| TheIceMan | Date: Tuesday, 2013-01-08, 15:30 | Message # 31 |
Group: NCO
Messages: 596
Awards: 1
Status: Offline
| I just found another very nice website. With kinda different content than is here in a thread: you can find videos, pictures, text, about tactics inside and outside areas etc. really worthy at least look at it: http://tgace.com/category/tactics/
No Retreat No Surrender
|
| |
| |
| Rye | Date: Wednesday, 2013-01-09, 03:14 | Message # 32 |
|
Group: Registered
Messages: 61
Awards: 0
Status: Offline
| It's a good website on the whole but ours is far superior when it comes to CQC. I don't like his writings because:
1. He either references to a US Army manual, supporting video or doesn't at all. When he doesn't, he likes to "use" his own work but with no concept on how he got that information or anything that could solidify it. It's kind of the "take it from my experience" superficial way of teaching people. I've met the type, and they do no good - you can't argue for a subject or against because they'll break you down by trying to one-up you, no matter what. When he references manuals, you have to realize that these things are easy to get online and can be 30-40+ years old! They can be inapplicable or totally outdated. And even worse when you reference videos you have to remember there are a lot of dipshits out there saying "do this" and a tonne of those tacticool youtubers and evidently bloggers.
2. The people who comment and "hang-about" tend to show the quality of your work. He has civilians and even flipping "end of the world" haunters mixed in with LE and MIL/EX-MIL. Also, a comments section does not allow for adequate discussion and usually ends up with a youtube like sentence: "This is outdated", "this doesn't work like that", "you don't do it like that" or some positive "Yeah we do it like that", "Cool". Artificial, superficial nothingness. "Yeah, I know a tactic now. Supercool". If you look at their Facebook it tends to be very mixed and very iffy from my perspective.
3. He has some good concepts but I think are slightly outdated or where we've done it, have done it better and with more discussion. His example with the pull doors and "Bad JuJu" - well it's simply the strong versus weak side of the door. IF you think strong versus weak and not "Bad JuJu" then it's an official wordage that is easy to remember. You're not going to become a mechanic and teach someone that the piston is the "thing that moves up and down in the cylinder". You're going to teach officially the stages of the engine process, TDC/BDC, so on and therefore again I promote that as bad teaching to a general audience, especially with a blog.
What do I like, if anything, about his writings:
1. The unique pictures.
Yeah, if we had someone who could make us some pro looking sharps then we could get 100 more pages squeezed out of it. What's in our head we have to articulate, keyword: articulate. With a picture he can just shove it in there and put a paragraph; again, superficial but nice and pretty; illustrates the point.
2. Some, again.... some... of the comments. Some people come up with better discussion in the comments section, and better "tips".
Better blogs are like this: http://tacticalrenegade.blogspot.com.au/ - Yeah it may not be fully finished and I may be bias knowing who makes it but it has points, it has references and it's solidified knowledge. Take a bite. On the other hand - tgace is a member on our forums, he is a police Lt but blogging on tactical concepts can take a lot of pre-thought compared to simply discussing it on a forum. You're trying to give off already pre-defined information, that's hard.
Message edited by Rye - Friday, 2013-01-11, 03:01 |
| |
| |
