CQB Room Entry: Why 1 and 2-man clearing corners first, does not work and will get you killed.

[@Appalachia_Ape]

I've always hated the idea of ignoring a threat, in order to proceed to my sector. Good to hear someone with real world experience agree with me.

[@MrSwccguy]

Literally not what he said

[@Appalachia_Ape]

@@MrSwccguy that's exactly what he said. If you took something else from that, I'd suggest watching the video again.

[@MrSwccguy]

@@Appalachia_Ape oh nO cLeAr cOrnEr it kIlL

[@trumanhw]

If literally ignoring a threat bc "it's not your area" isn't the very definition of too rigid, nothing is.

[@c.r.chandler5905]

What interests me about your video is I remember when the SWAT team that I was on in the early 2000's was sent to an Army CQB school and I remember us being taught those exact SOP's. So one of the guys on the team asked what would happen if we encountered a suspect in the room and we were told that we have to clear our corners first. Again it was asked "but what about an armed suspect in the middle of the room, do we just leave him alone?" and the answer was that the third or fourth guy could address him. I recall our team commander telling us over beers that evening that we were going to listen however when we get back to our city just outside of Atlanta, when we hit a room, if the number one man sees a suspect with a gun, he damn sure better address him and the rest of the team flow off of his moves. I never understood why there was such an affinity for charging into a room versus examining the room from the outside before charging head on into a room. Even when we were moving to recover evidence, our team commander frowned on us just blindly charging into a room.

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

Great example of this classic "flawed" method

[@soup31314]

In Kuwait in 2003 during our train up for invasion. The other team leader in y squad as a former swat member from arizona.. when we did mout train up for 3 weeks before we went to stay in desert. But my other team leader and I would run though the plywood shoot house with dry fire and running our teams though the shoot house. We found that his tactic and the army’s tactic were totally different he was taught #1 man adresses threat, #2 man cover down on the corner and 3 filled 2 role. So you ended up with 3 men in the room. 1 man would be in the middle, with 2 and 3 man standing to his sides We ended up working it out. But in reality the first room we cleared in iraq when like this. I kicked the door, number one man would move the the funnel and pie and clear as deliberate as possible. But really you know if there is someone in the room and everything in the room in a matter of millieseconds.

[@airborneivan]

I remember back in 06 my unit from Bragg went out to Camp LeJune to use their facilities for Mout training with some Marines playing the opfor. During one of our exercises we were moving down a "market alley" and I was point on my stack as I enter the first room I immediately engage a target in the center of the room standing behind a knocked over bookcase proceed to clear my corner. I got ripped into by not only my first seargent but the Marine Cadre. When asked why I engaged before clearing my corner I said it only made sense to address the immediate threat and continue. Why bypass and potentially get shot in the back or get my battle killed. Apparently that was the wrong answer.

[@soup31314]

@@airborneivan had a marine in 2000 at ntc, he came up to us to ask for an mre, his Gunny had left him there to guard a truck and didn’t leave him food… we hooked him up, then asked what he was guarding.. it was a broken down supply truck with the whole company’s mres…

[@airborneivan]

@@soup31314 that's hysterical.

[@johnp5139]

We just did Active shooter training in my county. We did none of the diamond formations, button hook or cross room entries that have been taught since Columbine. Instead we mostly practiced locating and engaging a threat from outside the room.

[@KCYO0311]

Engaging the threat from outside the room is fine and dandy but it’s situationally dependent.

[@echo_research_and_development]

Departure from that stupid "Diamond Formation" thing is great.

[@KCYO0311]

@@echo_research_and_development I agree. The initial cqb tactics we were taught in the mid to late 2000s was horrid. I think a lot of the stuff that came out after 2010 ish stuff started to get better. I like how things have been lately depending on the situation. At the end of the day eventually we have to go in the room.

[@KCYO0311]

@@echo_research_and_development I remember being taught to throw frags and use a SAW to spray the room by my NCOs (obviously not by the “book”) but it making more sense than the more nice CQB crap.

[@HypeBeast764]

Well that’s good they’re training you to engage the threat perhaps Uvalde SWAT should go through the same training since they obviously got trained to conduct crowd control on angry parents while children get blown to pieces.

[@sciloj]

To be honest, I'm quite amazed how rigid some people's thinking could be so they can justify not engaging an armed enemy who's free to do whatever he wants for several seconds "waiting for his turn" as if he's actually going to wait. I'm also amazed by the fact that a bunch of people had to go overseas to even give those who are responsible for developing such methods a reason to revisit this. Anyone who played tag or certain versions of hide-and-seek indoors as a kid should have known better. And yet...

[@douglashale9173]

I was once told “If you don’t keep up with modern tactics you’ll be left behind on the battlefield of knowledge.”

[@jgsource552]

and I would say to that, there are some battlefields that are left in blood.@@douglashale9173

[@tacbear]

Good Video. I have 14 years Military/25 years LEO SWAT as a operator and Instructor (we did High-Low and button hooking back in the day). CQB Training has changed over the years . I was part of the Team that developed ALERT method for first responders. I have trained with FBI HRT, SEALS, Army SF, IDF USAF SOFand learned something from all of them. The Israelis method of shooting at deadly threats prior to entry is one of techniques I have been teaching for many years for my States Peace Officers Standards and Training SWAT Schools. Keep up the good work!!

[@soup31314]

When I joined in 1994, mout was high intensity. 4 man kicked door threw frag, after bang 1 man would clear funnel engage 12-3 spraying the room, 2 man sprayed from 12-9, 3 man cleared 12 high, 4 man pull security out the door. Then in 2000 that all changed, we were taught hostage rescue (cause that is what all the cool units were doing). Then we learned in iraq that bs doesn’t work when you are fighting in a urban area.

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

I actually had a section where I talked about high intensity vs precision, left it out.

