Talk:Close-quarters combat

message: CQB as a term has been replaced by the military almost entirely by MOUT.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 CQB HAS NOT BEEN REPLACED BY MOUT, BUT IS A COMPONENT OF A MOUT MISSION.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)
replies: text: incorrect. The army focuses on MOUT at the team level, hence the current tactic of a 4 man flood. Swatjester 06:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The practice of a single tactic by one branch at a particular time is not an argument. CQB began with military usage but has now been expanded appreciably to include applications in police and corrections, as well as military applications outside of urban warfare such as hostage rescue, vehicle boarding, extrication and a variety of military operations other than war (MOOTW). - Rorybowman 14:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Base" trained insurgents in close quarters combat at the Mes Aynak training camp opened in 1999 in Afghanistan, according to the 911 Commission reports, Chapter 5. Soldiergurl (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

text: And yet Mêléeit's not significantly different enough from MOUT to warrant it's own article.Swatjester 19:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening heading 

message: Why was my redirect to Urban warfare reverted? Sam Spade 15:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ? 

message: *much of the content at melee could be merged here, however Melee is a particular medieval type of tourney fighting.  Better to create Melee (medieval) and disambig the modern and gaming info here. I'd be happy to expand the medieval page, when I get time. Gwinva 20:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree with you Philip.  I realise my comment above was unclear, so I'll clarify.  I don't think the articles should be merged.  Perhaps there is some overlap in the modern and gaming, in which case direct (or link) those here.  Retain at least the historical context on the original page, since it has a specific meaning in a medieval context (and probably, as Philip says, in other historical contexts). Gwinva 20:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge mêlée into this article

message: 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)
thread_title:  SWAT-style 

message: 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)
replies: text: From what I know the point of having overlapping fields of fire is to make sure that the team has the entire area that they're clearing covered so that the threats have less chance of escaping. Overlapping fields of fire does not necessarily mean that it will cause friendly fire. However, when the fields of fire covers a friendly that is when the the likelihood of friendly fire increases.--Jimothy 183 (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Overlapping" is a superfluous adjective in the context of preventing friendly-fire accidents. Shooters adopt fields of fire to assure complete coverage of the contested area and to discipline fire away from friendlies. Overlapping fire serves the first purpose, but is irrelevant to the second. Soldiergurl (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't fully understand how the word overlapping is superfluous. Perhaps you could elaborate on your explanation? Jimothy 183 (talk) 13:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: 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)
replies: text: Read the court documents on which most criminals are convicted. Subject-matter experts in this field are notorious for their weak spelling skills. The content is spot on in its description of close quarters combat. Coming soon to a theater near you, this description of close quarters combat resonates with a growing number of people around the world who have had their doors kicked in by storm troopers. What a wonderful opportunity to hear those tactics described in the language of those who use them. This piece just needs some better references to document who is pushing close-quarters-combat as a style of social interaction. Maybe the Truth Commission will shed some light...
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)
thread_title:  References 

message: 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)
replies: text: Just because other badly written articles exist is not reason to give up trying to fix this one. Tags should stay up until the article is fixed, or deleted. Not sure what in particular was being cited re:TONE but it seems pretty obvious in the current incarnation the article is an "instruction article", something that goes counter to WP:NOTHOWTO. I have tagged it as such. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone 

message: 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)
thread_title: Ambiguous descriptions/excessive explanation

message: 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)
replies: text: CQC is a made-up term by Kojima from the Metal Gear Solid series.  Not sure why the hell it's being used over CQB, the original all-encompassing term for exactly what this article is describing.2601:49:1:5316:FD82:A55:7724:1CCE (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  CQB 

message: 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)
replies: text: CQC is a made-up term by Kojima from the Metal Gear Solid series.  Not sure why the hell it's being used over CQB, the original all-encompassing term for exactly what this article is describing.2601:49:1:5316:FD82:A55:7724:1CCE (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: 2+ yrs. later: Close-quarters battle (CQB) and hyphenation?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Berlin