Few years ago I've seen a video by NATO analytics who were arping on about how hard it is to fight in modern cities. It got me thinking. Are they fucking dumb?
Close all the roads. Collapse all the tunnels going out. Poison water supply or just cut it. Storm airbases. Use artillery and airforce go destroy all supermarkets and groceries(now conveniently marked on google maps). Suddenly there's anarchy in the city, whoever you fight either surrenders or gets burned together with the place.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Yes, pissing off the local populace is sure to help. Hail our glorious liberators!
Massive civilian casualties haven't been in vogue since 1945
You're not liberating anybody and you're not their friend. If they are peaceful you'll leave them in peace, if they get funny you enslave them and drive them out. Also known as do what people did successfully for the last 5 millenias of written history.
What you are describing are total war tactics that are politically and legally impossible to carry out.
Or 1941 when filthy BARBARs set out to kill millions of Europeans.
>leave them in peace
how exactly is destroying food supply lines "peace"?
You're not keeping the city locked down anymore, there will surely be plenty of businessmen wanting to supply it with food.
The user you replied to was being sarcastic.
>Let's not fight to win or else they'll call us bad names
>Or 1941 when filthy BARBARs set out to kill millions of Europeans.
?
I'm just saying that starving out cities stopped being a thing post-WW2
>destroy the supermarkets
whatever man, we'll go back to dog, cat, rat, pigeon and even some exotic meat
Paris surrendered eventually.
you think the defenders are popping down to 7-11 to pick up their dinner?
it took 4 months and the collapse of the state
The point is to destroy the food supplies that are already in the city.
>kill everyone to ensure you get .04% of the population
Hearts and minds.
People need to stop responding to blatant troll threads.
>Just genocide the enemy's civilian's LMAO
Again what you advocate for isn't politically possible otherwise we'd have already done it in Iraq Afghanistan or Vietnam. Nukes are a even easier way of dealing with urban areas why not use them?
Oh ok, I see
Where did hearts and minds work? Vietnam? No. Iraq? No. Afghanistan? No. Sieges and repressions worked from the dawn of times.
Yes good idea user piss off half a million of people than march in their streets calling yourself their liberator.
Let me know how well does it work out
Dumbfuck alert!
I'll march on the streets calling myself conqueror, not liberator. You want to make your enemy submit, since they will never like you.
Cool, get back to me when the Government of America is in a position to allows its military to use such tactics with out facing massive public backlash or even regime change.
Then again more and more problems in a couple of years if not immediately you’ll have terrorist/revolutionary group you cunt.
Don’t do the American for once
This. Counter insurgency is fucking easy.
If you're not concerned about winning "hearts and minds" it is! Caesar conquered and pacified Gaul for 500 years. Killed 20% of the population, sure but he achieved his goal with more than adequate result.
It didn't work for the S*rbians during the balkan wars.
Care to respond to this OP?
And they have still lost a minority large enough to turn the general opinion of our population against it. Imagine if you did what you're talking about.
War crimes like fucking crazy OP. Enjoy your month of freedom and genocide and then a lifetime of supermax prison.
Then the government has a problem that it has to fix.
Oh shit I forgot they had IEDs and suicide bombers back then, or even an armed population. You win this time OP.
So you're bombing supermarkets and grocery stores so that other businesses can move in?
Gauls went to fight with their private arms. Yes, they were armed, that's not american invention.
>remove peoples liberties freedoms and opinions
You sure sound like a winner.
I'm bombing so they surrender. What I'm saying is that food supply will be there as soon as the siege is over.
I didn't say they didn't fight, but I doubt they had the insurgent skills that would be available now. Thanks for ignoring what you couldn't argue against.
Not even a good bait thread, cmon man.
>Freedom to praise the weak and hate the strong
It's called slave mentality.
I actually agree. These tactics probably wouldn't be advisable in any war fought by NATO in the past 15 years, but we probably shouldn't fight wars like that as much anyway. If we can't do everything we can to finish a fight, we shouldn't be sending soldiers into that fight in the first place.
The idea that IED's are somehow enormously more dangerous than bunch of savages raiding some village or preying on traders is very dumb.
You're arguing with a retard. Just let him go.
why even go to war if the sole purpose is to just murder innocent people? What are you trying to accomplish other than genocide from the sounds of things? Your efforts would be better spent doing something actually productive you edgy fuck. But doing something useful that other people would actually pay you for probably sounds far fetched and unrealistic to you, so you LARP behind "wish i kud skull fuck sand nigger childeren with a k-bar lul nuke em all"
The sole purpose is to conquer the enemy and gain concession from him.
What I'm talking about is that the unimaginable obstacle that NATO believes big cities are are not obstacle at all.
>the idea that 1 person with a bomb can now kill many people instead of fighting hand to hand 1v1 is dumb
Holy shit?
People dont do that anymore as human rights organizations and the media have become a thing. Probably should have waited to clean up most the genetics in this thread to be honest though.
Taking a proper city is not easy and will lead to substantial loss of life on both sides. With modern tech you can't easily prevent messages from leaving a siege and showing how atrocious it is. It is easy for the besieged to become martyrs and act as international symbols to feed propaganda against the besieger. If you intend to take a city you have a time limit a medieval siege won't cut it.
Thankfully school is almost back in session
War is about defeating an enemy not giving them fuel to use against you to enable them to keep fighting.
If you genocide a people then they will keep fighting until they can't. Aka they're dead. Gratz now the entire world sees you as a monster and international relations will never be the same
>You want to make your enemy submit, since they will never like you.
Germans tried that and they got their asses raped twice.
War crimes are generally frowned upon by the greater world.
>not just setting the entire city on fire
user...
>Storm airbases
Dude just win the war duh
OP is what happens when you're so retarded you think you're a genius
Oh great, it's another episode of random neckbeard knows how to run a war better than the people who actually do this for a living
a.k.a. the Dunning-Kruger effect
>COIN is easy
I didn't know there was a real term for it
It's actually very common. People who have some degree of self-awareness tend to focus on their shortcomings and are more humble as a result. People with no self-awareness don't realize they even have shortcomings and so think they're the smartest, baddest motherfucker on the planet. Self-awareness is usually a good marker of intelligence so they go hand in hand.
>Just bomb the place into submission lol
Go look up the siege of Raqqa and see how that went you monkey fucking retard. The place got bombed for months until it was almost all rubble, and there were still ISIS fighters holed up and ready to go.
And Raqqa’s a small city compared to most major cities. That’s not even touching on the war crimes you’re proposing. It’s all fun and games till the international community decides to push your shit in for being an asshole.
Hello
Is there anybody in there?
Raqqa went really well considering the enemy was entrenched and experienced and the attacking ground forces (SDF) were mostly semi-competant light infantry guerillas. Compare the Raqqa op to other similar urban operations like Turkey's op in al-Bab and Raqqa almost seems impressive.
Isn’t this why nerve gas was invented?
That’s kind of my point though, Raqqa is basically a best case scenario. Even then it took months, complete air superiority, and a metric fuckton of munitions to seize the city. And this was against a non near peer enemy.
If the OP thinks you can just bomb a city for a little bit and then waltz in to take the place, he’s as dumb as well all know he is.
>city fights
Fuck the populace.
Assad's bug spray tactics are best in those circumstances.
Worked well for the Brits in Malaysia.
Incorrect