Perfect CQB Team

[Chimpy]

kerberos:

 

 

The only place I could see it being useful is whilst bugging out of a building. Unless we are talking about lots of buildings, moving between them and assaulting them I don't really see how supressive fire could be used 'in' a building. You are alluding to a scenario, could you provide one?

 

Insulting people isn't helpful.

[GuzziHero]

Chill, Winston...

 

There are those who play for fun, those who play for realism and a huge shade of variety inbetween. Im towards the fun end of the spectrum but I do like some milsiminess.

 

At the end of the day, almost all CQB in real conflict would be done by a competent, well drilled, perfectly co-ordinated team vs country bumpkins or average armed robbers/hostage takers. So when you put 2 pretty-much well matched teams against each other, milsim is already out the window and flying off for a holiday in Spain somewhere.

 

I just compared realism to airsoft didnt I? I can hear the screams of the mysterious Keftalu race of Gamma Epsilon from here...

[kerberos_]

Ok, a situation where it was useful in CQB?

 

You need to get from room a to b. Opposittion is up the corridor, firing at you, restricting your movements. I believe that would be classed as suppressive fire.

 

 

Anyway, I've stated, several times, it depends on the objective and situation.

 

All I said is to rule out something totally is ignorant.

Bad me.

 

[GuzziHero]

Generally at Unreal CQB, suppression leads to stalemate. It takes something dynamic from one side or another to break that stalemate. Luckily, such dynamism is almost always possible.

[Chimpy]

Ok, a situation where it was useful in CQB?

 

You need to get from room a to b.  Opposittion is up the corridor, firing at you, restricting your movements.  I believe that would be classed as suppressive fire.

 

Anyway, I've stated, several times, it depends on the objective and situation.

 

Which is why I asked for one.

 

All I said is to rule out something totally is ignorant.

Bad me.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't think anyone has said to rule it out totally.

 

The idea would be that you should be in room B before anyone has time to get enough organisation together and that the person(s) covering the corridor outside are decent enough shots to actually hit a target 10m away. This is accomplished via the aforementioned drills.

[kerberos_]

Now this isn't being rude ...but ...

 

I didn't say that hiding in a corner, suppressing people until the time limit is up, is how to play.

 

I said there are times when its a viable option to use suppressive fire.

 

It sounds as if those against my opinion, are stuck in the "wipe out the enemy" games or I suggest that you stay in a suppressive situation until the time limit expires.

 

I have not and would not say that.

 

I said the situation and game IMO determines the tactics you deploy. Not the combat style e.g. Woodland, CQB, FIBUA etc.

[kerberos_]

I don't think anyone has said to rule it out totally.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Call me pernickety, but this is what started it all

 

Kerberos:  When do you ever need to suppress in CQB?  If you are suppressing an enemy, you are doing something wrong, unless you are covering a team moving from one building to another, in which case its FIBUA and not CQB.

 

Darkchild

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Chimpy]

I'm not going to fight Darkchilds corner for him but I believe his comments should be taken in the context that he has advocated a well drilled team before hand.

[Janno]

The rather organic and fluid nature of CQB is often ignored by people - particularly people who read too many books or play too many computer games and think that their analysis of it makes them experts in practice. Chimpy and GuzziHero, your takes on CQB are spot-on, and as you have already mentioned:

 

1. There is a wide gap between airsoft and the real world, specifically in the areas of penetration, range, ammo limits, and the penalties for excessive collateral damage. If all soldiers carried arms that weighed 2kg loaded, had 5000 rounds without stoppage, and didn't have to give a *beep* about over-penetration or collateral damage, you can bet that their tactics would be very different.

 

2. You cannot always be sure of what will work until you meet the situation head-on. Theories are fine, but if you refuse to adapt to the situation at hand, then your arrogance will be the downfall of you. Saying something should be done a certain way just because somebody else did it the same way in a different time, place, and context is just asking for trouble. Training, practice and experience is the way forward.

 

It is these two points that a team/individual would do well to bear in mind if they are to be successful in the world of CQB.

[trip]

And there's no need for sarcasm or i could just pull out the

"dont comment until you have done it for real" card.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

that made me

[starburst]

Wouldnt suppression fire come in from the point of view of a defender...

 

An attacker indeed wants to secure rooms and buildings as fast as possible keeping up momentum.

 

A defender wants to keep the attackers out and so break their momentum and so may use suppression fire to keep them out of rooms or possibly to cover a withdrawl depending on the nature of where you are playing.

 

Just a thought, although its really boring when someone has a minimi and keeps their finger on the trigger...happened at a CQB day a local site did earlier in the year.

[darkchild130]

that made me 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And thats funny because....

 

I was in Iraq in 2003, in the middle of a FIBUA/CQB situation. So what?

 

I was pointing out that sarcasm and insults about my tactical competance wont be taken nicely, it is my job after all.

 

Darkchild

[c_a_r_t_e_r_3_5]

I think we all know that Darkchild is the most experienced with CQB situations.

 

Also, I agree with him completly. The idea of surpressing the enemy? It is my knowledge that you use it cover somebody. Where are you going to run to in a building?

