Destroyable buildings and environment?

[I WUB PUGS]

Dude, urban warfare sucks ass, period. There's no great way to go about it, even with armored vehicles. They just draw fire and they can't be used as cover because HE that doesn't directly knock them out can still kill the infantry near the vehicle.

For the game purposes, it look's like we've got a lot of French villages. I'm gonna be leveling them. I'm not gonna be risking my men to snipers and MG teams. I'm saturating. I don't have to worry about civilian casualties in the game, so I won't.

 

[Thonar]

Dude, urban warfare sucks ass, period. There's no great way to go about it, even with armored vehicles. They just draw fire and they can't be used as cover because HE that doesn't directly knock them out can still kill the infantry near the vehicle.

For the game purposes, it look's like we've got a lot of French villages. I'm gonna be leveling them. I'm not gonna be risking my men to snipers and MG teams. I'm saturating. I don't have to worry about civilian casualties in the game, so I won't.

Absolutely... except what you achieve in reality is even worse.
Ohh... and how many cities were actually leveled by means of modern war in a way that left no thread behind?
None. Simple as that.

Instead of rushing over a street to endanger yourself to enemy fire as short as possible, you prefer to climb slowly over stones, rocks and metal...

Do you know what the Germans tries in Stalingrad? Leveling the city. Complete buildings were leveled to the ground... with no effect.

MOUT/FISH/UrbOp is hell... but it's not the worst one imaginable.

 

[Wicca]

I mean if you level a building the effect is a leveled building?

 

[I WUB PUGS]

Stalingrad had an extensive sewer system that couldn't be destroyed that allowed infiltration and devolved into trench warfare once the Soviet lines stabilized. Keep in mind the Germans nearly capture the west bank in its entirety before they were driven back slowly.

Leveling what buildings you can does make it easier because instead of that 10 story building with 40 windows to worry about, you've now got some blown out building with maybe 4-5 good firing positions.

The Russians tried doing what you're saying with the 1st Battle of Grozny. They got massacred. The second time around, they just blew the piss out of it and drove off the Chechens. In terms of urban warfare, it is a lot easier to scope out ruins than it is to go room to room, window to window, house to house.

Seriously, a lot of this cliche comes directly from Monte Cassino and it is rooted in fallacy because there weren't even any germans up there to begin with. What you're basically saying is that HE is useless for removing an entrenched enemy, which actually runs counter to all doctrine.

If you can nuke it from orbit, you will. Then roll in and mop up the disoriented and dying.

An enemy that can simply run back into the rubble and take up a firing position doesn't say anything about your ability to remove their firing position via firepower. It means you're too weak to consolidate the ground you just drove them off of. This doesn't apply in a war that is about advancing a line.

My Taliban example works only because those Patrol Bases aren't expanding their walls or pushing a front line. In the game and in a war of maneuver, you are going to use firepower to dislodge the enemy, then take the ground they just left. Obviously they are going to return to the rubble if you don't take that rubble.

 

[Thonar]

Stalingrad had an extensive sewer system that couldn't be destroyed that allowed infiltration and devolved into trench warfare once the Soviet lines stabilized. Keep in mind the Germans nearly capture the west bank in its entirety before they were driven back slowly.

Leveling what buildings you can does make it easier because instead of that 10 story building with 40 windows to worry about, you've now got some blown out building with maybe 4-5 good firing positions.

The Russians tried doing what you're saying with the 1st Battle of Grozny. They got massacred. The second time around, they just blew the piss out of it and drove off the Chechens. In terms of urban warfare, it is a lot easier to scope out ruins than it is to go room to room, window to window, house to house.

Seriously, a lot of this cliche comes directly from Monte Cassino and it is rooted in fallacy because there weren't even any germans up there to begin with. What you're basically saying is that HE is useless for removing an entrenched enemy, which actually runs counter to all doctrine.

If you can nuke it from orbit, you will. Then roll in and mop up the disoriented and dying.

An enemy that can simply run back into the rubble and take up a firing position doesn't say anything about your ability to remove their firing position via firepower. It means you're too weak to consolidate the ground you just drove them off of. This doesn't apply in a war that is about advancing a line.

My Taliban example works only because those Patrol Bases aren't expanding their walls or pushing a front line. In the game and in a war of maneuver, you are going to use firepower to dislodge the enemy, then take the ground they just left. Obviously they are going to return to the rubble if you don't take that rubble.

As I said previously, if you can take the ground fast enough after leveling it, there is often no real problem... if.
As soon as the defender gets the ability to prepare his positions, ruins can be become very nasty from more difficult MOUT to Trench Warfare (prepared ruins offer more than a few firing arcs).
Nothing of this is appealing to attack under any circumstances.

