantly obvious even I can see them.

I liked the guy's book, he made some very cogent points.  His bonafides as a trainer for the subject matter he teaches are impeccable.  And lastly the US government has a long history of going to outside sources for training for even their most elite troops.  There is a reason Blackwater was/is based in Moyock NC.  That is because it is very close to FT Bragg, Little Creek, Quantico, and some Farm in VA.  All those people go to Moyock for training because the DOD cannot give them the same high level of training that Academi, a private entity can give them.  And Blackwater/Academi/whatever_they_are_calling_themselves_this_week, is just one of several places the .mil goes for outside training because it is better then what they can normally get.

When and if I get the money/time together for it MVT is on my short list of training schools I want to attend.

It's still Academi, but part of Constellis Holdings. I'm aware of who comes out here as I'm current cadre. While yes, the Brits have been at it longer, they have not put out the quantity of training hours that the U.S. has. Not even closely.  Again, I have not taken any class from MVT and do not know what information he puts out, but have serious issues with the timeframe in which he conducts some of the live fire excercises mentioned here. Safety is ALWAYS the main priority of any tactical class and he does not appear to follow that rule.

Never once did I feel unsafe at these courses. Safety and training progresses crawl-walk-run. The instructors are right there on top of you during fire and maneuver. The instructors push you online to insure safe angles on break contact drills - and you don't even go prone until you where you need to be. Shift fire to offset targets.and lift fire are called at safe intervals on squad attacks. After each evolution, you get a blunt assessment of what you need to improve upon. Or else.

The training in impeccably professional. Again, I don't know of anyone else that offers this level of small unit tactics training to civilians. I'll go back again soon.

Except when they are XPG

Why not read Max's book; "Contact" he spells out how his training program works there.  If you still have doubts then see if he would let you audit his course.

XPG is a contract name, not a company.

::shrug::

For the most part, I will have to agree with coloccw here, but perhaps I too am part of the "machine," coming from the "O" side of the house, and specifically in the '3 shop.    

There's a lot that goes in to controlling fire and maneuver training in order to execute it safely, even within a military environment, and quite a few "gates" have to be met before you put guys on a maneuver lane with live rounds.    

I will say that I am in the same boat as coloccw, having not seen MVT's POI, methods, etc., I am interested, however, and curious - I've many times thought that this format would be an interesting thing to do, but I've always come back to the reality of accepting risk and liability in a litigious society.  I am having difficulty imagining a way of executing this type of training with a collection of "randoms," with no prior vetting, whether to marksmanship, physical fitness, prior training, etc., and putting them through live-fire, fire and maneuver without a) accepting a level of risk that I personally (or as a business owner) would be unwilling to do, or b) having it become so controlled, so artificial, and so inflexible to ensure safety, as to negate much of the value of small unit tactics training, as opposed to, what coloccw refers to as "ballistic masturbation."  

That being said, I am open - I certainly don't know everything about training, but I've done quite a bit of it geared specifically to these kinds of skills.  

I do have an honest question - who leads these training scenarios?  Who provides direct fire control measures, lifts and shifts, etc. etc. etc.?  Is it "cadre" of the course?  Or do they have students do it?  What kind, if any, liability, insurance, or personal injury waiver do you have to sign in order to participate?  

The thing I can see is that for guys that know it - possibly without knowing they know it - prior and current servicemembers who, unbeknownst to them, have been "absorbing" tactics their entire careers, that the course might provide valuable practice that they might not have had as much access to in the service, whether because of budget, training time, other duties/MOS, etc. - it's true, conventional forces probably don't get enough fire and maneuver time with live rounds.  

However, the value for someone who has unknowingly learned this all before, and is reinforcing it with live-fire evolutions is different from people who have never existed in an "immersive" environment, and are basically being taught a "monkey see, monkey do" imitation of a couple of basic battle drills is a little more dubious to me.  This is not meant to be elitist or snarky, it's just a fact of life that you can not develop an effective fire team leader who will function properly in a tactical environment in three days from (potentially) nothing.  If the fire team leader(s) are cadre - you're simply doing the same thing as on a square range - shooting at what you're told to, or if the scenario is so strict that the fire team leader(s) literally have only one safe "option," they're not getting the appropriate value out of fire and maneuver training.  

Here's the bottom line -

True, good, fire and maneuver training is inherently dangerous.  Even after all the training, PT, dry fire and blank repetitions, competent, experienced leadership, composite risk assessments, SDZ calculations, etc. etc. etc. - while not "common," per se - people do regularly get hurt, sometimes killed while doing it.  It is the nature of the beast.  If you have a high risk job that requires you to take part in high risk training, you will eventually catch the short end of the stick.    

