Armies are re-learning how to fight in cities
economist.com
Armies are re-learning how to fight in cities
1–10 of 92 posts
Re: Armies are re-learning how to fight in cities
#2No post body was provided.
Re: Armies are re-learning how to fight in cities
#3Quoted post unavailable.
You are misremembering. Not really your fault, if you're american like me you were only exposed to absurd quantities of propaganda. Worth looking into what things the US did again you'll probably be pretty upset
Re: Armies are re-learning how to fight in cities
#4Quoted post unavailable.
The US was operating a counter-insurgency, so they didn't use major artillery bombardment, and used precision strike if anything but mostly used mechanised infantry and armour on the ground. It was still extremely destructive. Russia are conducting basically conventional warfare, so they're absolutely piling artillery rounds into these cities.
Re: Armies are re-learning how to fight in cities
#5Quoted post unavailable.
[deleted]
Re: Armies are re-learning how to fight in cities
#6Quoted post unavailable.
You are misremembering. Not really your fault, if you're american like me you were only exposed to absurd quantities of propaganda. Worth looking into what things the US did again you'll probably be pretty upset
Instead of saying "it happened", it would be a lot more persuasive if you'd spell it example. What cities did the USA raze in Iraq? Be specific, give me names so I can look it up.
Re: Armies are re-learning how to fight in cities
#7Quoted post unavailable.
The US was operating a counter-insurgency, so they didn't use major artillery bombardment, and used precision strike if anything but mostly used mechanised infantry and armour on the ground. It was still extremely destructive. Russia are conducting basically conventional warfare, so they're absolutely piling artillery rounds into these cities.
I’m not sure if razing a city to ground and killing hundred thousand civilians is “conventional warfare”.
Re: Armies are re-learning how to fight in cities
#8Quoted post unavailable.
> razing a city to the ground or wiping out most of the population of entire towns.
In Fallujah the US destroyed over half the homes, displaced 100,000s of people and admitted to using white phosphorus. You are misremembering.
Re: Armies are re-learning how to fight in cities
#9Quoted post unavailable.
You are misremembering. Not really your fault, if you're american like me you were only exposed to absurd quantities of propaganda. Worth looking into what things the US did again you'll probably be pretty upset
I found some isolated incidents of war crimes by the US in Iraq. There's nothing like command sanctioned massacring of civilians like the Russians are doing in Ukraine. Can you provide some more info?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes#Iraq_...
Re: Armies are re-learning how to fight in cities
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US was operating a counter-insurgency, so they didn't use major artillery bombardment, and used precision strike if anything but mostly used mechanised infantry and armour on the ground. It was still extremely destructive. Russia are conducting basically conventional warfare, so they're absolutely piling artillery rounds into these cities.
I’m not sure if razing a city to ground and killing hundred thousand civilians is “conventional warfare”.
> I’m not sure if razing a city to ground and killing hundred thousand civilians is “conventional warfare”.
Not sure what you mean - that's exactly what it is - do you think 'conventional' has some kind of ethical meaning? If so you're just mistaken about what the term means.
It means along the spectrum it's higher intensity than something like a counter-insurgency operation, or 'sub-threshold' we might say, but it's not as far gone as a nuclear engagement.