Talk:Close Quarters Battle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
CQB as a term has been replaced by the military almost entirely by MOUT.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 CQB HAS NOT BEEN REPLACED BY MOUT, BUT IS A COMPONENT OF A MOUT MISSION.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)
- 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)
-
- 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)
-
-
- And yet it's not significantly different enough from MOUT to warrant it's own article.Swatjester 19:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] ?
Why was my redirect to Urban warfare reverted? Sam Spade 15:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge
I think this article and CQC should be merged. Any thoughts on this? Isaac Crumm 07:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)