The military, law enforcement organizations, etc., for many reasons can, and must accept this risk, and there are institutional and organizational structures in place to account for the one in a million accident that will inevitably occur.  

As a private business owner, whose mandate fundamentally is, whatever the collateral benefits, to provide entertainment for paying customers; reiterating from above, the logical conclusion for those who have been "behind the curtain" of conducting tactical training must necessarily be that either the proprietor a) is accepting a level of personal risk that many (myself included) would be reluctant to, and is simply playing the "law of averages" that they will not, within the lifetime of their business, have enough customers for a catastrophic accident to be statistically inevitable, or b) has mitigated risk and instituted controls to the point of negating if not all - a significant percentage of the value of this kind of training.  

My inclination is to believe that it is "b," which would validate coloccw's suggestion of "ballistic masturbation."  

But again - I am open to being wrong, but based on what I've been reading here and from the website and links/AARs posted here, I'm not seeing it.  

~Augee

I attend two of Max's classes, he is spot on in training.  Plan on going back this spring for a NAV class, It would be great if we could get him and some of his guys down here in Fl/Ga for some training for us flat lander. If you get a chance to attend one of his classes TAKE IT !.

I took the Combat Team Tactics class and the Night Optical Device Firing class in the spring. I plan on returning this coming spring. I highly recommend the CTT and NODF classes. I have no infantry training so this was my first experience working with a team during live fire exercises. I found training in a SUT type environment more useful than any square range training I have done. The crawl-walk-run progression made it easy to move through the different skill sets we were being taught. Safety was paramount due to the nature of the training and at no time did I witness any unsafe behavior. Training aside I think the classes I attended may be one of the most fun things to do with your clothes on. I highly recommend MVT and had nothing but a good experience at the MVT facility.

Augee, I appreciate your thoughtful comments, rather than being "snarky" or rudely elitist.  That said, most of your comments are based on ignorance.  Not ignorance of the tactics, but ignorance of MVT's training methods, course structure, etc, that is clouded by your .gov snail's pace training experience.  I hope that doesn't sound "snarky", it is honestly not meant to be!  Just a comment on how .gov training is famous for being risk averse and slow paced, teaching to the lowest common denominator, etc..

To respond to one of your comments/questions:  Max does not claim to turn out experts in small unit tactics in a few days.  The issue is that he gives students with zero exposure to the course material a reasonably good understanding of the whys and hows of basic buddy-pair to squad level tactics, with some practical field exercises to put it into practice.  He also gives guys who've done it for real (current and former mil) some good practice.  In the 5 days I trained with MVT, I learned the concepts, and learned that getting really GOOD at it would take a LOT of experience/training in varied terrain and varied conditions.  A phrase you hear a lot in the tactical training world is "you don't know what you don't know" aka "DKWYDK" .  These MVT classes open students eyes to that, and give them a basic understanding of SUT, but do not claim to make a bunch of "operators" in a few days.

Since you're in WV, the best suggestion I have, if you're truly interested, is for you to contact MVT and take advantage of one of the "Observer" slots on one or more courses.  
Info here - http://www.maxvelocitytactical.com/tactical-training/3414-2/

Damn, had a longer reply typed out then the power flickered...


Have been training regularly for almost 30 years including 100 or so classes from most of the major players out there.  Been to MVT for 8 classes including the Rifleman Challenge a few weeks ago. Finished Vanguard.

If you haven't been there you really have nothing to compare to.

Someone -who admitted not going there- acting as if their was safety issues- THAT'S UTTER BS.

I'm the guy that is always watching others and their safety to pick who I will group up with for drills, I'm the guy that always tries to grab the far right hand side of the firing line and wears his plates during drills.
I've never felt like anything we have done there is unsafe.

DJ- go, you'll be glad you did.

I certainly hope to.  Nothing in this thread dissuades me from going, nor does anything convince me that I would emerge as anything other than a more informed version of my current self.

I work a 9-5 computer job from my home office and spend my free time at baseball games and cub scout meetings rather than the gym (hence my svelte figure).  I would not attend looking to transform into a ST6 candidate.  

However, what is the point of carrying a firearm?  Certainly not to go to war, but to be prepared to deal with unexpected life-threatening emergencies.  
What is the point of having an AR (aside from the fun of shooting), stored ammo, stacks of magazines, PC, etc.?  To be better prepared for the worst kind of situation.  
What is the point of training?  To be better prepared to use that gear in defense of the lives of yourself, your family and/or your friends.

