Kinophile Posted December 1, 2019 Share Posted December 1, 2019 (edited) https://tnsr.org/2019/10/the-city-is-neutral-on-urban-warfare-in-the-21st-century/ Interesting look that varies from the trope of "western armies will find future urban warfare extra hard". Quote Overall, we accept that the reality of demographics and geopolitics means that warfare will increasingly occur in urban environments. Nevertheless, we argue this is not, in itself, a development to be feared. If this represents a change, then it is one of degree not of fundamentals and is manageable with the right mindset — one that is sensitive to both opportunities and threats — and with bold and creative leadership. Quote The character of operations, however, has still been typified by the attack and defense of fortified locations, or urban areas that can be rapidly fortified (whether deliberately or as a by-product of combat), and operations that unfold over weeks and months, not hours and days. Ukrainian officers, for instance, characterized the months-long defense of the Donetsk Airport — a “serpentine grid of tunnels, bunkers, and underground communications systems” — against rebel forces of the Donbass Republic as a “mini-Stalingrad.” Been gone for ages, quick dip back into the pool Edited December 1, 2019 by kinophile 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted December 1, 2019 Share Posted December 1, 2019 Interesting perspective. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kinophile Posted December 1, 2019 Author Share Posted December 1, 2019 (edited) Ive never bought that OH GOD ITS GONNA BE SO UNIQUELY HARD FOR PROFESSIONAL ARMIES vibe. From a non-military POV, Professionals can make any situation work. It's the political tripwires that screw up the success of operations. Edited December 1, 2019 by kinophile 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerKommissar Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 Thanks for sharing. Lots of historical proof for Sun Tzu's universal formula. "In reality, there are no major cities that have been destroyed by war. Groningen and Aachen — and even Berlin, Stalingrad, Hiroshima, and Carthage for that matter — were all back in business soon after being blasted to smithereens in warfighting that verged on the exterminatory. Sometimes, nature may destroy a city, but man, despite his best efforts, does not." Does he consider Warsaw destroyed after German reprisal? The elephant in the room is collateral damage. "Military operations invariably have an impact on the urban landscape — even small arms can be devastating to structures — and there is no straightforward, correct answer to whether and to what extent it is acceptable to damage a city in pursuit of a political objective." I think that's a uniquely modern problem. The political reality of today is that the effect of any firing solution can be recorded and reported. The practical reality is that artillery and precision bombing are fundamental tools against a fortified defender. The defender can use civilian infrastructure as a human shield, and blame any collateral damage on the attacker. It's a catch 22: follow rules of strict engagement, relinquish your force multipliers and get bogged in destructive attritional warfare. Gaza, Libya, Syria and Yemen come to mind. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DougPhresh Posted December 4, 2019 Share Posted December 4, 2019 NATO and Warsaw Pact both forecast heavy urban warfare from at least the '60s on. I can only speak of my own experience but I trained in a replica of a "typical" West German town and that has been expanded to include a replica Afghan Village. I'm an artilleryman and we still do extensive CQB and FIBUA training even though you would never place the guns there. I agree that "conventional armies are doomed!" reminds me of the Popular Mechanics hardware fetishism that has been a problem since the 50's. The missile age was supposed to end surface combatants, manned aircraft and AFVs and 60 years latter here we are! A cynical person might suggest that Raytheon, General Dynamics and our other good friends in the MIC like to drum up sales by exaggerating threats and inflating their own capabilities. That cynic might also suggest that the defense staffs might tell the public and politicans that their militaries are doomed without massive spending to protect their own interests. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted December 4, 2019 Share Posted December 4, 2019 It probably depends on what size of conflict and who are the opponents. US/NATO have so far been involved in asymmetric war vs combatants with major tech inferiority - reminiscent of colonial wars Great Britain fought prior to WW1. Vs a peer enemy with similar tech and capabilities, specifically China and maybe Russia, it may well prove that "conventional armies are doomed". In an era of total war involving cyberwar, the main threat will be vs the soft underbelly of civilian urban centers... disruption of water and food distribution, power grids etc. Eg: Huge cities like LA with one major water source are at risk of becoming death traps as 10 million folks try to escape at the same time on limited freeways and access roads. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.