Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ApatheticExcuse]

There's not a catch-all for the situation you describe.

Numbers are great... unless you face a grenade, automatic weapon, etc. etc. Proper defense allows the mitigation of numbers pretty effectively in the real world.

Grenades are great... unless there is a good, prepared thing to take cover behind (like sandbags). They'll also fuck your hearing and make your teeth hurt with the pressure they put off if you're in truely close quarters.

Automatics are great... unless you don't know how to use one properly. It's harder than you think (and having seen certain members of a fairly well respected military in action, I'd say that applies to professionals too), and you can easily find yourself in trouble if you rely on it.

Shotguns aren't horribly effective against protected opponents, which is why they're used to open doors more often these days than deal with what's inside.

Pistols are effectively worthless outside of movies or against someone armed with something even worse (say, a knife). They are much harder to use effectively than any other firearm, despite what people think.

No one uses flamethrowers anymore. The simple reason in this case would be that most buildings are pretty flammable.

Etc. etc. etc.

I think the best thing you could have is a well practiced team. GSG, SAS, and other serious response units drill in replicas of the place they are deploying to if time permits, simply because knowing exactly what you're doing and how you're going to do it is much more important than your specific equipment. No matter how much prep you do though, things still go wrong and most special forces units like these actually have fairly lousy "success" records, depending on how you want to measure something like that.

In reality though, the best way to deal with an entrenched enemy is to not. Go around them, cut their supply line, and wait them out. Or knock down the building.

[Tack]

But then your dealing with assaulting a fortified position.

You're*
Just for that I tl;dr'd.

[chaotic skies]

Depends on the type of grenade; some shrapnel grenades, while only having a blast radius of about 5-10 feet, actually throw shrapnel for a good 300 feet.

[Erkki]

There is no one winning trump card. If I personally had to pick one, it would be skilled, highly motivated, highly disciplined and drilled men.

If you can come with a specific scenario we could try answering it... I can also ask someone who has about a decade of experience in fighting and leading at squad-company level urban infantry combat, fairly recently too.

So apparently in the future due to targeting computers. Jets will no longer have homing missiles for air combat but rather their cannons will do all the work.

I think its going the other way, with developing communications tech and more and more autonomic missiles allowing for anyone to shoot as long as someone or something knows where the target approcimately is, missiles are becoming ever more useful. They're even looking to bring small anti-missile missiles, "miniature hit-to-kill missiles" to fighter aircraft like F-35... Another weapon researched is the laser. There already are lasers for shooting down drones, its only a matter of time until we see one on a plane, integrated or carried on a pod, replacing or supplementing other countermeasures or even short range missiles.

[Strife26]

Good guys, good training, and good doctrine.

Room to room fighting as specified seems to be limited to the single building level, as opposed to wrinkling out a city or securing a village. At that point, surprise is second to the troops. Surprise and violence of action.

[ChairmanPoo]

Good guys, good training, and good doctrine.

Room to room fighting as specified seems to be limited to the single building level, as opposed to wrinkling out a city or securing a village. At that point, surprise is second to the troops. Surprise and violence of action.

And near fanatical devotion to the Pope

[Strife26]

Good guys, good training, and good doctrine.

Room to room fighting as specified seems to be limited to the single building level, as opposed to wrinkling out a city or securing a village. At that point, surprise is second to the troops. Surprise and violence of action.

And near fanatical devotion to the Pope

Nah, in the modern world, near fanatical devotion to the Pope let's one quote the crusades, level the city block, and trust that God'll sort the sheep and goats. We're apparently not talking about the block leveling classes of weaponry here.

[Dirst]

Good guys, good training, and good doctrine.

Room to room fighting as specified seems to be limited to the single building level, as opposed to wrinkling out a city or securing a village. At that point, surprise is second to the troops. Surprise and violence of action.

And near fanatical devotion to the Pope

Nah, in the modern world, near fanatical devotion to the Pope let's one quote the crusades, level the city block, and trust that God'll sort the sheep and goats. We're apparently not talking about the block leveling classes of weaponry here.

"Clear that room, Sergeant!"
FOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM
"Next time... try to clear the room while leaving the room, the building it's in, and the town the building is in standing."

[Egan_BW]

bes weopon for shot rang is SHOTGUN

[Jimmy]

The best weapon is a deep network of information to identify your targets and total penetration of their communications.

Seriously, the point of urban warfare is that the target is hiding amongst civilians. Their strongest defence is anonymity. Therefore your best weapon is the one that takes that away. Once you know who they are and where they're hiding, it's fairly simple to catch them unawares at 3AM in the morning.

[Parsely]

Seriously, the point of urban warfare is that the target is hiding amongst civilians.

You're talking about combating insurgency and/or terrorism. A battle between two conventional forces in an evacuated town is still urban warfare.

[Jimmy]

Then the one with superior artillery and air support wins. The reason you'd use boots on the ground in an urban setting is if you're concerned about hitting civilian targets with collateral damage. Otherwise you'd simply level the evacuated town with ordnance, or in the event you needed to preserve the surrounding structures for strategic purposes, cut off their water and power supply instead.

[Tack]

The entire premise to begin with was that there was no artillery nor air support, nor, I can assume, is anyone's intelligence patently superior.

[Rolepgeek]

If you're hoping to take the town mostly intact, air and arty support will have to be limited. In which case, armored support and hands-on recon/advanxe teams will be vital. Which is kinda to say that infantry mobility will be of supreme importance.

[Parsely]

In a modern war between conventional forces you might want to occupy a town if a major road runs through it. Infantry in a town are difficult to root out without 1000 lb bombs or napalm, and if the defenders have adequate anti-air defense then the only thing for it is to assault with your own infantry to get control of the road in a timely fashion. Surrounding the town is an option if you have the numbers and the time to hold on while you wait for the defenders to start to starve, and they're not likely to surrender before that time if you were so intimidated by this force that you weren't willing to directly attack them. An effective two-pronged assault on either side of the enemy's line relative to the town isn't inherently less costly than simply attacking the town, depending on your goals.