Claiming "combat accuracy" is an excuse.

[Green Eye Tactical]

Ive mentioned that before. You have to do "something". Taking that first step towards action helps a person break the shock of what what is happening around him, the disbelief and confusion. You break that, start doing something and fall back on training. You do have to have good and fast decision making abilities as well. It cannot all be training.

Admittedly, a lot of it is personality based. While training plays a large role in your development, there are some people that are just not the type that could be decisive in a stressful situation. We had the benefit of just sending them back to where they came from.

 

[breakingcontact]

Compare this discussion to MMA. At first you had a karate champion fighting a wrestler. Claiming any single discipline or camp is what drives bananas. So...say im really good at boxing, im not going to scoff at the wrestlers. The intelligent and humble thing is to learn from them or they are going to pull a double leg takedown while you are throwing that perfect jab.

 

[Ole Cowboy]

The aggression discussion in the shooting community is fairly prevalent nowadays. Everybody and their brother is teaching "combat mindset". The issue is- it has absolutely nothing to do with proper accuracy.
For Army Special Operators in training, nobody yells at you or attempts to get you to "be aggressive" when teaching marksmanship or fundamentals. the purpose is to build surgical accuracy and clean mechanics to fall back on when stress levels pick up. Not even when CQB begins are you prompted to be aggressive. You are taught to BE DECISIVE. Make a decision and follow through. You are constantly fighting being over-amped, which will help you never. The interesting thing about the Speed, Surprise and Violence of Action is that the "Violence of Action" part does not mean you throw on a war face, flex as hard as you can, or run around screaming. It simply means you decisively engage with overwhelming force that is achieved by accurate firepower. Something to think about in your training.
And on for the "heart" shot placement, my head hurt a little listening to that. Your proper initial point of aim is center, high on the chest. Your preferred target is the spine. If you miss and hit the lung or heart, that's ok but it won't immediately prevent your hostile target from stopping his actions.

I generally agree with your thoughts, but there are a few other factors to consider.

Mostly this discussion swirls around individual actions, nowhere have I heard the real purpose which is to achieve the objective. When I worked in Law Enforcement and we went to some guys house at 4 am it wasn't to get in a gun fight, it was to arrest him and bring him in, that was the objective.

A note of caution on "Violence of Action". The Rusky's tactical doctrine is based upon that, they do NOT seize the high ground, nor do they have many objectives. Their prime objective is to slice and dice the OPFOR thus breaking up his chain of command and routing the opposition. That does not work and does not do so based upon your key statement "you decisively engage". We Americans think differently than most of the world, we have a true chain of command. Someone always steps up and we think individually and act collectively. It a key reason why we win.

If you are just standing in line at your local WhataBurger when in walks some hopped dude needing money for a fix you are in a defensive mode and I would guess that mode is the most common you would encounter in civilian life...unless you are the hopped up dude. If there is any time in which you need to remain calm and thinking its then. Any aggressive action on your part may be your last, so you need to calculate your actions and look for the opportunity to take action, no matter, it has to be a decisive action with an objective that makes sense.

Going back to Whataburger my guess is the last thing you want to do is start a gun fight with a room full of folks and you standing there with the #2 order in your hand (for you who don't Whataburger, the #2 is double meat, double cheese, fries and drink). Now you are faced with a lot of choices all of which could not only stop a robbery but cost you from your life all the way to a major lawsuit from when your shot missed and killed a prego mother.

Decisive action with an clear objective, followed by speed, surprise and violence of action (IF needed) will put you in the winners circle:

 

[Green Eye Tactical]

I generally agree with your thoughts, but there are a few other factors to consider.

Mostly this discussion swirls around individual actions, nowhere have I heard the real purpose which is to achieve the objective. When I worked in Law Enforcement and we went to some guys house at 4 am it wasn't to get in a gun fight, it was to arrest him and bring him in, that was the objective.

A note of caution on "Violence of Action". The Rusky's tactical doctrine is based upon that, they do NOT seize the high ground, nor do they have many objectives. Their prime objective is to slice and dice the OPFOR thus breaking up his chain of command and routing the opposition. That does not work and does not do so based upon your key statement "you decisively engage". We Americans think differently than most of the world, we have a true chain of command. Someone always steps up and we think individually and act collectively. It a key reason why we win.

