How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[OBJ]

Re attacking buildings from the top down.

Please see para 6.3 sub para d.

https://550cord.com/infantry-rifle-platoon-squad-fm-7-8/fm-7-8-chapter-6-urban-operations/

"Entry at the top and fighting downward is the preferred method of clearing a building (Figure 6-5) . This forces the defenders down and out of the building where the support element can engage them. This method is only feasible, however, when access to an upper floor or rooftop can be gained from the windows or roofs of adjoining, secured buildings. Rooftops are treated as danger areas when surrounded by higher buildings from which enemy forces could engage the assault element. Helicopters should land only on those buildings that have a roof structure that can support their weight. If the structure cannot support the helicopter, soldiers can dismount as the helicopter hovers a few feet above the roof. Troops then breach the roof or common walls to gain entrance into the building. (If using explosives on the rooftop, ensure cover is available to the soldiers.) They may use ropes or other means to enter the lower floors through the holes created."

[The_Capt]

37 minutes ago, JonS said:

Nat Fick (of Gen Kill fame) talks about from-the-top-down as the correct doctrinal approach to clearing buildings in the late '90's in One Bullet Away. I don't think that has any Sun Tzu-esque veneer though - its just that it's easier to assault "downhill", and easier to set up a ground-level cordon when you dont have to create an entry corridor for the clearance team. Also, defenders most often orient themselves to contesting a ground level assault, so coming in at the top out flanks all that and makes the initial breach a lot easier.

But it does depend on resources (ie; loads of helos, and an operating concept that embraces hot LZs) that most militaries dont have access to.

I can recall doing the old shoot houses the same way and hauling rope ladders, but I am not sure it survived contact with the Dust Wars to be honest.  Standard procedure in those was to pin the enemy in a building and then destroy the building, or at least the floors the other team was on.  I mean if all I had was infantry with no support, maybe?  Gravity being on ones side and all that.  The other problem with top-down that has been noted is that you are now exposed to fire from other building while trying to be all clever.

Hey I am not saying never.  Say for example if one knows there are non-combatants in the building and then you are looking at a room by room clearance and top down starts to make a lot more sense.  But in my experience the infantry pretty much just blast the floors, clear and move on. 

[The_Capt]

3 minutes ago, OBJ said:

Re attacking buildings from the top down.

Please see para 6.3 sub para d.

https://550cord.com/infantry-rifle-platoon-squad-fm-7-8/fm-7-8-chapter-6-urban-operations/

"Entry at the top and fighting downward is the preferred method of clearing a building (Figure 6-5) . This forces the defenders down and out of the building where the support element can engage them. This method is only feasible, however, when access to an upper floor or rooftop can be gained from the windows or roofs of adjoining, secured buildings. Rooftops are treated as danger areas when surrounded by higher buildings from which enemy forces could engage the assault element. Helicopters should land only on those buildings that have a roof structure that can support their weight. If the structure cannot support the helicopter, soldiers can dismount as the helicopter hovers a few feet above the roof. Troops then breach the roof or common walls to gain entrance into the building. (If using explosives on the rooftop, ensure cover is available to the soldiers.) They may use ropes or other means to enter the lower floors through the holes created."

I think that may be in for a re-write.  The thought of getting into a helicopter and landing on a rooftop after what we have been seeing in this war makes me want to desert.

The new SOP will be to fly the FPVs in through the roof and kill everything inside that looks dangerous.  Then walk up and try and find intel.

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, Vacillator said:

Perhaps we can also discuss whether Hitler allowed the British to escape from Dunkirk ?

It was the Mole People...they were really pulling the strings.

[Battlefront.com]

3 minutes ago, OBJ said:

Re attacking buildings from the top down.

Please see para 6.3 sub para d.

https://550cord.com/infantry-rifle-platoon-squad-fm-7-8/fm-7-8-chapter-6-urban-operations/

"Entry at the top and fighting downward is the preferred method of clearing a building (Figure 6-5) . This forces the defenders down and out of the building where the support element can engage them. This method is only feasible, however, when access to an upper floor or rooftop can be gained from the windows or roofs of adjoining, secured buildings. Rooftops are treated as danger areas when surrounded by higher buildings from which enemy forces could engage the assault element. Helicopters should land only on those buildings that have a roof structure that can support their weight. If the structure cannot support the helicopter, soldiers can dismount as the helicopter hovers a few feet above the roof. Troops then breach the roof or common walls to gain entrance into the building. (If using explosives on the rooftop, ensure cover is available to the soldiers.) They may use ropes or other means to enter the lower floors through the holes created."

The theory is sound.  Having never been in an urban fight, I imagine it like this:

If you are defending a building from an attacker below you already know your exit is cut off, so your options are to fight, die, or surrender.  You also have some assurances that there's nobody attacking you from the other side (i.e. up) which allows you to concentrate your fighting against the attackers below you.

If you're being attacked from above, you now have the option to retreat.  The route for retreat might be difficult or impossible, but mentally it's there as an option.  That changes the calculations of the defenders.

Since the object of clearing a building is to CLEAR THE BUILDING, flushing the enemy out instead of hand to hand fighting is preferable.  Especially if you have control of the ground and can get them when they are out in the open.

Then again, demolishing a building works too if that's an option.  That very well might not be.  Especially in a law enforcement scenario.  People get really touchy about buildings going BOOM! (see 1985 Philadelphia experience with MOVE).

Steve

[The_Capt]

7 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

The theory is sound.

Theory, maybe.  Practically, not really.  How do you get enough troops on top of the freakin building in the first place?  Both sides in this war cannot come within kms with tac aviation, let alone loading guys up to drop unsupported onto a roof.  Then once up top you are taking fire from both below, and other buildings.  And then the other team, not being stupid, booby-traps the ever living hell out of the top of buildings they are in, and you have that to deal with.  Add in drone ISR and strike, and the whole thing can devolve into a nightmare.

This theory would work well if one is attacking an isolated building and had enormous resources to pull it off (helicopters?!), and still need a building afterwards.  At that point this is starting to look and feel like a SOF op. I never heard of any troops going this way in Iraq or Afghanistan.  Nor do I remember any reports of partner forces doing it in Mosul - but that one is a bit more blurry.  I mean sure, I suppose it is an eventuality - did anyone hear of stuff like this at Mariupol?

It sounds a little too "peacetime warfare" theory for my liking.  

[OBJ]

23 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Since the object of clearing a building is to CLEAR THE BUILDING, flushing the enemy out instead of hand to hand fighting is preferable.  Especially if you have control of the ground and can get them when they are out in the open.

No argument it is much easier and less risky to just blow the building. But, if, for whatever reason, the mission is to 'clear the building' top down seems to be the preferred method. 

If you take a look at fm-7-8-6.3, there are a number of qualifiers to the top down approach.

From my limited view of this war, no one seems too interested in clearing buildings, simply clearing resistance.

Edited January 28 by OBJ

[hcrof]

18 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Theory, maybe.  Practically, not really.  How do you get enough troops on top of the freakin building in the first place?  Both sides in this war cannot come within kms with tac aviation, let alone loading guys up to drop unsupported onto a roof.  Then once up top you are taking fire from both below, and other buildings.  And then the other team, not being stupid, booby-traps the ever living hell out of the top of buildings they are in, and you have that to deal with.  Add in drone ISR and strike, and the whole thing can devolve into a nightmare.

This theory would work well if one is attacking an isolated building and had enormous resources to pull it off (helicopters?!), and still need a building afterwards.  At that point this is starting to look and feel like a SOF op. I never heard of any troops going this way in Iraq or Afghanistan.  Nor do I remember any reports of partner forces doing it in Mosul - but that one is a bit more blurry.  I mean sure, I suppose it is an eventuality - did anyone hear of stuff like this at Mariupol?

It sounds a little too "peacetime warfare" theory for my liking.  

I have seen British troops train with ladders, which can also be used as bridges across an alley. Not saying I would volunteer mind, I would prefer the baseball sized boom-drones going in first. 

Also, wasn't black hornet developed for urban warfare, to check round corners and in buildings for ambushes and booby traps?

[Fenris]

Wonder if these are the same action (some other tweets state that it is)

 

 

Edited January 28 by Fenris

[Fenris]

Another interesting clip, night time recovery ending in the loss of both vehicles.  Looks like the lead gets stuck in a ditch after trying to out run the ubiquitous bomber drone.

 

[Fenris]

Couple of clips with ground based drones this time.  Laying mines, a flail drone and bridge demolition.

 

 

Edited January 28 by Fenris

[OBJ]

re Infantry clearing a building, what I could find for a current US Army doctrinal reference is:

ATP 3-21.8 INFANTRY PLATOON AND SQUAD April 2016, references
ATTP 3-06.11 (FM 3-06.11) Combined Arms Operations in Urban Terrain Jun 2011, emphasis added below
Presumably both are recent enough to reflect Iraq/Afghanistan experience, which to @The_Capt's point, may not be relevant in Ukraine. 

