Imagine having to fight in pic related.
Imagine having to fight room to room to clear out the 5 million insurgents in this.
How about fighting every cartel in Mexico City, with the government troops shooting at everyone during a Popocatépetl volcanic eruption?
21.2 Million people all going nuts.
I don't think it would happen, there would be no advantage to staying in a concrete jungle were everything has to be transported in and refuse hauled out. If devastation was that wide spread people would abandon large cities and flee to rural areas.
Just look at the fighting in Aleppo and Damascus, there's plenty of fighting in relatively large cities
So it is possible. Plus, for both scenarios, the fighting is/was atrocious
During the Iran-Iraq war, the Iraqi army had a dreadful time trying to surround some of the larger Iranian cities, which where so large, that encirclement was just about impossible.
today's drones are already much more versaltile. even the ground based drones. they could operate 24/7. with super duper optics.
you could combine a armed cheetah with a fyling eye like scaneagle or predator
>Imagine having to fight in pic related.
this desu~. Take over a couple strategic roads and railways, and start naming your terms. Whoever's left inside better hope their allies are willing and able to pull a fucking berlin airlift.
Don't clear rooms when you can clear entire cities.
You forget, Japanese are westaboos
Don't know why the BMPT-72 got rid of the double 40mm grenade launcher turrets nor did it include remote-weapons station for the TC.
Still, I'd fucking give my right nut to see a BMPT in actual combat in shit like Syria.
Just get several fucking killdozers with antipersonnel and antitank weapons. Would be a great utility tool to clear roads and such, along with an impact of morale on the enemy.
Would WW1 Landship style tanks work better in urban warfare than a conventional tank?
Having multiple weapons mounted around the vehicle instead of a single large gun in the turret
it is cheaper, BMPT need heavily modify T-72 hull
BMPT-72 only need a T-72 hull
those are 30mm antumatic grenade launcher not MG
try going down alleys or rounding even two-lane corners.
No. Not at all. Not to mention that a .50 BMG can penetrate the original landships, and to make one that has enough armor to defeat RPGs plus travel faster than....
...you know what? Fuck you. You're retarded -- too retarded to bother answering.
Those are the grenade launchers >>28888549
To make it cheaper and easier to sell (not that it has still) as a straight T-72 side-grade, not needing so many hull modifications keeps it more to just a turret package.
Kinda would have thought they'd have seen use in Syria but I guess there's not really the demand for the expensive ATGMs, or the autocannon when it comes down to it. I'd guess the autocannon are just far less tactically useful than the various tanks' guns they operate for doing things like blowing holes in walls/debris. Fewer really tall buildings for needing the elevation too.
Really it's just a super niche vehicle without that much to offer in utility over using what is around already. Unless you're expecting to have to fight in an environment like Grozny but the other side also has something worth using ATGMs on, well, it's not really that good.
>...you know what? Fuck you. You're retarded -- too retarded to bother answering.
1) Calm down, sperg.
2) Try responding to his actual question. Literally none of what you typed had anything to do with his post. You just freaked out and went into full-on turbo-autism for no reason. Multi-turret tanks can't work because WW1 tanks had thin armor? Are you seriously this spastic?
3) Seriously, calm down.
I'm from a relatively large city in the western US, but when I went to both Manila and Sao Paulo I felt claustrophobic, cities like that are seemingly inescapable, its creepy.
>Having multiple weapons mounted around the vehicle instead of a single large gun in the turret
You don't really need lots and lots of small weapons for urban combat, rather, you need big weapons that can go through walls or knock down buildings.
Your typical concrete-walled building is sufficient to stop or at least slow most small arms, and even big guns like 25mm autocannons have trouble chewing through some of that stuff, and it's even more complicated when you're shooting through several walls made of different materials. Buildings, in general, can soak up a LOT of abuse and still provide protection to enemy troops within them.
A tank's main gun really is an extremely desirable urban combat weapon, since it has no trouble going through/fucking up buildings, and some ammo types are designed specifically for this purpose. To carry this gun, you need a big turret...
one of the things a lot of you are forgetting about are civilians.
if you have a city of a million people, even if most of them leave, you've still got potentially tens of thousands of civilians roaming around, which even if you're absolutely uncaring about collateral damage, will present a serious obstacle...
for a blown out city, I figure it would be first just using some kind of drone dozers (like the shit 12N's use, but unmanned) to clear most of the rubble, then send in the airborne set up as cqb and to clear out the roads and set up bridges, then roll in the armor and blow up everything else.
also, tons of snipers and lmg's
Clear out civilians/valuable resources and you don't destroy EVERYTHING you keep the important structures needed for your command posts, signals stations, field hospitals etc. you shitstain.
Modern day cities will be treated like forts of long ago. Avoided if possible or besieged for the easy long-term win. Why the hell would you need to clear a completely hostile city with infantry?
Modern day cities serve all the purposes that castles do; fortifications never really became obsolete, it's just to have something as effective as a castle defensively would translate to literally constructing a city for the purpose of defending which would be economically nonviable.
Have fun clearing this out block by block, building by building, floor by floor, room by room.
