What is CQB?

[max velocity]

Ok, thanks for the feedback. I knew something was up, but I couldn't put my finger on it. Now I feel that I am slightly less likely to be crazy (only slightly).

It appears that those whom I tried to raise this issue with for discussion, are in fact embedded in the "industry" as SMEs - a quick website check got me that info. Mainly retired police/SWAT types with some military experience, and some Tier 1/2 military types. Defending empires I guess.

I have never claimed to be "CQB" SME. I have certainly "done" CQB, and trained others, but I called it urban operations, MOUT/FIBUA and room clearing. I did a search of the internet and sites like youtube to find out what all this stuff is about. Interesting, very stylized drills that are not really appropriate and work well in empty kill house type rooms. When watching the way people are trained, I can't help but notice that they seem to almost ignore the center of the room in favor of concentrating on "dominating" the corners.

I was originally in the British Army. In the Parachute Regiment we were considered very good at FIBUA. The British SAS is considered the premier "CQB" hostage rescue outfit and has been since the Iranian Embassy siege in 1982. If you look at some of the completely open source youtube videos of veterans showing somewhat outdated tactics, they don't do anything like the current US CQB teaching.

Example: they will enter the room, one goes left, one right, but only so far to clear the "fatal funnel" and get out of the way of the door. They will then engage targets in the room and the third guy will come in as back up. The fourth man will do security in the corridor (assuming they are acting as a somewhat independently moving team and don't have another teams coming behind, and that they are going back out into the corridor as they clear multiple rooms).

As to high intensity FIBUA, I am pretty sure that has been covered in detail on this site. A little summary: We were well trained at it, up to Company and Battalion level. Feeding into buildings and breaching through to avoid the outside and open spaces. It's all about link men and coordination! Back down to the tactical level, for any kind of normal residential type rooms, we would assault with two men, closely backed up by the rest of the team. Grenade goes in (not all the time, would use too many), one assaulter goes left, one goes right. Cover the room with fire. Fire into avaialble cover if the tactical situation called for it. Make sure the room was clear. Call room clear and indentify exits from the room for the section commander so when he entered he could rapidly make a plan to push the next asault team through into the next space. Repeat.

Buildings would be defended and not easy to get through. The full gamut of OBUA defensive tactics woud be used to foil assault teams. Houses could be full of wire, rooms with furniture. No stairs, just as examples. Ladders and breaking tools would be carried, similarly to the way we carried assault ladders for urban movement recently in Helmand, when you need to patrol over the maze of alleyways and urban compound type terrain. Those mud compound walls are so strong that you need a bar mine type charge to breach them.

I digress into ramblings....

This is not a Brit bashing at US tactics. I know that US tactics are very close to UK for MOUT/FIBUA. With our current "SWAT Team" focus we seem to have forgotten that?

[Steve Blair]

This is not a Brit bashing at US tactics. I know that US tactics are very close to UK for MOUT/FIBUA. With our current "SWAT Team" focus we seem to have forgotten that?

I don't think anyone would/should take it that way, actually. I've been concerned as an outside observer for some time about what could be called the "law enforcement-ization" of military tactics and operations, honestly. Started, IMO, soon after 2001 when people started talking about military personnel "arresting" terrorists. CQB grew from hostage rescue techniques and LE stuff and soon become the "cool guys" method for urban operations. The fact that it wasn't appropriate for that wide of a focus escaped many.

It just goes to show that we don't always learn the right lessons, or understand how to correctly apply those that we do learn.

[Ken White]

Not only is the US Army (and the Marine Corps to a lesser extent) guilty of "law enforcementization," the Army in particular dumbed down training to such an extent in the 80s that, given 2001 and some fighting to do, they adopted not only the flawed LE stuff but also much in the way of SOF Direct Action TTP. A combination of those two adoptions using the terribly flawed Task, Condition and Standard training process in an attempt to rectify shortfalls induced by that very process has been very harmful.

Task: Clear a building. Condition: Whoops! Empire State Building? Pentagon? Crystal City Marriot? Typical American Office building? Strip Shopping Center? European urban house? Afghan Rural house? Viet Namese rural house? Thatched Hut?
Standard: Clear and live...