If MVT can teach me something that I don't know and/or will give me a better chance of doing the above, I consider it money well spent.  Its worth a helluva lot more to me than a trip to Vegas for a UFC fight or tickets to the Superbowl.

Not to speak for coloccw, but I think you are missing my point.  

I would love to be an observer for an MVT class, that being said, I am freely willing to say that I'm simply not willing or able to afford to spend $300 to sit on lawn chair for three days in order to observe other people conducting small unit tactics training.  I get paid to do that already.  

All are welcome to dismiss me out of hand for that, or to dismiss anything else I've said, as far as anyone else here knows, I'm just a dude on the internet, I could tell you whatever I wanted about myself, my background, and my experience and no one has a good way to vet or verify it, so take it for what it is.  

What I think you are misunderstanding, however, is that you're interpreting my post as saying that I believe MVT to be unsafe.  

This is incorrect.  For a private business owner, assuming that kind of risk would be unwise, and everything I have been reading about MVT leads me to believe that these folks are not dummies, and I don't think that they would accept such a high risk.  The safety issue was brought up to counterpoint and reinforce the other option -

That in order to mitigate risk and safely conduct the training, it has to be tightly regimented and highly controlled, which also means a certain degree of contrivance and artificiality.  I do not think that MVT is taking risks with people's lives, I do believe that they are conducting the training safely.  The issue is whether or not it is (at least my understanding of) "ballistic masturbation."  

I understand the concept of exposing civilians who would not otherwise have any training and experience in such things basic battle drills, movement techniques, and basic tactics.  I don't think it's a bad thing, and I don't think it's wrong to do or want to do.  

The question is - "how much of this could be done just as effectively, or even more effectively, cheaper, and more efficiently with blanks, airsoft, paintballs, Simunitions, or even blue guns and saying 'bang, bang, bang?'"  

Before you scoff at that and move on, let's consider the benefits to not using live ammunition:

Small unit tactics is about decision making, planning, maneuvering, communicating, controlling/managing, etc.; not shooting bullets.  The application of basic battle drills is to give a model for execution and a basic methodology.    For all intents and purposes - you can essentially "learn" battle drills out of a book, no it's not the same as actually getting out on the ground and doing them and building practice and muscle memory, but knowing the battle drills does not teach you how to use and apply them.  

Anyone that's ever been around teenagers knows that people tend to learn better from failure than from success.  Moreover, the thing that many service members don't realize - and/or the way it's "supposed to work" is that young PFC know nuthin' whose MTOE billet is "rifleman" and will do nothing more than go exactly where their told, and shoot in the direction that their told is (or is supposed to be) watching and learning from what their team leader, squad leader, platoon sergeant, platoon leader are doing, in hopes that in a few years, they will be able to move up, and into that role.  

The point there, however, is that PFC know nuthin' is not only going to see what their TL, SL, etc. does right, but also what they do wrong.  Doing it wrong is valuable for everyone.  That's how you learn, and that's how it becomes internalized.  As the common saying goes "amateurs practice until they get it right; professionals practice until they can’t get it wrong."  

Let's examine this in terms of this context - going "straight" (or within three days) to live fire short circuits that paradigm because of the high cost of "getting it wrong."  If you are denied the opportunity to "do it wrong" because it would a potentially fatal error, you can't practice until you can't get it wrong - and you had little to no part in getting it right - because the right way was always and already prescribed to you.  By losing the opportunity to "do it wrong," you've lost a good bit of the value of the training.  

If, as I suspect, what MVT does is to put you in the position of PFC know nuthin', and have you simply execute the battle drill, while they themselves control it for safety reasons - you're doing nothing more than watching guys go through the motions of something that they essentially already have memorized, and has been pre-planned time and time again, and run exactly the same way, over and over and over - you're doing nothing more than learning a couple formations, and how to go where you're told and shoot at what you're told to shoot at.  

Now - let's imagine that we conduct the training, say, with airsoft guns instead - you can do all of the exact same things - except you have more flexibility to actually learn and internalize, because if you decide to have your assaulting element run right in front of your SBF without properly shifting and lifting fires according to effective direct fire control measures - the worst that will happen is you will run your guys into a barrage of "blue" BBs and get a thorough razzing at your AAR.  You learn, you recock, and you do it again.  

At the end of the day, the principle value of fire and maneuver training is not to get you accustomed to having guys around you shooting and doing stuff, or to teach battle drills; but to give the leadership an opportunity to lead in a situation where the stakes really are, potentially "life or death," and to give subordinates, PFC know nuthin' the opportunity and the confidence in their leadership that they can properly plan and execute a mission when real bullets are flying around, hypothetically to "prove" to them that their leaders are worth listening to and following into battle without an unreasonably high chance of getting them killed through incompetence.  

Less philosophical, let's consider this -

I can train you on this stuff and put you in situational tactical exercises with an airsoft gun... practically anywhere.  Y'all want to come to West Virginia?  We can do it in my back yard, and I can teach you battle drills, I can teach you fire planning, I can teach you all sorts of stuff.  We can do force on force, and once you've learned the ropes in an open field, I can take you to the woods, I can take you to an abandoned construction site, I can take you up into the mountains, and you can apply the basic battle drills in a myriad of different situations and environments and actually engage in tactical decision making, planning, maneuver, command and control, etc. etc. and if you get it wrong, we can sit down, AAR what happened, and try it again.  Then we can have the most miserable camping trip ever, where I force you to eat cold MREs, sleep in a circle, wake you up every four hours, and generally harass you all night each time you try to light up a cigarette.  

Introduce live-fire, and logistically the whole thing becomes substantially more complicated.  Now I need a huge chunk of land, with no one around.  I need specialized targetry.  I need additional eyes to make sure everyone is being safe.  I need to micromanage you down to the level where you can't do anything potentially unsafe, and the most I can tell you in the AAR is "well, your butt was a little high in SBF2" because if something really went wrong, we wouldn't be AARing, I'd be coordinating a LifeFlight to come get someone out of the woods, and calling my lawyer next.  

The point is not that MVT is unsafe, it's a question of training value versus ballistic masturbation - what training function does the live-fire component add to the training that would otherwise not be achievable in order to justify the cost, complexity, and risk associated; particularly when non-live fire training has several value added benefits (i.e. can get it wrong, can change scenarios and environments more easily, can do force on force)?  

If the answer is "none," then again, I have to agree with coloccw - it's ballistic masturbation - you're shooting bullets because shooting bullets is fun.  You may be learning some stuff, but if that stuff doesn't require you to shoot real bullets to learn, then the cost premium that you, the consumer/customer/student are paying reflects the desire to shoot bullets - not to learn the material.    

Don't get me wrong, I am in no way against civilians being exposed to and/or learning this kind of stuff and practicing and/or training on it -

"Combat" Virtual Challenge/Competition Discussion - Military Clones and Non-Clones Welcome

Nor do I have anything against the guys at MVT, nor am I trying to discourage anyone from going or participating, I wish them well in their endeavor.  

All I am saying is, that based on my experience, and having spent about an hour watching all of MVT's videos on their website that I could find, to include the full, ten minute and change safety brief video and Texas five day class video, I have to agree that a large component of this training is "ballistic masturbation," because the only other alternative I can see is for it to be grossly unsafe, which I do not believe that it is.  

There is nothing wrong with that, as long as you allow for that caveat - that fundamentally, what you are primarily paying for is for an entertainment package - let's be honest, you damn well better be having some fun to pay close to $1,000 or more for one weekend.  And while you could get the training value for much less - just without the live-fire, at the end of the day, I doubt too many people are going to pay for that.  That's why the military has to pay you to get you to do it.  

At the same time - if this is the kind of stuff that you want to do and enjoy, again, not being snarky - but maybe airsoft is the sport for you.  I do not do airsoft personally, but as I understand it, they range from kids who just want to go out in the woods and shoot at each other - to more serious groups who try to simulate military fire and maneuver and small unit tactics.  Ultimately, I suspect you'd get more "true" training value out of it, get much more practice, and end up spending a lot less money.  

Or, better yet - join the National Guard, and let someone pay you to learn it and do it.  That is one of reasons I continue to serve in the reserve component, because deep down I love this shit.  All the bullshit that you have to put up with, you put up with to do this kind of stuff.    

Will all that being said, I don't know everything about training, and I don't pretend to.  I'm sharing what I know from what I've done.  I'm open to being wrong, and open to learning new things.  

For that reason, I'll throw this out there:

I'm in West Virginia on a graduate fellowship.  Read - I'm a poor [adult] college student being paid a pittance to be exploited as cheap labor in the hopes that at the end of the long, gray tunnel, I will be able to make just enough to pay back what I owe and eat some Hamburger Helper.  I'm fine with this, I made the decision freely to do so, in the face of other, more profitable alternatives, however, it does mean that I don't have $300 to go audit MVT's class, much less $600 + a case of ammunition to go take it.  Nor do I have the desire or inclination to add to my already prodigious reading responsibilities by reading any of MVT's books.  

