Megacity Urban Warfare

>>31092224
Unless we flatten it before we attack it.

>>31092285
Congratulations, you just turned cover into broken cover. You're gonna have to go in there and clear them out anyway. You can choose concrete canyons with functional infrastructure and roads, or never ending gigantic piles of rubble and millions of rotting bodies and diseases.

>>31092224
>National Guard focusing on urban combat
I like this idea. I used to work with a guy who was a weekend warrior in the Guard and he said most of his training was standard stuff and he and his buddies he was trained with were basically told that their combat training was pointless except for the rare event of martial law or large-scale riots, and even then the Guard would only be called in if the cops admitted they didn't have the manpower to contain the situation.

File: BW Urban Fighting.jpg (605KB, 1500x1022px) Image search: [Google]

605KB, 1500x1022px

>>31092224
We have never seen a modern army fight another modern army in urban environment before

But everyone agrees that it will be hard.

>>31092357
>Go in and clear them out
Like we did in Dresden?

>>31092527
Like we did in Manila and the Russians in Stalingrad and Berlin.

>>31092357
what objectives are you imagining? against nuclear armed opponents?

>>31092357

Lol no, you've turned an intact city with 30,000 entrenched defenders into a destroyed city with 5,000 defenders who have no roofs over their heads and will be living amongst corpses and diseases.

>>31092552
it's a different world, you go in like that now, you get mogadishu'd

File: sao paulo-skyscraper city.jpg (809KB, 1600x1071px) Image search: [Google]

809KB, 1600x1071px

>>31092566
I'm not talking about goatfuckers. All the ports and railroads needed for a real war are in built up urban areas. A few snipers and mortars and man pads will cause serious problems. You gotta go in and clear em out, no way around it. Even if you just go genocidal (and we'll still try to avoid this if possible) you'll have a huge civilian population/POWs you have to evacuate from around your tactical objectives. Whichever way it goes, you're gonna have huge manpower requirements.

>>31092507
Do we have a plan and tactics for this, or are we just ignoring it and hoping we can avoid it?

>>31092578
>you get mogadishu'd
Isnt that becasue they had no tanks and everything that could go wrong went wrong?

Just look at Fallujah in 2004
>inb4 chechnya, grozny 1994
Not a argument. The russians failed on everything they could fail on and did it extra by not following their own doctrine to the word and letter.

The only force to come out alive from grozny with no harm was the special forces that was dropped in with helis. Mainly because they ran out of food.

>>31092694
Everyone that is smart enough have plans for urban warfare. Just ask a soldier you know if they remember their urban warfare training and if there are any key points they remember.

If you wonder what I mean

Look for FM 3-21.75 and then go to the urban warfare section. Tho this only describes how the individual soldier should perform it is still excellent.

File: muh war.jpg (92KB, 600x385px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 600x385px

>>31092224
>guys you havent seen the mexican military on the streets
>imagine everyday urban warfare
>you get used to it

>>31092819
Interesting, I'll take a look at that later.

But my question was more about strategic planning and large scale operations. I'm worried about two modern militaries fighting in a modern city. I've never seen anything about how we would deal with that beyond "it's gonna be totally brutal man"

For example, if one side has air superiority, the other side might be forced to operate inside of their own cities even if it endangers their own people. And it's totally possible to operate AA defenses or artillery from a park and then quickly hide under an overpass or inside a warehouse or something. We'll have to go into a city to root out the enemy.

File: brahmos-647_061915020425.jpg (63KB, 647x404px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 647x404px

It's impossible for any modern military to even get close to an enemy city. They'll get blown up a long way away

>>31092821
It still blows me away that Mexico doesn't ask for help wiping out the cartels.

They should call the Philippines for some tips..

File: Soviet city combat 2.png (248KB, 923x1131px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 923x1131px

>>31092952
Not a really modern view and from the opposing side but I think it is valid to give a idea how modern armies would do in rough terms.

Look up FM 100-2-2 and go to urban cities section.

Well having air superiority would be a big plus but you could use conventional artillery to bombard areas that the enemy have their artillery/AA equipment. Unless they hide their artillery/AA equipment in hardend structures you would be able to get them withouth having to step inside. Tho if they are a force in 10000 then they would have alot of equipment to deploy.

It is really hard to know how things would go but one thing is certain, if the enemy is unable to encircle you or bypass you then they wont be able to ignore you.

>>31092952
Or we can encircle it.
Position artillery to do counter-battery duty
Give a warning to civilians that they have a few days delay to get out and surrender to the besiegers.
And once the delay is out, you just bomb the shit out of the city.

Enemy artillery is still hidding ?
Sure. But now, it can't move easily through the sea of rubbles so it lost manoeuvrability.
If it does fire, counter-battery will eliminate it before it can redeploy.
Even moving around their ammunition will be a plague, what with no vehicule capable of moving through the rubble-filled streets without being detected by the heat of its engine.
Immobile and hard to supply, they will be a nail in the invader's foot... but not for long.

Enemy armor is hidding ?
They are little better than mobile bunkers.
And the mobile part will get scratch as soon as they run out of gas.
If they use gas sparcely over several weeks, the heat from their engines will flare on sensors, giving away their position.
A tank in the open with proper AA support could change position and not have to worry too much about being detected and instant-kill, either because no aircraft will survive approaching to kill it or because it will have moved out of the area before a ground plateform can hit him.

Enemy infantry is hidding ?
See artillery but less threatening.
That's what these guys are, basically : mortar, manpad, sniper rifle... they'll hit from a long distance but not long enough to prevent a rain of shells dropping from 10-20 km away.

You don't need to clear the city overnight.
You just evacuate the population.
Whoever is left is either a looter, a partisan or an enemy soldier.
If the latter, they are a threat to your military campaign only if they can hold a ground you need to keep invading.
Clear the ports, railways and the main roads. Keep bombing the rest if anything move there.

File: 1470929847773.gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

>>31093298
Wow I wish I was part of whatever omniscient and omnipotent military you're describing. You make it sound so easy

File: when the weed hit.webm (514KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

514KB, 1280x720px

This or a much larger version of the Baghdad thunder runs of 2003.

As it turns out, tanks are actually very effective in urban terrain if you use them effectively

>>31094073
>I'm too retarded to read OP's scenario

>>31094110
The thunder runs wouldn't have worked against a more capable foe. You'd see a much more methodical advance. Room by room, house by house, block to block. Still supported by tanks.

>>31094149
Nah.

If you're storming a city, you are probably the only one who still has tanks, and you should use that mobility to make your moves as unexpected and rapid as possible.

The combination of 120mm HEAT rounds and JDAMs from fixed wing aviation should be enough to win most of your fights, especially when the enemies own mobility through the city is severely compromised.

Oh, and bring a ton of FLIR. Nothing is funnier than a couple dozen ragheads getting caught out in the open and slaughtered by something they can't see, before they even see a friendly soldier.

>>31094195
>If you're storming a city, you are probably the only one who still has tanks, and you should use that mobility to make your moves as unexpected and rapid as possible.
First off, it's far from guaranteed that you'll be the only one with tanks.

Second, and more crucially, lightning fast raids against a competent foe will only get you bogged down, cut off, and slaughtered. Learn from Chechnya. They switched to the methodical approach for a reason. The lightning fast raids exposes too many angles and gets you surrounded. You just want to go slow and steady, getting through it with as few casualties as possible. Now, might there be a place for sudden strikes to gain advantageous positioning and then expanding from there? Perhaps. But you aren't going to be running for the presidential palace through the entire city

>>31094234
The assumption I'm making here is that the enemy is in a position of inferiority, by the simple fact that they're fighting in the city and not fighting pitched armored brawls in the countryside.

This would indicate that we have superiority in armor, and probably in the sky.

This would mean that you, with your unmolested supply train and air interdiction, have a huge advantage in mobility. You can set up in any given location long before the enemy can put up a counter-attack. This would mean that raiding actions and surprise attacks place you at an advantage relative to slower paced combat where the enemy has the time to position troops properly, and prepare defenses.

Although frankly the Battle of Fallujah might bear you out as to the need for a more gradual approach.

That said, I think Baghdad in 2003 was actually the most populous city ever to be conquered.

Could be wrong.

>>31093178
What experience do flips having dealing with cartels?

>>31094281
>The assumption I'm making here is that the enemy is in a position of inferiority, by the simple fact that they're fighting in the city and not fighting pitched armored brawls in the countryside.
Why would they do that when they can retreat into a city and remove your advantage in numbers, and allow their own vehicles to trade cost effectively with your own.

>You can set up in any given location long before the enemy can put up a counter-attack.
I quoted Chechnya for a reason. The Russians faced EXTREME counterattacks doing exactly what you profess. Counterattacks to the point where those units who tried it were wiped out almost to a man. And that was a foe who didn't have any real vehicles. They did it almost entirely dismounted. Now lets imagine a situation where the enemy was even more capable. He does have vehicles. He has modern weaponry. He has mines. You are NOT going to be able to do it. Hell, the Thunder Runs faced SEVERE counterattack. Hell, they were almost overrun. And that was by a group of incompetents without proper weaponry for the task.

>>31092224
what fucking city is that? jesus that absolute lack of building design is stupid, looks like a child playing sim city just copy pasted a few designs

>>31094403
>ell, the Thunder Runs faced SEVERE counterattack. Hell, they were almost overrun.
No they weren't, on both counts. Please stop just making shit up to fit your preconceived notions, /k/ is already full of that garbage

File: image.jpg (21KB, 300x206px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 300x206px

>>31092224
One step ahead of you OP!

Pic pretty related

>>31092437

Or of they get deployed to a war, like in Iraq or Afghanistan?

I went over there 3 times with the Guard. You're kinda dumb.

>>31094316
Philippines is currently doing a nation wide government blind eyed cull of drug dealers and users
Not even exaggerating.

