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

61–70 of 92 posts

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

#61

Post by TrackerFF »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #34
TrackerFF wrote: post #28

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…

Civilian drones can be jammed. Jammers are used to counter remotely detonated IEDs already.

Yes, but jammers can be expensive - and AFAIK, they are directional. At least the ones I've seen in action, so you'd have to know at least the direction of the drone.

The big challenge is that the drones are quite small, and quite the distance above. In many cases the soldiers are completely oblivious of the drones, and will frankly not know until somethings detonated right beside them.

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

#62

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

cygx wrote: post #58
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Which the US signed in 2009. The 2nd battle of Fallujah was in 2004.

Do you have a source for the air delivery? I'm only seeing reference to WP artillery which is somehow kosher compared to something dropped from an aircraft.

This entire thread is a distraction though. The article is about urban combat in the context of Russia's war in Ukraine which nobody here wants to discuss for some reason.

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

#63

Post by dundarious »

simonh wrote: post #56
dundarious wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

We were talking about conventional military tactics (e.g., artillery) on civilian areas, so a topic entirely separate from the "terrible individual incidents" you mention: on the conventional tactics front, I disagree that there is a significant difference. When a conventional military wants to wrest military control of an area from another smaller conventional military (one that for good reason has some guerilla elements as well), they all use similar tactics. The end result is always a bloodbath (or mass murder).

And Russia is absolutely committing other cruelties of war on top of the conventional war. I was also excluding that from the discussion, because it wasn't part of the article or the thread thus far. More people die from the conventional stuff too.

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

#65

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

> Indiscriminate Russian barrages have destroyed not only Mariupol, Severodonetsk and many smaller towns in Ukraine, but also Grozny in Chechnya and Aleppo in Syria.

> The city doesn’t exist any more,” said Dmytro Kuleba, Ukraine’s foreign minister, in April.

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

#66

Post by dundarious »

chrisseaton wrote: post #54
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

`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 corr…

Artillery bombardment was widely used in Mosul. This article is puffery, and is (typically) oblique about how the artillery was used upon Mosul, but the title is illustrative: How U.S. Artillery in Iraq Regained Its Status as ‘King of Battle’. https://www.coffeeordie.com/artillery-iraq

> The various howitzers, mortars, and rockets that make up both light and heavy artillery are known in military jargon as “indirect fire.” Though targeting systems have become much more advanced than the days of old — allowing for both greater precision against the enemy and more careful targeting to avoid killing civilians — these weapons unleash incredibly destructive power wherever their munitions land.

...

> The campaign to eject ISIS from Mosul and its surrounding towns was destructive — Iraqis are working to rebuild their homes as they continue to count their dead.

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

#67

Post by chrisseaton »

dundarious wrote: post #66
chrisseaton wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 corr…

Artillery bombardment was widely used in Mosul. This article is puffery, and is (typically) oblique about how the artillery was used upon Mosul, but the title is illustrative: How U.S. Artillery in Iraq Regained Its Status as ‘King of Battle’. https://www.coffeeordie.com/artillery-iraq > The various howitzers, mortars, and rockets that make up both light and heavy artillery are known in military jargon as “indirect f…

> artillery is not verboten in US military doctrine

Nobody said it was. The US obviously has massive artillery firepower, both massed fires and precision fires, and using it is of course part of its doctrine. Who are you responding to that you think said it wasn't?

Both light artillery and precision fires were used in Iraq and Afghanistan, but not remotely like in Ukraine where they are using massed fires.

(By the way we can see you editing your comments after you post them.)

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

#68

Post by dundarious »

chrisseaton wrote: post #67
dundarious wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Artillery bombardment was widely used in Mosul. This article is puffery, and is (typically) oblique about how the artillery was used upon Mosul, but the title is illustrative: How U.S. Artillery in Iraq Regained Its Status as ‘King of Battle’. https://www.coffeeordie.com/artillery-iraq > The various howitzers, mortars, and rockets that make up both light and heavy artillery are known in military jargon as “indirect f…

> artillery is not verboten in US military doctrine Nobody said it was. The US obviously has massive artillery firepower, both massed fires and precision fires, and using it is of course part of its doctrine. Who are you responding to that you think said it wasn't? Both light artillery and precision fires were used in Iraq and Afghanistan, but not remotely like in Ukraine where they are using massed fires. (By the wa…

I edited shortly after posting because I realized that part was irrelevant, and I needed to make a better point, and it was easy to do so. So fair enough for you to respond to it when you saw it. I'm not editing for any other purpose than to make a slightly better point -- there's nothing dodgy about that. (Edit: I just saw you yourself edit to add a point about "light" artillery, and there's nothing wrong with making such an edit.)

I can't see the flagged post you were responding to anymore, but for your post quoted below, the argument doesn't apply to Mosul (not that you were claiming it did, you were making a specific point not a general argument).

> 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.

The US and Iraqi forces used conventional warfare and were piling artillery rounds into Mosul, in a similar way to how Russia is using it in Ukraine.

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

#69

Post by [deleted] »

TrackerFF wrote: post #61
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Civilian drones can be jammed. Jammers are used to counter remotely detonated IEDs already.

Yes, but jammers can be expensive - and AFAIK, they are directional. At least the ones I've seen in action, so you'd have to know at least the direction of the drone. The big challenge is that the drones are quite small, and quite the distance above. In many cases the soldiers are completely oblivious of the drones, and will frankly not know until somethings detonated right beside them.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN