Please download this PowerPoint to view the .gifs and embedded videos properly. Estimated ~200mb download. Close Quarters Battle. Immediate versus Limited Entries by Rye from CQB-TEAM. Enjoy!

1. Immediate versus Limited
Entries
“Rye”
CQB-TEAM
https://www.facebook.com/CQBteam
http://cqb-team.com/cqbforum/
FEEL FREE TO POST THIS ANYWHERE AND EVERYWHERE. CREDITS AND COMPLAINTS GO TO RYAN AT CQB-TEAM. THANK YOU!

2. Introduction
This PowerPoint presentation was made to inform the reader of the differences
between two different methodologies featured around room entries.
The first methodology, immediate entries, are seen and used globally. They are
taught as standard practice in most schools. The second methodology, limited
entries, are seen within specific context and mission profiles. They are not taught
as standard practice in most schools and in some schools they are neglected
completely due to misconceptions or under knowledge of the subject area.
This PowerPoint presentation will differentiate both methodologies. It will give the
reader a perspective on both entries. Both mutually deserve a place in the toolbox
for Law Enforcement and Military alike.

3. Why Should I Care?
• The approach is usually covered for most operations. For example
with an overwatch team. There is relative safety in approach.
• The entry and there after is the area in which most people get hurt.
Inside the building there are many areas which are not covered and
need to be cleared by the entry team. This is an entry teams job.
In short:
• Learning more about the entry process can save your team.
• You become better at your job.
• You will learn to consider the action and the consequence of entry.

4. Above: Navy SEAL enters as soon the door is open. An Immediate Entry.

5. Operational Definitions
• Entry – The act or process of moving in through an access or entry point.
• Immediate Entries – Moving into the room as soon as the entrypoint is clear or the access point is
made available. For example as soon as the door is open or a grenade used. This is also known as
a blind entry in some circles. It is the most practiced type of entry from the “stack.”
• Limited Entries – Clearing most of the room from outside and deciding whether or not to move in.
Once inside, limiting yourself as to not “over-penetrate” the room to “exposing angles” and
follow-on terrain. The aim is not to enter immediately, when it is risky or when it is unnecessary.
• Denied Access – An entry point which is contested. Entering the room would equal casualties.
This is also known as a catastrophic entry, where the entry fails and casualties are sustained.
• Contested Room – A room or entry point which is contested by the enemy, for example they are
engaging the doorway or the enemy is known to be within the room, denying access.

6. Worst-Case Scenarios and Bias
When we think of immediate versus limited entries, we often think of the worst case
scenarios possible. Due to the extent and sheer magnitude of Military and Law
Enforcement operations, this is may not be a regular occurrence for entry team members.
For some, catastrophic entry will never happen. It is important for this PowerPoint to
acknowledge that it is bias when it looks at the worst possible scenarios.
These include:
• An immediate, prepared and orientated threat on the entry point.
• An improvised explosive device or other boobytrap.
• A denied entry in which the entry team cannot enter the room or cross threshold
without casualties e.g. fire at the doorway.
Although uncommon, it is important to acknowledge that these scenarios happen!

7. Worst-Case Scenario Example #1
Above: Arizona SWAT get caught in a hail of gunfire while attempting entry.

8. Worst-Case Scenario Example #2
Above: 2 Commando Regiment, Australian Special Forces, are caught in a firefight at the door of an
outbuilding. Six heavily armed Taliban, a PKM machinegun trained on the door. After six grenades and three
attempted entries the building is taken by the Australians. One Commando was killed during the final entry.
In both of these scenarios, an immediate entry has lead to denied access and a contested room.

9. Thinking From The Enemy Point of View
What are the best ways to defend a room from an entry team?
• Access and Area Denial –
• Engage the entry point.
• Boobytrap the entry point.
• Funnel entry team members into a killzone e.g. the fatal funnel.
• Create a one-sided gunfight or create a one-on-one gunfight.
• Tactical Dilemmas –
• Split targets so an entry team member will have the opportunity to only
engage one target and neglect the other.
• Use hostages or civilians as “meat shields.”

10. So how the hell do we “win” against that type of enemy?!
Do we immediately enter, clear our corners and hit our Points of
Domination? Do we engage them from the door then target the
remaining area of the room? What options do we have?!
To enter or not to enter, that is the question…

11. What are the Main Theoretical Differences?
Immediate Entry:
• You move into the room as soon as access to the entry point is available.
You engage while moving into or from a set point, or after a set action,
within the room. I.e. after clearing your initial hardcorner.
• The purpose is mainly orientated towards a surprise-driven method of
entering with the ability to sustain casualties and flow against threats.
Limited Entry:
• There is a decision process by the operator as whether to enter the entry
or avoid it. You engage from the door, within concealment or cover.
• The purpose is for operator survivability and awareness in response to
threat. It may dissolve into leaving the building and retargeting it.