>>31094403
The difference is that in chechnya there was no direct air support over the advancing force.

They entered the city from three different directions with no support from eachother or artillery.

They were badly trained with urban warfare training being non existent. Hell, when they reached their objectives some of them left their vehicles and went into the building they were told to take (tankers whom are not supposed to leave their vehicle).

And then they all got slaugthered by well motivated chechens, some of them being former soviet soldiers thus having a knowledge about the russians possible tactics and vehicles design and weakness.

The russians were fools to think that few bombings and seeing russian tanks rolling in the street would make the chechens crumble.
>They were so wrong.

>>31094234
>lightning fast raids against a competent foe will only get you bogged down
Fuckign this
Everyone thinks that striking fast and hard is a great idea but it's seriously overrated because it makes for good stories.

>>31092952
>We'll have to go into a city to root out the enemy.

Not necessarily. Depends on how quickly you need to take the city, and what kind of shape you want it in.

If you have time, encircle and beseige. Have a swarm of predators and reapers gathering intel and hitting targets of opportunity. Have smaller, battalion level drones monitoring potential weak points.

Start probing. The idea there is to get the defenders to use up resources and reveal their capabilities. You could probably even do some of this with unmanned ground vehicles.

Have a heavy assault reserve on standby. Whenever a weak or unguarded point is identified, they storm it and immediately fort up to repel a possible counterattack.

The idea being, try to grab as much urban real estate as you can without taking significant casualties. Once resistance stiffens up, you let the drones and robots take the lead again and start probing a different sector.

The defenders will have miles of perimeter to hold. You want to be putting pressure on it constantly, always at different points. Keep snipping off a building or a block, while your drones harass and interdict their QRFs.

And make sure you offer decent terms if they surrender. If you capture some of their troops, give them a decent meal and a hot shower. Then return them.

>>31094465
>No they weren't, on both counts.
You read the book? I believe it mentions that quite clearly. I can grab a quote, if you'd wish.

>>31094403

>Grozny
>Grozny
>Grozny

The Russians were poorly equipped, poorly trained, poorly led conscripts with some support from professional fighting units.

They were terrible at fighting. They had no idea what they were doing, they didn't want to be there, and they didn'thave anyone worth a damn to command them, which is why they were slaughtered.

Like what Russians do, they went in with a lot of shit and were told to clean house, we're Americans goddammit, we aren't retarded.

Basically it would be like Baghdad, we would surround it and pick off hard structures and units one by one with air raids until only soft resistance is left, then we rush into the city from multiple sides while hitting high priority government complexes with special forces in the city to decapitate military leadership. We do all of this while using heavy air and artillery support, and we bomb the fuck out of anything that bullets come out of.

Oh, super in the building? JDAM.
Fire coming from that roof? JDAM
Fireteam in that rubble? SDB

Eventually, larger and larger units just surrender or try and escape.

That's if you don't just starve them out. How much food do you think there is in Beijing proper? Maybe a week's worth?

There are already "grocery deserts" in some cities, where you have to drive miles in order to find a sizeable grocery store. How long do you think the city can survive woth no water, power, or food? Two weeks?

File: 84_1280.jpg (28KB, 1280x180px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 1280x180px

>>31092224
Look at the Battle for Donetsk Airport. They were fighting in airport terminals that were recently completed. Notice how all the glass and Sheetrock walls basically disappear over time.

There are other videos of the battle that I highly suggest you watch but they are easier to find than this particular one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgAjksaAb8c

The Local separatists and Russians drove out, killed and captured the paratroopers by setting off demo charges on the floor above however this took 5 months of fighting to just take two terminals.

Also, AP rounds went right through the the walls and could penetrate a good number of walls. Near the end the defenders had to bring in hesco barriers.

Really interesting battle.

>>31094671
>Basically it would be like Baghdad, we would surround it and pick off hard structures and units one by one with air raids until only soft resistance is left
That's the problem. Why would the enemy let you do that? Is he just going to put all his guys along the edges of the city for you to do that? Is he just going to put himself in the obvious positions that anyone with a brain would hit
(church towers and the like). And you significantly overestimate the ability of airpower to strike into these congested areas. Read the FMs, see the different ways you're supposed to mark targets. Then think about how they might not work. Hell, they tell you in there itself how it won't necessarily work.

Then we have to think about how effective these would be against the targets there and whether or not some munitions would be used for fear of civilian casualties.

Raids will NOT work. It's got to be slow and methodical work. While yes, the Russians were not fully competent, you've got to realize that the Chechens were pretty the same people- many of them were veterans of the Soviet military. Further, the Chechens didn't have anywhere near the technology a modern opponent would have. They didn't have the advanced ATGMs. They didn't have the men and material. You CANNOT risk a
lightning raid against a city held by a peer or near peer opponent.

>>31094671
>with some support from professional fighting units.
I dont think they had anything like that IIRC, sure someone was smart enough to attach ZSU 23-4 Shilkas to their unit due to lessons learnt in afghanistan but the only professional unit that I know about was a spetsnaz group who did nothing to support the three forces that entered grozny and held out untill they ran out of food and surendered.

>>31094480
Would the Killdozer armor stop an RPG?

>>31094110
Holy fuck, that's frightening.

>>31094849
It wont stop rounds from a 50 cal machine gun.

It's threat is from rifle fire and it will stop them. Throw in anti tank weaporny and it will stop very fast.

>>31094794
That vid is copyright blocked for me. If you have another source please let me know. I'd search it myself but I can't read Russian and I don't know what I'm looking for

>>31094796
100s of thousands of civilians will be an extreme headache too. Even if you do care too much about collateral, and give everyone a week to clear out, there will still be stupid amounts of retarded civilians running around doing god knows what. And that's assuming it's even possible to evacuate a 1,000,000+ city. I don't know if it's ever been done before. Where will they go? You probably just created a million starving people scattered throughout the countryside. Or tens of thousands of rebels doing guerilla warfare in the suburbs.

>>31094796

>let

Yeah after weeks of airstrikes, bombardment, and critical supply shortages we really have to worry about that.

In a modern war, the defenders inside a city cut off from the main force are at a massive, insurmountable disadvantage.

In a modern war, if a city, a large one, is cut off, there will be 24 hour surveillance from the sky, and there will be constant strikes against any military units that are seen. Basically, if the enemy doesn't hide, it dies.

This severely limits their ability to respond to attacks, because if they respond to a probe or assault, they will be picked off by air power long before they become useful.

In war, of you can't move, you die. These units cannot move or they will be killed, which means the longer they sit there, the more likely it is for them to be killed anyway.

There is no "near peer" enemy holding a city, because why the fuck would you assault a city of you didn't have a massive advantage? Are you retarded? Do you not understand what military doctrines the United States use?

Within weeks, any resistance inside the city would be disorganized, scared, extremely low on supplies, and unable to menouver effectively.

When the main attack happens, most will flee, surrender, or be killed where they stand.

>>31094839

Yeah I used the word "support" loosely, what I meant was basically "some Spetsnez were there, too!"

>>31094989

They'll starve worst case.

Best case is they raid their own military units for food.

If we're talking about a MODERN city, these people have never had to actually work for food. They are used to processed food, water on tap, and electricity. If you take all of that away, they will panic and become unstable and unable to control. They won't be a threat to the attackers until the attackers become occupiers, but at that point they will pretty much align themselves with whoever promises food, water, and power anyway.

Civilians are more of a detriment to the defenders than anything.

>>31095041
>Yeah after weeks of airstrikes, bombardment, and critical supply shortages we really have to worry about that.
YEP. You really do. You vastly overestimate the effectiveness of all sorts of bombardment on military forces within cities, not to mention just simply observation. 24 hour surveillance is far from guaranteed, especially if the opponent could conceivably have AA of any sort. Even with that observation, you're not guaranteed to see much of anything. Do note that in Desert Storm, the Iraqis were able to keep the vast majority of their armor alive by just digging in and concealing themselves in A FLAT DESERT. In a megacity, the buildings themselves block observation and fires. Smoke and dust would make it even more difficult to observe into the city. Further, just by being a city, weapons runs would have to be done along a street, otherwise there's a building in the way. In short, reducing a force inside a city would be very difficult.

With that now made clear, infantry could quite easily move anywhere anyways. The infantry now has modern anti-tank threats. They are quite capable of destroying any armored vehicles if you expose them too much, as you would during any fast paced raid.

>There is no "near peer" enemy holding a city, because why the fuck would you assault a city of you didn't have a massive advantage?
Do you have any idea what "peer" or "near peer" mean? That means people who are comparable to a country's military strength both qualitatively and quantitatively. If you wanted to attack into a city held by UK forces, you'd get a bloody eye, even if you have local superiority in numbers. Cities tend to make that point a bit moot.

>When the main attack happens, most will flee, surrender, or be killed where they stand.
That has never been the case in any modern conflict. There are plenty of cases of urban warfare in the past 100 years. You should look at how bloody they were.

>>31095182

You really are delusional.

In a MEGACITY, they will run out of food in weeks.

Also, what the fuck about AA, there will be *maybe* MANPADS which are useful only for low flyers like helicopters.

Seriously, you're so incredibly wrong it's silly.

Infantry will have anti-tank weapons... for about a day...

They will be able to move... until an SDB hits them in the face.

The problem is that the attackers don't actually have to engage the enemy. They can just mark where the bullets are coming from and have the whole goddamn thing taken down. It's pointless for you to continue, because you've provided no evidence that a defender would be able to compete with a determined and well supplied attacker.

During the fall of Baghdad, 34 Coalition troops were killed. For the whole city, 34 guys.

Also, as for your AA, Iraq had some of the largest and most well developed SAM sites in the world. They were both qualitatively and quantitatively on part with everyone except Russia, and were shit on.

