Is a full scale MOUT operation possible?

[Type Username Here]

I'm talking about taking a portion of the city like downtown NYC (Manhattan) or Shanghai:

Let's say that Air Defense was impregnable and that Air Support provided minimum help. It would be a straight out ground vs ground battle.

Can a major downtown district be overtaken?

Let's say the defensive positions were well taken care of, avenues of approach well secured, and machine gun nests/mortars well situated. Let's also say that both forces are equally matched in terms of manpower, equipment and training.

What do you think is the likely outcome?

We only have some recent minor (in comparison at least) MOUT battles to reference, certainly not at the level of skyscrapers (think about clearing a skyscraper using the stairs).

Second Battle of Fallujah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Battle of Khe Sanh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and others.


EDIT: @Broke Wave corrected me. I was thinking of Hue City and not Khe Sahn.

 

[Type Username Here]

Should have said probable. Of course it's possible.

 

[daze23]

why not? especially with the constraints of your hypothetical (no air support & "equally matched" forces)

 

[zerozero]

you might like this Type:

Military Strategy: What are the optimal siege tactics for taking Magic Kingdom's Cinderella Castle? - Quora

(our previous thread on it http://www.the-coli.com/higher-lear...-kingdoms-cinderella-castle.html#.UIAdlcXMjmc )

 

[zerozero]

as far as your question, I think the easily likely outcome is that the defending group that's already entrenched keeps the urban area in their control

but. now I'm hapless when it comes to military matters but hell let me give it a shot

basically what you want to do is approach without everyone getting machine-gunned and finished. so you have to split your camps up and land on multiple sides.

what you basically want to do I think is be extremely loose with the grenade type ammo in the beginning and let some buildings collapse. take out the machine guns near that section. avoid casualties using body armor and moving in stealth but then joining mass coalitions of force near the machine guns

what you are going to end up with is few corners of the city that are not exposed to the regular fire that can expose and massacre you. basically if they want to come get you they're going to have to COME get you

you basically patrol the roofs and start mapping out nearby movements, open fire on any unidentified warm bodies

oh snap we're dealing with civilians here too huh?

well you setup a perimeter and if they move in there they're treated the same as an enemy combatant

as far as preventing counterattacks you have to hole up in nearby buildings and set up your own machine guns and all that. if they want to do some mass formation type of counterattack with a lot of casualties then you're screwed but if they're normal and just want to be efficient then they're not going to send whole hordes of troops at you so you can defend to some reasonable degree

now the question is how to move inward?

you do the same sort of forward attack and for perimeter assitance you use the sewer system bust up out them drainpipes guns blazing

okay it's going to be harder than that but I think that's the basics. Rush them in different areas, demolish buildings, take out their machine guns, and then nest in some buildings yourself. That's the initial part.

 

[88m3]

I would imagine it depends on the length and if the party holding the area is able to resupply.
I'll post some of my favorite examples later.

 

[Type Username Here]

you do the same sort of forward attack and for perimeter assitance you use the sewer system bust up out them drainpipes guns blazing

I'll respond in full to your post later, but this right here is not far off. There are many field manuals advocating using sewer/subway systems for urban warfare.

But the defense holds key advantages, especially in terms of sniping and setting obstacles.

 

[unit321]

No.

 

[Type Username Here]

No.

I tend to agree. I think the defense holds too much advantages when you set those restrictions. It's obviously not set in stone, but I'd wager on the defense.

Can you explain your answer?

 

[unit321]

I tend to agree. I think the defense holds too much advantages when you set those restrictions. It's obviously not set in stone, but I'd wager on the defense.

Can you explain your answer?

Well, he said "major downtown district". Manhattan has tons of huge buildings. Residential buildings are huge. Square footage is packed and goes upward. East Side. West Side. Mid-Town. Finanicial district. Chinatown. SoHo. Harlem. One tall office building would be the equivalent of multiple blocks in Fallujah. In Fallujah, they cleared out buildings that were one to three floors. Some more. But none were skyscrapers.
The problem is that you have to fan out your forces going upward. How many rooms and offices are in one floor of the Empire State Building? You have to clear out each floor, each office, each room and then go to the next floor. Then, you have parking garages going down below. Only one way down and one way up.

Defense-wise, it would be simple. Let them clear out the bottom five floors. By that time, they would be getting sloppy and bored. Then, when they get to the sixth floor, trip off bombs at all sixth floor stairway doors. That forces everyone back. They are stuck. They can't clear out the remaining x of floors. These office buildings are huge. Old ones have a lot of stone. New ones are steel and glass. Every doorway from the staircase is a huge hurdle, but you do not want to use the elevators. The elevator shaft is its own trap.
Urban environment is problematic for invading forces and lends itself to guerilla tactics for defense.
Offense-wise, I would have to suggest using chemical weapons to flush out forces. Get to the where all the major air duct arteries are. In skyscrapers, these units are on the ground floor because A/C and heating units are gigantic and heavy. Old buildings from the 1800s won't have them unfortunately. Anyway, drop off OC or clear-out into the HVAC air duct and let the main fans blow the gas into the building. Have units waiting with gas masks to fire on escaping targets.

 

[Orbital-Fetus]

if you are going to attempt to overtake a well fortified defense, then i'm fairly certain that superior manpower in order of 2-3 times greater is necessary. then you have to take into account the landscape.

if you are defending the high ground like a hill, then you have a substantial advantage.
now substitute hill for tall building...no, a shyt load of tall buildings that can be used to attack from. i think you would need a force that is at least 10 times greater than the force you are attempting to overwhelm.

 

[Mr. Somebody]

They would need a ton of people to defeat guirella fighting in skyscrapers but you would need a ton of guirellas to be successful. Now if the greater power can use techonlogy to pinpoint the location of majority of the forces then they can shatter you with shock and awe (sacraficing some infastructure) and starve out the rest. Whats the point of controlling a small area of downtown if you dont have the resources to survive indefinately and are unable to leave the city. Without a Ton of people helping you take a city, it becomes a roach motel against a greater military force and you will eventually be pushed out.

 

[Dirty Mcdrawz]

they probably would have to do WWII level of air raids campaigns and artillery to soften up the entrenched combatants





@the sniping and killzones

 

[Broke Wave]

How is Khe Sanh a mout? Khe Sanh is a military base, not a big city... I Think you mean Huey... and if you're going to destroy the whole city like Fallujah, of course its probable.

 

[88m3]

@Type Username Here was it you, who was there for the fall of Saigon?
Maybe it was @theworldismine13 I cant remember.

I guess one of the biggest factors are the rules of engagement.
Civilian, infrastructure etc.

If you can level a whole a city without regard for civilians and infrastructure, I would imagine it wouldn't be less difficult.

If the party holding the city can't get reinforcements, food, water, ammunition, medical supplies they'll eventually have to fold. Especially if they are surrounded with most cities it's really easy to get cut off due to terrain.

Some favorites



Siege of Barcelona - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad

Siege of Budapest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Battle of Berlin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Battle of Singapore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

British invasions of the Río de la Plata - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Battle of Rorke's Drift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia