![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This needs lots of work on spelling, grammar, and most of all NPOV. -- The Anome 13:07, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)
From the article:
Which international law? Certainly not Hague IV:
Protocol I Article 35, para. 2 states "Causing superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering" If one is fighting a determined well dug in force in a City which must be taken then the use of " heavy firepower and indiscriminate bombing in civilian-populated settings" is not prohibited if it can be justified by "military necessity" [1] -- PBS 14:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Are we sure that we want the photo that is currently placed at the top of the page?
It doesn't show a very organised unit and is not a good example of any obua tactics. The soldiers are bunched and one of the three soldiers supposed to provide an arc of covering fire is not doing so - his weapon is not trained. Perhaps we can find a better one?
this: http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/album19/ds3_15 and this: http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/album19/ds3 and this: http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/album19/abz stand out to me. Mike McGregor (Can) 01:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Ugh, why does MOUT redirect here
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire!
03:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
How useful do folks think a category of modern urban battles would be? is it worth creating? Mike McGregor (Can) 12:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't be a bad idea. One or two other points; What do we consider to be "modern times"? Does the Paris Commune of 1871 get in? How about the Parisian streets battles of 1848, or those in the same year in Milan, Vienna etc?
Also, I'm amazed that Wikiepdia has no article on the battle or siege of Madrid from 1936-39. A famous and bloody example of urban warfare during the Spanish Civil War -including one of the first instances of mass ariel bombardment of civilians. Don't know enough about it to start and article myself however.
Jdorney 11:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I made a request for the madrid article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history Mike McGregor (Can) 12:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
There was a lot of urban warfare in the Second Sino-Japanese War, to the extent that the Japanese didn't care about the civilians whatsoever - ie. tens of millions were killed. And yet it is not discussed? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais ( Be eudaimonic!) 20:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Found an interesting image: Image:Soviet soldier metro.jpg - it doesn't seem to be covered much but it would seem that metros would provide an interesting dimension to urban warfare (as a type of tunnel warfare) ever since the World Wars occurred, especially if they start occurring in the more dense areas. But it's not mentioned as much? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais ( Be eudaimonic!) 17:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
This section needs to be clean up considerably on top of which its content does not seem to be limited to one topic or at the very least clearly linked to the section heading. What does "Operations" mean in this context? It starts of in reference to actual operations and then meanders off in general topics on rules of engagement (that could make a nice new heading?) or alternatives like burning down the city or issues facing attackers etc. I suggest replacing "Operations" section name with new sections
Deon Steyn 13:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Urban warfare must be understood and conducted as more than a tactical challenge associated with a complex terrain. The realities of the urban operating environment consisting of a complex multidimensional terrain, population and both physical and virtual systems infrastructure concentrated in the cityscape represents a challenge for strategic planning and operational level considerations. This not only requires a well-orchestrated combined arms effort at the tactical level, but in addition a joint and interagency effort focused on the desired post-war scenario as described in political, economic and social terms rather just strictly military definitions of victory
I have deleted this paragraph:
Because most of it is not correct. The amount of force which is used depends on military necessity. Heavy bombardment is allowed if it is justified by military neccessity. This is clearly covered by Article 25 of Hague 1907 IV - The Laws and Customs of War on Land and Article 51.5 of Protocol I. In the cases where troops fighting in an urban enviroment where every street if not every house is defended, then if the defending soldier know their business the attackers will need to use heavy bombardment when assualting the city. Anyone who thinks that the Soviets could have captured Hitler's festung stadten (fortress cities) without "heavy artillery and massive tank assault[s]" has clearly not thought about military necessity. Also the defenders may well be acting in a legal manner even if they are fighting amoung civilians. For example the British paratroopers at Arnhem were not war criminals for defending their bridghead in the battle of Arnhem even though Dutch civilians were still in the town during the battle.