>>31094794
>this took 5 months of fighting to just take two terminals.
Both sides had extra limited supplies and Ukrainians had full artillery support. Even air support in first assault.

File: 9-11-rubble211.jpg (27KB, 320x213px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 320x213px

>>31095182
Quality post. Also subway tunnels and underground utilities provide pretty good logistics for a prepared defender. Collapsing them from street level would require a bunker buster at minimum.

You guys should remember the ungodly mess created on 9/11. It took months to clean up and the fires were burning the whole time. One dropped skyscraper can change the entire battlefield. Imagine fighting in that concrete dust cloud.

>>31095296
>You really are delusional.
How so? You've said nothing rational.

>In a MEGACITY, they will run out of food in weeks.
Weeks is a long time, and that's not necessarily true. If I were to prepare for a siege, I'd bring in as much nonperishable food as I could prior to the siege and severely ration what I do have.

>Also, what the fuck about AA...
Why do you assume that? Seriously, what makes you make that assumption? Why COULDN'T they have AA? We're talking about a fight with a peer or near-peer opponent. Why wouldn't they have their AA? Even the Serbians had AA.

>Infantry will have anti-tank weapons... for about a day...
Why only a day? Come on, make your arguments.

>They will be able to move...
I just got through telling you how difficult it would be to observe and fire into a city and you give me this? Never mind the fact that infantry already has free reign without exposing themselves via mouseholing.

>The problem is that the attackers don't actually have to engage the enemy...
This is somewhat of a silly idea. Of course they're going to have to engage the defenders. Do you think the defenders won't engage them? Do you think support comes in just as quickly as you can snap your fingers? Sure, the proper way to take a city is to slowly and methodically advance through, taking all the time you have to shell enemy strongpoints, but that doesn't mean that fighting doesn't break out. It's really quite vicious, truth be told. And let's never mind that it's been discovered that basements are good fighting positions and very difficult to destroy through fire support.

>Baghdad this
>Baghdad that
The Thunder Runs should not be taken as a good example of how it would work against a competent opponent. If the Iraqis had been switched with the Chechens, there'd have been significantly worse casualties. With the Russians or someone on par with US or UK? It'd never work at all.

>>31095495
>oh cool, rubble
>it's not like we have tracked vehicles and combat engineering for this specific purpose

Really, I'm confused as to how you expect defenders to resist armored pushes that have superior protection, superior firepower, and superior support.

Sure, you can lob ATGMs, until they realize where it's coming from and hit it with a 120mm HEAT warhead.

And you're never going to be able to be where the enemy is before they have time to dig in.

They have tracked vehicles, a supply system giving them fuel, and they aren't getting blown up from the sky.

Your forces have to deal with the fact that any vehicle or person out on the streets is going to get blown up. You more or less have to rely on foot power to keep up with the internal combustion engine.

That mobility difference is vital.

>>31095554
>If the Iraqis had been switched with the Chechens
>he thinks there weren't Chechens fighting in Iraq and coalition forces don't slaughter them

>>31095574
Are you trolling?

>>31095495

No.

It would not take a bunker buster, at all. If a steam explosion can collapse an entire intersection, I think a bomb will do fine.

Also, you're forgetting that the ATTACKERS, NOT THE DEFENDERS, decide when and where to fight. If they want to collapse buildings and destroy every scrap of cover, it will be the defenders that will have to combat the fires and fallout from that, not the attackers.

>>31095554

So you would rather stockpile millions of pounds of food in a city than evacuate civilians? Also, how would you do that? The trucks will get bombed, you still don't have water, and that's a LOT of shit to move. If you are unable to hold an enemy at bay, why would you have time and ability to move tons and tons of food into a city? The Berlin airlift strained the US to the breaking point, and that was peacetime.

>AA

Baghdad, best IADS in the world, did nothing.

>Serbians

Got stupid lucky because of a retard pilot with a single 1st gen stealth plane who was not operating from standoff distances.

>a day

Simply an exaggeration, without resupply, it is silly to think that they could pop even a small portion of enemy armor.

>observe and fire

The US did over 1000 sorties a day in Baghdad, and we did just fine.. against one of the best IADS systems on the planet in one of the most heavily defended cities on Earth.

>engage

The ATTACKERS decide where and when.

If they launch a probe attack and bombard the enemies responding or destroy the mortar teams supporting the defenders, eventually you run out of meaningful QRF units.

>Thunder Runs

I've harped almost none on Thunder Runs, I've used specific examples from the Battle of Baghdad, not Thunder Runs only.

>Chechens

What? This is the dumbest thing I've seen you post yet. The Iraqi Republican Guard were Iraq's most elite troops, well trained and well equipped, and they were gutted by US airstrikes well before the assault. To somehow say that some backwater goons are better is dumb.

>>31095583
Chechens were there, but they weren't there in the same numbers, and they weren't all the same people who participated in Grozny.

>>31095635

>he's running out of arguments

Also, if you put America in charge of Grozny, it would be over in days. Russian incompetence was reponsible for that. D

That is especially true when you see how bad the Chechens were beaten in the second battle, where Russia finally got their shit together.

The Iraqi Republican Guard were magnitudes more capable than Chechens.

>>31095635
I'm not.

The key to winning in any battle, in the simplest possible terms, is to have a greater concentration of lethal force than the enemy.

For example, one group of four men will always beat two groups of two men, if all other things are equal and the two groups come one after the other.

In urban warfare, the attacking side has this advantage in mobility and firepower, because the defending side can not operate vehicles safely, because the attacking side has air superiority.

If the defending side has air parity or air superiority and equal power in terms of vehicles, they would be fighting in open terrain where they have some control of the initiative, and where large amounts of civilian life and property will not be destroyed.

So raiding actions in urban warfare, conducted with adequate logistics, command, and fire support, should be a highly effective tactic.

I believe this assertion is justified by recent history.

>>31094316
Their new president will grant amnesty to anyone who kills drug dealers or addicts. So far several hundred have been killed and thousands have surrendered to police and rehabilitation centers. He's also outed high ranking government officials who take part in the drug trade, it's like if Judge Dredd was elected president of a 3rd world country.

>>31095730
>President Flip watches the Raid
>he thinks its a great idea
>removecrackhead.jpg speech
>it actually works.

Degenerate leftists btfo

>>31095659
>So you would rather stockpile millions of pounds of food in a city than evacuate civilians?
Where did I say that? If I'm preparing for a siege, I'm probably going to evacuate civilians. If my opponents were kind hearted souls, as most are, they'd probably allow for a short ceasefire to allow for civilians to escape the city. In the meantime, I'm stockpiling for my troops.

>Baghdad, best IADS in the world, did nothing.
Baghdad was not the best IADS in the world and by 2003 the gear was severely outdated and was used by a group of idiots. The Serbians fared a bit better than that. They knew how to camouflage SAM sites and keep them switched off until you have a threat. However, they kept theirs off for too long to truly contest the airspace.

>Simply an exaggeration, without resupply, it is silly to think that they could pop even a small portion of enemy armor.
Do tanks grow on trees? You stockpile ammunition in the city before the siege begins. You stockpile everything you could need. That's how these battles are fought. And if we're talking about only Javelins, which would be at minimum a 50% pk, we're saying that one of every two squads of infantry will achieve an armored kill, assuming only a single missile. There'd be more than just a single missile, and we also have to factor in the single shot disposable ones. You'd have plenty of boom to go around, mate.

>Observation and fires
Baghdad is not a megacity, nor were they a near peer by that point.

>The ATTACKERS decide where and when.
Nope. The attackers can choose where and when to attack. The defenders get to choose where and when to defend. Are the defenders just going to be stationary? No. Even those not part of a QRF will move and change positions. And I'll revert back to a time honored maxim- always make contact with the smallest unit possible. The defenders have the luxury of a picket line letting them know exactly where the attackers are. They can also make use of concealed paths.

>>31094849

The spall from the concrete would macerate the driver.

File: Rodrigo - Send the crips to the crypt - Duterte.jpg (60KB, 770x462px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 770x462px

>>31095786
Fuckin' A
http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2016/08/23/ph-july-crime-rate-decreases.html

>>31094849
There's RPGs, and then there's RPGs.

It'd laugh at the HE warheads that ragheads usually shoot at coalition vehicles, but once you get into HEAT warheads it gets less certain.

>>31095823
>And if we're talking about only Javelins, which would be at minimum a 50% pk, we're saying that one of every two squads of infantry will achieve an armored kill, assuming only a single missile

So you're telling me that if I have two bullets per soldier, I should be able to wipe out the entire enemy.

Because the PK of a bullet at combat ranges is at least 50%.

>>31095983
I'm saying that infantry in prepared positions with modern anti-tank weapons stand a fair chance at achieving kills on armor at a decent rate. Consider the fact that 50% is a very low ball number. And that infantry squads are by far the most prevalent asset you have. An infantry unit should be able to take out a unit of armored vehicles of comparable size if they are well positioned and skilled enough.

>>31092672
a city like san paulo would be a counter value target, not counter force. Under US doctrine it wouldn't be attacked if we decided manifest destiny could not be contained and created pax americana following the monroe doctrine.

the russians, or any countervalue nuclear plan, means you save yourself having to devote a million soldiers to clearing out a megacity by just fucking nuking it, denying your enemy the use of a strategic port, war material, and human capital.

>>31093178
It is economically irresponsible to wipe them out. I would have to recreate the argument from scratch, as I have not heard it's justification in some years.
Something to do with cost of operations vs the amount of damage they are directly responsible for.

>it costs next to nothing to bust street-level dealers who are directly responsible for a larger quantity of crime than their suppliers
something like this

File: urban warfare.png (265KB, 495x323px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 495x323px

>>31094403
>Why would they do that when they can retreat into a city and remove your advantage in numbers
because in this thing called "war" the point is to prevent them from getting within a rock's throw of your military infrastructure and population centers.