[@soup31314]

@@ModernTacticalShooting I was lucky and got the left over Cold War era mout and then the hostage rescue stuff at begin of gwot

[@wehrewulf]

Truth. Clearing a building in Desert Storm was a M2, or an A-10. If you had to do it with boots on the ground it was frag out, rinse, and repeat.

[@willepete0088]

Thank you Jeff. Keyword for this video is “EGO”. Often times our Squad leaders and Platoon SGTs who have seen little to no combat regurgitate the old school button hook BD-6. As a soldier currently training in a multitude of different scenarios. I have learned that questioning your leaderships combat capabilities is paramount.

[@firelock9080]

Nah, learning effective techniques is paramount. Questioning the qualifications of a trainer doesn't accomplish squat. Keep your mouth hole shut and learn, then use what's good.

[@willepete0088]

@@firelock9080 “effective techniques”. More like following the norm. “Normality is the Great Neurosis of civilization” -Tom Robins So yes as a thinking man and strategic warrior of todays modern and evolving battlefield. I will continue to question what most think are “effective techniques”.

[@KeyboardWarrior101st]

We used to do platoon on platoon using simunitions. That's where you get to really learn. Like you said, bad guys don't stay static they scatter through out structures when fighting.

[@chap23305]

This is fantastic. I showed up to my SRT with that "Classic Army CQB" and it was drastically different than the guys who had just finished SWAT school (who were taking the newer approach).

[@LMau-t9r]

I remember Israeli SOF trying dynamic entry with force on force, doesn’t work, it fells apart fast if you don’t first flashbang/frag the enemies in to oblivion

[@Raptor5191]

My experience from the Israeli SOF guys we enjoyed training with was that they very much work LP and have pushed it for years.

[@Raptor5191]

@@LMau-t9r And it makes more sense. As Paul Howe said: "Why fight the lion from inside the cage when you can kill him from outside?"

[@IlyaH83]

It very depends on the sf unit. I don't know with which one you worked with but many things changed over last months and we understand as well that dynamic work ends when contact begin

[@Raptor5191]

@@IlyaH83 Yeah dynamic has a place for sure. As you said, situationally dependent.

[@triranger72]

As a 2008 graduate of SFARTAETC and member of this CIF, transitioning to the "new technique".... It's depressing to find out that units are going back to the old stuff.

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

2008 I was there as an instructor

[@triranger72]

Just looked at my cert, graduated March of 2009. I was in the LMTV that rolled on Chicken Rd. Were you still there for that class?

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

@@triranger72 Nope I left summer of 2008 took over a different committee when I made E8, I heard about the roll over!

[@gunnersecuador7515]

My twenty two years on active duty taught me to ALWAYS question, anyone who says "This is the way"! As far as CQB goes, it is a very fluid environment, with lots of unknowns. bad guys are seldom static and can be expected to do the unexpected. I am not a fan of running blindly into any space and I sure as heck would not ask my team mates do it either. I want as much intel as I can get prior to a breach. Even with that plan "A" will dissolve as soon as my foot breaks the plain of the door.

[@drd1924]

lol, I was taught that because plan A will usually turn to shit, make a shitty plan A, But have a really good Plan B

[@user-sw6yj5yd2i]

Excellent video. I know in my personal training with my department I've seen exactly what you were talking about with "scripted" OpFor. I think it's very detrimental to training to have ultra limited Parameters for the Opfor to adhere to. In my experience with Force on Force, I've always found it more useful for training to have the OpFor have a specific objective they are trying to accomplish, and allow them the means to try and accomplish said objective. The enemy you are fighting is trying to accomplish a task, whether it be a near peer threat or an active shooter. Force on Force should also be an opportunity to test tactics against a simulated threat, not always reinforce one particular SOP. If I'm running training and I'm telling Opfor to stand in a corner and wait for the entry team to breach, I might as well get a paper target and save the money I'm spending on the role-player.

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

You bring up good points OPFOR given parameters to meet a training objective

[@briangrady367]

As an AFSOC DOD civilian OPFOR, we are told what building to be in, but we are given freedom of maneuver inside.

[@charlesl5226]

Every time I would train a class of students I would always play as an aggressive OPFOR. Teach them ways and possible methods but then really test them by pushing the fight as well.

[@Argentum88]

When I saw this argument on the Tactics and Application facebook group I wasn't really sure what you guys were arguing about. But intuitively after watching this video, this makes a lot more sense to me. Then again I was never a guy to dogmatically follow something just for the sake of following it. Situation dictates indeed. Thanks Jeff!

[@moss8702]

This is 100% accurate. It's what was taught in my infantry battalion in the Corps until afew guys from MARSOC were able to speak their piece on a joint field op with us. Several team leaders disagreed despite never deploying to combat unlike the seasoned guys teaching us. It was embarrassing. But really showed me that classic methodology doesn't equate to the truth. After this experience, I paid for several courses out of pocket from experienced and accredited instructors nationwide and learned ALOT better than the doctrine being follied around. The words you said were exactly the conclusion I realized myself, and was then repeated back to me by those seasoned instructors. It's a shame that each and every single conflict forces those forgotten tactics to be relearned by body counts that could've otherwise have been avoided.

[@moss8702]

@John Jacob Mostly yes, but also no. Vietnam and GWOT were largely unsupported wars. They can't accomplish their goals without some sort of support at home. Being well-trained pawns isn't as expensive as it may seem. Yet it's the command that selects what kind of training and spends their annual budget on it. Honestly the level at which i'm talking about is at the Branch/Unit Command/Platoon level. Where they ignore the tactics we learned and go right back to crappy doctrine. As much as I can agree with your statement. I know who's directly responsible for those training failures. And it isn't bigwigs like congress.

[@Lifechanging99999]

1. What years were you in? 2. What unit were you with? Perhaps 5th Marines? I was with 3/8 from 2009-2012. I was taught pie the doorway and windows, eliminate visible threats first prior to entering the room, clearing corners, behind the door (smash into it) and clear the upper part of the room.