The principal seems the same though, top down is preferred.

Since this is a wargame forum I should mention I think we can simulate many of the planning considerations for a top down infantry assault where buildings are adjacent and occupied by opposing forces. Steve or Charles I imagine would need to weigh in on whether and how CM advantages the attacker going from top down.

The ATTP reference starts page 7-36

"METHOD FOR ENTERING AND CLEARING BUILDINGS

7-146. The goal is to gain a foothold. While a direct frontal assault can accomplish this, it also can be quite costly. As such, always look for an alternate entry points. If the building is enemy occupied, try to avoid the obvious entry as the enemy will be expecting it and, to various degrees, be ready for it.  

7-147. In many instances, it is better to clear a well-defended building, especially a well-defended ground floor, from the top down as this avoids a frontal assault and bypasses the expected ground floor entry points that are often well defended and booby trapped. However, entering a building from any level other than the ground floor may be difficult, Security and speed are critical to a successful above ground entry. The exposure of Soldiers when entering a higher level must be mitigated. Use various methods to gain above ground floor access, to include ladders, drainpipes, vines, Soldier assistance, armored vehicles, adjacent roofs, windows, or walls. Additionally, consider using helicopters to gain access to the roof.   Urban Combat Skills 10 June 2011 ATTP 3-06.11 7-37

7-148. The advantages are that a unit’s momentum is greater clearing down than up; grenades are easier to throw down a stairwell than up; fewer personnel are needed to secure the upper floors and roof as opposed to securing the ground floor. Also, consider that an enemy who is forced to the top of a building may be cornered and subsequently fight desperately or escape over the roof. An enemy who is forced down to ground level may elect to withdraw from the building, thus exposing himself to friendly fires from friendly forces outside.

7-149. The disadvantages of upper entry are that the means to enter a building at an upper level may not be present and, even if present, often takes additional time to reach; and the method of entry often increases the exposure risk of the assault force. These disadvantages, combined with the fact that the ground floor is by far the most accessible, mean that the most common method of gaining entry to a building remains by way of the ground floor. As such the dangers of ground floor entry can be successfully mitigated by support, suppression, security and obscuration.

Edited January 29 by OBJ

[Vet 0369]

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Do you have any sources to back this up?  I have read about his operation pretty extensively and nowhere have I seen the idea that the "gap" was intentional.

"General Bradley himself later considered the failure to close the gap a mistake, and he placed the responsibility on Montgomery. He recalled that he and Patton had doubted "Monty's ability to close the gap at Argentan" from the north, and they had "waited impatiently" for word from Montgomery to authorize continuation of the XV Corps advance. While waiting, according to Bradley, he and Patton had seen the Germans reinforce the shoulders of the Argentan-Falaise gap and watched the enemy pour troops and materiel eastward to escape the unsealed pocket. It seemed to him and Patton, Bradley remembered, that Dempsey's British Second Army, driving from the northwest, accelerated German movement eastward and facilitated German escape by pushing the Germans out of the open end of the pocket like squeezing a tube of toothpaste. "If Monty's tactics mystified me," Bradley later wrote, "they dismayed Eisenhower even more. And ... a shocked Third Army looked on helplessly as its quarry fled [while] Patton raged at Montgomery's blunder." [30]"

"If Patton, in a subordinate role, could only rage at Montgomery's tactics, and if Bradley thought he might offend a sensitive Montgomery by requesting permission to cross the army group boundary, Eisenhower, who was in France and following the combat developments, might have resolved the situation had he thought it necessary. Yet General Eisenhower did not intervene. Interfering with a tactical decision made by a commander in closer contact with the situation was not Eisenhower's method of exercising command. Long afterward, General Eisenhower stated that he thought Montgomery should have closed the gap and that closing the gap "might have won us a complete battle of annihilation." [33] Montgomery's chief of staff, Maj. Gen. Sir Francis de Guingand, also believed that the Argentan-Falaise gap might have been closed if Montgomery had not restricted the Americans by means of the existing army group boundary, a restriction, Guingand thought, American commanders felt strongly. [34]"

https://history.army.mil/books/70-7_17.htm

Patton was pretty angry but it wasn't Eisenhower that even gave the order, it was Bradley.  And the situation was complicated.  Bradley appears more concerned about over-extension as Monty and the Canadians could not hold up their end.  Pretty much everything I have read is that everyone agreed on one point - kill as many Germans as possible, so we don't have to fight them later - not some bizarre Sun Tzu-esque "be like water over oil"

As to your training experience...it also sounds very bizarre - and frankly Cold War games.  Drive the enemy to the top floors and then blast them all to hell on those floors until the building drops.  Why on earth would one give them an escape route where they can relocate and kill you all over again?  I grew up in the find-fix-finish...forever...school so it could be a generational thing. 