MVT is two hours away from me, though.  If someone wants to front the auditing fee, I will volunteer a weekend to audit the course and will write a full AAR of my impressions, and if I'm wrong, I'll happily admit it, and I'll even link to this thread without editing a single word so the whole world can see in perpetuity that I made a claim, and I was wrong, and that I am owning up to it.  

I'm not saying this to try to get a free class out of anyone, and even if you offered to pay the course fee - and provide the ammunition, because I believe that I could not effectively evaluate everything that goes into it from a participant standpoint, I would decline.  Since I don't have any money to put there, I'm simply putting my time where my mouth is.

That's what I've got.

~Augee

Awesome D. J. . Post up in the GA and FL HTF when you decide to go. You might find some carpool buddies.

@ Augee:

Part 1:

Hey Bud, this is Max. I got alerted to this thread. I don't have a great deal of time to respond, because I am between Day 1 of Combat Team Tactics, and Night firing in an hour or so.

In simple terms: I understand your argument, but you are lacking a frame of reference, of experience in these matters. You appear to be offering an intellectual choice: Either its unsafe, which you agree it wouldn't be, or it is pointless masturbation and could be done as easily with blank fire.

My mission with this is to provide training to keep good folks alive. This is the real deal. I have extensive operational training experience. The problem with what many have experienced as their live firing training is the terribly slow way it progresses. There are different ways to do it. I follow crawl-walk-run and we train/rehearse the drills, but not on the actual ranges. Then the students conduct the drills in pairs/teams against pop-up targets, with safety cover provided,. For some things like the squad attack, it is fully rehearsed and cadre led like a formal US military course of fire might be. This means that the students are carrying out the drill for real, unaware of where targets may be coming up. An important point is that I give students the information as to THE WHY, not just 'cuz I said so. They learn the tactical reasons behind the drills.

Part 2:

Live fire itself is an important battle inoculation, and things are driven home that would not be with blanks, including a certain amount of stress inoculation. Scanning, buddy awareness, safety angle are all driven home. The British army uses a different, methodology with live fire training - it's not as formal with endless walk throughs like the US Military - it is a free range only limited by safety angles between individuals/groups, and the limits of the range itself. This is using the 590 mil/ 33 degree safety angle.

For example, we have had numerous combat arms vets through and they all get a lot out of the training. We had an active duty 18D through, who had high praises. Last weekend a retired infantry/SF Colonel brought his group through for Combat Patrol, having done CTT previously. I was informed that his statement to his driving buddy on the way home was that "Max is the best tactical instructor that I have come across" or words to that effect.

This is the real deal. It is dynamic training limited only by the range, relevant drill and safety angles. This is the same training that many infantry may only ever conduct dry/blank, and that high speed SF/SOF units will conduct. If it is not a waste of time for them, why is it a waste of time for my students? At MVT we have cracked the code of the best course of instruction to get the most out of a 3 day package. Way to go for the free market., not .gov intractability! The best will rise! Students leave here with real drills they know how to use in real situations. Of course they need to keep the skill alive, it is perishable, but that is up to them. Many come back again and again and really get to understanding what is going on at a higher level.

Gotta run...will check back later. Thanks for taking the time to discuss what we do!

Max

Yeah, what Max said!


Augee, much of what you are describing in your last post is what I think Max would say is more of a leadership (squad leader) training curriculum.  He explicitly tells students that's not what he's providing.  He's also said that he's considering adding a "team leader" course to his progression, for which "Combat Team Tactics" and "Combat Patrol" will be prerequisites.  Would Private Know-nuthin be tasked with leading a squad's reaction to an ambush, flanking maneuver, shift fire, fight through the enemy position, etc?  I don't think so.  

What you describe as Pvt Know-nuthin watching and learning from his squad leader and platoon sgt is exactly the way I looked at Max at the course I attended.  I NEEDED leadership and guidance, because I was Pvt Know-nuthin.  That's what I was paying for - to LEARN something from somebody who knew what the hell he was talking about.

