Urban warfare

...

Distilled firemen

Only about 80% of the population would die due to dehydration and hunger, which in a big city still means over 200k fighters. That's two whole armies.

Which is why they took their time, well that and they were being paid by the hour.

Forgot images.

Attached: State_Department_Images_WTC_9-11_Firemen_and_Cloud.jpg (1312x2000 1.42 MB, 2.18M)

The issue with urban warfare, i think, is not so much the actual city center as it is the creep of urban and semi-urban areas that has spread into what was once rural land. back in the day in europe and even asia, the line between city and countryside could be relatively abrupt. Now however, there are many swathes of places like europe and the northeastern US that many ruralites would hesitate to call countryside. the problem being that many kilometers of defensible terrain has been created around cities in addition to the growth of the cores. Combine that with the fact that road infrastructure becomes more in demand every year, and often expands along motorways, it's likely that any war fought in a western country would quickly move through the country only to reach a stall at the infill. some areas in britain for example have "countryside" that is more akin to giatn parks locked within the grips of numerous town and cities, ever seeking to grow further, like large brickwork tumors.

notice those smaller sections of the region shown in pic? those are all either cities, or near-city towns. The entire area is currently forming a large economic/political cooperation project such that the entire blob will likely be a single metroplitan area, defacto now, de jure within a decade. the size of greater london.

Attached: WestMidlandsRegion.jpg (726x822, 340.37K)

Like the other posters said, cities, especially Western metropolises, are going to be deathtraps for any invading force that cares to enter. The better question is why would you want to enter one of these places at all? Just blockade the place and starve them out, it wouldn't even take that long because there isn't any stockpiling of food going on. Hell, even without starvation I'd bet sanitation concerns alone would encourage the people to surrender, as the sewage system stops working and you can no longer poo in the loo.

the benefit to entering would be a Verdun type situation i suppose. if, somehow, you can rush a major city and capture it on the cheap in terms of manpower lost, it would be a powerful net gain both as an economic loss for the enemy, and a potential manpower loss should the enemy retake it. the issue is not the people surrendering, civilians that are still acting as such will generally yeild in any regard, but the army garrisons and any militia that form will likely be commited to a fight if they remain within the city.

Cities don't just exist places for absolutely no reason, they grew up over many years, decades, centuries, sometimes millennia for a reason, usually trade, transportation, important sea ports. They weren't just arbitrarily created out of thin air, they succeeded for a reason. Usually this means they hold a geographically important position that is sometimes important enough to wage a terrible fight to capture.

Think New York, Amsterdam, San Fransisco, Tokyo, St. Petersberg, Chicago, ect. Major port cities are important for capture by enemy forces because how can you support an invasion force without the proper infrastructure to support it? Certainly you can land X amount of men and support them with rudimentary supplies for a while, At some point if one wishes to expand and conquer, such strategic targets become almost absolutely necessary. Whatever you think of New York City, whatever, but New York city harbor is indispensable.

I'm an old feudal minded person, I agree with the sentiment of siege whenever possible. But, where would you be if you can't capture the enemies important ports, or consequently, if you are on the defensive, how can you stop the enemy's main advance if you can keep them from getting your important infrastructure? Port cities are number 1, but so are major rail yards that you wish to capture. Even if you or the enemy destroys factories and other assets in scorched earth, certain places and areas are important regardless, certain places are rail and road centers for a reason and even after scorched earth they are high value targets to be captured. You or the enemy has the advantage in that whoever holds such an important asset can try to goad the attacker into making a hard decision into throwing men away in urban combat to take such a strategic value.

Also leaving large areas unconquered allows for guerilla threats or pockets that the defender can later hook up with if they dont' starve to death. A lot of things to consider.

You can always try to bring it with yourself.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulberry_harbour

Julius Cesar himself created the tactic to use against cities during the Battle of Alesia.

Only idiots actually try to take a city, bypassing cities is what you need to do.
Then you encircle them, you kill anything going in anything going out, and once it's done, you use your firepower advantage to control major the major axis, once that's done, then you isolate and cut the city in little districts that you concentrate firepower and troops in and you clean it little by little gradually.