If you are just standing in line at your local WhataBurger when in walks some hopped dude needing money for a fix you are in a defensive mode and I would guess that mode is the most common you would encounter in civilian life...unless you are the hopped up dude. If there is any time in which you need to remain calm and thinking its then. Any aggressive action on your part may be your last, so you need to calculate your actions and look for the opportunity to take action, no matter, it has to be a decisive action with an objective that makes sense.

Going back to Whataburger my guess is the last thing you want to do is start a gun fight with a room full of folks and you standing there with the #2 order in your hand (for you who don't Whataburger, the #2 is double meat, double cheese, fries and drink). Now you are faced with a lot of choices all of which could not only stop a robbery but cost you from your life all the way to a major lawsuit from when your shot missed and killed a prego mother.

Decisive action with an clear objective, followed by speed, surprise and violence of action (IF needed) will put you in the winners circle:

No caution to be had with "Violence of Action". The Speed, Surprise, Violence of Action are the principles of Special Operations assault and missions. They are a balancing act. Assume that all three principles begin balanced. When one is sacrificed or lost, one or a combination of the others must be increased to meet mission goals.

Now- body language, situational awareness, de-escalation and avoidance are tasks that are separate and specific. They often need to be trained away from a range in a good situational environment. However, if we are speaking of an individual or L/E context and things have spiraled out of control to the point where action is required- then it is time to be decisive. The S,S,V principle absolutely comes into effect here. This is also where I pose that aggressiveness is misunderstood. Most of the time with the industry when we say "aggressiveness" the picture the average student thinks of is different than what is actually needed. The proper aggressiveness or violence is defined by the individual taking and committing to a decision that solves the problem at hand. We don't need them to "amp up" or let the adrenaline flow. We need them to make clear headed and rational decisions to solve the problem.

I would also submit that if you do find yourself standing in a Whataburger, having failed to have the situational awareness to see a robbery developing AND you lack the training to manage angles and take well aimed shots- you either need to train more or put your gun in the safe and stop carrying.

P.S.- the Soviet point you had is a bit off topic. When we were training for linear warfare instead of our current asymmetric warfare, we still decisively engaged and we employed methods to shape the battlefield to make that engagement at the time and place of our choosing. Technology and lessons learned have drastically moved conventional forces away from the old counter-Soviet doctrine and even if the threat re-appeared, it wouldn't change back.

 

[Ole Cowboy]

No caution to be had with "Violence of Action". The Speed, Surprise, Violence of Action are the principles of Special Operations assault and missions. They are a balancing act. Assume that all three principles begin balanced. When one is sacrificed or lost, one or a combination of the others must be increased to meet mission goals.

Now- body language, situational awareness, de-escalation and avoidance are tasks that are separate and specific. They often need to be trained away from a range in a good situational environment. However, if we are speaking of an individual or L/E context and things have spiraled out of control to the point where action is required- then it is time to be decisive. The S,S,V principle absolutely comes into effect here. This is also where I pose that aggressiveness is misunderstood. Most of the time with the industry when we say "aggressiveness" the picture the average student thinks of is different than what is actually needed. The proper aggressiveness or violence is defined by the individual taking and committing to a decision that solves the problem at hand. We don't need them to "amp up" or let the adrenaline flow. We need them to make clear headed and rational decisions to solve the problem.

I would also submit that if you do find yourself standing in a Whataburger, having failed to have the situational awareness to see a robbery developing AND you lack the training to manage angles and take well aimed shots- you either need to train more or put your gun in the safe and stop carrying.

P.S.- the Soviet point you had is a bit off topic. When we were training for linear warfare instead of our current asymmetric warfare, we still decisively engaged and we employed methods to shape the battlefield to make that engagement at the time and place of our choosing. Technology and lessons learned have drastically moved conventional forces away from the old counter-Soviet doctrine and even if the threat re-appeared, it wouldn't change back.

Assault, yes!

Yes, its mission driven and that is where we find the objectives...as you stated: "does not mean you throw on a war face, flex as hard as you can, or run around screaming."

Sorry, I was just standing in line placing an order, NOT standing in the parking lot looking for bad actors and I guess you are now gonna tell me no one has ever been ambushed in a combat zone or walking down a street or any other of life's unexpected happenings on and off the battlefield.

