Using Cover

[baddean]

The more I train, the less I know. A few weekends back, running some "street" scenarios with Airsofts in a class, I got shot... many, many times. Both going to cover (moving) and while using cover. I could not run fast enough to avoid getting hit. This isn't the first class I've had where I've been demolished by Airsofts but this is the first class I've taken that emphasized the use of cover with FOF. (The others involved disarming/empty hand kind of stuff.)

Granted the opposition was comprised of some very skilled (and in some cases, EXTREMELY skilled) trigger fingers but still it was disheartening.

I got shot less if I was moving. Had I stood my ground and traded BB's with these guys, I would've been one big giant oozing sore come Monday morning. Obviously, it's not a direct comparison of how it would have been "in real life" with real stuff as the dynamics would change using weapons capable of lethal force, e.g., who hit who first and where and how many times.

I am still digesting the information and experience I was presented with. I consider it a good experience but still wondering what else I should have gained from the experience.

I am not sure what I learned except that:

A) Real cover is good when it can be found.
B) Even when slowly and carefully leaning out from behind cover and the bad guys know you're there, you're going to get shot.
C) Multiple adversaries is bad news. REALLY bad news.
D) And as usual, getting in a gunfight should be avoided whenever possible.

You shouldn't be too hard on yourself. You learned a lot more than you think based on your OP and responses. You said yourself that "in real life" the dynamics would be different. Your "assailants" have done this a lot and can probably predict almost everything you will do based on the scenarios physical limitations. Kind of a "Captain Kirk" no win. When teaching furtive movement drills I have to "act" out different scenes for students to react to. It's difficult because the students know me and know that I won't harm them. They don't have the dynamic of real fear for their safety and reacting accordingly. In almost every instance they allow me to get too close to them before they react with a self preservation action of some sort. In the case of your training class it seems that you learned that cover is good, movement is good, backing away from your cover would work out well, multiple "street" bad guys would not be as bad as multiple Navy Seals. Instead of "disheartened" think in terms of how you would react differently in real life based on your actions in this scenario based situation. Everyone in your training scenarios knows who everyone else is and, to some extent, what is going to happen. Take the same scenarios and put people into them where everything except who is the good guy and who is the bad guy is unknown then dynamics and the advantages and disadvantages are altered. In my own training I look at scenario based drills as a way to examine and tune my thought and planning processes based on my reactions as opposed to how well or how poorly I think I may have performed the drill. Obviously we participate in these drills to the best of our ability, at the time. The purpose of training is to improve those abilities.

[JustOneGun]

If your instructors where running full speed at you, then don't be discouraged. You just went through a worse case scenario. Not a bad class to go through. It gives you something to aspire to in terms of speed of shooting, shooting and moving and deciding to shoot and move to cover. What they can't tel you is how to use tactics against a typical criminal and how to train your, what if's. What will work the best for the typical criminal and allow you to have a fighting chance on the not so average criminal(someone trained in some way)?

Random thoughts while I pour my scotch...

Cover:

There isn't much out there.
Even if you find it you have to stick your head out to shoot.
Spalling hurts and can disable/kill you.
When discussing cover/concealment, the difference between fighting and hiding is ultimately seeing the bad guy.
If you are not putting lead in the bad guy, then when the gunfight stops is up to them.

Gunfights:

What you do right before you know you're going to get in a gunfight sometimes depends on whether you win or lose.
Most are over before anyone had time to die.
Many bad guys die due to gunfights but most don't die right there.
It's harder to shoot someone in the head than it is to shoot a training target in the head, including FoF. Why? It's more than movement.
It usually gets harder to shoot someone in the head the longer the fight goes on.
If you move off line while drawing the pistol you tend to get shot less.
The geometry of continuing to run away means that you are making the typical bad guy's accuracy fall rapidly.
If continuing to run, a trained bad buy's bullets don't know you are running anymore because you are running in a straight line from him. If he knows anything about aimed fire, he can shoot you at will. This works the same for pressing the threat. He knows you're running at him but his bullets don't. Due to geometry he is getting more accurate.

It all depends.

And lastly: The longer the fight goes on the more chance the bad guy has to shoot you. This is true for the typical unskilled bad guy relying on luck to shoot you. It really applies to a skilled adversary.

"Discuss amongst yourselves"

[GJM]

Here is my take, with the caveat I ain't LE or military, but I do have 700+ hours of experience in $15-20 million dollar a copy, full motion flight simulators. If the point of this exercise was to remind you that fights are bad, and a bad outcome is likely, it seems like a complete success.

If the point of the exercise was to introduce you to progressively more difficult situations, while simultaneously increasing your skills, and thus confidence in surviving a real encounter, this exercise was a complete fail.

If the point of this exercise was to enhance the ego and confidence of the other roll players by "beating you," sounds like a total success.

In years past, on a private email list I remember reading a person boasting how they had killed 30 +/- cops in a row coming through a shoot house. They seemed pretty pleased with themselves. Of course they just introduced doubt in the minds of 30 cops who might have to do something like that shoot house for real. For the same reason, at FlightSafety they work very hard to NOT have pilots crash the simulator, since the point of the training is to increase both flying skills and confidence, as opposed to making pilots afraid to go fly.

[LSP552]

Also, before all the cover and maneuver stuff: if you can on demand, draw and run and shoot them in the head, that might get it done too. From your report, I'm not sure whether they'd have responded to that as if it were effective or not.

Being able to draw quickly and get hits is a critical skill. When you need a gun, you generally need it very badly so the faster the better. I know a number of people who are alive because they drew quickly and poked holes in their opponent.

Drawing, shooting and moving away laterally at the same time is a great skill to have. Personally, I'd rather do this inside the OP's distance instead of running to cover. Up close, I believe turning your back and running is a good way to get shot. At an intermediate distance, hauling full speed to cover is a great plan. It just doesn't work as well when you are 5 yards apart.

[Mr_White]

Being able to draw quickly and get hits is a critical skill. When you need a gun, you generally need it very badly so the faster the better. I know a number of people who are alive because they drew quickly and poked holes in their opponent.

Drawing, shooting and moving away laterally at the same time is a great skill to have. Personally, I'd rather do this inside the OP's distance instead of running to cover. Up close, I believe turning your back and running is a good way to get shot. At an intermediate distance, hauling full speed to cover is a great plan. It just doesn't work as well when you are 5 yards apart.

I used to be really excited about draw/run/accurate shots and practiced that pretty heavily for a couple of years, and I still think it's a great response. I did have to recognize its circumstantial limitations though (needs some open space) and mentally make room again for static shooting, run-plant-shoot, and other methods of shooting on the move. I've been pretty impressed at the accuracy that can be delivered doing the draw/run/shoot thing though.

[JustOneGun]

I used to be really excited about draw/run/accurate shots and practiced that pretty heavily for a couple of years, and I still think it's a great response. I did have to recognize its circumstantial limitations though (needs some open space) and mentally make room again for static shooting, run-plant-shoot, and other methods of shooting on the move. I've been pretty impressed at the accuracy that can be delivered doing the draw/run/shoot thing though.

Have you ever done any force on force with the different ways you tried? And if so what are your thoughts on the pros and cons?

I tried to run plant shoot also but it seemed way to slow and it ended up being, why don't I just keep running. I thought the one-handed shooting to be the best balance but it has limits to that I couldn't control. i.e. how well the bad guy shoots. However I never tried it extensively in force on force.

[BJJ]

I agree with GJM that, based on how the scenarios were described, they were pretty much not winnable. I acknowledge that something may be lost in translation but based on how you described the scenarios, I wouldn't worry about trying to glean too much from your experience. Was the intended lesson that being ambushed by 2 guys who aren't afraid of a gun fight really sucks?

[NETim]

I agree with GJM that, based on how the scenarios were described, they were pretty much not winnable. I acknowledge that something may be lost in translation but based on how you described the scenarios, I wouldn't worry about trying to glean too much from your experience. Was the intended lesson that being ambushed by 2 guys who aren't afraid of a gun fight really sucks?

That was the only scenario that left me confused as far as my response. I did my best MUC routine with the two unknowns and the crazy guy with the bat. I was continually moving, keeping them in front of me as much as possible. The guy with the bat made me very nervous obviously. I had my hand on the heater early on but never drew until the two silent unknowns closed and began to attempt to flank me. I took their actions as hostile even though they voiced no threat or displayed weapons.

Supposedly these two were simply curious bystanders, who instead of staying off to the side, stayed in the mix. I couldn't get them to respond verbally though and the stupid black helmets remove facial feedback unfortunately. Had I the option, I would've just GTFO of there but we were supposed to stay on the mat.

I was chastised a little for putting my hand on the gun but again, 3 unknowns to my one? Darn right I'm going to shorten my drawstroke time. I guess the object was to demonstrate that sometimes there are no good answers.

The rest of the scenarios were all based on the proper use of cover and the biggest problem I had was getting behind it w/o losing sight of the aggressor, which in this case, always meant even more trouble.

It did emphasize the fact that I need to sharpen my shootin' and movin' skills and looking at that darn front sight, even if I'm under fire.

[orionz06]

Here is my take, with the caveat I ain't LE or military, but I do have 700+ hours of experience in $15-20 million dollar a copy, full motion flight simulators. If the point of this exercise was to remind you that fights are bad, and a bad outcome is likely, it seems like a complete success.

If the point of the exercise was to introduce you to progressively more difficult situations, while simultaneously increasing your skills, and thus confidence in surviving a real encounter, this exercise was a complete fail.

If the point of this exercise was to enhance the ego and confidence of the other roll players by "beating you," sounds like a total success.

In years past, on a private email list I remember reading a person boasting how they had killed 30 +/- cops in a row coming through a shoot house. They seemed pretty pleased with themselves. Of course they just introduced doubt in the minds of 30 cops who might have to do something like that shoot house for real. For the same reason, at FlightSafety they work very hard to NOT have pilots crash the simulator, since the point of the training is to increase both flying skills and confidence, as opposed to making pilots afraid to go fly.

How would the aviation model, one with a proven track record, transfer to a force on force model as described here?

[GJM]

How would the aviation model, one with a proven track record, transfer to a force on force model as described here?

During the training phase, the goal of high level aviation simulator training is to expose the pilot to increasingly difficult aviation challenges, while simultaneously increasing confidence. At times, that might require the instructor to freeze the simulator to avoid a crash. Scenarios should not be impossible. Good instructors keep loading up the flight crew to tax them, without breaking them. This is during the learning phase. Then, there are check rides, where achievable established standards need to be met to pass the flight test. These standards are often determined by the FAA.