Urban warfare

[Cloney 0]

What are your opinions on this type of warfare?

[Mister Frag 0]

Could you be more specific?

[Tovarish 0]

Do you mean in a game environment or IRL? IRL, very bad, lots of civvies around, near impossible to avoid innocent deaths. In games, I love urban warfare scenarios.

[ralphwiggum 6]

i hate Lipany. so many places where enemies can sneak up on me.

unless i have 10 ppl supporting and covering my back, i'd rather blow the city into smitherines and then go in.

EDIT: still reading porn, Tovarish?

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What are your opinions on this type of warfare?<span id='postcolor'>

Opinions? Hmmmm. *thinks to self*

1. OFP is not well suited to it.

2. I enjoy it in other games.

3. IRL, alot of casualties are taken in FIBUA, especially on the offensive side. It's fun in training, but I wouldn't enjoy doing it for real.

Urban operations are becoming more and more common these days, as the style of warfare has changed since the Soviet Union fell apart. Instead of fighting pitched battles against a large Soviet army in the open, smaller conflicts have arisen in the past decade which call for soldiers to go into towns to separate waring factions and other U.N. type stuff.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i'd rather blow the city into smitherines and then go in.<span id='postcolor'>

That's a no-no in the real world. For one, it could be filled with civilians. For two, blowing up buildings only creates more rubble for the defenders to hide in and place booby traps in. (ala, Stalingrad)

Tyler

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Nov. 25 2002,04:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">EDIT: still reading porn, Tovarish? <span id='postcolor'>

LOL, you know, for a minute there I forgot my post from last night...that's priceless, I wish I could have seen my face at that moment .

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Nov. 25 2002,05:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i'd rather blow the city into smitherines and then go in.<span id='postcolor'>

That's a no-no in the real world. For one, it could be filled with civilians. For two, blowing up buildings only creates more rubble for the defenders to hide in and place booby traps in. (ala, Stalingrad)

Tyler<span id='postcolor'>

hint: Lipany!

IRL, i'd really hate to be in that situation.

[FSPilot 0]

Eh, most current PC games don't really give you good enough control over what you're doing for urban warfare.

For example, in OFP, to shoot around a corner you'd either have to slowly strafe to the side until you get a bead on someone, allowing them to shoot your arm or leg, or just dash out there and try to shoot them quickly, which doesn't always work.

But IRL, I'd try to become left-handed and expose as little of myself as possible while peeking around the corner to shoot.

You just cant do some things on a computer that you need to do in real life.

At least IMO.

[Renagade 0]

Quote

i'd rather blow the city into smitherines and then go in.

That's a no-no in the real world. For one, it could be filled with civilians. For two, blowing up buildings only creates more rubble for the defenders to hide in and place booby traps in. (ala, Stalingrad)

----------------------------------------------

thats what napalms for

[Renagade 0]

I vote for using bomb disposal type robots with a small rifle turret to clear out buildings by remote control,just like playing a video game

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Renagade @ Nov. 25 2002,11:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">For two, blowing up buildings only creates more rubble for the defenders to hide in and place booby traps in.<span id='postcolor'>

According to some comedian, it also gives them more ammunition (rocks).

[-76-Chavez 0]

IRL Its urban warfare is very bad...if everything works out well for you (being the attacker) you "just" loose 60-70% of your men...

Boming the town is an option sometimes but often you cant do that coz of civis or coz you need the buildings yourself.

You cant even throw grens into every room as a "normal" house would collapse after 2-3 grens.

In OpF its fun but could be more if the movement was better.

You fall through the floor in houses,you cant throw grens around corners,you cant peep around corners,AI doesnt use houses for ambushes etc...

[BaronVonRed 0]

Urban warefare, bleh! (Remember Samalia, aka Blackhawk Down)....better make sure you're prepared!

[Balschoiw 0]

If there should be scenarios like this in Irak the alliance will have a very hard time. 60-70 % loss is average standard, when it comes to urban conflicts. One thing US forces are most afraid of, is Urban warfare.