>Why the hell would you need to clear a completely hostile city with infantry?
because it contains men, materiel, and is a transportation hub? three classic reasons why cities are fought over, friend.
>Not if you contain them by besieging the city.
there are very few times in history when a besieged city was 'perfectly contained', and all you need is one rail line, or one road, or even one dinky trench into the city to support combat indefinitely...
cities are usually located *on* the front line (which means some huge part of them is not under your control, and has a direct link with the rest of the opposing army), they're not often bypassed and surrounded, because of the enormous amount of resources this requires, not to mention how dangerous it is to leave a large well-protected, well-supplied enemy force in the middle of your rear lines, with an indefinite siege (which could last years) being conducted at enormous cost, with no clear aim or timeframe for resolution...
>amerifats STILL believe that bombing shit is the be-all end-all military tactic
Tell me how successful you've been in containing Islamic state again?
You are thinking about the Nagmachon. It's based on a Centurion hull, not a Merkava.
Every siege that was not resolved by 1) a relief force or sally causing a pitched battle, 2) a traitor opening the gates or 3) assault is resolved by starving the defenders down.
They can't work becuase of their size mostly. They are going to be larger which means more armor, crew, fuel. It will have a bigger engine, higher cost, more maintence, and be incredibly unweildly. You are better off with cheap AFV (like technicals, you can just car jack them) or a very heavily armoured IFV (pic related). You want it to support infantry and help them with specialized needs. Adding a howitzer to it is also very useful.
so you can't name me a single time.
that was a siege followed by an assault. are you even reading what I'm writing?
sieges followed by assaults happen all the time. that was what fallujah was, for example. I asked you to name me a time that the siege was the thing that itself won the city as this idiot here alleged >>28896250
>I'm not gonna spoonfeed your retarded ass.
because you can't.
seriously, why are you pretending to know something you don't?
>I totally know this thing that I wont tell you because you're too dumb to know it!!!!11
leningrad never fell, you retard. how is this an example of a time that a siege alone caused a city to be taken?
are you niggers even reading my posts? I am not asking you to list sieges. I'm asking you to support this faggot's >>28896250 conclusion that you can capture a city solely by sieging it.
No you're the retard saying that sieges are fucking useless because you can't kill every last person with starvation. The purpose of a siege is attrition. You weaken them and then attack.
t. not a retard
I just gave you a perfect example of a siege working without an assault to follow.. The siege of Vicksburg lasted two and half months and led to a unconditional surrender of 30,000 confederate troops.
I'm not even the guy you were talking too initially. I just dropped in to tell how retarded you are by thinking sieges are ineffective.
Don't be an ass and explain! Really. To answer the question: Usually a military unit will attempt to suppress the sniper to prevent his movement and flank the sniper with another unit as support. If the military unit in question has access to heavy weapons(HMG, GMG) or vehicle emplacement weapons(APC, IFV, MBT) then they will use them to destroy the snipers position. And of course you can use Airpower.
I'm no expert but isn't that a more dated way of saying "MOUT?"
Awesome infographics though, any idea how old they are?
>I'm no expert but isn't that a more dated way of saying "MOUT?"
FIBUA is the British term for the same concept.
>Awesome infographics though, any idea how old they are?
I've never seen this image before, but judging by the REDFOR use of both T-62 tanks (introduced 1961) and Mi-4 helos (retired late 60s), this can be established as a British graphic from 1960s.
>all these people saying that the solution is just to bomb the city
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a city be just as hard, if not harder, to take when reduced to rubble? I'd imagine that having all the roads being impassable and unlimited hidey holes for infantry would just create a Stalingrad 2.0 situation.
Or are modern (conventional) bombs deadly enough to completely annihilate any defenders in a large city with lots of underground sewers/parkades/subways to hide in?
a city large enough could CONTAIN a whole war within itself.
some cities are so large you would need too many nukes.
> so many people itt saying just bomb the city
No fucking shit, but in the past, currently, and for no foreseeable reason will some army somewhere not at some point be fighting in a city. It is interesting to think about how the increased scale of modern cities will effect full scale urban warfare.
Swear to god half of /k/ feels like it is middle school kids who learned a tiny piece of military thinking somewhere and hold themselves to be grand strategists.
Best idea: bomb it dead. Lose a bunch of bombs.
2nd best idea: cordon it off and let the defenders starve. Lose a lot of time, tie down soldiers that could be fighting somewhere else.
3rd best idea: assault it with men, lose a bunch of men because of all the firing angles, then tie down a bunch more men holding it.
Is there anything you'd like to add?
So basically, the vehicle you'd want in a dense, urban environment would be of medium-small size, fast, and sporting a big gun (at least 76mm?) that has a high firing arc (or whatever the term is for shooting above you)
I think of modifying one of those small, french scout tanks, the one with the wheels, with a spherical turret and a 100mm gun on it. It would peak out from a corner, find it's target, shoot and scoot back behind the corner. Only problems would be armor and ammo/fuel storage.
Any other ideas/suggestions?
The Israelis actually use armored bulldozers to great effect. They love them. One of the things that was asked for following Desert Storm was armored Bulldozers with a machinegun on them.