>>31096127
The point of warfare is either to take things or to prevent things from being taken. If falling back into the city is the best way to prevent your military from being destroyed and thus able to prevent you from losing the city or another one altogether, so be it.

>>31096127
In war, like in politics, human beings are resource units/votes and can be bought, sold, traded, sacrificed, etc in order to accomplish objectives set by the people at the top.

>>31096175
>whole thread uniformly btfo the idea that a city is anything but a deathtrap for a force without air superiority
>ignoring the defenders having to deal with the massive riots in 3 days when dehydration is causing civilian deaths and the food has run out for millions of inhabitants
>defend your infrastructure by sitting in the bombed out rubble of your infrastructure
>defend your people by expelling them from or letting them die in the counter value target you've decided to make a counterforce target

the irony is that if you put enough eggs in one basket by devoting the resources necessary to effectively fortify a megacity, you'll also shift your enemies purpose from "take the city" to "destroy all that war material". which means bombing the city to rubble, conventionally or with nukes.

>>31096033
thats bullshit on several levels
>keep taking advil, it cost next to nothing compared to getting your broken leg set!

the street level dealers are a symptom of the larger problem. Drugs at the local level are a cottage industry, but the supply is dependant on a network of tangible organizations.

pt2: legalize it and the entirety of organized drug crime ceases overnight. Just like with bootlegging in the 20's, push an industry into the black market and it becomes unstable and violent.

cocaine would be CHEAP AS FUCK if not for it being illegal. coca plants aren't like coffee, any humid environment or artificial greenhouse could manufacture it. OR cocaine would cease as a recreation drug due to super, super fucking cheap pharmacological grade procaine and allococaine.
>"bath salts" with real FDA regulated chemicals, coming to a pakistani food mart near you.

weed is already cheap as fuck and it's still illegal. to the point people don't even fucking want shitty mexican weed anymore and it's noticeably cut into the cartels profit margins.

>>31096278
>whole thread uniformly btfo the idea that a city is anything but a deathtrap for a force without air superiority
But it didn't. Those arguments were found to be unsound.

>dehydration in 3 days
Yeah fucking right.

>massive rioting
I highly doubt this. Didn't tend to occur historically in similar situations. In fact, often times civilians would hold out despite no food or water. And if necessary, they could just leave.

>defend your infrastructure by sitting in the bombed out rubble of your infrastructure
If you want to prevent your base of population from being taken, yes. Yes it can happen, and has for millenia.
>defend your people by expelling them from or letting them die in the counter value target you've decided to make a counterforce target
Yep.

> you'll also shift your enemies purpose from "take the city" to "destroy all that war material".
You've actually got it backwards. They are out to destroy your war material so they can accomplish their objective. If you put your force into a city, then they've got to take the city or you can use it as a base from which you can conduct operations. This is what cities were for millenia.

File: rekt.jpg (869KB, 1000x1095px) Image search: [Google]

869KB, 1000x1095px

>>31096488
>then they've got to take the city or you can use it as a base from which you can conduct operations

>>31096504
So you're going to drop a nuke on the city. Congratulations, you've just become an international pariah and destroyed a valuable city and everything in it. You will likely face severe consequences from the international community, up to and including war.

>>31096033
>It is economically irresponsible to wipe them out
By some estimates the drug trade accounts for up to 40% of Mexico's GDP.

>>31096542
Okay, I'm confused.

You just said that Baghdad doesn't qualify as a mega-city.

Baghdad had about 5 million people in it during the 2003 invasion.

If you're taking a city that is significantly larger than that, I'm pretty sure you're already beyond "severe consequences from the international community,"

Like, either they're going to nuke you, or they're not. There is very little other than this that matters in that situation.

Of course, in real life, a couple of well motivated armored brigades could probably take the city in an afternoon, but assuming you were right about the whole defensive thing.

>>31096542
If the US has decided to nuke a city we clearly don't give a fuck about any of that.

>>31096542
Ha no.

Let's compare the fates of nations that detonated nukes in other nations' cities, against those that have not.

Nuking motherfuckers = win

>>31096488
>Those arguments were found to be unsound.
>because I disagree with them!
your name doesn't happen to be Lind is it, because you seem pretty salty the entire gulf and iraq wars assrape your assertions about the efficacy of anti air systems.

>it's what cities were for millennia!
But not now dumbass. comparing a modern city to a classical walled city is fucking retarded. the only military targets in cities are what you decide to "defend" it with. If a country devoted most of it's armor, artillery, and air power to defending ONE CITY it would be nuked or conventionally bombed to cripple their ability to fight.

it's been proven time and time again in the modern period that fixed fortifications are deathtraps in maneuver warfare.

>didn't happen historically
at what point in time before now has any person considered less than 3 days of food to be sufficient to stockpile. you are looking at literally less than a week before you see katrina looting on steroids and a two front war; the military versus the enemy and the military versus the people.

>>31096566
That is included as a part of severe consequences, yes.

And no, a couple armored brigades would not be able to take a megacity in an afternoon. Are you daft?

>>31096574
The point being, THEY'D NOT USE A NUKE. Are you fucking retarded?

>>31096587
pls

>>31096761
>invasion of Baghdad required 30,000 coalition troops and 9 days
>Baghdad had a population of 5 million
>largest city in the world is Tokyo, with a population of 38 million
>38 / 5 = 7.6

Fine, it would require 210,000 troops and 63 days, and result in 235 allied casualties.

Moscow would require 90,000 and 27 days, with 90 allied dead.

But for real, nobody on the planet who matters fights total conventional wars any more

Even Pakistan has their own nuclear weapons, it's just easier to create a nuclear arsenal than a conventional force of millions of people.

You're delusional if you think that the US would attack a megacity conventionally rather than use WMD. Nobody would.

I'm getting a chuckle out of the cities=undefendable death traps anon(s). I'd bother to post a rebuttal to their theory but it's clear they'll reject anything that doesn't fit their view, making it a fools errand.

>>31092357
>flatten city
>flatten it again
and another for good measure, THEN go in

>>31096871
Way to misrepresent the opponents argument, brah.

Those strawmen sure are getting their asses kicked.

What people have been saying is that if it comes to a battle in your city in the first place, you are already well past the point of no return.

>>31096756
Your arguments were unsound for the reasons I outlined- ie THEY'RE FUCKING DUMB. You were unable to come up with any counterarguments other than "IRAQI AA SUCKED, THAT MEANS IT WON'T WORK" , "THE ATTACKERS DON'T EVEN NEED TO SHOOT" , and my favorite "WE'LL JUST NUKE IT".

Go on, try to counter my arguments. Please do. I'll rip every single one of yours to shreds.

As to the efficacy of the Iraqi IADS, quite simply it sucked. Yes, it was impressive on paper, but the capabilities were dated compared to their foes, as was their concept of employment.

>the only military targets in cities are what you decide to "defend" it with.
In addition to significant supply and transportation hubs, they are POLITICAL targets. If the enemy tries to bypass the city, they need to leave sufficient forces to keep the forces inside it contained. This generally means a significantly higher number, as the person inside the city can concentrate his forces along any portion of the line while the besiegers need to defend everywhere.

>If a country devoted most of it's armor, artillery, and air power to defending ONE CITY it would be nuked or conventionally bombed to cripple their ability to fight.
First of all no one ever said they'd put the majority of their forces into it. Second of all, nuclear weapons are off the table due to the consequences thereof. Why do you think it would be a good idea? Now, would there be a conventional bombing campaign? Certainly. Would it really be able to do that much to a well dug in and concealed foe? Not really, no. You could point to any war you want. I did mention earlier that in 91, Iraq was able to hide most of their tanks in open desert and keep them alive. What makes you think the same wouldn't be even more true in a megacity? Not to mention my reservations with the actual effects thereof Further, if the city was well and truly trashed, the defenders can still hide in the rubble, as we've learned many times.

Cont. eventually

>>31096756
>it's been proven time and time again in the modern period that fixed fortifications are deathtraps in maneuver warfare.
Bullshit. In the most modern war there is, fixed fortifications have returned with a vengeance. Now, what makes fortifications useful? They allow you to make a given unit far more valuable on the defense. You could make a platoon worth a company or more. This means that you have reserves which can be used to reinforce positions or counterattack. In short, having fixed fortifications is a good thing, not a bad one. You'll have to prove why they're a bad thing if you want to make that argument.

>at what point in time before now has any person considered less than 3 days of food to be sufficient to stockpile. you are looking at literally less than a week before you see katrina looting on steroids and a two front war; the military versus the enemy and the military versus the people.
Katrina happened because there was a complete collapse in rule of law. If we look at the battles in WW2, times may have gotten tough and there may have been looting and thievery occasionally, but the military wasn't being fought by the populace. There is not enough historical evidence to support the notion.

>>31096889
>What people have been saying is that if it comes to a battle in your city in the first place, you are already well past the point of no return.
Actually no, not a single person has said that.

>>31096986
>>31095574
>>31095683

If you lose the air war, you can't into logistics.

If you can't into logistics, you die.

A city will not protect you from this basic fact.

>>31097024
This is why you stockpile your supplies in the city beforehand. Yes, there are plenty of ways to get around a city unseen by air, never mind any SAMs which might prevent observation and fires upon road travel.

File: sinterklaas.jpg (2MB, 2592x1728px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2592x1728px

>>31096902
>REEEEEEE
don't bust a hemorrhoid Lind

>muh transport hubs
>muh political victory
both reasons why you fight IN THE FIELD and not in your own fucking cities if you have the option to. If you don't have the option and are forced to put your own citizenry and infrastructure at jeopardy, you've lost the political war and are about to lose your infrastructure/transport hub.

