NationStates Jolt Archive

A Quick and Nasty Guide to Fighting in Built-up Areas (FIBUA)

Will undergo a complete rewrite.

First, Nianacio's list of sites noting the proper way of clearing/defending urban areas:
Tanks in Urban Areas
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/90-10/90-10apf.htm
http://www.military-sf.com/tanks.htm
Room clearing techniques
http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/drkcr.html
Note on Body Armour
Google the following phrase re: body armour (my reference removed):
"multiple 7.62x51mm M80 ball steel-jacketed rounds at 2850-2900 fps, at a distance of 15ft (muzzle to body armor)"
US Army urban warfare procedures
FM 3-06.11 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-06-11/index.html)
FM 3-06 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-06/index.html)
FM 3-06.1/MCRP 3-35.3A/NTTP 3-01.04/AFTTP(I) 3-2.29 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-06-1/index.html)
FM 90-10 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/90-10/index.html)
Urban Forces (http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/urban.html)

---

Next, my slightly edited nonsense:

First off, let me stress I know nothing (evidently) about FIBUA. Even so, there are some things that need to be mentioned.

When conducting FIBUA, remember:

1) You can expect to lose 30% of your force;

2) Tanks are not as useful as they appear, especially in cities and towns without wide avenues – can we say bottleneck? How about rocket fodder? They are useful against points of resistance or other tanks. In defence, they can serve as mobile bunkers. Do not use them as battering rams (they are too valuable for that), in greatly uneven ground, or in areas without a number of avenues of escape. Vehicles should be in constant movement to prevent enemy attack whether by partisans, enemy soldiers, or enemy aircraft. Perform reconnaissance of an area in which the vehicles will be used, by UAV, helicopter, or foot patrol, beforehand.

3) Helicopters, when operating over dense urban areas, should fly as low as possible and fast to present the shortest possible firing window for enemies. Troop-carrying helicopters should have door gunners equipped at least with general purpose machine guns. Larger helicopters may also mount other weapons from the rear ramps, such as 0.50-calibre machine guns and the like. Never have them fly the same flightplan (waypoints, etc.) twice if you can possibly avoid it.

4) The effectiveness of air power by fast movers is reduced in urban areas that have been largely destroyed due to the absence of landmarks visible from altitude. Precision guided weapons will likely be necessary to avoid civilian casualties and own goals.

5) Ruins make nice hides for snipers, machine gunners, and mortarmen (in other words, bombarding a place to the ground isn’t always effective). Ruins also make the use of armour very difficult.

6) Don’t fire anti-tank missiles in buildings unless they are soft-launch capable, otherwise you and your friends will end up seriously dead. That said, ruins make good hides for anti-tank crews and machine gun nests. Once you fire, however, it is best to leave and not come back. Predictability means death.

7) When entering a building, remember to check anything you might pick up for booby traps, or, smarter yet, don’t pick anything up.

8) When clearing rooms, remember prisoners are people you want to save (fellow soldiers, your countrymen and –women), not enemy troops (except high ranking or important-looking types). When entering areas known to be held by enemy forces, systematically clear each house. Be quick, but more importantly, be careful.

9) Doors are very dangerous. If you can enter a building by other means, whether mouse-holing (blowing a hole in a wall) or window, use it.

10) Sewers can become the main thoroughfares in a bombed out town, or even a standing one. They permit a force a measure of protection and stealth and can allow your force to arrive on sight by surprise. Make sure these are mapped out when possible.

11) If you want to take a building, best to do it from all levels (i.e. top, bottom, through).

12) If you are holding a building, make sure you've left yourself a way out, and make sure that escape route is kept open. If you've crafted a room your enemy can't enter, you've also built your own tomb.

13) Do not underestimate the power of mouse-holing (creating your own doors with high explosives). See point 8.

14) Unexploded munitions are very important. See Iraq for a current example.

15) Ambush is an ever-present danger. Yes, that includes tanks.

16) If you must walk down streets, keep to the sides (both sides to provide interlinking fire support) and don't walk in close groups or in file.


Second, communications. It is very important for your squaddies to know who’s in charge and what they are expected to do. It is similarly important for higher levels to know where everyone else is to minimise blue-on-blue incidents. Modern technology has provided us the means of communicating over distance – use it. Personal role radios and the like can keep platoons in contact with one another, and larger radios with the company commander. That said, don’t forget hand signals for when you need to be quiet.

Third, weapons. Shotguns, especially those firing solid shot, are very useful. Solid shot can blow open doors, penetrate body armour, and generally turn someone else’s day into shit. Submachine guns are similarly useful. Your uber-rifles of death, those 9mm full-powered round (not 9mm Parabellum or the like) firing mechanisms of death, will likely be too long to be of much use in the close confines of a building, especially since muzzle-climb – no matter how strong your stormtroopers of death are – will render aimed fire laughable. OK, impossible. Rifles such as the FN FAL and other 7.62mm firing weapons are dangerous for other reasons (AK-47 included). Some buildings have very thin walls. When you and your pals go blazing away on full auto (seriously not advised for those firing either the FN FAL or M14 if you want to hit what you are firing at), rounds will likely go through the walls and much else besides and kill somebody you would rather they wouldn’t, which is why many special forces units conducting anti-terrorist and hostage-saving missions tend to opt for the MP5, which is accurate, reliable, and comparatively low-powered (still goes through a wall, though). Mind, they also can put a bullet through the brain of most common soldiers before the latter can react, so best to stick with something light and not too cumbersome, such as the M16. You may need to fire a lot of rounds to kill something with it, but they’re dead in the end. Besides, the only time your troops should be spraying rounds rather than firing single shots or controlled bursts of three to five rounds is when room clearing. Fire discipline means your soldiers will have more than empty mess tins to fling at the enemy between resupply.

Fourth, room clearing. Remember, doors are your enemies. If you can get in through means other than the watched door, great. If not, well... If you aren’t concerned with other casualties, the best way is to riddle the door with a spray of rounds from an assault rifle – thus keeping whomever might be lurking behind said door’s head down – a swiftly applied follow-up boot to the opening side of the door, or, alternatively and preferably blowing said door off its hinges with solid shot from a shotgun, and lobbing in a grenade or two (with spoons released once the door or other opening is certainly open, concussion or fragmentation (for concrete or stone-walled buildings only, as GMC Military arms noted the fragments can go through walls or even set the building ablaze)) into the room. Once the grenadier has done his job, send in a pair of riflemen to shoot the hell out of the room, each one to a previously agreed upon corner. Anything that moves or might move is fair game. If you are concerned about civilian casualties or you are performing a hostage-rescue, first thing once you have an opening to the room is a flashbang grenade. Two soldiers enter with pre-assigned corners to watch and take out the assigned targets (the enemy). Controlled bursts in this instance are required. No spraying bullets about like an imbecile.

Fifth, windows. Like doors, stay away from them, or at the very least a few feet back. Unless you enjoy performing a sniper check, looking outside is best done from a distance.

Sixth, sewers. As Dumpsterdam notes, sewers provide your troops, and your enemy's, a nice protected thoroughfare to different spots within a city. Since it's likely his city you are overtaking, best to send down a few heavily armed platoons to scout out and map the area, as well as wreak a little havoc while they are at it!

Seventh, fire and movement. This is important for any infantry action, or any action period. If one of your soldiers is moving to another position, make sure someone is covering that movement. If anyone fires at your moving soldier, they should be made to pay for that mistake.

Eighth, body armour. It will slow your troops down eventually. Any added weight will. Still, it does give your troops a morale boost, so give them the best, the lightest, and the least cumbersome you can afford.

Ninth, corners. Always check what's around the next corner without putting your body there. There's wonderful technology for this as well.

Tenth, fire support. Assault guns can be useful, but as was mentioned about tanks, you must make sure they won't get trapped and that they are used not parsimoniously but certainly wisely. These in the urban setting are primarily direct fire weapons. Infantry fighting vehicles with 20-30+mm autocannons can similarly perform this role as can their "light tank" derivatives. Just remember, such vehicles aren't tanks: they are more vulnerable.

Air support needs to be used cautiously as well. At altitude and at speed it will be difficult to discern what ruin houses the enemy and which holds a friend. Similarly, ruins make nice hides for people with man-portable anti-air missiles. All they need is a small amount of open space to ruin your day. And then there's the golden BB, the small arms or machine gun round that makes it to a vital component making your aircraft a gone rather than going concern.

Artillery, using grid references, can be more easily applied if your soldiers know where they are on the map, which is difficult to do when this building remnant looks exactly like that one. Maybe it wasn't so wise to level the city after all, hmm?

Eleventh, morale. I don’t care how uber your soldiers are, but unless they are already psychotic, continually fighting week upon week without any respite will drive them mad. Literally. Especially when they are confronted with dead civilians (women and children in particular). Their discipline will be gone and desertion will become a grave issue.

That’s all I can remember right now.

Added to An Emporium of Helpful Threads (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=366979).

Thanks Isselmere! :)

You may want to encircle a city and lay siege to it, so when you enter it with troops you know there wont be many enemies left capable to defend themselves. Civilians want to survive so they rather surrender and soldiers just wont have the supllies and morale to continue a fight. Useful in these situations are close infantry support vehicles, Not only does it give your men a moraleboost, it also provides them with a powerful weapon to destroy an enemy stronghold. Offcourse you must post a platoon of men to protect its rear but thats just a detail.

or

Turn into a dictatorship and create 5 Heavy regiments with Sturmtigers(modern versions). Do what you did above and destroy every building that might house enemies.

You may want to encircle a city and lay siege to it, so when you enter it with troops you know there wont be many enemies left capable to defend themselves. Civilians want to survive so they rather surrender and soldiers just wont have the supllies and morale to continue a fight. Useful in these situations are close infantry support vehicles, Not only does it give your men a moraleboost, it also provides them with a powerful weapon to destroy an enemy stronghold. Offcourse you must post a platoon of men to protect its rear but thats just a detail.

or

Turn into a dictatorship and create 5 Heavy regiments with Sturmtigers(modern versions). Do what you did above and destroy every building that might house enemies.
My apologies for completely neglecting the simple encirclement-and-starve option, always a good one, which is also perfect for any point of resistance, if one has sufficient forces to guard against any possible breakout. And you are absolutely correct about close infantry support vehicles in both their value and their vulnerability. Also note their manoeuvrability will similarly be hindered by ruin and wreckage.

Unfortunately, destroying every building with SPGs will just provide nice hiding places for enemy troops, though, as the Germans found in Stalingrad, the Allies at Monte Cassino, and the Soviets in Berlin (and that at that near the end of the war).

OOC:VERY good points. It will help stop people who think they can simply roll over a city with tanks.

How about sewer warfare? I mean, the best way to infiltrate a city is via the sewers(if it isn't built to last out a siege that is) and you can pop all kinds of nasty surprises such as collapsing whole roads and city blocks and having troops emerge from behind the enemy's line after the fighting has started.

Sewer warfare is certainly something I ought to have mentioned, and I will amend the post above to reflect that, giving credit where it's due as well!

I'll try to think up some more things later, maybe something about using chemical weaponry and deploying all kinds of methods to ensure capture of a city(or ways to hold it)

One thing you could add to the weapons section, especially regarding CQB situations is the use of flame-throwers and incendary devices, especially thermobaric rocket launches. Flame throwers are ideal for room clearing, as well as flushing out people already in covered positions. They may have a short range, but don't require great accuracy, not to mention the morale effects of watching your brothers-in-arms burning to death.

If I may critique the siege-idea...

Yes, some sieges are very effective. Cutting off supplies can be very effective. However, populations still may not want to surrender (either by their own choice or the strong coercion of the soliders inside the city.) For this I would point to the siege of Leningrad, now St. Petersburg, that lasted for 900 days from 1941 to 1944. The population rather famously did not surrender and the garrison held for over three years with very little in the means of supplies. This isn't to say life was easy for them, I would never want to be in such a situation. But if you want to lay siege to a city, it could take many many years before you even begin to see weaknesses that you could exploit, which then becomes a strain on ones own logistical network.

So in conclusion, the siege-idea is mixed in terms of results. The Russians and Germans hated each other - generally speaking - and so the Russians did not want to surrender to their mortal enemies and let such a prized city fall into enemy hands to be looted and destroyed. If you're laying siege to your nation's mortal enemy, or a country with an almost diametrically opposed culture and way of life, then don't necessarily expect the city to capitulate - because realistically the civilians won't anticipate much... friendliness if they surrender, despite what the propaganda might say.

But that's just my two cents.

