This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Close-quarters battle article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
CQB as a term has been replaced by the military almost entirely by MOUT. The article should be merged. (THIS IS INCORRECT FACTUALLY. CQB HAS NOT BEEN REPLACED BY MOUT, BUT IS A COMPONENT OF A MOUT MISSION. A UNIT TRAINS IN CQB IN ORDER TO HELP ACCOMPLISH A MOUT MISSION. AUTHOR - THE GUY WHO WROTE NEARLY 95% OF THE NEW STUFF HERE IN WIKIPEDIA'S CQB SECTION)
Also the link saying only military SF units are trained in CQB has been removed, as it is factually totally wrong.
This article needs some serious working. Swatjester 09:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Disagree: Although this may be correct for the US Army it is not universally the case and it is important to acknowledge uses by the USMC and other military forces around the world. CQB is still very much in use within the current and historical literature. Also, current US Army manuals tend to focus on platoon or larger groupings, not squads or fire teams. There are also non-urban uses of CQB. Rorybowman 04:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Why was my redirect to Urban warfare reverted? Sam Spade 15:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I think this article and CQC should be merged. Any thoughts on this? Isaac Crumm 07:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm a bit worried. The Urban Warfare page is good, but large portions of this feel more like a SWAT manual than an informative dictionary entry on CQB. Phrases such as these illustrate my point:
"Remember that CQB takes place in a three dimensional environment; the threat may be in front, behind, left, right, above, or below. By being aware of the surroundings as well as the movements of the other operators' gaps and vulnerabilities can be minimized."
"Each individual will clear the immediate threat area, within two meters, in the direction that he is moving."
"Remember that controlled fire is critical for the safety of innocents and operators. Target discrimination is mandatory."
I Googled select phrases and didn't find anything, but I'm still troubled. Wikipedia isn't a manual, so if this is orginal, it needs a bit of reworking into an encyclopaedia friendly format. Some of the jargon could also do with trimming - phrases like "operators" are possibly a bit technical for a general purpose encyclopaedia.
I'll poke at it in a bit if no one responds.
ManicParroT 03:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd say to define who are the a) foremost and b) most widespread practitioners of CQB we need to understand what is necessary. To my understanding there are two styles of CQB:
(I came up with these names/styles myself, BTW, so if you've never heard of them, no biggie.)
- infantry CQB Its purpose is to take and hold ground - the infantry's raison d'etre in general.
- police / antiterrorist / humanitarian CQB Its purpose is "to save lives" (LAPD SWAT motto/purpose, if I'm not mistaken):
- POSITIVELY identify threats - remove threats (get compliance with commands, then restrain) - kill threats with POSITIVE AIM (if removal not possible) - do all of this as fast as possible, no mistakes, especially no dead hostages - this is all preliminary to disarming bombs or clearing way for bomb squads, etc etc
On the other hand, "PURE" CQB "skillz" may be said to be that which enables someone to defeat someone else's capability to make war on their butt, the fastest, merely in close quarters.
Anyway. Food for thought. Or just flame me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.216.131 ( talk) 09:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Quoting the article: "The goal is to establish overlapping fields of fire, so that multiple shooters can attack at once from different directions without danger of hitting one another."
Can someone who understands this subject please explain this sentence? Seems to me that one would want "non-overlapping" fields of fire. ??
Wanderer57 ( talk) 20:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Fascinating.
A couple of notes: After the second paragraph, the section "Violence of action" seems to me to wander off topic.
Likewise, the last sentence in the section "Private industry" seems off topic.
I don't understand any of this well enough to try to improve it.
20:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Wanderer57 ( talk)
It appears that most of the information in this article was taken from the website at the bottom of the article: http://www.cqb-team.com/
I have read a decent amount of it and I must admit to having doubts as to the authenticity of the information or at least the authority of the author. The whole website seems to have rather pervasive spelling issues. Now, I am not one to generally contest the content of anything based on spelling errors and I acknowledge that it is possible to be a subject matter expert without any understanding of spelling at all, but it is something that triggers doubt in my mind. Since this website appears to be the sole source of information here, if we could get additional sources, that would be appreciated. 67.170.184.197 ( talk) 01:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Missing from the article is any data on the growing pervasiveness of CQB as a means of social control, or on the number of victims of CQB as compared to victims of aerial bombardment or other martial tactics. . Soldiergurl ( talk) 01:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The author(s) of the entry might want to rethink the inclusion of a link to a site where the home page has two glaring spelling errors. Casts the author(s) of this entry in as poor a light as the site operator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.101.125 ( talk) 23:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
That's because the author is Norwegian. He is Military. If you need any more information contact me on the website via the forums through either the username "Rye" or "Admin".
