Urban Warfare in World War II

[Impartial Bias]

Thought I'd create this thread to explore the genesis of modern Urban Warfare, and all topics associated with it, including battles, equipment used, tactics, combatants, etc.

I'll start us off with the Battle of Westerplatte, the first battle of formal World War II time period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Westerplatte
The Battle started on September 1st, 1939, the first day of the German invasion of Poland. Hostilities commenced when the German Pre-Dreadnaught Battleship Schleswig-Holstein opened fire on the Polish military transit depot on the Peninsula of Westerplatte in Danzig. The Westerplatte Peninsula was defended by a garrison of 200 Polish soldiers, who had built fortifications of trenches, a barracks, and 5 guardhouses.
They were attacked by a German force of 3400, including elite Naval Infantry and SS Danzig forces. The Germans thought that the battle would be relatively easy, however, the Polish forces managed to resist for a week. After the first German attacks on the fortress-island stalled, the Germans decided to bombard the fort and garrison into submission with heavy naval and land based artillery, as well as Stuka dive bombers. Despite numerous German assaults, the fortress managed to hold on, inflicting over 250 casualties on the German forces. On September 7, at 09:45, the Polish garrison surrendered, because they were running low on ammunition, food, water, and medical supplies. They had suffered 75 casualties, compared to the 250 on the German side. They had also managed to stall the German advance into Danzig proper, holding up about 3400 German troops.

[Impartial Bias]

I'd also like to add that I think that the Red Army was best suited to Urban Warfare by the end of the war out of all combatant forces. My reasoning for this is the experience they gained from Sevastopol to Stalingrad and Leningrad, and from Stalingrad to each Fortress city they faced in their breakout into central Europe. By the end of the show in Berlin, they had perfected their method of Urban Warfare- heavily saturating an area with artillery before rushing in with assault troops armed with submachineguns and hand grenades, mutually supported by tanks and assault guns to provide direct fire. The use of Sturmoviks to give precise fire on enemy strong points.

[Impartial Bias]

Thought I'd create this thread to explore the genesis of modern Urban Warfare, and all topics associated with it, including battles, equipment used, tactics, combatants, etc.

I'll start us off with the Battle of Westerplatte, the first battle of formal World War II time period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Westerplatte
The Battle started on September 1st, 1939, the first day of the German invasion of Poland. Hostilities commenced when the German Pre-Dreadnaught Battleship Schleswig-Holstein opened fire on the Polish military transit depot on the Peninsula of Westerplatte in Danzig. The Westerplatte Peninsula was defended by a garrison of 200 Polish soldiers, who had built fortifications of trenches, a barracks, and 5 guardhouses.
They were attacked by a German force of 3400, including elite Naval Infantry and SS Danzig forces. The Germans thought that the battle would be relatively easy, however, the Polish forces managed to resist for a week. After the first German attacks on the fortress-island stalled, the Germans decided to bombard the fort and garrison into submission with heavy naval and land based artillery, as well as Stuka dive bombers. Despite numerous German assaults, the fortress managed to hold on, inflicting over 250 casualties on the German forces. On September 7, at 09:45, the Polish garrison surrendered, because they were running low on ammunition, food, water, and medical supplies. They had suffered 75 casualties, compared to the 250 on the German side. They had also managed to stall the German advance into Danzig proper, holding up about 3400 German troops.

Video of the Battle of Westerplatte, depicting the Luftwaffe bombing the fort, and the Schleswig-Holstein providing direct onto the fortress.

[Mordoror]

Interesting thread.
I have a question though. Did the Urban Warfare was formalized (with proper doctrines for example) like it is today or was it somekind of case by case and "improvisation" operationnal mode.
I know that some equipments were adapted back to UW but WWII doctrines were very much oriented on armored warfare and i cannot remove myself the idea that those equipements for example were first not intended to be used in such situations (examples are flamethrowers, demolition mines, body armor for assault engineers, huge demolition guns, satchel charges, HEAT charges etc etc ..... in fact a lot of equipment and tactics that were first intended to defeat the very numerous forts and hardened positions so common during WWII)

[Einhander]

It also affected such civilian matters as post-war city planing and architecture. Wider streets with such a corner buildings which were built with unusually thick reinforced outer walls, with "slashed angle" corner room' windows, wide stairwells and high ceilings. Some "stalinkas" built in post-war Leningrad could host an anti-tank gun in its corner appartments on the higher floors.

