As for large scale urban fighting, yeah, I'll concede to that.Originally Posted by JCR
Regardless, Urban fighting did occur around Westerplatte, as it was right smack dab in the middle of the port facilities of Danzig, although it was extremely limited. Still, it was the first taste of urban warfare for the war.
There was no reason to bomb the Abbey, as no German's were present at the Abbey until after it had been bombed.
I think the Western allies just chose to ignore the Russians, as they weren't too trusting of each other, even when they were allies at the wars height.
Because they had SMG's? alot would've been armed with bolt action Mosins. If the Germans had the same industrial support they would've been equipped to a similar level.
Its not the systems they have, its how they employed them that displays their ability, i.e. the kit doesn't make the soldier
TTP's done at the tactical level are a big difference with how "Battles" are conducted at the strategic level
Exactly, they (strategic level) chose to ignore lessons learnt themselves which didnt help the guys at the sharp end
So, by Stalingrad, the Soviets had just about phased out their Mosin Nagant rifles?
Made a mistake with the SMG and Rifle part, two trains of thought got mixed up while typing that. It's late.
After the Soviet counter offensive in Stalingrad, about half of the Soviet soldiers present were armed with SMG's. And yes, this did make a huge difference, because a Soviet fireteam would have much more firepower than a German unit armed mostly with Kar-98s, added to the fact that long barreled bolt action rifles are definitely not as suited to close combat as SMGs are for general infantry.
And I have no doubt that given the right industrial support the Germans would have been equipped similarly. I'm not making an argument about the industrial capacity of either country, but as to who was better suited to urban fighting. I will say this though, the Germans could have picked an easier design to mass manufacture over the MP40, like they attempted to do at the end of the war with the various Volks weapons. The MP40 was a costly and complex weapon to produce, whereas the PPsH40 could be made cheaply and fast by low skilled workers.
As for the massive bombing of Berlin at the end of the war, I think they learned that precision bombing was much more effective than the largely indiscriminate bombing used by the Germans in Stalingrad. Hence the use of assault guns and towed artillery in Berlin and other fortress cities towards the end of the war. The preliminary bombing actually helped the attackers much more than the defenders, as the shelling of Berlin was far from indiscriminate, sectors were bombed right before ground forces moved in. The Russians learned that the Germans would typically withdraw from positions being bombarded, and would return after the bombardment stopped. As a result, the Russians would bombard an area, and immediately rush in before the defenders had a chance to return to their positions. Once inside the city proper, precises air attack and direct artillery or assault gun fire was used to remove defenders from their positions.
I think it's remarkable that Berlin fell within 18 days, whereas many fortress cities took months to fall. The Russians incurred relatively light casualties in the Battle for Berlin, and in record time. They have their tactics to thank for this.
Got mixed up in two trains of thought while typing that.
What I meant was, that half of the Soviet troops in Stalingrad after the counter offensive were armed with SMG's, whereas the Germans were armed with Kar 98s.
In Berlin, 3/4th of Soviet troops fighting in the city were armed with SMGs.
Really interesting thread.
Urban warfare as we know it started in WW2 with battles like Stalingrad or Ortona. Development of tactics were probably started from the lower strats of command, i.e. the squad level, who were more than often improvising. In my opinion urban warfare also gives the defenders a clear advantage over the attackers: there are plenty of places where you can create obstacles and channel the enemy into multi-floored kill-zones.
As for the pre-attack bombardment via arty or aircraft, I don't think that it is the best idea since it'll create a lot of ruins that can hamper your attack and facilitate the enemy's defenses. However it should be essential to support infantry with individual arty such as mortars, portable infantry guns and self-propelled assault artillery, such as the ISU-152, the StuH 42 or ultimately: the Sturmtiger.
Sewers can also be exploited in order to flank the enemy and guerilla warfare. But it's easy to get lost in there...
The Canadians made extensive use of "mouse-hole" tactics at Ortona, to overcome the German paratrooper defenders:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ortona
BINGO! the Allied Bombing wound up costing the allies more men and making it that much harder an objective to take.
I was agreeing, BTW.
On a side note, most nations from the 19th century had suffered or inflicted Urban operations and tactics regarding them (even though they were mostly siege breaching operations on steroids- Sapeur-Mineurs corps since Vauban).
The French had the Spanish War and a couple of Revolutionary adventures (including three sets of barricades against their own people). Murricans the Mexican War and even before at the Bier they were forced to hole out the Mexicans. The Ottomans were knee deep in Pacification in the Balkans (Siege of Ioannina, Siege of Shkodra).
I would personally put the U in MOUT from the battle of Saragossa.
Last edited by KoTeMoRe; 05-14-2012 at 08:51 AM.
The OP's (deliberate?) use of "modern" alongside "urban warfare" makes me wonder a little about where he thinks WWII armies 'got' the idea for how to conduct urban operations. Granted, there was rather a lot of fighting in built-up areas - Arnhem comes immediately to mind, for one - but it isn't as though such doctrine simply materialized out of nowhere. As Kotemore has said above, there were many similar operations and undertakings in past (not all of them 'smaller') wars, which all provided lessons and knowledge from which "modern" equivalent operations could be based upon.
Yes, I have dedicated my life to the elimination of the Polish nation.
That's why I haven't got a decent job...
I beg to differ here. The examples that you cite are examples of Siege Warfare. All was intended to bring down the walls or fortifications. Once that done it was often a "simple" bloodshed in the streets with defenders simply overwhelmed by attacking party.
There was no theory, no doctrine, no science of war of how to use streets, corners, rubbles, windows, stairways, basements as defensive lines
And there is a huge difference between knowing how to open an hole in a fortification (basically something known as soon as Antiquity) and fight a determined opponent using the configuration of a city as a tactical asset.
I think it's more remarkable that Berlin was able to hold out for 18 days considering its defences were nil and the defenders were a scratch team going up against the best the Soviet Union had to offer.
The Red Army took more than 360,000 casualties during the Battle for Berlin. That's 140K MORE than the western Allies took in the ten weeks from D-Day to the liberation of Paris.
The Russian expertise you seem to think highly of was mostly the willingness of high command to take casualties.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
