No announcement yet.

Dynamic entry vs Limited Penetration!

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Dynamic entry vs Limited Penetration!

    One of the things that has always interested me is the principles and practices of breaching, be it a single room, a building or an occupied compound. With the release of squad I have been fascinated to see how other players approach this, how much realism they apply, how good their tactics are, what works what doesn't. Always with one eye on lessons learned in the real world.

    Now we've all seen dynamic entries and building/compound breaches before and witnessed the choreographed movement of the breaching team as they enter the location and then peel round the room to their assigned points, engaging targets as they go.

    Much of the footage available however often relates to Law Enforcement type scenario's where there is a different level of force/restriction applied as regards rules of engagement. Some scenario's may or may not contain active shooters. Now when I have applied the breaching and clearing tactics I have seen over the years in games like Arma, Project Reality and now Squad, all military scenarios, I have always been confused/concerned by the initial entry stage. By this I am referring to the entry to the room where one assaulter peels right, the next left and so on before making their way to predetermined points in the room. To me, in a military/definite active shooter scenario, this seems flawed. At the point of entry, the fatal funnel, the first two shooters immediately break into the corners effectively taking their focus of the potentially most hostile point in the room, directly opposite the breach.

    Surely as soon as they affect the breach the hostiles will simply engage the doorway/entry point (assuming no use of distraction or flash etc). If the assaulters pause to engage direct the breach becomes much less dynamic, no more shooters can enter the room and its effectively a gunfight in a door way. That usually ends badly.

    Then I did more research and came across some information that makes absolute sense in the context of a military application, the limited penetration breach. In this scenario the first two assaulters do not enter the room. They engage visible threats from the doorway, using the best hard cover available to them, the wall at the entry point. Once the visible/active threats are down only then do they push the room and seek out further targets. This in turn allows more assaulters into the room but in a much more controlled and safe manner. They only pass through that space once dominance of it has been established.

    I am seeing more and more examples of this type of technique now in Squad, occurring naturally due to its inherent benefits. I've practiced it myself and found it to be very useful.

    Here are a couple of videos to emphasize the point. The first is a real live scenario demonstrating how this occurs naturally when encountering heavy resistance.

    The second is an explanation of the limited penetration (breach) technique and the reasoning behind it.

    The last a two man team running a similar drill.

    I found it really interesting, enlightening and definitely caused me to have a few "yeah, of course..." kinda moments.

    Thoughts, opinions?
    Last edited by Wicks; 01-10-2016, 09:52 AM.

  • #2
    Re: Dynamic entry vs Limited Penetration!

    The one man room clearing without entering is more or less what a year and half of ArmA CQB has made me evolve to. I usually don't go through a door until I'm SURE the rooms empty. Send in bullets and send in grenades first, then people - solid advice :)

    In games without the advanced leaning and stance adjustments or ArmA 3 its a more difficult to check those corners from the door way without exposing yourself more. The flip side being more controls to juggle means more mistakes :|


    • #3
      Re: Dynamic entry vs Limited Penetration!

      *NOTE the PIE/Israeli methods and graphics at the bottom are what I endorse.

      From when I first entered the Army until the time I got out I saw theory on this completely change, however it will be a slow change as so many grunts had been taught one way for so long they only accept it as the right way.

      Things I have learned and observed as an 11B infantryman and working/training w/ 3rd Group SF.

      #1 There is no one right way to enter and clear a room. Anyone who thinks differently is kidding themselves.

      On the initial breach there are two main ways of thought.
      1. First two immediately clear their corners and then adjust out to the center of the room. This CAN be effective if the #3 & #4 men are quick to get their muzzles into the room clearing the center. In real life the initial breach is very much a "feel" thing. You are leaning on the man in front of you and as soon as you have an opening you are sliding your barrel along side the man in front on you bringing it up into the center as soon as possible. Too often its taught of "get in the room quickly!". As I was taught by one of the best in the world "It doesnt matter how quickly YOU get in that room, it matters how quickly the entire team's muzzles get in".

