Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dynamic entry vs Limited Penetration!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Reviving after playing more and seeing more examples.

    It seems pretty self evident to me that one of the key determining factors in assaulting is cohesion, including prior to an assault. Basically you need to get people into decent positions beforehand, preferably unseen or failing that under the cover of fire support/suppressing fire from another element (fire team/Squad). You need to be able to get as close to the target as possible.

    Now as has been mentioned by Paine it's simply not practical nor desirable to all stack up nice and neat on some wall. There's just too many wildcard elements for that type of RL tactic to work, enemy spawning randomly, enemy just running about on their own etc.

    So the best approximation that serves a purpose gamewise to stage close by and have as many people as possible then move fluidly to the exterior of the target and almost immediately begin the assault. As this needs to be almost a continuous movement you need to have an idea of what you doing before the first man goes through the door.

    Once you've initiated the assault you need to keep going, man goes down, move past and do your job, keep clearing. It's situational but as an example I wouldn't have people taking up strong points/anchoring in the room/compound until you have at least 4 guns in the space. Then that anchor point can become useful, he can then maintain that breach to allow more people to get in.

    Up to that point the job of the first few shooters is shock and awe, keep moving, penetrate as far as possible, kill, push them back. You can't let up in this phase. Do not give them breathing space to take up covered defensive positions and lock down lanes on you. You don't want to be fighting entrenched positions, get shot from windows etc. You want to PRESS and keep them in the reactive phase. Any let up of pressure allows them to communicate and then coordinate a response more effectively. Your flowing movement means you aren't where your last audio sign is, which they will be reacting to. Keep moving and don't give them any time. Go to the last man, do not stop. If your element is at least trading with them then you as last man may well only have 1 target left. You are on the clock against respawns from an RP or FOB, revives etc, beat the clock, purge them.
    Last edited by Wicks; 09-03-2018, 06:58 PM.


    Comment


    • #62
      Something granular I would add about individual shooting techniques in CQB/breaching/compound clearing. A reload takes (I think about 2.5 seconds, maybe a touch more). In light of that I personally don't use full auto much, not saying I never flip the giggle switch (no absolutes) but I mostly stay on single shot. There's a few reasons.

      Number of targets/reloads

      If I'm on point I don't know how many targets I'm going to run into nor in what order. Maybe I get 2 or 3 singles then stumble on the mother load at a rally/HAB. If I've mag dumped at every target I see I run into a reload at a potentially fatal time. Single shot allows me to track my ammo consumption, forces me to focus on accuracy.

      Accuracy and the ability to switch targets rapidly

      Single shot is inherently more accurate, obviously. It doesn't take much to drop someone one, theoretically one shot to the noggin. That's a lot of people you can drop with one mag if you are having a really good day. Now in a real situation your accuracy isn't going to be 100% headshots, you're moving, they're moving, you're taking fire etc but it's somewhat about playing the odds and removing as many variables as possible. If I can have more accuracy, I want it.

      Recoil is an issue with full auto, a mechanical one. Plus time dialed in on that target. If you're blazing away at every target part of your control, your energy. is spent controlling that recoil. It only takes a couple of shots to drop someone, maybe 4 worst case if you get a couple of extremity hits. If you're unleashing lead filled hate for 8-10 rounds that's time and rounds wasted. Plus while you are fighting that recoil and waiting for the shot string to end you aren't tracking to the next target as efficiently as you can and your awareness isn't as good. I personally prefer to put a couple of shots on target and then use my control to track to the next. With practice you can shoot and switch pretty fast and I've always found it more effective to do that than just go full on Predator jungle devastation mode. I'm just dealing with less 'mechanical' problems that way, burning less ammo, giving off less audio and visual signature etc. I personally try to shoot a couple of fast rounds with enough recoil control to keyhole them and then let the gun reset as I am tracking to the next target, it will naturally centre itself if you are shooting fast singles.

