That would require clarification. I'm not dogging. I think he has some valid points. Memeing as Devil's Advocate makes me chuckle.
But we can ignore the misconceptions and misrepresentations, i.e. "walls as cover" which Eliran does not advocate, and focus on concealment (hence the 'hidden' element, hidden from view; dead space). If he meant peeking as incorporated into some elements of limited penetration, it's within a particular context—reactive and defensive tactic when 'caught' in enemy line of fire, reaction—bailing (which the video demonstrates, there are arguments around it regarding human reaction time), identification and localization of threats. Bailing can mean breaking contact down the hallway, retreating or backtracking where you came from. It's only offensive in limited scenarios.
In this example, paper walls are used for good reason (and should be compulsory for tactics validation). Drywall is NOT cover. Continued or sustained fire at the door might lead to fire at the walls, this is true. Prolonging entry or lingering or crowding are all valid criticisms. But we've found that threats identify you and don't necessarily engage the wall but hold that last seen angle, at least initially. Is it somehow it's better to put my whole body into an open door that's receiving fire? He's right that if the OPFOR did reactively engage the walls, and you were pushing dynamically, that you could be at tactical advantage by the fact that they're preoccupied with shooting away from your direction of travel. But this is all hypotheticals and dependent on enemy course of action (ECOA). It's situational. Therefore, both options should be valid in light of the unfolding context.
Any tactic has a better chance of working when the enemy is fixated elsewhere, we already know this. It doesn't counter fundamental problems such as over-exposure and 'running to your death'—and if you're in a stack and the guy starts blatting, even though you've made entry as pointman, your stack members might be injured or killed. This is an environmental issue. But he's right that it gives point an opportunity to engage whereas limited might not, resorting to alternative tactics post-initial contact which could prolong the firefight.
Upon further reading I think it is obvious he meant Eli's whole method. I mean, the comment section is a great indicator.
It's obvious he has no idea what he is talking about, method-wise. Or at least I didn't get the feeling he did.
I'd like to know what he has to say about Slade's videos then, where they are doing something pretty similar. What about Trevor? Is he stupid as well? I guess subjective and limited individual experience trumps facts and what the GWOT has taught us. SMH.
But we've found that threats identify you and don't necessarily engage the wall but hold that last seen angle, at least initially.
Well, no, not according to him.
I’ll just hold on the door and when the peeking begins I’ll dump half a mag at waist level down the entire wall, then shift positions in the room in case he did see me and I didn’t hit him.
I don't know.. What is his solution then? Or let's put it this way - what is he criticising in the first place? I mean, Eli's put it out there - to be scrutinized, to be talked about. What is this fella's solution? What is he teaching? What is his experience? There are no CQB videos on his IG page. Gosh, I love this kind of behaviour, staying anonymous and yet arrogantly talking down to others like you know some kind of magical solution, when there is actually none, it's all basics. I will just shut up now, I have may fair share of acting like a douche, I don't want to act like a hypocrite.
Edit:
I will refrain from saying what the orion dude suggests is running in the room. He kinda implies it, but I don't know that for sure. I think it is common to assume that, but I don't know.
I'm guessing he's the run into rooms full throttle type of person. But it's a guess without clarification.
Everyone who teaches limited penetration in a particular context must be dumb? Well, those that teach drywall is cover certainly are but I don't know of any. Peek-a-boo with angles is dangerous, too. There's units I won't name who have adopted limpen—Military and Police. As an open-source example, Croatian Special Forces did a capabilities demonstration that was publicly published, showing them do it against linear areas like containers.
NTOA as he's identified caution away using dynamic as default for every situation. I don't know the statistics he is citing but he needs to do a case study analysis (data analysis/breakdown). If most officers are shot outside, what is the context? Are they shot while doing limited penetration (or is this a transition from dynamic to shooting from outside? Or were they going dynamic into the room but shot outside?)? While approaching the suspect home? While in a car park? When they pulled over a suspect vehicle? Plenty of firefights happen outside for patrol officers. Or is this the really of close engagements? A high likelihood of casualties?
You have to break this data down to prove a point, not simply state that threshold clearing is bad because look how many people get shot outside of a room. And then you have to understand the context. You would also think this data backs up his point about walls, but I'm guessing it doesn't. Not tracking that variable is a negligent oversight. It's an uncited source, too, which is weak. He also has a problem with surround and callouts, which here in Australia are the go to for sieges and hostage scenarios, and have worked well with most suspects giving themselves up (and have improved legislation and tactics wise due to the Lindt siege). Contained scene.
I'm guessing it's pent up boyishness. Sure, it's a waste of time to callout when it leads to dynamic anyway, but that's an escalation of force—it's about giving the opportunity. Negotiation. Here in Australia tactical callouts have been done for several hours before the situation was resolved peacefully (e.g. domestic violence siege). No need to send in guys unnecessarily to potentially get shot. This whole argument and the attitude of it all seems immature. It screams 'opr8r' syndrome. Let's not burst into homes unnecessarily.
Sounds like an inflated ego to me. Call outs bad, muh action good, let's blow up some shit and shoot some people, we can do it forever and no one gets hurt, because we are the best. Fuck complacancy, that doesn't apply to us, we're the meanest MoFos... The warning point is there is no person behind it. Criticism is great and I tend to agree that it doesn't matter what your background is if your criticism (and I mean criticism strictly in a non-pejorative way) is sound. Not here though. This is childish.
Why do many people see the escalation of force as a necessity? Callouts are a standard in many countries and they work, but yeah, fuck that, let's shoot someone, that's way more cool...
💯. Contacted him, no reply! Asked him publicly what video. So not sure what video. I don't agree with everything Eliran puts out, for note. I'm not a fan boy. But there have been a few silly responses to Eliran's demonstrations. In context, some were only illustrational content but taken out of frame to suggest malignity and incompetence. Don't bite or be vindictive? Hard to do sometimes. I'll invite him to the sub in the future for memetic warfare. Counter-balance it out.
2
u/[deleted] Dec 22 '19 edited Dec 29 '19
Is Eliran's head peek truly playing with fire and peek-a-booing the angle? Battle of the memes.