I got a slight idea of UW when we had to cover Italian guys that were sent into a little village in Somalia. If your team isnt setup well and trained UW a lot there will be loads of confusion and friendly fire. Boobytraps do the rest.

[Maraudeur 0]

AAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH !!!

Urban Warfare !!

The most vicious and technical, the most simply evident nature of alls warfares brutes roots in fact.

They are called : mobility, no-surprise, accurate fire, heavy firepower. Just add " systematic, every second rules " for urban warfare. Unlike in open ground you cannot choose you have to mix them constantly.

1- be patient.

2- be stealthy

3- be patient.

4- be pati.....errrrr somethings elses !  

So...

5- Check ten times the same thing, place, tactical possibilitys etc...every ten seconds or less !

6- You've checked and checked so it is safe?...too late, move

7- be methodic to the mentally illness.

8- be very acurate in tactical, psychological means. Search " how to kill myself " and not " what to do now ".

9- forget all what's above, use grenades intensively, rockets launchers, every time needed and particulary if you do not think so and be -very- violent.

10- return to 1

11- Or simply don't go to it if not prepared or if inputs like :

- neccessity to preserve buildings constructions too much, or

- civilians lives if they are present

- preserve low amounts of ammo especially heavy weapons ( if you have some, if no, return to 11 also  )

Consider urban warfare is not a dead end.

You may choose even at squad level to out turn the strategy and tactics your chain of command put you in => practice encirclements, or evacuate people, or choose uncommon progression methods ( roofs, underground, practice " fire ball " with a lot of heavy weapons along fast moves ), systematic destruction of buildings AND move immediately after or you'll have to re-destroy the ruins

Of course higly qualified personnel - training and individual abilities - is needed to be capable of working just in binoms covering 360° in closed spaces, avoid traps, fast accurate and decisive fire, lots of routins to acquire and be capable to forget them instantly to stay adaptative, inventive and reactive.

And so more...

But be poetic, warfare in open terrain with grass, cows, trees and flowers is better !

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> use grenades intensively<span id='postcolor'>

negative. Use them wisely. Otherwise the next wall will be coming at you sooner as you can say "Hello";

[Akira 0]

I saw a story on Janes about how the US is starting to train more intensively for urban warfare. The reason? Look at a picture of the Earth at night and you will see why.

[Maraudeur 0]

Well wisely is the heart of all things

Won't throw it at the immediate window above your head, at every window just for fun like in some movies, whatever the building is !

Of course there is no absolute rule many factors interacts.

But in an agressive ingress for example use of that sort of explosive devices got interest. ( western european hard, profund and wide buildings, deep device throw )

Possible kill, but creating dangerous felted zones for the opponents ( + dust, etc ) where they do not need to feel that - the agression, even psychological, is turned at theyr side -, creating a time window before reaction ( will give you some time if they were reday to go by here, and/OR will let you think about time for encoutering reaction after explosion. You open the door to the probabilitys and you have the choice of what to do after, not the contrary ).

Argh, particular example of situation I got in my mind, do not know if I am clear.

Or do not use them just untill necessary against contacts but there is so many reasons, possibilitys, choices.

[FSPilot 0]

If the U.S. trained for urban warfare with the same frequency it trained for every other type of warfare we wouldn't have a big problem. Personally I think that day is coming if it hasn't already arrived. The U.S. has stopped training for the previous was and it focusing on what might happen next.

[Sam Samson 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Nov. 25 2002,16:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">One thing US forces are most afraid of, is Urban warfare.<span id='postcolor'>

US forces just don't like to die.

back to topic: depends on what kind of UW you're talking about.

1. in an evacuated war-zone with only enemy military you'd have to take one house down after the other.

gotta plan thoroughly with a good map in front of your nose, and somebody who can read it properly.

somebody who can figure out fields of fire, terrain, enemy capabilites, etc.

you'd need a competent group of operations/planning sergeants.

you'd need secure MG-positions outside the town to suppress the enemy.

