CQB: Ruminations on the meaning

[max velocity]

Hi, I just wanted to raise a theoretical topic about Close Quarter Battle (CQB), what it should/does mean, and how we may possibly be going away from the military side of it towards a more "SWAT" perspective. I realize that by doing this I am playing devils advocate; not only would I like to start a little debate, but I have also observed how we seem to be evolving and I am not sure we are not losing some of our warfighting skills, not in all cases, but perhaps in some.

To me, CQB means "close quarter battle". Throughout my service, and as a trainer, this was not exclusive to buildings or urban terrain. Close quarter battle is just that, enemy at close range. CQB could be trained in a MOUT/FIBUA environment or it could be trained in a "jungle lane" environment, in the trees. This also raises an issue that I feel is related but slightly separate, and that was about the intemingling of SWAT techniques with military techniques, by which I mean that SWAT operations are not the same as the military ones. A permissive environment (SWAT typical) is not the same as a non-permissive environment (MIL typical).

Now, there is an overlap here between LEO and military perspectives. Some people see CQB in terms of SWAT raids, others on more of the military side see it as, for example, fighting in an urban environment, or fighting in the rocks on a mountainside, or in the trees in the jungle, or the green zone in Helmand.

Now, I will make sure I am in cover before I say this: I believe that there has been too much crossover between SWAT techniques and MOUT tecniques, and this is due to the nature of operations on OEF/OIF where a lot of the operations have been about raids onto buildings and the capture or killing of targets. This has led to military MOUT type training that closely mirrors SWAT type raids. I think that we all want to train to be our best, but there are elements of this where we are disappearing down a rabbit hole of SWATness (no criticism of SWAT, these guys are excellent at what they do, in their sphere). Now, there are times, such as SOF raids to capture/kill etc, where we want to be more like SWAT in our techniques, but let's not forget that in the military sense, we still have to remember how to fight, not arrest or capture, in high intensity urban combat environments.

For military fighting in built up areas, unless you are on a dawn capture raid, MOUT/FIBUA techniques should be different. As an example, "stacking" too many perosnnel too close together before making entry through a door and flooding a room? Great for a raid, not so great for an urban fight. Some of many reasons: You are concentrating too close together, you need to spread out, and you need to break into security/fire support groups, link men, assault teams (I prefer two men) spread out and not enter via a door. You will likely be moving from one building to another, under fire and covered by fire support groups. You will be making an explosive or mechnical breach preferably into an upper floor, using roofs or ladders, or maybe vehicles....enough there....

Which I think points out what I am saying, that SWAT techniques are very useful to some types of military entry operations but should not be confused as the whole game: there is a danger here of becoming "too SWAT" because you may be mainly involved in urban capture/kill operations, and forgetting the demands of high intensity urban fighting.

So, I just went to Wikpedia and looked up CQB/CQC. Here is a quote from Wikipedia:

"Close quarters combat (CQC) or close quarters battle (CQB) is a type of fighting in which (usually) small units engage the enemy with personal weapons at very short range, potentially to the point of hand-to-hand combat or fighting with hand weapons such as swords or knives. In the typical CQC scenario, the attackers try a very fast, violent takeover of a vehicle or structure controlled by the defenders, who usually have no easy way to withdraw. Because enemies, hostages/civilians, and fellow operators can be closely intermingled, CQC demands a rapid assault and a precise application of lethal force. The operators need great proficiency with their weapons, but also the ability to make split-second decisions in order to avoid or limit friendly casualties. CQC is defined as a short-duration, high-intensity conflict, characterized by sudden violence at close range."

"Criminals sometimes use CQC techniques, such as in an armed robbery or jailbreak, but most of the terminology comes from training used to prepare soldiers, police, and other authorities. Therefore, much CQC material is written from the perspective of the authorities who must break into the stronghold where the opposing force (OPFOR) has barricaded itself."

"Although there is considerable overlap, CQC is not synonymous with urban warfare, now sometimes known by the military acronyms MOUT (military operations in urban terrain), FIBUA (fighting in built-up areas) or OBUA (Operations in Built Up Areas) in the West. Urban warfare is a much larger field, including logistics and the role of crew-served weapons like heavy machine guns, mortars, and mounted grenade launchers, as well as artillery, armor, and air support. In CQC, the emphasis is on small infantry units using light, compact weapons that one man can carry and use easily in tight spaces, such as carbines, submachine guns, shotguns, pistols, and knives. As such, CQC is a tactical concept that forms a part of the strategic concept of urban warfare, but not every instance of CQC is necessarily enveloped by urban warfare—for example, jungle and guerrilla warfare are potential stages for CQC."