Well then, I stand corrected, thank you. It was my understanding that Patton was ordered to halt, which enabled the escape corridor to remain open.

About the urban combat, the purpose of us driving the enemy down was to drive them into a kill zone as they exited the building. I honestly don’t know how the Army was trained to do it though, so you are probably right. As a side note, until WWII, Marines never even trained for urban combat as that was the mission of the Army, and not the Marine Corps. Later DoD and JCS policies were different.

[The_Capt]

13 minutes ago, OBJ said:

re Infantry clearing a building, what I could find for a current US Army doctrinal reference is:

ATP 3-21.8 INFANTRY PLATOON AND SQUAD April 2016, references
ATTP 3-06.11 (FM 3-06.11) Combined Arms Operations in Urban Terrain Jun 2011, emphasis added below
Presumably both are recent enough to reflect Iraq/Afghanistan experience, which to @The_Capt's point, may not be relevant in Ukraine. 

The principal seems the same though, top down is preferred.

Since this is a wargame forum I should mention I think we can simulate many of the planning considerations for a top down infantry assault where buildings are adjacent and occupied by opposing forces. Steve or Charles I imagine would need to weigh in on whether and how CM advantages the attacker going from top down.

The ATTP reference starts page 7-36

"METHOD FOR ENTERING AND CLEARING BUILDINGS

7-146. The goal is to gain a foothold. While a direct frontal assault can accomplish this, it also can be quite costly. As such, always look for an alternate entry points. If the building is enemy occupied, try to avoid the obvious entry as the enemy will be expecting it and, to various degrees, be ready for it.  

7-147. In many instances, it is better to clear a well-defended building, especially a well-defended ground floor, from the top down as this avoids a frontal assault and bypasses the expected ground floor entry points that are often well defended and booby trapped. However, entering a building from any level other than the ground floor may be difficult, Security and speed are critical to a successful above ground entry. The exposure of Soldiers when entering a higher level must be mitigated. Use various methods to gain above ground floor access, to include ladders, drainpipes, vines, Soldier assistance, armored vehicles, adjacent roofs, windows, or walls. Additionally, consider using helicopters to gain access to the roof.   Urban Combat Skills 10 June 2011 ATTP 3-06.11 7-37

7-148. The advantages are that a unit’s momentum is greater clearing down than up; grenades are easier to throw down a stairwell than up; fewer personnel are needed to secure the upper floors and roof as opposed to securing the ground floor. Also, consider that an enemy who is forced to the top of a building may be cornered and subsequently fight desperately or escape over the roof. An enemy who is forced down to ground level may elect to withdraw from the building, thus exposing himself to friendly fires from friendly forces outside.

7-149. The disadvantages of upper entry are that the means to enter a building at an upper level may not be present and, even if present, often takes additional time to reach; and the method of entry often increases the exposure risk of the assault force. These disadvantages, combined with the fact that the ground floor is by far the most accessible, mean that the most common method of gaining entry to a building remains by way of the ground floor. As such the dangers of ground floor entry can be successfully mitigated by support, suppression, security and obscuration.

That last para pretty much sums it up.  I never heard of a single action where we did top down building clearances with conventional troops in Afghanistan (or Iraq for that matter).  SOF, sure but those are special circumstances. 

The single biggest problem in a dense urban setting is isolating the building.  The enemy is not dumb, they are going to set up mutually supporting positions.  So you don't attack a single building, you have to clear and entire complex.  Top down this means multiple simultaneous attacks so that your guys do not get blown away from another building (seriously?  "vines and drainpipes?!").  For tac aviation this means multiple landings insertions on multiple rooftops.

In Ukraine, with the type of warfare we are seeing, it would be even more dangerous as getting spotted with enemy drones everywhere is almost guaranteed.  Every street fight I can recall ended the same way - lead with firepower.

"As to forced to fight."  I think the enemy will figure out pretty damned quick that they are going to get shot down in the street and fight just as hard.  Finally, if we are talking reality, another really good reason to not go in from the top is that fact that the enemy would wire a building to blow if assaulted.  A lot easier to get the f#@$ out on the ground floor than jumping. 