Also: Who says you are able to remove a prepared position, MOUT or not with pure HE?
WWI is the best example that this isn't so simple.

Directly fired HE is also often times easier to place into a certain floor of a building than on flat ground to kill a fireposition.

 

[I WUB PUGS]

Actually, WW1 is a terrible example because the landscape itself coupled with barbed wire and extensive reserve trench systems and good blockhouse construction that defeated even the heaviest of shells unless they landed on top of them prevented any sort of quick consolidation. But this was defeated eventually by even the terribly slow and unreliable tanks of the day when they were supported by artillery and infantry.

You're arguing against strawmen here while acknowledging that for the purposes of the game and indeed mobile warfare, that HE followed by rapid advance is the best possible way in an urban area. Otherwise, you have to go house to house and that is very nasty as it opens up an ambush in every room and a booby trap around every corner. HE + advance works because you have shocked or usually killed the defender and you're just mopping up. Why the hell do you think we've invented stun grenades for non-lethal or even lethal assaults? It gives you the initiative and the element of surprise while the enemy is trying to recover. Shelling just to shell is just there for people that can't consolidate the ground and has been proven ineffective time and again. People still do it (see Donbass) because that's all they can do to 'fight'.

Using Stalingrad and Monte Cassino are strawmen because you're arguing against the use of HE because it created rubble that was an effective entrenchment, while accepting that you need HE + advance to take the ground. While Stalingrad and Monte Cassino were both instances where the guys doing all the shelling and bombing simply did not have the ability to advance.

So you are arguing against nothing here. If anything, you are agreeing with me while still trying to argue just to argue.

 

[Thonar]

Actually, WW1 is a terrible example because the landscape itself coupled with barbed wire and extensive reserve trench systems and good blockhouse construction that defeated even the heaviest of shells unless they landed on top of them prevented any sort of quick consolidation. But this was defeated eventually by even the terribly slow and unreliable tanks of the day when they were supported by artillery and infantry.

You're arguing against strawmen here while acknowledging that for the purposes of the game and indeed mobile warfare, that HE followed by rapid advance is the best possible way in an urban area. Otherwise, you have to go house to house and that is very nasty as it opens up an ambush in every room and a booby trap around every corner.

Using Stalingrad and Monte Cassino are strawmen because you're arguing against the use of HE because it created rubble that was an effective entrenchment, while accepting that you need HE + advance to take the ground. While Stalingrad and Monte Cassino were both instances where the guys doing all the shelling and bombing simply did not have the ability to advance.

So you are arguing against nothing here. If anything, you are agreeing with me while still trying to argue just to argue.

Your statement was that you want to "level a city".
That you can't achieve this with HE (€: to an extent to have an effect with your ammunition at your disposal)... was left unanswered by you.
The proof of HE killing effectively prepared fire-positions you haven't proven either so far, while at the same time you not even answer my points here.
(Not to mention the whole identification process...)

As a matter of fact you shifted your statement now to "Use HE against identified firepositions and advance fast as a follow up into the created gap" from "level the whole city first".

Also: Battle of Ortona. There it was tried as you said, still the Canadians suffered dearly.

Also: I mentioned Stalingrad once and AFAIK never Cassino, so who is arguing against strawmen here?

 

[I WUB PUGS]

Your statement was that you want to "level a city".

No, I said 'French villages' which can certainly be leveled easily with a few 105's. And with infantry and armor sitting on the edged ready to move in, it will be fine.

The proof of HE killing effectively prepared fire-positions you haven't proven either so far, while at the same time you not even answer my points here.
(Not to mention the whole identification process...)

I already cited Grozny and talked about specifically why Stalingrad and Monte Cassino were unique.

As a matter of fact you shifted your statement now to "Use HE against identified firepositions and advance fast as a follow up into the created gap" from "level the whole city first".

No I didn't at all. I said I'd level the French villages. You've been trying to shift the argument back to stuff like Stalingrad where the German shelling and bombing didn't do much as there wasn't much to follow up with. It's cherry picking. I can do any number of things with a leveled French village. I can drive around it, I can drive through it and check it out. The worst thing would be for me to do what you want to do which is leave it intact, then drive in there and get shot at, then return fire.

Also: Battle of Ortona. There it was tried as you said, still the Canadians suffered dearly.

And you think they wouldn't have suffered from those prepared positions and booby traps how exactly?

Also: I mentioned Stalingrad once and AFAIK never Cassino, so who is arguing against strawmen here?

Fine, you're right, you didn't bring up Cassino, just the same Stalingrad trope over and over again where the Germans had zero capacity to advance upon the destroyed blocks and had to fight house to house regardless in a massive city and used area bombing to try and soften up the enemy to no avail. You're right, this is exactly like the French village I referenced.