In summary: my point is that I don't believe CQB is simply purely an urban or even building related activity. It includes those operations, but is not exclusive to them. In the "chat" that I see going around, and due to peoples experience on contemporary operations, I think CQB is becoming synonymous with urban in many peoples minds. I have done CQB in the jungle, and even with "jungle lanes" on live firng ranges back home. Usually called close quarter battle and sometimes involving training individual and pairs fire and movement down a jungle lane.

 

[Etype]

I see what you mean about it not having to be within the confines of a building. How you would deal with someone popping out of a bush or spider hole should be exactly the same as how you deal with someone jumping out of a room or cabinet.

I think it is coming to resemble hostage rescue more than battle, I guess that's roughly the equivalent of SWAT tactics. The one thing the military doesn't train enough is "hard clears", aka frag grenades instead of flash bangs and SMAW-Ds into external walls. Also, a lot of conventional units don't understand that points of domination type CQB should only be used to confirm the fact that a building is empty, usually after a call out or on an abandoned structure. They far too often try to charge into enemy held buildings without explosive breaches, frags, and flashbangs- digging your corner isn't going to do jack or shit when someone is there waiting for you. They also don't train detainee operations or combatives (see below) like they should. On top of that, points of domination is awkward and slow. Unless you are really good at freeflow, clearing rooms that contain real bad guys is not going to work out well.


Combatives shouldn't be jiu-jitsu like the conventional army trains it, what they do is way too defensive and reactive. It should be an active/proactive beat down that you put on a non-compliant. Combatives that last more than 30 seconds should be the .001% scenario, which isn't worth training for. What is worth training for is quickly beating someone into compliance so you don't end wrestling on the floor. You don't comply, you get beat down/KTFO/broken arm/etc- it should be 10 second process.

 

[AWP]

The one thing the military doesn't train enough is "hard clears", aka frag grenades instead of flash bangs and SMAW-Ds into external walls.

I believe it was Antony Beevor's book about the fall of Berlin which went into detail about urban combat in WWII. What you describe above is something the Soviets had to learn the hard way when sweeping through Germany in '45, particularly Berlin. Assault guns and anti-tank guns were prized with some units holding up an assault until they could come forward, a fact that caused some commisars to get a little murdery with their own people; those crazy Soviets, but I digress.

In the latter half of the battle for Berlin, the pattern was the same: blow a hole into the wall of a building or house, assault with frags or flame-throwers, clear the house and while this is going on the gun crew was blowing an entryway into an adjacent house so another squad could storm it. It sounds "simple," but is a meat grinder as many of you know.

I think every squad leader and above should be a bit of an historian.

 

[max velocity]

So, here’s a little story: I’m happy to get such a positive feedback to raising this topic, and some good rational informed discussion. I actually raised this in a similar form in another forum, and got slammed! I was told I had no idea what I was talking about, and someone even commented that I should read the FMs. So, I did. I just did a little research and scanned the Army FMs.

FM 3-06 Urban Operations makes no mention of CQB at all. However, that is a strategic level document.
FM 3-21.8 The Infantry Rifle Platoon and Squad is pretty interesting. It also makes no mention of CQB, but it describes "small unit operations in urban areas".

When describing building entry, it describes "secure the near and far side of the point of penetration". The way it describes this is the same as I described high intensity MOUT operations, which is a joint technique and I originally learned it from the Brit Parachute Regiment It does not describe stacking (SWAT technique) for the external entry point. It describes tactical movement supported by fire up to the point of entry by the assaulting fire team. Buddy team 1 covers while buddy team 2 breaches and enters. Two men enter and are rapidly followed by the other two. This takes account of the danger of enemy fire and the need to crawl or otherwise tactically make it up to the entry point. It also takes account that in a high intensity operation you are probably breaching by some other method, such as explosive entry, other than smashing the front door, and you would have to move/adapt your stack to take account of that.

For internal room clearance, it describes the usual techniques of two men entering and going left or right, before taking up positions of dominance to cover the room. It describes four man, two man or other combinations entering rooms, depending on the tactical scenario. So, there is a little of the stacking technique for these internal room entries.

