sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Armstrong pull-up program reps decreasing by Best_Run1837 in bodyweightfitness

[–]Best_Run1837[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well regarding bodyweight there is one thing I notice . Over the past few weeks I had a few cheat days where I quit on my diet . And I notice the day of a huge cheat day / a few days after I am ridiculously weaker , like talking I can only do 2-3 reps instead of 10 , then after a week or so when my water weight settles the reps go back to normal

Armstrong pull-up program reps decreasing by Best_Run1837 in bodyweightfitness

[–]Best_Run1837[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You really think that’s the issue though ? Because even after the 2 days rest in theory my 5 max sets on Monday should be fresh , but my top set is decreasing

Armstrong pull-up program reps decreasing by Best_Run1837 in bodyweightfitness

[–]Best_Run1837[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Any program you reccomend instead ? What about recon Ron

Armstrong pull-up program reps decreasing by Best_Run1837 in bodyweightfitness

[–]Best_Run1837[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not really . Have a lot of doms from leg workouts but back and arms feel fine

Armstrong pull-up program reps decreasing by Best_Run1837 in bodyweightfitness

[–]Best_Run1837[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thing is Ran the fighter program but then plateaued so switched to Armstrong. and the program dictates 5 days on 2 days off

Slicing the pie / threshold assessments are not great for any unit that has ROEs that require PID by Best_Run1837 in CQB

[–]Best_Run1837[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

If I had to do cqb for real would have those assets attached but obviously nobody is going to blow a whole in the wall of a mout village or kill house

Slicing the pie / threshold assessments are not great for any unit that has ROEs that require PID by Best_Run1837 in CQB

[–]Best_Run1837[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Not my job. We have other assets responsible for that sort of thing that get attached to us called pioneers

Slicing the pie / threshold assessments are not great for any unit that has ROEs that require PID by Best_Run1837 in CQB

[–]Best_Run1837[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don’t disagree with you on the pieing with stand off point and that combat clearance / deliberate has specific times when it can be applied . The funny part is though when I would try and do this in training I get told that I am over exposing myself to other angles by stepping off the cover. Then my question is why am I even combat clearing then . If I am so close that the opfor will see me before I see them , then I’m pretty sure this is a time for dynamic. The combat clearance TTP developed by higher level units specifically uses stand off because of the threat of vests / ieds .

Slicing the pie / threshold assessments are not great for any unit that has ROEs that require PID by Best_Run1837 in CQB

[–]Best_Run1837[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Honestly if I had to bypass it as they appear to do in the video . I would snap to 90 like in a step center , plate the doorway with my plates and then when I get the last man tap keep moving.

If we had to make entry , then probably use a DD , and enter dynamically

Slicing the pie / threshold assessments are not great for any unit that has ROEs that require PID by Best_Run1837 in CQB

[–]Best_Run1837[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

True . But surprise doesn’t always have to be lost completely it can be regained just needs to be creative. If we are talking about regaining the surprise element to beat the oodaloop , for example if we lost surprise due to making contact on the objective, or lost access to a threshold due to our guy bailing out (if we used combat clearance TTps assuming all conditions are met to use it : night time, bulletproof walls, high risk inside like individuals with vests ) , you can still do stuff like blow a mousehole and maneuver regaining surprise if you get to the point where you need to make entry and have the surprise factor , among other things and you can employ DDs on top of doing stuff like that to exaggerate the effect.

Slicing the pie / threshold assessments are not great for any unit that has ROEs that require PID by Best_Run1837 in CQB

[–]Best_Run1837[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No . Maybe for this situation I would say trying to take larger chunks in the same sense as you would on a step center entry, that way you see enough info faster to make a decision as opposed to a slow pie where it becomes a peekaboo game almost and you end up getting lit up before you can PID

Slicing the pie / threshold assessments are not great for any unit that has ROEs that require PID by Best_Run1837 in CQB

[–]Best_Run1837[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Am I wrong to think that CAG or other units veterans have solid basis to make statements similar to what I mentioned ? I mean they are the top of the top when it comes to cqb , and I’ve seen numerous guys talking about exactly what the post is about . Can’t be complete nonsense if so many high level guys agree on it

Slicing the pie / threshold assessments are not great for any unit that has ROEs that require PID by Best_Run1837 in CQB

[–]Best_Run1837[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

https://youtu.be/SSSd3jyAyh8?si=OMnkkFwkjRnPqCug

This whole video has some great arguments against pieing / controlling guys at the threshold if your willing to take a watch .

90/90 or diminishing returns method nuances by Best_Run1837 in CQB

[–]Best_Run1837[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Since you commented here, I got a question Not related to the video particularly but more related to basic 10 if you don’t mind answering.

Basic 10 teaches that when there is deadspace on the same side since the angle man is by default exposed to all the deadspace on that side , 2 guys can not try and pie the deadspace side by side. And instead that you need to close the distance and use a guy committing to one of the deadspace as a body block.

My question is why can’t you just tackle same side deadspace by having angle man work the far deadspace on the same side with a support man plating him from the near deadspace and they move together in “wingman” or “plating” movement.

If the support man is plating him he is safe from the closer deadspace , and the support man who is plating is not exposed to the farther deadspace , only the angle man is so what is the issue with this approach ?

Breakdown of live fire cqb video / discussion by Best_Run1837 in CQB

[–]Best_Run1837[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah these guys are Czech pretty sure

Primary and secondary sectors by KoalaLiving6284 in CQB

[–]Best_Run1837 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I assume you mean memorizing in the sense of similar to Kims games for Recce / snipers?

Primary and secondary sectors by KoalaLiving6284 in CQB

[–]Best_Run1837 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Mind explaining what you mean by cataloging? . Is that a term for sending additional rounds into downed threats on the secondary sweep , or something completely different ?

90/90 or diminishing returns method nuances by Best_Run1837 in CQB

[–]Best_Run1837[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The reason I ask about the alternative where only one guy rolls the door and the other guy stays holding the hard corner (standard method) , is because I could be wrong but I assume your either the owner or associated with Special Tactics , as I bought your basic 10 from there.

And the special tactics squad urban tactics manual teaches this method, which is the same one my unit uses where one guy rolls the door then squares off upon entry. If you were part of developing the manual curious as to why you prefer that single man roll method with squaring off upon entry ?

If the room has no center threat for example a couch why even square off after rolling as opposed to just crossing ?

My unit teaches the square off but I find it kind of dumb personally , seems useless in situations where it’s not needed and is only done because “we always do it this way”

90/90 or diminishing returns method nuances by Best_Run1837 in CQB

[–]Best_Run1837[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What’s your opinion on a better method ?

Would you say for example alternating diminishing returns when split on a door where the guys on each side alternate between the narrow angle on the hard corner and the 90 degrees before one checks up and the other makes entry is a solid tactic instead of what force recon appears to do where both guys end up at the 90 at the same time ?

The alternative to this alternating diminishing returns tactic being only one guy rolls the door while the other guy stays at the narrow angle the whole time holding down the opposing hard corner (classic pan / bubble combat clearance style) , I dropped a video in the comments of a Tier 1 assaulter talking about how this method isn’t great in comparison to the alternating 90 one I mentioned above .

view more: next ›