Tactical Moment Series with John Holschen

[overton]

And oriented towards civilian/ police issues, not contractor or military style phantasies.

[Mike C]

John Holschen looks and sounds like he's full of good information. I do question the Optimized Use of Cover - Tactical Moment #8 video though. Does anyone want to comment on moving completely behind cover and losing visual of the threat or target you are going to engage? I am not trying to trouble shoot just better understand where John is coming from. Has anyone else been taught to do this, that is presently serving in Law Enforcement or the Military?

I do have to say that I agree whole heartedly and have been taught to expose the absolute minimum to your threat or target in order to engage, both while in the Military and at the Police academy I attended. However, I don't agree with John and have always been taught to keep an eye on target. If you lose sight of your target you then have to require him/her in order to reengage which can cost you. You also run the risk of them running up on you or flanking you which puts you at a severe disadvantage. I have always been taught that distance is your friend, it equals time to think and react appropriately to your threat while deciding to return or initiate fire at your max effective range.

Thoughts and opinions please.

[zacbol]

Mike, just as context if you're not familiar with John's background, here is what's on the Insights website:http://insightstraining.com/instructors.asp

John Holschen is a frequent guest instructor with InSights. John served for over 20 years in the Special Operations and Intelligence branches of the U.S. Army. He is a former US Army Special Forces Weapons Sergeant and Special Forces Medic. John taught at the JFK Special Warfare School and was the Senior Hand to Hand Combat Instructor/Master Instructor for 1st Special Forces Group.

His recent experience includes tours in the Middle East as a protective security specialist and a site security manager of U.S. government facilities. He is a graduate of multiple Military Close Quarters Combat courses, is certified as an instructor by the US Army and as a Firearms Instructor by the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission.

John has over 30 years of Martial Arts experience and is an instructor in Daito Ryu Aiki Budo, Shorin Ken Karate Do, and Shotokan Karate. He is a two-time winner of the National Tactical Invitational and has placed among the top 5 practitioners each year that he has participated (9 times.) John has authored a number of analytical works discussing the training and tactics of international terrorists.

I've taken a number of classes with John and other Insights instructors who all teach the same basic approach. Johns is fond of saying 'You don't win gunfights by shooting the other guy, you win them by not getting shot'. Insights' clearing techniques and how they approach the use of cover, the idea is that you CAN see your opponent, but only as much as you need to see to shoot him, no more. If you can see too much, it means you're exposed as well. In many classes the have people pair off and use barricades, where you very gradually (i.e. more slowly than you would in real life) practice pieing in a very careful maanner so you cut off the minimum slice of the pie as possible. Typically it goes:
Person one: I see a toe.
Person one: I see an elbow
Person one: I can see his shoulder.
Person one: I can see an ear.
Person one: I can see your eye
Person two: I can see your eye.

Up until person two says that, you can shoot all those things without the other guy being able to see anything. That's why they approach it that way. Insights does regularly teach LEO/Mil and both John and Greg are former SF. Interestingly, as you point out, I haven't seen this nuanced a presentation of pieing from some other very well known instructors. Personally, the Insights approach makes a ton of sense to me when explained and demonstrated (I really had to try it to be convinced) the some other SOPs I've seen from other instructors, seem flawed, in the sense they potentially give your opponent a lot more opportunity to shoot you, when you don't really need to give it to him.

But I'm not MIL/LEO, just trying to provide some extra context.

[Chuck Haggard]

^That^ sort of thing is very similar to the training Ken Good gave in his original Sure-Fire Institute training classes, which is still what we do during "dry technical work" portions of the classes Strategos teaches. It is an excellent way to learn cornering.

[NETim]

Mike, just as context if you're not familiar with John's background, here is what's on the Insights website:http://insightstraining.com/instructors.asp


I've taken a number of classes with John and other Insights instructors who all teach the same basic approach. Johns is fond of saying 'You don't win gunfights by shooting the other guy, you win them by not getting shot'. Insights' clearing techniques and how they approach the use of cover, the idea is that you CAN see your opponent, but only as much as you need to see to shoot him, no more. If you can see too much, it means you're exposed as well. In many classes the have people pair off and use barricades, where you very gradually (i.e. more slowly than you would in real life) practice pieing in a very careful maanner so you cut off the minimum slice of the pie as possible. Typically it goes:
Person one: I see a toe.
Person one: I see an elbow
Person one: I can see his shoulder.
Person one: I can see an ear.
Person one: I can see your eye
Person two: I can see your eye.

Up until person two says that, you can shoot all those things without the other guy being able to see anything. That's why they approach it that way. Insights does regularly teach LEO/Mil and both John and Greg are former SF. Interestingly, as you point out, I haven't seen this nuanced a presentation of pieing from some other very well known instructors. Personally, the Insights approach makes a ton of sense to me when explained and demonstrated (I really had to try it to be convinced) the some other SOPs I've seen from other instructors, seem flawed, in the sense they potentially give your opponent a lot more opportunity to shoot you, when you don't really need to give it to him.

But I'm not MIL/LEO, just trying to provide some extra context.

This is great as long as Person two doesn't move during the exercise.

Not saying it's right or wrong, but the last class I took, the rule was, if the "bad guy" lost sight of you as you dove behind cover, he could start to move/continue to move. If he/she could see you, then for whatever reason, they couldn't move. Again, this was a training exercise. The idea was to maintain visual contact while moving behind cover.

I had a hard time stopping myself as I went for cover and invariably lost visual contact, which meant the BG was going to attempt to flank me from one side or another. My idea, as I've been taught, has always been to get behind cover ASAP, which means running at my version of wide open flank speed. I don't stop on a dime.

I found that attempting to maintain visual contact meant running at less than wide open I'm-getting-out-of-here speed.