The fact that the Syrian army managed to do it with a couple tens of thousands men (for a city of nearly 2M, two to three time the size of Stalingrad…) and against an opposing force the same size should tell you all you need to know.

Urban warfare is easy if you're not retarded about it.

Just properly besieging a modern city would see it die out in a couple of months.

I think it really depends on the layout of the city, and the disposition of the defending force. sure you can surround a city to kill it, but if the city itself is such a good hardpoint then any defender that isn't retarded is going to commit fully to elastic defence within the peripheral areas, preventing the encirclement or envelopment that you require for your siege. let us not forget, that while Alesia is a quintessential example of siege warfare, it is also a quintessential example of what can go wrong. a battle fought by julius under the same circumstance, but against his military peers during the civil war, would likely have gone very badly for him.

Imagine scouring the blasted ruins of of some pozzed metropolis for survivors. Imagine blasting partisan fighters with a 4 gauge and incarcerating their fortifications with chlorine trifluoride.

Attached: 4ga-shell-compared-to-12-gauge.jpg (450x311 159.79 KB, 26.53K)

Syria is really something to look into when it comes to urban warfare. As you described with Aleppo: The Syrian army generally surrounded cities and afterwards went in for clearing them. The Turks have tried this as well with Al-Bab. The question I have on this tactic is: How will you pull this off in huge European urbanized areas?
Look at satelite images of Frankfurt, Dusseldorf or Cologne. The areas are made up of a lot medium sized cities with a few big ones. Add to this the large forests. Will you just create one huge pocket and then isolate one small city after another with additional pockets inside like in pic?

Attached: Ghouta Pockets.jpg (1018x755, 382.71K)

Cut the power and the urbanite will quickly do your job for you over basic necessities they didn't think to keep handy.

But what if the Russians/Poles have already set up camp at strategic points in the urban centres?
Even if the civilian population is dead from starvation and stupidity the infrastructure will remain for the most part.
And even when you do fully besiege the city/metropolian area it's still a hard target if the enemy commander isn't retarded and has a minimun line of supplies via airdrops/adjacent farmland sandwitched between suburbs and small towns.

Attached: siegeofd.jpg (1200x900, 721.5K)

You got a good point there bong. I live about 1.5 hours away from jew york to the north (and another hour north turns to almost nothing). Trying to get there you need to pass through several 'small' cities and plenty of urbanized areas along the major highways. You'll be ambushed six ways from sunday from the surrounding area if you pushed through a major highway to it. Of course you could go the long way through these towns but then you get bogged down and progress slows. Good luck trying to clear every house or apartment building. Slap on the fact that roadwork is extensive, cars plentiful, entire platoons could be up and gone within minutes and you have a situation where you could be outmaneuvered in mere minutes. Forget city fighting, just trying to get there will be hell.

I think that reconnaissance and solid communications is going to be more important then actual firepower with, what amounts to a modern dragoon, moving to counter enemy movements. Staying static is a death sentence when troops and equipment can move at 50mph/~80kmph with relative ease to surrounding areas.

damaging or capturing the enemy power grid is pretty much standard procedure, the trouble is power cuts generally only cause rioting in cities that aren't occupied under martial law. sure maybe some neo-london pakinogs will kick up a fuss, but shooting them will only make the city more organized.

I think wiesels would be a pretty good unit to attach to any infantry assaulting through urban. they have enough armour that they aren't going to get popped by johnny kalashnikov, as mobile in the confines of the city as a town car if not more so, and can be equipped with a big enough autocannon that the outer walls of most buildings should be reduced from cover to concealment. i think they can also tow mortars and act as light AAGM launchers. the gun mounting is at the rear of the tankette too, which means it should be fairly quick to roll back into cover when peaking corners.

