I find this to be one of the worst written articles on Wikipedia. It's appalling. The errors they have made includes:
- - (At one point in time) Removing legitimate terms such as "target discrimination" and "immediate threat area" because they Googled them and couldn't find them, stating they needed an 'encyclopedia friendly format.' This is ridiculous and does good to highlight the amateurs who really edit and author these articles. These terms can be found in almost any official and unrestricted manual on the subject. If you Google them, you can find them. I guess they didn't look hard enough. This also addresses the point that these people are not tactically trained.
- Attempting to remove the legitimate term"overlapping fields of fire" because it was perceived to be a 'superfluous adjective.' Jimothy, a member of these forums, argued the editor of this - who failed to back-up sources or reply to him. Thankfully they kept the term.
- Attempting to merge melee into the article with no real idea of what they were talking about. At one stage someone cited "Metal Gear Solid" the videogame where the main character uses "CQC" (a "Military martial art style" in the game) in regards to hand-to-hand/melee combat.
- Attempting to differentiate Military and Police CQB, i.e. "taking and holding ground" versus "saving lives" through protocols such as PID, etc, etc. This was deplorably written and although the original concept was a good idea, the content was terribly misguided. Both parties are involved in PID, taking and holding ground, and saving lives.
- Slandering this website, and Admin (Martin) as the author. Quote, '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.' He is Norwegian and has difficulty translating aspects of what he writes, especially when it comes to Military terminology. He is an SME in CQB and is in the Military. Also, this website is not the 'sole source of information', cited references are found everywhere on that page - often from silly sources, for example a Krav Maga book (whose source was used to incorrectly defined the fatal funnel). The shop section on this website has numerous books on the subject matter, many which were used as guides to the Tactical Trainer. The "High Risk Entry" video (by Chuck Habermehl, ex-Marine and CQB instructor) cited on the website has many examples of entry methods mentioned in the Tactical Trainer. '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.' Pathetic opinionated twats who know nothing of the subject or the Admin of this website.
- Continued from above, "Soldiergurl" then goes on to say, '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.' What? This has nothing to do with this website. I edited this page and asked them to contact me or Admin, they have not as of yet. Soldiergurl states a few false or unsupported arguments throughout the "Talk" section of this article, this person seems to be poorly trained in the topic they author themselves.
- Including the "breach (warfare)" article into "Close Quarters Combat" while confusing themselves between what breaching is and what an entry is, and where CQC stands overarching both these subtypes of the topic.
- Changing the overarching term of "Close Quarters Battle" to "Close Quarters Combat". The latter I have only heard a few times, mainly from Navy (predominately SEAL) communities. I have heard it mentioned by the British a few times, but only to delineate from CQB (which they cite far more often). Close Quarters Battle, in my opinion, is the used more both in literature and verbal discussion. An editor states the opposite, suggesting CQC is more known than CQB. One commenter states, '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,' suggesting CQB comes before CQC. But I believe that to be confusing terms, although I have heard similar before (from unsupported sources) UW/MOUT should delineate this. They then tried to stop CQC from being capitalized because of "Wikipedia style", a format numerous authors and editors wanted. Someone pleaded that "CQC" remain and "cqc" is to be avoided.
- It is poorly written and displays no entry techniques. The best it offers is a few breaching techniques and an overview of dynamic entry principles. As one commenter states, '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).' And another says, '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.' The last one was by me!
- REALLY badly written pieces like, 'If the searchers meet heavy resistance, they can usually pull back without harm and prepare for a dynamic entry' make me cringe. Who wrote this? There are so many weasel statements and fallacies, it's ridiculous. And... 'the corners closest to the entry point, the first place from which they can be hit from behind as they enter the room.' I think the first place is the immediate area, the area in front of you or with oversight of the door, because they can see you coming in, in the first place. Apparently these threats just wait for you to enter fully and cross threshold until someone in the corner shoots the entry-team in the back.
- The whole article is aimed towards low-resistance threats without compromise. MOE section does not even discuss any methods of entering! They talk about types of entry but not the methods of. It also discusses equipment far too much without really looking at methods involving the equipment. It's like the show "Close Quarter Battle" (Here: http://natgeotv.com.au/tv/close-quarter-battle/) with Terry Schappert... half the time he simply discusses equipment and hints at a few methods of their use, but hardly ever discusses credible tactics when it comes to room clearing. All the bog standard stuff is in there -- dynamic entry with buttonhook, etc, etc, but without explanation. That said; the equipment, VOA and fatal funnel sections aren't as badly written as the rest of the article.
- References in the article are few, and terrible at that. "History of Modern Self-Defence", "Martial Art of the Gun", "Krav Maga" and so on. Most of these pertain to Martial Arts, civilian hand-to-hand combat or otherwise. Half the references are also from the US Marines, the other half the US Army with no other country sources involved. Also for the amount of information pertaining to SWAT and Counter-Terrorist capabilities, there are no references to these units or sources detailing the content.
Does anyone want to edit this with me and host a better page?