[JLW1974]

Just as the title asks. Which would be better a clearing a building, SWAT Police versus Military?

I think both have trained for it, but I would l think for those in the Military who have had real combat experience in clearing buildings in say Iraq or Afghan would be better prepared.

Thoughts? Examples please.

 

[Revelation]

That will be difficult to answer.

SWAT have been training for clearing buildings a lot longer than the military. Up until the last 8 years or so, only Spec Ops in the military really received this type of training, the average infantry soldier had no use for it.

SWAT, the term in general, have been training and utilizing their training for a lot longer. They have actually gone into dangerous locations and engaged combatants. To discredit their experience, simply because it wasn't in Afghanistan, is asinine.

 

[juskom95]

We trained with the local SWAT teams, used the same buildings (they used ours) we had the same instructors (a mix of both) etc.

It would come down to experience most likely, and that is a very individual thing which varies between teams.

 

[Bearack]

I have to give it to SWAT as the majority of their training revolves around entering structures and clearing each location as a conducive unit.

Not to down play the military's ability, but they train in everything from field combat, building clearing, chemical warfare, scavenging and combat survival to being able to suture a fellow comrade.

For a great cake, I'd get a baker but a chef has the same ability but just is more of a jack of all trades.

 

[controlledpress]

Clearing is definately a vague topic here.

Do you want the building to be mostly undamaged. Then SWAT.

Don't care about the building, just want the current inhabitants out of there... Military.

 

[n1oc]

hmmm....

grenade or flash bang? be safe.

PS. of course the military can use flash bangs too, but they can crank it up a notch.

 

[Runamok]

Just on speculation I would have to say SWAT. Their main reason of existence is forced entry into structures (such as hostage situations) whereas the military is only doing house clearing if necessary and it's just one of their many maneuvers that they must perform. Now, a unit in Iraq that does house to house all day every day going against a SWAT team from a rural county that does one entry per quarter would be an obvious case where the military would be better. All things being equal though, SWAT.

 

[juskom95]

Just on speculation I would have to say SWAT. Their main reason of existence is forced entry into structures (such as hostage situations) whereas the military is only doing house clearing if necessary and it's just one of their many maneuvers that they must perform. Now, a unit in Iraq that does house to house all day every day going against a SWAT team from a rural county that does one entry per quarter would be an obvious case where the military would be better. All things being equal though, SWAT.

The Military Police do have dedicated teams within their groups. They are the SRT group, they perform the same job as SWAT and are dedicated to that mission. :thumb:

Fun training too. :

 

[IronLegion]

When SWAT leaves, the building is still structurally secure.

When the Army leaves, there is major structural damage, one corner was crushed by a tank, but it is still standing.

When the Marines leave, there is a pile of rubble.

When the Air Force leaves, there is a burnt out crater.

The Navy sends the Marines.

When the Federal government leaves, the building is completely destroyed, but you are told it has never been in better shape.

When the Chicago PD leaves, HEY! WHADYA LOOKIN AT?!?!? MOVE ALONG!!

 

[NHP1127]

Completely depends on what military units. Some train much more at it than others. Military has a much better selection of weapons and different rules of engagement.... they can use real fragmentation grenades, hand held rockets, etc rather than just stun or flash grenades.

A good Swat team would be doing lots of training on building clearing but hampered by collateral civilian issues and local politics.

 

[usmc0341]

Here is a really simple answer.

The military trains in MOUT (Military Operations Urban Terrain) while similar to CQB (SWAT Tactics) it is different because In this scenario collateral damage is not as big of a worry as it would be in, say, downtown New York. So instead of using the doorway like the enemy expects, we put a SMAW rocket with a thermobaric warhead through the wall or use an AAV to punch through the wall. The only hard and fast rule in MOUT is that ANYTHING that works goes.

SWAT specialize in barricaded suspects, hostage situations, ect In America their weapons and munitions available really drive their tactics. I.E. can't use a SMAW to make a new doorway from a safe covered and concealed location or put a couple canister rounds from an Abrams into a crowd or living room.

SWAT tactics focus on moving slower, keeping friendly casualties to a minimum, and taking precise shots because they are accountable for every single round fired in a court of law whereas MOUT focuses on moving quickly, securing large areas, lots of troops involved, air to ground assets, and typically many more opposing forces than SWAT will ever face in a single encounter.