      One problem with this is timing needs to be perfect. There can not be a gap at all between the breachers as they enter. This takes quite a bit of practice and familiarization amongst team members to do right. In the video game work its near impossible to do well enough due to the no "feel" and ability to slide your muzzle next to the man in front of you. Basically your waiting for the object in front of you to entirely clear the door before you can get in at all. Otherwise a hostile standing in the middle of the room cuts down everyone as the first two breaching don't give him a look in time.
      -All areas in rooms cleared quickly
      -Corners cleared quickly (usually where an enemy will hide in ambush)
      -Extremely hard to do right (although its the most taught, and taught by those who don't understand the important

      2. First two breachers clear the middle and then transition to the corners. I was told over and over again that is was "incorrect" but then later taught this way by 3rd Group guys. I asked why and the response "Because there isnt a right way to do this BLEEP, if you see a shooter do the common sense thing first and engage him because if not there might not be a shooter in the corner and now you've got one in the ear by the shooter you knew was there". So after hearing this from a Green Beret I figured it was the way I should teach from there on out and did so.

      NEXT: Why even go in the room/building?
      Which is a very good question and often not asked enough. Most want to move in quickly because "that is how they do it in the movies" or "that is how I was always taught" BUT really ask yourself why do I have to get in quickly? Really the only reasons I can think of is a hostage is located in the room or your taking fire from the street and need to get into a hard structure. The hostage situation is very rare anywhere and unless your CAG or DEVGRU probably isn't going to happen.

      SO if we aren't rushing in then WHAT ARE WE GUNNA DO?

      PIE! This is a technique the IDF use primarily and since they are the military with most modern urban combat experience you should at least take a gander at to see what its worth. This is also what I began to see take over in the Special Operations world. Pie and clear slowly and deliberate. If you want to see it in a Hollywood movie where they get it pretty right just watch the raid scenes in "Zero Dark Thirty".

      If you "PIE" from one end of a door way to the other you should be able to clear 90% of a room before you even enter. THEN all you need to do is clear the corners that you couldn't see during your PIE. (graphics before will demonstrate this).

      BELOW are some GIFs I made for instruction while I was still in the Army. Visuals might help out a bit more than my words and even then most of this type stuff can not be communicated without actually running people through it in person.


      Preface: There are many CQB tactics and procedures out there. It is important to understand that there is not one “right” way of doing things in any CQB environment.

      No matter the tactic or procedure used it is more important for all members of the element to be on the same page on what tactic to use and the element’s established Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) in how to execute tactics.

      Covered below are tactics and procedures used by various units around the world. Do not take any of the graphics or text to be the only way, right way, or wrong way. I believe all can be utilized in the right situations and environments. Please also understand that there are limitations with the simplicity of the GIFs I created. Because I wanted to keep them simple and easy to understand, there are many small details such as firing sectors, precise spacing, ect that could not be conveyed.





      o Speed

      o Simplicity

      o Multiple shooters in the room quickly, more firepower and able to address more OPFOR quicker

      o Off “the street” quickly, instead of lingering around outside with no or little cover.


      o Little or none of the room is cleared prior to entry

      o Susceptible to ambush because of rushing into unknown


      These procedures were originally designed for hostage situations where multiple shooter are needed to be in the room quickly in order to eliminate OPFOR before hostages can be harmed. Many units around the world teach this style. Because of this these tactics often allow strangers with little time to rehearse to be coordinated and fluid in operations.



      o Some surprise, speed, and momentum carried over from initial breach

      o Shooters are not bunched up in confined “short rooms”

      o More coordination and SOP framework needed established through training and familiarity

      o More communication required
      o Still rushing into rooms, often unsure of situation inside prior to breach

      These “Dynamic” tactics are the next step after the previous “BASIC” clears. The same principles apply but because the breaching element no longer has the element of surprise after the initial breach there is no time to stop, regroup, and execute over and over with the entire element.

      The two men room clears allow some speed and momentum to carry over after the initial breach. This also prevents too many shooters from getting bunched up in one room.


