NA Infantry Formations

[kalos72]

In an urban environment I can see subs and shotguns the favorite weapons for sure.

It seems to me that in a purely urban environment, defenders would be at a disadvantage. At least if they get themselves tied down inside a building.

[HorseSoldier]

Thats true, with 200% casualities in the 1st, that would equate to alot of enemy dead as well. Captured weapons/ammo would be highly prized at this stage of the game.

I am pretty sure there was a post about weapon designs that could be made after the nukes dropped...I need to look that up again.

The students in a high school shop class are capable of building SMGs along the lines of the Sten, Sterling, Grease Gun, or PPS-43 -- open bolt, pistol caliber, blow back operation are exceedingly easy to build.

[Abbott Shaull]

A static Defense Force can be trouble. You have to able to secure your area and make sure no one comes in through the back door...

[Webstral]

It seems to me that in a purely urban environment, defenders would be at a disadvantage. At least if they get themselves tied down inside a building.

Historically, the defender in an urban environment has enjoyed a significant advantage. This is because the attacker must expose himself to move forward. The urban environment is very complex with limited lines of sight, lots of cover and concealment, and often multiple levels for the defenders to base their fire. The attackers' goal is to bypass strong points wherever possible. This is not always possible.

Webstral

[kalos72]

Ok I guess I was looking at it as if a defending force gets tied down in a building, the attacking force just needs to hit that building. They are locked into position and cant move, possibly retreat. The attackers have 360 field of fire depending on the building.

I guess, like many things, it depends on the details behind the defense. If its a planned secure building or just some random one they ran into and such.


EDIT: One of my players saw this thread and now wants to start making Sten like subs that fire a 5.56 round. Good god Dan! :P

[Legbreaker]

A static Defense Force can be trouble. You have to able to secure your area and make sure no one comes in through the back door...

However, a properly prepared defensive position with it's flanks secured is near impossible to defeat without adequate weapons and equipment - just take a look at WWI for a exaggerated example (trench systems crossing Europe, miles of depth, barbed wire, mines, artillery support, etc, etc).

Even a small building complex which has been prepared will resist most attacks against it. Board up/block windows and doors, sandbags to increase wall thickness in firing positions, etc. Without heavy weapons and explosives (or sitting back and starving them out), it's going to be very costly!

Of course if the defenders have a covered line of withdrawal/resupply the whole game changes.

[kalos72]

But if its a hasty fortification its like fish in a barrel...

Overall I can see how units that are more commonly fighting in a true urban environment would want something shorter for close range combat and how say an M16 would be better suited for the open field.

Perhaps even having units that are completely focused, equipped and trained on urban combat. For me, being in NYC, that could come in handy for sure.

[Legbreaker]

I tend to disagree. Just ask anyone who's been through FIBUA training (Fighting In Built Up Areas aka CQB). Even a plywood wall is of some benefit to a defender - an attacker has to know where to shoot to be effective and who's to say that plywood isn't just a veneer over a reinforced concrete slab

There are so many ways that the urban environment is deadly to an attacking force. The defender usually has better knowledge of the layout and can be hiding almost anywhere. It's also a three dimensional battlefield - ground level, upper stories and underground (basements, sewers, service tunnels, dry water mains, etc).

An attacking force may take the ground floor only to find itself catching grenades from the floor above, or defenders springing up behind them, taking a few shots into their rear before ducking back into cover again.

This is not to say it's all to the defenders advantage though. With the cornucopia of cover, an attacking force may be able to get almost within touching range before being spotted/shot at.

[HorseSoldier]

Yeah -- even in urban fights where one or both sides are able to just unload HE without restraint on enemy strong points it doesn't solve the problem completely. If the other side has the stomach to keep fighting, they then have tons of rubble to build their next set of strong points with.

[Rockwolf66]

EDIT: One of my players saw this thread and now wants to start making Sten like subs that fire a 5.56 round. Good god Dan! :P

Oh, so they want to start making AR-18 assault Rifles. While they do work well...God the one I handled felt cheap. Not to mention they were a favorite of the IRA*. Still such a weapon would kick the heck out of a 9mm SMG.

* Having had family serving durring the "troubles" I have a low opinion of the IRA and their methods.

[waiting4something]

I have to ask how is it possible to have 200% casualties Isn't 100% the max you can have I mean with 200% that like you killed everyone then brought them back to life and killed them again It's like when people tell you there gonna give something 110%. I think no your not, because that's not possible.

I also agree that defenders in MOUT tend to have the advantage for reasons already listed. Plus, urban warfare is very confusing and people get split up and isolated very easily. Communition has to be constant and things have to move rapidly and fluidly or things go to hell fast. Without the element of surprise its all in favor for the defenders.

[Targan]

I have to ask how is it possible to have 200% casualties Isn't 100% the max you can have I mean with 200% that like you killed everyone then brought them back to life and killed them again It's like when people tell you there gonna give something 110%. I think no your not, because that's not possible.

I know, on the face of it it does seem counter-intuitive. Allow me to offer an explanation. Say a given unit starts with 100 men. It fights 4 big battles over the period of a year, losing 50 men in each battle (a casualty rate of 50% per battle). After each battle it takes on reinforcements, trains and equips them, and heads out to the next battle. Therefore over the course of the year the unit has taken 200% casualties (50% x 4 = 200%). Does that clarify things for you

[pmulcahy11b]

It's like when people tell you there gonna give something 110%. I think no your not, because that's not possible.

That's when they do a job "above and beyond" -- better or greater than you expected from them or thought was possible.

[pmulcahy11b]

Targan is right. 200% casualties is like in Saving Private Ryan, the Captain told his Top that he had lost something like 92 men under his command. That's close to 100% casualties for a company -- yet I'll bet he hit Omaha with a 100%-strength company. He got replacements over time for those troops he lost.

[HorseSoldier]

Yeah, particularly when talking about both killed and wounded, it's not that uncommon to see units that take over 100% casualties during sustained campaigns. I think there were a good number of units that reached that benchmark in both Europe and the Pacific during WW2 (on the US and Allied sides; a lot more Axis and Soviet units got there).