The Marine Corps does have a CQB school down in Chesapeake, Va that I have had the pleasure of attending and while there I learned the differences between MOUT and CQB.
MOUT focuses primarily on actions outside the buildings and clearing buildings are only a small part of the overall plan whereas CQB primarily focuses on tactics INSIDE the building and it is usually assumed that the environment for CQB is a semi-permissible one vice an outright hostile environment such as Fallujah, Ramadi, and Baghdad.

SO to answer your question I would have to say that it would really depend on the situation, mission, enemy, time, and terrain to give you a solid answer to your question. Also depends on who is defending the "objective" Is it RPG and HMG armed terrorists or some upset person that is holding someone hostage with a handgun?

 

[usmc0341]

Also keep in mind that building clearing is only a small part of an average infantry mans training. They also are trained in a specific series of weapons systems, conventional warfare tactics (boat, helo, and track assault platforms, beach invasions, NEO operations, ect) and also unconventional COIN operations. They typically tend to be jack of all trades and masters of none since simply maintaining proficiency in all of the above skill sets is taxing in peacetime and especially during open warfare so they tend to be passably good in all of the above.

 

[Demianu27]

Trick question. A K-9 is actually the best.

 

[Old Warrior]

That will be difficult to answer.

SWAT have been training for clearing buildings a lot longer than the military. Up until the last 8 years or so, only Spec Ops in the military really received this type of training, the average infantry soldier had no use for it.

Not so much. The Army trained for "Combat in Cities" prior to D-Day in WWII.
I was assigned to Berlin Brigade 1973-1976, and Parks Range was a Combat in Cities training site, later refered to as a M.O.U.T. site. There were buildings there from the late 50s & early 60s. I believe the term used now is Urban Combat.

We were trained to clear buildings, and take up defensive fighting positions in them. We also didn't expect to last very long being surrounded by several Soviet Divisions either. That is if they even cared to bother with us at all.

 

[Castle71]

I have to go with rephrasing the question or adding more detail. As noted, without specifics its a hard call. I'll have to go with SWAT for hostage rescue or collateral concerns. Military for the overall win if you just want a house full of bad guys removed one way or another.

 

[rover]

Not so much. The Army trained for "Combat in Cities" prior to D-Day in WWII.
I was assigned to Berlin Brigade 1973-1976, and Parks Range was a Combat in Cities training site, later refered to as a M.O.U.T. site. There were buildings there from the late 50s & early 60s. I believe the term used now is Urban Combat.

We were trained to clear buildings, and take up defensive fighting positions in them. We also didn't expect to last very long being surrounded by several Soviet Divisions either. That is if they even cared to bother with us at all.

Bypass centers of resistance and take route of least resistance.
Soviets had special units for urban areas of resistance. Totally different training and weapons deployed.

Or just Nuke the city, or gas it, artillery, ect...


SWAT would have been my choice 10 years ago. I think the military might have them beat at it now.

 

[OldBlackWater]

Seems like a silly question really.

All I care about is being one going in, not being one inside.

.

 

[WILL]

I'd have to say the military. They have the ability to do surgical operations in units such as the SEALS, DELTA, ect. The military also has the ability to address more dangerous and expansive operations that would totally overwhelm a SWAT team..

 

[RangerBack]

It depends on who you are comparing SWAT with. Are you talking SEALs, Rangers, Delta, Infantry, or Apache's?

 

[JLW1974]

Even though my question was vague at best, I am kinda glade I kept it that way as some of the responses have been really informative and should I have been more specific in my inquiry, might have not conjured the responses received.

I have never really thought about using a Tank/Dog to clear a building/unit. That opens things up a little bit (like maybe a car/truck/skunk, etc.).

Thinking of the T.V. series 'Top Sniper' where you have people from all over the world from all different divisions (i.e. Military, SWAT, Spec.Ops, French Legions, Regular PD, etc.) in various situations (Heli, woods, Urban, vehicle, etc.) and it made me think of CQB situations.

Now from a defensive position, for those who have had CQB/Clearing type training, what kind of defensive tactics would you employ or are you of the belief that if They are Coming For You, You are S.O.L.?