After reading a recent thread in this subforum, I got to thinking: in regards to training, are tactics universally applicable?
On the face of it, no. "Tactics" is the application of maneuver and action to achieve a goal, generally with force. By definition, by the very essence of it, the application will be different to achieve different ends.
To your question, the tactics required to complete a shooting match stage in the shortest amount of time with the most accuracy, and within the competition rules will be quite different from the tactics required to survive even a nominally similar encounter in real life.
In other words, if a person has significant combat training, would that training be a major advantage if he entered the competitive shooting arena?
Some of it would. The experience of rapidly deploying a weapon and making accurate hits
could translate well. The decision of weather to advance or retreat, the degree to which one uses/hugs cover and concealment, management of ammo and equipment, "alternative strategies" to solve the present problem, and many other factors wouldn't translate well at all.
I occasionally shoot with a police trainer pal who usually takes three or four minutes to work through our shoot house. He's even pulled out a hand mirror to check a blind corner. We set a par time in that shoot house of usually 100 seconds, and that's to slow down the run-and-gun shooters who can "complete" it in 20 seconds. He wouldn't be very competitive. They might not live past the first corner.
Similarly, would a person who has excelled in competitive shooting have a much higher chance of success in combat than a shooter of "average" ability?
"In combat?" Like on a battlefield? Look, there's SOOOOooooo much else to know and have ingrained in your brain about fighting as a part of a unit on a battlefield that shooting skill as practiced in competition is really just a small part of that. Really, you might as well just say "no." (Thought the more accurate answer would be, "yes, of course, but other things are even more important.")
On "the street" in civilian America? Probably, could be, yes. You aren't dealing with unit tactics, comms, reaching objectives, artillery, RPGs, grenades, 100 lbs of gear, etc., etc. If it comes to drawing a gun, then you're very likely to have a simple, fast shooting scenario against one or two adversaries deploying simple and equivalent weapons to your own.
Now there is still A WHOLE LOT about defensive thinking and practice that is outside the realm of shooting skills, (situational awareness, avoidance, de-escalation, escape, verbal/social skills, good planning) and all that stuff is still way more important to keeping you alive, but gun-fighting skill may still be what brings your butt home at the end of the day.
Are tactics, maneuvers, pistol manipulation techniques, etc, etc going to transfer well from one arena to the other (combat to competition, and vice versa). If some will, which are they?
Tactics? Again, I think tactics are way outside the scope of (almost) any competition I've ever heard of. Tactics for "combat" might be anything from maneuvering several units to create enfilading fire and outflank an enemy, to identifying pinch/ambush points on the street, or good practices when approaching your parked car so you don't get jumped unexpectedly. Competition is pretty much a shooting problem, and shooting is what comes after the tactics.
Pistol/weapon manipulations? Of course! This is the advanced basic stuff.
The sort of COMPETENCY practice you have to have down pat just to accomplish something with your firearm. The list might look something like this:
1. Work from a holster
2. Shoot while moving
3. Shoot multiple targets (and shoot them while moving)
4. Shoot from concealment
5. Shoot at targets that partially concealed
6. Low-light shooting
7. Shooting a threat multiple times rapidly
8. Reloading
Whether you're going into combat, or you're going into (practical types of) competition, you need to have these things well-worn into your skillset. Beyond that, things diverge pretty widely.
The reason I ask is because it occurred to me that many schools seem to focus on use of a firearm in combat (whether SD, HD, or SHTF), rather than use of a firearm in competition. This perceived focus seems to suggest that tactics and skills do not cross over from one to the other very well.
That's why you need to make sure you understand what kind of training you're signing up for. Basic competency/safety? Defensive shooting? Extreme close-quarters fighting like southnarc teaches? Holistic defensive training, including legal factors? Competition? Literal COMBAT infantry training? "Advanced"/specialized training of some sort (entry team, precision rifle, aerial work)? Etc.
Do you go to a sushi chef to learn to grill a mean steak? Can a NASCAR driver teach you to be a better cabbie or bus driver?
Also, it seems as though certain trainers with combat experience endorse certain techniques, while trainers with competition experience endorse other, conflicting techniques.
Of course. Their experiences are different. Their skill sets overlap but are not the same. What they are teaching is pretty different, unless you're in a basic class and they're just trying to get you to holster without shooting your leg.
It's reasonable that one is better than the other - unless skills do not cross over, and things that work well when shooting paper are not going to keep you alive in combat, and vice versa.
Better? You have to define your goals.
If your goal is winning USPSA competition, then almost nothing that someone like Tom Givens will teach you about surviving a violent encounter is going to do anything but slow you down.
If your desire is to learn street survival, going to take a class from Rob Leatham is certainly not at all what you need.
