I was not trying to be facetious - the last time that I've heard vector used in a sentence was in my college physics class (besides watching Airplane). I'm very familiar with 3.06-11 (Combined Arms Ops in Urban Terrain), RTC 350-1-2 (considered the gold standard of urban ops training methodology among the infantry), 101-5-1 (Ops Graphics and Terms) and am pretty well read on MOUT articles and speak acronymese, so I can honestly say that much of your terminology is not common language within the Army. Yes, I have been to IOBC, ICCC, and CAS3. OBC was basic, just as its title implies, CAS3 was great for working out, and ICCC was actually a pretty solid doctrinal course. However, it's my own reading and the knowledge/experience gleaned from my NCOs that I believe make me qualified to comment here. As far as squad level ops go, you will be hard pressed find independent squad ops in urban terrain. Also, these ops consist of the SL having his fire teams conduct fire and movement under his control (as opposed to a lump sum 4-9 man organization), potentially re-task organizing a key weapon (SAW, M14 w/SDM, M203) to another fire team based on the mission. There are plenty of buildings that may only require a squad to secure, but other squads will be involved in a direct or indirect suporting effort. The current 4 man stack battle drill works very well since fully manned fire teams are 4 men strong. Fire teams are fully rehearsed in all roles in the battle drill. Having 4 men allows you to break a room into two sectors with interlocking fields of fire and allows you to have redundacy in a sector in the event of a man down, weapons malfunction, or a magazine change. I'm not a believer that the book solution is always right, but I do believe that the book solution should be the starting point. If you are trying to address the conventional Army, then I think you'd be much more effective using common doctrinal terminology and comparing/contrasting your 6 man battle drill with the current 4 man stack. If you are directing your efforts solely at the SOF community, then I while I'm sure there is a large commonality of language/terminology, having never been a member of the SOF community, I don't consider myself experienced enough to comment.

Shek Trust me, US Army educational institutions are well acquainted with my terminology, but you are correct in stating that my terminology contrasts with current US Army manuals, as my work attempts to improve on current US Army doctrine to expand soldier capabilities and streamline US military casualty rates. You have gained valuable experience in the field. I am impressed, but I think that mout operations are made more combat effective by dividing room spacing into multiple 4 initial weapon controlled fields of fire while facilitating tight cleareances for 2 highly trained and disciplined shooters to control. This type of assault can adapt to asymmetrical threats to facilitate full spectrum space control by 3 soldiers to allow 3 soldiers to execute multiple space room control tactics, as most structures contain a more restricted space adjacecnt to the more expansive initial entry space. This is an old school US Army Ranger styled assault sir.

Trust me, US Army educational institutions are well acquainted with my terminology, but you are correct in stating that my terminology contrasts with current US Army manuals, as my work attempts to improve on current US Army doctrine to expand soldier capabilities and streamline US military casualty rates. You have gained valuable experience in the field. I am impressed, but I think that mout operations are made more combat effective by dividing room spacing into multiple (4) initial weapon controlled fields of fire while facilitating tight cleareances for 2 highly trained and disciplined shooters to control. This type of assault can adapt to asymmetrical threats to facilitate full spectrum space control by 3 soldiers to allow 3 soldiers to execute multiple space room control tactics, as most structures contain a more restricted space adjacent to the more expansive initial entry space. This is an old school US Army Ranger styled assault sir

Please forgive the typos Shek Trust me, US Army educational institutions are well acquainted with my terminology, but you are correct in stating that my terminology contrasts with current US Army manuals, as my work attempts to improve on current US Army doctrine to expand soldier capabilities and streamline US military casualty rates. You have gained valuable experience in the field. I am impressed, but I think that mout operations are made more combat effective by dividing room spacing into multiple (4) initial weapon controlled fields of fire while facilitating tight cleareances for 2 highly trained and disciplined shooters to control. This type of assault can adapt to asymmetrical threats to facilitate full spectrum space control by 3 soldiers to allow 3 soldiers to execute multiple space room control tactics, as most structures contain a more constricted space in rooms adjacent to the more expansive initial entry space. This is an old school US Army Ranger styled assault sir