There is no mention of the term close quarter battle. CQB is simply a close range engagement of the enemy. There is a mention of close quarters fighting in the same FM when referencing trench clearance.

So, where did CQB come from? It is simply close quarters engagement with the enemy, and this does cover urban fighting and room entry drills. It has simply developed as a term in TTPs adopted as synonymous for urban training in units. It also makes my point that we are adopting more SWAT type techniques designed for more permissive or semi-permissive environments, by adopting the stack method to approach and breach the building. This will not fly in a high intensity combat environment, which is what I intended to point out.

The reason for this is probably cross-pollination of techniques due to the demands of kill/capture urban raid type missions as a result of operations post 9/11. In these situations, perhaps of surprise raids, we can get away with more of a domestic SWAT approach. CQB is not really mentioned in any of the US Army FMs, even the urban topic ones. But CQB definitely does exist. I have commented before, we have come to where we are with CQB greatly as a result of CT operations since 9/11, and the teams that do it have worked hard to get to that standard. I do not intend to criticize that. It does not really matter what the broader definition of CQB may be, and whether or not it can be used in jungle or trenches, or even what the FMs say, because as accepted joint CT TTPs “it is what it is” and everyone, including the SOF CT community, takes it as operations into structures/buildings. A semantics point like I made just fell on deaf ears. It was never a criticism, just an observation on definitions that were common in the Brit Mil at least a few years back. Even if I was "academically" right, it makes no difference because CQB is what it is considered to be by the community right now. I often see "CQB" made out to be a black art known only to a few. To me, understanding the techniques of CQB, just like other drills and TTPs, is not rocket science: the key thing is to select the right people for the job and drill endlessly to perfect it. That is what the current CT teams do. That is what we did in the UK.

 

[Etype]

Did stacking near the door originate with SWAT? Something tells me it didn't. As far as "the stack" goes, a lot of conventional units prefer a single stack parallel to the wall, whereas SOF units general prefer a split stack perpendicular to the door to give them more coverage into the room prior to entry. However, once things start moving, it doesn't often return to a recognizable formation since dudes start moving the moment everyone is done with their work in the room they are currently in- there is no (or should not be) discernible from the moment the element is "stacked" until the time it starts moving again, generally the guys up front start moving as soon as the last man starts moving towards them.

I definitely agree with the name discrepancy. The way marksmanship and combatives is handle shouldn't differ from inside to outside, if the range is the same the reaction should be the same.
- If I have to shoot 10m down a hallway, I will do it standing unsupported or on the move, if I have to take a 10m shot over a wall outside, I'm not going to assume a supported position on the wall, it's slower. Similarly, if I have to shoot 50m through a door across a warehouse I will post up on the door frame and make sure I hit the guy; if I'm outside shooting 50m over the same wall as before, I will assume a supported position.
- Movement in a trench is the same as movement down a hallway, and a bunker would be cleared the same way as a room.

 

[pardus]

I never equated CQB with anything other than FIBUA (even though it fits). Bush fighting (close country/jungle etc...) is pretty simple. Generally everything is at ground height unlike urban where the threat is truly 360 degrees. I found them vastly different to train in.

Combatives shouldn't be jiu-jitsu like the conventional army trains it, what they do is way too defensive and reactive. It should be an active/proactive beat down that you put on a non-compliant. Combatives that last more than 30 seconds should be the .001% scenario, which isn't worth training for. What is worth training for is quickly beating someone into compliance so you don't end wrestling on the floor. You don't comply, you get beat down/KTFO/broken arm/etc- it should be 10 second process.

Yes, absolutely! I didn't like Army combatives from the minute I was introduced to them.

 

[x SF med]

CQB has to be done under the auspices of "Speed, Surprise and Violence of Action" to truly be effective... whether as a reaction to an ambush, an ambush, or clearing a building... know how to use all weapons at your disposal, including your own body to close with and destroy the enemy.

The above may seem draconian to many, but unless it truly is a hostage situation with bound friendly personnel there are not going to be 'innocents' in an emeny held building, they are giving succor and aid to the enemy, and thus, are part of the enemy support operation and should be treated as such. In response to Army Combatitives, I was lucky... after SFQC, I was part of a test program that taught 'you or him' methods of hand to hand... offensive techniques to keep you alive - crushing nuts, gouging eyes, biting or cutting off chunks of your enemy, crushing his throat, whatever it takes to win if you get to that situation... let SWAT deal with those techniques that are less lethal, as a soldier, unless it is on great authority that there are good guys there - destroy all enemies, fight through an ambush, well and truly clear a room/building - risking what you need to in order to accomplish the mission and/or break contact if that is the key parameter.

My .02, ymmv....

 

[JBS]

Hi, I just wanted to raise a theoretical topic about Close Quarter Battle (CQB), what it should/does mean, and how we may possibly be going away from the military side of it towards a more "SWAT" perspective.

[snipped for space]

I'm a bit confused. CQB is almost entirely devoted to MOUT environments, fixed structures, and to a lesser extent vessels/platforms at sea. It is almost exclusively about entry, breaching, proper room clearing, movement at the element and (depending on the force involved) squad+ level, indoor and MOUT-specific weapons employment and transitions, weapons retention at close range, hand and arm signals, prioritization of targets, etc. It's about proper corners and FFF (Fatal Funnels of Fire) and- among other things- training the assaulter on how to avoid friendly fire in confined spaces with limited visibility and no (or reduced) hearing. At the platoon or larger level, it is about the proper establishment of things like perimeters at the objective, and a bunch of other stuff. Besides all of this are stuff I won't go into in an open forum (not because it's a national security issue, but just because it isn't needed, and bad guys like to read about how we move).

I've never heard of anyone ever refer to CQB as having anything to do with squad movement in non MOUT environments (jungle, mountain, et.al) and I'm a graudate of the Marine Corps Security Forces School at Chesapeake, FWIW. A guy popping up from behind a bush, or a rock is certainly going to end up as combat at close range, but this is not CQB.

Jungle is nothing like CQB because trees and bushes=concealment, not cover (for the most part), whereas MOUT environments are FILLED with both cover and concealment (usually) because there are fixed structures that can stop rounds - or allow rounds to pass along them (as in along walls), there are dynamic areas of sharply contrasting light and dark (one room is lit, another room is literally pitch black), alternately, whereas jungle/mountain will have relatively consistent light dynamics. There are acoustic and communications issues, there is the lack of ventilation when dealing with various agents.

Brother, jungle/mountain/desert is nothing like CQB if it is not in a MOUT or structured complex . CQB is not just a vague idea, but a defined concept with its own schools.

 

[Centermass]

I wouldn't rely on Wikipedia for anything other than info on boy bands.

 

[max velocity]

@ JBS,
I think you are absolutely right. CQB is, or perhaps has become, MOUT and is trained in schools as a specific skill. My point about the definition of CQB was a terminology/semantics thing that probably does not matter much. It had the potential of being a "down the rabbit hole" point. It is the case that I have heard of , and used CQB, in reference to individual/pair/fire team type drills in scenarios such as jungle lane "CQB" training. This was more to do with close range small unit patrol skills within a jungle environment, and did not encompass the larger picture of jungle warfare. But this was not with the US Military, so there may be a clue there. Perhaps just best to settle on changing that term in my mind to "close combat", to avoid confusion.

There were two threads to my original post, one was the definition of CQB, the other was the whole "becoming too SWAT point". It was brought up as a good point that it is not likely that SWAT originated these drills, and they probably started in the military. Case in point, in the UK the SAS are the premier originators and masters at hostage rescue and CQB, with techniques disseminating out to police SWAT teams. It would have been better terming it something like "suitabality of breaching/entry drills for permissive and non permissive environments", rather than getting it turned round the axle of the SWAT thing.

CQB in reference to it being an urban/MOUT thing is not like other environments, as you say. There will be crossover in terms of perosonal skills learned, such as close range shooting skills. But urban requires all those extra skills and considerations as listed. Wikepedia was certainly not my original reference, but I was scanning the net for something to corroborate my thoughts.

Apologies if I did not explain myself well, and thanks for tolerating my ramblings.....

 

[JBS]

@ JBS,
I think you are absolutely right. CQB is, or perhaps has become, MOUT and is trained in schools as a specific skill.