[@moss8702]

@@Lifechanging99999 2017-2020 (just shy of my 4 year mark from a severe injury) I was 1/4. We were vaguely taught to pie doors before entering. The majority of the time it was early GWOT-styled breaching into the unknown and figuring it out as you entered. Which we both know is 1. Insanely dangerous and 2. Insanely unnecessary the vast majority of the time. It provided us with repetitive CLS training every single run. Which is a positive but that's supposed to be drilled into you anyways. The method you're saying that makes sense is the same method those MARSOC guys told us is what you're supposed to be doing.

[@moss8702]

@@Lifechanging99999 also everything you said besides pieing and eliminating visible threats was taught. Crazy I know

[@SoccerVJ2011]

The best knowledge and training is outside the military tbh.

[@p99guy]

Hi Jeff, enjoyed the video and your thoughts on the subject. I hit 60 this year, and I’m a armed security officer For a Community College that also has its own Police Dept that we work under. Active shooter’s are the reason we are here. I spent most of my adult life as a peace officer, and was fortunate in the late 1980’s to go through all the dynamic entry, and explosives entry training that HK inc Training Division offered under the ex-SAS head of training, Phil Singleton, and by Omni explosives of Memphis TN, these were held at Carswell AFB, And Fort Wolters alongside the National Guard. Cutting edge stuff in its day, but things constantly evolve. Working in smaller agencies never afforded me the luxury of stacked teams on the countless building searches… it was just me, or possibly 1 or 2 others if I was lucky. But back to the present day. A campus PD SGT has an office here, but may not be here at all on a given day…. Leaving me as the only designated armed officer on site. Standard SOP is not to wait for more officers to show up… you go in now. So im back to years ago again. I do have helmet/body armor/ Glock G22/ LE shotgun if it starts off with me at my station out front. And a G22 if I get caught on a walkthrough. We are set to get active shooter training to put us in line with campus PD soon. But any 21st century pointers you can pass along for solo Swimming in S…creek, I would love to hear.

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

As you know, there is a definite difference between military CQB and active shooter SOPs CQB being very deliberate where as active shooter you go "direct to threat". Bypass rooms to go to the gunfire. There are numerous techniques on how to rapidly cover while you move. Not a single one a 100% going to cover all angles and uncleared areas, its just how comfortable one is and how much speed to threar.

[@WesMerc]

Jeff, I think a factor in this is that dynamic entry is perceived as cooler or more fun to train compared to limited penetration

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

Very true

[@Thiiccstalin]

Your imagery about seeing an organized opposition coming at you gives cold chills. The movies just show bad guys standing in the middle of room getting mowed down

[@jupiterjunk]

I never understood the thought process that wend into the classic "4-points-of-domination" (they called it) method. Especially when they didn't allow for bangers or frags. As you noted, it usually takes the loss of life for things to change. . At the LE Academy (2005), I was a menace when I was OPFOR. Never sticking to the script. Most of the instructors loved it, the other 1/3, not so much. When it came to room clearing, I'd waste a 4-man team with a pistol. It wasn't hard at all. I know where they would enter, so I went prone, centered on the door, and waited. As soon as the door opened, I started firing lower torso height. They were busy looking for the classic Hollywood "stand-up fight", and I was hugging the ground. . Tragically, things didn't change until a county south of us had a high-risk warrant go south. They lost the #1 guy, and #2 & #3 were seriously injured by a barricaded known-felon, with a .30-30 lever-action.

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

Yes in the beginning opfor need to be scripted, so those training to be entry members can get the basics down. But after that you've got to press the training let role players act aggressive

[@darnellhill143]

I wholeheartedly agree with asking the "why". Not just with CQB, but why are "our" policies and SOPs what they are. If you get the bureaucratic response: "this is how we have always done it", I would not trust it. It's too bad most of these "leaders" don't like being questioned. Free thinkers are often muzzled. Great video

[@Almosteasyese]

You broke it down to where it made immediate sense, and even without explicitly stating the tecniques when you initially did my brain immediately looked to fill in the gaps

[@dwtimmons]

I appreciate your video, as a prior infantry Marine we were trained in a lot of those bad tactics but when we were down range typically didn't employ them in somewhat employed a little bit more common sense. To your point shooting from the outside as opposed to putting your body inside as a Target made sense to us in the situations that we were in.

[@douglasschneider9127]

Great video! Excellent critique of the "dynamic entry" method I was taught in the infantry vs the "limited penetration" methods I've trained in more as an armed civilian. I think there's a time and place for both methods, but there's never a good reason in my opinion to ignore center threats. Something that, depending on who was walking the cat walk, could be regarded as a no-no or a "why didn't you do this you idiot?" and it often devolved to training to make a particular observer or cadre happy, vs a realistic simulation of what your team would do in the fight. You pointing out that a lot of those methods came from HR techniques makes so much more sense developmentally, as they would have been employed by counter terror groups that would have gone on to inform SWAT units, and military forces on room clearing. You can see quite easily how those TTPs would have grown and spread far beyond their intended contexts. Like digging fighting position grenade sumps in a camping shelter, there's some things that don't always need to transfer over even though the situations bare a superficial resemblance. I think that inability to properly contextualize TTPs is a symptom of the larger "monkey-see monkey-do" nature of a LOT of training both in military and civilian settings where people see high speed units doing things one way and seek to simply imitate them instead of understanding why, and what lessons contributed to that. Many times, its those underlying lessons that contribute to real learning, not the act of the imitation.

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

Great points, I left out term "limited penetration" In SF after the changes happened, we had a different term for our new method of room entry.

[@sofit]

@@ModernTacticalShooting step center

[@MarcusJGrey]

Thanks for the knowledge dump! I have to say, I do really appreciate and like the longer uploads you have, always a pleasure and walk away learning something new!

[@resolute123]

Adapt or die. Thank you for showing an alternative method. Was shown by another SF guy a method of scanning and cleaning a room by yourself (if you had to) which is demonstrated in a Mike Glover video. Also he demonstrated (not Mike Glover) the value of high and ready while we in the Army are taught to stack in the low and ready.