After more than a year with no responsive concerns expressed on the talk page, I removed the "tone" tag. Unless all of Wikipedia is to be cited for tone inappropriate to Wikipedia (which might be okay) there is on this talk page expressed no reason to single this one out. The tone of most Wikipedia articles reflects the experience of authors or sources. This is no different. Computer-language articles reflect the tone of computer-language experts. Social science articles reflect the tone of social science experts. Lets let it be for now. When a well-organized soviet steps in to take over WMF as will be necessary for all the other failed corporations in the world, we can sort it out then. We should at that time have better access to the training manuals from which this paramilitary instruction article was derived. Short: help is on the way. Rewrite under the new regime. Soldiergurl ( talk) 01:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
A Breach (warfare) article is to cover the act of breaching buildings. This image may be cgi'ed and added to this article:
The result of the move request was: page moved to Close quarters combat. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 14:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Close Quarters Battle → Close Quarters Combat — Relisted. Ucucha 18:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Close Quarters Combat is more commonly known than Close Quarters Battle. Wiiki pe dian 12:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I see CQB and CQC as different things (the first individual and fire team, the second squad and platoon) taking place very near the enemy, but my training was long ago. Pick one name, redirect the other to it, and concentrate on making a better article. Eventually, it will be large enough and good enough to split to Close Quarters Battle and Close Quarters Combat. In either case, both are capitalized, it's an acronym that's not assimilated (radar being an example of that.) htom ( talk) 20:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I know that the overabundance of instruction is a recognized problem, but I must also say that, even after reading most of the article, I simply have no idea what CQC is. It presents CQC as a concept, a tactic, a fighting style, and who knows what else, all in the opening, and then proceeds to explain how to do (poorly).
None of the sources help this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.200.125.152 ( talk) 10:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
This article honestly sounds like it is written by a 12 year old playing CoD. No mention of entry techniques except for a "Dynamic entry" which is a type of entry not the method of entering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.183.7.115 ( talk) 23:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
CQB directs to this article, but is not mentioned in it. I redirected it from Close combat to here. It is mentioned in the references. Could someone with knowledge about this topic integrate the term in the article? Manorainjan ( talk) 14:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
To editor Manorainjan: You're still right and, although the phrase "close quarters battle" does appear in several places, this article does not abbreviate it nor differentiate it from CQC.
Also, shouldn't both phrases have a hyphen between the 1st 2 words? Thanks, Geekdiva ( talk) 20:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Judging by searches for the terms I did on Google, and if the endless results for training courses mean anything, the terms "CQC" and "CQB" simply mean the same thing (modern military/police close combat at short distances) and are used interchangeably, referring to both firearm and hand-to-hand combat; CQB in particular is often used and listed secondarily as a synonym for CQC. The only differences I can find are a handful of sources (none of which are reliable, such as everyone's favorite search result destroyer Quora) and contextual connections (such as the name of the Close Quarters Battle Receiver) that imply CQB specifically refers to close-range firearm combat, while CQC refers to either specifically hand-to-hand combat or both firearm and hand-to-hand close combat as an all-encompassing term—but again, none of these are reliable, and they appear to be the exception and not the norm.
Also, no, it's not "a made-up term by Kojima" from Metal Gear. It appears the term existed before, and Kojima just used the generic term "CQC" to name a specific martial art developed in the series, probably because it just sounded cool and technical (as he usually operates). AdoTang ( talk) 13:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
I know that the BBDE was disbanded in 1994, but did everyone forget that EVERYONE (Including SF units) came and trained from them, as they wrote the book on CIC/CQC? 2603:90D8:C3E:1AAB:493D:1817:F088:386C ( talk) 17:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
As the article is titled Close-Quarters Combat, I'm going to change all the CQB to CQC throughout. At current count, there are 31 uses of CQC and only 14 of CQB (including the redirect info, which won't change). If there are any issues, please let me know...otherwise, I'm going to jump right in.