I don't want to split hairs, but just get a better understanding of where you are coming from. CQB is always MOUT, but MOUT is not always CQB. CQB is MOUT in relatively confined spaces- mostly- and will more than likely correspond to element/sub-squad sized detachments all the way up to a platoon, with perhaps a total strength of company or below dedicated to the action. Any larger than that, and it is no longer CQB. MOUT, on the other hand, describes up to Battalion (and perhaps even larger ;see Battle of Huey) sized elements engaged in Military Operations in Urban Terrain that may or may not have aspects of CQB involved; . A sniper team may be 700 meters away from an objective and not engage in CQB, but because they are in an urban environment will still be conducting MOUT; their field-craft would also correspond to MOUT protocol (as opposed to arctic or other protocol). Vehicle mounted patrols can also be carried out with MOUT protocol, but no one would say that a CAT/TOW section with MK19's and .50's was engaging in CQB. When using CAT Teams (vehicle mounted combined arms teams) or cav scouts, they're going to follow a certain behavior pattern within city or built up areas that will vary from how they would behave in undeveloped areas.

My point about the definition of CQB was a terminology/semantics thing that probably does not matter much. It had the potential of being a "down the rabbit hole" point. It is the case that I have heard of , and used CQB, in reference to individual/pair/fire team type drills in scenarios such as jungle lane "CQB" training. This was more to do with close range small unit patrol skills within a jungle environment, and did not encompass the larger picture of jungle warfare. But this was not with the US Military, so there may be a clue there. Perhaps just best to settle on changing that term in my mind to "close combat", to avoid confusion.

I too hear the terms CQC and CQB used interchangeably, but they are not the same thing. CQC is a vague, loose term that can mean anything from Private Schmuckatelli choke slamming someone to combatives to - as you put it- SWAT style operations. But CQB itself is a bit tighter in terms of what the acronym refers to.

There were two threads to my original post, one was the definition of CQB, the other was the whole "becoming too SWAT point". It was brought up as a good point that it is not likely that SWAT originated these drills, and they probably started in the military. Case in point, in the UK the SAS are the premier originators and masters at hostage rescue and CQB, with techniques disseminating out to police SWAT teams. It would have been better terming it something like "suitabality of breaching/entry drills for permissive and non permissive environments", rather than getting it turned round the axle of the SWAT thing.

I don't know a thing about SWAT, but some of the others here not only have Special Operations backgrounds, but also LEO and SWAT background.

I approached the thread the way I did because you mentioned that your similar posts at another site was not well received; it is possible that the terminology involved might be a part of that confusion. When you say that you have used CQB in the jungle, it is not something one hears often, and may have contributed to your post being misunderstood.

 

[max velocity]

@ JBS,
Yes, I agree with you that CQB is within MOUT, but MOUT gets bigger than CQB. As you say, no longer trying to split hairs: my original question/argument/point stemmed from a terminology thing where I had come across, and been trained, with CQB referring to activities outside of urban CQB. So it was a point of whether CQB in its urban form was the only type of "CQB", whether CQB was entirely synonymous with urban operations, or whether it could happen outside of urban/stucture type operations, not obviously as room clearance (no rooms) but simply as close combat drills. Granted, any form of CQB not in urban would not involve the same drills, because a house is not a clump of trees, to be trite about it.

I have not worked with/for Brit Mil for several years now, so I am not current with terminology now. I do wonder whether CQB, or "close combat" used to be a matter of simply range to enemy, and whether it has now been co-opted as a totally urban concept within MOUT (or OBUA/FIBUA in Brit terms).

I do not challenge your concept and certainty that CQB is entirely an urban activity (or at least structure based, boats etc) but I do wonder if your certainty reflects current thinking, as it has become, and perhaps not older school concepts. As you say, there are CQB schools and it is accepted as an entirely urban based activity with specific drills for structure entry and clearance. Oddly, the Army FMs don't really refer to or define CQB at all, but they do discuss urban operations and breaching, clearance and movement drills inside buildings.

CQB as we think of it is a skill set of current TTPs for low level small unit urban operations, usually within an overall MOUT operation. I'll stop discussing this if I am becoming a pain in the butt over it, but happy to respond if there is some interest in discussion . Or I'll just shut up.....:-/

 

[x SF med]

C = close Q= quarters B=battle Therefore any engagement say, for argument's sake, closer than 75m begins to fall into the realm, at 50m or less definitely falls into the bucket because a pistol can be used, and if you can touch the enemy with your dickbeaters you are deep in the CQB shit and you better be prepared.

That's it, I'm done... stick with generalities and common applications in the use of force at close range from here

 

[256]

I wondered if I should start a new thread or post my questions/comments to this one, even if it's a bit old. For the sake of starting new threads, I'll see what happens when I post it here since it is a CQB type of decision.