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

Mike of course a 10th grouper and we served around the same time.

[@resolute123]

@@ModernTacticalShooting thank you. I'm learning a lot from your vids.

[@flopus7]

10 MTN started doing divisional training to switch things to the more modern style but they were still emphasizing speed and violence of action. We were training to attempt to prevent counter attack by moving through buildings quickly enough that the enemy couldn't effectively react.

[@soup31314]

I think ever one saw 10th mnt’s “attempt” at a mout program.

[@derekc4919]

@@soup31314 😂😂😂

[@soup31314]

@@derekc4919 was it their cav battalion that went viral with that cluster of a mout

[@samd2539]

10th mtn 🤣🤣🤣 that cqb vid yall msde was sick

[@bdub0983]

I went through basic training in 2007 and this is how we were taught. Pie the room best you can before entering. Entering blindly seems insane to me. I can't believe that was the standard, honestly.

[@kevinjernstrom1464]

1. Through the door 2. Clear your corner (the one nearest to you from the direction of the stack - if you are nr 1, nr 2 clear the opposite) 3. Run the wall 4. Collapse your sector (arc of fire) 5. Communicate The basic room clearing rules. These are the rules that are under criticism in this video. These rules are for room clearing, in Sweden we adhere to rules on top of these ones. These rules are: - Here and now - Dangerous Directions - One thing/threat/task at the time - Compliance/adherence If you apply these four (4) Swedish rules to your basic room clearing rules there are no need for the criticism. Here and Now = Nr 1 choses one dangerous direction, Nr 2 guard his back, Nr 3 guards nr 2 back etc. Dangerous Directions = A structure can have multiple dangerous directions. Chose the one closest to you. If you enter a room: what's in the room, what's behind furnitures, what's in the closets, what's behind the adjacent door, what's outside the windows. Start at your own position and work yourself out. One thing at the time = If you find yourself having to cover several dangerous directions, chose one direction and stick to that one. Trust that your mates will cover the other ones. If you try to cover more than one direction at the time you will only do your job at 50 % or 25% etc depending on the number of dangerous directions you are trying to cover. Compliance/adherence = Put 100 % of your focus at your chosen dangerous direction. Show, with your actions what you are doing, that way your mates will now what you are doing and will act accordingly. To put this in a context. You are in very hostile setting. You and your team are about to breach into a room. You have stacked up against the wall which is on your left side and the door is in front of you. You have been taught that the number 1 will clear his nearest corner first, which will be the left one and that number 2 will clear the opposite corner, 3 will follow number 1 and 4 will follow number 2. Number 4 squeezes the shoulder of number 3, number 3 squeezes the shoulder of nr 2 and number 2 squeezes the shoulder of number 1. You start to move through the door, everyone knows his/hers individual task. BUT, when number 1 enters the room he stops in the center and engages a threat at the center of the room. But number 1 has left enough space between him and the threshold, number 2 realizes that and overtakes nr 1 primary task, clearing the nearest corner. Nr 3 sees nr 2 path and clears the opposite corner, nr 4 clears the corner of nr 3. This is compliance/adherence and should be part of all CQB training. Another way of dealing with this "problem" which is a problem. Is to teach your assaulters always to engage the first threat before moving on to your primary task. If the you are in the situation mentioned above and you are nr 1. Shoot the baddy at the center of the room and then clear your nearest corner, nr 2 will shoot the same baddy again before moving on to the opposite corner. Same goes for nr 3 and nr 4. Adherence/compliance first and then fall back to your SOP. That's my take and I'm up for criticism as I'm always eager to improve.

[@richardthomas6602]

At a minimum, the last man (LM) is rear guard. N1 pies across to opposite door jam dropping threats as he goes. N2 at low ready covering corner vacated by N1. Once set on opposite door jam, N1 either goes high ready or takes one step signaling N2 to go high ready. The N1 or N2 man not at high ready enters to clear his corner and as soon as he clears the door, the man at the other door jam (N1 or N2) enters to clear the opposite corner. The remainder of the stack sequences in with at a minimum the LM maintaining rear guard whenever possible.

[@ninertactics]

Thanks for sharing. Mind if If I use this as material for my vids. Not right now... maybe in the future. These are good concepts.

[@user-yj7ph9vk2k]

Tldr

[@mh3225]

I went through SOI ITB in 2009 and it was taught that you clear the fatal front first regardless of depth and then the corners, and we thought that even this was low speed high drag ironically. Until I saw this video I had no idea this zone of "immediate threat" even existed. The thing where the guys go straight to the corners was what we though super cool operators did because it looked cool. edit, further in the video with the marine recon guys engaging outside of the room, this trickled down to us around 2011. I think the knowledge was there but there were "range-isms" that prevented us from actually doing it for a while.

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

Grat input...thanks

[@SideWays8Productions]

My father always laughs at the high speed Tier 1 stack CQB videos for this exact reason. You get exactly 1 room’s worth of surprise (if you’re lucky) before every other door and hallway becomes Swiss cheese from the inside. He learned that lesson fast in Fallujah when pretty much every bad guy had a machine gun trained on the door. Not gunna lie, I give a lot of props to grunts and value their advice and techniques way more than SOF guys, for the sheer fact that they’re more like to have been shot at through a doorway when clearing as opposed to SOF guys who spend decades hitting soft targets that more often than not don’t/can’t shoot back

[@justinmartin6068]

I feel like this is quite near sighted. Not sure what your definition of “soft targets” would be. It’s fair to say that a fair bit of SOF and Infantry and other non SOF units experienced a ton of “getting shot at”. Both in urban and rural environments.

