I'm talking about an attackers point of view, not defensive. I think I found the problem to our misunderstandingJohnG@lt wrote:
Rubble is better cover and concealment than buildings are. It's a fact.
- demoralize the enemy-Sh1fty- wrote:
I'm talking about an attackers point of view, not defensive. I think I found the problem to our misunderstandingJohnG@lt wrote:
Rubble is better cover and concealment than buildings are. It's a fact.
we already discussed this. i tried to list some reasons why attackers nevertheless almost every time storm a town/city after they shelled and bombed it with artillery and bombers...Karbin wrote:
As an attacker, you don't like fighting over rubble.
As a defender IF, you can make a prepared defence, you like rubble. For a quick defence, rubble can be a P.I.A. but is better then defence in open ground.
The need to take ground and avoid being held up with siege actions. RE; Stalingradcl4u53w1t2 wrote:
we already discussed this. i tried to list some reasons why attackers nevertheless almost every time storm a town/city after they shelled and bombed it with artillery and bombers...Karbin wrote:
As an attacker, you don't like fighting over rubble.
As a defender IF, you can make a prepared defence, you like rubble. For a quick defence, rubble can be a P.I.A. but is better then defence in open ground.
Last edited by Karbin (2010-03-15 16:13:50)
if it was for the need to take ground and move on, storming the city without artillery or boming preparation would be the right thing to do...Karbin wrote:
The need to take ground and avoid being held up with siege actions. RE; Stalingradcl4u53w1t2 wrote:
we already discussed this. i tried to list some reasons why attackers nevertheless almost every time storm a town/city after they shelled and bombed it with artillery and bombers...Karbin wrote:
As an attacker, you don't like fighting over rubble.
As a defender IF, you can make a prepared defence, you like rubble. For a quick defence, rubble can be a P.I.A. but is better then defence in open ground.
And if it's heavily defended and you want to minimise YOUR casualty's as the attacker?cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
if it was for the need to take ground and move on, storming the city without artillery or boming preparation would be the right thing to do...Karbin wrote:
The need to take ground and avoid being held up with siege actions. RE; Stalingradcl4u53w1t2 wrote:
we already discussed this. i tried to list some reasons why attackers nevertheless almost every time storm a town/city after they shelled and bombed it with artillery and bombers...
Last edited by Karbin (2010-03-15 17:12:01)
as i said:Karbin wrote:
And if it's heavily defended and you want to minimise YOUR casualty's as the attacker?cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
if it was for the need to take ground and move on, storming the city without artillery or boming preparation would be the right thing to do...Karbin wrote:
The need to take ground and avoid being held up with siege actions. RE; Stalingrad
Damn.... just what I was going to postcl4u53w1t2 wrote:
as i said:Karbin wrote:
And if it's heavily defended and you want to minimise YOUR casualty's as the attacker?cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
if it was for the need to take ground and move on, storming the city without artillery or boming preparation would be the right thing to do...
- demoralize the enemy
- kill enemy soldiers by bombing or shelling them
- protect one's own troops from being fired upon while storming a town/city (by holding down the enemy with suppressive fire)
- breaking l.o.c. is a reasonKarbin wrote:
Damn.... just what I was going to postcl4u53w1t2 wrote:
as i said:Karbin wrote:
And if it's heavily defended and you want to minimise YOUR casualty's as the attacker?
- demoralize the enemy
- kill enemy soldiers by bombing or shelling them
- protect one's own troops from being fired upon while storming a town/city (by holding down the enemy with suppressive fire)
You forgot:
-break-up enemy troop concentration's
-break L.O.C.
Mmmm...-Sh1fty- wrote:
That's what I'm saying.cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
wrong. see battle of montecassino-Sh1fty- wrote:
In my opinion, it's a lot easier to fight in a town with buildings still intact for a number of reasons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monte_Cassino
"What is now known is that the Germans had an agreement with the monks to not use the Abbey for military purposes as long as they remained. Following its destruction, paratroopers of the German 1st Parachute Division then occupied the ruins of the abbey and turned it into a fortress and observation post, which became a serious problem for the attacking allied forces"
actually, destroyed buildings provide much better fortifications/defensive lines
By blowing up the buildings and leaving not much but ruble, they can defend really easily, and it's a bitch to spot things in it.
Now imagine regular European streets and buildings. You hear a shot, where do you look? Windows, streets and roofs. If you've got nothing but ruins, it becomes total shit.
Instead of posting facepalms and shit, why don't you prove me wrong you ignorant armchair whores?
Bombing and artillery negatively impact defender morale as well as providing interdiction of resupply.cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
we already discussed this. i tried to list some reasons why attackers nevertheless almost every time storm a town/city after they shelled and bombed it with artillery and bombers...Karbin wrote:
As an attacker, you don't like fighting over rubble.
As a defender IF, you can make a prepared defence, you like rubble. For a quick defence, rubble can be a P.I.A. but is better then defence in open ground.
Also, it reduces enemy troop numbers by a smidge (less than 1-2% of total, or even less) and destroys existing fortifications INSIDE buildingsJohnG@lt wrote:
Bombing and artillery negatively impact defender morale as well as providing interdiction of resupply.cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
we already discussed this. i tried to list some reasons why attackers nevertheless almost every time storm a town/city after they shelled and bombed it with artillery and bombers...Karbin wrote:
As an attacker, you don't like fighting over rubble.
As a defender IF, you can make a prepared defence, you like rubble. For a quick defence, rubble can be a P.I.A. but is better then defence in open ground.
Oil.-Sh1fty- wrote:
If you going to make ruble, at least do it while attacking. It's easier to kill somebody when they're in a building than when they're behind a wall of ruble you Tiger can't go up.
Back on to Hitler's idiocy, why was he in Africa? The guy has his army damn stretched.
-Sh1fty- wrote:
If you going to make ruble
not at all.Spark wrote:
Oil.-Sh1fty- wrote:
If you going to make ruble, at least do it while attacking. It's easier to kill somebody when they're in a building than when they're behind a wall of ruble you Tiger can't go up.
Back on to Hitler's idiocy, why was he in Africa? The guy has his army damn stretched.
Hitler had dreams for the Arabian oilfields but it was more of a long term goal. The North Africa campaign was really nothing more than a rearguard action to prop up the Italians. Rommel just ran wild for a while but had no real shot at winning his fight unless they didn't invade Russia.cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
not at all.
italians got their asses kicked by the british in north africa. germany had to secure its (and its ally's) southern flank
the arabian oilfields dream came up in the spring of 1942 when it was clear that the german summer offensive in 42 should aim for the caucasus.JohnG@lt wrote:
Hitler had dreams for the Arabian oilfields but it was more of a long term goal. The North Africa campaign was really nothing more than a rearguard action to prop up the Italians. Rommel just ran wild for a while but had no real shot at winning his fight unless they didn't invade Russia.cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
not at all.
italians got their asses kicked by the british in north africa. germany had to secure its (and its ally's) southern flank
it wasn't realy a victory and what they'd "beaten" russia with wasn't military.eleven bravo wrote:
ya know, russia was beaten by a much smaller military of germany like 20 something years prior
We didn't.eleven bravo wrote:
ok Ill buy that. We didnt lose in Vietnam either.