Just stumbled on this on the web. I only read chapter 6, and based upon that, I believe this was written by a kid or someone else who has no idea what they're talking about.
Close Quarters Battle Tactics
Full Version: CQB Tactics
well, he's got a point. i mean, i don't know how many times i've been fragged by camping faggots. especially the losers who use rockets--oh my god, rockets are cheating. no one who's taken the time to gain the necessary survival skills uses rockets, because campers suck. and only cheaters snipe. you know, i'd just like to point out that i own you.
The most feared situation is not close-quarters battle, it's I'm-in-the-middle-of-a-field-with-no-cover-and-my-opposition-isn't and the variations thereon.
~J
~J
Psssst. It works though. Even without rockets. "s why I do it.
Frag you later mfb =)
Frag you later mfb =)
| QUOTE |
| Slicing the pie |
Mmm... Pie...
I just read the rest and it sounds like he does airsoft or something. Just in case you're wondering, the rest is just as bad as Chapter 6 
I liked:
I liked:
| QUOTE |
| "If you're going to use a sniper, he must be a crack shot." |
Well, duh.
Actually, if you don't have a crack shot available, a sniper doesn't have to make head-shot-one-shot-kills to be effective for CQB. If you're about to make an entry, just having that guy shoot a window or something can get the enemy's attention off the portal you're about to enter. Hell, if the guy aims for the dude's torso and makes the hit, even better.
Airsoft judging by the Google, however, is there anything really wrong in terms of tactics?
Headshots are a bad idea for sniping against non-lone targets, as is anything that kills in short order. Hitting them in the stomach or shoulder is usually preferable. Demoralize and make them either tie up additional people or leave the guy in the dirt moaning.
~J
~J
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| Headshots are a bad idea for sniping against non-lone targets, as is anything that kills in short order. Hitting them in the stomach or shoulder is usually preferable. Demoralize and make them either tie up additional people or leave the guy in the dirt moaning. ~J |
Indeed. The more wounded they have, the more resources they take up trying to fix him.
I can understand the part about having another team member having to take care of someone with a gut shot, but if I saw my team member's head explode in front of me as I wiped his brains off of my goggles... yeah, that would pretty much do the trick for me.
More so than watching him writhing on the ground and begging for you to help him while you're not sure if you're in cover or not from where the sniper is and all you know is that where your buddy is is definitely not in cover?
~J
~J
Yes, more than that.
| QUOTE (Crimson Jack) |
| Yes, more than that. |
I find that hard to believe...
I've never been in the situation, but I can imagine how much more soulkilling it is to see your friend writhing in agony while you can do nothing about it without risking your own neck. Whereas if it's a clean headshot all you need to worry about is getting the tags and getting the fuck out.
Well one glaring problem I saw with his tactics on the first page I saw was:
| QUOTE |
| On the OIC's order, the Point man swings in through the doorway making a 90 degree turn to his nearest side. For example, if the point man is on the left side of the doorway, he'll enter and turn left. |
That is called a button-hook.
Your first objective is to get out of the "Fatal Funnel" (the doorway you enter will be where the enemy concentrates their fire once they're aware of your presence). You want to go straight through the door (depending on how it opens) and clear the doorway.
edit: Crap! Sorry. Not straight through the door. Actually it's better described as the path of least resistance, towards your designated zone. If your the first guy, this will usually be the first corner you run into as you proceed along the wall. i.e. On a door opening inward with hinges on the left, you line up on the hing (left) side and go straight in along the right side wall towards your corner (position of dominance).
First- To get out of the Fatal Funnel.
Second- To allow the guy behind you to get in.
A button-hook stops you in the doorway for a moment. The guy was right about clearing the corners, which is why the second guy button-hooks if your team started on the same side of the door. Again, this depends on the doorway, whether your in a hallway, etc...
If possible, if you have a situation where the team is able to stack up on opposite sides, you proceed in (depending on how the door opens) such a way as each teammember entering, does so in a straight line, clearing the funnel, and proceeding to their point of dominance within the room.
There was a ton of other stuff that he talked about which were big no-no's, but that is one above since you asked.
edit: there is so much more just on this, but I don't have the willpower to type it all out.
| QUOTE (tanka) | ||
I find that hard to believe... I've never been in the situation, but I can imagine how much more soulkilling it is to see your friend writhing in agony while you can do nothing about it without risking your own neck. Whereas if it's a clean headshot all you need to worry about is getting the tags and getting the fuck out. |
While out in the bush (or whatever). The gut-shot may be a good way to go (depending on your objectives at the time).
I was only referring to CQB, in such as a sniper helping to facilitate a team's entry. Of course, then a kill is more valued, but really not neccessary, so long as it gains the team a distraction (read: element of surprise).
the thing with having a wounded team mate instead of a dead team mate is, there are fewer decisions involved with a dead guy. recover his body or don't, retreat or attack--that's pretty much it. with a wounded team mate, you have to balance all sorts of risks and factors, mostly revolving whether or not it's worth trying to keep him alive. you might have more impact on an individual soldier with a bloody headshot, but you'll have more of an impact on a team with a wounding shot.
edited above "button-hook" post for glaring ommission on my part. Sorry! 
| QUOTE (FrostyNSO) |
| While out in the bush (or whatever). The gut-shot may be a good way to go (depending on your objectives at the time). I was only referring to CQB, in such as a sniper helping to facilitate a team's entry. Of course, then a kill is more valued |
I question that. If it's an incapacitating and eventually fatal wound (fatal over hours or days), if things go bad and you need to retreat the enemy will be faced with the apply first aid or follow immediately/in full strength decision, while a dead comrade doesn't tie up any resources either way.
~J
but if the sniper is just serving up for an entry team, they will only have a half-second to be affected, and hopefully they'll all be dead in a few seconds anyways and the entry team will be accomplishing their objective. The distraction is what matters.
Out in the bush, when your talking about a sniper trying to affect entire platoons or companies, wounding a soldier is way better, because of the manpower it will suck up over the next few minutes, days, whatever. Add that to the fact you just killed their platoon leader....
Out in the bush, when your talking about a sniper trying to affect entire platoons or companies, wounding a soldier is way better, because of the manpower it will suck up over the next few minutes, days, whatever. Add that to the fact you just killed their platoon leader....
I'm not sure which part you're questioning, elaborate?
I was questioning the kill being more valued. Basically, I was saying what mfb said, but more slowly.
~J
~J
Again, that depends on the situation. If we're talking about an urban assault in otherwise secure territory, a straight kill can potentially be more of an asset purely because that's one less person able to try and kill you as you go in. Usually, however, I do agree that enemy wounded are tactically more valuable to you. Just worth pointing out that it's not absolutely guaranteed.
[edit]
Oh holy fuck, I just read the article. Wow. Just fucking wow.
[edit]
Oh holy fuck, I just read the article. Wow. Just fucking wow.
That's a really hard question to address in any definate terms, and in fact, it will always depend on the current situation.
All I can say is, the purpose of CQB is to dominate the enemy through violence of action, establishing that dominance in the most expediant way possible (this doesn't mean you rush in like a maniac by the way, it is more a "careful hurry". A lot of it is mindset. Your objective is to clear that room by dominating it (usually killing any hostiles in the process
).
Basically, what it comes down to is that the whole team is going in. By the time the team figures out things are going bad, it will be too late.
Usually in this sort of situation, a counterattack by the enemy presents no real advantage, and will likely be counterproductive, since they are the ones that will have to face your side's fatal funnel.
Due to the nature of your team's attack, it behooves you to kill the enemy rather than wound him. A wounded enemy is still a threat that needs to be dealt with. Whether this means killing him if he still poses a threat (explosive vest, grenade, gun, etc.., or having to arrest the guy, it still requires the attention of your team once you are in the room. You want to have to focus on one thing: Clearing and dominating that room, and then if needed, proceeding, searching, or whatever.
If there are hostages involved, you really want to have less hostiles to worry about, especially if there's a chance that guy has explosives, or a detonator.
All I can say is, the purpose of CQB is to dominate the enemy through violence of action, establishing that dominance in the most expediant way possible (this doesn't mean you rush in like a maniac by the way, it is more a "careful hurry". A lot of it is mindset. Your objective is to clear that room by dominating it (usually killing any hostiles in the process
).Basically, what it comes down to is that the whole team is going in. By the time the team figures out things are going bad, it will be too late.
Usually in this sort of situation, a counterattack by the enemy presents no real advantage, and will likely be counterproductive, since they are the ones that will have to face your side's fatal funnel.
Due to the nature of your team's attack, it behooves you to kill the enemy rather than wound him. A wounded enemy is still a threat that needs to be dealt with. Whether this means killing him if he still poses a threat (explosive vest, grenade, gun, etc.., or having to arrest the guy, it still requires the attention of your team once you are in the room. You want to have to focus on one thing: Clearing and dominating that room, and then if needed, proceeding, searching, or whatever.
If there are hostages involved, you really want to have less hostiles to worry about, especially if there's a chance that guy has explosives, or a detonator.
yeah. different situations call for different levels of horrible maiming. in a non-CQB situation, wounding is the way to go; in CQB, you shoot the guy until he stops twitching, and then put two more in his head just to be sure, becuase the quarters are too close to leave anything to chance. also, in CQB, you generally have a more immediate goal than demorilzation.
So, it's the defenders that gain more wounding an attacking force before they enter close quarters?
eh. in close quarters, you pretty much want to kill no matter which side you're on. both defenders and attackers are more likely to keep pressing the offense (or counter-offense) than stop in the middle of the fight to recover their wounded--and if you try to wound a guy and don't do a good job, he'll still be shooting at you. if you're looking at relative value, though, yeah--the defenders would gain more from a wounding hit than the attackers would; there's at least a small chance the attackers will break off for a wounded guy. the defenders usually don't have many options in the way to escaping, so they're pretty much just going to stay put and shoot at you no matter how many of them you wound.
or, if they kill the rest of the attackers and have one wounded dude, that's a hostage. But yeah, you wanna be shooting to kill no matter what side you're on.
| QUOTE ("From the Article") |
| The most feared situation for any military or Special Forces unit is a Close Quarters Battle(CQB). |
Hmm, myself I was always much more afraid that we'd get on the bad side of "Enemy platoon in the open, fire for effect" routine....
This is one example of a situation where people whose judgement I wouldn't dare question decided to go for head shots instead of torso.
Shooting a guy in the torso with a rifle could leave him (almost) fully functional for a significant length of time, especially once combat has been entered and there's adrenaline in their veins by the bucketful. On the other hand, once combat has been entered, a clear head shot isn't all that likely to happen, and you have to weigh the lower lethality of the torso shot against the miss chance of the head shot. I would imagine the torso shot comes often out ahead in that case.
As for the "button hook", that's definitely not how we were trained to do it. We crisscrossed all the way. However, with a SpecOps unit, all those things should be rehearsed over and over before the actual mission.
Shooting a guy in the torso with a rifle could leave him (almost) fully functional for a significant length of time, especially once combat has been entered and there's adrenaline in their veins by the bucketful. On the other hand, once combat has been entered, a clear head shot isn't all that likely to happen, and you have to weigh the lower lethality of the torso shot against the miss chance of the head shot. I would imagine the torso shot comes often out ahead in that case.
As for the "button hook", that's definitely not how we were trained to do it. We crisscrossed all the way. However, with a SpecOps unit, all those things should be rehearsed over and over before the actual mission.
| QUOTE (tanka) | ||
I find that hard to believe... |
You find my personal opinion hard to believe? Okay. When it comes to my opinion, you'll find that I'm always right.
I find your belief that you're always right when it comes to your opinion hard to believe
~J
~J
First of all, let us examine the tactical situation and how do you get into them.
CQB - the objective is in the building, you need to go in and get it.
Open field, no cover - Objective is buried in the field? Otherwise, move around it.
Which scenario is more likely that a Spec Ops team find themselves in? A no cover field objective or a CQB situation? If it was an open field with no cover, why isn't the 1st Armoured being sent in instead?
CQB - the objective is in the building, you need to go in and get it.
Open field, no cover - Objective is buried in the field? Otherwise, move around it.
Which scenario is more likely that a Spec Ops team find themselves in? A no cover field objective or a CQB situation? If it was an open field with no cover, why isn't the 1st Armoured being sent in instead?
Perhaps because it was not known in advance that there would be an engagement? Last I checked it was not SOP anywhere to avoid open spaces at all times.
~J
~J
Grenades are your friend. Why rush throuch a doorway when you can throw a grenade in first with much less risk. In situations with potential hostages, flashbangs work well. A little hearing loss is preferable to death.
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| Perhaps because it was not known in advance that there would be an engagement? Last I checked it was not SOP anywhere to avoid open spaces at all times. ~J |
Last time I checked, SOP was Cover and Concealment. The only time we weren't required to move from cover to cover was while we were marching in parade or on base. Once in the field, always cover to cover.
| QUOTE (toturi) |
| The only time we weren't required to move from cover to cover was while we were marching in parade or on base. Once in the field, always cover to cover. |
Yep. On all non-parade marches and any field exercises we always avoided open spaces. Unless, of course, the officer in charge was feeling particularly lazy. A special ops team would probably take this kind of thing to the extreme, with GIs it really depends: on the orders, on local terrain, etc.
| QUOTE (hyzmarca) |
| Grenades are your friend. Why rush throuch a doorway when you can throw a grenade in first with much less risk. In situations with potential hostages, flashbangs work well. A little hearing loss is preferable to death. |
Anybody who has been in these sorts of situations know that grenades/flashbangs aren't always an option, or on a bad day, aren't always available. If you're clearing a large building with multiple rooms, it may not be feasable to use a grenade on every room you come to. What if that door is locked? Once you break down/breach the door, you have the initiative, so don't waste it by pausing to throw in a grenade or flashbang. Sieze the moment.
Even with flashbangs, the risk of injuring a hostage may be unacceptable.
Of course, if you got 'em and they'll be useful in the situation, go for it.
The rule in CQB is that the rules always change dependant upon the situation.
Indeed. Sometimes it's even better to let the opposition kill you.
~J
~J
My favorite was the bit about reloading. He points out there's an SOP for it, states matter-of-factly that Rangers are the best at it, and then goes into fantastic detail.
| QUOTE |
| Replace magazines quickly and engage in the firefight again. |
Gee, I always thought you were supposed to throw your empty magazine at the enemy and then run away.
~J
~J
no, you're supposed to throw the empty gun, as if it's somehow going to do more damage than the clip you just emptied into Superman's chest.
But he dodges, so maybe it would have worked if you'd hit him!
~J
~J
Another important thing to remember when discussing shoot to kill/shoot to wound is the time scale for the engagement. To my understanding (I'm no expert by any means) CQB takes place on a very short time scale (seconds to minutes per engagement- the whole violence of action thing).
It seems to me that team is less likely to stop to aid a non-critically wounded member when chances are the combat will be over in a matter of minutes leaving plenty of time to go back and safely treat the guy's gut shot.
Where as in the field, where an engagement can last hours or days, you can't just leave your buddy bleeding until the fighting is done...
Yes, CQB, due to the close, well, quarters and resultant increase in lethality, tends to be faster. So, yeah, you're right; medical treatment tends to take a backseat to making sure you dominate the engagement so you can live long enough to treat the wounded/achieve your objective, etc.
I just read through the site mentioned at the beginning, and would like to state the following facts:
1. CQB specialists are mammals.
2. CQB specialists fight ALL the time.
3. The purpose of the CQB specialist is to flip out and kill people.
1. CQB specialists are mammals.
2. CQB specialists fight ALL the time.
3. The purpose of the CQB specialist is to flip out and kill people.
Now That's REAL ULTIMATE POWER!
Now That's REAL ULTIMATE POWER!
I thought that was Ninjas...
CQB really stands for Close-Quarters Ninja, but the N is in disguise.
~J
~J
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| CQB really stands for Close-Quarters Ninja, but the N is in disguise. ~J |
That's sig worthy.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.