I wanted to open a discussion on the use of Force on Force in training. Some instructors insist FoF is the ultimate validation of “what works” whereas other instructors think it can instill false bravado and provoke the employment of unrealistic tactics.
Thoughts on FoF and what it does and does not accomplish…
I think it’s a valuable tool if used properly. A clear program has to be used. Overuse or poor planning can be counter productive IMO. If executed poorly you can either build a false sense of security or demoralize the participants.
I like it. Would like to do more of it. I’ve found it very enlightening when I’ve participated.
FOF is all about role players. Good role players with good scripts means outstanding training. Bad role players and/or bad scripts means a waste of time. There is no room for ego in a role player. The role player is not competing with or fighting the student; the role player is a teacher.
FOF training should start out with skill building and then move into scenario-based stuff. Just shooting at a real person walking or hiding behind cover is so much different than shooting at paper or cardboard targets.
No-win scenarios are a waste of time and money. No-lose scenarios are, too.
While some people are concerned about legal liability down the road, I personally like to videotape all the FOF scenarios I do. There is a lot to be learned by watching yourself. Given a stressful enough scenario, odds are your memory and reality won’t be completely in sync. I’ve had students remember things completely 180 out from what actually happened, and only after seeing it on Memorex would they believe what the instructors were telling them.
I’m also of the belief that while role players should respond in an intelligent way to getting hit, students should always drive on until the scenario is called to a halt. There is zero reason to program yourself to think that being shot equals being stopped. Some training programs use a paintballesque “one hit disqualification” approach and while I understand the philosophy it just seems counter to building a good mindset. I had a student once who, upon taking a round center chest during a room clearing, fell on the ground and started calling for help, etc. At first we thought something went horribly wrong and he was actually hurt … when I realized he was just acting (“This is what I figured would happen in real life”) we spent a little time remediating.
Another thing that is beneficial if you have the time and facilities, when possible a scenario shouldn’t always end when the fighting ends. Play it out as long as you can afford to. What happens after shots are fired? Assuming a fight CONUS, eventually the police (or more police, as the case may be) will show up. How will the student deal with that? Getting questioned by a real cop after a “real” shooting can be quite an experience. I’ve seen more than one student suffer diarrhea of the mouth even though he’s been told in a classroom setting “be polite and be cooperative but don’t say anything other than you want your lawyer.”
When possible, I like to create real incentives for proper/legal behavior. You’d be amazed at the chilling effect something like a $5 penalty for brandishing will have on students.
Finally, and again this comes down to time and resources, be aware that most FOF scenarios tend to start in Condition Orange and never deescalate from there. How people behave when hyper-aware isn’t always a complete picture of how they’ll behave. It’s not easy to create an hour-long scenario with 30 seconds of action at the end, but there are ways to do it. There is a huge difference between “walk around town for an hour and deal with anything that happens” and “walk up this block and deal with what happens.”
Training at the Speed of Life by Ken Murray is a must have book for people interested in understanding, participating in, and running FOF training.
While at Blackwater doing a 5 day class, years ago, I witnessed some FOF training of either Coasties, or Navy personnel, I wasn’t close enough to see uniforms or insignia, and they were covered up pretty much anyway.
I saw some definite uses for this sort of training, as demonstrated at Blackwater:
It looked like it was based on a real situation, that had occured or was likely to occur aboard a boat/ship excursion.
The intensity was pretty high and very dynamic.
The role players specifically were trying to teach the team about their role in the stack, and they were executing their roles perfectly. Creating havoc and casualties.
It took 3 or 4 times of the rear guard getting shot in the chest for the team, and the rear guards, to realize they could not turn their head for a SECOND to watch the pointman. Not even a glance…
As soon as the rear guard glanced to the front of the stack, the BG roleplayer pounced from cover and tagged him COM two or three times, and usually got the next guy twice in the back for good measure.
I think BG roleplayers would be key, and the scenarios outlined would be key.
This is something that was and is kicked around at ITB and at least, when I was there individual training companies were allowed to do their own thing as long as the POI was followed and evaluated. The main thing we differed on was the use of student force on force or instructor opfor (referring to the company’s instructors, not the instructor group).
I was a big advocate of instructor opfor. While doing student force on force allowed you to get more people trained in a short amount of time, you basically have two groups of people at the same skill level bumping into each other. Instructor opfor allows you to tune the difficulty level to the students. Each class had a different personality - some needed more than others.
The instructors would start out going easy on them. Initially we had instructors sadistically massacring students, which not surprisingly results in demoralized students. We rapidly got it tuned in so the level of difficulty steadily increased, along with their confidence level. In the relatively short amount of time we had the basic thrust down - improper technique = sim round(s) / proper technique, even if it’s sloppy = dead instructor.
It would be great to go further, but everything is a race against the clock. And while we do a lot, it is initial MOS training - fleet units are the ones that should take it to the next level.
ETA: I should point out that we DID use student force on force for patrolling and attacks - it is easy to evaluate the larger muscle movements (figuratively speaking) out in the open. CQB has a lot of smaller muscle movements that takes more precise attention to evaluate and re-execute if it gets done wrong.
I attended the Simunitions Instructor and Safety Course after I had attended a few FoF training courses. What that course taught me is the importance of:
(a) Having Instructors who fully understand what the purpose for each scenarios are for.
(b) The importance of Safety Officers who follow the appropriate Safety Protocols.
(c) The importance of Role Players who are not there to play paintball, laser tag, or Doom.
To be useful, FoF training should be organized for the purposes of either to TRAIN and/or EVALUATE. This is where the importance of knowledgeable Instructors who can keep their Role Players under control either via well-written and understandable scripts and/or by on the spot corrections.
It is also very important to provide relevant feedback and constructive criticism as soon as possible. It is also important to provide the trainees the opportunity to correct their actions by allowing them to run through whatever scenario that they performed below the expected standards.
Be aware of so-called Instructors who set up scenarios where the trainees are set up to fail. JM2CW.
ADDED: One thing that people should be aware when participating in FoF training is the fact that there will be “Training Artificialities” present. Sim rounds and Airsoft pellets do not go through solid objects (ie: car door, windows, etc.). What i also found out is that because I know that I am not going to get killed when participating in FoF scenarios, I tend to take risks than I hope I would not in a real gunfight.
Excellent points. In regards to this quote, One interesting experience I had was a “trash bag house” at the MOUT facility at MCCDC, Quantico. It was a 3-4 room structure w/ a wooden frame and walls made of trash bags. We only did one run through it, but Sim rounds going back and forth through the “walls” made a big impression. A great learning point.
I absolutely agree with this full post (I snipped for simplicity’s sake).
I have seen very well-meaning “instructors” degrade Simunition Exercises into real-life, Halo style shoot-outs, devoid of any training value.
Unknowing individuals thought it was the coolest thing they have ever done. Experienced individuals recognized it as simunition masturbation.
Ok, who can recommend a sound East Coast Fof trainer?
FWIW if anyone is setting up this kind of thing, you can achieve the same effect using black plastic sheeting available at most home improvement or gardening shops. The sheets are usually wide enough that you can just cut off one piece per wall section.
Much better than real indoor walls which will stop FX rounds. The two drawbacks I’ve found are that after a few holes have been shot through the walls it’s sometimes too easy to see what’s happening on the other side, and the frame/plastic sheet construction doesn’t hold up to dynamic movement if people are pushed or fall against the walls.