It seems most uses of CQB were added by AdoTang back in 2023, January and April. I'll tag him, so he can add his comments. AdoTang
WesT ( talk) 19:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Close-quarters battle article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
CQB as a term has been replaced by the military almost entirely by MOUT. The article should be merged. (THIS IS INCORRECT FACTUALLY. CQB HAS NOT BEEN REPLACED BY MOUT, BUT IS A COMPONENT OF A MOUT MISSION. A UNIT TRAINS IN CQB IN ORDER TO HELP ACCOMPLISH A MOUT MISSION. AUTHOR - THE GUY WHO WROTE NEARLY 95% OF THE NEW STUFF HERE IN WIKIPEDIA'S CQB SECTION)
Also the link saying only military SF units are trained in CQB has been removed, as it is factually totally wrong.
This article needs some serious working. Swatjester 09:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Disagree: Although this may be correct for the US Army it is not universally the case and it is important to acknowledge uses by the USMC and other military forces around the world. CQB is still very much in use within the current and historical literature. Also, current US Army manuals tend to focus on platoon or larger groupings, not squads or fire teams. There are also non-urban uses of CQB. Rorybowman 04:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Why was my redirect to Urban warfare reverted? Sam Spade 15:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I think this article and CQC should be merged. Any thoughts on this? Isaac Crumm 07:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm a bit worried. The Urban Warfare page is good, but large portions of this feel more like a SWAT manual than an informative dictionary entry on CQB. Phrases such as these illustrate my point:
"Remember that CQB takes place in a three dimensional environment; the threat may be in front, behind, left, right, above, or below. By being aware of the surroundings as well as the movements of the other operators' gaps and vulnerabilities can be minimized."
"Each individual will clear the immediate threat area, within two meters, in the direction that he is moving."
"Remember that controlled fire is critical for the safety of innocents and operators. Target discrimination is mandatory."
I Googled select phrases and didn't find anything, but I'm still troubled. Wikipedia isn't a manual, so if this is orginal, it needs a bit of reworking into an encyclopaedia friendly format. Some of the jargon could also do with trimming - phrases like "operators" are possibly a bit technical for a general purpose encyclopaedia.
I'll poke at it in a bit if no one responds.
ManicParroT 03:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd say to define who are the a) foremost and b) most widespread practitioners of CQB we need to understand what is necessary. To my understanding there are two styles of CQB:
(I came up with these names/styles myself, BTW, so if you've never heard of them, no biggie.)
- infantry CQB Its purpose is to take and hold ground - the infantry's raison d'etre in general.
- police / antiterrorist / humanitarian CQB Its purpose is "to save lives" (LAPD SWAT motto/purpose, if I'm not mistaken):
- POSITIVELY identify threats - remove threats (get compliance with commands, then restrain) - kill threats with POSITIVE AIM (if removal not possible) - do all of this as fast as possible, no mistakes, especially no dead hostages - this is all preliminary to disarming bombs or clearing way for bomb squads, etc etc
On the other hand, "PURE" CQB "skillz" may be said to be that which enables someone to defeat someone else's capability to make war on their butt, the fastest, merely in close quarters.
Anyway. Food for thought. Or just flame me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.216.131 ( talk) 09:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Quoting the article: "The goal is to establish overlapping fields of fire, so that multiple shooters can attack at once from different directions without danger of hitting one another."
Can someone who understands this subject please explain this sentence? Seems to me that one would want "non-overlapping" fields of fire. ??
Wanderer57 ( talk) 20:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Fascinating.
A couple of notes: After the second paragraph, the section "Violence of action" seems to me to wander off topic.
Likewise, the last sentence in the section "Private industry" seems off topic.
I don't understand any of this well enough to try to improve it.
20:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Wanderer57 ( talk)
It appears that most of the information in this article was taken from the website at the bottom of the article: http://www.cqb-team.com/
I have read a decent amount of it and I must admit to having doubts as to the authenticity of the information or at least the authority of the author. The whole website seems to have rather pervasive spelling issues. Now, I am not one to generally contest the content of anything based on spelling errors and I acknowledge that it is possible to be a subject matter expert without any understanding of spelling at all, but it is something that triggers doubt in my mind. Since this website appears to be the sole source of information here, if we could get additional sources, that would be appreciated. 67.170.184.197 ( talk) 01:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Missing from the article is any data on the growing pervasiveness of CQB as a means of social control, or on the number of victims of CQB as compared to victims of aerial bombardment or other martial tactics. . Soldiergurl ( talk) 01:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The author(s) of the entry might want to rethink the inclusion of a link to a site where the home page has two glaring spelling errors. Casts the author(s) of this entry in as poor a light as the site operator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.101.125 ( talk) 23:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
That's because the author is Norwegian. He is Military. If you need any more information contact me on the website via the forums through either the username "Rye" or "Admin".
After more than a year with no responsive concerns expressed on the talk page, I removed the "tone" tag. Unless all of Wikipedia is to be cited for tone inappropriate to Wikipedia (which might be okay) there is on this talk page expressed no reason to single this one out. The tone of most Wikipedia articles reflects the experience of authors or sources. This is no different. Computer-language articles reflect the tone of computer-language experts. Social science articles reflect the tone of social science experts. Lets let it be for now. When a well-organized soviet steps in to take over WMF as will be necessary for all the other failed corporations in the world, we can sort it out then. We should at that time have better access to the training manuals from which this paramilitary instruction article was derived. Short: help is on the way. Rewrite under the new regime. Soldiergurl ( talk) 01:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
A Breach (warfare) article is to cover the act of breaching buildings. This image may be cgi'ed and added to this article:
The result of the move request was: page moved to Close quarters combat. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 14:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Close Quarters Battle → Close Quarters Combat — Relisted. Ucucha 18:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Close Quarters Combat is more commonly known than Close Quarters Battle. Wiiki pe dian 12:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I see CQB and CQC as different things (the first individual and fire team, the second squad and platoon) taking place very near the enemy, but my training was long ago. Pick one name, redirect the other to it, and concentrate on making a better article. Eventually, it will be large enough and good enough to split to Close Quarters Battle and Close Quarters Combat. In either case, both are capitalized, it's an acronym that's not assimilated (radar being an example of that.) htom ( talk) 20:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I know that the overabundance of instruction is a recognized problem, but I must also say that, even after reading most of the article, I simply have no idea what CQC is. It presents CQC as a concept, a tactic, a fighting style, and who knows what else, all in the opening, and then proceeds to explain how to do (poorly).
None of the sources help this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.200.125.152 ( talk) 10:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
This article honestly sounds like it is written by a 12 year old playing CoD. No mention of entry techniques except for a "Dynamic entry" which is a type of entry not the method of entering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.183.7.115 ( talk) 23:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
CQB directs to this article, but is not mentioned in it. I redirected it from Close combat to here. It is mentioned in the references. Could someone with knowledge about this topic integrate the term in the article? Manorainjan ( talk) 14:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
To editor Manorainjan: You're still right and, although the phrase "close quarters battle" does appear in several places, this article does not abbreviate it nor differentiate it from CQC.
Also, shouldn't both phrases have a hyphen between the 1st 2 words? Thanks, Geekdiva ( talk) 20:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Judging by searches for the terms I did on Google, and if the endless results for training courses mean anything, the terms "CQC" and "CQB" simply mean the same thing (modern military/police close combat at short distances) and are used interchangeably, referring to both firearm and hand-to-hand combat; CQB in particular is often used and listed secondarily as a synonym for CQC. The only differences I can find are a handful of sources (none of which are reliable, such as everyone's favorite search result destroyer Quora) and contextual connections (such as the name of the Close Quarters Battle Receiver) that imply CQB specifically refers to close-range firearm combat, while CQC refers to either specifically hand-to-hand combat or both firearm and hand-to-hand close combat as an all-encompassing term—but again, none of these are reliable, and they appear to be the exception and not the norm.
Also, no, it's not "a made-up term by Kojima" from Metal Gear. It appears the term existed before, and Kojima just used the generic term "CQC" to name a specific martial art developed in the series, probably because it just sounded cool and technical (as he usually operates). AdoTang ( talk) 13:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
I know that the BBDE was disbanded in 1994, but did everyone forget that EVERYONE (Including SF units) came and trained from them, as they wrote the book on CIC/CQC? 2603:90D8:C3E:1AAB:493D:1817:F088:386C ( talk) 17:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
As the article is titled Close-Quarters Combat, I'm going to change all the CQB to CQC throughout. At current count, there are 31 uses of CQC and only 14 of CQB (including the redirect info, which won't change). If there are any issues, please let me know...otherwise, I'm going to jump right in.
It seems most uses of CQB were added by AdoTang back in 2023, January and April. I'll tag him, so he can add his comments. AdoTang
WesT ( talk) 19:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)