It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 04:05 PM
link   
really if I have civilians shooting at my troops then the civilians get all touchy feely when we give food to them but then the next day shoot at us and they support the enemy in my mind there is no difference between them and the terrorists they cant have it both ways.




posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 03:05 AM
link   
The war in Iraq is a war for the hearts and minds of the people. If they percieve the coalition troops as being brutal invaders, they will retaliate and from the looks of it are doing just that.

Coming from a country where the threat of insurgents was a very real threat, I can tell you first hand how difficult it was for the security forces to win that battle. Psyops and good intelligence was paramount in winning that war. Without these, you might as well put everyone in a camp and question them to see if they are innocent before letting them go.

The ultimate aim of the terrorist or insurgent would be to shield himself within the innocent population and cultivate sympathy for his cause.

If the security forces killed innocent civilians in the cross-fire, so much the better as it would produce a feeling of resentment in the population and increase sympathy for his cause. Why? because security forces are not supposed to kill anyone other than the insurgents. Would you be willing to blow a hole in a wall instead of using the door if someone you knew lived there?

As you are going over there, I hope that you will not take the attitude of 'kick ass and take names' but be circumspect in the application of force.

It takes months to win over a population but just one incident to tarnish the image of the security forces forever. A sad but very true fact.

I would say the best method is like what the israeli's do. put a coupla hundred grams of C4 into the buggers handphone and give him a ring to tell him adios amigos.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 03:13 AM
link   
I dont see how anyone can knock the 50.cal sniper rifle what other weapon could you use to sit up on a roof and shoot people over a mile and a half away. The pentration of the 50cal AP round is unrivaled by any other sniper rifle. It might not be ideal for every situation but it has a important place in the US inventory.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 08:57 AM
link   
yeah man i personally love the barret but you gotta see how carrying it around in a city is a bit pointless unless your gona be high and dry.



posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
I dont see how anyone can knock the 50.cal sniper rifle what other weapon could you use to sit up on a roof and shoot people over a mile and a half away. The pentration of the 50cal AP round is unrivaled by any other sniper rifle. It might not be ideal for every situation but it has a important place in the US inventory.


Well it's good for camping but the puff of smoke it produces means that u have to move frequently ( unless you want to be sniped coz in urban battles u r not the only one with a sniper
) and with such a huge rifle it's pretty exausting, plus in urban warfare there's no real line that limits each side so infiltrations are still possible and u could shoot a person a mile and a half away though someone could be nearby and spot you as soon as you fire.
Plus one big mistake is sitting on a roof: when sitting on a roof u might have a better view but ur silouhette would be identified easily in constrast of the clear sky and obviously u'll be shot soon enough. The best thing is to move from one window to another from one building to another.

Finally the barret is a good sniper for stand-off fights on the battlefield but not for urban fights.



posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 05:37 AM
link   
I would love to be able to justify spending my $$ on an Accuracy International AW (or AWS if it was legal here). But one rifle I have always wanted to fire is the Steyr Mannlicher Scout. If I was to buy one I would probably want the Leupold scope racked in the tactical position just forward of the bolt rather than towards the barrel, but I'd still like to try it out there. At $3000 or so, I'll need to keep putting some $$ away, rent and full stomach come first...


The long distances of a .50 are valid but not practical in an urban environment. I can only see the need to punch holes through structures and armour in such a situation. Carry light and move fast.



posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 02:58 PM
link   
The problem with urban warfare is the aftermath, how long do you stay on?
Are the population considered hostile?
If you become exposed to insurgency is it still all out war, or have you moved into a peace keeping stage where you are expected to act as law abiding police. If this latter is the case then the enemy instantly have the upper hand. They do not act within the law, but by following suit you risk alienating yourself from the local population.

The answer to all this, as generals have known since time began, is to not enter the town. Soldiers operate best in rural environments, bring the enemy to you do not go in.
Seal the town off and starve them out. Provide shelter and emergency supplies for those that wish to leave, frisk them, sterilize them and contain them in your own rural environment. Eventually the town will empty you can then enter at massively reduced risk, with the ability to know that anyone left is a legitimate target.

This is where the U.N comes in having cleansed and taken control of the city the people are let back in where they are policed by a nuetral force removing the hostility towards the invaders. The invading troops retire to the rural areas arround the city making it very difficult for insugents to mount effective counter attacks.



posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 03:52 PM
link   
It is to complicated to generalise how you operate in an urban area.Depends on who you are up against.The Israelies pretty much bulldose the areas before sending in ground troops with armour.All theories have been tested at one time or another but it is always a dangerous situation especially if the enemy are a small and lightly armed.They pose the worst case as America is finding out in Iraq.IRA were deadly with only minimal arms,but there knowledge of the areas and ability to set explosives made the British army struggle for a long time.



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 01:40 PM
link   
In Israel the IDF just shoots hellfire missiles (from helicopters) into windows where terrorists are shooting from.



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Thats an effective waste of money and life.Israel has a tough job and are experianced but they do over react in most cases.



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by weirdo
Thats an effective waste of money and life.Israel has a tough job and are experianced but they do over react in most cases.


They only do that in really complicated situation, when the ground soldiers can't handle it my themselves.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join