Eli5: Why is Urban warfare feared as the most difficult form of warfare for a military to conduct?
In: 1719
Not only do you have the battlefield in front of you (or all around depending on the conflict) the urban environment adds a vertical factor also so you not only need to worry about what’s down range, you have to worry about what’s on the floors of buildings above and below you. Adding in the possibility of collateral damage (civilians and innocent bystanders) just complicates everything.
Well in the worst parts of NYC, when NYPD gets a call to go there, they fear people throwing bricks from the rooftops more than the actual criminals.
Urban warfare is…a complicated thing, more than just the tactical side. Militaries and defense experts around the globe have published years worth of papers and books on the subject.
On the tactical side, a defender can have an advantage. As we’ve seen in Mariupol, large buildings can give shelter to infantry against artillery and air strikes. Defenders can make use of the cover and complicated layout of cities to set up ambushes, such as like Grozny or in Fallujah. The shorter line of sight in an urban environment also means that armored vehicles that would normally outrange infantry are now closer, meaning that shorter anti tank weapons have a greater success. Overall an attacking force has to move slowly and be expected to take a more than insignificant amount of casualties. Add in to the fact that in many countries urban warfare tactics aren’t taught in depth to the rank and file.
On the operational and strategic side, urban settings are complicated. If you are going to occupy a city, you have to take into account the population and the resources. Civilian governments in peace time can have a hard time managing a city (in the 1980s NYC was called an “ungovernable city” due to the complexity from its physical size and population).
If you want an overview I’d suggest listening to the Urban Warfare podcast (made by the modern warfare institute at Westpoint).
My personal experience with urban hostilities was the extremely large number of possible fighting positions belligerents could occupy while we moved well known routes. Damaged and destroyed structures made movement tougher, but created many more fighting positions for those who would seek to harm us. The physical closeness of waring parties and attempts to force us to side one way or another meant attacks came from known enemies as well as manipulative friends.
Lots of good replies in here.
Question: Why aren’t cities placed under siege for long periods anymore?
In ancient warfare, a position would be encircled and attacked from a distance until the will or ability of the enemy was broken. We don’t see that much anymore.
I always considered guerrilla warfare the nastiest form of warfare. When civilians get involved it seems all bets are off and the atrocities that follow are terrible. Guerrillas and civilians are killed indiscriminately, homes are destroyed, concentration camps spring up.
A lot of people are mentioning the houses, lack of vision, unknown etc.
Also, the battlefield is more 3d. Many roof tops and windows. Shit can come from anywhere.
Who knows a town better than the people that live there?
No one.
Think about your house/apartment and everything around it. How well do you know the area?
You friend/family from out of state comes to visit. How hard is it for them to get to the local store?
Remember the woman in the red dress from the matrix? She represents everything that makes urban warfare difficult. Easy to hide, easy to get distracted, not sure who is an enemy, lots of neutral parties around you don’t want to hurt. And then WHAMO the enemy is all up in your business.
It basically just comes down to the number of places to hide and the paranoia factor. There’s other stuff too, but those are the biggest things.
Latest Answers