We use chemical weapons then

I was looking for more "tactical" solutions like maneuvering your own batallions to key positions.

if you dont want a city to exist anymore then you should just nuke it. i doubt total destruction of a city with chems will be that much less provocative than nukes, and the enemy will probably cotton on to your chemical weapons through intelligence, and issue masks near the frontline. if anything, a nuke is so much more effective than chems, you could demand an enemy evacuate a city based on your threat to use them.

Nukes are lame, chemical weapons are cool and frightening. Also masks are useless and Turkish intelligence is non-existent

Very underrated post here actually. Being able to cut off supplies into a city is a very effective tactic. It causes a lot of internal troubles read niggers so any force occupying said city would have to deal with public disorder and essentially spend time trying to police a hellhole while dealing with you. So unless they overnight turn into MegaCity 1 all you have to do as a sieging force is to surround the city, stop anyone getting in or out and then let the starving rioting population do most of the work for you.

The problem with urban warfare is that it isn't strictly 2D. Yeah I know, somebody can be on a tree, or dig tunnels into the ground. But getting up stairs is much easier, and the basements and tunnels are already built. You are surrounded by multiple operational layers and shooty holes everywhere you turn. It is a total nightmare, especially when buildings are destroyed. So some building plans won't be of use.
Every street surrounded by skyscrapers is like some textbook ambush location.
The best thing you can do is just simply surround urban centres and let them starve.

And with modern medicine, one of the largest drawbacks for besieging cities is gone.

But as i and others have said before, it's no where near that simple. An encirclement is always ideal on the operational level, but it's almost always impossible to achieve against a sensible enemy. all i have to do to counter your encirclement is reinforce my defense on the cities flanks, and use the area as to blunt your advance. even if you attempt to envelop on the strategic level, if i have an area where i need less men to defend (due to having the advantage when defending there) i can redeploy the units that would have been needed in open warfare elsewhere on the frontline. if i were really competent, i wouldn't even need to waste time moving units up the frontline as i would be factoring city placement into my retreat and/or advancement orders to begin with.

Take that back you thracian peasant, nukes are heckin' cool because they go boom bigly and have a cool cartoon with a turtle. Do chemical weapons have a cartoon turtle?

What is a city meant to do without food user?

Bad idea.

You're wasting an army just to surround a city properly. If they leave less men, or peel off for other duties, good luck contending with continual harassment attacks.

If I was on the defense, I fucking WISH the enemy would spend 50k men surrounding every one of my cities. Just twenty cities into my country that's 1 million troops. Who can raise that much human capital and still have enough left to pursue a war against my army?

if you dont have food you get food from somewhere else, if someone wants to prevent that then you prevent them from preventing you. why, in your mind, do armies just abandon cities to encirclement if they're defensible enough to necessitate said encirclement??

The question is if you want to take a modern city. Now you are stretching it out to trying to nail every modern city at once. In such cases you don't siege but you go plunder. Target anything related to food, water, even infrastructure like electricity and gas, scorch it, and you are setting the defenders up for the most miserible time ever. Are you ignoring the entirity of the civilian population and the impact it will have on them?
It still boils down to if you cut off their supplies they will starve and considering how much a modern city will consume compared to what it can produce even with rationing you are likely going to see a month tops before things start turning ugly inside. There will be rioting and looting as everyone starts to fight over scraps. Meanwhile you don't even need to be anywhere near a city to cause it trouble just ensuring that supplies are stopped from entering or the means to produce food is stopped.
Hell even if you just go into the country, scorch all their farms then blockade any attempts of sending in relief is more than enough to bring it to their knees.

That is exactly what armies have done in city assault previously, such as in stalingrad. yet stalingrad didn't automatically surrender in a week. even if you do completely end all food and services in a city, people will leave under those conditions not play mad max. alot of your suggestions all seem to be built around having massive overwhelming superiority to the opposing force, we arent talking about a specific "what if NATO were more brutal" but Urban war in general. besides, if you're going to destroy all of the infrastructure in all of the cities you want to capture, why capture them? if you dont care about the cities then why not just glass them?

