We do hold the notion that nothing should be regarded as a ballistic cover, as cover (visual vs ballistic) is subjected to time. Sooner or later, the opponent moves or alter his course of action.
Can it be that the use of cover should be regarded as circumstantial? Rather than hide/stop bullets?
What is interesting about time, from the "tactical" perspective, is that time is similar to how terrain influence decision-making, in the sense that time much like terrain, can only be traversed once.
Traditionally, we perceive cover as physical objects or obstructions used to conceal oneself from an adversary or shield from incoming fire. Still, this perspective could be limiting and potentially dangerous.
Firstly, it is vital to remember that not all covers are equal. There is a distinct difference between visual cover and ballistic cover. Visual cover allows one to conceal their movements and positions, avoiding detection. Ballistic cover, on the other hand, is designed to absorb or deflect the impact of incoming projectiles or shrapnel.
However, labeling anything as a ballistic cover could instigate a false sense of security. This misconception might arise from the notion that the cover, be it a wall, vehicle, or other obstructions, is invincible. In reality, many factors like the type of weapon being used, the angle of the shot, and the distance, can significantly alter its effectiveness. Therefore, it's more appropriate to consider the use of cover as circumstantial, adapting dynamically to the unfolding situation. that is also why when we conduct CQB courses, we repeatedly remind the students that COVER equals TIME - the focus is not on the wall as a physical protection.
Imagine you are hiding in that dark room. Do you have Concealment or a cover?
It's essential to remember that both the tactical environment and the adversary are not static. As a situation progresses, opponents may move or change their tactics, thus altering the dynamics of the encounter. The adversary's maneuverability invariably impacts the effectiveness of the cover, turning it from a protective asset into a mere visual barrier, or possibly worse, a trap.
This brings us to the interesting relationship between time, terrain, and tactics. Time and terrain, in tactical contexts, can be likened to each other as they can both be traversed only once, but they can have lasting effects on the outcome of a mission. As the saying goes, "You can't step in the same river twice."
Time is a crucial, often overlooked factor in tactical decision-making. A well-timed maneuver can turn the tide of an encounter, even under unfavorable conditions. Delaying action to wait for an opportune moment or hastening an attack to catch the adversary off guard can exploit the temporal aspect of an encounter, just like using the physical landscape to one's advantage.
The terrain, on the other hand, can dictate the possible actions of the parties involved. It defines the limits within which maneuverability is possible. Mountainous regions, urban environments, or dense forests, each present different challenges and opportunities for both offense and defense.
In conclusion, the tactical world necessitates a broader understanding of cover that moves beyond hiding or stopping bullets. It involves analyzing the dynamic interplay of time, terrain, and tactics, and adapting swiftly to the ever-evolving combat scenario. A successful operator is not just one who uses cover effectively but also understands when and how to exploit the cover in synchrony with time and terrain.