As I moved from the Army to Law Enforcement I noticed a drastic change in tactics with regards to CQB. The intentions are far different in the two aspects but similar in one way: potentially gun fighting in close quarters. In my Army FM 7-8 days, it was stacking on a door and going in. #1 man goes where he goes (button hook, lease resistance, whatever), #2 man goes opposite of #1, #3 goes with #1, #4 goes with #2. This is how we did it the entire time I was in the Army. I was always told and taught it myself to soldiers, "no matter what happens you go, get through the fatal funnel." Which is pretty funny because what you think you're going to do and what you actually do are two completely different things. Two examples of this happened in Iraq in 2007 while in Dora (AKA Al Doura) (a beautiful neighborhood area of Baghdad, bristling with vast markets, great home values, and great job opportunities in the tech market...).

When we began there it was clear the insurgency was strong and they were there to fight. A lot of the houses or building structures were booby-trapped with grenades or some other form of IED. My team was to establish an over-watch position on a roof on an abandoned building during a daylight clearance operation. When we tried to establish a foothold in the building the door was booby-trapped (no idea with what HME maybe) and there was an explosion. If I remember correctly, 1, 2, and 3 were in the door and I was in the rear and had not made it in the doorway yet when it went boom. As embarrassing as it is for me to say when the door blew, I did not go in right away. I paused for a few seconds, attempted to gain my composure then went in to help. Luckily no one was hurt badly, small shrapnel wounds but nothing serious.

The second was a night time hit, us conventional guys were in blocking positions and SOF (no idea who) was conducting the raid. Attempting to gain another high-side position we were going to take over a building. As we moved toward the door someone on the inside started to shoot through the door (there was no exterior gate/wall which was unusual and made getting in the building easier, we thought). The SAW gunner started on the door and windows and the shooting from the inside stopped (I'm not going to get into the AAR or BDA of that incident it's not relevant and our Command was not particularly happy about how it turned out).

The two stories are relevant because of how I am seeing CQB tactics change. If you watch any number of videos on youtube where guys are actually getting shot at during CQB their animal brains kick in and you can see them fighting the fight or flight urges. The first move every single one of them makes is a step back from the door or hallway. Now, I can bet my house that none of these videos are of Tier-whatever type guys or units so maybe it would be different for them because of all their experience. But generally, people are not really excited or willing to go into a room when someone already has the drop on them. This is where the Military vs LE aspect changes. Military solution: grenade, Carl Gustaf, 25mm, Jdam, whatever (as long as it's not a hostage situation). LE solution: Get negotiator, ask him to stop please, throw in a camera, or the Dallas SWAT technique: put a bomb on a Robot, situation solved (again not a hostage situation, completely different). What I am seeing is the idea of doing "threat assessments" of doorways and clearing most of the room without even entering the room. This isn't my idea or anything and I think it's pretty well known. Robert O'Neill talks about them doing tactics like this (it seemed to me anyway) as early as 2007 in his book.

I say all this because I am curious what most of you guys (SOF, SWAT, Infantry) are doing currently during MOUT operations with regard to battle drill 6 and NOT being a hostage situation. My two very limited experiences I shared were just to explain why I can see where using alternate techniques are being explored. Has it been a common trend in the SOF world to not enter and clear the room but clear the room by pieing or using angles? This is what is being taught at a lot of Police SWAT classes and I completely understand that it's not a "one size fits all" aspect. I would like to see what other's experiences are so I can do everything I can to make sure our guys are being effective, lethal, safe and most important, go home. Also, understand I am not asking anyone to violate any OPSEC, either. I have reached out to a mod about asking these specific questions to check if it was okay.

 

[Gunz]

Most of the jungle contacts we had were close enough to toss frags, within 30-40 meters, a few times much closer due to dense vegetation and its proximity to trails. I suppose that would constitute CQB...sans an urban setting. Open country and rice paddy terrain, anywhere from 100-400m.

The night I got hit the enemy opened up from cover within 25 feet of the trail. Our only response to this was to assault directly through the ambush. Six of us got hit in the process but we killed 10 of them.

 

[Hillclimb]

Most of the jungle contacts we had were close enough to toss frags, within 30-40 meters, a few times much closer due to dense vegetation and its proximity to trails. I suppose that would constitute CQB...sans an urban setting. Open country and rice paddy terrain, anywhere from 100-400m.

