BF2S Forums Hypothetical Possibility of Invasion

DesertFox- wrote:

I was in Chicago recently, a place much, much larger than my hometown. I was looking at all the humongous buildings and began to wonder: what would it take to take over a city like this? I started thinking of how possibile it even is anymore for large-scale warfare like in Stalingrad of old. Clearing out a single building would take a pretty long time in my mind. Despite all this, cities weren't really small back sixty years ago when they were being occupied. It's really a large feat to take over such a huge community no matter how bombed out it is. Next time you're in a metropolis, ponder how difficult it would be to take that place over. It's mind-blowing.

nuke

african rebels

Harmor wrote:

You assume that you want to use forces on foot doing house-to-house searches.  Here are two simple solutions:

1.  Send a squadron of B-52s and level the place, then go in and clean-up (Advantage: easy to do, Disadvantage: everything is destroyed).

Didn't the nazi use the same method on Stalingrad. Just to wake up to the reality that the town was made in to a defense castle for the Russians.

City Fighting is dangerous.  Aside from using a non-conventional attack....It would take a Division to clear something the size of Chi-town.  And that is being generous not adding the fact that for each high rise you would have to leave atleast a platoon to keep a foothold.  With security elements keeping a foothold on each building the strain would be too much for most militaries.  In a city fight  Speed,Surprise and Violence of Action are the keys to winning....BUT how much surprise would you have after say building 2 was taken out and cleared?

In Haifa Street, it took a platoon to clear 1 20 story high rise of apartments...but that was due to the fact we did not have large numbers to keep tossing troops into more and more buildings.  So we took Key Terrain and locked them down, using the higher floors to pick off targets as they made themselves known. Break it down into fire team sizes, the squads could clear two rooms/apartments at the same time. Thats six areas being cleared at the same time, 7 if your weapons squad is feeling froggy enough to clear rooms with machine guns.
The buildings were mostly empty, so it didnt take so long, but that building my platoon took still took 2 hours to clear.

You know what they never talk about, urban warfare in WW1. Was like the whole war fought on a single line that didn't move or what.

---

From what i saw (Urban WW2 fighting) pretty much all the big buildings were bombed out in some way or another. If you were to apply WW2 style fighting in a modern skyscraper city, they would simply destroy the high rises to prevent snipers and all that lurking around. That's what i think. They wouldn't clear out the buildings, what use would that be? It was a freakin all out war, anything went in those days (even nukes when they arrived) they would've just blown them all up. Skyscrapers seem like easy targets for anything.

---

And nowadays no country will invade a country with nukes

"get your soldiers out or your capital will be reduced to rubble in......now, bye"

"but we have nukes, we'll fire back"

"but you'll still die"

"oh yeah"

Nukes ftw. They really are peacekeepers.

Last edited by Mekstizzle (2007-06-03 10:01:02)

You can get some pointer from here if your worried about what to do.

leetkyle wrote:

hypothetical situation
how about you shut up and stop thinking like a terrorist.

No. Also, you sound as though you are referring to every single enemy combatant as a terrorist.

Terrorist = Enemy but Enemy ≠ Terrorist