      “Slicing the Pie”/Israeli Method Room Clear

      *”Onion Peel” method used when entering in graphic above. However, if width of door size allows the #1 and #2 men should quickly move through the entry at the same time and button hook the corner on their same side. Examples of this can be found in the “Slicing the Pie Compound Clear” and video below.


      o Able to clear most of the room before entry.
      o Able to communicate details about the room to teammates before entry.

      o Able to assess decision to execute on room or break contact and engage accordingly.

      o Soldiers “on the street” longer period of time. Increasing the chance they are engaged without cover.
      o Hard to execute in confined spaces.


      • #4
        Re: Dynamic entry vs Limited Penetration!


        Thank you very very much for your fantastic post!!! Double plus rep!

        As you say no 'one way' to breach/clear. I always struggled with the more traditional method just because of the ratio of movement/shooting when presented with active shooters.

        Using that method in say Arma 3 I could get the speed nailed down enough as first man into the room but if I was presented with more than two active shooters it was nigh on impossible to get the second man into the room fast enough to pick up target 2/3 depending on what I had already engaged/neutralised.

        Some of the issues were most likely game engine related, inability to move that closely in unison with another player due to collision detection etc. Also the lack of a distractive device eg flash or explosive/dynamic breach meant you entered the room without the necessary advantage.

        I tried this over and over in many different games and met with varying degrees of success. There were so many factors that impacted on this, game/game engine, availability of distraction, room size, number of targets. When it worked it was beautiful, just beautiful and puling it off against human opponents was quite a feat and required a fair bit of ingenuity.

        For example where no flash or breach was available we would Jerry rig a breach by dropping a grenade in front of the door and dependent on the game this would blow the door in/off hinges/destroy it. Problem was you just can't stand around a grenade and hope it knows you only want it "to blow the bloody doors off" (Michael Caine reference lol).

        So we would have to stack/hide round the short side of the building to the door. This of course then introduces delay to entering the room. Then we tried to reduce the follow up time. Many, many good men sacrificed their digital lives to shave seconds and distance off that breach technique. 'Booom'......"yup, I'm down, that's too close lol". Back to the drawing board on that one, again.

        I/we tried numerous variations with varying degrees of success. I did more research as I love researching this stuff anyway and tried different things in different games over the years. Eventually I had a bit of a eureka/duh moment. Why am I so concerned with entering a room full of hostiles where there is no imperative to do so (no hostage to secure), simply because that is what I have learnt to do.

        So I sat there and thought what am I trying to achieve here and how would you do it in a realistic manner. I want to clear the threats from the room and I don't particularly want to get shot if I can help it. So the Israeli method kind of evolved naturally from that, it's common sense. I don't want to walk into a room with active shooters who are focused on the breach point until I have to and until the threats to the breach point are down (as much as is possible from my initial engagement position).

        Funnily enough playing Rainbow 6 Siege has actually led me to thinking about this stuff more than normal (which is already an abnormal amount for someone who's job is nothing to do with hostage rescue, whatsoever lol).

        Again thank you Ghost for your really cool informative post, made fantastic reading over my morning coffee. I do love a good breach explanation and a bacon sandwich first thing, today is a good day!


        • #5
          Re: Dynamic entry vs Limited Penetration!

          Just noticed a youtube link in my previous post was not showing up, here it is:

          Yes, I agree a lot of this is hard to replicate in the video game world.

          Arma 2: Impossible, too many "Arma-isms". Getting stuck in objects, falling through floors, ect.

          Arma 3: Huge improvement over Arma 2. The group I play we've made a lot of real life stuff work. The ability to change your speed/pace helps a ton. Our SOP is swapping to the slow walking pace when breaching, minimizing the gap between breachers. Free head look ability helps a lot when in the stack to confirm everyone is set while still holding your sector with your rifle. Flashbang and Stun grenade mods help a lot too. I'm still hoping a good mod comes out allowing breaching charges on doors and walls.