      Friendlies and working in proximity

      Full auto can be a bit wild and somewhat obscure the shooters view to boot. People can go a bit heavy on the trigger sometimes when they don't see the effect on target they want immediately (game/animation/server lag/visual obscurity etc). That's usually ok if you are on point (setting aside the other issues). It can be a problem when you are working in close proximity with others.

      The Pro Full Auto counter argument

      There are arguments for full auto, definitely and certainly for those who can skilfully manage the bursts. In some situations you can definitely brute force an engagement by making certain you put out a lethal dose of lead. Platforms like the M4 on full auto using controlled bursts with skill full use, can dominate a close engagement. However it takes a fair bit of skill to actively reap the benefits of the overwhelming rate of fire whilst mitigating the downsides, which even a skill full shooter cannot completely eliminate. No matter how well you shoot, how on point you are, you are still burning ammo, wasting rounds. Bringing the reload forward to a time when you may not have time. You are still making a ton of visual and audio sig and losing accuracy per round etc.

      As ever with these things its entirely situational and definitely up to the shooter, but if you're finding you're hitting a wall performance wise when breaching, ie you're getting in there but getting stopped after x number of targets, maybe consider switching it up a bit, and as always, work with a buddy.


      Comment


      • #63
        Having done some more practice lately with some of the 42nd it really has become obvious how powerful and important concise DIRECT/LOCAL comms as opposed to superfluous info. In addition the use of DIRECT/LOCAL over SQUAD VOIP.

        This is huge. As you move through an objective limiting your comms on local to relevant information is massive and exponentially increases your individual and collective awareness and understanding. You need to delineate between comms relevant to local, for example where you are moving specifically in a structure and share that only on local and information that is relevant to the squad, i.e. 2nd floor clear. A simple rule of thumb is frequency. You should be broadcasting on local way more than Squad net, because you are updating your buddy on your movement, what lanes/areas/angles are clear, when you are reloading etc so he can adjust. Squad intel is just that, information that is relevant to the whole Squad regardless of whether they are in close proximity to you.

        I have found that method of comms to be such a force multiplier. A 2 on 1 in a room becomes almost a foregone conclusion if your movement and coordination matches your comms. The simple act of splitting a room after you enter, calling the target, engaging and continuing your split whilst firing on the move is incredibly simple yet overwhelmingly powerful. The reason one smart player can hold back breaches or lock down an area is because often his opponent doesn't leverage the advantage they have. Instead they file in as individuals with no comms and coordination, each one in turn having to scan the whole area for threats, slowing down their ability to see, react, acquire and shoot. The defender simply has to cover the obvious angle of approach.

        Really working together means you can divide up the tasks, divide up the room, increase your speed and focus and overcome the defenders advantage.


        Comment


        • #64
          I sometimes experience a phenomenon in Squad I call "going quiet," where a squad I'm apart of or leading just doesn't communicate anything in local. It's usually a sign players have given up mentally or are just too tired to play properly.

          That being said, we've had Belaya in rotation lately and there has been a lot of combat in Nikola, a town full of multi-story buildings. It's amazing how much easier it is to clear the buildings when you get a couple of guys stacking up and working their way methodically through each floor. While the guy on point usually tends to die on initial contact, the confusion of the initial firefight usually allows the follow up guys to break through with ease. I think we could have a lot of fun having TGU class on this.

          Distinguished Squad Leader

          Comment


          • #65
            Narva skirmish is a punishing crucible for working on individual and group CQB 'skills'.

            What will often happen, with the large amount of multi story enterable buildings, is that people will post up/strong point with lmgs creating really deadly fields of fire. Often these buildings will have large open areas to their immediate front and rear or the upper floors have good sight lines on the direct approaches.

            In these scenarios the grenadier becomes invaluable with his ability to splash smoke onto those faces of the building, effectively blinding the shooter and flagging his position to friendlies.

            Again, prior to this the key is communicating that threat to the Squad/Team, dialling the grenadier in and then forming and communicating a plan to either neutralise the threat or directly assault the building. A LAT shoved into the now smoking firing point is quite effective.

