Imagine having to fight in pic related.
Imagine having to fight room to room to clear out the 5 million insurgents in this.
Why are we fighting?
>>28881047
Starvation and disease would be as much a danger as enemy combatants.
Also, tunnel fighting in the sewer and train systems would be brutal affairs.
>>28881251
This is why we have field artillery and bombers.
How about fighting every cartel in Mexico City, with the government troops shooting at everyone during a Popocatépetl volcanic eruption?
21.2 Million people all going nuts.
>>28881251
You don't have to fight everywhere at the same time. Divide the city in small areas. Begin clearing area after area. Destroy cleaned areas so the enemy cannot go back.
>>28881251
I hear nuclear weapons work well.
>>28881047
>>28881251
I don't think it would happen, there would be no advantage to staying in a concrete jungle were everything has to be transported in and refuse hauled out. If devastation was that wide spread people would abandon large cities and flee to rural areas.
>>28881047
Perfect area for bipedal mechs.
>>28881334
Just look at the fighting in Aleppo and Damascus, there's plenty of fighting in relatively large cities
So it is possible. Plus, for both scenarios, the fighting is/was atrocious
During the Iran-Iraq war, the Iraqi army had a dreadful time trying to surround some of the larger Iranian cities, which where so large, that encirclement was just about impossible.
Would suck.
>>28881694
don't forget the ever popular Fallujah, Ramadi, Grozny, and classics such as Hue, Stalingrad, Berlin, and Manila.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_warfare
>>28881910
what a fucking nightmare
>>28881251
>5 million insurgents
that's not an insurgency, retard. that's an army.
>>28881300
This. Have you fuckers ignored what happens in Syria?
>>28881354
>bipedal mechs.
today's drones are already much more versaltile. even the ground based drones. they could operate 24/7. with super duper optics.
you could combine a armed cheetah with a fyling eye like scaneagle or predator
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_luhn7TLfWU
>>28881251
>tokyo
sure looks like france dumbfuck.
>>28881910
You got any more info sheets like that?
>>28885561
Not him, but that's definitely not Paris dumbfuck
>>28881047
>Imagine having to fight in pic related.
Fuck that.
Time for the harvest.
I'd rather imagine surrounding it for a few months and letting everything inside starve or surrender.
>>28886358
this desu~. Take over a couple strategic roads and railways, and start naming your terms. Whoever's left inside better hope their allies are willing and able to pull a fucking berlin airlift.
Don't clear rooms when you can clear entire cities.
>>28885561
You forget, Japanese are westaboos
>>28881047
52. Never charge a fortified enemy position if you can get an air strike or artillery bombardment.
>>28886213
Don't know why the BMPT-72 got rid of the double 40mm grenade launcher turrets nor did it include remote-weapons station for the TC.
Still, I'd fucking give my right nut to see a BMPT in actual combat in shit like Syria.
>>28881047
>Megacity
Just get several fucking killdozers with antipersonnel and antitank weapons. Would be a great utility tool to clear roads and such, along with an impact of morale on the enemy.
>>28888549
I've seen pics of the BMPT a few times before, but this is the first time I noticed the suppressed or armored MG ports on either side driver hatch
Would WW1 Landship style tanks work better in urban warfare than a conventional tank?
Having multiple weapons mounted around the vehicle instead of a single large gun in the turret
>>28881910
really puts the carnage of Warsaw and Stalingrad into perspective
>>28881910
look like Grozny 2
>>28888549
it is cheaper, BMPT need heavily modify T-72 hull
BMPT-72 only need a T-72 hull
>>28888608
those are 30mm antumatic grenade launcher not MG
>>28888721
try going down alleys or rounding even two-lane corners.
No. Not at all. Not to mention that a .50 BMG can penetrate the original landships, and to make one that has enough armor to defeat RPGs plus travel faster than....
...you know what? Fuck you. You're retarded -- too retarded to bother answering.
>>28888608
Those are the grenade launchers >>28888549
refers to.
>>28888549
To make it cheaper and easier to sell (not that it has still) as a straight T-72 side-grade, not needing so many hull modifications keeps it more to just a turret package.