One thing you could add to the weapons section, especially regarding CQB situations is the use of flame-throwers and incendary devices, especially thermobaric rocket launches. Flame throwers are ideal for room clearing, as well as flushing out people already in covered positions. They may have a short range, but don't require great accuracy, not to mention the morale effects of watching your brothers-in-arms burning to death.
Not a great idea, unfortunately, for you don't want the building burning down around you. Flamethrowers are fine for open battle and for fighting in villages where the heat of the flames can dissipate. You don't want to cook your own soldiers!

If I may critique the siege-idea...

Yes, some sieges are very effective. Cutting off supplies can be very effective. However, populations still may not want to surrender (either by their own choice or the strong coercion of the soliders inside the city.) For this I would point to the siege of Leningrad, now St. Petersburg, that lasted for 900 days from 1941 to 1944. The population rather famously did not surrender and the garrison held for over three years with very little in the means of supplies. This isn't to say life was easy for them, I would never want to be in such a situation. But if you want to lay siege to a city, it could take many many years before you even begin to see weaknesses that you could exploit, which then becomes a strain on ones own logistical network.

So in conclusion, the siege-idea is mixed in terms of results. The Russians and Germans hated each other - generally speaking - and so the Russians did not want to surrender to their mortal enemies and let such a prized city fall into enemy hands to be looted and destroyed. If you're laying siege to your nation's mortal enemy, or a country with an almost diametrically opposed culture and way of life, then don't necessarily expect the city to capitulate - because realistically the civilians won't anticipate much... friendliness if they surrender, despite what the propaganda might say.

But that's just my two cents.
The Germans didn't entirely starve out the Soviets, however, especially as winter opened a route via Lake Ladoga to Leningrad. Stalingrad, however, provides a better example of a siege. The Red Army encircled the 6th Army, cut them off from supplies both by land and air (winter helping quite a bit, too) before it progressively ground them down, starving and with little ammunition, before capturing them. Admittedly, it wasn't a German city, but the Germans did nearly the same outside of Paris (1870-71) and tried to do it to Bastogne (1944). It can work, but the holding force needs to be strong and constantly applying pressure on the enemy.

Nice.

I think the problems with the traditional siege have been well-documented in this thread. One thing that hasn't been mentioned unless I've missed the reference is the use of special operations attacks to target things like power transformers, telephone lines, bridges and highways leading into the city, etc.

Sieges are incredibly difficult no matter what the time period. Also, you have to be wary in the event the city decides to pull a Denmark during their occupation by the Nazis. The Danes actively (perhaps you could say passive-aggressively?) resisted the Germans at conceivable every step of the way and made life miserable for the German occupiers.

You're probably going to have to literally flatten a city rather than attempt a siege in NS warfare, especially against a n00b who wanks having every power supply or food source known to man at his citizen's disposal.

I think the problems with the traditional siege have been well-documented in this thread. One thing that hasn't been mentioned unless I've missed the reference is the use of special operations attacks to target things like power transformers, telephone lines, bridges and highways leading into the city, etc.
That's simply because I was hoping someone cleverer could do that. :) I'll try my best soon, though. Some of those targets could be more easily destroyed from the air (bridges and power stations), while others would certainly require highly trained on-the-ground operatives.

Sieges are incredibly difficult no matter what the time period. Also, you have to be wary in the event the city decides to pull a Denmark during their occupation by the Nazis. The Danes actively (perhaps you could say passive-aggressively?) resisted the Germans at conceivable every step of the way and made life miserable for the German occupiers.
Again, this is a very important subject that requires it's own thread: "How to be occupied (and still be an active enemy)" or something like that. I will certainly try to expand on my first thread with all the additional information I've been receiving and to place it within a more of a strategic rather than tactical context.

You're probably going to have to literally flatten a city rather than attempt a siege in NS warfare, especially against a n00b who wanks having every power supply or food source known to man at his citizen's disposal.
Too true...

(OOC: Lucky for all the evil players out there, all they have to do is make it go BOOM! For me, I gotta be "good", bah! Anyway good guide.)

Right, how do you fight in Urban Areas, additional tips:

Offensive:

1. Tanks should be relegated to fire support role, they should not act as a spearhead. Use a tank company (5 Tanks) as a support group for one or two Infantry formations, this role can be interchanged with light or medium infantry guns, which are man moveable.

2. Don't flatten it before you go in, you make it very easy to defend and break up your attack.

3. Don't try and 'blitz' your way in, go it slow and clear as you go.

4. Use air and artillery support to the max. Have artillery and aerial observers with your infantry units, if they get into problems give them a hand.

5. If you have siege guns (as in urban bunker busting tanks) use them as a strategic support and should be commited only when entirely nessacary.

6. Rotate your units as much as your number permit, it will help their morale and mean you can count up losses and reform ad-hoc groupings if numbers get too low in units.

7. Keep out of the streets, blow you way through the walls and use the sewers.

8. Use at least 3 to 1 on every troops projected to be in the city, 6-7 to 1 is about the optimum amount.

9. Use your own snipers to cover the enemy possible sniper holes and to kill off enemy officers and NCO's.

Defensive:

1. Use mines and little booby traps to slow the enemy up and make them paranoid. Alternatively given them an easy ride and then set up a massive ambush for them. Try not to make traps predictable.

2. Use snipers and general small squads to eliminate enemy officers and NCO's.

3. Shoot to mortally wound, not to kill.

4. If you have tanks, use them as mobile bunkers.

5. Use Demo charges on your own buildings to block roads and to collapse them on enemy personnel.

6. Don't man every building, make the enemy spread out trying to find you.

7. Use the buildings to cover your mobile artillery and anti-aircraft weapons, wheel them out when you need them.

8. Set up 'Killing zones' so when you do spring a trap make them pay, but after trap is sprung re-locate it to another different area.

TAG

What weapons would you reccomend that I use in FIBUA? My army currently use the XM-8 6.8mm lightweight assault rifle, the MP-5, shotgun, etc. Click on the link in my signatures to see which weapons I use.

Right, how do you fight in Urban Areas, additional tips:

Offensive:

1. Tanks should be relegated to fire support role, they should not act as a spearhead. Use a tank company (5 Tanks) as a support group for one or two Infantry formations, this role can be interchanged with light or medium infantry guns, which are man moveable.

2. Don't flatten it before you go in, you make it very easy to defend and break up your attack.

3. Don't try and 'blitz' your way in, go it slow and clear as you go.

4. Use air and artillery support to the max. Have artillery and aerial observers with your infantry units, if they get into problems give them a hand.

5. If you have siege guns (as in urban bunker busting tanks) use them as a strategic support and should be commited only when entirely nessacary.

6. Rotate your units as much as your number permit, it will help their morale and mean you can count up losses and reform ad-hoc groupings if numbers get too low in units.

7. Keep out of the streets, blow you way through the walls and use the sewers.

8. Use at least 3 to 1 on every troops projected to be in the city, 6-7 to 1 is about the optimum amount.

9. Use your own snipers to cover the enemy possible sniper holes and to kill off enemy officers and NCO's.

Defensive:

1. Use mines and little booby traps to slow the enemy up and make them paranoid. Alternatively given them an easy ride and then set up a massive ambush for them. Try not to make traps predictable.

2. Use snipers and general small squads to eliminate enemy officers and NCO's.

3. Shoot to mortally wound, not to kill.

4. If you have tanks, use them as mobile bunkers.

5. Use Demo charges on your own buildings to block roads and to collapse them on enemy personnel.

6. Don't man every building, make the enemy spread out trying to find you.

7. Use the buildings to cover your mobile artillery and anti-aircraft weapons, wheel them out when you need them.

8. Set up 'Killing zones' so when you do spring a trap make them pay, but after trap is sprung re-locate it to another different area.
Better than what I wrote myself. Very well done, and concise too.

There are a few points I'd like to make, however. Tank platoons/troops have about four tanks in them. Minor error. I think defensive point 3 should read, "If possible..." Shooting at the centre of mass is about what you can expect of most troops, especially when under stress. That would wound rather than kill, anyway.

Other than that, perfect.

TAG

What weapons would you reccomend that I use in FIBUA? My army currently use the XM-8 6.8mm lightweight assault rifle, the MP-5, shotgun, etc. Click on the link in my signatures to see which weapons I use.

Um. For one thing it should me M8 not XM-8. The X means experimental. The XM-8 is overrated anyway.

The MP-5 is good, but the P-90 is better.

The SPAS 12 makes a nice shotgun.

That's just my personal preference, buy from my store!

Um. For one thing it should me M8 not XM-8. The X means experimental. The XM-8 is overrated anyway.

The MP-5 is good, but the P-90 is better.

The SPAS 12 makes a nice shotgun.

That's just my personal preference, buy from my store!
M8 would be OK; it's basically a G36 firing a larger calibre bullet.

The FN P90 5.7mm round has better armour penetration than the 9mm Parabellum round fired by the MP5. Both are very good weapons, but the P90 is slightly smaller and its magazine carries more rounds.

I certainly have to agree on the SPAS 12, but a few Remington models are quite good as well.

As for pistols, the Colt 0.45 ACP is always a winner. If it doesn't kill your foe, it will certainly make him think twice!

Tanks can be effective when they are driven right through the buildings, bypassing the established roads.

The M-4 is still the best real life weapon for urban fighting in my opinon. Its size is still compact enough for close quaters and yet it has the ability to engage targets effectively at the longer ranges frequently found in this type of warfare.

Of course the best NS-weapon would be my own CAR-22

Tanks can be effective when they are driven right through the buildings, bypassing the established roads.
Only if they don't get stuck and present their tender underbellies to awaiting anti-tank defences. Best to save tanks for important jobs, like killing points of resistance and other tanks.

tender underbellies lol

Dead on with the tanks. Tanks in urban warfare are always supporting artillery for direct fire in support of infantry. A tank firing canister shrapnel or HE can be deadly to the enemy, but if they charge in, they're blind and at the mercy of enemy infantry with anything from RPGs to grenades to flamethrowers or maybe even weapons like the Hoch Handelung. WP shells are also an option, as are flamethrower tanks; as mentioned, there's a risk to your own troops, but the risk is even greater to the enemy. They face a stark choice: retreat, attack and be killed, or stay and be burned to death. While infantry FTs are vulnerable to even the slightest bullet damage, FT tanks are not, and often retain their main armament as well, meaning that they can deal with enemy tanks as the need arises. Bear in mind also that a tank-mounted high-pressure FT can reach ranges in excess of 100m, meaning it can really reach out to eliminate enemy strongpoints.

Another weapon those of you considering assaulting heavily-fortified towns might want to look into is the assault gun. Although these have fallen out of favour since WWII, a heavy assault gun (5in or 6in) can deliver a huge low-velocity shell with high accuracy onto a target, and its effects are not dissimilar to calling down an artillery strike on the target position. Assault guns have the further advantage of being relatively cheap and easy to manufacture, and have a lower profile, allowing them to be used as AT defences should the need arise with great effectiveness.

Another weapon those of you considering assaulting heavily-fortified towns might want to look into is the assault gun. Although these have fallen out of favour since WWII, a heavy assault gun (5in or 6in) can deliver a huge low-velocity shell with high accuracy onto a target, and its effects are not dissimilar to calling down an artillery strike on the target position. Assault guns have the further advantage of being relatively cheap and easy to manufacture, and have a lower profile, allowing them to be used as AT defences should the need arise with great effectiveness.

Oh so true. I am suddenly reminded of several accounts of German SPW Mark IIIs (I think that's the designation anyway) killing Shermans with ease, as well as their extreme usefulness as artilery, in accounts of the breakout from Normandy. Essentially Assault Guns are turretless tanks with low-velocity main guns. Thei limited travers is a disadvantage, but they have the bonus of a very low profile, making them ideal for defense from other ground units. Plus, they're an excelent morale boost to your own troops, as well as a moral-reducer for your enemy. (Imagine, your squad mounts a pile of rubble only to see a massive, squat vehicle fire an artilery shell at you, scattering your unit, and then charges through in a localized counterattack.) Yeah, awesome. In fact, I'm going to design an amphibious assault gun and use it to replace the MBTs currently supporting my infantry right now.

Another weapon those of you considering assaulting heavily-fortified towns might want to look into is the assault gun. Although these have fallen out of favour since WWII, a heavy assault gun (5in or 6in) can deliver a huge low-velocity shell with high accuracy onto a target, and its effects are not dissimilar to calling down an artillery strike on the target position. Assault guns have the further advantage of being relatively cheap and easy to manufacture, and have a lower profile, allowing them to be used as AT defences should the need arise with great effectiveness.
Part of the reason that assault guns fell out of favour with the West and later the Soviets was that they weren't as 'sexy' as tanks or as versatile as rotating turret SPGs and SPHs. They are also slightly more vulnerable than tanks because they can fire in only one direction. That written, they are useful, comparatively cheap, and potentially thoroughly nasty to your enemy, as you've already noted.