[@SideWays8Productions]

@@justinmartin6068 SOF units are at a huge advantage with the available intel they have on the objective and the assets they have to deliver them to and secure the target compared to regular infantry units. SOF units also don’t typically hold ground once it’s taken, usually moving on to the next target. That’s not to say regular infantry units get shot at more than SOF units, but the dynamic faced in CQB fighting between SOF units and regular infantry units is vastly different due to the nature of the objective each unit is often tasked with securing. Which is why battles like Fallujah, Ramadi, Sadr City, Mogadishu, etc. end up with a lot of lessons learned for urban combat compared to isolated raids conducted by SOF units in Baghdad, Syria, or a compound in Afghanistan. To analogize it a bit, task a SWAT team with clearing an entire city and watch how quickly their tactics and resource needs changes lol

[@WilkoLV]

If it's not a hostage situation and no one inside is not an enemy, then I don't know why you wouldn't try and draw them out and ambush. Or distract and attack. Or put small a flexible and extendable telescope under the door or through the key whole to see if the room is clear before quietly entering after having picked the lock gently. So that everyone can creep through the first room silently, giving less time to the enemy to escape and less to time to prepare to engage you coming in.. Low and slow creeping would be better in my personal view, and is one method in which I use when doing cqb if the opponent doesn't know I'm there. If they know I'm there then sprinting as quickly as possible between cover and keeping well below eye level behind cover is the best option, and if you're all doing that you're hard to hit and confusing for the enemy who's standing still and is being out maneuvered and stressed which leads them more likely leading to making tactical and aiming mistakes.. All of this above is from my personal experience of CQB environments and how to use them, not secrets here that I know of. Read no training manuals, just my own intuition. Hope it helps people 👌

[@RvrRaiderD1]

My two cents. I agree the new way is far superior but 1/2 man still clear corners first on entry. What's changed is clearing as much of the room from outside the threshold as possible, versus running blindly into a room like before. (Either a cross stack like in 11:11 or doing the pause and go method from a single stack like in 9:12). Either way once making entry you still clear corners first, partly because its the remaining dead space left to be clear. A shooter in a corner can smoke a whole team on a center fed without having to move their weapon from the cut. A threat near the center has to pick and choose moving targets as they enter the room. It sucks being the guy shot, but at least your teams not getting hosed.

[@user-yj7ph9vk2k]

That threshold shit only works at night, with nods, when the walls can stop bullets. It’s a great way to get shot the fuck up through the walls by a committed enemy in any other scenario.

[@sixfiveoutfitters1201]

Excellent stuff. Appreciate you not revealing the procedural details of active SOPs. Appreciate your willingness to "think outside the box" but which is actually common sense when it's based on real-world situations - the solution flows logically from a problem that is properly analyzed.

[@FightingCondition]

...my advise..watch till the end! very good explained why old methods can be good or NOT. we have to adapt.

[@syskusa6512]

I always trained the number one man engages the immediate threat, and everyone acts on the number one man. I don’t understand clearing a corner first if there’s an obvious threat upon entry that’s not in the corner. These days I don’t understand doing dynamic entry if it’s not completely necessary, you can clear most of a room without even entering most cases. Pie everything to death, the pie some more, the clear what’s left it’ll be a small portion of what you started with, that’s my opinion anyway.

[@drd1924]

Agreed

[@CaptainCreampie69]

Yeah, the fact that in force on force, the role players are instructed to just chill out in a room is bogus. If someone breaks into a house I am at, like in the Bin Laden raid, I am sending the troops downstairs to deal with the protelem, not just waiting to get executed.

[@Jason32Bourne]

You are a gift! Thank you. You are saving lives.

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

Thank you..too kind

[@theretroman3862]

I 1000% agree, and it is the correct and the best way to deal with it in CQB

[@davidsirmons]

I cannot believe that yarn of "1st guy ignores immediate threat, 2nd and 3rd guy will nail him...hurr durr". That is insanity. See threat, eliminate threat, regardless of man number.

[@Stargazer80able]

Back in my day, when we were going in a room, everything was to be dealt with as something to be destroyed. Fun thing was that french observers thought we were professionals, were told we were conscripts doing it for the first time. That gave me a boost way back when.

[@obeastness]

Glad to see someone with so much experience talking about this. This method has always seemed about as realistic as women's self defense martial arts to me.

[@mikemurley8656]

Good video. I like the problem solving statement. Blind repetition leads to the enemy winning through anticipating (a GOTHIC SERPENT lesson learned).

[@MetalheadMitch762]

It's funny that cqb doctrine had targets being avoided when in Rainbow Six 3, your whole team gets mowed down in half a second if the threat isn't engaged. The old Rainbow Six games (1-3) were all about realistic CQB and I believe there was an attempt in 1999 to make a separate Rainbow Six game as a training tool for law enforcement.

[@ShaolinRonin1]

Same dogma is taught at DHS. I always questioned the dynamic entry and clearing corners first. You hit the mark with your comments abt the element of surprise and seconds matter.

[@levet1797]

Good vid. You can't learn what you think you already know.

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

True

[@johnwurfel2862]

Hostage Occupied room: throw flashbangs, CS Gas, and clear. Unoccupied room: frag and clear. Carpentry work is cheaper than medical and funeral /life benefits.

[@shootingbricks8554]

In the Marines I was taught multiple methods. Classic method from boot camp and pie and dynamic pieing at my unit from former Recon Marines and Marines who were graduates of CQB School.

[@ericberman4193]

Good video, thanks for producing. You’re right on with questioning training and techniques in order to fight smarter and live. Molon Labe!

[@charlesreeves3426]

There are some absolutes when it comes to CQB. One of those absolutes are, when dealing with a motivated and capable enemy, there are no guarantees. CQB is dangerous. Without going into depth about tactics and methods, known threats always take precedence over unknown threats. I.E. dude in the middle of the room VS. uncleared corners. Most walls in structures will not stop bullets. There are very few things in manmade buildings that's actually cover from rifle fire. Walls are nothing more than concealment. That being said the majority of a room, regardless if it's a center feed or corner feed room can be delt with before a muzzle breaks the threshold of the doorway. Great video brother.

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

Agree!