Kinda would have thought they'd have seen use in Syria but I guess there's not really the demand for the expensive ATGMs, or the autocannon when it comes down to it. I'd guess the autocannon are just far less tactically useful than the various tanks' guns they operate for doing things like blowing holes in walls/debris. Fewer really tall buildings for needing the elevation too.
Really it's just a super niche vehicle without that much to offer in utility over using what is around already. Unless you're expecting to have to fight in an environment like Grozny but the other side also has something worth using ATGMs on, well, it's not really that good.
>>28888721
Not big ones, but Israel has a modification for the Merkava that replaces the turret with a small tower that was machine-gun ports pointing in all directions.
>>28890116
>...you know what? Fuck you. You're retarded -- too retarded to bother answering.
1) Calm down, sperg.
2) Try responding to his actual question. Literally none of what you typed had anything to do with his post. You just freaked out and went into full-on turbo-autism for no reason. Multi-turret tanks can't work because WW1 tanks had thin armor? Are you seriously this spastic?
3) Seriously, calm down.
>>28882438
>Manila
I'm from a relatively large city in the western US, but when I went to both Manila and Sao Paulo I felt claustrophobic, cities like that are seemingly inescapable, its creepy.
>>28888721
>Having multiple weapons mounted around the vehicle instead of a single large gun in the turret
You don't really need lots and lots of small weapons for urban combat, rather, you need big weapons that can go through walls or knock down buildings.
Your typical concrete-walled building is sufficient to stop or at least slow most small arms, and even big guns like 25mm autocannons have trouble chewing through some of that stuff, and it's even more complicated when you're shooting through several walls made of different materials. Buildings, in general, can soak up a LOT of abuse and still provide protection to enemy troops within them.
A tank's main gun really is an extremely desirable urban combat weapon, since it has no trouble going through/fucking up buildings, and some ammo types are designed specifically for this purpose. To carry this gun, you need a big turret...
>>28890639
>when I went to both Manila and Sao Paulo I felt claustrophobic
Manila is actually the most densely-populated city on earth, so that isn't too surprising that you felt that way.
>>28890689
I lived in Mumbai and fuck that too was extremely populated. For some reason living in NYC, I felt very nicely spaced out. Things were too congested, city had a nice flow.
>>28890780
>something made by white people is objectively superior to something made by brown people
shocking
>>28881300
If you are gonna destroy it why not do that first?
>>28890787
Yeah. It's too bad the British left, as usual when whitey leaves things turn bad quickly.
>>28890689
And Sau Paolo is just a city that does not ever stop, you fly over it for a solid hour and a half before landing at the airport.
>>28881047
Sarejevo is a good example of how fucked up it would be.
FUCKING SNIPERS EVERYWHERE.
>>28891084
the sarajevo snipers weren't such a big deal militarily, it was more the fact that the city was still full of civilians, whom the snipers would occasionally shoot.
one of the things a lot of you are forgetting about are civilians.
if you have a city of a million people, even if most of them leave, you've still got potentially tens of thousands of civilians roaming around, which even if you're absolutely uncaring about collateral damage, will present a serious obstacle...
>>28891148
How did the military avoid the snipers then?
>>28891207
is this a real question?
for a blown out city, I figure it would be first just using some kind of drone dozers (like the shit 12N's use, but unmanned) to clear most of the rubble, then send in the airborne set up as cqb and to clear out the roads and set up bridges, then roll in the armor and blow up everything else.
also, tons of snipers and lmg's
>>28891264
>he actually took time to write this
don't ever post here again please
>>28890788
Clear out civilians/valuable resources and you don't destroy EVERYTHING you keep the important structures needed for your command posts, signals stations, field hospitals etc. you shitstain.
>>28891250
I'm guessing artillery, you made it sound like they solid snaked their way around.
>>28891324
>you made it sound like they solid snaked their way around.
what the fuck ?
>>28891328
I am confuse.
>>28891341
yeah
no shit
>>28891353
Instead of being condesending pls explain how the military dealt with the sniper problem there.
>>28891362
okay, be honest with me
are you a retarded person? do you have a mental handicap?
>>28891390
No, I'm guessing maybe my understating of the Sarajevo situation is flawed.
Good thing I'm trained for forest warfare. Much simpler.