Part of the reason that assault guns fell out of favour with the West and later the Soviets was that they weren't as 'sexy' as tanks or as versatile as rotating turret SPGs and SPHs. They are also slightly more vulnerable than tanks because they can fire in only one direction. That written, they are useful, comparatively cheap, and potentially thoroughly nasty to your enemy, as you've already noted.

That's right, and don't anyone forget it.

On a simmilar note, what would someone reccomend for a SPW's main gun? (We're talkign size here.) 75mm-105mm or larger?

If we are talking a design for close-support of infantry, especially in urban fighting, the larger the shell the better, but you need to keep the barrel short so as to allow for greater manouevrability. Personally i'd look at 120-145-mm, a nice big shell to scare the pants out of any infantry hiding in buildings. However, it'll also make it a fire magnet, so don't skimp on the armour.

Bah, 152mm or 155mm. Make sure you can defeat the wanking newbs... :) The former was the calibre used on the last assault guns the Soviets built.

Depends on the job you're after. To use WWII examples, the Soviet SU-85 was an 85mm armed weapon designed to knock out tanks; by contrast the SU-152 was a large, 152mm artillery piece with a long barrel designed to deliver a huge, low-velocity shell against structures. Although the two had interchangeable roles, there were certain problems with using them for roles in which they weren't intended. The SU-85's gun was a relatively low-calibre weapon firing a high-velocity shell with virtually flat trajectory, which didn't make it ideal for higher-angled fire to reach inside upper floors of buildings, over small obstacles and so forth. The SU-152's shell was gigantic and very powerful, but its low velocity resulted in a pronounced curved trajectory, making long-range fire more difficult to range accurately. Bigger isn't always better; however, for urban warfare, I'd advise something in the region of 125-152mm.

2) Tanks are not as useful as they appear, especially in cities and towns without wide avenues – can we say bottleneck? How about rocket fodder?They are important, though. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/90-10/90-10apf.htm
Fourth, room clearing. If you aren’t trying to save someone, the best way is to riddle the door with a spray of rounds from an assault rifle – thus keeping whomever might be lurking behind said door’s head down – applying a boot to the opening side of the door, or preferably blowing said door off its hinges with solid shot from a shotgun, and lobbing in a grenade or two (with spoons released once the door is certainly open) into the room. Once the grenadier has done his job, send in a pair of riflemen to shoot the hell out of the room. Anything that moves or might move is fair game.Don't do that if you care about slaughtering civilians...Read this (http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/drkcr.html) if you want realistic room clearing.
Eighth, body armour. At most house-to-house fighting ranges – a few metres or feet – body armour against a full-powered rifle round is pretty useless. It will also be fatigue-inducing and does restrict movement. If your troops insist upon it (and they probably would!) best for them to wear light armour.There is flexible body armor out there that can stop "multiple 7.62x51mm M80 ball steel-jacketed rounds at 2850-2900 fps, at a distance of 15ft (muzzle to body armor)". If you want proof, just Google for that phrase.
Tanks can be effective when they are driven right through the buildings, bypassing the established roads."The movies portray tanks as unstoppable monsters that drive through houses and trees like they weren't even there. That is not true. While a tank may win a pushing contest against a house if the house were to collaps it would fall on the tank, maybe trapping the tank. Furthermore all that rubble might cause the tank to slip a track and then the tank is not going anywhere. If the building does fall on the tank and pin it in place you can bet the crew is going to have a hell of a time getting out without help." - http://www.military-sf.com/tanks.htm
Its size is still compact enough for close quaters and yet it has the ability to engage targets effectively at the longer ranges frequently found in this type of warfare.A 16"-barelled weapon firing 5.56mm ammunition is only useful to about 150 meters because of the reduced muzzle velocity.
The MP-5 is good, but the P-90 is better.The P-90's ammunition has very poor 'stopping power'...It's roughly equivalent to a .22 Magnum.

Some relevant links with lots of information (not quick or nasty, but good):
FM 3-06.11 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-06-11/index.html)
FM 3-06 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-06/index.html)
FM 3-06.1/MCRP 3-35.3A/NTTP 3-01.04/AFTTP(I) 3-2.29 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-06-1/index.html)
FM 90-10 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/90-10/index.html)
Urban Forces (http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/urban.html) <--- This one is fairly quick to read.

Edit: Oh, and an MP5 will shoot through walls...Just about any regular bullet will go through a wall.
Edit2: I also edited in responses to other responses.

A 75mm Tube Artilery Piece is currently used in about 2/3 the batteries in my military. I'm thinking of going with that size gun so I can have at least some measure of ammunition compatability. Perhaps a medium-velocity 75mm shell, useful for knocking out basically all IFVs and most tanks without composite armor. I always look for a multi-role vehicle, so I hope this gives me the best of both worlds.)

They are important, though. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/90-10/90-10apf.htm
Don't do that if you care about slaughtering civilians...Read this (http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/drkcr.html) if you want realistic room clearing.
There is flexible body armor out there that can stop "multiple 7.62x51mm M80 ball steel-jacketed rounds at 2850-2900 fps, at a distance of 15ft (muzzle to body armor)". If you want proof, just Google for that phrase.

Some relevant links with lots of information (not quick or nasty, but good):
FM 3-06.11 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-06-11/index.html)
FM 3-06 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-06/index.html)
FM 3-06.1/MCRP 3-35.3A/NTTP 3-01.04/AFTTP(I) 3-2.29 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-06-1/index.html)
FM 90-10 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/90-10/index.html)
Urban Forces (http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/urban.html) <--- This one is fairly quick to read.

Edit: Oh, and an MP5 will shoot through walls...Just about any regular bullet will go through a wall.
You are right on all points as I senselessly over-emphasised certain aspects. The room-clearing procedure I noted was the simple "assume they're armed" method, and yes, 9mm Parabellum rounds will go through walls like most rounds. In other words, you're right and I was being needlessly lazy.

Depends on the job you're after. To use WWII examples, the Soviet SU-85 was an 85mm armed weapon designed to knock out tanks; by contrast the SU-152 was a large, 152mm artillery piece with a long barrel designed to deliver a huge, low-velocity shell against structures. Although the two had interchangeable roles, there were certain problems with using them for roles in which they weren't intended. The SU-85's gun was a relatively low-calibre weapon firing a high-velocity shell with virtually flat trajectory, which didn't make it ideal for higher-angled fire to reach inside upper floors of buildings, over small obstacles and so forth. The SU-152's shell was gigantic and very powerful, but its low velocity resulted in a pronounced curved trajectory, making long-range fire more difficult to range accurately. Bigger isn't always better; however, for urban warfare, I'd advise something in the region of 125-152mm.
Same as my previous post: I was being lazy.

A 75mm Tube Artilery Piece is currently used in about 2/3 the batteries in my military. I'm thinking of going with that size gun so I can have at least some measure of ammunition compatability. Perhaps a medium-velocity 75mm shell, useful for knocking out basically all IFVs and most tanks without composite armor. I always look for a multi-role vehicle, so I hope this gives me the best of both worlds.)

If you use 75mm, then you might as well not make it a SPG. I use an IFV that uses an adapted 75mm naval gun(with rapid fire capabilities), which has decent armour penetration. For a 155mm L52 SPG...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v255/Raslin/PouchPik6.jpg

$2m a piece.

----------

Anyways, to what I wanted to originally say, seige's can work well. The first step is designating the main parts of the city to hit. This means power generators, weapons cache's, ewer lines, power lines, police stations, and anything else which could serve to especially hinder you. Use aircraft with High explosive guided munitions to hit most of these, though Bunker Busters might be best against the sewers.

The Next step is to use artillery on the weaker targets, and to establish a watch over the city with satellites. Anything that is a dangerous vehicle, or large gathering of people, gets blown up. The same goes for any factories, and supply areas. These are to be destroyed, and then marked as a place for possible insurgent activity.

Next, you bring in mechanized infantry. They are to capture what had not been destroyed, most vital areas. They have little to no tanks, but a decent amount of IFV's. Use both high powered rifles(as by this point, you shouldnt be in houses much), as well as assault rifles and SMG's. Chellian squads use RPO-A's to obliterate any building they are fired at, which intimidates rebels.

Then, if you want to keep it, move in your forces, and do what the guide says. If you just want to take it out of buisness, get out. Then open fire with 155mm artillery, HE bombs, and mortars. Destroy apartment buildings and anything around that size. Use incindiary weapons and Fuel-air bombs to create further havoc. If they dont surrendur, it wont matter much, as they wont be an important city by that point.

Depends on the job you're after. To use WWII examples, the Soviet SU-85 was an 85mm armed weapon designed to knock out tanks; by contrast the SU-152 was a large, 152mm artillery piece with a long barrel designed to deliver a huge, low-velocity shell against structures. Although the two had interchangeable roles, there were certain problems with using them for roles in which they weren't intended. The SU-85's gun was a relatively low-calibre weapon firing a high-velocity shell with virtually flat trajectory, which didn't make it ideal for higher-angled fire to reach inside upper floors of buildings, over small obstacles and so forth. The SU-152's shell was gigantic and very powerful, but its low velocity resulted in a pronounced curved trajectory, making long-range fire more difficult to range accurately. Bigger isn't always better; however, for urban warfare, I'd advise something in the region of 125-152mm.

Bah... the Soviets had turreted heavy tanks with 152mm main guns. Low velocity guns to be sure, but given the rampant upgunning of NS, you could easily get away with a short barreled 203mm mortar mounted on the bow of a tank chassis. Remember the Shturmtiger... a silly vehicle, but it was effective in the right circomstances. If you're going to use a turreted assault gun, you may as well make sure it can demolish a building with a single shell. Otherwise, you should look at some of the modern rapid-fire turreted 120mm mortar carriers. There are double barreled versions... come up with a 5.56mm metalstorm pack that can fit in a 120mm mortar tube, and you've got a VERY effective little urban combat vehicle.

Armoured vehicles in general are very fragile in urban enviroments because it is so easy to hide improvised explosive devices, block off entrances, isolate vehicles, and snipe at the light top and rear armor from sixth story windows with RPGs. This is especially nasty because active defence and ERA are dangerous to the accompanying infantry. It's also very hard to recover a disabled vehicle in a city, so tracks are lovely targets. Plinking tank commanders when they open the hatch or get out to use the bathroom is also fun.

Airmobile infantry are a mixed blessing... on one hand, there are premade fortifications throughout the city for your infantry to occupy and they should be able to hold out for quite some time... especially since tanks don't like cities. on the other hand, there is a LOT of cover for MANPAAD teams.

Chellis, if you use IFVs in urban combat, you will end up with a lot of burnt out vehicles and dead infantry. IFVs don't have the armor to take ATGM and AT gun hits, and that's what the enemy will be using. Also, the infantry should almost ALWAYs be dismounted in a city, infantry in an IFV are doing no one any good, when they should be clearing ATGM teams out of buildings and protecting the armour from being swarmed.

Urban combat is the bloodiest, dirtiest, hardest kind of fighting, right up there with jungle warfare. Ranges are short, supply is intermittant, casulties are high. Short range weapons with high ammo capacity, flamethrowers (regardless of the danger of setting the building on fire, it's the fastest way to clear a bunker of building, short of a thermobaric rocket), grenades, mines, demo-charges, axes, entrenching tools, bayonets... those are the weapons you want in urban combat.

Bah... the Soviets had turreted heavy tanks with 152mm main guns. Low velocity guns to be sure, but given the rampant upgunning of NS, you could easily get away with a short barreled 203mm mortar mounted on the bow of a tank chassis. Remember the Shturmtiger... a silly vehicle, but it was effective in the right circomstances. If you're going to use a turreted assault gun, you may as well make sure it can demolish a building with a single shell. Otherwise, you should look at some of the modern rapid-fire turreted 120mm mortar carriers. There are double barreled versions... come up with a 5.56mm metalstorm pack that can fit in a 120mm mortar tube, and you've got a VERY effective little urban combat vehicle.

True dat, but bear in mind that unless you want some contraption like the KV-2 (which was, I should add, utterly useless) or the Sturmtiger (which, again, was rather useless) which is basically a one-role vehicles, you should probably go for something more adaptable. A short-barrel 203mm would be pretty well useless against anything but a fortification (or as a short-range mortar) whereas a longer-barrelled 152 would still have the range to act as a long-range AT weapon, or a long-range weapon to suppress ATGMs, or whatever you want it to do. 'Course, the SU-122 was pretty effective, and that had a barrel about 12cal long, but that was just like the Sturmtiger - a one-trick pony whose only tenable role was close-range combat.