Nukes are lame exactly for that reason. One big boom and everything is destroyed. But with chemical weapons you get to enjoy the fruits of war. Nothing would be more satisfying than reading detailed papers on how many enemy Turkishcombatants and civilians suffered a horrible inhumane death and the effects the chemicals had on their bodies and environment.

Attached: 4.jpg (1024x652 135.13 KB, 137.66K)

This is all just to make some lame pun about using pesticide on Turkroaches, isn't it?

Attached: square_bullets.webm (1280x720, 3.15M)

he's either going with that or, "cockroaches will survive the radiation"

Attached: RadroachTactics.png (200x163, 26.51K)

Nothing else will bring them down

Attached: turkroach.png (389x519, 289.18K)

Well several problems with that post:
1) Stalingrad was not a modern city at least by Western standards
2) Stalingrad was never completely cut off, they were still getting supplies through
3) Most of the civilian population had evacuated
4) Of the civilian population that remained Soviets literally gave no shits about
5) Nobody has said anything about NATO
6) You don't need an overwhelming opposing force to distrupt supply lines and cause a defending force trouble. In most cases having a smaller more mobile force is better.
7) If you are trying to siege or even attack anyone without a superior sized force you are a complete fucking moron.
8) And this is perhaps the most cruicial one, there is not a nation on Earth that wouldn't benefit from having a major city erased from existance.

Now are you trying to tell me that if you start distrupting goods and services to a city of example 8.5 million that it would not cause that city problems? Are you fags aware of what is going on in Venezuela right now and that's without a dedicated force actively intercepting supplies? Now imagine if you had several raiding parties going through the countryside razing crops to the ground, destroying food shipments, taking out communication and power lines, poisoning the wells as it were, how long do you think until major cities hell the entire country goes to shit?

If we are talking about limited conflict of course, eg. Civil War and not 3 World War i believe those things are in order

Do what serbs did in Sarajevo but better
Encircle the city, dont let any supplies get trough, size key/high points in the city and deploy snipers/atgm's there to further disrupt the enemy forces.
Maintain constant drone surveillance on the city and mortar anything that moves.
Cut the power to the city, maintain "humanitarian corridors" where civilians can go and evacuate and enemy militias/troops can surrender, dont let everybody pass trough, use it as a political leverage. Civilians can be essentially used as hostages and if such you dont want them escaping from city en masse
Old soviet self propelled anti air guns such as Shilka or Tunguska might be ideal for the task of maintaining fire superiority in a town as they can quickly reduce whole buildings to rubble with their quad cannons
Try to split city into smaller chunks that are easier to isolate and clear eg. map here ->

Dont: Inflict unnecessary harm to civilian population as this will make them more determined and can involve UN
Use anything prohibited by Geneva convention as again, UN.
Let troops too lose, looting and raping can quickly destroy discipline in the army, undermine support for the conflict and further radicalize civilians against your army.

t. armchair general

Attached: b67c9b383ff674e25a818b7040a5c0cce413d6f59293e5c504b4e0870d6f9be3.jpg (1080x1158, 108.56K)

Big ol commie blocks, roads, trains, and planes. It doesn't need a fucking weekly pride parade to be modern for our uses.
I guess that's the ENTIRE POINT of what other Bong was saying. The Germans sure would have like to but the Soviets, you know, DID THINGS.
Another case of the defenders taking action, which I guess is cheating.
No, but you do need a fairly overwhelming force in most cases to completely cut off all avenues of supplies, even ones that You don't need an overwhelming opposing force to distrupt supply lines, including new ones set up the bypass the besiegers.
Is this a serious point or are you just meming about the eternal urbanite? If it's the latter I fully agree.
Basically, it seems like lots of people in this thread are acting as if the defending force is AFK and just decides to passively let themselves get instantly encircled, not create a defense in depth, and not create any supply lines.
On a side note, what about using ballistic missiles to deliver supplies through siege lines? Currently existing ballistic missiles can have over a ton in payload, and you could probably cram more in somehow. Sure it's not efficient, but it can keep a couple people from starving.