The night I got hit the enemy opened up from cover within 25 feet of the trail. Our only response to this was to assault directly through the ambush. Six of us got hit in the process but we killed 10 of them.

Thanks for the war boner that'll probably last me through the week.

We need a "The War Diaries Ococka" thread to start up.

 

[256]

Most of the jungle contacts we had were close enough to toss frags, within 30-40 meters, a few times much closer due to dense vegetation and its proximity to trails. I suppose that would constitute CQB...sans an urban setting. Open country and rice paddy terrain, anywhere from 100-400m.

The night I got hit the enemy opened up from cover within 25 feet of the trail. Our only response to this was to assault directly through the ambush. Six of us got hit in the process but we killed 10 of them.

This sounds terrifying. Very many thanks for your service.

 

[Hillclimb]

I say all this because I am curious what most of you guys (SOF, SWAT, Infantry) are doing currently during MOUT operations with regard to battle drill 6 and NOT being a hostage situation. My two very limited experiences I shared were just to explain why I can see where using alternate techniques are being explored. Has it been a common trend in the SOF world to not enter and clear the room but clear the room by pieing or using angles? This is what is being taught at a lot of Police SWAT classes and I completely understand that it's not a "one size fits all" aspect. I would like to see what other's experiences are so I can do everything I can to make sure our guys are being effective, lethal, safe and most important, go home. Also, understand I am not asking anyone to violate any OPSEC, either. I have reached out to a mod about asking these specific questions to check if it was okay.

What you're referencing as "pieing" off the room, is a deliberate entry. Essentially without entering the room, you can clear 90% of it from outside the door just working angles while minimally exposing yourself; it's like shooting from a barricaded position/with standoff. The 10% you can't clear are the deep corners. This is why 1 and 2 man dig the corners on entry.

Just running in off a initiation is a dynamic entry.

They each have their place. The type of situation, assets, environment, number of other factors will determine that.

If you know shit heads are in the building, you don't need to be in a rush to get into a gun fight. you can work angles and fight from that door frame all day. If you've breached, and need to continue to ride or regain momentum; roll in dynamic.

These are the kind of things you figure out as you're doing house runs, and debriefing eachother, talking each run over, and refining where/when to do what.

 

[256]

What you're referencing as "pieing" off the room, is a deliberate entry. Essentially without entering the room, you can clear 90% of it from outside the door while minimally exposing yourself; it's like shooting from a barricaded position/with standoff. The 10% you can't clear are the deep corners. This is why 1 and 2 man dig the corners on entry.

Just running in off a initiation is a dynamic entry.

They each have their place. The type of situation, assets, environment, number of other factors will determine that.

If you know shit heads are in the building, you don't need to be in a rush to get into a gun fight. you can work angles and fight from that door frame all day. If you've breached, and need to continue to ride or regain momentum; roll in dynamic.

These are the kind of things you figure out as you're doing house runs, and debriefing eachother, talking each run over, and refining where/when to do what.

That’s awesome man, I really appreciate the feed back. With Law Enforcement training I tend to take it with a grain of salt. There seems to be a bunch of “bro science” being used and lacking experience to back it. I’m good with “bro science” if you’ve had that experience. I tend to take military members experiences over LE experiences. It’s not a knock on LE, it just wasn’t where I grew up.

Thank you again,
Stay safe.

 

[TacoTraplord]

@ JBS,
Yes, I agree with you that CQB is within MOUT, but MOUT gets bigger than CQB. As you say, no longer trying to split hairs: my original question/argument/point stemmed from a terminology thing where I had come across, and been trained, with CQB referring to activities outside of urban CQB. So it was a point of whether CQB in its urban form was the only type of "CQB", whether CQB was entirely synonymous with urban operations, or whether it could happen outside of urban/stucture type operations, not obviously as room clearance (no rooms) but simply as close combat drills. Granted, any form of CQB not in urban would not involve the same drills, because a house is not a clump of trees, to be trite about it.

The Marine Corps defines CQB as "combat taking place within buildings, hallways, stairwells, rooms, enclosures, and other restricted spaces", and is taught with the psychological aspects, physiological aspects, overall mindset, as well as the mental awareness and mental processes involved.

I would say that it is not strictly synonymous with urban operations, but would apply and utilize it with almost any man-made structure involved. Also, the three principles of CQB can be utilized to good effect even if you are not in said scenario.