Live data from Hacker News

Armies are re-learning how to fight in cities

economist.com

41–50 of 92 posts

Re: Armies are re-learning how to fight in cities

#41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Quoted post unavailable.

No need for this kind of discourse. Just give them the cities.

Re: Armies are re-learning how to fight in cities

#42
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should look into the US's use of white phosphorus in Fallujah. It was pretty rough going there for a few years.

Wikipedia says it was used against insurgents when conventional munitions didn't have the desired effect. White phosphorus is not recognized as a chemical weapon under the Chemical Weapons Convention.

It might not be a chemical weapon under the convention, but white phosphorous is BRUTAL. I wouldn't say it's a humane weapon to use compared to a bullet in the head.

Re: Armies are re-learning how to fight in cities

#43
post #2

Quoted 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

US Govt: We're the good guys!

US Media: We're the bad guys!

US Subject: I'm confused, but I do trust this actor..

Re: Armies are re-learning how to fight in cities

#44

If there's anything I've learned from the conflict in Ukraine, as well as 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, it is that small-explosives drone usage has become a first-class citizen weaponry / tactic against ground troops. There's a daily stream of footage from Ukraine, where you see Russian ground troops getting bombed by DIY drones dropping grenades / mortar rounds / etc. Drones are also becoming invaluable tools as forwar…

I wonder how effective these drone attacks have actually been beyond being great for propaganda. For example compared to the more conventional indirect fire weapons.

Re: Armies are re-learning how to fight in cities

#45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The second battle of Fallujah where the US, British, and Iraqis fought against insurgents? The insurgents that fought from civilian homes and used civilians as shields? How many civilians were killed? I'm seeing estimates of only 500-800.

[deleted]

Re: Armies are re-learning how to fight in cities

#46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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_...

the known number of civilian deaths from various direct or indirect war actions (i.e. bombing etc.) is around 200.000, with around 10-20k being attributed to the U.S by most estimates. russia is getting closer every day but they'll take a while to reach it yet. but they are comparable numbers.

Russia’s numbers are only lower because they’ve largely been defeated.

If Russia had not been pushed away from Kyiv as dramatically as they were then their numbers would be a lot worse.

Also, Ukraine has better public transport, etc. and a functional government and support from the rest of Europe for its refugees, which has given civilians time and opportunities to relocate.

Re: Armies are re-learning how to fight in cities

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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_...

the known number of civilian deaths from various direct or indirect war actions (i.e. bombing etc.) is around 200.000, with around 10-20k being attributed to the U.S by most estimates. russia is getting closer every day but they'll take a while to reach it yet. but they are comparable numbers.

There are reports of around 10k civilian deaths in Mariupol alone so they might be way beyond that already if it’s substantiated.

Re: Armies are re-learning how to fight in cities

#49
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, pretty sure the counter to the ISIS takeover of northern Iraq involved the same kind of broad artillery fire on apartments, etc., as we’ve seen in Ukraine. Here is a study into deaths during the ISIS takeover and occupation, and the counter. There was relatively little conflict when ISIS took over, so the low death rates there are unsurprising but somewhat irrelevant. The death rate in the “liberation” is signi…

That is true, but those towns are mostly far smaller in comparison to a city like Kyiv, with known enemy forces in or within very close proximity. If combatants are in current occupation of an area, it's a legitimate target. Longer range bombings not associated with active combat were generally at targeted buildings or infrastructure. This is not reasonably comparable to continuous mass bombardment of civilian areas…

Mosul has a population of >1.5M, I think there are comparable and even many smaller Ukrainian cities and towns that have suffered in a similar way, to much deserved condemnation. Russia's war of aggression is illegal, but its tactics are broadly similar to those of other conventional (non-guerilla) armies.

To me, the point is that war tactics are always murderous to civilians, even for "good" wars -- meaning it had better be an actually justifiable war like WW2, rather than an invented threat like WMDs with the US in Iraq, or a sphere of influence war against NATO with Russia in Ukraine.

Re: Armies are re-learning how to fight in cities

#50
post #2

Quoted 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.

`precision strike` and 'surgical strike' are mostly marketing terms to conceal the fact that we were bombing civilian buildings just to get one guy.

Like sure, it is better than carpet bombing, but thats about all.It's nothing like sending in a SWAT team.

Post reply on HN