Leningrad would be a better example.

Isn't that exactly what socialists are?

Not to defend Venezuela too much or anything but its pretty hard to maintain the economy of whole nation in todays day and age when most of the word puts embargoes of you and refuses to buy your main export resources

You would run out of missiles before you got enough through and never get enough. Airdrops would be a good idea but run risk of being shot down.
A bit of both actually. Unless a city is industrialised or a major port in reality a lot of cities outside of commerce and symbolic value hold little to no strategic importance. Of course though ignoring cities altogether is retarded cause they will be used as staging grounds to fuck you in the ass.
This is another point. In reality before you even get to attempt to do a siege or if you are rampaging round the countryside the truth is you will end up facing a Gettysburg situation where the defending force will send an army to stop you. You either face them, try to outflank them, or run while scorching everything behind you but eventually you will have to battle them.

I'd say Siege of Budapest is another good example. Though what I am describing mainly is the Scorched Earth tactics used by both sides on the Eastern Front to deny each other resupply and well the tactics used throughout history to make life miserable for the opposing side. When most of the population is resorting to cannibalism to survive then you know it will be much easier to walk in.

Socialists aren't people though.

The only way to take a city is to beseige it. But I have trouble understanding most of you anons when it comes to "how" to siege that city. From what I'm getting, most of you are recommending to place troops around an area to prevent supplies from coming in. In a key city, like a capital, this would make a lot of sense. But for something less important (but still strategic) the expenditure of manpower to keep up that pressure is pretty enormous.

Why not just bomb roads to make them impossible to drive over? Take out key bridges and highways using airstrikes. Air-drop in landmines to cover a field and make it unsuitable for bringing in supplies. That way you can focus your manpower elsewhere while the city rips itself apart without food and electricity.

Also, for good measure, have saboteurs pre-siege lace the water supply with LSD for extra keks and make the whole siege very memorable.

Attached: 1462427103583-4.jpg (1024x648, 278.04K)

That's essentially what I've been trying to say albeit without directly saying it.

Attached: 8th ss.jpg (480x360, 9.13K)

Could we just be lazy and assume you pulled some Sun Tzu shit by pretending to go for a much more enticing target (let's say oil fields for shits and giggles) before quickly redirecting a portion of your forces to encircle a city nearby for other reasons?

This would really just be to circumvent your point about defenders not being braindead since you successfully outwitted the enemy prior to encircling the city. This also brings up the questions I feel that are important for the forces inside the city. Where would they set up artillery? Would it even be possible (or wise) to set up mortars higher up in buildings or on rooftops? Would enemy forces be retarded and trying to clear the city even try to clear out tunnels as well?

The issue is, you're thinking tactically on an operational and strategic level. yes you can have a demo team take out a bridge and block supplies, and you can have air power harass attempts to haul goods by other means, but on the operational level you can't get 100% efficacy. Even if we assume (very generously mind you) that you can plan logistical strike ops such that 90% of the enemies re-supply ability is dismantled, you still have have either ten percent of the cities normal garrison fighting at full effectiveness or more than ten percent at partial effectiveness. Allesia has been brought up as an example of a siege, please remember that those defenders sacrificed the entire civilian population in a gamble to win the siege and prevent further roman advances into gaul territory. your enemy likely will not compromise the defense of a frontline city for its population, especially when there are many other cities behind it.

Niggers literally just gas the city with the worst chemicals your country has and come later to burn the bodies. No need for wasting time with encircling a city. Either use chemical weapons or burn it to the ground.

