Page 5 of 19 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 188

Thread: Viability of Pieing

  1. #41
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    ABQ
    I am glad @HCM used the ALERRT video, as that is where I first heard the term "threshold evaluation". The SIMs testing mentioned in the class is then reinforced with a few dozen SIMs runs by the student. One of my classmates, and my partner for the final exams, was a very recently retired SARC and team leader in MARSOC. He showed me one minor addition that they had been using in Afghanistan, but other than that the ALERRT stuff was really, really well thought of, and in use by a couple of JSOC elements, for reasons @SouthNarc mentioned.

    My most recent ALERRT course was taught by a retired JSOC SGM and a couple of recent PMC guys who all liked the program. A lot.

    I never got to train with Phil S, but in 1995ish one of my co-workers did. Raved about it for years. He and Louis Awerbuck seemed to share a lot of ideas concerning thought processes during shooting drills.

    OP, I hope you find what you are looking for. I also hope you realize the caliber of people trying to help.

    I don't expect this thread to last long.

    pat
    Last edited by UNM1136; 02-23-2021 at 07:44 AM.

  2. #42
    OP, I’m curious if you actually watched the video HCM sent or if you dismissed it outright because you don’t believe in the validity of lessons learned from sims training. It’s a pretty short video and I think it would be worth the five minutes. They didn’t devolve into any “gramaton cleric” stuff. Their experiments did find that it took officers doing threshold evaluation half the time to begin engaging the threat after making entry as it did the officers doing dynamic entry. One of the likely reasons is that there’s a whole lot less to orient yourself to inside the room if you’ve already cleared most of it from outside, whereas if you’ve gone in blind, you now have to orient yourself to everything in the room at once.
    My posts only represent my personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official policies of any employer, past or present. Obvious spelling errors are likely the result of an iPhone keyboard.

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by KEW8338 View Post
    I dont think I said zero training. If this becomes a merit badge list of trainers, in order to validate an individuals opinion vice the merits of the opinion stated....well....

    Again this is the tactics forum. A place to discuss tactics.

    You said shooting a guy in an extremity. If you are shooting a limb. Chances are you cant see center mass. Making PID potentially difficult. I understand the effectiveness of shooting what you got.



    2x4 and drywall, to me does not constitute any real degree of protection. Maybe against 22LR.

    I would love to discuss VCQB but with the amount hate mail generated over this....Im not sure the tactics forum could take it.




    #2 is absolutely a compromised position. It is not as good as having 2 hands on the gun. Does it serve a niche purpose? Yes. Plenty of things that serve a niche purpose are compromised from the original form factor. I apologize my words are strong.....



    Walls in most other areas of the world are comprised of 3-12" of rock/mud/concrete. Those are effective at actually reducing the effects of incoming fire. Additionally that decision is part of a tactical thought process which blends into actual TTPs and escalation of force.

    One of the determining factors to me, is if I have to go into that room or not.



    In previous linked videos, would you say any participants got bogged down in doorways?




    People also tend to shoot at where you WERE, and if you are moving, not where you ARE.

    To me, I default to maneuver. I can stack odds in that, people have a tendency to shoot where you were, coupled with people suck at shooting moving targets. These are the small details, to me, you should be trying to steal advantages from.



    Sim Based science always weirds me out. That always turns into some super gramaton cleric shit

    To me, as it stands my decision making process for how I tackle a breach/threshold/aperture/portal is based off

    1)Do I have to go into that room?
    2)Do the walls offer me ballistic protection ?

    If I have to go into the room, I will not pie it. I will enter dynamically. Essentially running rabbit. (risk mitigation done through surprise and speed)

    If I dont have to go into the room, and the walls offer ballistic protection, I will pie/pin/bypass. If engaged, I will engage from the threshold using available cover (risk mitigation done through speed and violence of action)

    If I dont have to go into the room, and the walls offer no ballistic protection, I will pie/pin/bypass. If engaged, I will engage while making entry (risk mitigation done through speed and violence of action)



    I am glad that worked out in your favor. Any other details you would like to share?


    I never have taught anyone to engage, stand still, and slug it out with an adversary behind something that won't stop a bullet. If that's what you're thinking I'm teaching in the example of the still photographs from the video review I can assure you that's not what I teach people to do.

    I do believe in teaching people to adapt their shooting platform in an effort to conform to concealment when they are hunting surreptitiously for a potential problem.

    Based on what you've written it sounds like you either do have a background or at least training in the topic area and obviously have opinions about interior movement. If that's true then you should also know that having a nuanced discussion about tactics on the internet compared to the same discussion in person, is like real sex compared to phone sex. In the latter there's a lot of grunting and no one is really satisfied.