(we're supposing you don't have helos available.)

you'd have to partition the town into manageable sections.

if you have a company at your disposal, you can start your work with several platoons from more than one point to confuse the enemy about your number. (confusion can be your best friend.)

dissect the area into platoon- and squad-, fire team- and battle team-manageable areas.

you need seasoned engineers. they have the eyes to discern booby-traps in buildings.

nerve-racking work.

I'd send in mercenaries, like the gurkhas. they're tough. (first ones into kosovo.

their compound in kathmandu is positively the only clean place in the whole city!

2. in a counter terrorist setting many things may be different.

you presumably have one heavily defended building. (defense is always easier than assault.) so your battle is uphill to begin with.

recon:

are there campers (enemy snipers)?

what are the tangos' arsenal and capabilities?

will you have the element of surprise or are they waiting for you?

will the whole show last longer than the optimum 10 seconds?

will it deteriorate into an atrocious attrition-firefight, like what happened to the rangers in mog ...

in practice it seems to be fun: fast-roping in, hanging upside down from rooftops, breaking open doors and windows, flashbanging around, ...

speeeed:

when you take down a room, focus on and run only into your designated corner. don't look around. the operator behind you will come running in right after you and will cover the corner you have to neglect.

in real life fractions of a second can determine the success or failure of the op.

the chechen terrorists in moscow are a prime example. imagine they would have realized that they were being gassed? in one second one could have ignited his bomb-belt and all would have been lost!

...in case you ever get into the real thing: just remember to let your gun always point in the direction into which your nose is pointing.

...

(I read all that somewhere. )

[Guest]

The robotics department at my university, where I currently work have developed (for the swedish military) a four wheeled robot to be used for recon in UW. They tested the first version in '93 or so, in Bosnia. It worked quite well, apart from the fact that it got shot to pieces every time they used it. Apparently nobody can resist shooting a robot

[Tovarish 0]

I think something like these may be perfect for urban warfare, just make sure the enemy dosen't get a chance to stockpile Raid.

[Balschoiw 0]

No threat for me Tovarish

But to comment denoir. The US army actually uses a modified Quad to do recon jobs. In open fields it works great, but I cant imagine that thing going through ruins as it has a limited ability to go over all that rubbish that is cramped on the roads. Vehicles like this will always have terrain limitations. There are 8 wheeled robots around that can cope with rough terrain but by now are way to slow. Tank-like vehicles

have a good traction and can go to places that regular wheeled vehicles may not be able to, but they are hard to control when it gets into a building that has been hit by shells or blasted. I see a future for these vehicles, but till now, they are only good for limited recon jobs. The limited view (none of the vehicles is supposed to be very high) makes it hard for it´s controllers to keep overview.

The US version is called "Sarge" or "Sorge". Don´t remember that clear.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> we wouldn't have a big problem. <span id='postcolor'>

forget that. UW can only be trained to a certain extent. You got to make a compromises between

a) proceed fast with heavy losses cause of traps or snipers

b) proceed slowly and do search for traps; when doing this way you are a standing target and enemy gets the chance to fortify himself and make you a real welcome party with mortars and well placed anti measures.

Both of the ways are man consuming and both of the ways are only trainable to a certain extent. Remember the enemy knows his village, but you only have Sat images or visual Recon.

UW is the most complex part in warfare at all (besides Sub hunting maybe) and it will ever cost an unequivalent high number of lives on the attackers side. A well placed team of snipers can take out numerous units, before they move out and seddle in their next prepared location. It´s the attackers who is the dear and the enemies are the hunters. Not vise versa.

[Hit_Sqd_Maximus 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sam Samson @ Nov. 25 2002,20:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">US forces just don't like to die. <span id='postcolor'>

Who does?  

[FSPilot 0]

Psssh, why use little sissy robots when you can have these!