>I didn't say you'd actually properly defend your cities!
name a single nation with the military to defend a megacity competently, then think for 5 seconds about what percentage of that military would have to be devoted to defending that target. Then remember what happened in baghdad, then REEEEEEEEE your Lind REEE's about how all modern warfare between top 10 military powers isn't indicative of modern warfare.

>>31096967
>You'll have to prove why they're a bad thing if you want to make that argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_Ordnance_Penetrator

>PROOFS!
>food riots won't happen
>ignore all those food riots in stable(ish) south american nations without the backdrop of war
>ignore everything about what happens to a city when it's cut off from basic services and food.
>ignore the fact that in most modern wars involving cordoning off a city have been in regions where people still stockpile supplies and it still descends into mad max tier street warfare between civilians over resources.

>>31096986
thats been the general concensus, you're just too stupid to have noticed it.

>>31097065
>pass out bread to civvies who refused to evacuate from your magic stockpiles
>bread line, bread, and military passing out bread get eviscerated by air power.
>no one gives a fuck because if you're attacking major cities in normal countries you're in total war mode.

your complete lack of understanding of logistics is why you'd get your nation baghdad'd hard if you weren't just a incompetent armchair general.

>>31097065
>enemy commander sees a tall building
>I want that
>nig rush an armored column right up to it
>barricades and rubble piles are not very good at stopping tanks, especially if they have combat engineering vehicles around
>you can't move your forces to counter the concentration of enemy firepower, on account of lol no vehicles
>it's entirely possible that you have AT firepower in the area, but it is a fact that they have more firepower than you in the area where the tanks are operating
>by the time you can muster a force in the area, infantry has dismounted, and the tanks have left
>you now face constant sniper fire and air/artillery strikes because they have a good observation post

Generally, the inability to concentrate force, provide armored fire support, or resupply/reinforce your forces is a killer.

This is also why the Battle of Mogidishu was such a one sided rapefest despite the fact that it wasn't even planned.

>>31097117
I'm on your side, but I think the bread riots thing is dumb.

The civilians in Leningrad didn't do that shit.

Having an enemy military force nearby makes the civilians more compliant, not less.

At least if they want to win the war, anyway.

>>31095912
lel. We're going to need a little more time to see for sure but so far that's quite a significant difference.

>>31097146
the nazis didn't have total air superiority over leningrad, so there were bread lines to feed them.

a modern megacity takeover would take some notes from medieval castle sieges
>attacker gives civilians the chance to evacuate so they can attack with impunity
>defenders don't let civilians leave because it means they'll get their shit wrecked
>this causes discontention within the massive civilian population
or
>defenders expel civilians because they can't fucking feed them and don't want them to be killed in the city fighting
>attackers do not let them cross the lines, forcing the defenders to feed and support them
>or not

>>31097204
About a million civilians died at Leningrad, I don't think you can actually get a lot worse.

>>31097117
>both reasons why you fight IN THE FIELD and not in your own fucking cities if you have the option to. If you don't have the option and are forced to put your own citizenry and infrastructure at jeopardy, you've lost the political war and are about to lose your infrastructure/transport hub.
Not when fighting inside the city offers your greatest chance of success. Like it or not, fighting in a city provides a great many advantages to the defender. Or perhaps merely one group was pushed into the city while fighting continues elsewhere? Mate, you're making up your own scenario entirely.

>implying you need to devote 100% of your military to defending a single city
Jesus Christ, anon. No. This has never happened historically, nor would it ever realistically occur. How many forces would you need to do it in modern times? Likely a corps-sized unit.

And I believe I already explained why Baghdad is a fucking terrible example to be basing your thoughts off of.

>posting a MOAB means fixed fortifications are useless
You're pretty fucking dumb, huh? No, it really doesn't. Unless you flatten a city completely, and I do mean completely, it has value as a fortification. Most fortifications are quite simply a hole in the ground, ideally with something on top of it. There is no reasonable way a military force could go around bombing every single foxhole, every single window, every single building. And even if they DID do that, the people inside a fortification are safe with it than they would be without it, because at that point you're bombing literally every single person. That doesn't happen. Once again, I'll point out Desert Storm. Despite the massive air campaign, the vast majority of Iraqi armor survived. Why is that? They were dug in and CONCEALED. Yes, the Iraqi soldiers turned out to be incompetent, but had someone else been in their place, things would not have turned out so well, even with the massive technology disadvantage.

Cont.

>>31097240
>And I believe I already explained why Baghdad is a fucking terrible example to be basing your thoughts off of

You keep saying you've explained things, when all you've done is put up a bunch of half-assed non-arguments.

>Iraq has a military of 400,000 people
>Baghdad has a population of 5,000,000
>coalition forces kick them out in 6 days

And it's not a one time deal

Fallujah was a city of 500,000 that was taken from 3,000 insurgents by a relatively small force, at the cost of 90 KIA.

File: eXzhyXF.png (16KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 800x600px

>>31096457
Weed is only illegal because it gives cops an excuse to throw millions of niggers in prison. Our crime statistics have steadily been going down for decades in direct proportion to niggers taken off the streets. It really is that simple.

>>31097117
>muh bread lines
Even during the most vicious sieges of WW2, where civilians were dying in the tens of thousands due to starvation, there were no riots. This is also true in most sieges in medieval times. Why do you think now would be different?

>muh logistics
You don't know the first thing about logistics. What books have you read? Papers? You know nothing, mate. You just toss it around like some fancy word that will win the argument for you.

>>31097282
The bulk the decrease was down to leaded gasoline and abortion.

>>31097274
>You keep saying you've explained things, when all you've done is put up a bunch of half-assed non-arguments.
Quite simply, Iraqis were terrible at war, lacked the weapons with which to deal with Americans, armor especially, and did not have a unified system of command by that point. Furthermore, by that point most of the Iraqi regular forces were essentially done with the war. They had no will to fight. As a result, with the political victory won, most Iraqi forces surrendered shortly thereafter. The fight for the city wasn't about clearing the city at all, as it was actually fairly lightly defended, all things considered.

Do note that the Iraqis didn't have 400,000 soldiers in Baghdad. Those that they did were mostly "militia" and foreign fighters.

But sure. Let's take a look at the Battle of Fallujah. It took a month and a half to ALMOST take back Fallujah from a force a quarter of the size who lacked all manner of heavy equipment. It only took 107 KIA, 613 wounded, because Iraqis were STILL terrible at fighting. And I'm sure that most people would agree that the Second Battle of Fallujah was the toughest fighting of that decade.

File: hitler.jpg (24KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 400x400px

>>31092507
>don't know stalingrad
just broke supply lines and hunger them out

File: 803912-london-terror-attack.jpg (29KB, 650x366px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 650x366px

>>31096756
>katrina looting

Non Whites behave very differently than Whites during disasters. Those fires in Alberta didn't have any casualties because the 99.8% white population organized an evacuation and went door to door checking on their neighbors and making sure the family pets were safe.

In New Orleans they were raping in the streets and shooting at helicopters.

With all the non White immigration we've had over the last few decades, our cities are huge non White zones (they tend to settle in urban areas, only Whites like nature and rural life)

Modern megacity warfare will be different than the historical examples like Stalingrad etc because most modern Western cities are full of barbarians.

>>31097355
>Iraqis were terrible at war

Well, obviously.

If they were good, they wouldn't have fought in a city.

>lacked the weapons with which to deal with Americans, armor especially

How many times did Iraqi RPGs or ATGMs even hit coalition vehicles?

I'm not sure it makes a difference if you die before you can fire most of your shit.

>did not have a unified system of command by that point

That tends to happen when the US takes an interest in your well being, yes.

But yeah, if you don't have logistics, you've lost the war.

A city can, at best, have a marginal impact on this basic fact.

>>31096457
>bullshit on several levels
It's bullshit on every level. It is what it is, though. Our law enforcement agencies don't have infinite money to burn on huge multi-national operations every time they take down one cartel and two more pop up in its place. It makes more sense to put out the fires and pay for the burnt shit than to remove the fire-starting material in the first place.
There's a similar concept in security where you're not supposed to pay more than a fraction of what you could potentially lose in a security breach on security measures.

File: seriously.jpg (44KB, 535x345px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 535x345px

>>31097229
>A Single Death is a Tragedy; a Million Deaths is a Statistic.jpg

>>31097240
>muh city fighting winning endgame
if you are forced to fight in a city, you've already lost any scenario but pulling a pyrrhic victory.

>defending a city covering several dozen square miles containing millions of people
>with ~60-90k soldiers and associated equipment
I'm sure 1/13th of the US army wouldn't be considered A FUCKING LOT OF MILITARY PRESENCE.

The entire standing army of germany is 60,000 personnel. by your own omission to defend Berlin you'd need the entire german military, if not ~30,000 more, to defend one city in the country.

and your estimate of one corps is about 15-25% of the defense put into baghdad, which was over in less than a week. the idea that a city can be defended by fewer than 100,000 soldiers is laughable.
>I've explained it away
no you haven't Lind. Iraq had the 4th largest military in the world with top of the line russian and chinese anti air defenses and got BTFO. What country are you suggesting besides the big 3 that magically will have a better chance when they have smaller, less capable militaries than early 2000's Iraq?

>hurr iraq armor got btfo in the field AND btfo from the air
how do you think this helps your assertions

>dug in and concealed
>destroyed the second it did anything
so in a city environment, as people have said, tanks and artillery can't do a goddamn thing due to being unable to maneuver.

>cities are now fixed fortifications in the mind of armchair general Lind
A. FLIR exists
B. yet again, if a nation is devoting so much of it's military to defending ONE city, they will be carpet bombed or nuked.

You are so ignorant of numbers you don't even realize you are describing (incorrectly mind you) using the entire military of a 1st world non US/RF/PRC to defend one fucking city.

>>31097355
Lind go home, desert storm happened. you were wrong.

>>31094110
There's a person walking towards the car on the right .