            Getting the grenadier into a position to drop that smoke on target without him simply being cut down can be tricky. So again it's about communicating and getting suppressive and potentially lethal fire onto the target from multiple angles simultaneously. That should but your grenadier time to get his smoke round out.

            Then you can hammer the target fairly freely and potentially maneuver to assault.


            Comment


            • #66
              Clearing the building.

              Once your on the building itself its important to flow through/up with momentum and not stop to revive etc. Working comms is critical to drive the clearing momentum.

              If you have to push up stairs you need to do just that, push, and have people breaking off the stack to clear each floor whilst you push upwards. Due to respawning it may be desirable to have someone hold the base of the stairs, perhaps from the first turn on the stairs so they aren't exposed to the doorway.

              If you aren't at least semi organised or fail to maintain momentum when clearing it can and often does dissolve into chaos and one or two enemy can make a mess of your Squad.


              Comment


              • #67
                Hey all. Interesting thread, I apologize for the necropost. I wanted to chip in because there are a few misconceptions about Close Quarter(s) Battle here.

                Firstly, terminology—breaching and entry. Breaching is what you do to gain access to a structure. You do this by unlocking the door (e.g. through ballistic or mechanical breaching) or creating a hole (e.g. through thermal or explosive breaching). This is the role of a breacher. The process after that is called an entry, where you are entering and clearing the structure. "Limited penetration breach" is not the correct use of terminology. When people shout "breaching" while making entry, they're confusing two separate concepts. You call for a breacher when you need them to open or make accessible an entry point, not make entry through an already opened door. You can 'breach and hold' as one example, which does not result in an immediate entry. Once you get the terminology right, you're on the path for understanding the concepts at play rather than misconceiving them and then applying them poorly.

                Secondly, there's not an infinite number of methodologies out there. "Everybody does it differently" is just a cop out. Most people learn on a dynamic entry foundation and are taught common entries within that. For example, buttonhook, cross, crisscross to strongwall, opposing corners. There are some variables but they're otherwise minor. 80% of what you're taught is not what you use when the time comes. The 'big 20%' is what you fall back on consistently. Learn what these are (the trio 'speed, surprise and violence of action' is only part of it). Another note on this subject is that there is more than path of least resistance (crossing) and buttonhooking. They're the most used but not necessarily the best entry tactics, especially against prepared resistance. All you have to do is Force-on-Force this out to understand that. And path of least resistance does not have to mean crossing if you understand the concept. It's in the name. Again, there's not an infinite number of methodologies out there. Once you get to know the major components, you'll recognise them in most units training.

                Thirdly, and finally, there's some misconceptions about limited penetration. There's other words for this like a threshold evaluation, limited entry, clearing from the door or fighting from the door. Limited penetration is not necessarily pieing. Pieing as traditionally taught does not usually allow for stopping at the frame or clearing most of the room before entry—that is, it is usually taught to continuously take angles whilst in motion that leads to entry. No stopping, no decision process, not necessarily clearing most of the room from the door. It's more of a hybrid. Limited penetration is about limiting yourself from making entry until most of the visible interior/room has been cleared from outside. You go from known-to-known and target the unknowns. It's usually safer to clear from outside (i.e. contained scene) and making entry against prepared defenders usually ends up in shot pointmen therefore even at 'worst case', limited penetration allows you to self-extract or extract your buddies for CUF/TFC. Limited entry does not mean buttonhooking willy-nilly. Take the first page for an example. There's some gifs of dynamic entries. But look more closely... half of the room can be cleared from some of those doors. If one side is clear, why make entry into it expecting it NOT to be clear? Target the unknown side. There's no point clearing what is already clear. Once you understand limited penetration, you will begin to work out where it is useful and where it isn't. But the first step is understanding what it is in the first place—it isn't 'just' pieing. And it certainly isn't pieing as traditionally taught.

                There's more to it than this, I just wanted to make a quick post to try to bring it back on track.

                Comment

                Connect

                Collapse

                TeamSpeak 3 Server

                Collapse

                Twitter Feed

                Collapse

                Working...
                X