Well, I'll have to take your word that the schoolhouse understands your terminology, although I'd still recommend using terminology that soldiers in the field are familiar with (better to spend training learning just a new method as opposed to new terminology first and then the method). Also, a 6 man battle drill will require learning 6 positions as opposed to 4. What is simple and obvious from a catwalk observing room clearning is much different when executing from the ground level. I could critique my soldiers left and right on very fundamental things during their first iterations in the shoothouse. However, even with being very initimate with the techniques and how it should look, it would have taken me several iterations in each position and much harassment from my 1SG before I would have judged myself competent in physically executing each role in the battle drill. The point here is that understanding and muscle memory are two different things, so creating more positions will create an even larger training requirement. Thus, I'd caution against making an overly complicated battle drill. Finally, when creating a battle drill, don't assume that you have intelligence. A battle drill is an instinctive reaction to a stimuli. Your point about entrances often containing multiple danger areas that need to be locked down is very vaild - however, if this intel is known, then the PL can do deliberate planning on the flow of his squads and squad leaders determine the flow of their teams. If not, then during the initial penetration, the fire team will secure the entrance room and then the squad leader will direct his second clearing to the nearest room and the PL/PSG can then decide whether to direct follow on squads through another penetration point that is totally secure (the adjacent room) or through the original point of penetration. Here’s a link to a Fallujah AAR done by a Marine Squad Leader and his NCOs. While there’s not much that I hadn’t already seen before besides some of the house demo techniques that they used, it is much more comprehensive in covering the run of topics in urban operations, is written very well and provides a lot insight on how to use current battle drills effectively. One question I have for any Marines in this forum – do you have the collapsible buttstocks, short barrels, forward rails with pistol grip, and 100rd “nutsacks?” These improvements helped the CQM capabilities of my SAW gunners and made me very comfortable with them working in the stacks, although they were still the first ones dropped off to provide long security down hallways or securing rooms and providing fires at adjacent buildings/targets outside of the building being covered. I think this article would be very useful to take a look at. http://www.blackfive.net/main/2005/03/showdown_the_ba.html#more I hope this info helps you out - I never take it for granted that the book solution is best. However, current urban battle drill is pretty simple in concept (although requires lots of training to learn the responsibilities of each position to the point of becoming muscle memory) and is tied together pretty between urban tasks (enter building/gain foothold, enter/clear room, enter/clear hallway, enter/clear stairwell) and current force structure (4 man fire teams, squad leaders, platoon sergeants, platoon leaders, etc.). Make sure that leaders are still the ones making decisions/controlling the flow so that there experience is utilized and also so that assets can used (tank fires, support by fire, etc.) - speed doesn't equal success unless you have set the conditions to move to the next room, hallway, stairwell.

I hope that my comments have helped you. I can’t stress enough that your terminology distracts from your content. You need to define new terminology up front and if it goes something like this “vector field = sector”, then it serves no purpose as it advances nothing substantive. Other terms that need to be defined, as I cannot determine any equivalent using standard doctrinal terminology: Space control – sector? Tandem force continuity - flow of follow-on stacks/clearing teams? Attritional force establishment - ?? Controlled space convergence ascertainment – leader’s assessment or #1 man assessment of short room or strong wall room? Tight clearance – short room? Full spectrum space control - ?? Expansive initial entry space - ?? Asymmetrical threat – seizing room with WMD?? I’ve never heard this in a tactical context, only in a strategic context I’d post your draft or any updates on other boards – Infantry, Marines, Artillery, Armor. The artillery and armor boards may seem out of place, but I’m sure there are guys on those boards with some room clearing experience to know some basic principles without having been fully indoctrinated on standard clearing techniques like myself and other Infantryman/Marines. A potential framework to structure your 6 man stack battle drill that would allow it to be compared contrasted to the 4 man stack: Actions at point of entry -sectors in 6 man stack -breacher Actions upon entry -points of domination -sectors -collapsing sectors of fire -center vs. corner door fed room -searching Actions in hallways -formations Leader responsibilities -team leader -squad leader -platoon sergeant -platoon leader Good luck.

Shek My fellow strategists, generals and colonels seem to like my terminology as it is, as it can easily be reconciled with the military terms of strategists like Clausewitz, but I am always willing to listen to suggestions from soldiers. I will give your suggestios the attention they deserve. I checked out the website you mentioned. It deals with multiple structure configurations, but did you notice that the suggested tactics rule themselves out. While those tactics are still in use, you can rest assured concerned strategists, tacticians and soldiers like myself are working on more innovative ways to wage war up close and personal.

Shek That site you mentioned has some weaknesses. Here is one: Top Down/ Bottom Up Assaults Both of these assault options have multiple disadvantages that cause them to be ineffective in an intense firefight. There is a third option to consider. A bottom up assault can be implemented with the intention of penetrating no further than 2/3 of the structure. A bottom down assault can be implemented by way of helicopters shortly after the ground assault has begun. By carefully coordinating this dual phase assault, you will have the high probability of capturing a majority of the occupants of the structure by way of stealth, speed and aggression while reducing the disadvantages each directional assault would have on its own.

Shek Here is another one: Put one to two rounds in every closed door and covered window. In regards to the doors, these tactics scream for variation and innovation. Soldiers want to move through a structure methodically while retaining aggressive actions to secure their comrades from all possible threats that could be behind each closed door. The best way to facilitate that is by implementing my multiple weapon assault. Each troop is given a weapon that will aid their squad in penetration of a structure while also giving them more decisive and controllable breaching options by their strategic use of the appropriate weapon to facilitate precision breach weaponry. It gives them breach capabilities that enhance their mobility while providing them with proper defensive spacing and reduces the chance of hindering intelligence opportunities by killing the one or two insurgents who may have intelligence that can save your sister battalion. These tactics are enhanced by my controlled space convergence tactics.

Here is another one: "Put one to two rounds in every closed door and covered window". In regards to the doors, these tactics scream for variation and innovation. Soldiers want to move through a structure methodically while retaining aggressive actions to secure their comrades from all possible threats that could be behind each closed door. The best way to facilitate that is by implementing my multiple weapon assault. Each troop is given a weapon that will aid their squad in penetration of a structure while also giving them more decisive and controllable breaching options by their strategic use of the appropriate weapon to facilitate precision breach weaponry. It gives them breach capabilities that enhance their mobility while providing them with proper defensive spacing and reduces the chance of hindering intelligence opportunities by killing the one or two insurgents who may have intelligence that can save your sister battalion. These tactics are enhanced by my controlled space convergence tactics.