[JCR]

Stealth "you forgot Poland" thread...

Westerplatte was not urban combat but a assault on a 19th century style fortress.

Generally, the most common assault weapon employed in urban fighting were towed guns of all sorts.
Infantry guns, AT guns, normal artillery pieces, usually manhandled into place.
They gave infantry the necessary punch in areas too small for tanks or assault guns (or when they were not available).
The Red Army took this to extremes by using 203mm howitzers....

[Impartial Bias]

Interesting thread.
I have a question though. Did the Urban Warfare was formalized (with proper doctrines for example) like it is today or was it somekind of case by case and "improvisation" operationnal mode.
I know that some equipments were adapted back to UW but WWII doctrines were very much oriented on armored warfare and i cannot remove myself the idea that those equipements for example were first not intended to be used in such situations (examples are flamethrowers, demolition mines, body armor for assault engineers, huge demolition guns, satchel charges, HEAT charges etc etc ..... in fact a lot of equipment and tactics that were first intended to defeat the very numerous forts and hardened positions so common during WWII)

Urban Warfare was a relatively new concept during World War II. Although there were limited instances of Urban Warfare in smaller conflicts and World War I before this time, modern Urban Warfare was invented in WWII as a result of the use of mechanization, small unit tactics, airpower, armored warfare, the proliferation of semi automatic and automatic weapons at the individual level, etc.
Developing tactics for Urban Warfare was pretty much trial by fire in World War II. The Red Army and German forces were the most adept at this, as both had expierence with Urban warfare at the early point of the War (much of the Polish campaign, Sevastopol, Leningrad, St Petersburg, Stalingrad, etc.).
The Western Armies were much more accustomed to conventional battles out in the coutryside, with some notable exceptions, mostly late in the war (Battle of Caen, Arnhem, Aachen, etc.), and thus did not really specialize for Urban Warfare.
The Soviets, like I mentioned above, had become the most specialized for Urban Fighting at the end of the war. After they learned valuable lessons at Stalingrad, they developed special assault groups for Urban Fighting. These groups would typically be armed with large amounts of submachineguns and semi automatic rifles for close in fighting. They also made extensive use of grenades, with a common phrase, "a grenade for every window, room, and cellar". They also developed assault guns and tanks, like the IS-2 and IS-152 which were designed for Urban fighting with the idea of supporting infantry with direct heavy fire. Infantry also learned to work with tanks, which were vulnerable to German hunter killer teams armed with Panzerfausts and Panzershreks. The infantry would go ahead of the tanks and clear houses of fighters, while the tanks and assault guns trailed behind, supporting them with direct fire. This doctrine of mutual support of infantry and armour in an urban environment was developed by the Soviet assault teams and is still used to this day.

[Impartial Bias]

Stealth "you forgot Poland" thread...

Westerplatte was not urban combat but a assault on a 19th century style fortress.

Generally, the most common assault weapon employed in urban fighting were towed guns of all sorts.
Infantry guns, AT guns, normal artillery pieces, usually manhandled into place.
They gave infantry the necessary punch in areas too small for tanks or assault guns (or when they were not available).
The Red Army took this to extremes by using 203mm howitzers....

I consider Westerplatte to be an example of Urban Warfare because fighting happened not only inside the fort, but in the houses and port facilities surrounding the fort.
And thats true, I'm assuming you're referencing the video piece featuring heavy artillery used as direct fire in Berlin?

(0:50, 1:25, 2:45)

[Impartial Bias]

It also affected such civilian matters as post-war city planing and architecture. Wider streets with such a corner buildings which were built with unusually thick reinforced outer walls, with "slashed angle" corner room' windows, wide stairwells and high ceilings. Some "stalinkas" built in post-war Leningrad could host an anti-tank gun in its corner appartments on the higher floors.

I think the Russians had the idea of turning every house into a fortress, a la Pavlov's house during the battle of Stalingrad.

[gafkiwi]

Everyone has a right to their own opinion but I think some of your references are a bit of a reach. How the Red Army conducted operations in urban terrain suited them and their doctrine. Their ability to pour vast amounts of troops and material into a battle and fix the Germans in a war of attrition had a fair bit to do with the equation too.

Your "Perfected method of Urban Warfare- heavily saturating an area with artillery before rushing in with assault troops" contradicts practices discovered and circulated by the Allies from the Russians. After finding the effects of massed indirect fires and aerial bombardment in Stalingrad caused massive destruction and lend itself more to the defender than attacker they "tried" avoid it later on in the war.

