TCP's

[davidbfpo]

Ron,

Don't know about the US experience (although I can ask), here the problem is whether the possibly drunk driver realises what is ahead, takes action to avoid or just drives through. Then the decision is whether a pursuit is worthwhile as a drunk driver driving scared is often even more dangerous. Mind you it was fun (LE humour can be bad) to see those who tried to avoid get into even more trouble; some evil LE set up better TCPs on the supposed escape / avoid roads.

Of course the LE response to avoiding a TCP varies across borders; some LE have used lethal force, others aim to disable the car with stop-sticks etc.

Best not to drive drunk / DUI.

davidbfpo

[jcustis]

My question is, when is it appropriate to use a TCP

When it is directed by any command above a battalion, it usually isn't a good thing.

I tend to agree that they are good for very little, unless a lot of preparation, planning, and shaping of the "battlefield" has taken place before execution.

Dropping one, even if for only a few brief moments, does little more than offer force protection problems in my experience. Since they require a lot of training to get done right, they are typically done poorly.

Good luck finding a better way to skin that cat.

[jkm_101_fso]

When it is directed by any command above a battalion, it usually isn't a good thing.

Amen!

I tend to agree that they are good for very little, unless a lot of preparation, planning, and shaping of the "battlefield" has taken place before execution.

At least earlier on in Iraq, the TCP was a relatively easy and harmless tactic that units employed because we didn't know how generally useless they were. Good units figured it out and used other means to counter the insurgency. In 2003, my battalion figured out quickly that they don't work well and implemented the OP strategy (covert and overt). Much more effective.

The last time I was there, the static TCP was a favorite of the IA.