Talk:Close Quarters Combat

Should this article be blended with combatives? It seems a bit odd having a video game and WWII military history in one place, and there is a fairly large possibility for the hand-to-hand fighting of combatives (here CQC) to be mistaken for squad-level tactics in urban warfare and other MOUT issues. If the CQC disambiguation page pointed to CQB and combatives and here (for the videogame stuff) that would seem much simpler. Rorybowman 07:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not whith combatives, but it should probably be merged with Close quarters battle. Any thoughts?Isaac Crumm 07:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This used to be part of Close Quarters battle. I say we tag this as a stub and expand upon it. Dig up some info about it, write the article. Dboyz-x.etown 19:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Vasiljev 04:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC): CQB is a separate type of military ops. It is not the same as Hand-to-Hand Combat, though it occasionally uses elements of it. It should be merged with CQB instead. Modifying the merge template accordingly.[reply]

CQC can be merged with CQB. Combatives should probably be left seperate. User5802 06:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging with hand-to-hand combat

Hand-to-hand combat is much to wide of a topic to include cqc or cqb. Cqc should not be merged with hand-to-hand combat. User5802 06:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this problem's been resolved User5802 06:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plural or singular?

Is it "Close Quarters Combat" or "Close Quarter Combat"? Both are used in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.15.238.172 (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, created a redirect for close quarter combat User5802 04:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]