two man drills, good stuff or misunderstood?


I have seen, practiced and even operationally utilized some two man movement techniques similar to these but they sometimes left me thinking about the wisdom of them.

I can see the utility in “nuts to butts drills” when used doing building clearing and other situations where you need to maneuver in tight quarters and keep a 360 deg security. Similarly I can see their advantages as immediate reaction drills where you make contact while in a stack or while approaching a scene/suspect with a partner close by.

However, once the bullets start flying I can’t see an advantage in standing close together and slugging it out. One, you present a big target and two, you fail to present the opponent with the attention dividing distraction two people can present. I would think that it would be better to split up and find cover that would allow you to mutually support each other with fire.

Share

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “two man drills, good stuff or misunderstood?”

  1. Agreed that the drills isn’t really optimal. Since it’s labeled Tactical Pistol 2, I would guess, it’s at an intermediate level class where they wanted the students to stick together to prevent possible crossfire safety issues, especially since the bulk of the class probably wasn’t team stuff and the students may or may not have ever worked together before.

  2. For LEO, though, the reason that tactics like this seem to be ‘okay’ to practice is a serious lack of grenades for the current American bad guy… in our military days, we stayed fairly well spread out to cover a wide firing field quickly and reduce the casualties from indirect fire/grenades.

    Of all the tactical principles it seems that “speed” and “concentrated fire” are the two tenets that these types of tactics are built on. Seems like these tactics rely heavily on individual/team discipline of professional training, technology of body armor and shields, and the desire to gain ‘fire superiority’ over the opponent on a physical and psychological level.

  3. While perhaps they are OK for situations like hallways and room entry/building search type applications, I would much prefer a little more dispersion (and cover) out of doors. Im not sold on the “stand there and slug it out with superior firepower” idea if engaging in an area where there is room to maneuver. And from most real world shooting videos I don’t know if most people will in fact be able to stand together and shoot it out like that. Perhaps on SWAT style room entries, but not in a street-side gunfight…at least IMO.

    1. Totally agree with you on the reality of it. In tight spaces, under stress, small units tend to naturally ‘clump up’, while in open spaces, the tendency is to naturally drop/seek cover first, so it’s not a ‘one size fits all’ type of maneuver tactic or formation.

    2. It does seem more than a little narrow minded and dogmatic to force a tactic and ignore ‘the ground’ (environment/surroundings). If you have space/time in an open area – use it to your advantage IMO. If you lack space/time, you do have to resort to fire superiority (physical/psychological) in order to take the initiative (yes, just like in D&D, initiative matters LOL).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s