    Because of that I'm going to bow out. I think you've disagreed with what you think I teach without being disagreeable. I appreciate that, but I really don't have the time, energy or interest in continuing this discussion in this medium. Not trying to shill you but if you did come to my coursework and decided at the end of it that I was full of shit and what I was teaching would get people killed then I'd certainly be happy to give you your money back.

  4. #44
    Member TGS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Back in northern Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by KEW8338 View Post
    Sim Based science always weirds me out. That always turns into some super gramaton cleric shit
    Word. Pressure testing and practicing tactics is dumb, yo.

    Know what people who do this stuff for a living do? They don't get training in it, and then they talk about it on the internet. They certainly don't do force-on-force, that's for the birds.

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthNarc View Post
    If that's true then you should also know that having a nuanced discussion about tactics on the internet compared to the same discussion in person
    Noob.
    "Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by UNM1136 View Post
    I am glad @HCM used the ALERRT video, as that is where I first heard the term "threshold evaluation". The SIMs testing mentioned in the class is then reinforced with a few dozen SIMs runs by the student. One of my classmates, and my partner for the final exams, was a very recently retired SARC and team leader in MARSOC. He showed me one minor addition that they had been using in Afghanistan, but other than that the ALERRT stuff was really, really well thought of, and in use by a couple of JSOC elements, for reasons @SouthNarc mentioned.

    My most recent ALERRT course was taught by a retired JSOC SGM and a couple of recent PMC guys who all liked the program. A lot.
    That's interesting. I went through the ALERRT active shooter training a couple years ago, and thought it was, hands down, the worst, most ridiculous training I've ever been through. Totally could have been the instructors; I'd have to look at the curriculum more.
    ____________________________

    I'm still not sure what the point of this thread is. I've always said what @Dan Lehr said: "A way, not the way." When you do this stuff for real, in a team environment, you learn pretty quick there's not one solution for every problem and you need a lot of different tools in your toolbox.

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by KEW8338 View Post

    To me, as it stands my decision making process for how I tackle a breach/threshold/aperture/portal is based off

    1)Do I have to go into that room?
    2)Do the walls offer me ballistic protection ?

    If I have to go into the room, I will not pie it. I will enter dynamically. Essentially running rabbit. (risk mitigation done through surprise and speed)

    If I dont have to go into the room, and the walls offer ballistic protection, I will pie/pin/bypass. If engaged, I will engage from the threshold using available cover (risk mitigation done through speed and violence of action)

    If I dont have to go into the room, and the walls offer no ballistic protection, I will pie/pin/bypass. If engaged, I will engage while making entry (risk mitigation done through speed and violence of action)
    This will be my last post in this thread.

    I wanted to point out (now that you FINALLY came clean about what YOU would do), that at least some of what you're saying is what I learned in AMIS. Again, looking at still photos of people who are LEARNING, at a SNAIL'S PACE, what to do, may not provide you with the best "picture" of what the class is really about. If you took the time to read my admittedly long-winded AAR of the course when I took it, you will see references to needing to move DYNAMICALLY to enter a room. So there are portions of what you are saying that match what I learned in AMIS.

    A difference is that in AMIS we learned to pie (quickly, and with more experience we all got quicker about this) from outside the room in order to reduce the area where the threat could be to a manageable area. So, for a corner-fed room, you can probably get it down to that last 20% in the hard corner unless there are a lot of visual obstructions in the room (furniture, weird alcoves, etc.). Then (assuming you HAVE to enter the room), you enter basically as fast as you can with your focus on that area you reduced the room to so that the "bad guy" has to traverse and hit you moving AND you have a limited area to focus on to hit.

    So, it sounds like AMIS is a combo of what you THINK AMIS is and what you already favor, if that makes sense.

    Again, I will say that although some of what you say makes sense, I think if pieing, etc., didn't work, then we'd read about dead SWAT officers several times/day, and we just don't.
    Last edited by 43Under; 02-23-2021 at 09:19 AM.

  7. #47
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    ABQ
    Quote Originally Posted by TC215 View Post
    That's interesting. I went through the ALERRT active shooter training a couple years ago, and thought it was, hands down, the worst, most ridiculous training I've ever been through. Totally could have been the instructors; I'd have to look at the curriculum more.
    I have seen that response when local agencies, including mine and my former agency, try to put it on with less resources. Or guys that don't teach it frequently. Or guys that try to teach the curriculum, but insert their own little twists. War stories to illustrate a point is one thing. Failing to teach portions of the class so as to appear more knowledgeable and thus more needed ("you aren't cool enough to be doing mechanical and ballistic breaching, so we won't teach it. That is why we have SWAT on patrol") is quite another. Not saying those were the conditions you had, but that is what I have seen locally. The biggest ALERRT proponents around here screw up the classes pretty badly. I have been told how to get into the traveling roadshow when I retire, if I am interested.

