An Alternative to Instructor Myth #2

In the previous blog post I briefly looked at why a certain technique was not sound practice in a close range gun attack.
In this blog post we are going to look at one alternative. Bear in mind that we are still looking at this from the point of view of the IBG. We are also going to look at armed and unarmed operators.

In the previous blog post I also mentioned pre-empting terrorist and criminal Modus Operandi by training on enemy tactics as an enemy combatant. To be able to successfully do this we need to look closely at the actual ideology of the enemy which will give us important information about their end game. This end game boils down to two things; do they want to escape alive or are they on a suicide mission. This matters a great deal.

Of course having the correct intelligence is a must here, without it the only option is to train for all eventualities concerning close range gun attacks. You may think that we should be doing this anyway and in a way you would be correct; but pinpointing training objectives will help focus on the threat at hand both physically and mentally. This is the dilemma faced by EPOs with little or no intelligence on enemy forces ranged against them.

The following technique can be used by both armed and unarmed EPOs, the only difference is that the unarmed response is much harder to implement and achieve.

At this point may I once again thank Richard Aitch for the use of his photographs below. Richard is the Author of 'Close Protection a closer observation of the protection equation'.

Objective - getting the principal off the X as fast as possible into cover and out of the kill zone.

In the photo below the IBG is armed. On a 'Contact' the IBG simultaneously moves the principal away from the threat, steps forwards and draws his weapon. At this stage the principal is moving as fast as possible into cover.

That cover may be behind a vehicle, behind a wall or into a shop doorway for example and the distance covered will be determined by the tactical situation on the ground.

As this stage we have presented the enemy with two separate targets and have now given him a choice. This choice is the split second of hesitation that may provide the time that saves the principals life and time to engage the target. This is where the intelligence gathering, ideology and Modus Operandi of the enemy comes into play. Does he now carry on engaging the principal without cause for his own safety or does he engage the EPO fearing he will be killed.

We also have to come to terms with more than one attacker, so we have a number of issues to deal with. Focusing on the enemy and the principal. Although there has been a split there will still have to be instructions given to the principal with regards to what you want him to do.

Once the principal is out of the kill zone and out of danger the IBG can break off and follow, if possible, to regroup. See my book for the chapter on 'Pausing For Effective Combat'. If the enemy continue to engage then the same scenario is played out. Split, principal moves, IBG engages and so on until the attack is over.

This is difficult enough and the chances of the IBG surviving is minimal if armed; so where does this leave the unarmed EPO?

Well a lot worse off and the chances of survival are practically none. No need to bullshit here and only training is going to heighten the chances of survival.

Its the same drill as for an armed IBG. Split, principal moves, IBG engages empty handed. Now you might laugh at that last part and you may ask 'Why would I engage an armed attacker unarmed'? well that is your job, if you give body cover or give body cover and run with the principal you are still going to die, you are presenting only one target, the one they want. Engaging unarmed while the principal moves gives the principal a chance of getting away.

If you think you cannot do that, get another job.

Stay Dangerous

Rock