SIG Sauer Academy

Max Talk Monday – Buddy Pair Fire & Movement: Assault

This is the sixth installment of ‘Max Talk Monday’ which shares select episodes from a series of instructional videos. Max Velocity Tactical (MVT) has established a reputation on the leading edge of tactical live fire and force on force training. MVT is dedicated to developing and training tactical excellence at the individual and team level.

An instructional session buddy pair fire and movement (assault), including a live fire demo. This is a follow up to the ‘Why the Lone Wolf Operator will Die’  Max Talk Videos, designed to show the advantages of the correct application of fire and movement at the basic building-block of a two-man buddy pair. This video is followed in series by a buddy pair break contact demonstration.

Max is a tactical trainer and author, a lifelong professional soldier with extensive military experience. He served with British Special Operations Forces, both enlisted and as a commissioned officer; a graduate of the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst. Max served on numerous operational deployments, and also served as a recruit instructor. Max spent five years serving as a paramilitary contractor in both Iraq and Afghanistan; the latter two years working for the British Government in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. 

Website: Max Velocity Tactical

YouTube: Max Velocity Tactical


15 Responses to “Max Talk Monday – Buddy Pair Fire & Movement: Assault”

  1. Hanno63 says:

    I’m not even sure where to start with this.

    That should not be on the internet as an example of fire and movement.

  2. farmer says:

    @ Hanno63, why not? Please explain.

    Thank you.

  3. Chris says:

    Hmmm…I might have done it differently

  4. iggy says:

    i agree with hanno63, its not a great example – the guy even says so.
    too much time in the open, no drop and crawl, pretty average communication, no getting off the X, converging.
    rate of fire was mostly ok and they seemed to be getting the rounds on.
    im guessing the assault wasnt really part of the show…

  5. Blane says:

    Here is what I see, I see 2 guys conducting what has been traditionally been taught as a minimum team event. The place you make contact isnt going to be perfect. How do you shoot at a target in tall grass if your in the prone? Dont forget battle drills that you guys are obviously using as the end all be all are just a base so everyone knows what to do. You adjust depending on the situation and enviornment. I would love to see you guys get out there and run this lane.

  6. Ascent says:

    Coming from a background where I have actually been contact with 2 men against an enemy, given the terrain and number of enemy. They were talking their rifle pretty damn effectively considering no open bolt weapons. They took a shitty situation and did what they could with it. You armchair operators are something else man I swear. Get a life, why dont you release the same video and tag Max and everyone else in it. Bunch of of booger eating mangos…lol

  7. Joe says:

    What I dislike about comment sections is anyone can drop a negative statement without amplifying information. If you truly care enough about the material presented, then take the time to explain your critism.

    Others have asked for clarfication, without which the comment should be ignored!

    Before the exercise begins the context and limitations are fully explained, perhaps some are not paying attention or skipping past it?

    The execution was realistic, vice overly scripted as has become the norm for YouTube.

    Afterwards the limitations are again reviewed as well as some self criticism, refreshing when compared to highly edited work many trainers exhibit.

    Though I am now Retired, my experience in this spans from the 1980’s to the GWOT.

    This is another excellent video for introduction or review, however you can not learn this from YouTube.

    So either enlist with your preferred Armed Forces component or sign up for one of his classes!?

    • Hanno63 says:

      I gather that’s been aimed at me and yes ill agree i did just drop that comment in there, all good though, ill agree with you that you cant learn these drills off YouTube to the level that is required.

      Yes, he explains the limitations of the range and the failings in his training. so why do the drill like it was done? does him pointing out these failings mean we cannot comment on the drills hes teaching? Does it make it ok to present only a mediocre demo? Or is this the level hes going for as its meant to be aimed at civilians wanting to learn fire and movement and other Military drills?

      I’ll precursor my reply by stating that I am by no means an infantry minor tactics expert and I haven’t been shot at in real life so I can only go off what I’ve been taught. So take the below however you want. If it needs to be explained what is wrong with the demo then it would take far more explaining than we all have time for. Iggy pretty much summed it up.

      Again to reiterate so there is no confusion, he does mention the limitations to conduct this training, hence the small area he is working in and he covers the fact he won’t be using the cover correctly and that its not the best example, so does that mean we cant be critical about it? Yes, its a semi ok introduction to fire and movement depending on your audience.