Well and that's the truth. Think of how long the D-day improvised harbors were in use. Ports are only importaant once you have to start allowing allied civilians to restart their businesses

Depends on a city, Sarajevo for eg. was easy to siege since in was in valley. Lots of cities are nearby rivers.
I think that to properly siege a city you need to size and put checkpoints on key road junctions, get observation posts and mobile patrols in between the gaps of outposts and that should do the trick mostly, sure some supplies will slip by but not enough to relive the siege
But a problem that arises in this situation is possibility of the city force to launch a counteroffensive and link with non besieged forces/supplies
To counter that i would suggest establishing a frontline on the outskirts of city, instead of packing it with troops that constantly will need to stay there i would place sentries, snipers and observers there. Strong enough to push away probes from the city but not strong enough to be a big cost on manpower and resources, and to help those sentries prepare 2 or maybe 3 mobile groups the size of battalion with heavy firepower, SPAA, SPA, tanks, technicals, whatever needed to repeal any counter offensive from within the city in urban battlefield

Probably the best lesson in modern urban warfare

You don't need to be 100% efficient. Just enough for your tactics to cause pressure.

Too quick Greek. You want to spread as much misery as you can and prolong it. Use a chemical attack and you will polarize a population against you. Giving them a choice between starving or eating each other will make them more willing to see what life is like on the other side.

i assure you that losing momentum by trying to siege down a city with logistical strikes before moving in, will take more pressure off the enemy than a few days of hunger. the startegic danger of having your momentum stalled is far larger than the operational danger of a high casualty battle.

user do you even think long term at all? Famine is a very effective weapon to utilize and has been done for centuries. You raze their infrastructure and their cripple their supplies then 6 months down the line they are in trouble. Even soldiers need fed, clothed and sheltered. If there is none of that coming in then defenders will either have to starve or come out and meet you. If you are scorching the earth round them then it's even worse for the defenders.
This is literally textbook warfare and has been done so many times over several millennia that you are spoilt for choices in terms of examples. The only reason why it hasn't happened a lot in the past century is because you have laws regarding such things plus humanitarian aid.

What the hell do you mean i don't think long term? im telling you if you try and spend months to starve ONE CITY, the rest of the enemies country will mobilize and attack you in the LONG TERM. you cant bomb every single road in an enemy country, and devegitate their fields, they will prevent that. there are only a limited number of kilometers you can interdict into enemy airspace before the average amount of anti air threats passed becomes preventative even to a suicide mission. just how many tactical and strategic bombers do you intend to waste spraying herbicide onto farmer mcfucks fields while your men are screaming for air support to aid their advance? just how quickly do you think you're going to advance across the enemy nation? and worst of all you still cant give a reason as to why you are even besieging a major population center that you clearly dont want to be so major anymore. if one of us is guilty of not having thought sufficiently about the problems of encountering an urban area during a war, it certainly isn't me. perhaps if you thought long term rather than merely about the long term you would understand why you can't continue to fight like you're still in the war of the spanish succession..

Attached: democrators.jpg (163x137 61.81 KB, 59.54K)

Well a city is surrounded by other cities, stands to reason you can't 1v1 it.

Raiding attacks is a good example of thinking, and probably more what OP wanted to discuss.

???

How big of an explosive payload would passenger aircraft converted into a suicide drone need to pull some degree of WTC on a structure that isn't rigged with shaped charges?

Attached: 0df7907cb74508f175adac1299a5f887717ca6e963ba2647ba8640984641f253.jpg (640x775, 103.64K)

Do you have any more democrators?

Attached: 1427507900669.png (651x922, 962.76K)

It's apparent you're not familiar with modern US commanders or doctrine.

Just drop neutron bombs. Gets rid of organic matter with little damage to buildings.

Everyone gets creative like they were in art class.
"Dude just gas, glas or nuke the place lmao."

Only works at the nudist beach.