Regarding more modern mortar carriers, weapons such as the 2S9 Anona are highly effective, but all the same are a little lacking in protection for urban combat. IMO you'd want to keep them behind in areas you'd pretty much cleared and use them for indirect mortar fire. They're simply too big and too lightly protected to be much use up close, especially since the turrets usually can't hold a bigger gun than about a 120-130mm without becoming oversized.

Chellis, if you use IFVs in urban combat, you will end up with a lot of burnt out vehicles and dead infantry. IFVs don't have the armor to take ATGM and AT gun hits, and that's what the enemy will be using. Also, the infantry should almost ALWAYs be dismounted in a city, infantry in an IFV are doing no one any good, when they should be clearing ATGM teams out of buildings and protecting the armour from being swarmed.

For prolonged urban warfare, I agree. However, if your pushing for objectives, like airfields or whatnot, then IFV's are the best protection for your infantry. You obviously stick to the big roads with them, and try not to stop to fight too much.

For prolonged urban warfare, I agree. However, if your pushing for objectives, like airfields or whatnot, then IFV's are the best protection for your infantry. You obviously stick to the big roads with them, and try not to stop to fight too much.

Oh, if you're doing a fast penetration, keep them mounted. But only try that against disorientated and dispursed enemies. Armoured spearhead attacks against well equiped enemies are doomed to failure

Amended

All I can do is be thankful that Robotstan will never have to fight in urban areas.

After all, the RDFs generally will withdraw if faced with civilian casualties. They're very civil. But otherwise, I think the near-universal deployment of RPG-7s in the RDFs might be useful in towns or urban areas.

But what do you think about some big box of armor cruising around? Something that is just slathered in applique so RPGs and mortars, not even mines, can penetrate its insides. It would be hard to destroy one of those, and as long as it has some MGs it could defend itself from sappers.

It'd also be virtually immobile, immensely unreliable, and still hugely vulnerable. Of course heavy armour is an asset, but remember that nothing is invulnerable, and if you choose to challenge stubborn, well-entrenched defences with sheer weight of armour, you're going to lose unless your foe is very beleaguered or outnumbered. Remember Kursk? Even the mighty Tigers and Ferdinands proved vulnerable to Russian infantrymen with satchel-bombs and suicidally courageous T-34/76 crews.

It'd also be virtually immobile, immensely unreliable, and still hugely vulnerable. Of course heavy armour is an asset, but remember that nothing is invulnerable, and if you choose to challenge stubborn, well-entrenched defences with sheer weight of armour, you're going to lose unless your foe is very beleaguered or outnumbered. Remember Kursk? Even the mighty Tigers and Ferdinands proved vulnerable to Russian infantrymen with satchel-bombs and suicidally courageous T-34/76 crews.
And mechanical difficulties...

True dat, but bear in mind that unless you want some contraption like the KV-2 (which was, I should add, utterly useless) or the Sturmtiger (which, again, was rather useless) which is basically a one-role vehicles, you should probably go for something more adaptable. A short-barrel 203mm would be pretty well useless against anything but a fortification (or as a short-range mortar) whereas a longer-barrelled 152 would still have the range to act as a long-range AT weapon, or a long-range weapon to suppress ATGMs, or whatever you want it to do. 'Course, the SU-122 was pretty effective, and that had a barrel about 12cal long, but that was just like the Sturmtiger - a one-trick pony whose only tenable role was close-range combat.

Regarding more modern mortar carriers, weapons such as the 2S9 Anona are highly effective, but all the same are a little lacking in protection for urban combat. IMO you'd want to keep them behind in areas you'd pretty much cleared and use them for indirect mortar fire. They're simply too big and too lightly protected to be much use up close, especially since the turrets usually can't hold a bigger gun than about a 120-130mm without becoming oversized.

Oh, agreed, the KV-2 and Sturmtiger were one trick ponies, and not terribly good even at that trick, but a modern version wouldn't nessisarily need to be. For example, take the turret of an abrams or merkava chassis, and build up the superstructure to hold the 203mm mortar (fixed, bow firing, limited elevation). Tack on a dozer blade to the bow, an infantry compartment on the stern, perhaps a small crane, and a few firing positions for infantry on the roof. Beef up the suspension to take the extra weight. Also modify the exhaust system so it no longer vents all over the crunchies, but makes the tank a bigger target. Now you've got a slow, but rather effective engineering tank.

As for the mortar carrier, the one I was thinking of (forget the name, will find it) was surprsingly light. Very lightly armored, but if you did a redesign of it, you could beef up the armor and make a heavier MOUT vehicle.

True dat, but bear in mind that unless you want some contraption like the KV-2 (which was, I should add, utterly useless) or the Sturmtiger (which, again, was rather useless) which is basically a one-role vehicles, you should probably go for something more adaptable. A short-barrel 203mm would be pretty well useless against anything but a fortification (or as a short-range mortar) whereas a longer-barrelled 152 would still have the range to act as a long-range AT weapon, or a long-range weapon to suppress ATGMs, or whatever you want it to do. 'Course, the SU-122 was pretty effective, and that had a barrel about 12cal long, but that was just like the Sturmtiger - a one-trick pony whose only tenable role was close-range combat.

Regarding more modern mortar carriers, weapons such as the 2S9 Anona are highly effective, but all the same are a little lacking in protection for urban combat. IMO you'd want to keep them behind in areas you'd pretty much cleared and use them for indirect mortar fire. They're simply too big and too lightly protected to be much use up close, especially since the turrets usually can't hold a bigger gun than about a 120-130mm without becoming oversized.

Oh, agreed, the KV-2 and Sturmtiger were one trick ponies, and not terribly good even at that trick, but a modern version wouldn't nessisarily need to be. For example, take the turret of an abrams or merkava chassis, and build up the superstructure to hold the 203mm mortar (fixed, bow firing, limited elevation). Tack on a dozer blade to the bow, an infantry compartment on the stern, perhaps a small crane, and a few firing positions for infantry on the roof. Beef up the suspension to take the extra weight. Also modify the exhaust system so it no longer vents all over the crunchies, but makes the tank a bigger IR target. Now you've got a slow, but rather effective engineering tank.

As for the mortar carrier, the one I was thinking of (forget the name, will find it) was surprsingly light. Very lightly armored, but if you did a redesign of it, you could beef up the armor and make a heavier MOUT vehicle.

and lobbing in a grenade or two (with spoons released once the door is certainly open, concussion or fragmentation, take your pick)

Using frag grenades indoors is a good way to set the building you're in on fire, given the fragments are red-hot...Also, bits of frag grenade aren't that shabby at going through walls.

Using frag grenades indoors is a good way to set the building you're in on fire, given the fragments are red-hot...Also, bits of frag grenade aren't that shabby at going through walls.
Will amend with appropriate proviso.

I suppose this only really works if your FT, but orbital saturation bombing works if you don't really intend to hold the city (I'm a smash-and-grab raider nation). Or you can just land/crash a few ships in the city and use them as fire bases. Guess the moral of the story is to watch out for big, dense, shooty objects falling from the sky.

Other than that, good advice indeed. I'm sure this thread will come in useful next city-fight I'm in.

If you eliminate the city you're hardly fighting in a built-up area, are you?

If you eliminate the city you're hardly fighting in a built-up area, are you?

I'm assuming you'd at least have some twisted wreckage left with half-feral militamen hiding in it. And since I don't use WH40K vessels its not like I'm dropping a moon on you.

But like I said, my people don't try to hold cities very often. Smashem up is more our style (my other, human nation would benefit more from this thread).

Well lads, da key to armour in a city is ARMOUR, USE FREAKING ARMOUR ON
IT! That said I shall now expand; has nobody ever heard of siege modifications for
tanks and IFV’s? Both my Relas MBT, Rhino APC come with extra slots to hold extra
plates of armour on the turret, top of the MBT and the underside. Sure it’ll make it
slower but who needs speed in an urban setting where fighting is going as fast an
infantry man can run? Just standard reinforced steel plates that can be easily replaced if damaged and cost near nothing.

Armoured mortar carriers, good means if used correctly, I’m currently developing a mortar carrier that will be able to mount a 230mm mortar and will take down anything it hits(or should). The key is to have decent armour and who freaking cares if its slow? As I said before, the building isn’t running away. Have two squads of men behind it and cover the buildings beside it so that anyone toting a RPG launcher will pay for their mistake.(somehow I doubt that a RPG7 launcher will penetrate the armour at distances greater then 10 meters.)

Next will be chemical warfare(enter TMG :p) in cities.
While cutting of an enemy’s water supply is all dandy, how about poisoning it or dropping a few dead cows down the pipes?(after you’ve let them rot for a few days of course) Anyone ever tried using WMD’s in cities? No I don’t mean Weapons of Mass Destruction I mean Weapons of Mass Discomfort. Something like pepper spray but far more effective to spread using mortars and grenades.

The virus I developed (if anyone wants it I’ll look up the thread) causes a overwhelming itching sensation to the point where scratching is your only thought, wearing full body clothing will lighten the effects. If you inhale you’ll start throwing up, coughing, sneezing and loosing control of your bowels so whatever is inside is coming out. And another major advantage is that this virus attacks the hands and eyes so hand-eye coordination will be utter rubbish up to the point that you cannot hold a weapon due to your hands shaking and your eyes will tear constantly. Its quick, easy to make, isn’t lethal and you’ll incapacitate annoying civilians that are standing in your line of fire. Safe to handle, stable to fire using mortars, bombs ICBM's and smokegrenades and has a short(5/15 minutes) incubation time with effects ranging from 45 minutes to an hour.

If you eliminate the city you're hardly fighting in a built-up area, are you?

It depends what you mean, if you mean shelling it heavily then no, you only have to look at Stalingrad to see why that doesn't work very well. Even if you level it there will be bits remaining and the rubble is in some ways actually better than buildings in that it can hide traps and mines etc a lot better than buildings and streets can. Besides remember that there's always parts of buildings remaining even after a Nuke strike (see Hiroshima/Nagasaki)... effectively bombing a city to the ground before entering it for combat purposes has been pretty much discredited.

However, bombing it while entering it for combat purposes is one the models adopted by Armies today (if they had to fight a direct total war), basically it's heavy direct/indirect fire support...

If you mean nuking the thing, then probably... since you'd wipe the city out pretty much, but there isn't much strategic and tactical value in that usually.

Well lads, da key to armour in a city is ARMOUR, USE FREAKING ARMOUR ON
IT! That said I shall now expand; has nobody ever heard of siege modifications for
tanks and IFV’s? Both my Relas MBT, Rhino APC come with extra slots to hold extra
plates of armour on the turret, top of the MBT and the underside. Sure it’ll make it
slower but who needs speed in an urban setting where fighting is going as fast an
infantry man can run? Just standard reinforced steel plates that can be easily replaced if damaged and cost near nothing.

Armour doesn't really work in cities, Dump. The only stuff that really works is the heavy siege guns and to a point heavy assault guns. They simply are sitting ducks to AT mines, having tracks blown out and swarmed, molotov cocktailed, RPGed or anything really, you can drop a huge stone and a tank that would probably do enough damage to stop it for a short time.


Next will be chemical warfare(enter TMG :p) in cities.


I already use Chem Warfare in Cities, see the Alan Vietnamesque RP for that (soonish). And have a good idea of how I am going to do it effectively.


While cutting of an enemy’s water supply is all dandy, how about poisoning it or dropping a few dead cows down the pipes?(after you’ve let them rot for a few days of course) Anyone ever tried using WMD’s in cities? No I don’t mean Weapons of Mass Destruction I mean Weapons of Mass Discomfort. Something like pepper spray but far more effective to spread using mortars and grenades.

Very useful but one must remember one's own troops in this equation, this would mean burdening your supply lines to even greater extent and meaning your troops would have be wearing Gas masks or be heavily innocultaed to survive in that combat environment.

Stand off armour works very good(I know this since I've fired a RPG launcher at a tank, at a demonstration of the Dutch Army) The attachments stand off the armour at about 20 cm and have slots to attach the armoured platings, you basicly fortify the skin of the tank.

And as I said, you need infantry support with a tank, just like you need in the field, sweep the buildings with your infantry and advance your armour down the street. AT mines are heavily overestimated, their easy to find using a sattelite sweep and one small artillery bombardment will wipe them all out. And don't forget, AT can be easily cleared by infantry if given propper cover; tanks waiting for a clear pass through the minefield.

I'm a veteran 40k player and use the city-fight rules alot, these also apply to urban warfare in NS.

As for the virus, you can't see it, smell it or feel it untill its too late. And it only lingers for about 5 minutes so after 15 minutes you move in and find most opposition or atleast the civics down and out on the ground.

Stand off armour works very good(I know this since I've fired a RPG launcher at a tank, at a demonstration of the Dutch Army) The attachments stand off the armour at about 20 cm and have slots to attach the armoured platings, you basicly fortify the skin of the tank.

Maybe, but it won't withstand multiple hits, up to date Anti-tank missiles go through Reactive Armour as well as most siege mods. The only thing, I know that might useful in the city environment is the Electric Armour being developed and tested by the British (It can take several hits in the same place by up-to-date projectiles to get through).


And as I said, you need infantry support with a tank, just like you need in the field, sweep the buildings with your infantry and advance your armour down the street.

You do, but tanks are still very vunerable even if supported by infantry, as was proven in Berlin 1945, even heavy Josef Stalin tanks were killed off by small boys at close range with the Panzerfaust.


AT mines are heavily overestimated, their easy to find using a sattelite sweep and one small artillery bombardment will wipe them all out.


They aren't actually AT mines if used in random pattern rather than of the belt system are hard to detect, hard to find and I would challenge you to use a satellite to actually pick up singular AT mines. I can tell you it won't be able to tell the difference between an AT mine and a small manhole cover.

They are hideously effective because tanks carry very weak armour at the belly, they explode up into the ammuition storage areas of the tank, thus causing maximal damage. It is the reason they are so feared, simply because whilst not super powerful they hit the tank in the right place.

And don't forget, AT can be easily cleared by infantry if given propper cover; tanks waiting for a clear pass through the minefield.

This is a city, not a training ground. Minesweepers are notoriously vunerable to snipers and roving machine guns/infantry units. You will lose loads of these troops often without the ability to really retaliate. The enemy may also drop shells on you when you trying to clear a belt, they loose the mines but can cut your tanks and your troops to shreds. It's that kind of logic that characterising Urban Warfare, it is the most brutal of all types of war, alongside Jungle Warfare.

I'm a veteran 40k player and use the city-fight rules alot, these also apply to urban warfare in NS.

40K is not real life, it filters out a lot of the factors in modern warfare esp. the pyschological side, the random side and the general problems of the terrain. 40K for all it's claims offers a very simplistic approach to warfare, especially with so complex a scenario as Urban Combat, effectively it's urban warfare made easy with nice rules etc. Remember there are no rules, esp. in Urban combat.

Maybe, but it won't withstand multiple hits, up to date Anti-tank missiles go through Reactive Armour as well as most siege mods. The only thing, I know that might useful in the city environment is the Electric Armour being developed and tested by the British (It can take several hits in the same place by up-to-date projectiles to get through).

I stand by my previous statement, stand-off armour will stop most kinds of anti-tank missiles dead in their tracks.


You do, but tanks are still very vunerable even if supported by infantry, as was proven in Berlin 1945, even heavy Josef Stalin tanks were killed off by small boys at close range with the Panzerfaust.

That’s what you use infantry for; you first sweep the area and directly advance your tanks behind.


They aren't actually AT mines if used in random pattern rather than of the belt system are hard to detect, hard to find and I would challenge you to use a satellite to actually pick up singular AT mines. I can tell you it won't be able to tell the difference between an AT mine and a small manhole cover.

True, but it won’t be that effective either. And trust me, digging into tarmac SUCKS and it’ll be quite obvious. Hell you can even use satellites(as I said) to pick up depth variations in the road surface so a 30foot deep manhole would stick out more then a 5 foot deep AT mine.

They are hideously effective because tanks carry very weak armour at the belly, they explode up into the ammuition storage areas of the tank, thus causing maximal damage. It is the reason they are so feared, simply because whilst not super powerful they hit the tank in the right place.

As I said, my tanks carry siege stand-off armour on their bellies, so that AT mine is not going to cause a lot of damage.

This is a city, not a training ground. Minesweepers are notoriously vunerable to snipers and roving machine guns/infantry units. You will lose loads of these troops often without the ability to really retaliate. The enemy may also drop shells on you when you trying to clear a belt, they loose the mines but can cut your tanks and your troops to shreds. It's that kind of logic that characterising Urban Warfare, it is the most brutal of all types of war, alongside Jungle Warfare.

Trust me, a minesweeper unit will have the entire street cleared in less then a minute and snipers and machineguns are not going to stop it. Sure I might loose the remote controlled vehicle but if I get my 20 MBT’s down that road it saves me a lot of cash.

40K is not real life, it filters out a lot of the factors in modern warfare esp. the pyschological side, the random side and the general problems of the terrain. 40K for all it's claims offers a very simplistic approach to warfare, especially with so complex a scenario as Urban Combat, effectively it's urban warfare made easy with nice rules etc. Remember there are no rules, esp. in Urban combat.

There ARE rules in urban combat, try one; like gravity, what goes up MUST come down. ;)

No seriously, 40k is a decent game that allows you to practise strategy, if used like me and my friends do(we include logistics, air support and a different kind of moral system) you can play a pretty decent game of war.

It depends what you mean...<snip>

Look at the post right above mine. 'Sitting in orbit and levelling it' is not city combat by any reasonable definition of the term.

Look at the post right above mine. 'Sitting in orbit and levelling it' is not city combat by any reasonable definition of the term.

Just the same as shelling a fleet from land isn't a naval battle.

Look at the post right above mine. 'Sitting in orbit and levelling it' is not city combat by any reasonable definition of the term.

Fair enough.

Amended with additional provisos.

OOC:Okay...I would just like to point out that the RPG-7V is beginning to lose its effectiveness. Against modern Main Battle Tanks IRL they are completely worthless. And a Bradley IFV has to be hit in certain points if you want to blow it up with one of those. However more modern rocket launchers(SMAW, AT-4, RPG-29, later versions of the LAW) are VERY effective against tanks... especially if your standing on a 2 story building and the tank is down on the street ;) . A good idea is to have a machine gunner(in a different building) to open up on the tank(or nearby infantry). This will distract the tank, possibly kill its infantry escorts, and force the tank crew to 'button up'(IE:close and lock the hatch). 'Buttoning up' means the tank crews view becomes very limited... This is your cue to stand up and let loose with a rocket... straight to the top(the weakest section of a tank).

Also with the profileration of Anti-Tank Missiles(Javelins, TOWs, Kornets, etc) makes it even EASIER to not just hit, but take out a tank. Missiles have better penetration, accuracy, and range then rockets. If the enemy has pounded the city to rubble simply do this: hide in the rubbel with a machine gun or two to keep infantry at bay. When a tank appears take aim and let loose with a missile. Given how good missiles are at taking out tanks... you probably wouldnt need another shot.

Now for a question... how effective would a self-proppelled anti aircraft vehichle(such as say the ZSU-23) would be in urban combat? These kind of veichles are equipped with either dual or qaud rapid firing FLAK guns. These are highly effective anti-infantry weapons(as proven in the Russian invasion of Afgahnistan(the ZSU's were found to be VERY effective Anti-Mujahadeen weapon)). Would a direct shot inside a room most likely take any infantry in there out?

ooc: well, on NS, most tanks have CIWS chainguns for destroying missiles.

A flakcannon is essentially a giant shotgun. If you were to use a quad-mount of fast-firing flakkers on a building, you would probably take out the building completely. That shrapnel is moving pretty fast, and there's alot of it. You'll certainly kill everyone within a room, but it'll probably knock out structural reports and bring the building down.

Of course, MAA vehicles suffer from the same problems as tanks and other vehicles. Probably more so, since they don't typically have anti-infantry defenses.

ooc: well, on NS, most tanks have CIWS chainguns for destroying missiles.

True, but like CIWS on ships they have limited reliability in taking out missiles in time. When you factor in the relatively short distances that would be involved here you wouldnt be garaunteed of protection.

ooc: well, on NS, most tanks have CIWS chainguns for destroying missiles.
Question: if a Phalanx CIWS has a mass similar to many 3in. (76mm) gun mounts, and because the US and other armies require dedicated mobile AAA vehicles to fire 20mm gatling guns, and considering such a system would necessitate giving the tank a larger profile than it already has (generally about 3m tall in RL), how massive are these NS tanks, and, more importantly, if they are so massive, how can they effectively operate within the close confines of a ruined city? Hummers cause problems on many urban motorways within North American cities, and that's without debris on the roads. From what I remember about London, Edinburgh, and Paris, the roads tend to be smaller and driving a tank down them (without driving on the pavement, which, of course, one would if there was any and one had to in a wartime situation) will only cause a very dangerous bottleneck: hit the front and rear vehicles and your lovely convoy becomes a shooting gallery.

Question: if a Phalanx CIWS has a mass similar to many 3in. (76mm) gun mounts, and because the US and other armies require dedicated mobile AAA vehicles to fire 20mm gatling guns, and considering such a system would necessitate giving the tank a larger profile than it already has (generally about 3m tall in RL), how massive are these NS tanks, and, more importantly, if they are so massive, how can they effectively operate within the close confines of a ruined city? Hummers cause problems on many urban motorways within North American cities, and that's without debris on the roads. From what I remember about London, Edinburgh, and Paris, the roads tend to be smaller and driving a tank down them (without driving on the pavement, which, of course, one would if there was any and one had to in a wartime situation) will only cause a very dangerous bottleneck: hit the front and rear vehicles and your lovely convoy becomes a shooting gallery.

Active defence systems tend to be small single shot grenade launchers. The weight of fire required tio bring down an anti-shipping missile isn;t required because ATGMs are so much smaller, they can be blinded with a proxi-kill and b) tank armour tends to be much heavier than warship armour, so the tank isn't inconveniences if a dead misssile bounces off the hull, while it would make an unsighty hole in a warship.

ooc: a CIWS chaingun on a tank is usually of small arm caliber.

OOC:Then why is it, most of the time, you see Javelin ATGMs and TOW Missiles blow up tanks? Wouldnt the armor-stop-the-missile ratio to missile-kills-the-armor be higher?

I stand by my previous statement, stand-off armour will stop most kinds of anti-tank missiles dead in their tracks.

That’s what you use infantry for; you first sweep the area and directly advance your tanks behind.

True, but it won’t be that effective either. And trust me, digging into tarmac SUCKS and it’ll be quite obvious. Hell you can even use satellites(as I said) to pick up depth variations in the road surface so a 30foot deep manhole would stick out more then a 5 foot deep AT mine.

As I said, my tanks carry siege stand-off armour on their bellies, so that AT mine is not going to cause a lot of damage.

Trust me, a minesweeper unit will have the entire street cleared in less then a minute and snipers and machineguns are not going to stop it. Sure I might loose the remote controlled vehicle but if I get my 20 MBT’s down that road it saves me a lot of cash.

There ARE rules in urban combat, try one; like gravity, what goes up MUST come down. ;)

No seriously, 40k is a decent game that allows you to practise strategy, if used like me and my friends do(we include logistics, air support and a different kind of moral system) you can play a pretty decent game of war.

Considering that most tanks carry between 5 and 10 times the effective thickness of armour on their bows than on their sterns and tops, and even less on the bottom, it's going to take a LOT of armour. Especially since about 1/2 the effective thickness of bow armour is due to sloping, and you can't slope the sides, top, rear, or bottom. And how are you going to put add on armour packages onto the treads? And did you consider how the tons of extra mass is going to affect your suspension?

Stand off armour packages like Slatted armour are only effective against a single shot, then that point is vulnerable again. It is also extremely vulnerable to tandem warhead missiles.

Minesweepers... your robots get sniped with AMRs. Done. Areas need to be SECURED before the minesweepers go in. And while FAE barrages will take out some, the place is filled with rubble. I defy your satalites to find an antitank mine in the ruins of a building that have spilled into the street.

40k is a decent game, but the armour rules are broken.

Red Tide2: No. It's simply a 20mm shell. Now, I'm not sure it's actually POSSIBLE to fire a single shot from the, their rates of fire are absolutely increadible. You could surely clear a room with a very short burst.

OOC:Then why is it, most of the time, you see Javelin ATGMs and TOW Missiles blow up tanks? Wouldnt the armor-stop-the-missile ratio to missile-kills-the-armor be higher?

because they fire from the sides or rear, or use top attack missiles? Tank armour is only really effective on the bow. ERA can stop most missiles too, but it's bulky, heavy, and makes life miserable for the crunchies who wait for the tank to explod every time someone opens up with a rifle.

Especially since about 1/2 the effective thickness of bow armour is due to sloping, and you can't slope the sides, top, rear, or bottom.

I suppose if you built an assault gun that was shaped like a giant pyramid, with the treads concealed, you could achieve full-sloping armor. Look werid, but it would be slopped.

also be ungodly big, have a massive profile, and little useable room.

also be ungodly big, have a massive profile, and little useable room.

Maybe as a remote-control vehicle then. Or some giant city-smasher vehicle, but thats getting into FT again.