>>28881251
Modern day cities will be treated like forts of long ago. Avoided if possible or besieged for the easy long-term win. Why the hell would you need to clear a completely hostile city with infantry?
>>28893625
Because it would serve as a place from which they can strike out. Also half of any war is about population centers. You'll have to take the city eventually.
>>28894202
>Because it would serve as a place from which they can strike out.
Not if you contain them by besieging the city.
>>28893625
Modern day cities serve all the purposes that castles do; fortifications never really became obsolete, it's just to have something as effective as a castle defensively would translate to literally constructing a city for the purpose of defending which would be economically nonviable.
>>28894400
Thanks for repeating what you quoted.
Have fun clearing this out block by block, building by building, floor by floor, room by room.
>>28893625
>Why the hell would you need to clear a completely hostile city with infantry?
because it contains men, materiel, and is a transportation hub? three classic reasons why cities are fought over, friend.
>>28894266
>Not if you contain them by besieging the city.
there are very few times in history when a besieged city was 'perfectly contained', and all you need is one rail line, or one road, or even one dinky trench into the city to support combat indefinitely...
cities are usually located *on* the front line (which means some huge part of them is not under your control, and has a direct link with the rest of the opposing army), they're not often bypassed and surrounded, because of the enormous amount of resources this requires, not to mention how dangerous it is to leave a large well-protected, well-supplied enemy force in the middle of your rear lines, with an indefinite siege (which could last years) being conducted at enormous cost, with no clear aim or timeframe for resolution...
>>28895325
you dont. you bomb it.
>>28895493
>amerifats STILL believe that bombing shit is the be-all end-all military tactic
Tell me how successful you've been in containing Islamic state again?
>>28885561
Are you kidding
>>28895814
Something tells me bombing a city with substantial infrastructure is going to go a bit easier than trying to bomb a hole in the side of a mountain.
>>28890210
You are thinking about the Nagmachon. It's based on a Centurion hull, not a Merkava.
>>28881047
Siege that shit until they all starve out. It is literally the only realistic option you have of clearing megacities
>>28896250
>a tactic which has never worked in all of human history is "the only realistic option"
>>28896338
wut?
>>28896358
name one time "starving them out" has won a city.
>>28896399
Sieges have been used countless times to great effect. While you don't starve everyone dead, you significantly weaken the opposing force.
>>28896399
Literally all of the time? Historically, that was the preferred method.
>>28896338
I'll take "What is Constantinople" for $500, Alex
>>28896399
Look up Alexander the Great. He pretty much used those tactics to conquer half the world.
>>28896399
Every siege that was not resolved by 1) a relief force or sally causing a pitched battle, 2) a traitor opening the gates or 3) assault is resolved by starving the defenders down.
>>28896399
Wasnt there an Italian city that was under siege for months during the Napoleanic wars. I think it was Naples. But dont quote me on that.
>>28890569
They can't work becuase of their size mostly. They are going to be larger which means more armor, crew, fuel. It will have a bigger engine, higher cost, more maintence, and be incredibly unweildly. You are better off with cheap AFV (like technicals, you can just car jack them) or a very heavily armoured IFV (pic related). You want it to support infantry and help them with specialized needs. Adding a howitzer to it is also very useful.
>>28896412
>>28896413
>>28896428
>>28896435
>>28896436
>>28896564
so you can't name me a single time.
>>28896428
that was a siege followed by an assault. are you even reading what I'm writing?
sieges followed by assaults happen all the time. that was what fallujah was, for example. I asked you to name me a time that the siege was the thing that itself won the city as this idiot here alleged >>28896250
>>28897123
Siege of Vicksburg.
Plenty of other examples nigger. I'm not gonna spoonfeed your retarded ass.
>>28897123
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=siege+of+leningrad
>>28897161
>I'm not gonna spoonfeed your retarded ass.
because you can't.
seriously, why are you pretending to know something you don't?
>I totally know this thing that I wont tell you because you're too dumb to know it!!!!11
turbo autism
>>28897169
wtf?
leningrad never fell, you retard. how is this an example of a time that a siege alone caused a city to be taken?
are you niggers even reading my posts? I am not asking you to list sieges. I'm asking you to support this faggot's >>28896250 conclusion that you can capture a city solely by sieging it.
