Does Solid Snake know CQC as well? This video from The Twin Snakes seems to show Snake fighting in CQC style against Gray Fox. Is there confirmation anywhere that it's the same technique? I don't recall that kind of fight in the original version of MGS, so perhaps Kojima added it specifically to echo MGS3's CQC moves? - Kwenn 19:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Just as an interesting point the Guns of the Patriots video shows Solid Snake using CQC as well --Drawde83 19:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The Twin Snakes wasn't directed by Hideo, so I'm not sure if that video was added to mimic the CQC battle system or not. As far as I remember, the director wanted to add cut-scenes reminiscint of the "bullet-time" sequences in The Matrix, because he thought they would add a refreshing aspect to the game, especially for people who had played through the original... - Fantomas

I recall reading somewhere (possibly the MGS1 manual, but I've seen forum posts of a similiar nature) that Solid Snake's fight style was referred to as CQB in Metal Gear Solid 1. Buried in a forum thread at is a discussion of the difference between CQC and person's explanation puts CQB as simply a way of immobalizing an enemy, which isn't nessacarily lethal. Although, this might just be an explaination why Snake's punch-punch-kick combo only knocks out an enemy. Eh, I've probably gone off on a tangent, though hopefully some of that was useful... Codificate 07:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It says that, unlike in MGS3, you cannot snap an enemies neck in MGS4. While this is true, you can strangle them to death if you keep choking them after they've passed out. I think this is worth noting. Lessthan3


Do the differences between CQC and CQB warrant a section on the article, since the majority of people in the civilian world tend not to know the difference? Ghost Leader

No I don't think we need to make a long article longer. I would recommend either adding it to attack team or creating a separate article. --Drawde83 05:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Is CQB even important to the world of Metal Gear? I don't think it's mentioned once in the entire series. There's no point in adding it if it's not relevant to Metal Gear.--Fantomas 05:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

there is no such thing as CQC however according to the Metal Gear Solid 4 database, CQC was developed as a sub division of the real style known as CQB, Defendu or combatives. proof the CQB is a fight style all it's own not just a room clearing technique however CQC in MGS3 was also used as that: none of these point to the use of the word CQC.

In the Database there is an article on CQC that if you read you will see it IS a subdivision of CQB so please stop changing it76.21.106.232 06:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

But in the games it is always called CQC. If CQB is something seperate then it has no relevance to this wiki. your previous version of that section stated that CQC didn't exist but then went on about CQB. if CQC isn't real then we don't need a real life section for it. if CQB is so important, create an article for it. You could even use the real life section. --Drawde83 11:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
that's what I did in the IN REAL LIFE section if you go back and look at my edits instead of mindless reverting you see that I put that in the "in real life" section because in real life while it's called CQC in some places it's really CQB which is the style also know as Defendu if you look at the link it's the using the style created by Eric Anthony Sykes and William Ewart Fairbairn. However it's stated in the Database that and I qoute word for word "The techniques are developed and subdivided from CQB(which has a link to an article)" which you can't argue with the data base. in real life there is no true CQC as seen used by snake and the boss that's why I said the style dosen't exist because it dosen't.- 04:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
CQC and CQB are interchangeable terms. One means Close Quarters COMBAT, the other means Close Quarter BATTLE. Combat and Battle are the same thing, it's up to each person to decide what they want to call it. If you want to be picky, you shouldn't call Defendu either one, since it already has a name. Defendu. And CQC/CQB can refer to any combat engagement where the operator is in close proximity to his enemy, and doesn't neccessarily involve hand-to-hand combat at all.
In the Metal Gear universe, CQC is a specific form developed by The Boss and Snake, even though the term can be used interchangably with CQB in real-life . --Bluerock 10:31, November 21, 2010 (UTC)


The creator of "CQC Enhancer" as it's called in the MGS database should be mentioned under that prominent CQC users list

The flawed logic of Solid Snake...

I realize this is all canonical in the games and all, but I personally find it to be flawed logic...

"Talking to Otacon, Snake called the enemies CQC only a "cookie cutter imitation" since he learned directly from Big Boss himself, while they had only read about it from books, and had no real training in CQC, choosing only to use it because of its popularity. Snake would fight Liquid Ocelot personally, on multiple occasions, the latter of the two learned by simply observing the style through the years. Snake mentions that whenever he sees an imitation his body automatically reacts and uses the real style to quickly out show and outclass the fake one." Well, let's explore that logic, shall we?

