People argue that the offensive shields we use are pointless because 'they cover the same plate rather than other areas, such as the legs and head.' However, this argument neglects the fact that the protection of the plate—underneath several other pieces of kit like magazines, for instance—isn't as extensive as that provided by a larger surface such as an offensive shield.
What about the neck area, armpits, and biceps?
Ever considered how dire such outcomes would be?
In reality, the selection and practicality of a shield are contingent on the task at hand. Depending on the level of threat, we might opt for speed and leave the shield at the breaching point. Sometimes, we might rely on shields that offer protection without significantly reducing our mobility. At other times, we might opt for defensive shields, which provide a higher level of protection—both in terms of durability and functionality—especially when we're undertaking a defensive task. It's a matter of perception and operational need.
Consider this: We've included a short video illustrating an encounter between the first person entering a room and an ambush. We track hits on both sides for various reasons. We're interested in 'where' the shots hit the shield (the incident angles) versus 'whether' the shield could stop them, or whether the round would deflect due to handling.
Now, put yourself in the shoes of the person in this scenario. If you were that individual, would you prefer to use the shield in that moment or opt for the traditional approach of moving forward with the plate?
This isn't about winning arguments, it's about understanding practical necessities and making informed decisions.
FEW POINTS.
Further, when we speak of shields and their operational viability, it's essential to understand that shields aren't just about protection; they are also about adaptability, as we view protection as a weapon - it gives options, especially when the worse take place. A critical element of a shield's effectiveness is its user flexibility to different situations, and how the end user know to manipulate his shield to the settings and context.
THREAT PROBABILITY CORRELATES WITH LEVEL OF PROTECTION.
The Veer-6 ballistic shield used by SOBR captain Viktor Timofeev during a 2016 operation in Derbent.
For instance, if a shield is too heavy, it could hinder the user's mobility, making them an easy target - unless used properly. On the other hand, a shield of lower protection may be lighter and thus will provide great mobility, which in return… may be a component of safety by itself. This dynamic interplay of factors is what makes shield selection such a critical process. that’s where knowing the type of threat we are against, and the probability of that threat - is key in determining what type of shield we would pick and for what situation.
IDENTIFY YOUR MISSION / TASK PROFILE.
Sturm ballistic shield of Russian SOBR trooper killed in anti-ISIS op in Derbent sunday 2 SOBRs & 4 Tangos KIA
Different scenarios also require different types of shields. A shield with a viewport tend to provide better ballistic protection to the area of the face, whereas offensive type of shields for example do not as the design focus on compromising protection for mobility. In contrast, a shield without a viewport might be more suitable for a quick, aggressive breach where speed is critical. what’s the point? well, if we are going to hold a certain area for a prolonged amount of time, I might prefer a bigger shield that allows for more protection. do I need to prioritize speed? i might go for simpler shields, that might offer less than the traditional cover of a shield, but instead, allow me to be faster and more mobile.
Moreover, the specific threat level also determines the choice of shield. In high-risk situations, where there is a greater chance of encountering heavy firepower, the need for a robust, defensive shield is paramount. In lower risk situations, a lighter, offensive shield might suffice.
Does the threat is barricaded?
Is the threat very / not oriented on the entry point?
Do I need the shield for the initial movement/breach?
Now, consider the dangers when a shield isn't used. The exposed areas—the neck, armpits, and biceps—are vulnerable to severe injuries. The consequences could range from debilitating injuries that could end a career to fatal injuries that could end a life.
To appreciate the complexity of these choices, imagine being the first person entering a room in a high-risk situation. Do you opt for the more traditional approach, trusting your plate and quick reflexes? Or do you use a shield, potentially compromising mobility for the sake of comprehensive protection?
In conclusion, the discussion surrounding the use of offensive shields is complex, multi-layered, and contingent upon specific operational requirements. To summarize:
Shield selection is influenced by various factors such as mobility, visibility, and adaptability to different situations.
Different situations demand different shields—with or without viewports, heavy or light.
The level of threat is crucial in determining the type of shield used.
The risks of not using a shield include severe, potentially life-threatening injuries to exposed areas.
The decision to use a shield versus moving forward with the plate involves a trade-off between comprehensive protection and mobility.
Understanding these complexities isn't just about winning arguments but about appreciating the life-saving decisions made in high-risk situations and the necessity of informed choices. This understanding allows us to respect the tactical balance between protection and mobility that individuals in the line of duty constantly navigate
we hope you enjoyed this article!