Active defence systems tend to be small single shot grenade launchers. The weight of fire required tio bring down an anti-shipping missile isn;t required because ATGMs are so much smaller, they can be blinded with a proxi-kill and b) tank armour tends to be much heavier than warship armour, so the tank isn't inconveniences if a dead misssile bounces off the hull, while it would make an unsighty hole in a warship.
The 70mm grenade dispensers RL tanks carry may dissuade or decoy missiles, but would have little capacity to deflect or destroy missiles owing to their very short range and limited arc.
ooc: a CIWS chaingun on a tank is usually of small arm caliber.
My error. Still, extra height would be required to make a 7.62mm+ gun effective against incoming missiles (radar, etc., which would be easy to knock out in an urban setting), and at the short ranges most anti-tank missiles would be used in an urban setting, the difference between time-on-target and the reaction time of the system would be very small or negative. It might work, but it's far too chancy.

The 70mm grenade dispensers RL tanks carry may dissuade or decoy missiles, but would have little capacity to deflect or destroy missiles owing to their very short range and limited arc.

My error. Still, extra height would be required to make a 7.62mm+ gun effective against incoming missiles (radar, etc., which would be easy to knock out in an urban setting), and at the short ranges most anti-tank missiles would be used in an urban setting, the difference between time-on-target and the reaction time of the system would be very small or negative. It might work, but it's far too chancy.

As far as I know, no modern tanks use miniguns for engaging missiles. Either they use hard-kill grenade/rocket launchers, fragmentation charges mounted on the hull, or pellet launchers.

http://www.defense-update.com/products/a/arena-e.htm
http://www.defense-update.com/products/d/drozd-2.htm
http://www.defense-update.com/products/f/fclas.htm
http://www.defense-update.com/products/a/awiss.htm
http://www.defense-update.com/products/c/card.htm

As far as I know, no modern tanks use miniguns for engaging missiles. Either they use hard-kill grenade/rocket launchers, fragmentation charges mounted on the hull, or pellet launchers.

http://www.defense-update.com/products/a/arena-e.htm
http://www.defense-update.com/products/d/drozd-2.htm
http://www.defense-update.com/products/f/fclas.htm
http://www.defense-update.com/products/a/awiss.htm
http://www.defense-update.com/products/c/card.htm
Well, it's good to see this thread is useful for something: highlighting my absolute ignorance. :)

As armour gets better and upgraded, so do AT weapons. Overload your tank with armour, and you are still susceptible to top-attack weapons, and heavy AT weapons from the back(Example: Eryx). The gain you get from tanks in cities are too small compared to the losses you are likely to gain from well entrenched enemies.

IFV's with decent armour are a much better idea. Smaller calibers are more useful in urban settings, and anything which cant kill an MBT, will have a hard time destroying an IFV either. ERA on the top, and composite armour on the body, and its a much better Urban weapon than a Tank, especially since its probably more mobile.

I think Iron Blood had a tank with a minigun CIWS system. The GT-6, was it? A beast, but I don't think I would be taking that thing into combat. Personally, I think a mortar-based hardkill system is the best idea. They wouldn't require all that extra turret space and ammunition.

Why not simply bypass built-up areas? That's what I would do. But that's partially the Robotstani mindset. Cities=stay away from them. After all, the Robotstani terrain, a cold temperate/arctic archipelago with few islands much larger than Timor, rules out the use of many tanks or armored vehicles, and makes urban areas somewhat hard to get at.

As armour gets better and upgraded, so do AT weapons. Overload your tank with armour, and you are still susceptible to top-attack weapons, and heavy AT weapons from the back(Example: Eryx). The gain you get from tanks in cities are too small compared to the losses you are likely to gain from well entrenched enemies.

IFV's with decent armour are a much better idea. Smaller calibers are more useful in urban settings, and anything which cant kill an MBT, will have a hard time destroying an IFV either. ERA on the top, and composite armour on the body, and its a much better Urban weapon than a Tank, especially since its probably more mobile.

A light armour proponant? Well... define decent. There are no RL IFV's I'd want to take into a city. There are all kinds of things that will kill Bradleys and BMPs and Strykers but not tanks. Any high velocity gun over 40mm, for example. Antiaircraft weapons. Smaller man portable rockets like LAWs. Recoiless rifles (a possible use for the Ocelot TD the americans invented... hmm)

If, however, you were to design an all new IFV, one with thick armour, several machinegun and light cannon positions, a dozer blade, and perhaps a small crane, then you'd have a decent urban combat vehicle.

Isselmere, no worries. I just have a trick memory for useless info.

LRR, you have a point about bypassing strongpoints, but they can sally out of them and make your life miserable. Better to invest them closely. And when I said no modern vehicle mounted a ADS minigun, I meant no RL vehicle, not no NS vehicle =)

A light armour proponant? Well... define decent. There are no RL IFV's I'd want to take into a city. There are all kinds of things that will kill Bradleys and BMPs and Strykers but not tanks. Any high velocity gun over 40mm, for example. Antiaircraft weapons. Smaller man portable rockets like LAWs.

If, however, you were to design an all new IFV, one with thick armour, several machinegun and light cannon positions, a dozer blade, and perhaps a small crane, then you'd have a decent urban combat vehicle.

LAWs and RPG's pretty much wont get through bradleys. I've never seen a 40mm high velocity weapon used, especially not by infantry. However, I personally use an IFV with a 75mm cannon and composite armour, which works fairly well in close quarters. Mines and AMR's are problems, of course, but even infantry are susceptible to mines and snipers. IFV's are to be used in moderation, not as a mainstay. All you can do is use Special forces to try and take out the most threatening things, snipers and mines, first.

Eh, I've always been behind the times. After all, the Robotstani military uses OT-62s and PT-76s as its main armored vehicle types. Perhaps an applique armor package could make those types better than useless in urban warfare.

As for assault guns, the Robotstani military definately operates plenty of those, or rather fast landing craft with heavy mortars and/or MRLs. A heavily armored assault gun or heavy mortar could be extremely useful in simply demolishing points of resistance with a heavy HE shell.

I personally use a ton of MRLs. Small towed ones, big ones, you name it Robotstan has it. While they are more intended for area denial missions against DT's tank formations and/or amphibious task groups operating in the Robotic Archipelago, they could be handy in a city.

Chellis, depends on the LAW and RPG version. An RPG-7V might not punch through the front of an M2 or M3, but an RPG-29 would without any problems. Not only that, but if your enemy attacks from the sides, rear or top, your IFV's still buggered - unless you have an IFV that looks and performs like the A7V.

Incidentally, one other problem with taking armour into a city is that even if it's not destroyed, it's frighteningly easy to disable it. Even a light AAA weapon like the infamous Shilka can smash a tank's tracks to pieces with a well-timed burst, as well as knocking out the gunsights, triggering off ERA, and penetrating stand-off armour plates (which incidentally are a liability in most situations; German Pzkpfw. IV units were constantly exasperated by the manner in which their vehicles' schurtzen would come off at a moment's notice, as were Soviet tank crews with their fabric track-guards). Heck, it's not at all impossible to render the main gun useless if you have a good gunner, or even a well-aimed RPG.

Chellis, I wasn't nessisarily refering to a crew served weapon... but scout vehicles and other IFVs would rip it apart. A tank would just take the hit, perhaps suffer a mobility or mission kill, but would still blow away the vehicle that hit it first. But still, crew served larger caliber weapons, 105mm recoilless rifles, for instance, would blow away your IFV, but wouldn't scratch the bow armour of a tank.

I personally wouldn't use Special Forces in a city, attrition is too high. Advance your assault guns and infantry under smoke, take your lumps, and seize the objective.

DPUO is right, they are FRIGHTENINGLY easy to disable. I've always wanted to see someone throw paint at a tank's periscope =) rediculous of course, but could be very very funny =)

Verdant, using IFV's as a reason not to use IFV's? :P

But yes, obviously IFV's are more susceptible to enemy fire. However, as slow and bulky as Tanks are, they are of limited use. Do you trade usefullness for survivability? I guess it depends on how willing you are to lose men, and how fast you want to take the city.

(And yes, RPG-29's/RPG-7VL's/Eryx/etc would punch through IFV's...but most of those have a chance against MBT's too...)

Verdant, using IFV's as a reason not to use IFV's? :P

But yes, obviously IFV's are more susceptible to enemy fire. However, as slow and bulky as Tanks are, they are of limited use. Do you trade usefullness for survivability? I guess it depends on how willing you are to lose men, and how fast you want to take the city.

(And yes, RPG-29's/RPG-7VL's/Eryx/etc would punch through IFV's...but most of those have a chance against MBT's too...)
So the logic's a little shakey =) What I meant is, IFV's aren't proof against their own weapons, while tanks ARE proof against IFV weapons. To tell the truth, I'm generally against the whole IFV concept, but that's for a different thread.

And tanks are slow? Since when? They're as fast as IFVs, and speed isn;t helpful in an urban enviroment anyway. Not usefiul? They have bloody great cannon that can knock down buildings, armour that has a better chance of stopping incoming fire than anything else, and machineguns good for dealing with infantry. Some, like the Merkavas, even have indirect fire capabilities and shelter for accompanying infantry. Tanks are VERY useful. They just need to be closely protected by infantry.

OOC:Okay...I would just like to point out that the RPG-7V is beginning to lose its effectiveness. Against modern Main Battle Tanks IRL they are completely worthless. And a Bradley IFV has to be hit in certain points if you want to blow it up with one of those.750mm penetration > 150mm HEAT glacis protection for Bradley/HEAT protection for M1A2 SEP in certain parts of the glacis/roof or bottom of any tank
Missiles have better penetration, accuracy, and range then rockets.How does building it with a guidance mechanism makes a rocket better in those ways?
If the enemy has pounded the city to rubble simply do this: hide in the rubbel with a machine gun or two to keep infantry at bay. When a tank appears take aim and let loose with a missile. Given how good missiles are at taking out tanks... you probably wouldnt need another shot.If you're close, just use a dumb rocket to save money.
ooc: well, on NS, most tanks have CIWS chainguns for destroying missiles.O.o Wouldn't the radar be an easy target, not to mention heavy?
Stand off armour packages like Slatted armour are only effective against a single shot, then that point is vulnerable again. It is also extremely vulnerable to tandem warhead missiles.Slatted armor can prevent RPGs from even detonating...Why would it only work once?

How does building it with a guidance mechanism makes a rocket better in those ways?
Rockets at longer ranges can miss while missiles can be, potentially at least, reguided onto target. That noted, guidance can be a hindrance as new countermeasures use those systems to decoy missiles.
Slatted armor can prevent RPGs from even detonating...Why would it only work once?
While the projectile may not detonate, it will still cause damage to the armour, which will be less effective the second time. It may require more than one hit to be breached, but if one's attackers are using the sort of ambush experienced by some tankers in Iraq, it can be done. Or simply bypassed with a top attack.

I think Iron Blood had a tank with a minigun CIWS system. The GT-6, was it? A beast, but I don't think I would be taking that thing into combat. Personally, I think a mortar-based hardkill system is the best idea. They wouldn't require all that extra turret space and ammunition.

Why not simply bypass built-up areas? That's what I would do. But that's partially the Robotstani mindset. Cities=stay away from them. After all, the Robotstani terrain, a cold temperate/arctic archipelago with few islands much larger than Timor, rules out the use of many tanks or armored vehicles, and makes urban areas somewhat hard to get at.


A lot of NS tanks, including mine, have a CIWS type minigun on the tank.

I think there is some confusion between regular gatling guns and scaled down, naval style CIWS auto-tracking radar guided gatling guns...........

I think there is some confusion between regular gatling guns and scaled down, naval style CIWS auto-tracking radar guided gatling guns...........
You would still require a radar mount, gatling style weapons are heavy even before considering their ammunition and other countermeasures, lighter and less cumbersome as well as less fragile (the effect using the main gun would have on the system's radar would be disastrous), already exist.

Let me clarify. A number of vehicles I have seen including some of my own feature gatling guns as a coaxial or pintile mounted weapon. They are not used for missile defense and don't have any radar guidance.
The number of vehicles I have seen with an actual radar guided anti-missile gatling gun on NS can be counted on one hand. This does not include the ones which use some type of metal storm or FCLAS system.

Hmm, personally I think you guys are underestimating the toughness of tanks in an urban battle. I read an article where a general stated that an M1A2 SEP took 18 RPG hits and was merely disabled, its crew managed to get out in reasonably good health once the battle was over.

Besides, armoured vehicles are fire magnets, which IMHO is a good thing. If the enemy's too busy firing at your tanks, he isn't going to be paying attention all that much to your infantry.

Hmm, personally I think you guys are underestimating the toughness of tanks in an urban battle. I read an article where a general stated that an M1A2 SEP took 18 RPG hits and was merely disabled, its crew managed to get out in reasonably good health once the battle was over.