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

There is no "Never do that in a gunfight"

[@lonsch]

That’s awesome. Marsoc clear the room the same way did playing paintball 20 years ago when we would play in buildings.

[@augreich]

Yes please post more training videos like this.

[@WinzZone]

For patrol officers: I've been taught you move SLOW and open corners slowly (don't rush it) and assume there is a threat which may be watching entry point. (1-2 person clearing room.) The only way you should rush is when there is active shooter situation you rush towards the sound (each second you waste = 1 kill) and in order to attract active shooter attention you rush towards him and eliminate him instantly then help others. For HR call backup(experts etc)

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

Good points

[@lincolnpascual]

I clearly remember watching the Marines use grenades to clear rooms in Fallujah. I'm not a Marine, I was Army, and I clearly remember thinking "That's a lot easier than trying to take the room with buildings". I understand why it can't be used in HR, but I don't see any practical reason not to do it in other situations. We aren't there to sell girl scout cookies. Unless it's mission critical not to, why not be SOP to just frag the room from the door? Toss a couple in, wait for the boom, deploy the squeegee. Shit got really mess in Iraq, but dudes were thinking on the fly and made some really nifty solutions to problems they faced. Does anyone else remember stuffing books and whatnot in and against the Humvee doors? Or using a extendable ladder to cross rooftops? Using empty pill bottles for storage of useful randomness in pouches? My brother and i remember... hell, I still have a 5 foot tubular webbing loop sewn into my plate carriers to make a better drag strap that what is on most PCs (another thing that IDK why it never got adopted everywhere), and still carry a spare BCG in a large pill bottle so that I can do field maintenance on my rifle).

[@R12gsa09]

You’re right on the money, FSG. Hooah. I’ve learned CQB in the mid 90s and used it extensively in Croatia during Op. Amber Star and Joint Endeavor. I remember our cadres used to say the same thing exactly: “clearing room, is a problem solving exercise. Work the problem; don’t be scripted.” SSG JSOC, ret. 1996.

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

"Work problem not be scripted" should be part of CQB training language

[@mikehawkswollen5819]

I agree 100%. An armed person 10 feet back, although not blocking path, is damn sure an immediate threat

[@LibertysetsquareJack]

Excellent video, as always. Much appreciated Mr. Gurwitch.

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

Thank you

[@timlance7656]

Outstanding. I will start mixing things up a little and see what i can do to improve. Thank you.

[@roadhouse6999]

When I was in IBOLC, one of our NCOs asked us how to win a gunfight. The answer he was looking for was "with your gun" - he argued that there was way too much emphasis on closing ground in infantry doctrine, and before we can close ground, we need to actually kill the enemy. One great video is John Lovell's "One-man CQB" demonstration. He makes it pretty clear that one-man CQB is basically suicide, but also shows that trying to clear rooms as fast as possible is pretty overrated.

[@rcnewman51.]

OTG has great visual demonstration getting around this issue!

[@james1511z]

Really interesting - British infantry have starting overhauling the focus on CQB/FIBUA. Absolutely clearing as much as possible from the outside of the room now.

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

That is good!

[@johnwisch5491]

They make frag grenades for this very reason. They change the attitude of the opfor that is in the room. The best part is if there’s a S vest the explosive impulse will clean that out too in some cases with a sympathetic detonation.

[@WaterMelonKillas]

Former IDF commando. You are correct.

[@calebheinzig1106]

Speaking truth here 🙌 the more tools in the box the more resources to pull from...any SOP needs to be tested and re tested and keep testing...keep up with current events look at what the threats world wide are doing and pressure test your SOP's to those threats and see if it still stands up if it doesn't make some changes keep evolving

[@Prepper319]

Please make more content ! Your content saved my life !!!

[@G0ldL3ader]

"Less videos out there for the bad guys" fudd lore.

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

Better tell MARSOC, 10th and 5th SFG, countless military units that.

[@G0ldL3ader]

@@ModernTacticalShooting "less videos for the bad guys" sounds pretty close to "banning guns means less guns for the bad guys". I'm not concerned about the bad guys, I want to empower the good guys, and the civilians who could benefit from the instruction. The "bad guys" will get their hands on tactics and videos if they want regardless, especially if there are many other publicly available methods to aquire the same info that you mentioned you would not be encouraging, and especially if the CQB tactics are "not classified" as you stated. This mentality really resembles the elitist vet "civilians shouldn't train and LARP if they never served, you had your chance, civis shouldnt own ARs because they never served or trained" Tim Kennedy and Dakota Meyers opinions. And I have no love for the pro fed and statists, but I guess they wind those guys down tighter than the basic soldier like I was. Decent content, but now I'm just going to bounce to the next one to get "the highly protected and dangerous secrets" because that's the freedom of the internet.

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

@@G0ldL3ader Ok I see, I got your 1st comment backwards.

[@jamescunningham6251]

Thank you for making this video JG. When i was in security forces our CQB program had alot of flaws and many of the question and scenarios you discussed i asked during training and was always told that im trying to be special forces and i needed to shut up and color pretty much. It was veey disappointing at times because alot of us felt like the tactics being taught to us at the time would eventually get us killed if we ever had to conduct CQB or HR for real. Later in my career the program changed and i felt vindicated to an extent. I know spme will take issue with your video but thanks again for putting it out and sharing the knowledge

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

You are the type of person I have made this video for... I know I did not offer solutions but if it gets people thinking that is a win.

[@jamescunningham6251]

@ModernTacticalShooting I believe you offered solutions without doing it if that makes sense. I'm in the private sector now but I shared your video with a few instructors I know and all the reviews have been positive

[@johnhalpin1847]

Prior to entry unless dynamic the room should be pied , however even in dynamic entry if entering a room a suspect is encountered where you are # 1, #2 #3 whatever the immediate threat is neutralized is not they would be able to clear their corners because they would be shot prior.