>>28897202
No you're the retard saying that sieges are fucking useless because you can't kill every last person with starvation. The purpose of a siege is attrition. You weaken them and then attack.
t. not a retard
>>28897184
I just gave you a perfect example of a siege working without an assault to follow.. The siege of Vicksburg lasted two and half months and led to a unconditional surrender of 30,000 confederate troops.
I'm not even the guy you were talking too initially. I just dropped in to tell how retarded you are by thinking sieges are ineffective.
>>28891390
Don't be an ass and explain! Really. To answer the question: Usually a military unit will attempt to suppress the sniper to prevent his movement and flank the sniper with another unit as support. If the military unit in question has access to heavy weapons(HMG, GMG) or vehicle emplacement weapons(APC, IFV, MBT) then they will use them to destroy the snipers position. And of course you can use Airpower.
>>28881047
>>28881251
>>28881297
>>28881910
"Why would any civilized person not live in a city?"- Hipster City Dwellers
>>28881910
>FIBUA
I'm no expert but isn't that a more dated way of saying "MOUT?"
Awesome infographics though, any idea how old they are?
>>28885561
Sure looks like Tokyo Tower dumbfuck.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Tower
>>28891207
Hillary took all the sniper fire, don't you know?
>>28897403
>I'm no expert but isn't that a more dated way of saying "MOUT?"
FIBUA is the British term for the same concept.
>Awesome infographics though, any idea how old they are?
I've never seen this image before, but judging by the REDFOR use of both T-62 tanks (introduced 1961) and Mi-4 helos (retired late 60s), this can be established as a British graphic from 1960s.
>all these people saying that the solution is just to bomb the city
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a city be just as hard, if not harder, to take when reduced to rubble? I'd imagine that having all the roads being impassable and unlimited hidey holes for infantry would just create a Stalingrad 2.0 situation.
Or are modern (conventional) bombs deadly enough to completely annihilate any defenders in a large city with lots of underground sewers/parkades/subways to hide in?
>>28881047
Thats what low yield nukes are for
a city large enough could CONTAIN a whole war within itself.
some cities are so large you would need too many nukes.
>>28901023
> so many people itt saying just bomb the city
No fucking shit, but in the past, currently, and for no foreseeable reason will some army somewhere not at some point be fighting in a city. It is interesting to think about how the increased scale of modern cities will effect full scale urban warfare.
Swear to god half of /k/ feels like it is middle school kids who learned a tiny piece of military thinking somewhere and hold themselves to be grand strategists.
>>28902439
Best idea: bomb it dead. Lose a bunch of bombs.
2nd best idea: cordon it off and let the defenders starve. Lose a lot of time, tie down soldiers that could be fighting somewhere else.
3rd best idea: assault it with men, lose a bunch of men because of all the firing angles, then tie down a bunch more men holding it.
Is there anything you'd like to add?
>>28902618
Talking it out like civilized human beans
#MakeLoveNotWar
>>28902849
We can add that as new best idea: diplomacy.
>>28888549
>>28888721
>>28890116
>>28890139
>>28890673
>>28897042
So basically, the vehicle you'd want in a dense, urban environment would be of medium-small size, fast, and sporting a big gun (at least 76mm?) that has a high firing arc (or whatever the term is for shooting above you)
I think of modifying one of those small, french scout tanks, the one with the wheels, with a spherical turret and a 100mm gun on it. It would peak out from a corner, find it's target, shoot and scoot back behind the corner. Only problems would be armor and ammo/fuel storage.
Any other ideas/suggestions?
>>28881251
Why the fuck did the paint the eiffel tower? It looks retarded.
>>28897281
Thank you based anon.
>>28897683
Hillary was the OG Big Boss, she didn't really die in Russia, she faked her death and changed her identity.
>>28903434
>>28895814
idk man maybe we're not bombing them enough in the right places.
Russia seems to be doing an okay job though
>>28888588
>killdozers
>>28905900
The Israelis actually use armored bulldozers to great effect. They love them. One of the things that was asked for following Desert Storm was armored Bulldozers with a machinegun on them.