I'm still trying to digest this.

[zacbol]

Yes, I realized after I posted that that was what Mike was getting at. I really can't speak for John or Greg, but I go back to that pith statement of 'You win them by not getting shot...'. and I *think* they're approaching it from the perspective is, if you have someone who is an active threat, moving as quickly and fully to cover as possible is priority number 1. If that means you briefly lose visual contact, that's not ideal but still better than keeping visual contact if it means you give him significantly more opportunity to shoot you.. Nor is it hard and fast, you can probably maintain some level of eyes on them while moving rapidly to cover. I've done some FoF stuff with John where he set up scenarios and I don't recall booking it to get behind something being a problem, but I can see how in highly dynamic environment where you have a lot of people or lot of places to hide, you could be safe then going 'Where the hell did he go?'. I don't know what they're answer is beyond maybe 'It's not great but better than knowing where he is while you're being shot.'

[Mike C]

Zacbol, I don't doubt Johns credentials at all. He sounds like he knows what he is talking about and even though my experience and training is different I believe there is much to learn from him. The example you gave of, "I spy" works great when your target is not moving as stated previously. I have used it in training and participated and it is and excellent training tool. With that being said I have been on a two way range and being suppressed by accurate fire blows chunks, it sucks more so when they start to move on you and close the distance.

There is no argument that moving to cover is a priority but in my opinion it is not the only one. On a two way range there are many priorities of work which in short are dictated by the terrain, number of combatants, type and amount of fire you are receiving and distance to which you are engaged at, (you can look up METT-TC, Ranger Handbook or 7-8). Now I know that there is heavy debate about whether to return fire while moving to cover or whether to move to cover and then return fire but in my experience every situation is different and must be handled according to the factors that influence the fight. I am not looking to debate that.

To put things context, as a civilian taking fire it is even more different. Why? Because when you are not operating in a team environment i.e. buddy team, fire team, squad, platoon there is no one to keep watch and make sure your enemy does not out maneuver you or close the distance to arms reach. My point was that it is all fine and good to lose sight of a target when you are functioning as part of a larger element and your enemy is fixed by your fire or far enough not to present an immediate threat to place deadly fire but when he has free range to move and flank you, and its just you. You have put yourself at an enormous disadvantage by losing sight.

Obviously mindset and tactics of your aggressor play a large part and I don't want to get to far off topic by what if'ing everything but if you face an aggressive attacker who is moving and firing in your direction I don't see the advantage of losing sight. At this point I am simply interested in who has been taught to do this, in what context was it taught to be applicable and why.

[Mr_White]

Zacbol, I don't doubt Johns credentials at all. He sounds like he knows what he is talking about and even though my experience and training is different I believe there is much to learn from him. The example you gave of, "I spy" works great when your target is not moving as stated previously. I have used it in training and participated and it is and excellent training tool. With that being said I have been on a two way range and being suppressed by accurate fire blows chunks, it sucks more so when they start to move on you and close the distance.

There is no argument that moving to cover is a priority but in my opinion it is not the only one. On a two way range there are many priorities of work which in short are dictated by the terrain, number of combatants, type and amount of fire you are receiving and distance to which you are engaged at, (you can look up METT-TC, Ranger Handbook or 7-8). Now I know that there is heavy debate about whether to return fire while moving to cover or whether to move to cover and then return fire but in my experience every situation is different and must be handled according to the factors that influence the fight. I am not looking to debate that.

To put things context, as a civilian taking fire it is even more different. Why? Because when you are not operating in a team environment i.e. buddy team, fire team, squad, platoon there is no one to keep watch and make sure your enemy does not out maneuver you or close the distance to arms reach. My point was that it is all fine and good to lose sight of a target when you are functioning as part of a larger element and your enemy is fixed by your fire or far enough not to present an immediate threat to place deadly fire but when he has free range to move and flank you, and its just you. You have put yourself at an enormous disadvantage by losing sight.

Obviously mindset and tactics of your aggressor play a large part and I don't want to get to far off topic by what if'ing everything but if you face an aggressive attacker who is moving and firing in your direction I don't see the advantage of losing sight. At this point I am simply interested in who has been taught to do this, in what context was it taught to be applicable and why.

I'm no veteran of the two-way range, but I appreciate you bringing up these issues. The human dynamics you refer to are a lot of what I think is not represented well in live-fire training dealing with the basic use of cover. I have experienced those dynamics in another environment, though one that is prone to the perpetual 'game vs. realistic training' argument - paintball. If a person is like me and has no real expectation of ever seeing the two-way range, paintball is an available venue to explore some of these dynamics. (Yes, lots of unrealistic stuff in paintball too.)

[Hatchetman]

Hmm, currently the first three are showing as unavailable.

[Mike C]

I'm no veteran of the two-way range, but I appreciate you bringing up these issues. The human dynamics you refer to are a lot of what I think is not represented well in live-fire training dealing with the basic use of cover. I have experienced those dynamics in another environment, though one that is prone to the perpetual 'game vs. realistic training' argument - paintball. If a person is like me and has no real expectation of ever seeing the two-way range, paintball is an available venue to explore some of these dynamics. (Yes, lots of unrealistic stuff in paintball too.)

OrigamiAK, I think that expectation realized or not as long as it's grounded plays a significant role in survivability. It changes the way we anticipate or decide to act against an aggressor. I have found that visualization/preplanning and training certainly decreases response times both in training and real world. In the end it doesn't matter the venue these things are learned only that they are learned.

My hope is that more people will join in on this discussion to explore this topic. I am very curious to see what other individuals training has dictated, and what their thoughts are to include others who haven't had to trade lead. I believe that all experience, or lack there of can contribute or cause the analyzation of why we do what we do and how to improve. Sometimes I am more interested in the why than the how.