    I have lucked out in the courses I have drawn. The traveling road show out of TSU San Marcos has been good to me. The med portion of my last one was taught by a SWAT dog handler who recently mustered out of ST5 as a platoon corpsman. Big city SWAT guys (San Antonio, Austin, Houston) Retired Delta Force SGM. Current Dallas FBI SWAT guy. Couple of State Troopers from various states. Couple of PMC types (really hard graders. Almost didn't pass a block of my last class) and a former AMU guy. They were, as a group, without a doubt, some of the most competent, polite, professional, invested and involved contract instructors I have ever run into. I find the course materials to be good reminders, but those guys taught their asses off! I loved 5/5 courses from ALERRT, and am waiting for a sixth to come to town. All of the ones taught in house, locally, had huge problems, many ego related.

    pat

    ETA: i just reread this and realized it is way too many words to convey what I am thinking. Been working and losing sleep over a grad school project. Time for me to go to bed and rest my word-maker.

  8. #48
    I'm gonna add one more thing. I just watched the video from Mike Glover (who I know) in it's entirety. I haven't sat through Mike's class but we have been co-located, teaching simultaneous tracks of instruction in the same venue as recently as December.

    If you watch the video, particularly from the 6 minute mark to the 12 or 13 minute mark, those are absolutely compromised shooting positions executed in an effort to conform to concealment and reduce signature. He's also switching hands, while moving and improving the shooting platform when space allows him to, or he transitions from hunting to fighting. I teach the EXACT same ideas with maybe a bit more concession towards one handed versus two handed shooting. Mike is a former Group guy with time spent at GRS, one of the few places where singleton movement is actually explored. In fact, the guy that formally taught that content, for that organization for a decade, is someone I know and interact with on a regular basis. Singleton theory as a modality of movement compared to team based movement is a completely distinct process, that everyone agrees is always about "suck less" and anyone that occupies any space in the industry exploring the idea will always concede that everything is imperfect and in-extremis at best.

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by TGS View Post
    Word. Pressure testing and practicing tactics is dumb, yo.

    Know what people who do this stuff for a living do? They don't get training in it, and then they talk about it on the internet. They certainly don't do force-on-force, that's for the birds.



    Noob.
    A great many organizations, instructors, institutions etc lack combat reps. So to overcome this they employ the scientific method utilizing Sims based environments.

    There is a degree of wonkiness built into developing tactics, based off Sims experiments. The progression of a great deal of modern tactics comes from "this was tested with sims". Which is crazy to me.

    I think it was Nikolai Tesla that said "in theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice they are not"

    Your second paragraph. I'm terrible at reading sarcasm. Not sure what to make of it.

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by 43Under View Post
    This will be my last post in this thread.

    I wanted to point out (now that you FINALLY came clean about what YOU would do), that at least some of what you're saying is what I learned in AMIS. Again, looking at still photos of people who are LEARNING, at a SNAIL'S PACE, what to do, may not provide you with the best "picture" of what the class is really about. If you took the time to read my admittedly long-winded AAR of the course when I took it, you will see references to needing to move DYNAMICALLY to enter a room. So there are portions of what you are saying that match what I learned in AMIS.

    A difference is that in AMIS we learned to pie (quickly, and with more experience we all got quicker about this) from outside the room in order to reduce the area where the threat could be to a manageable area. So, for a corner-fed room, you can probably get it down to that last 20% in the hard corner unless there are a lot of visual obstructions in the room (furniture, weird alcoves, etc.). Then (assuming you HAVE to enter the room), you enter basically as fast as you can with your focus on that area you reduced the room to so that the "bad guy" has to traverse and hit you moving AND you have a limited area to focus on to hit.

    So, it sounds like AMIS is a combo of what you THINK AMIS is and what you already favor, if that makes sense.

    Again, I will say that although some of what you say makes sense, I think if pieing, etc., didn't work, then we'd read about dead SWAT officers several times/day, and we just don't.
    Finally come clean...this isn't a trial. This is merely a discussion of tactics.

    I didn't realize a tactics forum would draw such emotional responses.

    So you said you agree with some of my points. Cool

    Some issues with what you said, depending where the door is in a corner fed room. To get it down to that 20% you speak of, your back will be to uncleared dead space.

    Before the pitchforks and fires start again. I understand as a singleton/solo/lone guy, you cannot maintain 360 degree security.

    As Craig teaches, you use dynamic movement to minimize those exposures. I largely think dynamic movement should be used more. And an appreciation for if the thing you are pieing around will stop a bullet.

    As for dead swat cops everyday. How often do cops get into shootings inside buildings. How often do they get shot?

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •