Talk:Urban warfare

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

This needs lots of work on spelling, grammar, and most of all NPOV. -- The Anome 13:07, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] indiscriminate bombing

From the article:

# International law prohibits the use of heavy firepower and indiscriminate bombing in civilian-populated settings. Thus, the party barricading in a city won't have to face warplanes, heavy artillery and massive tank assault if it faces an army that cares to operate in a legal manner.

Which international law? Certainly not Hague IV:

Article 25: The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended, is prohibited.
Article 26: The Commander of an attacking force, before commencing a bombardment, except in the case of an assault, should do all he can to warn the authorities.
Article 27: In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps should be taken to spare as far as possible edifices devoted to religion, art, science, and charity, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not used at the same time for military purposes. The besieged should indicate these buildings or places by some particular and visible signs, which should previously be notified to the assailants.

Protocol I Article 35, para. 2 states "Causing superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering" If one is fighting a determined well dug in force in a City which must be taken then the use of " heavy firepower and indiscriminate bombing in civilian-populated settings" is not prohibited if it can be justified by "military necessity"[1] --Philip Baird Shearer 14:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Current Photo

Are we sure that we want the photo that is currently placed at the top of the page?

It doesn't show a very organised unit and is not a good example of any obua tactics. The soldiers are bunched and one of the three soldiers supposed to provide an arc of covering fire is not doing so - his weapon is not trained. Perhaps we can find a better one?

Maybe something with soldiers "stacked up" ready to enter a building would be good? or check out here:http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/album19 maybe we could ask the creators for permission to use a photo.Mike McGregor (Can) 01:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

this: http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/album19/ds3_15 and this: http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/album19/ds3 and this: http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/album19/abz stand out to me. Mike McGregor (Can) 01:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

actually, now that i think of it, there's probably copyright issues up the ying-yang Mike McGregor (Can) 04:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MOUT

Ugh, why does MOUT redirect here ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 03:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Should it redirect somewhere else? Rob cowie 10:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Urban battles category?

How useful do folks think a category of modern urban battles would be? is it worth creating? Mike McGregor (Can) 12:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't be a bad idea. One or two other points; What do we consider to be "modern times"? Does the Paris Commune of 1871 get in? How about the Parisian streets battles of 1848, or those in the same year in Milan, Vienna etc?

Also, I'm amazed that Wikiepdia has no article on the battle or siege of Madrid from 1936-39. A famous and bloody example of urban warfare during the Spanish Civil War -including one of the first instances of mass ariel bombardment of civilians. Don't know enough about it to start and article myself however.

Jdorney 11:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I made a request for the madrid article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history Mike McGregor (Can) 12:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hmm, too much US-centric coverage?

There was a lot of urban warfare in the Second Sino-Japanese War, to the extent that the Japanese didn't care about the civilians whatsoever - ie. tens of millions were killed. And yet it is not discussed? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 20:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but it is a wiki, and the article can only consist of the material submitted. If there is no material regarding the Sino-Japanese war, we need to seek it out and add it, or find someone who will. These kind of military articles often do attract more US interest; The balance certainly needs to be redressed in this article. Rob cowie 21:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
The article on the Battle of Shanghai has plenty of material describing tactics. Of course how to organise it into a general matter is an issue. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 21:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we could expand on Israeli and Russian experience in West Bank/Gaza and Grozny respectively. Also, we could expand on APC/IFVs that are built with more consideration for urban operations, like the Russian BTR-T and Isareli Achzarit, Nagmachon, Kasman, etc. Mike McGregor (Can) 10:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I've corrected the date of Ortona (it was 1943, not 1944!!) and added Battle of Groningen, an article recently added by a Dutch fellow. It is not a famous battle but it should be as it involved the entire 2nd Canadian Infantry Division and was thus 5 times bigger than Ortona.Michael Dorosh 13:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] metro warfare

Found an interesting image: Image:Soviet soldier metro.jpg - it doesn't seem to be covered much but it would seem that metros would provide an interesting dimension to urban warfare (as a type of tunnel warfare) ever since the World Wars occurred, especially if they start occurring in the more dense areas. But it's not mentioned as much? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 17:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operations

This section needs to be clean up considerably on top of which its content does not seem to be limited to one topic or at the very least clearly linked to the section heading. What does "Operations" mean in this context? It starts of in reference to actual operations and then meanders off in general topics on rules of engagement (that could make a nice new heading?) or alternatives like burning down the city or issues facing attackers etc. I suggest replacing "Operations" section name with new sections

  • "Rules of engagement" (or "International Law"),
  • "Defensive tactics" and "Attacking tactics" or simply
  • "Tactics"
    • "Defensive"
    • "Ofensive"

Deon Steyn 13:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Urban Warfare is more than terrain driven tactics

