CQC/CQB- A clearer definition?

[C. Park]

Viewing the posta present and the past, what is your poinion of Close Quarters Combatives or Battle? It seems that some consider it as single-person unarmed combat techniques (referring to BJJ/U.S. Army Ranger thread). I thought CQB as being a much wider in scope, using various tools or weapons (edged weapon and firearm being the most obvious). For instance, is the use of IED's for rapid entry or evasion/diversion considered CQB/CQC?

Also, true military CQC/CQB should be designed as around a team-oriented concept, shouldn't it? You should never be alone in a hostile situation, unless you or someone else really screwed up (and then the lessons from of SERE school come to mind). Most of the CQB related training I've had emphasize complete coordination of each team member with one another in execution, even in a unarmed situation(if that occurs). This starting with your basic two-man team up to integration of ready/standby units, is SOP thoughout the military.

Am I wrong in my definition of CQB/C ? Opinions, please.

[Jeff Cook]

Good question, Mr. Park.

Here's an excerpt out of FM 21-150, Department of the Army, titled "Combatives."

"Hand-to-hand combat is an engagement between two or more persons in an empty-handed struggle or with handheld weapons such as knives, sticks, and rifles with bayonets. These fighting arts are essential military skills. Projectile weapons may be lost or broken, or they may fail to fire. When friendly and enemy forces become so intermingled that firearms and grenades are not practical, hand-to-hand combat skills become vital assets."

From a basic 10-level training persective, that is the definition I use. For higher-skill levels, I too like to encorporate team tactics, especially in conjunction with civil disturbance and tactical law enforcement training.

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

[Neil Hawkins]

Here's my definition:

"CQB can be defined loosely as “fighting at ranges close enough to render the traditional military weapons ineffective”. In general, this means anything from a few yards to a few inches. It is normally thought of as ‘hand to hand’ fighting but that is not correct because it also encompasses knives, sticks, bayonets and the variety of specialised personal weapons such as chemical sprays, stun guns, etc. In some circumstances CQB also can mean the use of firearms during hostage rescue or dynamic entry team scenarios, but as a rule this form of CQB is taught separately."

Neil

[KIT]

Hey All,

Having Just attended a 50 hour Tactical Operations course put on by Countermeasures, their definition is based on distance. CQC/CQB is any combative engagement within 10 meters, be it with projectile weapons, hand held weapons, what have you. Their emphasis is obviously on firearms, since they train military and law enforcement units. Since "close" is in the term, I prefer this definition. I see "hand to hand" as Jeff described above, meaning without projectile weapons.

Kit LeBlanc

Virtute et Armis

[Dale]

Close Quarter Battle/Combat, to me is any altication which occurs in close quarters, eg. within 10 meters (if an exact measure is necessarry).

In my opinion this does not disclude the use of firearms, or any other weapon for that matter, but usually the nature of CQC is such that conventional tactics are rendered not efficient.

This has been an age old issue, as was disscussed in the Sword forum where they were disscussing the practical use of the Kodachi or Wakizashi as opposed to the Katana.

CQC is the type of combat that Law Enforcement personnel are most likely to face, and soldiers are very prone to (particulalry in urban confrontations) due to the geographical restriction placed upon them.


Hope this helps

Yours in Budo
Dale Elsdon

[Edited by Dale on 08-26-2000 at 09:00 AM]

[TommyK]

Greetings,

Didn't the FBI compile statistics and find that most gun fights took place at 15 feet? I believe that CQB can be defined as any conflicts occurring within this distance.

Regards,
TommyK