      The video is titled “fire and movement” which very simply is a basic modern military low level unit tactic to move when under fire. Fire and movement is one element suppressing and one element moving to either attack an enemy or withdraw. (it sounds like we all know this)

      What is the end state of teaching this? Is he imparting knowledge on fire and movement or the assault stage of the attack? are the videos building up to a fire team/squad/section attack video? Going by doctrine there are four stages to the attack. preparatory, assault, exploitation and reorganization.

      It seems in this video he is trying to do the assault but not really doing the assault. In my mind its been taught all the wrong way around depending of course what his intent and who his audience is.   

      We all understand the buddy pairs thing, as that is the basic building block to work up to maneuvering in a fire team and then squad/section sized element. 

      The initial contact was lazy, no basic drill (that is what its called where i come from) was conducted to move away from last position and take up a new effective fire position. They where both in same positions after contact for roughly 20 seconds and the only movement that was made is when they both knelt up. (yes I get the idea they need to be able to see to suppress the targets) but at that range, after being engaged by a numerically superior force in prepared position with that weight of fire on them, it would of been folly to both kneel up.

      The fire and movement was slow, the rates of fire, rates of advance, target suppression, mutual support, passage of info was all very lax.

      Communication was there but perhaps take away the dubbed gun shots so the viewer can hear the target indications and communication. Having the camera at the “enemy” end only highlighted how they didn’t really effectively use the available cover and concealment (yes i know he spoke about that)

      All in all, and again depending on your audience, it should have been polished a little bit more before being presented. Take a few steps back, maybe do a walk through talk through of what you are going to teach, then do the live fire. 

      Just my two cents.

      • Joe says:

        I disagree with your characterization of the quality of this drill as demonstrated, but first I’ll address your somewhat defensive tone (October 1, 2018 at 07:02) comments.

        At no point did I or any of the commenters to this point write anything resembling (Hanno63)”…mean we cannot comment on the drills hes teaching?”

        In reality the opposite is true.

        Many asked for amplification or clarification of your rather vague, somewhat useless criticism (Hanno63)”That should not be on the internet as an example of fire and movement.”

        Again while I disagree with your initial and current characterization of the quality of these videos, at least now we have something to discuss now that you have provided the requested clarification

        • Hanno63 says:

          Joe, cheers, It’s very hard to convey tone across this medium so I apologise if I came across like that. I’ll take that one on the chin though.

      • Joe says:

        One additional piece of information to amplify your statement…

        (Hanno63)”I’ll precursor my reply by stating that I am by no means an infantry minor tactics expert and I haven’t been shot at in real life so I can only go off what I’ve been taught.”

        Was this Military, Law Enforcement, or Private Citizen training?

        The answer will help provide proper context of your background as it relates to your observations.

        This is not to imply any of my listed sources of training as inferior to one another, but different training backgrounds demonstrate unique nuanced points of view.

        For example: US Army Rangers will address a scenario in a somewhat different manner than say USMC Infantry unit. Both are highly trained and capable combat forces, but have subtle differences. If we compare these to say the LAPD SWAT this becomes even more apparent.

        Based on my combat experience on several Continents during my Military Career.

        The demonstrated fire and movement was very realistic and effective. The communication was evident regardless of any observers ability follow specific commands. (The exact terminology varies greatly between various units anyway.)

        Overall it is the reader of these comments to sift through the comments and rate the validity.

        Thanks for taking time clarify your initial comment.

        • Hanno63 says:


          Australian Army.

          After reading through your comments, especially on varying methods throughout different services and units, and after thinking about this and although I will stand by some of my comments, I see now that I was looking the at how i would have tackled this particular scenario based on what I’ve been taught and my level of training.


  8. west says:

    solid representation of training and the drill with disclosure that it was “not perfect” (and really not required, plus the ‘not perfect’ allows for further insight). the haste in the comments needs checked by oneself (are you “for” or “against” this type of content / training / effort?). the haste criticism already thoroughly expounded by other commenters. these are great videos, the two cameras angles and self critique (by the “professional” trainer max) increases the value and provides essential context.

    screw youtube btw. embed with another medium.