Thoughts on Tactical Training – or – ‘Into the Woods’
Yeah. I watched that movie with the kids. ‘Into the Woods’. Cue a little song that will not leave your brain, Little Red Riding Hood skipping along with a basket of sweetbread, singing “Into the Woods, Into the Woods…and home before dark….”…etc.
Well there were some comments recently at class that many suburbanites are actually scared of the woods. We aim to fix that a little by bringing back a square range class. It won’t be combat rifle, but it will be homestead/suburban focused, all on the square range to basically teach you the skills to fight with a buddy (wife?) around your home location, including the High Threat CQB drills we started adding to the MVT Rifleman Challenge. Yeah, I get it, now you can do the CQB without having to run the 2-Miler….BFYTW…;-)
Still looking for a name. Urban combat essentials? Suburban home defense? Ugghhh. it’s all in a name. We will put the classes on the same weekends as CTT, on the square range, so students can hear CTT cooking off, see the trees around them, and realize that they are not that scary.
So there is the rural/woods thing. Why do Combat Team Tactics (CTT) when I live in a subdivision, and Max just teaches stuff that works out in the woods right? Well, Diz had some thoughts on the forum LINK HERE:
Some more thoughts on Tac Training…
…or why MVT is the real deal. I wanted to add some more thoughts about this, after reading the student reviews from last weekend’s CTT class.
One guy really hit the nail on the head. A lot of folks are under the mistaken impression that what Max is teaching is just applicable to the light infantry unit in an active insurgency. While it is that, it also is applicable your present-day circumstances, or what you may find yourself in the near future.
The key here is learning to work in conjunction with another person or persons in a tactical situation. Aka TEAMWORK. Most square range training is done on the individual level. Very little involves working with another person. And when it does, it is invariably static. What you learn to do at MVT, is fire AND maneuver, in conjunction with another person, and then with a 4-man team. This could be applicable for you and your wife in defending your home, or with your own team, defending your neighborhood. The point is you have a live fire range where you can practice this. It might be out in the woods, or it might be in your neighborhood. The terrain doesn’t matter. The principles you are learning and practicing are the same.
Also I wanted to point out the difference between typical drills on the square range, and what you do at MVT. On the square range, targets are always visible. You merely point and shoot on command. At MVT, targets must be FOUND (observation) before you can decide to engage. This is an important point. Your target is not always going to be standing up, in full view, for you to service. You have to actively seek out targets, not knowing exactly where they are at. Yes, that’s a lot harder, but also a lot more realistic.
And, unlike blank fire or most other scenario training, you have to get HITS on target before it falls. This forces you to aim in, apply BRM, and actually hit the target, not just make a lot of noise.
These are two important points that you don’t get from typical square range or tactical training. The fact that you have to actually find the targets, and then get accurate fire onto them.
MVT also teaches good weapon’s manipulation. I learned many new T,T,P’s which were not done in my time, but have evolved since the GWOT.
To sum up, teamwork, fire and maneuver, observation, BRM, and also good weapons manipulation. These are the skill sets you get from MVT training. The fact that it is done in a woodland setting, obviously means it applies there, BUT, it can be applied to any terrain and situation as well.
Yep. Its good solid basic drills, that will work whether you are taking cover behind a tree, or a car.
Hah. That’s funny. Don’t go into the woods alone, LRRH.
If you think about how you could train, essentially 270+ degrees on a custom range, it would look like what mother nature made in Max’s AO. A nice little hollow going up between two spurs. There you are.
Governments spend millions of dollars to create high-end, 360-degree training facilities. You’re getting the better part of that right here.
Don’t get hung up on being out in the woods. Yes, you will learn to operate out there, but there’s more to it. Think about observation, obstacles (and cover), and sectors of fire. Think about working in conjunction with your buddy. Think about how this would apply at home, or work, or out on the town.
if they are scared of the dark/woods, then ‘urban combat’ might also be too intimidating.
‘Suburban Home Defense’ is a great class name for those folks.
If the interest is there, consider have a female only class, maybe even taught by a female (Mrs. MV, maybe?) to cater to that market
You might be on to something. I imagine a lot of prepper types envision defending the homestead when the marauders come rolling up to burn them out.
Maybe a very basic shoot house for fighting out would do the trick. Kinda like CQB in reverse. Maybe an extended class to cover hardening the home, etc?
First let me say the training at Max’s is top notch. I’ve been twice now and plan to return. But common sense tells me scenarios in urban/suburban terrain are vastly different than the rural setting.
You’re dealing with hugely different factors of cover, concealment, angles, elevation, lines of sight, communications, lines of ingress and egress, etc. I’m not sure “move”, “moving” is enough for such a complex environment as urban/suburban.
That said, a shoot village (while expensive, yes) would be money. I’m not sure you could effectively teach it without. CTT would have you break contact right out your back yard and then what? If you’re going to fight around and/or defend structures (which is what many preppers envision), I can see the disconnect when they contemplate learning rural warfare. They are not the same thing.
People would pay big bucks to learn “defending the homestead” type training. The vast majority of people (who can afford it, frankly) do not live in nor can envision themselves fighting in the woods.
Reality is the fight (if it comes) will come to our homes and that is what people will pay to learn to defend.
This misses the mark. Of course there are considerations for various environments. Urban (MOUT) just as much as mountain, woods, desert etc. But that isn’t the point. What is taught at CTT is good solid basics and break contact drills that work in any environment.
You need to understand this.
Also, this new class isn’t that. It is a two day class that teaches basic skills that are applicable to defending the homestead. That much is true. But guess what: they are good solid basics that are applicable across the board.
Some of this is marketing to encourage the suburbanites who are not convinced by the wooded training area. It is set on a square range. Requires limited fitness etc.
It will give you all you need to defend your home, but it will also translate to moving on to CTT.
This is not building an urban training center. This is a square range class.
“Home defense” is a recognizable phrase, certainly recognizable by the gun community.
Obviously, there will be differences between the “scenario” of where you are training, versus where you might have to fight. But is it “common sense” to say that you can’t train for the basics in teamwork, shooting, maneuver, etc? At an entry level, you have to learn the basics that apply to ANY terrain before you can even understand what is different about your “scenario” and what you need to fight in it.
I’m not sure what mark I missed :) I totally get the value of the shoot/move and buddy team concept. At no time did I suggest (Diz) that you can’t or shouldn’t start training there. Building blocks.
My post was intended to suggest the opportunity for some training with TTPs tailored to MOUT or maybe a suburban version (sans really large buildings).
C3 looks like the start of what I was referring to.