But hey, it is in the pam.... 

Edited January 29 by The_Capt

[MikeyD]

Building clearing of this sort sounds like 'anti-terrorist' operations where you're theoretically only operating against a few isolated belligerents at a time on friendly ground. For a full-up war I expect you'd want to simply knock the building down. In the siege of the Japanese embassy in Peru in 1996 they did the opposite, tunneled under the building, blasted their way up into the ground floor and... didn't take prisoners.

[JonS]

9 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I never heard of a single action where we did top down building clearances with conventional troops in Afghanistan (or Iraq for that matter).

It's a different time period, but top-down was definitely a thing at Ortona.

[Vet 0369]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Theory, maybe.  Practically, not really.  How do you get enough troops on top of the freakin building in the first place?  Both sides in this war cannot come within kms with tac aviation, let alone loading guys up to drop unsupported onto a roof.  Then once up top you are taking fire from both below, and other buildings.  And then the other team, not being stupid, booby-traps the ever living hell out of the top of buildings they are in, and you have that to deal with.  Add in drone ISR and strike, and the whole thing can devolve into a nightmare.

This theory would work well if one is attacking an isolated building and had enormous resources to pull it off (helicopters?!), and still need a building afterwards.  At that point this is starting to look and feel like a SOF op. I never heard of any troops going this way in Iraq or Afghanistan.  Nor do I remember any reports of partner forces doing it in Mosul - but that one is a bit more blurry.  I mean sure, I suppose it is an eventuality - did anyone hear of stuff like this at Mariupol?

It sounds a little too "peacetime warfare" theory for my liking.  

LOL, I love the sound of social discourse in the evening! It’s the sound of freedom (just like the sounds of a target range)! It’s amazing what an old grunt in his mid 70s can get started when he reminisces about training fifty years ago. If tactics haven’t changed in that interim, I’d be terrified for our service members!

[Vet 0369]

It was the considered opinion of virtually every Grunt that the main purpose of Staff Officers was to bring the coffee the Junior Officers had made to their bosses in the Pentagon, to come up with plans that would increase funding and prevent the other services from receiving a portion of said funding, and mostly to come up with idiotic ways to screw with said Grunts!

Present company excluded of course!

Edited January 29 by Vet 0369

[Bearstronaut]

15 minutes ago, Vet 0369 said:

It was the considered opinion of virtually every Grunt that the main purpose of Staff Officers was to bring the coffee the Junior Officers had made to their bosses in the Pentagon, to come up with plans that would increase funding and prevent the other services from receiving a portion of said funding, and mostly to come up with idiotic ways to screw with said Grunts!

Present company excluded of course!

I was a dirty enlisted man too but those staff officers are why you had food, fuel, and ammunition out in the field.

[sross112]

4 hours ago, JonS said:

Nat Fick (of Gen Kill fame) talks about from-the-top-down as the correct doctrinal approach to clearing buildings in the late '90's in One Bullet Away. I don't think that has any Sun Tzu-esque veneer though - its just that it's easier to assault "downhill", and easier to set up a ground-level cordon when you dont have to create an entry corridor for the clearance team. Also, defenders most often orient themselves to contesting a ground level assault, so coming in at the top out flanks all that and makes the initial breach a lot easier.

But it does depend on resources (ie; loads of helos, and an operating concept that embraces hot LZs) that most militaries dont have access to.

 

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

I can recall doing the old shoot houses the same way and hauling rope ladders, but I am not sure it survived contact with the Dust Wars to be honest.  Standard procedure in those was to pin the enemy in a building and then destroy the building, or at least the floors the other team was on.  I mean if all I had was infantry with no support, maybe?  Gravity being on ones side and all that.  The other problem with top-down that has been noted is that you are now exposed to fire from other building while trying to be all clever.

Hey I am not saying never.  Say for example if one knows there are non-combatants in the building and then you are looking at a room by room clearance and top down starts to make a lot more sense.  But in my experience the infantry pretty much just blast the floors, clear and move on. 

Both are right, but just like everything else in the real world the approach is situationally dependent. 

First rule is that you never engage in a breach and clear of an occupied building unless you HAVE to. The only time you have to is when there are non-combatants known to be inside and for whatever reason the building needs to be secured. Fighting inside buildings is very deadly and should be avoided at all costs. 