  • So a soldier using CQC that wasn't learned directly from Big Boss makes him an "imitation"? That they had no "real" training? Then what does that make the whole of the modern US military? Biggest part of them are trained in skills that their trainers didn't originally create. Just because they didn't receive instruction directly from The Boss or Big Boss, it doesn't mean they're "imitations", nor does it mean they don't have "real" training.
  • The US Army Special Forces were formed in 1952 and, as anybody who hasn't been hiding in a cave for the last 57 years will know, the organization still exists today. Now how many of the so-called "original" Green Berets (using Snake's logic) from 1952 are still in the US Army training new Green Berets? Very, very few, if any at all. Today's Green Berets were trained by men who were trained by other men before them that didn't create the training and tactics of the Special Forces. Does that make them "imitation" Green Berets? No, it absolutely does not. Nor does it make non Big Boss-trained CQC users imitations in any way.
  • Okay, moving on to my next point, Snake also states that soldiers use CQC because it's "popular". Now, maybe it is, by definition, a popular technique. But let me ask you this: Why is it popular? Because it's an effective technique, that's why. The "coolness" of it is the last reason it would be used by soldiers. "Cool" doesn't win wars. If it did, Iraq and Afghanistan would have been over a long time ago. In the MGS universe, CQC pretty much trumps virtually every other fighting style known to man. So why wouldn't they be using it?
  • Another point I'd like to make is how does a person learn something? He/she studies it, reads instruction manuals, practices it, correct? As you're reading my words, you're using a computer, right? Who taught you to use that computer? Your parent, spouse, sibling, one of those programming lessons we see advertising on TV, etc.. Now, because the source of your instruction didn't create the computer, operating system, and whatnot, does it make you an imitation computer user? No, of course not.

Now, this isn't meant to dispute anything in the article, it's just my analyzation of Snake's mindset regarding CQC. Ghost Leader 06:30, October 12, 2009 (UTC)

Your third point where you state that they couldn't possibly be using it just because it's popular is actually wrong. They are using it just because it's popular. In the MGS Universe the truth about Operation Snake Eater, Big Boss, The Boss and CQC had only just been publicly revealed, so Big Boss and CQC are the "in thing" during MGS4. I know that's not how an army in real life would run (using techniques because they're the in thing) but in MGS4 war has become just another part of everyday life. Most of them probably wouldn't have had any chances to properly utilize the technique either, so what they're using is probably an incredibly basic version. Your fourth point seems a little farfetched, sure I could use a computer by studying computers, but could I learn a kind of fighting style just by reading about it? Probably, but when I came into contact with someone who actually learned from a tutor I would probably look like a fool. On the whole I can see where you're coming from though. --Fantomas 11:58, October 12, 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't specifically say they weren't using it out of popularity, but looking back I appear to have inadvertently implied that. I'm pointing out that it isn't the only reason they're using it. They would be doing so also out of tactical reasons (i.e., to try and keep an edge over competition because CQC is a superior form of hand-to-hand combat. Take the adoption of the M16 during Vietnam as a bit more of a closer example. Sure, it looked all sci-fi and space age at the time, but what were the operational needs behind its adoption? Lighter weapon weight, better controllability in automatic fire, lighter ammo, etc.. My point is that, while CQC's popularity is a factor, they also have an operational need for it. Another example would be the PMCs using the Mark 17 SCAR-H: Sure, it looks cool, but I figure the fact that it fires the big-@$$ round 7.62 NATO round was the primary reason, followed by the comparatively light weight and modularity of the system. Then comes the "it's cool" reason. Ghost Leader 12:16, October 12, 2009 (UTC)
This seems more like a way to cover up the fact that Snake, someone who hasn't used CQC in decades is able to instantly defeat any other user of CQC. Surely there is such a thing as being out of practice?--Drawde83 03:11, October 13, 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I think its another symbolic point of MGS, relating to MGO. I thought of this as I started reloading MGO today (its still loading the update...:( ). I think what Snakes means is that its similar to how (speaking out of context) MGO functions. When I started out on MGO, I felt really outclassed of course because I was a newb, I had no friends over PSN being a newb at the time, and most guides told me things I didn't understand. Compared to MGS4 where Snake was, as a disciple of Big Boss, already trained and had the Octocamo enhancements, your player character as a soldier relies on SOP and is a blank slate kind of.
I compare MGO to the situation of MGS4, as I think some have by now though I'm proud to say I thought of this early on, because MGS4 points out that "war has become routine and pointless, a daily thing". That best relates to a video game, where players fight again and again because humanity believes that the actions performed in a video game hold no consequence and that its just a simulation of a war - meaning it can happen fruitlessly, on and on on. MGO showcases the "outside war" that Snake saw in Acts 1 and 2. Did anyone else feel a bit disappointed after hearing that MGS4 would "take place on a battlefield" and then the majority of that was only during the opening level? I thought the entire game would shift BETWEEN battlefields. But MGS4 has varying stages - Act 1 is a warzone, Act 2 is guerilla warfare and jungle combat as well as tracking, Act 3 enhances the "tracking" aspect and includes a vehicle chase scene, Act 4 is a battle against machines and creatures that possess "no lifesigns" under awful conditions as well as a nostalgia bomb, and Act 5 is...sort of a fusion between Acts 1 and 4, it brings back the idea of tactical espionage in a closed, mechanical environment that MGS1 had. Well, MGO brings out the WAR that Kojima and all of his trailers promised, through the players that seek reward and fame during their free time culminating in a "routine war".
In MGO, if you look at this metaphysically, soldiers only "know" how to use CQC in a limited function and on certain levels. Your CQC stat is governed by three levels, and you have to "add" CQC to your current ability list just to USE CQC properly. On Lv1, you have your basic chokehold, drag, and slam. That's it. Its a "cookie cutter limitation" in that the soldier has merely read or studied a bit about it from the "operational guide of MGO or an online guide" and has CQC equipped so that he can level it. Even at its highest level, CQC PALES in comparison to what Old Snake can do on MGO. Old Snake actually has his own personal stat called "Legendary Hero" that puts his CQC abilities even HIGHER than the special "CQC Expert" skill which allows you to counter. Really, I THINK most CQC allows you to counter, however, soldiers in MGS4 perform on basic levels of CQC and merely "imitate" it through the levels MGO uses, becoming "imitators".
And on the popular angle. The only reason you would initially think to put CQC on is because you think "I can be just like Snake or Big Boss" and "I'd like to be cool and slam somebody instead of shooting them". Really, in MGO, guns are faster and easier. CQC is a dangerous move. But most newbies like me, when we're trying to level so we don't immediately get owned looked up guides and advice - and multiple sources say that you should have a "basic level of comfort with CQC, leveling it to level 3". While its unorthodox in warfare to get close and "kung fu" your opponent, many MGO players use it "because its cool to do", not because it makes no sense not to use their assault rifles and pistols and grenades instead of running up and risking getting shot. User:Eugar 12:22, October 24, 2009 (UTC)

