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

71–80 of 92 posts

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

#71

Post by ClumsyPilot »

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…

> 'Precision fires' is a technical term, not a moral one, or a marketing term.

I think this is a little unfair - as far as I understand 'surgical strike' is not a reall military term, and the terminology was used by pundits and politicians to put a spin on current events.

I don't think anyone takes issue with generals using correct terminology, but usualy they aren't the ones giving interviews.

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

#72

Post by chrisseaton »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #71
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…

> 'Precision fires' is a technical term, not a moral one, or a marketing term. I think this is a little unfair - as far as I understand 'surgical strike' is not a reall military term, and the terminology was used by pundits and politicians to put a spin on current events. I don't think anyone takes issue with generals using correct terminology, but usualy they aren't the ones giving interviews.

The person I was replying to was the person who introduced that term to the thread! The first time it was used was them complaining about its use!

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

#73

Post by TheLoafOfBread »

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.

Jammer is a massive radio beacon screaming into a void your position. So nice on paper but will work against you.

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

#74

Post by ClumsyPilot »

chrisseaton wrote: post #72
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 'Precision fires' is a technical term, not a moral one, or a marketing term. I think this is a little unfair - as far as I understand 'surgical strike' is not a reall military term, and the terminology was used by pundits and politicians to put a spin on current events. I don't think anyone takes issue with generals using correct terminology, but usualy they aren't the ones giving interviews.

The person I was replying to was the person who introduced that term to the thread! The first time it was used was them complaining about its use!

Am I lost? I was trying to discuss the term as its used in popular media

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

#76

Post by trasz »

gruturo wrote: post #15
trasz wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure if razing a city to ground and killing hundred thousand civilians is “conventional warfare”.

Conventional is exactly the right term unfortunately. "Conventional" means all-out war, army vs army. The problem is that russia is carrying out conventional warfare tactics against a civilian population rather than an opposing army.

Okay, I think that’s it: to me, using methods of conventional warfare, but aimed against civilians instead of military, is no longer conventional warfare.

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

#77

Post by chrisseaton »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #74
chrisseaton wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The person I was replying to was the person who introduced that term to the thread! The first time it was used was them complaining about its use!

Am I lost? I was trying to discuss the term as its used in popular media

Your original reply to me quoted 'surgical strike', debating what that meant in the context of my reply, but that's not a term I used, so I don't know who you were quoting.

You're debating a term I never used. If you don't like how someone else uses it, then you'll have to ask them about what they mean, because I didn't use it.

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

#78

Post by meheleventyone »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #53
meheleventyone wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Which is an extremely weak defense. The excuse any commander can use for raising cities, just gotta claim it was the only way to do it and hey presto.

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

#79

Post by [deleted] »

trasz wrote: post #76
gruturo wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conventional is exactly the right term unfortunately. "Conventional" means all-out war, army vs army. The problem is that russia is carrying out conventional warfare tactics against a civilian population rather than an opposing army.

Okay, I think that’s it: to me, using methods of conventional warfare, but aimed against civilians instead of military, is no longer conventional warfare.

[deleted]

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

#80

Post by simonh »

dundarious wrote: post #63
simonh wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 ele…

It depends what we call, tactics. I think it’s clear that for the Russian military those murderous excesses are a tactic. Terrorising the population is intentional.

Systematic artillery and rocket barrages of schools and hospitals can’t be accidental. They’re not an incidental activity that sometimes happens, it’s far too systematic and ubiquitous to be that. The Russian command knows full well the on the ground massacres are in progress, but they cover them up and claim they are fabricated. That makes them complicit, that’s a tactic or even a strategy.

In comparison the US has a legal and investigative machinery primed to investigate and prosecute their own soldiers for war crimes, and they use it. Again that’s not incidental, it’s part of how they conduct military operations.

So I just flat out disagree, claiming that these excesses aren’t a tactic or part of military strategy sidelines the responsibility of the Russian command in a way I can’t support.

Post reply on HN