          Squad: Very limited in my eyes because the "free head look" has not been implemented yet (I heard it is in the plans?). However, using the PIE technique proves to be very useful combined with a steady diet of frags. I also like having my AR suppress the doorway before we enter hoping any contacts inside begin to move back off the door and maybe the breachers catch them with their backs turned.


          • #6
            Re: Dynamic entry vs Limited Penetration!

            Not directly related to Breaching and Clearing but in the Urban Ops area. Figured some might be interested.

            *Also feel free to use the material I've posted in here within the community if anyone ever has a need for it.


            Urban Movement Techniques


            Urban Operations is a very complex animal. The advantage is with the occupying force. The occupying force usually has the ability to set ambushes, knowledge of the area, and numbers in reinforcements. Because of all of that it is essential for Urban Movements to be simple, coordinated, and clear. Momentum is essential in Urban Movements. It is important for the element to remain moving and avoid being static for long periods of time. That being said it is also important to not go too fast, allowing a lull in 360 security and losing teammates.

            As always there are many correct ways to move in an urban environment. The following are just some of those ways.

            Team Moving Across Danger Areas on One Side

            Used when contact on non-danger side is unlikely or when friendly supporting element is providing over watch on that side. Used when having to quickly move to objective or off of objective.


            o Quick, concise, constant movement


            o Vulnerable from 6 o’clock

            Team Moving Across Danger Areas on Two Sides

            Used when contact from 360 degrees is possible; no friendly element locking down flanks; and when speed is of the essence.


            o Quick, concise, constant movement


            o Vulnerable from 6 o’clock

            Varient of the Rolling T

            This variant of “The Rolling T” provides great firepower to the front while also leaving one of the shooters to cover the 6 o’clock. The Rolling T can be used in small alleyways OR large hallways.


            o Good firepower to front

            o 6 o’clock covered

            o Side shooters are able to see what is immediately around corners

            o Fluid seamless transition (to well trained team)


            o Not able to use in small hallways (most hallways)

            o Team must be well coordinated.

            Common Size Hallways

            This formation is most commonly used by a fireteam when having to move down a long hallway. The 3man stands ready to jump up and replace the 1 or 2 man if they are to go down.


            • #7
              Re: Dynamic entry vs Limited Penetration!

              I would stess using doorways, windows, and elevation outside the walls to "clear" an area before breaching--and using a lot of stuff that goes boom--as you both have said. For this, the "pie" method you guys describe is best (gifs!!), and it is how I learned.

              What I really want to stress is this, though: don't get bogged down in tactics. Play the game the best way you can with the team you have, but first and foremost, HAVE FUN!

              With every squad, clear and short directions as a SL work: "you guys on the hill keep up the fire! you guys on me check the doors and windows, wait for my command to breach"

              This doesn't work: "breach 1100 at my command. fireteam bluefalcon, hold at overeatch pos bravo in fire condition yellow, rockets and grenades breach minus 30s. Fireteam whopperator, soft clear entry points clockwise in buddy teams, then stack on south door".

              Play how you like of course, but just know that while you are trying to make 9 guys on the internet into a "realistic" squad, the enemy is taking all the flags, and your fireteam, bunched up in a tactical porcupine, is probably going to get killed by one "noob" with one magazine of hip fire.

              I swear to god if someone tells me to "take a knee"... Ghost1Bravo knows ^^
              Stay together, communicate, don't give up.



              • #8
                Re: Dynamic entry vs Limited Penetration!

                That's one way to play Paine undoubtedly and I agree you don't want to hamstring your squad with myriad instructions... but the one sure way to get mown down by a lone gunman is to have no clear instructions with no cohesion. It's about balance. Lone wolfing is only effective against squads that half ass a more tactical approach and this was something I took great pains to explain in PR.

                So many players who thought they were good/effective were just slightly better at the organised chaos of a squad of lone wolves than the people they were killing. The first time many people try to play smart and realistically they fail because some of the squad don't commit. It only takes one guy not to do his job, not to cover his sector and the system collapses. Trust breaks down and then people naturally (sadly) blame the tactic/approach rather than them selves.