[@darkchild130]

I was infantry for 15 years and trained multiple methods, of which we used them all in Afghan and Iraq over the years. now I’m old and crippled I like to play airsoft. It’s a great way to learn how dumb dynamic entry is if you’re engaging a prepared enemy. Pie and pan all the way baby!

[@wehrewulf]

CQB Method 1- Frag. CQB Method 2- Frag. CQB Method 3- Frag. HR- Concussion. The hostage can see the medic later for spare eardrums, clean pants, and a cherry lollipop. Drywall isn't cover. Stacking on the door, against an interior wall is movie cute, but no so good when Haj is throwing 7.62x39 through the walls at you. Frags tend to simmer him down a bit.

[@echo_research_and_development]

The traditional way did not make sense to me even as a new recruit in basic traning in 2001. "How do you expect the enemies to not have a bunch of AK47 pointed at the door when we go in?" "Element of surprise!" That explains the first room. But, how do you expect to have element of surprise when we enter the second room?

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

Exactly

[@woodsghost9088]

It seems to be one was supposed to use the M67 "hight intensity distraction device"

[@echo_research_and_development]

@@woodsghost9088 It was an effective tool to enemies who saw it for the first time. But, now the effects and limitations are too known. It has its place, but it is not like it is an "off" switch to opponents' senses.

[@yeagemk]

Im just a guy who plays arma 3 and watches a lot of videos on youtube, but this just makes a lot of sense. All of the combat footage from Ukraine that ive been seeing lately shows a more slow engagement into rooms. Absolutely no one that Ive seen just rushes in. Also lots of these rooms are filled with smoke, contain barricade objects/random shit on the floor that you have to step over. Common sense would dictate that you cant just run into these rooms

[@soulknight89]

It's crazy back in 2016, I was taught the old methods while my brother, Marine, used the newer methods you shown. I was Air Force getting ready to deploy. Our instructors were Security Forces and former Army 11Bs. Quite interesting. I wonder if the actual combat knowledge is being trickle down properly within the Army compare to the Marines. I remember my brother mention that they would always receive mentorship from folks with actual combat experiences.

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

The problem is the combat knowledge is not trickling down enough and it is lost and forgotten when those who have served in combat get out of the military

[@jackmehoff2363]

There was some administrative policies put in place that had a side effect of preventing this knowledge to be transferred. Paying employees is the biggest cost. And when you cut budgets you gotta cut employees. And if you want to retain a certain amount of employees the best thing to save money is to kick out the most expensive employees. Thus a lot of senior people were booted out or forced out. A long with people just leaving. They took knowledge and experience with them. Leaving behind the inexperienced.

[@AlexN2022]

there shouldn't be that much difference between how you train a hand to hand sports fighter and how you train a CQB shooter. Both disciplines have technique, tactics, and live application against competing opponent. You would not train a novice boxer on the bag and pads, give him some scripted partner drills, and send him into the ring. So why would we do that with our shooters? It feels like unscripted force on force in competitive setting should be the main focus of training.

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

Great comparison

[@jay-by1se]

I worked at a urban combat training facility for a few years, where we moved very heavily to force on force projectile fighting over all dry fighting. We used a type of airsoft gun that was extremely powerful and Sims. everybody came from special operations there, and within the first month we had all abandoned, almost everything we’ve ever been taught. i’m not sure who came up with the militaries CQB training concepts, but they don’t work at all when you’re being shot at. I disagree with almost everybody in the shooting community about shooting targets. I don’t think that does hardly anything for you. I think you need to shoot for some force with projectile going back-and-forth as 90% of your training. things that you think work simply do not work when people are shooting at you.

[@soup31314]

An other thing to keep in mind is the type of combat you are involved in. Is it cordon and search? Is it high intensity urban combat? Is it a raid? Is it low level peace keeping/policing? All these things need to play in to the cqb/mout sop. The sop for a line mech infantry unit fighting a near peer in a major blown up city, will not have the same sop for a swat team in small town New Hampshire.

[@stevehartwell1861]

Yep. I'm lazy and in a particular situation call the friendly artillery battery.

[@gurugoguzhanson]

If tactics and techniques as minimum dont work against ones equals, then they should be discarded. You will never see a sports team with tactics that only work against bad teams.

[@cgsai2008]

Excellent video with excellent points. This problem has found its way into law enforcement building search tactics. There’s a clear difference between HRT, Active Shooter Response, and slow-methodical building searches. Although we’ve gained great training from military veterans, these HRT training scars have also tainted police training. Thank you for bringing up this point…and possibly hurting some feelings. Active LAPD 👍🏽🇺🇸🦅

[@getsome3797]

All of this movement is dependent on the ballistic capability of the wall. You cannot fight from the outside if the walls are not capable of stopping rifle rounds. It may as well be 1/4” plywood. Speed, surprise, violence of action. Room entry vs bad guys should only be used during hostage rescue, active shooter response, or if there’s another factor creating the necessity to neutralize the threat worthy of risking the assaulters lives.

[@RickSanchez167]

I was taught the old style originally, and they (Field Grades/SGMs) actually used to yell at soldiers for engaging any targets before clearing corners. What i developed over time, and 3 deployments, was to teach 1 and 2 to square up to the door when entering, engage any threats as stepping through the doorway with 3-5 rounds and then transition to clearing corners. By that time the next man was squared up to the doorway and able to continue engaging center threats while corners were still being cleared. It did take alot more practice to get my guys able to engage with a few rounds and then transition qithout getting tunnle visiones, but once they did it wirked really well

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

Yep, shoot as many threats as you can before crossing threshold.

[@tyb6661]

Remind me the GIGN at the food market after the bataclan shooting, They got stuck in the door of the food market.

[@Phos9]

12:26 it sounds like the op for guys were being told to act like enemies in a video game. Might as well told them to stand next to a mock crate of TNT.

[@Snippersly]

Good thing that #2 guy on the FBI didn't step in front of the #4 and #5 guys who were shooting behind him... YIKES!

[@josholdham1033]

Great content! We should always question doctrine and dogma

[@MaxGolden]

Thanks for the great video. Makes great sense.