>>31097373
>our cities are huge non White zones
use chemical weapons and nothing of value will be lost

>>31094316
In terms of insurgency: Durhka flips (Abu Sayyaf) and commies (CPP, NPA, NDF) along with the narcos there

>>31097403
>If they were good, they wouldn't have fought in a city.
Mate.

>How many times did Iraqi RPGs or ATGMs even hit coalition vehicles?
Quite a few times in the Thunder Run, actually. One even knocked out an Abrams in an absolute one in a million shot into the engine. That night, they tried to tow the Abrams away, presumably to put it on television and say "Oh, we have killed many Americans". Unfortunately for them, that's when another armored column rolled through.

>That tends to happen when the US takes an interest in your well being, yes.
Having a unified system of command was even more important in this case, given all the foreign fighters and militia. Very few forces actually engaged one another in Baghdad.

>muh logistics
You know nothing about logistics so stop whinging on about it. It doesn't win you any cookies if you can't explain why.

>>31097513
Well, by logistics, in this case, I mean

>literally anything except for infantrymen on foot

Because if you've fallen back to a city, that's all you've got.

You can't win a war with that. Yes, an anti-tank warhead can kill a tank. Yes an anti-aircraft missile can kill an aircraft, but the enemy can concentrate their forces. They can resupply their forces. They have fire support.

Concentration of force, good supply, and fire support is how you win battles. If you don't have that, it's all over except the crying.

I think you're going to have to accept that Grozny was an aberration caused by the ineptitude of Russian forces, and one sided niggerstompings like Mogidishu, Fallujah, and Nablus are the norm for urban combat involving industrialized militaries.

>>31096552
That seems unrealistic, but at the same time I've been to mexico and there is literally no middle class. If the upper class is largely responsible for the cartels, I would believe it.

>>31097576
>it's all over except the dying
FTFY

>>31097422
>if you are forced to fight in a city, you've already lost any scenario but pulling a pyrrhic victory.
A pyrrhic victory is still a victory. You've defeated the attackers and the city is still in your hands.

>The entire standing army of germany is 60,000 personnel. by your own omission to defend Berlin you'd need the entire german military, if not ~30,000 more, to defend one city in the country.
Germany's military is severely undersized for what it should be, nor would I consider Berlin to be a megacity. Megacities would be only the largest cities in the world, with populations of ~150 million and higher. Berlin is nowhere near that.

And no, Baghdad was not defended by 400,000 troops. Baghdad itself was protected by only 10-15 thousand men, most of whom were irregulars. Thirty thousand republican guard defended outside the city. I don't know where you got this 400,000 number from.

>Iraq had the 4th largest military in the world with top of the line russian and chinese anti air defenses and got BTFO.
Incorrect. By 2003, its equipment was obsolete by AT LEAST a decade and a half, most of it substantially older than that, with those decades seeing a renaissance in computers. Furthermore, most Iraqi soldiers surrendered and did not put up a big fight.

As for who could do it, I'd say anyone who has a megacity other than maybe Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia and the Philippines.

The countries that have cities with large populations tend to have large militaries. Imagine that.

>how do you think this helps your assertions
You've got to be trolling if you can't see how that's relevant.

>so in a city environment, as people have said, tanks and artillery can't do a goddamn thing due to being unable to maneuver.
That's bullshit. They have proven to be extremely useful, both in modern times and in WW2.

>A. FLIR exists
FLIR existed back then too. Do you think there aren't ways of concealing your thermal signature?

Cont.

>>31097422
>MUH NUKES
Oh sod off about nukes already. Carpet bombing as well. There'd certainly be an air campaign, but to suggest either of them shows your retardation, as there would be consequences from the international community so severe that they would never be authorized.

>still calling me Lind
Mate, if anyone should be called Lind, it is you. You've been making claims without any basis on facts or history, all the while making completely incoherent arguments that are immediately shot down. Finally, you devolved to calling me Lind because I happen to think your notions completely fucking retarded with no basis in fact.

>>31097700
>with populations of ~150 million and higher

The largest city in the world is Tokyo, and their population is 38 million.

>>31097719
>as there would be consequences from the international community so severe that they would never be authorized.

I don't think you understand how funny this statement is to people who understand politics.

>>31097576
First off, that's not what logistics is.

>Because if you've fallen back to a city, that's all you've got.
Why do you assume that? That is an assumption not backed up by fact.

> but the enemy can concentrate their forces. They can resupply their forces. They have fire support.
And why can't the defender? Why can't the defender have a mobile reserve? He's fighting defensively from strong defensive positions, he should be able to maintain a reserve with which to reinforce areas and counterattack. Why can't the defender have fire support? He can dig a multitude of prepared positions in all sorts of places which make aerial observation difficult.

The defender has shorter lines of communication. He is more readily able to move about the city than the enemy, meaning he is better able to concentrate his forces. Better yet, if he's defending in depth, he has the chance to see where the enemy is concentrating his forces. Furthermore, with his knowledge of the city and preparations he can more readily slip behind the attacker's lines using a variety of concealed routes and hit their own lines of communication, or hit combat units from behind.

Now how do you as the attacker counter this? You take things extremely methodically. You just go block by block, slowly advancing with all possible support. Let's again look at Grozny. Grozny serves as examples of both bad and "good" city clearing technique in the modern age. We all know the initial problems, but what happened afterwards? They started taking things slowly and methodically. The same can be seen in the Second Battle of Fallujah. The initial strategy didn't work as well, and so they went back to the tried and true method. Note that both of these long campaigns were against nongovernmental forces. They lacked the material that a modern military possesses, but despite this they made the battle drag out for months. Imagine how much bloodier it would be with proper soldiers.

>>31097720
Metropolitan area is how I count it.

File: wakemeup.png (139KB, 300x380px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 300x380px

>>31097700
>populations of 150million or higher
you are literally a fucking retard. are you 12?

the largest city in the world is Tokyo. it has a population of ~38 million. second largest is new delhi with 25 million. 4th largest is Mexico city with 20 million.

lets focus on mexico. 27th most powerful military in the world, 270,000 active duty troops. To defend mexico city according to your own "one corps" 1/3 of their fucking armed forces would be necessary. for every soldier you'd have 200 civilians. mexico city is almost 600 square miles. ~150 soldiers per square mile of city. They'd get their shit wrecked worse than iraq with thier "hurr only 30k!" but IRL 400k in a city of 5 million.
>inb4 hurr but the mexican military sucks! PROOFS!!!
thats the point. Literally every military, even the russian federations and PRC's FUCKING SUCKS. They are on a scale of suck though, which is why russia has air superiority in syria because syria also fucking sucks.

What Cobra tier enemy have you made up in your head that has millions of soldiers, 100% modern military equipment, and cities with populations in the hundreds of millions? Are you old enough to post here?

>>31097739
In other words, you have no argument so you'll try to pass it off as if you do. Let's consider the sanctions on Russia. That's without major human rights violations.

>>31097822
>And why can't the defender?

Because the enemy has air interdiction and superior firepower.

If you move vehicles out in the open, they die.

Anything on the streets will be destroyed. If hellfire missiles don't get it, I wouldn't want to take my chances against tanks.

Odds are, the only vehicles that will even be able to operate on the roads are tracked vehicles, and those things are like Christmas lights on IR. The enemy will be able to use them, because they don't have to worry about air strikes, but you, as the defender, don't have that luxury.

So yeah, the only real first world military urban fighting we have is from the Second Intifada and the Iraq War, and those guys got flattened. Even in the best example you can bring up, Phantom Fury, the attackers managed to kill anywhere between 8 and 15 insurgents for every one fatality they took.

>>31097841
I've added a zero. Whoops. Now let's put it this way. Would you defend all of Mexico city at once? Why would you? Most of it would be free from enemy control. Furthermore, much of it would be territory you don't want to fight over. Remember, terrain is inherently worthless. Its value comes from its use in defeating the enemy. So yes, it certainly IS possible.

>>31097822
>And why can't the defender?
because they've fallen back to a city
>Why can't the defender have a mobile reserve?
because they are bogged down in a city. and most likely encircled.
>He's fighting defensively from strong defensive positions
a city is not a strong defensive position
>but what if life was a videogame and they snuck behind enemy lines to maguffin their way to victory?
it isn't
>in 2016 a modern military will take a city by block to block, room to room fighting like it's fucking stalingrad
wew

everyone but you is assuming USA vs _________. you keep filling in cobra Command for ______ with inexhaustible fully modern soldiers, air defense, tanks, air power, and "megacities" 4x larger than the biggest city on earth.

IRL _______ is iraq, the 4th most powerful military in the world before it got fucking curbstomped, and similar. Worst case RF or PRC where the former is not remotely modernized and the latter does not have MAD with india, let alone the USA.

File: 1351218497234.gif (799KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

799KB, 320x240px

>>31097855
>he's talking about sanctions in a thread about taking fucking megacities

I must reiterate this point.

In a conflict of this scale, if you don't directly enter the war, it doesn't matter. And if you do enter the war, you better be prepared to get nuked at least a couple times for your trouble.

The "international community" was too pussy to stand up to such imposing figures as Rwanda and Serbia. It is strongly unlikely that anyone who didn't already declare war on you when you invaded a city of 20 million people would suddenly change their minds and decide to enter a nuclear war.

>>31097916
>all it takes is 1/3 of mexico's military to defend part of one of their cities
>sure they're 23 further down the list than a power assfucked in 2 weeks by a big3 military but they'll win guys...
Lind plz

>>31097905
And I'm telling you that argument was bullshit. I already countered it earlier in the thread, with no one seeming to be able to say otherwise. But let's say you don't take that argument. The defender does have a large number of advantages, namely that he's got interior lines of communication and can access them mostly without exposing himself to the outside. Are you familiar of the concept of mouseholing? Furthermore, you can hide vehicles inside buildings and houses, as well as disguising their IR signature as well. Furthermore, your AA isn't necessarily down if you have managed it well, and capable AA certainly exists today. Combine that with smoke and fire obscuring visual and IR signatures, as well as buildings being tall buildings, and you have a situation wherein aircraft are going to have an absolute nightmare in trying to see anything.