Not disparaging your credentials or service at all, so please don't misunderstand, but I think you are looking at this from a US govt trained perspective that says:  "This is the way I learned it, so this is the way it should be taught".  MVT's training is neither unsafe nor "ballistic masturbation", which are both extreme ends of the spectrum.  Could a bunch of guys get valuable training out of the airsoft stuff you describe?  Hell yes!  But that does NOT mean that MVT's different approach is totally invalid.  Max ran this exact kind of training for British Paras... Were they just "ballistically masturbating"?

Now, one last point to consider (and it's a big one).... Which falls more under the "ballistic masturbation" category, "Combat Team Tactics" and "Combat Patrol", or 6 days of square range "carbine" training with one of the big name instructors out there in this market right now?

Would depend on which trainer you were doing your 6 days with but I'd chalk the Team tactics and patrol classes up as being more masturbation prone due to the even lower likelihood of using the material than the material covered in a week long carbine course.

Right.

Cause if I have a "carbine" in my hand I'm going to be more concerned with standing in one place and firing, duck walking forward, moon walking backwards,  etc.

Roughly 100 various training classes under my belt, most "tactical carbine" classes are a lot of that. Yes you need those fundamentals but it's more of what you called "mas-bation" to stand on the 10 yard line all weekend covering Day 1 stuff over and over then it is to learn how to operate as a team, practice and implement tactics, etc. If we are never challenged we never GROW.

After a dozen or so "tactical rifle" or "tactical carbine" classes you'll find most of them are simply converting money into sound....

Folks definitely need the fundamentals, but if that's ALL your working on, well that's all you'll be capable of. If we never left kindergarten we would never grow. I know I know, kindergarten is fun- you can finger paint, make those little macaroni pictures and lay down on your little towel and take a nap. But after a while, some will probably feel the need to move forward.

Okay, I will concede that you COULD get truly valuable tactical training on the square range IF:
- you have a very competent instructor,
- who has the right kind of experience (operational combat, vs theoretical or law enforcement),
- who is willing to teach useful team tactics to "mere civilians", AND
- that instructor puts individuals and teams of students through some "scenario" type exercises, using different types of cover/concealment, rather than endless "armed chorus line" drills...

If it covers all these bases, then we're back to my "punching bag vs sparring" analogy, only in a different setting - square range with props vs countryside with natural terrain features, vegetation, etc.  The problem is that 99% of the square range carbine oriented stuff available does NOT cover all those bases, so it amounts to 1 or 2 days of learning the basics of shooting and weapon manipulation, followed by ZERO tactical training.  The fact is that very competent instructors can and do pretty much have a whole class on the same page with the basics in about 2 days.  After that, they're mostly just running up the clock to collect a paycheck.

I will add that my comments throughout this thread are centered on carbine training.  Handgun training is a different animal, because of the way handguns are normally employed - primarily short range individual self-defense.   Because of that, adding combatives a la Southnarc, or complex "drills" like I've done under Larry Vickers, or Active Shooter courses like I've done with Paul Howe are totally valid training, and do NOT fall under the "ballistic masturbation" category.

Ballistic masturbation is "training" that you attend for the either the pure fun of it or has very small possibility of being applicable in the real world.  The material learned in the "square range" courses you guys are poo-poo has a much higher likelihood of being employed than any patrolling, team tactics, or SUT based course. This is simply because I can apply that square range work to home defense, hunting, simple target shooting, compeition, etc. A few people are coming across like a grand ephihany has happened and suddenly you have to carry the new stone tablets you found down to the masses.

So, the "experts" claim that there is no way someone with Max's credentials could train non-military personnel to be proficient in guerilla style SUT in a short amount of time?

Geesh, these guys need to email somebody in the DoD and mention that SF is wasting their time on FID missions...

 
No dog here. But read through.


I have not taken an MVT course. I have only read his books. So take my post for whatever.


So..square range good. Got it. Guess thats why arfcom has the costa dvd love among others for example.

Imho those skills can be crossed over to other scenarios. I agree with you 100%

But untill you  break that down by sticking the student (shooter) say in a 10+10 bed room in the dark..in a car..in a office building etc. Its the same "masturbation " .  Your adding thrill to your product. You wouldnt put a guy in a house on day one would you..how about as a team? One RSO per student then? See it goes on and on.

Who will drop 3-800$ just to learn? ...the  3-800$ to roll on gravel and shoot or shoot from a old car or do a shoot house is what sells.. they are in the end selling a product..we are the consumers.


In the end its no different than proclaiming  a camero is better than a mustang.

Drive both..buy the one that works best.


Im a simple guy...but i dont see myself duck walking across my yard to dynamically drive my rifle at the rogue possum in my chicken coup anytime soon.....but you never know. Balance...