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

@@MaxGolden new video on CQB coming

[@nicholashelms2395]

A threat should never be ignored. I would expect every visible area of the room be assessed for threats and immediately neutralize then before anyone enter the room. A guy on each side of the foor can check the visible corners at that angle with a third engaging any threat in the center before entering and clearing the corners that were not visible.

[@byrongray5466]

A standard operating procedure (SOP) is a set of step-by-step instructions an organization compiles to help workers carry out routine operations.

[@AnotherClich3]

There's a time and place for every different technique. SOPs and doctrine are always slow to evolve as people are resistant to change and feel comfortable with dogma. The future of higher-capability units will be a playbook with different techniques to be used in various categories of situations. But the standard one-size-fits-all practice for the average unit will probably NOT be corners-first for all the reasons you stated.

[@AJ_Sparten1337]

The one/two man classic room clearing approach would really only work for the first room when the enemy has no idea that you’re there AND you toss in a flashbang or more before entering the room. After that, you should always go slow, methodical, and smooth with your approach to each and every room after that. Check every part of the room you plan to enter first from the safety of being relatively unseen from being behind the doorway then check those “front” corners last as you make entry. Afterwards, check behind any object that you couldn’t clear before making entry. The manner in which you do that WILL VARY for each room because nothing is ever the exact same but those should be the steps you take in order to preserve your own life in CQB.

[@Fer-De-Lance]

Thank you for sharing. Another example ( in my opinion) why the military needs to be more flexible.

[@Fugettaboutit]

When I took a defensive handgun course the instructor was a former SWAT, and IIRC he said when they entered a doorway and they 'knew' a shooter was around a corner, first man would go right for the far visible corner/wall and second man would immediately turn that doorway and fire at the shooter as he followed the first man. Maybe I misunderstood it, but it kind of made sense, but kind of didn't unless that first man dashed at full speed as a 'decoy'.

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

Thats called "path of least resistance" going to corner that you can see, that is dumb. Why go to a corner you see 80% of, leaving your back to the unknown? Always clear the unknown as number 1 or go in direction of the threat if its known.

[@Fugettaboutit]

@@ModernTacticalShooting Yeah it seemed weird....like front man is the 'rabbit' or something, and the second man is the 'gotcha'. I guess it was predicated on knowing that there was someone right around the corner (however that was achieved without engaging), but still. I guess you figure that with one point of entry, the bad guy inside is going to shoot at the first things he sees the moment anything is exposed, so if something was a decoy I could see that being helpful. But with any actual team member? Better hope the bad guy is a lousy shot. Like, did they draw straws each time as to who was #1? I guess you have to go in prepared to take some fire and hope that you overwhelm and take him out before he he gets you? I know that you've got armor on, but still...that's some balls!

[@Fugettaboutit]

@@ModernTacticalShooting Also, how much of this training is done with simunitions or the like, and bad guy 'stand ins' firing back?

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

@@Fugettaboutit Perhaps 1/3rd in CQB with simms

[@mrsmith9350]

Its from ALERRT, i mentioned this in another comment, slot of the big swat teams have adopted this and dramatically reduced their casualties. I was skeptical at first but theres enough data to support it

[@QCBTHEREALITY]

thank you for your time and advice,

[@trumanhw]

slice the pie to engage & clear from partial-cover as much as possible ... before quickly walking through the fatal funnel to clear the corners... Like all things, you need to be competent enough to be flexible ... Through efficiency and familiarization comes speed & proficiency.

[@blakevolz5134]

Idk why you learned the “classic way” for so long but when I learned CQB as a 0311 and then even further as a CQB team (not special operations just more focused on CQB) we always learned said safer way

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

We had a Marine Corps CQB instructor go through one of our shooting schools with us years back

[@blakevolz5134]

@@ModernTacticalShooting idk why they ever taught it the old way. Much rather fight as much as possible from outside the room

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

Let me add I also had a Marine RI in Ranger School in 1993. Good Grief he was a hard grader!

[@jeanvaljean341]

Take aways from this video: clear the room as much as possible from the outside. Slow is smooth, and smooth is fast. There was a Garand Thunmb video about this last week. 👍

[@MelordJenkins]

British SAS CQB, Usage of pie cutting, and clearing the room of threats before entering (or as many threats as you can)

[@bradypierron8736]

1. If you have a critique, offer a suggestion. (There are plenty examples out there, “informing the enemy” is a cop out). 2. Once the room is panned/pied from the outside (which is when you would engage a threat in the center) you’ve got to deal the the unknown. That’s dynamic buttonhooking. 3. Corner fed rooms you can “Run the Rabbit” in certain scenarios.

[@ModernTacticalShooting]

Point of video is to get one to think beyond cookie cutter, one size fits all CQB techniques. By your response it seems you are already doing that which is good.

[@bradypierron8736]

@@ModernTacticalShooting understood. I certainly buy into the practice of learning all SOPs and becoming proficient at them. I’ve been in positions where dynamic entry was needed (ie screaming hostage in supposed physical duress), as well as situations that allowed for slow and methodical entry. All tools in the toolbox. None of them are wrong in the right situation (aside from “peekaboo” nonsense).

[@canklemedkits3772]

We did a lot of CQB training with simunitions. When guys went to the corners first, our OpFor would shoot them in the ribs and armpits every time. We have converted to the center step method and engaging targets from outside is much safer. You have got to be open to adaptation.

[@stephanarizona9094]

Reminds me of the development of MMA and why you don't see single style martial arts anymore.

[@stephanarizona9094]

All tools in the tactical tool box, the more tools you have the better you are, every unit, every country has different terms but basically comes down to Aggressive or Cautious, the US Military is pretty much the only country in the world that teaches flooding a room as fast as possible and gaining control through violence, most other countries prefer handling as many threats as possible before entering the room. But good to learn everything, know when to use each technique, pro's and con's, and be able to switch it up on the fly.