CQC vs CQB round II

because of the edit war that happened last time I don't want to change things and annoy anyone,especially since the changes were only just made.

However the line about CQC being related to defendu doesn't make sense as CQC is the MGS universes equivalent of defendu. I don't mind the judo jujitsu part so much although it's still fairly speculative. The "CQC isn't a real art but here are all the real world versions of it" line still bugs me. Especially when it the MGS and real world sections get mixed together. --Drawde83 17:57, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

I still stand by my statement that CQB should not even be mentioned, let alone gone into in such detail considering there is very little that actually links the two. I can't help but feel that entire CQB section at the end was added merely so someone could show off how much they knew about the subject. It's irrelevant to Metal Gear in my eyes. --Fantomas 18:43, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
As mentioned previously, CQC is a further developed form of CQB, which is stated in the MGS4 Database, and not merely the MGS universe's equivalent. Solid Snake is also stated to be an expert in CQB by Master Miller in MGS1, so it does exist in MGS:

Miller: Meryl's just being controlled. You're an expert at unarmed CQB (Close Quarters Battle), right? Stop her without using your gun, that's all.

And on another occasion...

Miller: The basic law of CQB (Close Quarters Battle) is to take your enemy out as quickly and efficiently as possible while maintaining your own escape route.

I think the confusion stems from the interchangable terms "close quarters combat" and "close quarters battle". Even the Boss states that CQC is a basic form of close quarters combat, which would at first seem to make little sense if the two are just the same thing. --Bluerock 19:49, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
This article was started because of how important CQC was to MGS3. but it is getting away from what was presented in MGS3 and MGS4. Pages that link to this page will be related in some way to those games. I would be happy to create a CQB entry in glossary saying that it was the fore runner of CQC but I don't think that or the majority of the real-world stuff belong here. --Drawde83 20:12, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, a CQB entry in the glossary is fine. We should say it was developed from CQB, but leave it at that. The only real world stuff to keep would be related to CQC itself, as developed by Motosada Mori. --Bluerock 20:20, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
ok I'll add CQB to the glossary now and do the editing a bit later. I did like the Judo mentions so I'll try and incorporate those --Drawde83 20:30, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

Naked Snake vs The Boss...

Hi everyone,

I was just wondering how to counter The Boss's CQC? How do you do it? What were your success rates?Otacon1514 03:54, November 21, 2010 (UTC)

Tap the CQC button just as she executes her attack, but make sure your moving at the same time; if you stand still you often misjudge whether she's close enough to successfully counterattack. I usually run from her and wait for her to catch up to counterattack, or I ambush her from around the tree she is hiding behind. Works almost all the time. --Bluerock 10:31, November 21, 2010 (UTC)
Thanx dude!
My tactic is similar to the one in cutscene where she counters Snakes attack; by turning back on her. At the same moment Snake turns, I press the CQC button and it counters it. It's about 95 % of time when I success in it. It's easy to remember the basic. When she says "get ready!" or something like that, turn away and stand still, if you know where she is coming from. If not, equip thermal goggles to help spot her.
There is also way to escape from her attack but that depends which grab she uses. If she attacks you from behind and is about to throw you to your back, tap the X button while tilting left analog stick opposite direction from her you can escape but she immediately counter your CQC if you try it. That's probably the hardest one to escape. If you need to practice them, go to Duel mode and let her attack you, then try different button combinations or try moving left analog stick to different direction. Dr.Ed Argon 17:07, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.