>>31097975
>Are you familiar of the concept of mouseholing?

Typically, if you're fighting a foe with armored forces, it ends with the infantry figuring out where you are and a 120mm enema.

>Furthermore, your AA isn't necessarily down if you have managed it well, and capable AA certainly exists today

Read: take potshots with MANPADS and get PGMs for your trouble

>Furthermore, you can hide vehicles inside buildings and houses, as well as disguising their IR signature as well

They'll be doing you a lot of good in buildings, where they can't fucking move or contribute to the mobility of your forces in any way.

>this mental midget who doesn't realize in a war at the scale of involving major cities, they'd be the prime countervalue nuclear targets.
>he doesn't realize the more lipstick he puts on a pig just adds to the reason to nuke it rather than bog yourself down in a potentially costly ground battle for at most some rail lines and a natural port over eliminating a significant amount of your enemies military, population, a strategic rail/road hub, manufacturing, and economic sectors.

>>31097975
>it'll be different this time!
name one country, one country with "modern AA" up to your specifications that isn't the US, russia, or china. Iraqs was 10 years old so it doesn't count to you. they were number 4. who has better. name them.

>>31095410
After August they lost all air support and they lost a lot of their best guns from Russian arty from across the borders. The rebels could also fire from inside the city with near impunity and had a constant flow or shells and fresh equipment. The Ukrainians almost ran out of combat ready stocks and took them months to more shells from their neglected ammo depots.

When they had air support, they destroyed the separatist.

>>31094931
what country are you from? It has English subtitles.

I would send you a link to it on VK but the OP seems to have deleted it.

>>31097822
>Why can't the defender have a mobile reserve?

The very nature of urban areas restrict motorized and mechanized movement. Large-scale movement by defenders becomes increasingly manpower dependent and slower the longer combat progresses as transportation infrastructure is damaged and destroyed.

>He is more readily able to move about the city than the enemy, meaning he is better able to concentrate his forces. Better yet, if he's defending in depth, he has the chance to see where the enemy is concentrating his forces. Furthermore, with his knowledge of the city and preparations he can more readily slip behind the attacker's lines using a variety of concealed routes and hit their own lines of communication, or hit combat units from behind.

The problem is that there really isn't anything stopping the attackers from infiltrating the city.

Outside of political reasons there is little need to take or hold cities unless they have something vital to logistics and even then you probably don't need to take the whole city. If you have air superiority cordoning and bombing to tie-up defenders while you bypass the city is a more effective use of resources.

>>31097926
>because they've fallen back to a city
That's bullshit.
>because they are bogged down in a city. and most likely encircled.
So were the 101st but they managed to have a mobile reserve. It's not like you can driveon roads or anything.

>a city is not a strong defensive position
There is so much historical evidence against this that you're just making things up at this point. The world's militaries also disagree with you.

>in 2016 a modern military will take a city by block to block, room to room fighting like it's fucking stalingrad
As a matter of fact, yes. They have. Multiple times. Fallujah 2. Grozny. These names have meaning because they were held by people who fought to the death and had some idea on how to conduct urban warfare. And yes, most of the nations on the 20 largest cities in the world could make a good fight of it.

>>31097945
That was used to illustrate the point that the international community has done something about something so minor as a fucking proxy war. Do you not think nuking a city might be on a different level?

>>31097954
I don't think Mexico would win for qualitative reasons, which is why I mentioned them specifically in groups of people I don't think could. But if we're talking about Japan, China, South Korea, India, the US. Yes. They most certainly could do it.

And the destruction of the Iraqi armed forces occurred far earlier than Baghdad, which was only lightly held.

>>31098042
Who is "the international community"

Because there are currently 8 countries with the capacity to intervene against a nuclear power in a meaningful way.

We know that China, Russia, Pakistan, and to some extent Israel, simply do not care about international human rights law.

England and France are pansies and India is isolationist.

So America might. I was implicitly assuming America are the people doing the nuking.

>>31098042
>japan self defense force
>defending tokyo
>with thier entire military being south of 300k WITH their reserve personnel
>japan
>no7
>iraq was number 4
W E W

do you think before you type? did it ever occur to you to actually have a compitent overview of the state of world militaries?

Or are you still assuming Cobra Commander is defending Tokyo with his millions of soldiers and modern AA?

>still ignoring every modern conflict because russian conscripts got their shit wrecked before the russian federation just started leveling chechen towns to win the war.

>>31097997
>Typically, if you're fighting a foe with armored forces, it ends with the infantry figuring out where you are and a 120mm enema.
That's not how mouseholing goes, no. It'd be more "the tank knows we're here, now let's run back through this mousehole".

>Read: take potshots with MANPADS and get PGMs for your trouble
That's not addressing the argument at all and you know it.

>They'll be doing you a lot of good in buildings, where they can't fucking move or contribute to the mobility of your forces in any way.
It keeps them safe from initial observation. You can then use them in your mobility. Was that so hard?

>>31097999
>muh nukes
Oh fuck off already

As for AA, France, South Korea, MAAAAYBE India, Japan.

>>31098110
>You can then use them in your mobility

Because suddenly it's safe to be on the streets again?

>That's not addressing the argument at all and you know it
>be on the streets
>get PGM'd from well outside MANPAD range

>>31098037
>The very nature of urban areas restrict motorized and mechanized movement. Large-scale movement by defenders becomes increasingly manpower dependent and slower the longer combat progresses as transportation infrastructure is damaged and destroyed.
True, but that does not prevent their usage entirely. Mobile reserves are still perfectly valid even in urban environments. You might not be launching battalion-size attacks, but smaller company size elements are certainly usable.

>The problem is that there really isn't anything stopping the attackers from infiltrating the city.
Other than the defenders, who if they have prepared likely have a number of positions. But yes, infiltration has traditionally been one of the best ways to attack any prepared position.

>Outside of political reasons there is little need to take or hold cities unless they have something vital to logistics and even then you probably don't need to take the whole city. If you have air superiority cordoning and bombing to tie-up defenders while you bypass the city is a more effective use of resources.
I won't deny that, however the topic of the thread is what one such battle would look like.

Something which >>31098097 doesn't seem to understand.

>>31098067
The international community is just that- whoever gives enough of a fuck. And even if there wasn't a nuclear response, there would sure as hell be a political and economic response, the effects of which would last a decade easily.

>So America might. I was implicitly assuming America are the people doing the nuking.
That's pretty daft of you, considering the thread never once implied who was attacking and defending.

>>31098110
>muh nukes
answer>>31098067 pls

>>31098110
>how wrong can one man be.jpg

japan's newest anti air system is almost 15 years old. everything else in their arsenal is from the fucking 80's and early 90's.

france has the Mistral, circa 1988.

Korea's newest anti air system is the Chiron which fell out of production in 2004, with only 2000 units built.

you have literally been wrong in every assertion you've made in this thread. it's almost impressive how ignorant a person can be.

>>>31098145
>cities aren't important
dat goalpost moving.

>>31098144
>Because suddenly it's safe to be on the streets again?
I detailed above why observation of one of these cities would be very difficult. If you combine that with some semblance of an IADS, even one you keep off most of the time, you can pretty effectively hinder the vast majority of aerial interdiction. Or did you not read what I read.

And no, don't just assume MANPADs are the only AA that can exist. There is no reason to do so.

>>31098170
>there would sure as hell be a political and economic response, the effects of which would last a decade easily

You know, taking a city of 10 million people has a political and economic effect.

In fact, I'd say that nuking people and getting sanctioned is better in virtually 100% of cases than not nuking people and not getting sanctioned.

You keep using terms like "daft" and "whinging" so I've come to understand you come from a more innocent land, that doesn't have to deal with the harsh realities of the world as much as burgerstan.

>>31097451
Oh, I see that too.
...
At least they didn't feel much pain?

>>31097975
>Furthermore, your AA isn't necessarily down if you have managed it well, and capable AA certainly exists today. Combine that with smoke and fire obscuring visual and IR signatures, as well as buildings being tall buildings, and you have a situation wherein aircraft are going to have an absolute nightmare in trying to see anything.

AA protects itself from SEAD by hiding and moving. If it's hiding then it's not firing; if its moving then you'd better have a Pantsir or it's not firing. Urban areas mean less mobility that only decreases as roadways are damaged and blocked. Tall buildings also represent obstacles to detection and firing with AA.

TL;DR: Urban areas make shoot and scoot difficult.

>>31098200
>If you combine that with some semblance of an IADS

You know, the "Integrated" part of that doesn't hold up very well if you lose the air war.

As in, any kind of communications infrastructure is going to suffer a sudden increase in entropy in their general location.

Really, a city is the worst place to operate IADS.

>high probability that there's a building in the way
>if the streets get blocked, you won't be about to scoot and shoot
>if you can't scoot and shoot, then the enemy is highly likely to take an interest in your health

>>31098170
if you can't pick up from context clues that this is a US vs _____ thread... well it would be true to form.

but on the premise it isn't the US vs _____ and it's two other nations that aren't russia or china.

A. why would these two moderately equal groups resort to falling back to a city, hamstringing their mobility, endangering their citizenry, and putting their own infrastructure at risk instead of fighting in a non urban environment.
B. if they must due to being BTFO and a grozny or Ukrainian civil war scenario breaks out, when has the DEFENCE team ever actually held a city in a modern era urban conflict.
Even when they cause massive losses or hold out for months, they always lose in the end. Because there is never a relief force coming to save them like in a classic siege.