The Germans produced very good references, manuals etc for UO i.e. incorporating combined arms, urban demolitions to the lowest level etc that are used to refer to today. I know most other armies did too.

Urban Operations (UO) in essence are no different to Open or Close country operations. The general methodology in all military operations is the same, the principle's may just be applied in a different way, terrain dependent.

[JCR]

I consider Westerplatte to be an example of Urban Warfare because fighting happened not only inside the fort, but in the houses and port facilities surrounding the fort.
And thats true, I'm assuming you're referencing the video piece featuring heavy artillery used as direct fire in Berlin?

(0:50, 1:25, 2:45)

Btw, not to denigrate the bravery of the defenders of the Westerplatte, but I guess the only real urban combat in 1939 occured in Warsaw.

Yes, these howitzers of course needed a tractor and could not be manhandled.

But the Wehrmacht often used manhandled guns in urban combat, for example in Rostov 42.
The Red Army did the same with 76mm divisional guns and 45mm AT guns.

[KoTeMoRe]

Everyone has a right to their own opinion but I think some of your references are a bit of a reach. How the Red Army conducted operations in urban terrain suited them and their doctrine. Their ability to pour vast amounts of troops and material into a battle and fix the Germans in a war of attrition had a fair bit to do with the equation too.

Your "Perfected method of Urban Warfare- heavily saturating an area with artillery before rushing in with assault troops" contradicts practices discovered and circulated by the Allies from the Russians. After finding the effects of massed indirect fires and aerial bombardment in Stalingrad caused massive destruction and lend itself more to the defender than attacker they "tried" avoid it later on in the war.

The Germans produced very good references, manuals etc for UO i.e. incorporating combined arms, urban demolitions to the lowest level etc that are used to refer to today. I know most other armies did too.

Urban Operations (UO) in essence are no different to Open or Close country operations. The general methodology in all military operations is the same, the principle's may just be applied in a different way, terrain dependent.

Monte Cassino jumps to mind.

[Stormz_STA]

Btw, not to denigrate the bravery of the defenders of the Westerplatte, but I guess the only real urban combat in 1939 occured in Warsaw.

You just hate Poland, don't you? Admit it!
Oy vey!

[gafkiwi]

Monte Cassino jumps to mind.

Exactly why the question was asked even after the Russians had supplied information following Stalingrad, Why Bomb the town and Abby?

[Impartial Bias]

Everyone has a right to their own opinion but I think some of your references are a bit of a reach. How the Red Army conducted operations in urban terrain suited them and their doctrine. Their ability to pour vast amounts of troops and material into a battle and fix the Germans in a war of attrition had a fair bit to do with the equation too.

Your "Perfected method of Urban Warfare- heavily saturating an area with artillery before rushing in with assault troops" contradicts practices discovered and circulated by the Allies from the Russians. After finding the effects of massed indirect fires and aerial bombardment in Stalingrad caused massive destruction and lend itself more to the defender than attacker they "tried" avoid it later on in the war.

The Germans produced very good references, manuals etc for UO i.e. incorporating combined arms, urban demolitions to the lowest level etc that are used to refer to today. I know most other armies did too.

Urban Operations (UO) in essence are no different to Open or Close country operations. The general methodology in all military operations is the same, the principle's may just be applied in a different way, terrain dependent.

There's a problem with the train of thought that the Russians didn't use artillery as much in urban operations. For example, the Russians dropped more tons of explosives on Berlin in 18 days of fighting than the Western Bomber forces did over the entire course of the war.

Plus, I never said that the Soviets used the "best" doctrine, but that they were the most specialized in Urban Warfare by the end of the war, because they encountered fortress cities every couple hundred miles after Stalingrad.

While the Germans produced very good doctrines on Urban Warfare, they didn't necessarily have the best equipment for it, at least not in large amounts. For example, during the Battle of Stalingrad, most Russian soldiers were armed with PPsH-41 or 43 SMG's. The rest had mostly SVT-40 Semi-Automatic rifles. This was at a time where most German soldiers were still armed with Kar 98s, and while some had MP40's and StG 44's, there were not enough to go around. And while the Germans did use Assault Guns, they weren't really suited to urban fighting because they weren't heavily armored and used high velocity anti tank guns, whereas the Russian assault guns were heavily armored, and had low velocity guns with high explosive content, which were intended for close range urban fighting.