It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


City warfare (theory vs.practice)

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 20 2004 @ 04:06 AM
Well all we hear about is cornershot rifles, .50 caliber sniper rifles, advanced soldier headsets....
But here's the bad news: They're not practical!!!

They'll break down amidst rubble and debris ( hell this is city warfare, fragile pieces of technology couldn't live up to the endurance needed in such battles). And the famed .50 cal: it's too heavy for being carried along, it slows down the sniper who needs mobility in city warfare(ever heard of changing position after a couple of shots
); furthermore, it's extended range is of no use in an urban environment.

In fact in this type type of warfare what matters the most are the tactics:
Hunter-killer cells, which are always on the move, are very effective, a small group of five (one sniper,one machine gunner, one heavy ordonance guy( RPGs...) and two rifle men) could wreak havoc into an organized army ( the first Chechen war. In fact in the second, the russians used the same tactics: special forces would form hunter-killer cells and rely on artillerie).
Sniper groups of six are also effective: one sniper, his observer which has a sniper rifle also ( could shoot if the main sniper misses) and four riflemen behind them which draw fire if the group is spotted.

Therefore, dispersed cells like these (even if equiped with rudimentery weapons) could win a battle against troops armed to the teeth!!

posted on Jun, 20 2004 @ 04:13 AM
Theory is sitting on ones arse, while practice is others putting theirs on the line.

"Chechen war", doesn't have anything to do with Grozny does it...

posted on Jun, 20 2004 @ 04:38 AM
All I'm saying is that researchers should take that into consideration and cope with it

And if anyone disagrees with me I would like to hear his opinion

[edit on 20-6-2004 by Bl00D_Th0rN]

posted on Jun, 20 2004 @ 05:04 AM
All that high tech, battery operated, push this button, bull $hit sounds good. Not with my life. Except night vision, thermal is good too.

Mobility is #1. FAST,HARD and gone before they knew what went though thier skull. Lots of grenades, lots! A good old slege hammer helps. One could learn from the Israelis on this topic. f_ck doors go though walls, they can't see on other side. Very good Breach tactic. Suppries the hell out of them the first few times. CS grenade for snach and grab op. for intel.

I could have a billion $ worth of high tech crap and would still be just as at risk.

posted on Jun, 20 2004 @ 05:48 PM
thast why countries have both modern military and spec ops teams.

posted on Jun, 20 2004 @ 06:13 PM
I think mounting to much crap on a soldier's helmet is a bad idea, not only are the helmets there to protect against shrapnel but also banging your head moving from room to room. Also, I'd much rather have a #load of ammo then too much other crap, supressive fire works.

posted on Jun, 21 2004 @ 04:19 AM
Hey I've been reading this aticle, and it shortly states:
If you want to take a city just forget about collateral damage

That is unless you want your troops to die

posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 09:15 PM
If you want to take a city and don't care about the people living in there just drop some gas or toxins that way it will kill only living things and not destroy infrastructure and give shots to your soldiers before they go in so they are immune to the toxic

posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 09:30 PM
Yeah, and then you'll have to take lots of s*** from the human rights groups...

posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 11:54 PM
The human rights element is the most difficult problem to deal with in the urban terrain.

The noncombatants really make this a tough situation.
Case in point: Fallujah,
after the brutal killing of the four and subsequent dragging, burning, and hanging, the marines went there to kick A-- and take names.

Their plan was to isolate the whole village, allow noncombatants to leave then clear the village by sectors, which they did in the beginning. They never got to finish the job.

The problem was that there was a substantial amount of civilians who remained in the village despite the leaflets and loudspeaker messages urging them to leave or be considered the enemy.

The marines were in a pickle, especially after the terrorists started to use women & children as humanshields. As a result the civilian casualties rose to levels which could not be accepted.

The terrorists used this tactic knowing full well we could not secure the mission objective.

I believe this next round will be a different story though.

To the residents of Fallujah, I say, when you see the leaflets fall and you hear the loudspeakers call, plan on taking a 2 week family vacation to Baghdad and let the Marines finish the job they started, cause this time there won't be a second chance.

posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 12:43 AM
It's not that simple Fallujah is 40 miles from Baghdad, less than an hours drive by car and a hard two day walk by foot. Those who can afford to leave will go others will stay because they have nowhere to go.

posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 03:28 AM
it all depents on who against who.
Will there be heavy armor in the city ? Only light armor ?
There going to be tons of civils there ? or is the town nearly empty?

4-6 (maybe somtimes 7 - the lone sniper with the M82) people group should be working well.

How is the insertion going to be ? land ? or based on a heli ?

Drop snipers on roof tops (highest buildings what are in the town)
Let groups of 4 man (2 riflemen 1 SAW 1 AT - if there aint going to any heavy or light amore just change the AT to riflemen)

You want the hole thing to quiet and night operation ?
surpressors and alot of C4 with remote control.


posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 02:03 AM
Human Rights and War, are to things that don't mix well. I'd rather drink hot beer then listen to some body talk about human rights during a war. You have the right to die if you don't do as told. Tell Falluja $hitheads that. Maybe they would understand more.

I'm with Westpoint23 on this one, take a shot and let the germs do thier work. Plus it's cheap.

posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 08:57 AM
Another reason why the new Land Warrior System is a good idea

posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 09:32 AM
urban warfare = bad
open warfare= not so bad
the idea about 4 man squads is ok but you really would be better using 8 man teams that way more firepower. also with an 8 man team they can split up and work in 2 four man teams to out manouver the enemy
snipers = great idea

posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 09:35 AM
All these generals in here, why arent you guys running the army? Arm chair quarterbacks, got to love them.

posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 10:10 AM
well i cant because im 15 so unless any 1 here can change the legal enlisting age i cant

posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 10:46 AM
I would not care about human rights groups if my soldiers were in danger and im on my way there a second lieutenant isn't bad

posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 03:37 PM
i would. i like how you put your men above all else.But personally i would be mindful of human rights.

posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 04:05 PM
Westpoint, if you are on your way to becoming a 2ndLT, and you are on your way to CentCom then I hope you get a refresher on the Law of War and the UCMJ before you go. You are absolutely, positively responsible for your actions and the actions of your troops in relation to human rights.
Our rules of engagemt are very loose right now, which is excellent for troop safety, but it also increases the pressure on a leader to make good decisions.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in