Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Armies are re-learning how to fight in cities

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 92 posts

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

#51

Post by kingkawn »

simonh wrote: post #26
dundarious wrote: post #14

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…

That’s a mighty small straw you’re splitting

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

#52

Post by addicted »

Sakos wrote: post #20
anonymfus wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which claim from the article you refer to? I don't see it saying that US razed a city to the ground or wiped out most of the population of entire towns.

The claim being made is Mariupol will change how we approach urban warfare in the future. But the US and Europe have been involved in a lot of urban warfare since the 90s on. I don't know why Russia being nuts suddenly changes everything.

The difference is that Russia has really struggled.

And the Ukrainians, who have a rich history of manufacturing weapons, etc. have shown some extremely interesting defensive techniques, many of which would qualify as novel.

The heavy use of drones is the most dramatic example of that.

That being said, the article undercuts itself in precisely the way you’ve mentioned since it recognizes towards the end that urban warfare is not new, and further old school methods work as well, if not better, than newer tech.

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

#53

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

meheleventyone wrote: post #39
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Isn’t that because beforehand the city was surrounded and the population displaced. Then a lot of people who stayed behind were automatically counted as insurgents irregardless of why they stayed. And you also ignore the incredible destruction of civilian property during the course of the battle.

If you were a commander on the ground what would you have done to better achieve the objective?

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

#54

Post by chrisseaton »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #50
chrisseaton wrote: post #4

Earlier 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.

`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.

You're mistaken in the same way as the person I was replying to. 'Precision fires' is a technical term, not a moral one, or a marketing term. Using the term isn't saying anything about the morality of how they're used. It means munitions with more-than-trivial guidance systems. A basic artillery shell as being used in Ukraine is unguided, and will have a target area starting at a hundred metres or so before it's corrected. A precision strike munition will be guided and will be aiming to hit within a few metres, so does not need observation or correction.

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

#55

Post by gonzo41 »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #32
gonzo41 wrote: 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 burns and produces a toxic gas, which is kinda borderline under the CWC.

Also it's not meant to be used against human targets. In the military it's intent is as use to create cover via smoke. The smoke launchers on APC's and tanks are WP to create large areas of blocking smoke instantly. as opposed to what smoke grenades do which just kinda spill out color for a while.

Also, If it get's on you, it doesn't extinguish with water. You need to not only cool it but smother it because it will react and start burning when exposed to air.

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

#56

Post by simonh »

dundarious wrote: post #49
simonh wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

>but its tactics are broadly similar to those of other conventional (non-guerilla) armies

You can always find terrible individual incidents, but the systematic rape, mass murder, looting and civilian bombardment by Russia is in no way comparable to the operations of any western army.

Take the murders in Fallujah after those Blackwater guys were killed, which someone raised elsewhere on this thread. It's an appalling incident that the US should be ashamed of, prosecutions were levelled against a whole bunch of the perpetrators but it looks like they mostly got off. The Maywand district murders guys in Afghanistan were properly banged to rights though and there have been plenty of other cases of US soldiers being properly and seriously held accountable for their actions. I don't have exact numbers, but as far as I can tell about 40 US troops faced prosecution for war crimes or abuses as a result of the Iraqi invasion. I'm not saying that's enough, but it's something.

Things like that happened in almost every single town taken by the Russians. Not isolated occurrences, but systematic slaughter of men women and children. Whole families, streets at a time in some cases. Tanks driving around blasting civilian cars and buildings, then driving off piled up with the looted contents from a row of houses. The scale of it is completely out of comparison, and I'm willing to bet not a single one of those Russians will face prosecution or censure of any kind, whatsoever by the Russian authorities. In fact they're giving some of the troops accused of war crimes medals.

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

#58

Post by cygx »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #32
gonzo41 wrote: 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.

That's what we have the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons for. It bans the use of incendiary weapons against military targets in civilian areas via air delivery, and delivery by other means under various circumstances. Cf https://treaties.unoda.org/t/ccwc_p3

Allegedly, the US fired such weapons from helicopters in urban areas with a civilian presence.

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

#60

Post by simonh »

kingkawn wrote: post #51
simonh wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That’s a mighty small straw you’re splitting

The scale of Russian bombardment on Ukrainian civilian areas isn't small.
Post reply on HN