Body Cover or Not?

Scab

24/7; just to expand on my point and to put a reminder to everyone else; bullets are not the only things principals get attacked with... Thrown, sharp, blunt, unarmed... Each would require a different response, of which body cover in the traditional sense may well be an option depending on the tactical situation & danger to the principal and the CPO's.

24/7

100% with you on that scab, I just went with one option otherwise I could have gone on all day mate.

24/7

mts, there are no secret's being passed on here mate, this info is available in any book shop, plus its commen sence stuff to any self respecting bad guy or girl who would first do their home work. But I understand where you are coming from and certain things do need to be kept quite.

Hippo

Many different drills are taught for RTA (reaction to attack) by many Instructors with varying amount of training, experience plus how old their reference material is. Although all teaching should follow the sia training objectives, many of these were written using out dated doctrine and many would argue many people had input into the TO's without the necessary background and certainley not for a hostile Iraq/Afghan like situauions.
I believe all teams during their training or on induction of a new team member should pratice or whiteboard that teams RTA for all types of attack. During this training or wargaming each team member can add by saying if drills are out of date, irrelevant due to threat or experience from a similar incident backed up with full detals. Likewise basic drills can be adapted for manpower, vehicles, kit and equipment available to that team. Then it'll be upto the TL or someone else in the chain of command to direct which drills will be used and all the team will be on the same song sheet. The need to keep up with current trends and never discount the old ones by the enemy and other teams after action reviews / incidents reports even if they are editted can not be over stated.
Body cover is a tool in the tool box and I believe could be used in an egg throwing / pie in the face incident, not that common in Iraq or used by Islamic Fundamentalists to the best of my knowledge.
The other question to ask what is he/she armed with?

Well thats my two pennth.

Scab

Hippo, the UK sia license based training is not intended for HE. Its all permissive environment based.

Merv

My thoughts just to add to the mix.
AVOID (The situation arising)
ESCAPE (The danger killing area)
CONFRONT (confront only to escape)
In this order, this is what sets us apart from Mercs, who go straight to confront.

Merv

Merv

Just wondering how the sia course is not meant for HE?
It is what is is a starting point for some.
I have carried out en bus de bus drill in IRAQ/AFGAN/LONDON and Europe and they have all been the same! How is 360 observation any differnt? How is not setting patterns differnt? How is forming a protective bubble differnt? How is having guys cover specific threat areas any differnt? How are anti and counter surveilance drills differnt? etc etc
The only difference is the tools i have used or had aviliable ie Weapons because thats all they are at the end of day a tool to be used correctly. Just because you are in a whistle does not mean that you do not use your drills if you were wearing a COT vest. It does not matter if you are protecting the principle from a form of embarssment, custard pie,knife attack,AK47 or an RCIED How can you say the drills are differnt.
Keep the basics.
Merv

Scab

This threads subject matter is reaction to attack; and seems to revolve around reaction to attack from weapons.

Ambush reactions, fire & manuvure, protecting the boss from incoming rounds is not a threat that would often be entertained working in the UK and should it be.

Fulcrum

Interesting points raised here. In the past our American colleagues have been taught to close in around the Principal and evacuate. However in every attack they firstly tried to locate the attacker and then jump on them. Examples are Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan both came under attack when leaving high profile venues in both cases the Principal was evacuated in their vehicle by a Close Protection Operator and the attacker restrained by 10 individuals in John Wayne Hinkley's case whilst two lay bleeding until somebody took control of the situation.
Taking control of the Principal by the scruff of the neck or whatever tactic appeals to you has to be the priority since the natural reaction of flight or fight takes over, more often flight. If they are not controlled they will sprint faster than an Olympic runner into the distance giving you the added problem of finding the quivering heap.

jmaccauley

Don't mistake the training with those examples you gave. There are many more examples of less high profile cases where the protectors actually have covered and evacuated their principles. Reagan and Ford were USSS cases that involved a whole different set of rules of engagement and a bunker mentality common for that time period. The natural reaction of responding to the threat first has been (hopefully) trained out of the agents. This, however, assumes that PPS agents are drilled in these response techniques. Those two high profile cases have been examined in great detail, thus the change in training. Although the threat was neutralized by many agents, the principle was covered and evacuated immediately by other agents tasked with that responsibility.

Military and large scale details often are hindered by their numbers. Police SWAT members on the other hand, are more disciplined with their areas of responsibility and are more likely to react according to their training.

Most civilian CP/EP members don't have the luxury of intense and frequent drilling and will probably react by searching for and identifying the threat. That is not an American thing, or any other specific country's philosophy, but more of a natural instinct.

Jerry