Besides, armoured vehicles are fire magnets, which IMHO is a good thing. If the enemy's too busy firing at your tanks, he isn't going to be paying attention all that much to your infantry.
There's also the question of who's using the weapons against the armoured vehicles. Trained personnel might aim for the treads, the sights and sensors, or similar fragile devices to knock them out. It's also a question of where that tank is fighting: is it in a crowded urban setting or a comparatively suburban setting?

With regard to using miniguns as coaxial guns, what you have done is expand the weakened area on the tank's glacis which, compared with the rest of the turret, is weak. This is because the glacis tends to be made out of steel alloys like the gun rather than the various components of composite armour. (That said, many tanks now have added blocks of additional armour to that area, such as the Leopard 2A6.) A 7.62mm or 12.7mm machine gun serves as a coaxial gun quite well in its main function: to provide further ranging information for the gun. Coaxial guns do have a key anti-personnel function and most tanks have a lot of ammunition for them to do it, but the high rate of fire renders the usefulness of such systems minimal because you would expend the ready ammunition magazines too quickly.

It happened during the first and second "Thunder Runs" of GWII, right in the middle of downtown Baghdad. I believe the culprits were Iraqi Army regulars.

Unfortunately, destroying every building with SPGs will just provide nice hiding places for enemy troops, though, as the Germans found in Stalingrad, the Allies at Monte Cassino, and the Soviets in Berlin (and that at that near the end of the war).

"Stalingrad taught the German army many lessons, not least of which was that the Germans were ill-equiped for the art of close-quarter street fighting. In typical fashion they decided to meet any future urban warfare requirments by a form of overkill by using a super-heavy weapon that would do away with the need of house to house fighting by simply blowing away any defended houses or structures."

The Sturmtiger fires a 345kg(716 lbs) 'depth charge' trough a rocket projector, about 310kg of that was explosive

"the effect upon even the stoutest structure can be well imagined."
"If the Sturmtigers had been used as intended for street fighting, they would have been formidable weapons"

Why would it be easier to defend a pile of bricks than a (damaged) structure?

"Stalingrad taught the German army many lessons, not least of which was that the Germans were ill-equiped for the art of close-quarter street fighting. In typical fashion they decided to meet any future urban warfare requirments by a form of overkill by using a super-heavy weapon that would do away with the need of house to house fighting by simply blowing away any defended houses or structures."

The Sturmtiger fires a 345kg(716 lbs) 'depth charge' trough a rocket projector, about 310kg of that was explosive

"the effect upon even the stoutest structure can be well imagined."
"If the Sturmtigers had been used as intended for street fighting, they would have been formidable weapons"

Why would it be easier to defend a pile of bricks than a (damaged) structure?
Basements are easier to conceal, and a Sturmtiger is still subject to all of the weaknesses of a tank (treads, weak rear and underside armour) as well as the further weakness of being unable to bring its main weapon to bear against enemies operating from any direction other than its main firing arc. Shooting up every building expends a lot of ammunition that needs to be resupplied, meaning a heavy dependence on logistics that cannot always be relied upon in a wartime situation.

It's also called overkill for a reason: if you raze every city to the ground, you will lose much of the economic value of an area, such as the centres of production, markets, etc. Even if you say, "I'm shipping everything back home," you've just gone and destroyed the main concentration point and likely much of the populace who was equipped to do that function. Pillaging is only so effective an occupation policy.

Hmm, personally I think you guys are underestimating the toughness of tanks in an urban battle. I read an article where a general stated that an M1A2 SEP took 18 RPG hits and was merely disabled, its crew managed to get out in reasonably good health once the battle was over.

Besides, armoured vehicles are fire magnets, which IMHO is a good thing. If the enemy's too busy firing at your tanks, he isn't going to be paying attention all that much to your infantry.

It also depends on the AT weapon. There are differences between RPG-7s and later models, and even more between RPGs gernerally and top attack ATGMs.

It also depends on the AT weapon. There are differences between RPG-7s and later models, and even more between RPGs gernerally and top attack ATGMs.

Depends on the tank whether or not the version of RPG makes a difference. To an SEP, there is no differene, but then again it's the most heavily armoured tank in the world.

Depends on the tank whether or not the version of RPG makes a difference. To an SEP, there is no differene, but then again it's the most heavily armoured tank in the world.

I wouild still argue that a hit on the rear or top using a top end RPG would score at least a mobility or mission kill.

A CIWS style gun will work if mounted on a fast moving robotic arm that's wired into the tank's RADAR/LADAR systems.

A CIWS style gun will work if mounted on a fast moving robotic arm that's wired into the tank's RADAR/LADAR systems.
Needlessly complex thus likely to fail.

Needlessly complex thus likely to fail.

CIWS guns are MASSIVE things... use frag grenade launchers instead.

I wouild still argue that a hit on the rear or top using a top end RPG would score at least a mobility or mission kill.

Maybe, but those SEPs are tough little bastages and they're going to do some more upgrades to make it even harder to even disable, much less kill.

Maybe, but those SEPs are tough little bastages and they're going to do some more upgrades to make it even harder to even disable, much less kill.
Oh, no argument there. But it's a mistake to assume something is invulnerable. Remember too, that all arms manufactures put the best spin on their stuff. Chechyn rebles scored kills against T-72 frontal armour equiped with ERA using obsolete RPGs. Looking at the numbers... it's impossible. but it happens.

Oh, I never said the Abrams was invulnerable, there's no doubt it's been disabled before, but it's just incredibly hard. Btw, I found a pic of the new urban upgrade package.

http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/uploads/large/OCPA-2005-03-09-165522.jpg

CIWS guns are MASSIVE things... use frag grenade launchers instead.
Precisely.

Oh, I never said the Abrams was invulnerable, there's no doubt it's been disabled before, but it's just incredibly hard. Btw, I found a pic of the new urban upgrade package.

http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/uploads/large/OCPA-2005-03-09-165522.jpg

Nice... the infantry telephone is near ERA blocks. Sigh.

But seriously, one wonders why they didn't do this earlier... these are OBVIOUS mods...

Nice... the infantry telephone is near ERA blocks. Sigh.

But seriously, one wonders why they didn't do this earlier... these are OBVIOUS mods...

No, it's at the back of the tank and to the left. And really, there's no avoiding getting near ERA blocks on a tank that has them, so it might was well be in the safest place possible.

Basements are easier to conceal, and a Sturmtiger is still subject to all of the weaknesses of a tank (treads, weak rear and underside armour) as well as the further weakness of being unable to bring its main weapon to bear against enemies operating from any direction other than its main firing arc.

Further, when the breech is open infantry in front of it can fire at the crew down the barrel. Indeed, a loaded shell takes up most of the inside of that L5.4 gun, so even with the gun loaded a decent hit to the shell in the barrel would do some nasty shit.

But seriously, one wonders why they didn't do this earlier... these are OBVIOUS mods...

Because no military will ever learn anything unless forced to, and often unless forced to repeatedly. Just look at the Sherman.

That's 1/10 of the reason. 2/5 of the reason is that ultimately the military is dominated by the purse and unless or until there is a percieved necessity then any expenditures are viewed as a waste of available resources, which are inherently limited in the first place. The remaining 1/2 of the reason, and the most important of them IMO, is that any military organization is reluctant to make changes to working systems that might cause the unnecessary deaths of soldiers.

Furthermore VP, I rather suspect you make that observation from hindsight, which as we all know has a pretty sharp eye.

There's a joke from an old British TV series, "Yes, Prime Minister," that goes into why armed forces don't make obvious modifications to equipment allied to what Scandinavian States has written. Briefly, it's just too damn expensive to test things intensively and extensively, especially expensive things like missiles, aircraft, and tanks. The reason why so much worked in WW2 is because they were able to perform mountains of practical (i.e. combat) and theoretical testing since both the money and the will to do so was there. Everyone assumed that the Abrams was perfectly safe in such situations, especially as anyone in the know was forced to keep silent or felt it could be corrected in the next tank design, if ever.

It isn't as if the Abrams hasn't performed adequately in urban combat scenarios, out of the thousand plus tanks that have served in Iraq less than twenty have been non-repairable. That's a loss rate of about 1%, which is almost as good as it gets in any prolonged military situation.

No, it's at the back of the tank and to the left. And really, there's no avoiding getting near ERA blocks on a tank that has them, so it might was well be in the safest place possible.

It's at the back of the tank right above the tread with a ERA block not one foot away on the side of the tank. Those things fragment sideways too... not to mention I wouldn'y be too fond of having the telephone in a position where the tankers couldn't see me.

And actually, no, I'm not looking with hindsight... or if I am, I'm looking with hindsight at WWII where they suffered all the same problems and came up with the same solutions. Aplique armour, increased shelter for machinegunners, remote controlled machineguns... these are the same lessons.

As for the Sherman, don't get me started on that peice of crap. It wasn't designed to fight, it was designed to 'breakthrough', a stratigic theory that has been largely discredited, just like widescale stratigic bombing. Which is why it had tissue armour and an inadiquate gun.

And SS, yes, it has performed well, against a disorganized enemy with extremely limited resources. If fighting a well equipped enemy,things would be going differently.

Basements are easier to conceal, and a Sturmtiger is still subject to all of the weaknesses of a tank (treads, weak rear and underside armour) as well as the further weakness of being unable to bring its main weapon to bear against enemies operating from any direction other than its main firing arc. Shooting up every building expends a lot of ammunition that needs to be resupplied, meaning a heavy dependence on logistics that cannot always be relied upon in a wartime situation.

It's also called overkill for a reason: if you raze every city to the ground, you will lose much of the economic value of an area, such as the centres of production, markets, etc. Even if you say, "I'm shipping everything back home," you've just gone and destroyed the main concentration point and likely much of the populace who was equipped to do that function. Pillaging is only so effective an occupation policy.

Just put the use of the Sturmtiger in combination with the Encirclement-destruction theory. First you encircle the city and cut their supplylines, most civilians and soldiers will surrender because they are out of supllies, the handfull that does continue to fight does not possess the manpower nore the weaponry to defeat a well equiped infantry army with Sturmtigers. Noone ever said you have to raze the entire city to the ground, just the structures that are defended.

Just put the use of the Sturmtiger in combination with the Encirclement-destruction theory. First you encircle the city and cut their supplylines, most civilians and soldiers will surrender because they are out of supllies, the handfull that does continue to fight does not possess the manpower nore the weaponry to defeat a well equiped infantry army with Sturmtigers. Noone ever said you have to raze the entire city to the ground, just the structures that are defended.
Leningrad says you are wrong. Seiges are miserably long affairs.

It's at the back of the tank right above the tread with a ERA block not one foot away on the side of the tank. Those things fragment sideways too... not to mention I wouldn'y be too fond of having the telephone in a position where the tankers couldn't see me.

Um, no it's not. The phone is right underneath the left rear light. If you look at the ERA blocks, there is at least three feets of separation between the phone nad the nearest ERA block.

And no tanker's going to be able to see an infantryman unless he's right in line with the L44's sights anyway. As it is, radio communication and things like IVIS are better during a battle than line-of-sight.

Um, no it's not. The phone is right underneath the left rear light. If you look at the ERA blocks, there is at least three feets of separation between the phone nad the nearest ERA block.

And no tanker's going to be able to see an infantryman unless he's right in line with the L44's sights anyway. As it is, radio communication and things like IVIS are better during a battle than line-of-sight.
Whoops, my mistake. I thought the ERA armour package protected the tank all the way to the stern. Appologies. And yes. it's hard for the tankers to see the infantry, but at least if the phone were on the side, there wouldn't be as great a danger of proving why infantry are called 'crunchies'... the phone is in line with the TREAD.

Um, no it's not. The phone is right underneath the left rear light. If you look at the ERA blocks, there is at least three feets of separation between the phone nad the nearest ERA block.

And no tanker's going to be able to see an infantryman unless he's right in line with the L44's sights anyway. As it is, radio communication and things like IVIS are better during a battle than line-of-sight.
Putting the telephone at the rear actually makes perfect sense as that is likely where the infantry will be: let the tank grind ahead, protecting the infantry with the man on the phone directing the commander and gunner should anything nasty appear. Having the phone on the side would expose the infantry escort needlessly to enemy fire. Sure, if the tank had to back up, whomever was on the line would likely be squished, but if the tank is turning that quickly around, the man on the other end is probably dead anyway.

One big thing I've continually failed to note is the effect of 30% casualties or casualties at all. Casualties, as you might imagine, need to be taken care of as quickly as possible. This shows that you care for your men, that you have their interests at heart, and that you will not lose trained personnel simply because you were too lazy or distracted to notice they had their guts hanging out. Urban warfare, like trench warfare, brings the true nastiness of war up close to those on the sharp end. This means that those who are injured or dead are too close for most people's comfort. Get them sorted if and when possible (for the wounded, that means NOW, and for the dead, VERY SOON--at least cover them with a groundsheet). The wounded might be crying out in pain, thereby further sapping the morale of your troops as well as giving away your position.