If you do have to take the building then the preferred method is to always enter as high as you can. It isn't always the roof, but if you can make entry somewhere other than the ground floor it is preferred. The ground floor is usually the most heavily defended and any competent defender will make every threshold a kill zone. Even if you can't get to the roof but you can enter the second story, it is generally a better option. The roof presents the tactical problems noted by others, but in a perfect world with all the right tools and transport it would be the way to go.

If you do have to enter the ground floor, then you make your own door if at all possible. Explosive breaching is the preferred method as it generally makes the inside of the breached area uncomfortable for any defenders. If you don't have explosives you can use vehicles. Generally knocking the corner off a structure or punching a hole in the wall. These are messier and don't usually result in a nice clean entry point, but they tend to avoid the preset defenses and traps. 

The other thing to keep in mind in order to help mitigate other tactical problems is to always isolate the building before entry, either control approaches with fire or physical security. Failing to isolate allows the enemy options to escape or reinforce and therefore should be avoided if at all possible.

[Battlefront.com]

5 hours ago, The_Capt said:

It sounds a little too "peacetime warfare" theory for my liking.  

Oh, I completely agree!  The theory of "the best war is the one you don't have to fight" is also sound thinking, but Putin and his ilk demonstrate theory isn't worth much if it's impractical.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

5 hours ago, Fenris said:

Couple of clips with ground based drones this time.  Laying mines, a flail drone and bridge demolition.

 

 

Saw two of these clips a couple of days ago, but did not see the flail.  That's a very interesting concept.

The primary reason a mine tear apart a vehicle is because the bottom contains the blast, amplifying the explosive effect.  Obviously the running gear is the worst hit because it has thousands of pounds pressure on the point of impact.

This is not true for this little dude.  First, it detonates the mine without being over it, which is standard for a flail.  The lack of any structure over the explosion means the majority of the force is "harmlessly" dissipated.  Again, that's standard for a flail arrangement.  The innovation here is that the vehicle is so small that it kinda rolls with the punch.  The vehicle can even flip over because of the short wheel base and tiny weight.  Further reducing the explosive effect.

You can see from the one that was "blown up" that it was still operational.  If the flail is as simply made as it looks, it shouldn't take very long to get it back into service.  If you have 10-15 of these working on a particular lane I can see this working very well.  At least way better than a tank and with very low risk to personnel (sapper crews being spotted and fired upon is still a risk).

Steve

[Harmon Rabb]

I saw this news a few days ago but forgot to post it here. The M270 looks so damn cool!

Happy to see more of these put to good use in Ukraine.

[LongLeftFlank]

5 hours ago, The_Capt said:

That last para pretty much sums it up.  I never heard of a single action where we did top down building clearances with conventional troops in Afghanistan (or Iraq for that matter).  SOF, sure but those are special circumstances. 

 

Ha, deep in the mists of Forum history, I recall a certain Calgarian (long departed now from these shores) blowing a gasket over CMSF not providing ladders for top down assaults, or allowing squads the organic capability to breach and mousehole walls or buildings anywhere they damn please, enter via windows, etc.

[Ultradave]

15 hours ago, The_Capt said:

 

As to your training experience...it also sounds very bizarre - and frankly Cold War games.  Drive the enemy to the top floors and then blast them all to hell on those floors until the building drops.  Why on earth would one give them an escape route where they can relocate and kill you all over again?  I grew up in the find-fix-finish...forever...school so it could be a generational thing. 

Field Artillery chiming in. I think I have a solution to the method of building entry and clearing discussion. 

Guess.

 

But seriously, we had no real MOUT training back then - not as you think of it today. They did build a plywood "town" out on the ranges, but it was brand new. Any village/town training we had was for very small unit, hostage rescue type situations - things that are more likely handled by SF troops today, but back then there was no Delta Force (formed while I was there), and that was not the SF Green Berets focus. So 82d and Rangers trained for that sort of thing. For general town clearing though, our main mission at the time was assumed to be part of REFORGER, in which case, it's a pretty much a free fire zone ahead of you. Plus we'd be on the defensive. We didn't use the fake town for that kind of training.

All of this "stack up" building room entry tactics is more new than my background, and shaped by Iraq and Afghanistan rather than Cold War experience where combatants are mixed with civilians almost constantly, so you can't just knock buildings down. 

My solution above is in jest, in case there is any doubt. It's mpractical in many situations due to the likely presence of civilians. Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza are great examples. In Germany in a hypothetical WW3, it would have been very different. We'd assume the civilians had evacuated west behind us, and quickly. Soviet forces were unlikely to be occupying towns, but rather bypassing them and continuing forward.

Dave