                Playing better/smarter and more tactically is a challenge at first. It takes effort and practice. However unlike random/disorganised/lone wolf play it doesn't have a performance ceiling. Individual skill/luck has a ceiling, it's somewhat 'hail mary' tactics wise and is only effective against players/squads that aren't working together effectively. Luck runs out etc, the individual gets a few kills but is killed themselves etc.

                Once you practice and work out the kinks of a more tactical approach the squad itself grows exponentially stronger and become greater than the sum of its parts. It's hard to sneak up on squads like that because everyone has a job and everyone does their job. They can afford to focus on just watching East because they know Wicks the noob hasn't gotten distracted by the sound of gunfire and started looking South instead of West.

                The trick is to develop a level of knowledge and understanding between the squads/players and our playerbase where complex instructions aren't required and smart play is second nature. That's the purpose of discussions like these, to share and discuss ways to evolve our approach. It's not compulsory to follow the suggestions here nor participate in the theory crafting.

                Whilst that other team is taking all te flagz and winning one round in an early access game I'd be more than happy to play in a squad that was actually learning, improving and bettering its tactics for the long term and for the simple enjoyment of playing that way. Short term the other team wins a round in a game with evolving conditions and mechanics yet progresses little in their ability due to said shifting conditions. Long term the tactical squad is evolving to play smarter, at a higher level, in a manner that aligns with our Community goals. However as you say it's a game, play how you want.
                Last edited by Wicks; 01-10-2016, 07:28 AM.


                • #9
                  Re: Dynamic entry vs Limited Penetration!

                  Here's another diagram that illustrates, very badly so apologies, the value of not hugging the wall when attempting to slice a corner with a large potential field of view and long sight lines.

                  The first diagram demonstrates what I now try to do in a situation where I have maybe a long and wide street to look down or maybe an open field. Essentially any corner I haven't scanned before and have no idea as to the limits of my exposure and how many potential areas of threat there are.

                  The 2nd and 3rd diagram demonstrate the somewhat 'all or nothing' approach of hugging a corner and then either peeking or rounding it in close proximity to the wall. It's also worth noting that if you hug the wall in this manner and then move up the street even a few steps you have a solid wall to your left therefore cannot immediately step into cover. The first method allows you to simply step back to the left to provide you with angled hard cover to the threat.

                  Please note there is no right or wrong way of doing this kind of thing. It's very situation based but I see many people only using one methodology regardless of the situation/environment because they believe there is 'one way'. The purpose here is to demonstrate alternative methods to add more tools to your skill set.

                  Here is a really good video from Jason Falla at Redback One where he demonstrates using a bit of offset from a corner to slice the corner and manage his exposure and field of view.

                  Another where he demonstrates both close cornering and standoff. It's worth noting how he engages from inside the structure at times, using an offset from the window to again control his environment.

                  Last edited by Wicks; 01-10-2016, 10:16 AM.


                  • #10
                    Re: Dynamic entry vs Limited Penetration!

                    I know I am out of my league, but I just wanted to say thank you to you all for this discussion. It has been enlightening and most intriguing. It also strikes me as interesting the influence people's conception of this idea stems from media and "Hollywood," as a few of you mentioned.

                    It also continuously impresses me of the intelligence and tactics/methods shown by the IDF. Innovative and logical all at once.

                    Alright, continue, don't mind me. ;)


                    • #11
                      Re: Dynamic entry vs Limited Penetration!

                      Absolutely agree on all points, wicks. Fantastic post. It's about balance.

                      However, having a "squad of lone wolfs" or having a squad that is "bettering in tactics for the long term" is not a choice that I am suggesting is necessary. I've written guides about tactics (IRL too btw), that literally say exactly what you are saying: "you will watch after your team before yourself, and trust others to do the same, allowing skillsets and senses to overlap" (link at end). You have played with me, you know that's how I roll.