 

Supresive fire is not used in CQB.

[Belladonna]

it is...

its used from the outside of a building as your team make entry, and to pin hostiles to areas of the building... also keeps their heads down from fire, which reduces thier effectiveness to combat the assault team/s

[c_a_r_t_e_r_3_5]

Okay, but it's not used inside the building.

[kerberos_]

dear goodness get over yourself/yourselves.

 

I personally dont think 'tactical competance' is any gold star when you say something like "If you are suppressing an enemy, you are doing something wrong".

You telling me there is something wrong with suppressing the enemy/offering your team some time to move/re-load, whatever?

 

That sounds like arrogance and ignorance.

 

Act like that and expect the mighty finger of 'pointing and laughing' to come out.

 

 

 

Next time I go CQB, Im going to make a point of offering suppressive fire while my team tries to advance while we're under attack.

[c_a_r_t_e_r_3_5]

Surpressive fire is fine. I'm not knocking it, but this is CQB. There isn't room in a building to give surpressive fire. And if you're hiding and need surpressive fire, THEN you are doing something wrong.

 

Going from one building to another isn't CQB.

[kerberos_]

See, it sounds as if the marshall should stand up and say "thou shant take part in suppressive fire during CQB".

 

We all know what CQB stands for and is, just dont take it literally.

 

Oppossing factors dont sit and agree such 'rules' or 'theories' before they go to war, do they?

 

As some have agreed, its the situation thats important and the means neccessary to be successful,

[GuzziHero]

What I think we have to remember is that when skirmishing, we are not really playing as super-mercenaries or special forces etc...

 

What we are really doing is hollywood style gangsta scene fighting.

 

Never empty guns, popping up and down behind indestructible cover, a lot of people not really aiming properly...half the time it is luck rather than skill that gets you kills. Your gun was just pointing in the right place at the right time.

 

Fact...thin metal can stop a BB. It wouldnt stop a bullet.

Fact...you can see a stream of BBs coming in at 60ft distance and dodge. You wouldnt have time with a bullet.

Fact...you can fire for between 25-35 second continuously and lay down an impassable withering barrage of fire with an airsoft gun. You cant with a bullet.

 

Just my 4 hapenneth-worth.

[kerberos_]

See Mr Guzzihero, if half these eejits who take it so serious or they are too 'hard' to take their hits, because they take the wrong parts serious, there wouldnt be so much controversy and moanin'.

 

Its a hobby, a game, played using toyzzzzzzzz.

 

Or so my custom slip always says - "toy parts"

 

[c_a_r_t_e_r_3_5]

So what your saying is, is that the title of this topic should be:

 

Perfect CQB (CQB in the sense of; people running round with bits of plastic that fire other bits at plastic at other people who are dodging them) Team

 

Why don't i just walk around with a stick and shout bang? It's called Mil-SIM for a reason

[Rob15]

Why don't i just walk around with a stick and shout bang? It's called Mil-SIM for a reason

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not everyone plays milsim though Something that seems to be forgotten by a lot of people.

[kerberos_]

Aye cos CQB = mil-sim?!

 

Like when ye hold onto the persons neck and throw them around a corner, they get shot at, but they dont die, because you have them by the scruff?

 

Whats mil-sim about that rule Ive saw in CQB?

[GuzziHero]

I know that, dude. All Im saying is...the reason it is so easy to sit behind cover and suppress in CQB airsoft, it is because things that are acceptable and usable as cover would NOT be in real life.

 

You know that if you stand round a corner, you cant be shot. In combat, gunfire would whittle that cover down till it wasnt cover anymore. You can hide behind...say...a metal silo like we have in Unreal. In combat, a 5.56 M855 Steel Tip Penetrator would go right through it, through you, through the wall opposite.

 

THIS is why R/L combat and airsoft cannot be equated. Not even a little bit. Tactics and opportunities are an ocean apart from real combat.

 

Firing RS...surveillance, stealth, speed, surprise are all potential engagement winners. In airsoft you dont get the time for surveillance, stealth isnt as useful because the enemy know youre coming sooner or later, speed isnt as valuable as you can get pinned down by people behind what in combat would be ineffective cover, surprise of doing something dynamic is the only thing that can make a real difference.

 

Unless you have a rule where anyone within 1ft of a corner that you shoot at, or a player behind a wooden/thin steel barricade is classed as hit if you shoot it, you arent playing even close to milsim.

[darkchild130]

Kerberos again with the sarcasm and insults. This doesnt sit well with me. Let me put it into context with you. I have devoted nearly 7 years of my life to the army and small unit tactics forms a large part of my job, being a section commander and all.

 

So I dont appreciate being told to "get over myself" by someone that has provided no worthwhile counter arguments. I explain more than once why suppression isnt required in CQB yet you still insist im being ignorant. By insisting that you are going to make a point of suppressing the enemy next game without taking into account anything i have said you are showing that you are the arrogant/ignorant one.

 

I say again, if you are performing correct drills, like some of us enjoy doing instead of wildly running around blasting then suppression of the enemy isnt required in CQB. The reasons have been listed in previous posts.

 

Darkchild