Oh, so you want me to get creative?
Well, the main problem with urban warfare is the extreme number of possible choke points. Ever window is a possible MG nest, every road is a possible death zone, and every manhole is a possible IED. It takes very little time to set up a position and deny the enemy their advance. This is because there are tonns of structures that provide complete concealment and very solid cover. These structures are known as buildings, and every city is made of them.
So why not take buildings completely out of the equation? That's basically the same approach as all the other anons who want to nuke/bomb/artillery the city.
But I want to take a different approach. A different vector, so to speak. Why not attack the city from it's foundations?
Go in from the sewers, the metro lines, the underground roads. There will still be choke points, ambushes and death zones, but no longer will there be enemy snipers. No elevated positions. No long range attacks. Artillery and bombs would have very limited use, aerial recon would be limited to "Well, that manhole is a quarter degree hotter than the other. I would say that they have a platoon somewhere within half a kilometer of it.".
Keeping the topside secure would still be important, because you don't want an enemy battalion to drop into your tunnels behind your lines just because you forgot to cover a hole, but most advances would probably take place underground.
As to HOW you would advance along a front that is maybe 5 meters wide at best: use every dirty trick you have. Gas, bio weapons, large amounts of stun grenades, artificial fog, flame throwers: EVERYTHING. Advancing from one manhole to the next, or taking another subway station can mean capturing a street, or an entire neighborhood. There was lots of underground fighting in Stalingrad, but since not a lot of people made it out of there alive (lots of Stalingrad vets on the Russian side died in later attacks or were purged for other reasons) so we have very little data about how to effectively take very long very narrow corridors with strong opposition. Maybe it's impossible. We don't know yet.

What about cave-ins? I feel like as soon as the defenders know where you are, they'll try to use explosives to divide and trap your forces. And since you're underground, they can get to your rear with comparative ease and potentially trap you in a section of tunnel.

Making metro 2033 real

Ok how about this

Wouldn't sewers and tunnels be very easy to clear with thermobaric weapons?

user there are fields in Europe that cannot be farmed to this day due to the use of chemical weapons from WW1. You literally have no idea what scorched earth is.

whether or not you CAN turn an area into a hellish wasteland is utterly irrelevant. i, weeks ago, made it clear in my posts that diverting actual fucking combat useable assets just to help kill civilians through attack/starvation is wasteful, and will get men killed. i also made it clear that you cant just fly infinitely though the enemy airspace to attack that agriculture without taking greater casualties per depth of infiltration. finally i stressed the point that killing all life in an area you want to capture is fucking dumb, since it reduces further the value of that area relative to the cost of taking it. infact, im not even sure why you're even addressing this post at me. the first world war has nothing to do with dropping defoliant on agriculture in order to starve out a city, infact the first world war is an example of people using their chemical weapons on the enemy army instead of dropping it on random crop fields. could you explain what you're trying to get at? your post is pretty accusatory despite having little in the way of content.

How does Iran plan to do things diffrently?

Considering most big cities also halve big railway lines, something like a small armored locomotive might be a good idea to have in order to infiltrate the city, esp. if we're talking about asymetrical warfare. Combine this with to take over and quickly move across the city through the underground railways

Of course it's the bong wanting to spread as much misery as possible

Why would you wish such a painful demise on your own people, user?

Attached: Shirai_Kuroko_smug.jpg (1000x1300, 259.44K)

I-I wouldn't know, sir.

Attached: 100%_honeyed.jpg (1242x1643 102.19 KB, 193.73K)

Siege. Starve them out. Or use incendiaries :^)Really, it depends on the circumstances.I hate nukes because they're too destructive. I like the middle ground, where you can actually still use the land you've conquered. Is wiping something off the planet really conquering it? And by that I mean, destroying it before you've raised your flag above the town hall. Obviously, if you burned a city down after you've officially conquered it, well, you still conquered it.

Attached: chinman.jpg (350x262, 86.72K)

They learned a lot in Aleppo.
Siege, starve, raid, repeat.

That's why I said that securing topside was important too. You read my whole post, right?

Thermobarics aren't some Wunderwaffe. They are merely more powerful explosives, and while explosive shockwaves would work a lot better underground the same goes for pretty much anything else.

I wonder if you could flood a tunnel with N2 and then roll in with diver gear. Ventilation would be important. Fires would be a lot more dangerous too. Pouring a couple hundred liters of gas down a hole and setting it on fire just so the enemy chokes to death.