Urban warfare must be understood and conducted as more than a tactical challenge associated with a complex terrain. The realities of the urban operating environment consisting of a complex multidimensional terrain, population and both physical and virtual systems infrastructure concentrated in the cityscape represents a challenge for strategic planning and operational level considerations. This not only requires a well-orchestrated combined arms effort at the tactical level, but in addition a joint and interagency effort focused on the desired post-war scenario as described in political, economic and social terms rather just strictly military definitions of victory

[edit] Military necessity

I have deleted this paragraph:

International law also prohibits the use of heavy firepower and indiscriminate bombing in civilian-populated settings. Thus, defenders barricaded in a city should not have to face carpet bombing, heavy artillery and massive tank assault if it faces an army that cares to operate in a legal manner. Even in a situation where the attacker has no such qualms, such as the Imperial Japanese Army during the Second Sino-Japanese War, such actions can spark more resistance and insurgency than there would be without such attacks. In some circumstances, (for example, using a city as winter lodgements, a supply centre, a leave facility, or utilizing any port and dock facilities), destroying the city would be counter-productive. To deny these advantages to an attacker, defenders may raze cities about to fall as a defensive strategy (historically, this has been known as a component of a "scorched earth policy".)

Because most of it is not correct. The amount of force which is used depends on military necessity. Heavy bombardment is allowed if it is justified by military neccessity. This is clearly covered by Article 25 of Hague 1907 IV - The Laws and Customs of War on Land and Article 51.5 of Protocol I. In the cases where troops fighting in an urban enviroment where every street if not every house is defended, then if the defending soldier know their business the attackers will need to use heavy bombardment when assualting the city. Anyone who thinks that the Soviets could have captured Hitler's festung stadten (fortress cities) without "heavy artillery and massive tank assault[s]" has clearly not thought about military necessity. Also the defenders may well be acting in a legal manner even if they are fighting amoung civilians. For example the British paratroopers at Arnhem were not war criminals for defending their bridghead in the battle of Arnhem even though Dutch civilians were still in the town during the battle.

Further the sentence which starts "In some circumstances ..." has little or nothing to do with Urban warfare. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] bedsprings

From the history of the article:

  • 18:53, 9 September 2007 71.243.72.28 (→First Chechen War - Bedsprings on tanks is a myth. HEAT screens were directly built by soviet industry. Refer to the wiki T-34 article for proper description of the often-referenced photo.)
  • 20:53, 9 September 2007 Philip Baird Shearer (Put back bedsprings with precise quote from a realiable source. See WP:V. Does not say that there were no machines with factory made wire mesh screens.)

Source: Antony Beevor Berlin: The Downfall 1945, Penguin Books, 2002, ISBN 0-670-88695-5 p. 317 "Then they went in again for festooning their vehicles with bedsprings and other metal to make the panzerfausts explode prematurely"

Although there is a picture of a T-34 with mesh screens in Berlin in 1945 there are other tanks in the same shot without mesh screens.(See behind the two standing figures). There are also other pictures of tanks and other AFV in Berlin in 1945 without. See this page [2] particularly this picture which shows soviet tanks by the Brandenburg Gate without mesh screens.

--Philip Baird Shearer 21:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Beevor may be quoting an old myth, albeit one that appears in Marshal Konev's memoirs. More recent research seems to show the mesh armor was supplied by the Red Army in 1945, not improvised by using bed springs. DMorpheus (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Famous urban battles list -> stand alone list?

The "Famous urban battles in modern times". Anyone think it's long enough to be broken out into a stand alone list linked off this article? Just a thought, I won't push it either way... Mike McGregor (Can) 18:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not think there should be a list, because any list will be selective and hence breach WP:NPOV or it will be so large and cover such a diverse period (1485 to date) that it is next to useless. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Misleading building illustration?

The image provided ("A northern European apartment building") doesn't seem to be too relevant to the associated text here. The text refers to 19th century buildings surrounding a courtyard, but the architecture shown is clearly much more recent. I suggest we drop the picture until a more representative one can be located. (Same fix is needed in the main article). jxm (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Look at the building on the far side of the street in this picture (Image:Russian artillery fire in Berlin.jpg) -- notice the arch probably an entrance to the inner courtyard. The colour one you mention above is typical of the sort seen throughout Berlin when they have been given as skimming of plaster on the outside (it is quite common post war to remove the heavily damaged fancy plaster they had originally and replace it with styrofoam type products for insulation with plaster on top. The one depicted is probably not high enough but it will do until a better picture is provided. A google search on images with [Berlin apartment block] returns a number of these types of blocks including returned this one on the first page -- it shows a typical Berlin street with a view of an interior courtyard as well. Here is another, so as you can see the current picture is not to misleading. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)