NO the Soviet point was not off topic, it was illustrative point showing the tactic of speed, surprise and violence of action with no other objective other than to pass thru enemy lines and disrupt forces vs our tactic of of taking the 'high ground' and key terrain...it was a teaching point...I use a lot of those, it helps students understand. All that applies, be you standing in line at Whataburger or in the 3-shop building your op-order.

Decisive action is based upon you developing a plan(s) and taking decisive action based upon your assessment and situation analysis.

You are a trainer, I expect more from you!

 

[Younggun]

You could say the blitzKreig did pretty well and there tactic could be described as Violence of Action.

 

[Green Eye Tactical]

Assault, yes!

Yes, its mission driven and that is where we find the objectives...as you stated: "does not mean you throw on a war face, flex as hard as you can, or run around screaming."

Sorry, I was just standing in line placing an order, NOT standing in the parking lot looking for bad actors and I guess you are now gonna tell me no one has ever been ambushed in a combat zone or walking down a street or any other of life's unexpected happenings on and off the battlefield.

NO the Soviet point was not off topic, it was illustrative point showing the tactic of speed, surprise and violence of action with no other objective other than to pass thru enemy lines and disrupt forces vs our tactic of of taking the 'high ground' and key terrain...it was a teaching point...I use a lot of those, it helps students understand. All that applies, be you standing in line at Whataburger or in the 3-shop building your op-order.

Decisive action is based upon you developing a plan(s) and taking decisive action based upon your assessment and situation analysis.

You are a trainer, I expect more from you!

Calm down and refrain from douchebag comments like "You are a trainer, I expect more from you!".

This is one of the main reasons that you don't get many Tier 1 guys actively participating in forums unless they are heavily moderated like they are on some of the other ones. I like supporting local forums and groups. I don't need to assure you that I know what I'm talking about, because my background, credentials, and instruction do that for me.

Have a good one.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

I think it all boils down to practicing and not being paralyzed by the situation. Make a decision based on your skills and the situation and follow through on it.

 

[Younggun]

I think some are taking "violence in action" to have a different meaning than is intended, some to be difficult, some just seeing it different.

Nothing says violence in action isn't focused, deliberate, or unplanned.

 

[Green Eye Tactical]

I think some are taking "violence in action" to have a different meaning than is intended, some to be difficult, some just seeing it different.

Nothing says violence in action isn't focused, deliberate, or unplanned.

Yep.

But, the conversation has gotten off topic from the OP anyways (and I'm a guilty party in de-railing it as well).

 

[breakingcontact]

Threads should have a 3 day or 50 post limit.

 

[Charlie]

Threads should have a 3 day or 50 post limit.

Negative. They can die on their own.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

Threads should have a 3 day or 50 post limit.

Statist.

Lol

 

[Younggun]

Threads should have a 3 day or 50 post limit.

I'm a fan of self regulation.

Just stop checking after 3 days or 50 posts. A much better and simpler solution.

 

[Charlie]

Threads should have a 3 day or 50 post limit.

I don't think you could handle it!

 

[Green Eye Tactical]

dammit, sniped

I'm a fan of self regulation.

Just stop checking after 3 days or 50 posts. A much better and simpler solution.

Hehe, post # 176 and you're all still here....

 

[breakingcontact]

I'm a fan of self regulation.

Just stop checking after 3 days or 50 posts. A much better and simpler solution.

Nope. You cannot decide for yourself. Remember, Obama was elected...twice. People dont know what is best for them.

 

[Green Eye Tactical]

Nope. You cannot decide for yourself. Remember, Obama was elected...twice. People dont know what is best for them.

And if you don't believe in the narrative, you'll be taxed until you do Al Gore at SXSW: We Need to 'Punish Climate-Change Deniers' and 'Put a Price on Carbon' » EcoWatch

 

[breakingcontact]

And if you don't believe in the narrative, you'll be taxed until you do Al Gore at SXSW: We Need to 'Punish Climate-Change Deniers' and 'Put a Price on Carbon' » EcoWatch

Thats my boy!

 

[breakingcontact]

Joking about Al Gore. Not joking about people making poor choices that I have to suffer for and increasingly, pay for.

Less democracy = more betterer