Come on Germany you had a whole series of programs on just that.
Also flying a bomb into a building doesn't produce what happened at the WTC, you need the metal to weaken over time* to have what happened there happen.
So like it or not it wasn't shaped charges just a 737 vs shitty 1970's office building with office supplies in it.

*Aka heating it up till it becomes malleable.
Every time I burn much trash in a burn barrel (admittedly it's more of a tube to hold the trash since it has no top or bottom sitting on a grate) I can get the barrel to glow in the upper red to low white hot range (1900-2200F) and it's quite malleable at that temp range.

Attached: Luftwaffe Mistel (1945).mp4 (854x480, 3.8M)

...

Just follow old tradition and starve them.

And as said, these skyscrappers serve as wonderful targets, just knock them all down and you get yourself a nice roadblock already.

i meant against the US.

I'm getting hints of unnaground here. Makes me feel nostalgic.

Attached: Unnaground.JPG (960x1280, 548.55K)

How did ISIS manage to fight the Iraqi Army in Mosul for 8 months straight but never fully conquered the smaller DeZ?

Attached: inquisitive_frog.png (214x303, 12.6K)

Filling an entire metro tunnel with an explosive gas mixture would take a lot longer than filling a rodent tunnel system. Of course it would be harder to detect some explosive gas in the air than detecting decreasing oxygen levels, or even C-weapons.

They learned a lot in Aleppo. Let the US take a city,siege, starve, raid, repeat. As long as the government and Generalstab can stay hidden in some desert hole they can keep up this game.
The problem lies in preventing the US from breaking out of the city, and preventing air resupply. MANPADS, ATGMs and sniper positions would be imperative.

ISIS was mostly made up of the US trained Iraqi army and started off more as a coup than a Jihad caliphate to try to put a government that they saw as too Shi'ite after over half a century of Sunni domination.

The idea that the population of Syria is even remotely on the side of the rebels has never been real, people were, rightfully, angry at the gov early on but quickly realized what was going on and that Assad was the "least worst" option.
In the zones of open conflicts most of the population backed the army which allowed places under siege to have some depth and enough bodies with guns to defend perimeters efficiently.
All that was left was to dig in.
DeZ was defended by the Syrian Chad general (he died) and his men from the Druze part of the Syrian army (elite airborne regiment).
They built a trench system and bastion all around the city, that was only breached when the US """mistakenly""" pounded the SAA positions for half a day until a breach was done (immediately followed by an ISIS ground assault but that's just a coincidence goy).

Attached: Chad general and his men.jpg (960x576, 69.38K)

Who knew?

Attached: smug_animu_grill.png (300x308, 94.47K)

Apparently not Germany.

will the iranians bother with open warfare like Saddam did?

Good job at never reading my post or picking up anything relevant. I'm not talking about targetting a single city, I am targetting an entire country. Your issue is that you think that an attacker is now going to strike percisely where you expect and where you want them to attack. Your further mistake is thinking forces are going to be governed by coventional warfare and laws of war. Bringing a modern country to it's knees is not that hard. Hell you could do irreversible damage to the US just using men on the equivalent of horseback. Realistically a defender is going to be concerned with defending cities more so than the countryside and they won't realise their mistake until it is too late and you are able to dictate the terms of engagement. If you have studied any war in history you will know this is what happens before you get to a siege stage not afterwards.

And you are a fucking retard for thinking this because this is percisely how successful wars have been fought for fucking ever. Burn what you can't steal and your enemy can't use those supplies to mount a counter offensive. This is textbook shit. Take the Union for example during the US Civil War. This is exactly what they did to the Confederates at the start of the war and is what brought the Confederates finally to their knees 4 years down the line. If you are preoccupied with what is essentially a single battle and not with the war you will lose.
tl;dr version: You don't take the city you retard. You take the countryside. Once you have that then you can think about sieging.

Why would they? They have guerilla experience ever since the Iranian revolution, continued through the initial months of the Iran-Iraq war and have never stopped training troops in mountain survival.

I read some of the posts and it make me glad that I don’t live in the city.

interdasting thread

bump