Serious question

Will mankind ever see another battle like Stalingrad again? I'm not talking about it being like WWII, I mean in the sense of ferocity, urban combat and drawing on the lessons learned from Stalingrad.

Attached: stalingrad-1942.jpg (1200x836, 426K)

Almost certainly.

Yes

The only lessons learned from Stalingrad should be at the strategic level.

Hold on, just let me get my fucking crystal ball. What kind of a retarded question is that?

If two major nations fight anything more than a proxy war... Yes. Imagine tactics being born and then being ruled obsolete in one battle.

Isn't a modern day Stalingrad basically just Aleppo?

Seeing as it has already happened several times since then I think it's safe to say it'll happen again.

Attached: saigon.jpg (950x744, 169K)

When the United States collapses and bandit armies fight with the remains of the National military, as most of the country burns and starved to death, then you will see.

>ywn starve in a frozen foxhole with your bros as you cut the legs off your recently deceased comrade to cook up

Sarajevo.

>ferocious urban combat
Yeah definitely has already happened since Stalingrad
>as many deaths
Maybe if anons know of urban battles on that scale since stalingrad then post it but i don't think with modern technology that as many people would be killed (especially since airstrikes are more precise)

Attached: IMG_3565.jpg (605x402, 114K)

So don't let Romanians cover your flanks?

Break out when your encircled.

Don't throw waves of men to defend a city of little strategic importance because it bears your name.

The Volga was important.

>bandit armies
Instaboner almost blew a hole in my jeans, take it easy user.

True but you blow the bridges and setup behind the city instead of fighting street to street.

Am I the only one that thinks no? Technology has pushed us past the point of a multi year multi million person slugfest. Only way this happens again is the absolute regression of modern society ... which is a definite possibility.
Nevermind, answered my own question.

Attached: retard.jpg (921x640, 100K)

You are assuming two major powers when there are plenty of shitholes with no money and millions of people.

Future user here. The third battle of Manhattan was wild.

Not yet in terms of scale, but in terms of ferocity, urban devastation, and length, yes

Attached: Aleppo.gif (940x617, 446K)

The siege of Belgrade rings a bell.

Kys

Just imagine what a fight over control of a city the size of Tokyo or Chicago would look like.

Yes.

Iran Iraq war probably had the same kind of meatgrinder action, only without the cityscape.

That'd be Jow Forumsino af

Attached: C O W A B U N G A.png (1200x880, 1.63M)

stop I can only get to hard

Attached: Urban_Combat_by_NeilBlade.jpg (900x436, 347K)

>conventional inter-state war

No on account that if gets that bad, area denial weapons (radiological, nuclear, chemical, biological) will be used instead.

>civil wars

A Second Civil War in the US would probably have a lot of Stalingrad-tier battles on the East Coast and a couple West of the Mississippi.

Manhattan for instance could be turned into another Leningrad given how easy it would be to cut off from the rest of the world. All you need to do is blow up the handful of tunnels and bridges connecting it to the mainland, destroy the municipal services (shell sewer lines with the intent of bursting them open, bomb power stations etc.) and put enough soldiers on the banks of the river to shoot up anyone who tries to sail or swim across and you've got an island of over a million people who will run out of food in a matter of days and will have their shit piling up at the same. Even if they managed to somehow stay fed, the sheer amount of human waste produced will turn the island into a giant breeding ground for everything from epidemic Typhus to Plague.

'nother point

Armies take substantially longer to raise and train in the modern era so any engagement with casualties on the scale of Stalingrad would be even more crippling than it was back in 1942.

If the United States suffered 300,000 casualties fighting for a single site, it would be effectively forced to sue for peace because not even total mobilization of the Reserves could replace that kind of loss.

Germany could have cut off the Volga whenever, they just had orders to take the city because totalitarian governments are corrupt and shitty

is this the "communist soldiers will eat your babies and there's nothing you can do about" russian stronkpost larper?

Stalingrad was strategic location. Volga is a major transport line.

>Non-stop_Thermobaric_Explosives.PNG

Grozny, Fallujah, Aleppo, Sarajevo.