Both the LE and the SOF DA TTP have a place but in general, infantry combat is not such a place. Some one needs to go dig out the pre-1975 doctrine, get the Army on an outcome based training regimen and let the LE and SOF stuff stay where it belongs. Slap and Infanteer are both correct as are Steve and Max -- and we, the Army, have got a problem that must be addressed...

Take doors as an example. For good reasons, LE and SOF DA types use doors. Why would Joe Tentpeg, Gruntus Typicalus, in an urban combat situation EVER use a door if it could be avoided? He's not remotely concerned with doing little damage to property, * he is very concerned with not ever doing the same thing twice (contrary to what we 'taught' and practiced for too long...) and doing the unexpected while letting the other SOB die for his country (hat tip to George C. Scott...).

Mouseholes, battered holes, through the ceiling, even windows are better than doors. Been my observation that a Frag grenade is best first in if doors must be used (NOTE: That will work on most Afghan dwellings. Do not try it in much of the rest of Asia; the walls are far thinner... )

* For those who cite good COIN etc. practices as a reason to avoid property damage, I agree -- what I do not agree with is using General Purpose Forces in that role; they will never do it well -- nor should they.

[max velocity]

Thanks for the input. This brings me on to another "pet peeve":

I see it everywhere, even on a recent episode of Doomsday Preppers! Why do I see people walking ("patrolling")around with their weapons jammed into their eye socket? Is this an attempt at being super-alert and ready to fire? It will do the reverse, it will give you tunnel vision. You cannot patrol like that, unless you think the enemy is very imminent from a specific direction. Even when you expect contact, you will have your weapon at the ready and your eyes up and looking along the top of the weapon. At close range you will shoot instinctively using the "shotgun method" anyway so gluing your eye to the sight will not help. Keep your head up, alert, and the weapon at the ready, in order to best respond to threats from multiple directions.
It's this silly "TV SWAT" thing where they run into a building pointing their weapons intently with their eyes glued to the sights but they have no peripheral awareness.
I think it is another example of this "tacticool" craziness that seems to infitrate everywhere.

[Kiwigrunt]

Why do I see people walking ("patrolling")around with their weapons jammed into their eye socket?

I wonder if the advent of red-dot sights may have some bearing on this, being a both eyes open sight and all...

[Steve Blair]

Sight fixation is nothing new, really, and I don't know that it's related to red dot in particular. I think Max is referring to (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that odd "elbows up in your chest" carry position for pistols in general that has extended to other weapons.

[jmm99]

I go along with Steve and Ken, but look at it from another vantage point. The LE-ization, SOF-ization and contradictory (or absent) TTPs and training practices, have gone a long way to replace ROEs based on the Laws of War (Laws of Armed Conflict; International Humanitarian Law) with ROEs (and TTPs) based on civilian legal rules (the "Rule of Law" and International Human Rights Law).

This is again beating the horse that Polarbear1605 and I have been beating for the past 4 years; but that horse (unfortunately) is still alive and kicking.

Its most recent resurrection was last month with release of ATTP 3-37.31, Civilian Casualty Mitigation (July 2012), whose second paragraph sets the test:

1-2. During armed conflict, Army forces protect civilians through civilian casualty (CIVCAS) mitigation. CIVCAS mitigation is all measures to avoid or minimize CIVCASs and reduce the adverse impact of those that occur. In the context of CIVCAS mitigation, a civilian is any person who is not a combatant. In other words, a civilian is a person not engaged in hostilities during an armed conflict, regardless of the groups or organizations to which the person belongs. If there is any doubt, Army forces consider a person to be a civilian. In the context of CIVCAS mitigation, a CIVCAS refers to any civilian wounded or dead as a result of armed conflict.

In how many "CQB" situations involving irregular forces (such as room clearing, stairwell clearing, persons at an IED scene exiting a vehicle, etc.), will there not be at least some doubt as to the status of the shootee ?

This ATTP (3-37.31), BTW, is not a legal or ROE text as such; but rather a GPF operational text (from Preface):

Army Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (ATTP) 3-37.31 is the Army’s doctrinal publication for mitigating civilian casualties (CIVCASs). The purpose is to provide doctrinal guidance for minimizing CIVCAS incidents and managing their consequences. The focus is on guiding Army leaders conducting operations involving armed conflict.

civcasmitigationcycle.jpg

Like John Keegan, I've never been in a battle; nor have I been close to a battle. So, to those who have, is this ATTP bullroar - or am I missing something ?

Regards

Mike