12. Immediate versus Limited Entries Differences
Above: Immediate Entry (left) versus Limited Entry (right).
You will note that the left image puts multiple operators in danger within a short amount of time looking to
engage on the movement or while entering. It puts whole bodies in the doorway in an attempt to enter.
Whereas the right image engages threats that can engage the door, from the door, before moving their whole
body into the room and clearing the remaining area. These are the main differences between them.

13. How do people trained on Immediate Entries
view Limited Entries?
• Usually it is general acceptance that if you are alone, you clear from
outside before moving in. Instructors teach pieing and other limited
entry concepts with more emphasis if it is an individual clearance.
• When it comes to team tactics, immediate entries are seen as the
golden standard. Often anyone seen doing differently are seen as
being in the wrong (and often seen as tactically inferior for differing).
• Limited entries are seen as being in the wrong because they do not
“push through the fatal funnel” and they “linger at the door.”
• Often movies, documentaries, images, training programs and other
forms of media or tactical training promotes immediate entries only.

14. Limited Entry Problems #1
What limitations are there?
• Shooting through the wall –
• You can get shot through a wall in an immediate and limited entry.
• Lingering in the doorway can increase the risk of this.
• Limited entries were made and are used primarily in places with thick walls.
• Contested hallways –
• Hallways need security such as a hallwayman or hall boss.
• These entries often require external and security.
• This is the same for immediate entries when it comes to stack security.

15. Limited Entry Problems #2
What limitations are there?
• Lingering in the doorway –
• This is often a mistake of the operator. It is not recommended for any limited
entry to linger in the doorway.
• Staying within the doorway too long leads to compromise and to enemy
engagement of the doorway.
• Not all threats can be dealt with from the door –
• Some threats require different tactics i.e. deep, barricaded threats.
• Limited entries therefore may fail, as will immediate entries.
• It is important to have a back-up tactics and techniques such as a Stand Off
Attack, Wait-Out, Enveloping, Direct-to-Threat, Breaking-In or Fix-In-Place
procedures.

16. Limited Entry Problems Example #1
Above: The main critique with limited entries comes to hallway and
external security. Limitations include contested hallways.

17. Limited Entry Problems Example #2
Above: Russian Spetsnaz hone limited entry techniques. When a
grenade is encountered, the situation becomes crisis mode.
Grenades are bad!

18. Limited Entry Problems Example #3
Above: French Special Police transition to limited entry on encounter
with threat. They keep the threat at a distance. Note the problems?
They need to train more on limited entries!

19. How do people trained on Limited Entries
view Immediate Entries?
• Usually it is accepted that pushing into a doorway with your body is
overly dangerous and leads to blind risk-taking behaviour. In other
words, suicidal behaviour.
• Immediate entries are not seen as a tacticians friend when surprise is
no longer absolute or when the enemy is trained at the doorway.
• Immediate entries are not seen as the default entry method.
• They are seen as dogmatic when done constantly and without
consideration to the threat, terrain or nature of the firefight.
• They are often showboated by the media as the “go-to” methodology.

20. Immediate Entry Problems #1
What limitations are there?
• Entering immediately can get you hurt –
• You may push into a muzzle or killzone.
• You ignore the geometry at play and the tactical significance of it by entering
without regard for it. Understanding the “room anatomy” should guide entry.
• Shooting on the move is harder than shooting stationary from the door.
• Pushing through the “fatal funnel” is not always the solution –
• As above, pushing through funnelled terrain does not equal survivability
when the threat is trained upon that piece of terrain.
• This may actually decrease your survivability and get you or your team hurt.

21. Immediate Entry Problems #2
What limitations are there?
• Surprise is not absolute –
• Surprise can be lost in numerous ways. Compromise (shadow, sound, vision)
can limit success, e.g. through CCTV, seen on approach, explosive charge.
• There are many exposing points during entry –
• Flank and rear exposure is common. Tunnel vision is common.
• There is often a gap of dispersion between each individual entry team
member. This gap represents time in which the enemy can engage the
pointman and the entry point.
• Clearing corners first while ignoring the threat exposes you to fire.

22. Immediate Entry Problems Example #1
Above: Entering immediately exposes operators. Flank exposure is
common, entering often leaves the team in a disadvantaged position.

23. Immediate Entry Problems Example #2
Above: Immediate Entry Problems video #1 by High Threat Systems LLC.

24. Immediate Entry Problems Example #3
Above: Immediate Entry Problems video #2 by High Threat Systems LLC.

25. How do these differences translate to reality?
Short answer: life or death. SURVIVAL.
• Running into a muzzle is bad news. Immediate entries teach this as
standard. Hardly any emphasis is made on clearing a contested room
or doorway. There is also limited emphasis on entries without
surprise or diversion. This can create false, almost suicidal, ideology
towards entering a contested room.
• Most immediate entries are practiced against paper targets which
develop confidence in these concepts. These concepts breakdown
under fire – they have poor behavioural compliance. They do not
meet the natural behaviour of humans under threat.
• Entering immediately is often surprise-orientated and surprise-reliant.

26. General Recommendations
• Tactical teams must consider both entry methods in order to be at the peak
of performance.
• Generally speaking immediate entries inherent great risks against threats.
• Immediate entries often rely on surprise to be effective.
• Immediate entries may breakdown catastrophically against prepared and
orientated threats. Further progressing through the entry point could lead
to further casualties.
• Limited entries allow operators to clear and engage from outside, and
inform further tactical decisions before making entry.
• Limited entries as default are theoretically safer for tactical teams.

27. Entry Golden Rules
• Survivability
• The entry must be made in a way to offer best survival for the entry team. Without the entry
team, hostages and civilians die. Bad guys live on.
• The method of entering and engaging threats depends on the type of threat, their
preparation and readiness. Different tactics, techniques and procedures are required for
barricaded threats versus non-barricaded immediate threats, for example.
• Sustainability
• The entry must be able to sustain casualties. Casualties happen in close combat no matter
the tactics used. Lessening the number of casualties, and aiding the way we extract them and
destroy the threat, though, is within our scope as tacticians.
• No tactic is perfect. No plan survives first contact. The plan therefore should be to maximize
your teams potential when you have injured and your plan goes to crap!
• Repeatability
• The entry must be reproducible against real threats as opposed to paper targets or
mishandled Force-on-Force training.
• It must also be easily reproduced practically, allowing consistency. Especially while fatigued.

28. Immediate Entry Recommendations
• Develop a reactionary gap into entries in order to engage immediate
threats before meeting threshold and to cease entry as required.
• When entering, limit the gap of dispersion between entry team members
to quicken entry and prevent enemy exploitation.
• Create space but allow mutual support between operators once inside the
room.
• Attempt to prevent over-exposure once inside the room. Limit advance
until the initial area of the room is clear, then look to clear obstacles.
• Use distractions and support assets as necessary.
• Be capable of falling back on other tactics and techniques.

29. Immediate Entry Success Stories!
Above: An Immediate Entry is successful with use of a
fragmentation grenade prior to entry.

30. Limited Entry Recommendations
• Clear most of the room from outside. Exploit as many angles as possible
before entry, including through windows and doorways.
• Stay in concealment and cover, if possible, when initiating the engagement.
• Put two muzzles on one threat and split operators when possible. Attempt
to create a tactical dilemma for the enemy.
• Do not over-expose as you engage from the doorway or entry point. Look
to limit exposure while providing a stable engagement platform.
• Try not to protrude the muzzle beyond cover or concealment.
• Be capable of entering immediately as required or pulling away from the
entry point, especially when access is still denied or not worth the risk.

31. Limited Entry Success Stories!
Above: A Limited Entry is successful to kill a hostage-taker and
free the hostage. A flashbang is used.

32. Testimonials of Limited Entries
• "Traditional dynamic entry/immediate entry style CQB clearance methods
show obvious tactical disadvantages against prepared or barricaded
defenders. What is needed is a shift in thinking and training in the way CQB
is conducted, with the priority becoming gaining an immediate tactical
advantage, leading to greater survivability. The traditional ‘SWAT style’
dynamic room entry and clearance technique is already old hat. It has been
replaced at the top end with better ‘combat clearance’ and ‘fighting from
the door-style’ techniques.” – Max Velocity.
• "Your room clearing theory is spot on. My platoon did a lot of house to
house in Iraq, and I wish we had learned your method properly to begin
with instead of doing it out of trial and error on the fly. In real firefights,
limited penetration is used almost instinctively. It's a lot different when you
run out of flashbangs.” – Nathan Wagnar.

33. Transition Between Entries
I would like to finish with one final concept. Transitioning between entry
methods. Often it is noted that when immediate entries “fail”, operators fall
back on limited entries, fighting from the door or outside of the room. This is
an important concept for tactical teams to consider.
When immediate entries turn to failure, operators often turn to survivability.
Staying out of the room is more survivable than entering. Limited entries
therefore occur commonly as a fallback tactic. Likewise, when limited entries
are successful, there is still an area of the room to clear. An immediate entry
may be used to clear that area.
Both tactics work in mutuality to clear the room and clear threats.

34. Immediate to Limited Entry Transition
Above: Left, a US Green Beret transitions to limited entries on encountering a close contact. Right, SWAT
members transition to limited entry on receiving fire as one member of the team immediately enters.

35. Conclusion
Limited entries should be seen as default in any tacticians toolbox. They are
safer for the operator and for the team. Behaviours orientated towards
survival offer compliance to this standard.
In order to use limited entries effectively, a tactician must understand the
limitations and tactical concepts that make up such an entry including when
and when not to use it, fallback options and other tactical considerations.
A tactician must also form immediate entry methodologies where required,
but with consideration of the potential consequences when used against
prepared, immediate threats. Immediate entries must minimize operator
errors to be as effective as possible when used against a threat-to-life.
FEEL FREE TO POST THIS ANYWHERE AND EVERYWHERE. CREDITS AND COMPLAINTS GO TO RYAN AT CQB-TEAM. THANK YOU!