And remember what I wrote above: prisoners hinder movement and might well give you away. Unless they are high ranking or you are involved in low intensity urban warfare (no chucking anything lethal into the room before you enter, or have you riflemen enter the rooms with assault rifles blazing into their respective corners), or hostage-rescue, kill the enemy. I know it's against the rules of war, but you have your men to think about and the enemy has his or hers. Taking someone who probably only knows their name, rank, and serial number -- if that -- isn't worth it.*

*Before someone decides to engage me in some great philosophical debate on the importance of human life, that it is precious and above value, let me say in most instances I agree with you, but this is a game, and what I suggest is entirely pragmatic if unethical.

Oh, I agree, the telephone should be at the rear... I'm just not suire if it's a terrific idea generally...

And 30% of forces engaged casulties? I wouldn't dare put a figure on it. Depends on the situation. Units tend to melt away in urban combat, and I wouldn't be surprised if the winning side took 70% casulties of forces engaged... not counting REMFs here, or units never taken iunder fire.

The wounded and prisoners are always problems, and you want to treat them as quickly as possible, not nessisarly to save lives, but because each one of them represents a $100 000 investment, and the loss of that coupled witih the mourning families can bring a country to it's knees. Consider that the loss of 1 million troops, not an impossibility in NS wars, represents the irrevocable loss of 100 trillion dollars of investment.

As for prisoners, well, it's good to treat them well whenever possible, so you can claim the moral high ground and influence the enemy to do the same. But frankly, if you have to move fast, prisoners are a liability.

Oh, I agree, the telephone should be at the rear... I'm just not suire if it's a terrific idea generally...

And 30% of forces engaged casulties? I wouldn't dare put a figure on it. Depends on the situation. Units tend to melt away in urban combat, and I wouldn't be surprised if the winning side took 70% casulties of forces engaged... not counting REMFs here, or units never taken iunder fire.

The wounded and prisoners are always problems, and you want to treat them as quickly as possible, not nessisarly to save lives, but because each one of them represents a $100 000 investment, and the loss of that coupled witih the mourning families can bring a country to it's knees. Consider that the loss of 1 million troops, not an impossibility in NS wars, represents the irrevocable loss of 100 trillion dollars of investment.

As for prisoners, well, it's good to treat them well whenever possible, so you can claim the moral high ground and influence the enemy to do the same. But frankly, if you have to move fast, prisoners are a liability.

The figure of 30% comes from established WW2 figures (excluding service pogues and the like), and I believe that's per day. I also stressed that it was at least 30%. Due to the amount of fighting needed to be done as well as the possibility of enemy counterattack, one might use a company at a time (from each battalion involved) or one battalion with at least two in reserve.

For the wounded, as for most of this section, I'm considering the immediate platoon level repercussions of casualties and prisoners, something which I ought to have stressed. Thus, I consider the value of experienced members to the section or platoon as well as the morale of the soldiers involved. While the families back home might humble your ambitions within a few months, demoralised troops will end your search for glory within a few days if not immediately by surrendering.

With respect to prisoners... If, for instance, you are engaged in a battalion-sized action against an area/neighbourhood held by an enemy's company (or even platoon, if you can manage it), and an enemy platoon surrenders, you can take them prisoner, all well and good. However, say you are a platoon commander, scurrying from building to building, occasionally leapfrogging over one or the other before mouseholing into it from the top and bottom floors on either side (using personal role radios, it should be possible to attack the top floor from one building and the bottom floor from the other, then sandwiching those enemy forces in between), carting even three prisoners around with you from house to house becomes a distinct impossibility. Besides, who would know if they went down fighting or injured? But you are correct to say they shouldn't just be taken out and shot by some ad hoc firing squad: that would demoralise your troops (depending on the doctrine under which your troops are operating, and even so, there will always be hold-outs) and encourage those of your enemies. It will make your country look bad before the international community as well. That noted, if you are house clearing and see an enemy soldier, you shoot on sight (unless you are sneaking in to do something special and wish to stay hidden, which is an entirely other topic anyway). Doesn't matter if he's only armed with a teapot, you shouldn't give him the opportunity to go for his weapon. Mind, there are always exceptions to the rule(s).

Although the Russian offensive on Grozny isn’t a comfortable comparison for a nation to take, considering at the time that there wasn’t a single combat ready division in Russia, at it means starting weakened and having institutional weaknesses present. However it’s a recent occurrence and les restrained than the urban fighting in Iraq, despite the media reports of Fallujah being subjected to gross over-kill that really isn’t true when compared to how the Russians were and still are fighting across Chechnya.

In the fighting for Grozny most casualties were from mortar fire and a higher proportion of burns was reported but that’s because phosphorous smoke isn’t stopped by gas mask filters and burns intensely yet isn’t restricted by international treaty. Also the ratio of wounded to killed was 2:1 which is quite different from the norm of wounded to killed 3:1 or 4:1.
Red Cross statistics for limited conflicts usually reflect 23% wounded from mines, 26% from bullets, 46% from shrapnel, 2% from burns and 3% miscellaneous.

Sufficient attention has not been devoted to logistics yet in this thread, the Russians discovered that to supply forces inside the city required having armoured trucks which they lacked and thus had to use APCs which are far from adequate. The Russians were also trying to sustain the civilian population at the same time as they were struggling to keep an army fighting, unless you’re of the mind that a civilian, is just an enemy who hasn’t picked a weapon up yet, then you have to look after them because otherwise they can relied upon to take up arms.

Psychiatric illness is also going to be a big problem, this is going to be mitigated depending upon the experience of your forces, training and the ability to rotate personnel to a safe area however regardless of those factors you’re still going to end up with personnel who going to be subject to all sorts of mental conditions without exception. Ranging from depression, apathy, insomnia and panic attacks which are rather mild when compared to psychotic reactions such as high aggressiveness and high anxiety, both of which could result in people doing anything. Then of course you’ve post-traumatic stress disorder this is going to be higher in your troops than those who fight in environments other than urban combat.

To fight an urban conflict you’re going to need to ensure that your soldiers are receiving double the normal rations they would normally receive and that these rations are hot because cold food leaves morale not necessarily negatively affected but there’s an affect, you‘re going to need to ensure water is fresh, cool and clean perhaps the last being the most important because disease spreads far too quickly for it to be ignored. Large quantities of small arms monitors, explosives of all varieties; demolition charges, hand grenades, rifle grenades, mortar rounds. Depending upon the equipment of your forces you’ll need either RPG rounds or an appropriate equivalent but remember that there's only one weapons system of that type that can be used inside a close room, a German system which I cannot recall now. A perhaps unexpected requirement is going to grappling hooks, ropes and light-weight ladders along with the standard night-vision equipment and riot control agents.

Smoke screens the movement of infantry whilst dismounted searchlights can temporarily blind an opponent using NVGs, as already mentioned white phosphorus smoke lethal as it burns and isn’t stopped by gas mask filters. Large reserves of personnel are going to be needed to simply replace casualties but also give others a rest, you also have to do rotations on a large scale. You cannot pull a single company out, if you’re going to use rotation it has to be on a battalion level.

Would most definitely like to read some urban operations RP, so link them when you come across good ones or bad ones.

Although the Russian offensive on Grozny isn’t a comfortable comparison for a nation to take, considering at the time that there wasn’t a single combat ready division in Russia, at it means starting weakened and having institutional weaknesses present. However it’s a recent occurrence and les restrained than the urban fighting in Iraq, despite the media reports of Fallujah being subjected to gross over-kill that really isn’t true when compared to how the Russians were and still are fighting across Chechnya.

In the fighting for Grozny most casualties were from mortar fire and a higher proportion of burns was reported but that’s because phosphorous smoke isn’t stopped by gas mask filters and burns intensely yet isn’t restricted by international treaty. Also the ratio of wounded to killed was 2:1 which is quite different from the norm of wounded to killed 3:1 or 4:1.
Red Cross statistics for limited conflicts usually reflect 23% wounded from mines, 26% from bullets, 46% from shrapnel, 2% from burns and 3% miscellaneous.
Actually, Grozny is a good comparison because both the attacking force and the defending force could be said to have almost equivalent training levels, as well as being quite insightful of the problems facing both sides in urban warfare.

Sufficient attention has not been devoted to logistics yet in this thread, the Russians discovered that to supply forces inside the city required having armoured trucks which they lacked and thus had to use APCs which are far from adequate. The Russians were also trying to sustain the civilian population at the same time as they were struggling to keep an army fighting, unless you’re of the mind that a civilian, is just an enemy who hasn’t picked a weapon up yet, then you have to look after them because otherwise they can relied upon to take up arms.

Psychiatric illness is also going to be a big problem, this is going to be mitigated depending upon the experience of your forces, training and the ability to rotate personnel to a safe area however regardless of those factors you’re still going to end up with personnel who going to be subject to all sorts of mental conditions without exception. Ranging from depression, apathy, insomnia and panic attacks which are rather mild when compared to psychotic reactions such as high aggressiveness and high anxiety, both of which could result in people doing anything. Then of course you’ve post-traumatic stress disorder this is going to be higher in your troops than those who fight in environments other than urban combat.

To fight an urban conflict you’re going to need to ensure that your soldiers are receiving double the normal rations they would normally receive and that these rations are hot because cold food leaves morale not necessarily negatively affected but there’s an affect, you‘re going to need to ensure water is fresh, cool and clean perhaps the last being the most important because disease spreads far too quickly for it to be ignored. Large quantities of small arms monitors, explosives of all varieties; demolition charges, hand grenades, rifle grenades, mortar rounds. Depending upon the equipment of your forces you’ll need either RPG rounds or an appropriate equivalent but remember that there's only one weapons system of that type that can be used inside a close room, a German system which I cannot recall now. A perhaps unexpected requirement is going to grappling hooks, ropes and light-weight ladders along with the standard night-vision equipment and riot control agents.
I was hoping to get to this at some point, but you are absolutely correct. I would like to add that soldiers can't be expected to carry around vast quantities of ammunition and that the larger calibre weapons correspond to heavier loads transported by your soldiers, which is part of the reason why the Americans and consequently the rest of the West switched to 5.56mm from 7.62mm. Soldiers can be expected to carry about 300 rounds, 150 of which in preloaded magazines (one fixed to the rifle and two in pouches, although more can be carried in chest rigs) a few days' food -- which they would not be able to cook for fear of giving their positions away -- a few bottles of water, etc. All this needs to be resupplied daily, especially as your units will be expending a great amount of ammunition and, as Tom Joad has mentioned, they will have expended a great deal of energy all of which needs to be accounted for. Boxes of ammunition, weighty insulated mess containers -- brought by runners into forward areas, water resupply, anti-infection medication, etc., needs to arrive continually. Wounds can quickly become septic in an urban environment, especially one riddled with the contaminants of modern warfare. Absent sanitation will further contribute to the worsening morale of your troops as they might only be able to either foul their hiding spot, possibly giving their position away with the stench, or voiding their bladders and bowels into plastic bags (depending how long they are in the immediate front lines). If they can be rotated rearward daily, or at very least weekly -- even if only slightly to where they can use proper latrines and go to a mess -- their attitude might remain up for slightly longer. These rotations will also allow them to maintain their psychological health (generally, a soldier can be expected to remain healthy, if he or she survives, for about 100 days of straight combat tops. Beyond that point...) for a longer period of time, as well as give the medical staff the chance of finding those who are experiencing problems so that they might be treated there or sent home for treatment.

Ladders would certainly be required for urban assault, as would ropes, as you've noted.
Smoke screens the movement of infantry whilst dismounted searchlights can temporarily blind an opponent using NVGs, as already mentioned white phosphorus smoke lethal as it burns and isn’t stopped by gas mask filters. Large reserves of personnel are going to be needed to simply replace casualties but also give others a rest, you also have to do rotations on a large scale. You cannot pull a single company out, if you’re going to use rotation it has to be on a battalion level.

Would most definitely like to read some urban operations RP, so link them when you come across good ones or bad ones.
Smoke and flash-bang grenades would likely be standard issue, and there are several AT weapons that can be fired indoors now: Eryx, Javelin, and a couple of others.

Actually, Grozny is a good comparison because both the attacking force and the defending force could be said to have almost equivalent training levels, as well as being quite insightful of the problems facing both sides in urban warfare.

Agreed, both sides were nearly equal in terms of training and the advantage the Russians should of had in terms of logistics, numbers and firepower were never fully developed until much later and even then not fully. The Russian efforts in Grozny early on could be considered the best, worst effort an industrialised nation could give and still hope to succeed.