                      All I am saying is that this isn't real life or a simulator. I have observed over the years that most of the squads in PR that try and mimic real life exactly end up being too slow and unable to adapt. A lot of the squads led by the guys I play with are called "Go Fast" not because we are rushing flags or being l337, but because we are acting quickly, with a purpose, using game-specific tactics that have been developed over time with practice and thought. We AGREE that this is the goal both of these threads and tactical play. From that same guide I linked to: "Discipline and speed. These characteristics have a ying-yang relationship. Without speed, discipline is just role-playing. Without discipline, speed gets everyone killed". Through these SOP/Tactics discussions we can work towards that balance.

                      To summerize my position, which is not at all at odds with yours:
                      Don't use Army field manuals for SQUAD tactics.

                      Your second post: Great adds. Particularly the pie method diagram. Leaving an "offset" between you and the wall is important--anyone watching the feature you are pieing around is going to be expecting a head to pop out right next to the corner, and so being farther away from the corner makes you a smaller target.

                      Last edited by Paine; 01-11-2016, 10:19 AM.
                      Stay together, communicate, don't give up.



                      • #12
                        Re: Dynamic entry vs Limited Penetration!

                        Agreed, agreed. Just didn't want people to fixate on the "don't worry about tactics" and "lone wolf" killing you parts of your post, which could serve to undermine the discussion.

                        Controlled speed is crucial. Hence the value in discussing this stuff to establish a shared baseline of smart play. That shared understanding is what alows you to up the tempo. As opposed to just barrelling about as you say.

                        With you on role play, not a fan per se but if people enjoy it good luck to them. I'm much more interested in utilising smart, effective real world stuff suitably adapted. Hopefully the adaptation is a given as its all mouse and keyboard after all.


                        • #13
                          Re: Dynamic entry vs Limited Penetration!

                          I'm so tempted to copy this whole thread into TGU. Under a pseudonym of course. Our current instructors are watching indeed and I know some future ones are too <wink>. This should almost be required reading for TG gamers.
                          |TG189| Unkl
                          ArmA 3 Admin
                          189th Infantry Brigade Member
                          Thank You To our Supporting Members -
                          "Place your playable units and do your tactical barbie" - Roque_THE_GAMER


                          • #14
                            Re: Dynamic entry vs Limited Penetration!

                            Originally posted by Paine View Post
                            What I really want to stress is this, though: don't get bogged down in tactics. Play the game the best way you can with the team you have, but first and foremost, HAVE FUN!

                            Originally posted by Paine View Post
                            I swear to god if someone tells me to "take a knee"... Ghost1Bravo knows ^^
                            What do you mean here?

                            Current ARMA Development Project: No Current Project

                            "An infantryman needs a leader to be the standard against which he can judge all soldiers."

                            Friend of |TG| Chief


                            • #15
                              Re: Dynamic entry vs Limited Penetration!

                              Ok, I don't want to take this too far off point as regards content and dilute matters but 'getting bogged down in tactics' isn't the purpose of the thread and Paine has clarified that statement by explaining that in broad terms perhaps it isn't the best idea to overly role play to the detriment of effectiveness nor should you be trying to digest and reenact the Army Field Training manual every time you play. Particularly if you don't feel like it lol. Conversely if that floats your boat more power to you, I'm not here to be prescriptive.

                              However this is Tactical Gamer last time I checked, bit of a clue there and the purpose of the thread is to actually discuss tactics real life and game specific. Be that simply for the purpose of discussion itself, because you have an interest in tactics in general or perhaps because you'd like to develop tactics etc to use when you play. If the discussion doesn't interest you that's fine, I am sure none of us present who are interested will be offended. However what we don't require in a thread about tactics, at Tactical Gamer, in the Tactical Gaming section is anymore affirmations that you shouldn't worry about tactics when playing lol.

                              I think we would all hope that whatever you do when playing you ensure you are having fun and enjoying yourself, again another given that shouldn't require stating.

                              [MENTION=38102]Unkl[/MENTION] if any of what I have posted is of use to you in any way then please feel free to do as you please with it. I believe Ghost has already offered his excellent content to the community to use in one of his posts above.




                              TeamSpeak 3 Server


                              Twitter Feed