"The City is not Neutral-Why Urban Warfare is so hard" Topic
4 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please remember not to make new product announcements on the forum. Our advertisers pay for the privilege of making such announcements.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2014-present) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Showcase Article"Hefty" metal die-cast cars are cheap this time of year.
Featured Profile Article
Featured Book Review
Featured Movie Review
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Tango01 | 06 Mar 2020 9:45 p.m. PST |
""Contrary to what is often supposed, urban warfare is not more difficult than other types of warfare." That's what a recent article published in the Texas National Security Review argues. The authors believe, in fact, that urban environments are "neutral," not to be feared—that, as in almost every other environment, the better-trained and more-professional force should have an advantage. Unfortunately, history does not support this notion of urban terrain's neutrality, nor do the realities of modern warfare. The article presents solutions to urban challenges, but is mistaken in its characterization of these challenges as simple dilemmas…" Main page link Amicalement Armand
|
arealdeadone | 07 Mar 2020 3:32 p.m. PST |
Very good article. As to the original article quoted by the author well given how pathetically the British Army performed in Basra (booted out and humiliated and then pretended nothing happened), I seriously doubt any of its officers are in a position to write anything useful about urban warfare. |
Tango01 | 08 Mar 2020 3:33 p.m. PST |
Glad you enjoyed it my friend!. (smile) Amicalement Armand |
USAFpilot | 08 Mar 2020 6:17 p.m. PST |
During siege warfare, fighting mainly occurred at the fortifications surrounding cities. Once the fortifications of a city were breached by the attackers, the city either capitulated or was brutally sacked. I don't understand this statement from the article. Isn't the point of a siege not to attack, but to surround the enemy and cut off their lines of communication; essentially starve them out. |
|