>>31098190
Your mistake is assuming that these missiles have not been updated. If you go by just the name alone, most of the gear the US has should be obsolete by now, however updates have kept them at the top. All of these missiles have, and France should have more than just the Mistral. They have at least the Crotale NG system.

>dat goalpost moving.
I'd say it would generally make more sense to contain the enemy in a city and move on to take the rest of the country first, however that is not always possible nor the topic of the thread.

>>31098253
You see, for most of the world, air superiority is the best defense against air threats.

You only see highly developed IADS in countries that fear a superior air force.

So Vietnam in the 60s, Egypt in the 70s, and Iraq in the 80s and 90s.

Hanoi actually had better air defense than the US during the US's war there, because the US can operate fixed wing aviation without it getting shot down.

File: train-wreck.jpg (225KB, 1024x702px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 1024x702px

>>31097462
Megacity urban warfare = bioweapons. Everybody in this thread has their head in the sand.

Why don't you just make crossbows/CRISPR illegal then your knights/armor will continue to be relevant forever.

Fucking tards.

>>31098215
It's two shots edited together. Notice how the camera changes position.

>>31098253
>Your mistake is assuming that these missiles have not been updated
because they haven't. By that logic Iraq has completely up to date missile defense systems yet you REEEEEEE about how they were from the early 90's.

>>31098208
>You know, taking a city of 10 million people has a political and economic effect.
Definitely less severe than nuking it would. Are you fucking mental? Do you think nobody would care if you nuked Delhi as opposed to just normal conquest? Normal conquest they might not do very much about, but NUKING it? What reality do you live in?

>>31098283
Bioweapons are the worst branch of WMD.

By definition, the molecules you have to disperse are larger than nerve agents, and if you use something that's actually contagious, it'll harm you as much as the other guy.

In practice, it's just a worse version of chemical warfare.

>>31098231
That's definitely very true, which is why it's important to place a number of systems with multiple interlocking fields of fire. It's just like defending against land based threats- you want to keyhole yourself and have multiple interlocking fields of fire. Further, just by its mere presence it scares off planes. Not literally, but it makes mission planners have to account for hidden AA threats.

>>31098232
Also very true. You've also got to remember that radios don't work very well with several feet of concrete inbetween them. Land lines are going to be important for any defensive plan.

>>31098281
I'm well aware of this. Fighters of the defender's own would be optimal, and might actually exist, but I assume otherwise.

Hanoi also had a better air defense than the US because many of those missiles happened to be brand spanking new. Large SAMs like the SA-2 were still fairly recent inventions, not to mention the others that came out during the conflict.

>>31098297
There is documentation on their upgrades. Iraq did no such thing.

>>31098301
>Normal conquest they might not do very much about

Well, if you look at a list of every city in the world with a metropolitan area population of more than 10 million, there are maybe 11 of them that you could attempt to conquer without a definite nuclear exchange. And I'm being generous and assuming that the US will leave Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina out to dry, because the Monroe Doctrine suddenly doesn't matter. Also assuming that India suddenly doesn't care about Bangladesh the US is willing to ignore its alliance with Egypt, and ASEAN won't do anything for Thailand.

I think that there's a very, very small number of cases in which launching a conventional offensive into one of these cities would be acceptable, but a nuclear attack wouldn't be.

>>31098365
You may note that the US, even without a ground offensive, modern electronic warfare, precision munitions or VLO aircraft, managed to rape Hanoi senseless.

>>31098370
Even in a situation where the owner owns nuclear weapons, a nuclear exchange isn't guaranteed, and if it was, they wouldn't be invading the city anyways, so there' d be no defenders.

As for Monroe Doctrine, it doesn't so much exist any more. There might be fights to keep them out of the spheres of other powers (quite unsuccessfuly in some cases), but if lets say Argentina and Brazil somehow got into some massive war between each other, I don't think the US would be sending troops down to stop it.

Also
>implying India cares about Bangladesh
>implying ASEAN exists
Egypt I'm not sure about, due to its strategic significance. I'd wager the US would indeed get involved, but that's not guaranteed.

>>31098365
>but they "updated" systems that have been out of production for in some cases decades!
>still Lindposting about Iraqs AA not being up to date
>because "updated" systems systematically destroyed with impunity would be different

>>31098331
Overlapping fields of fire, not interlocking. And that's SOP with AA. The bigger issue is that you're going to have to account for gaps in radar coverage due to buildings. Counter-SEAD doctrine is minimal amount of radars operating for minimal amount of time as necessary. A secondary consideration is that you want your missiles flying as fast and direct to their targets as possible. The best place to deploy AA systems to defend a city is outside the city, or at least in suburban or outskirt areas.

>>31098409
>implying the electronic warfare of the era wasn't very effective against the SAMs of the era
>implying PGMs didn't exist
(they certainly weren't prevalent)
As for Hanoi, they certainly got rid of their ability to wage war. It should be noted that the operation was fairly casualty-heavy as far as things go, but it was indeed accomplished.

>>31098421
>implying India cares about Bangladesh

They do.

They once sortied a carrier strike group in response to the US bringing one into the Bay of Bengal during the Bangladesh Liberation War.

Bangladesh literally only exists because Indira Gandhi told Pakistan and the US to fuck off, and used military force to back it up.

And there's a reason the US freaked out over Cuba, and successfully crushed every other communist government in the hemisphere.

I would not attempt to take Buenos Aires if I didn't want to see what it feels like to glow in the dark.

Really, the only megacities in the world that wouldn't probably get you into a nuclear war are Lagos, Kinshasa, and Tehran.

And who the fuck wants Kinshasa.

File: USS Savanna hit by Fritz X.jpg (447KB, 1344x1008px) Image search: [Google]

447KB, 1344x1008px

>>31098459
Well, PGMs actually existed since WW2.

The huge advance was PGMs that didn't need to be actively aimed in mid-air, which was a near death sentence for the plane that has to stand still over a target.

Also, I'm 90% sure pic is incorrectly filenamed.

>>31098425
>literally no arguments, only memes
http://thediplomat.com/2015/11/100-percent-of-targets-destroyed-japan-is-testing-new-missile-in-us/
This is one such article about a Japanese system being upgraded this past year. The Iraqis, according to everything I've ever read, did NOT have the newest and most upgraded versions of Soviet origin, but rather much older systems which were by 2003 very out of date.

>>31098323
Or you could develop a vaccine for your own people and release a highly contagious weaponized Ebola on your enemies.

You sweet summer child.

>>31098526
There are a few significant problems with this.

One, intelligence agencies will see what you're doing. They tend to watch for this shit. It's hard to keep anything that big under the radar.

Two, ebola sucks as a pathogen. Way too high kill rate. Doesn't spread far.

Three, diseases mutate, so your own stockpile of vaccination won't last very long.

Four, conventional forces have MOPP gear and vehicles with overpressure ventilation, so they won't be incapacitated.

Five, most countries have rapid vaccination programs for exactly this general kind of thing. If it's a genetically uniform pathogen, it wouldn't actually be that hard to contain the problem with quarantine measure followed by mass vaccination.

Six, and most importantly, you will get nuked. This is not an if. It's gonna happen.

>>31098484
They did that because Pakistan was a US ally and India hates Pakistan more than anything. The US showing up was perceived as a threat to India and the fucking over of Pakistan. Most notably, Bangladesh being outside of Pakistan's hands meant that India and Pakistan had only one front. Nowadays, circumstances are different.

>>31098500
Yeah, television guided weapons such as the Walleye and early Mavericks did have that disadvantage, but the upside was they were accurate. The Walleye certainly saw enough use to be relevant. The Maverick only showed up at the very end of the war, so it really didn't have too much of an impact.

>>31098586
The whole PGM revolution is generally dated at the first Paveways.

You would be correct, but pilots absolutely hated early PGMs because of the additional danger to them.

>>31092507
We have seen preludes of it in South Ossetia and in Chechnya.

>>31097465
I knew abour the durka flips and pink flips, I guess the druggie flips is news to me

>>31092745
>Isnt that becasue they had no tanks and everything that could go wrong went wrong?

Everything that can go wrong, will in fact go wrong.

>>31092745
>The russians failed on everything they could fail on
not an argument faggot
please elaborate
what makes urban warfare so complicated/simple?

>>31093298
>Give a warning to civilians

why?
This is real total war. The city may as well be razed the day of victory.

>>31094671
>s while hitting high priority government complexes with special forces in the city to decapitate military leadership.

great, now we have an insurgency that we will have to deal with indefinably

>>31094671
>How long do you think the city can survive
a few years.

>>31094989
>here will still be stupid amounts of retarded civilians

I'd say more than half the population would remain in city limits by the time of invasion/first strike. Like 60-70%. From this, I'd give 10-35% a chance at surviving 1 year.

>>31095041
>against any military units that are seen

>Super-SixFour this is Chalk do you copy?
>Go ahead Super-SixFour
>I see a small group of 20something males moving down the street
>Roger
>Can I engage?
>Ahhhhhhhh...That's a negative Super-SixFour

over and over and over and over and over and over and over.
Or you take Japanese aproach and Rape: Nanking Style BB

File: deepsigh.png (1MB, 1042x989px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1042x989px

>>31095296
>In a MEGACITY, they will run out of food in weeks.

Money talks, bullshit walks. You think a black market for rice won't IMMEDIATELY pop up? We thinking LA? NYC? You think people won't eat each other?
>MEGACITY
I shudder to think what would happen in Beijing, Rio, or Mexico City....

>>31094073
In old school warfare you would not attack a fixed, dug in position with out at lest a 2 to 1 edge in numbers, ideally 3 to 1 or more. In modern warfare the US has attacked cities when being out numbered 1 to 4, however the most powerful weapons the defender had was man portable mortars...

Basically if you are attacking a hardened fixed position or a city you should have a much stronger force then the defender. It is just the way it is done.

>>31101014
See>>31094571
And read the thread.