While there's no argument that training provides an advantage in a life-or-death survival situation, it also does not give a guarantee that the trainee will perform in a like manner during the real event. Training methodologies have improved and are closing the "gap" between practice and reality, but as long as there are safety controls in training (obviously a must) there will be one factor that cannot be duplicated. It was mentioned in another thread that improper training was the root of a "failure". In this arena, failure means death. Just to demonstrate that the situation is a bit more complex, I offer this video that documents a SWAT team in California executing an entry against barricaded suspects with hostages in a failed bank robbery. The video is not extremely graphic, as it's shot from a distance.
While I feel I've provided enough "graphic" video evidence to support some of the talking points, I wanted those interested to see how even individuals with an exceptional amount of training (SWAT) can produce unpredictable performances under pressure. Note that as the team begins its entry, the suspects fire out through the doors. See how all of the team retreats to cover, except for the lone officer who remains in the funnel. This is certainly not how this scenario is trained to be executed, but we don't have access to the mike comms during this siege to know what was exchanged. I found it interesting to see that only one guy remained in the fight. So, you never know for sure how an individual will react. We merely have to train as close to the actual event as possible, so that as many factors as possible can be replicated. Having more options "already decided" saves our computing power for immediate-need tasks.
Lee
While I feel I've provided enough "graphic" video evidence to support some of the talking points, I wanted those interested to see how even individuals with an exceptional amount of training (SWAT) can produce unpredictable performances under pressure. Note that as the team begins its entry, the suspects fire out through the doors. See how all of the team retreats to cover, except for the lone officer who remains in the funnel. This is certainly not how this scenario is trained to be executed, but we don't have access to the mike comms during this siege to know what was exchanged. I found it interesting to see that only one guy remained in the fight. So, you never know for sure how an individual will react. We merely have to train as close to the actual event as possible, so that as many factors as possible can be replicated. Having more options "already decided" saves our computing power for immediate-need tasks.
Lee