Further the sentence which starts "In some circumstances ..." has little or nothing to do with Urban warfare. -- PBS 18:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
From the history of the article:
Source: Antony Beevor Berlin: The Downfall 1945, Penguin Books, 2002, ISBN 0-670-88695-5 p. 317 "Then they went in again for festooning their vehicles with bedsprings and other metal to make the panzerfausts explode prematurely"
Although there is a picture of a T-34 with mesh screens in Berlin in 1945 there are other tanks in the same shot without mesh screens.( See behind the two standing figures). There are also other pictures of tanks and other AFV in Berlin in 1945 without. See this page [2] particularly this picture which shows soviet tanks by the Brandenburg Gate without mesh screens.
-- PBS 21:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The "Famous urban battles in modern times". Anyone think it's long enough to be broken out into a stand alone list linked off this article? Just a thought, I won't push it either way... Mike McGregor (Can) 18:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The image provided ("A northern European apartment building") doesn't seem to be too relevant to the associated text here. The text refers to 19th century buildings surrounding a courtyard, but the architecture shown is clearly much more recent. I suggest we drop the picture until a more representative one can be located. (Same fix is needed in the main article). jxm ( talk) 01:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the image here may be implemented (after being cgi'ed). Alternatively, it could be placed at another article.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This needs lots of work on spelling, grammar, and most of all NPOV. -- The Anome 13:07, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)
From the article:
Which international law? Certainly not Hague IV:
Protocol I Article 35, para. 2 states "Causing superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering" If one is fighting a determined well dug in force in a City which must be taken then the use of " heavy firepower and indiscriminate bombing in civilian-populated settings" is not prohibited if it can be justified by "military necessity" [1] -- PBS 14:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Are we sure that we want the photo that is currently placed at the top of the page?
It doesn't show a very organised unit and is not a good example of any obua tactics. The soldiers are bunched and one of the three soldiers supposed to provide an arc of covering fire is not doing so - his weapon is not trained. Perhaps we can find a better one?
this: http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/album19/ds3_15 and this: http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/album19/ds3 and this: http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/album19/abz stand out to me. Mike McGregor (Can) 01:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Ugh, why does MOUT redirect here
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire!
03:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
How useful do folks think a category of modern urban battles would be? is it worth creating? Mike McGregor (Can) 12:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't be a bad idea. One or two other points; What do we consider to be "modern times"? Does the Paris Commune of 1871 get in? How about the Parisian streets battles of 1848, or those in the same year in Milan, Vienna etc?
Also, I'm amazed that Wikiepdia has no article on the battle or siege of Madrid from 1936-39. A famous and bloody example of urban warfare during the Spanish Civil War -including one of the first instances of mass ariel bombardment of civilians. Don't know enough about it to start and article myself however.
Jdorney 11:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I made a request for the madrid article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history Mike McGregor (Can) 12:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
There was a lot of urban warfare in the Second Sino-Japanese War, to the extent that the Japanese didn't care about the civilians whatsoever - ie. tens of millions were killed. And yet it is not discussed? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais ( Be eudaimonic!) 20:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Found an interesting image: Image:Soviet soldier metro.jpg - it doesn't seem to be covered much but it would seem that metros would provide an interesting dimension to urban warfare (as a type of tunnel warfare) ever since the World Wars occurred, especially if they start occurring in the more dense areas. But it's not mentioned as much? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais ( Be eudaimonic!) 17:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
This section needs to be clean up considerably on top of which its content does not seem to be limited to one topic or at the very least clearly linked to the section heading. What does "Operations" mean in this context? It starts of in reference to actual operations and then meanders off in general topics on rules of engagement (that could make a nice new heading?) or alternatives like burning down the city or issues facing attackers etc. I suggest replacing "Operations" section name with new sections
Deon Steyn 13:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Urban warfare must be understood and conducted as more than a tactical challenge associated with a complex terrain. The realities of the urban operating environment consisting of a complex multidimensional terrain, population and both physical and virtual systems infrastructure concentrated in the cityscape represents a challenge for strategic planning and operational level considerations. This not only requires a well-orchestrated combined arms effort at the tactical level, but in addition a joint and interagency effort focused on the desired post-war scenario as described in political, economic and social terms rather just strictly military definitions of victory
I have deleted this paragraph:
Because most of it is not correct. The amount of force which is used depends on military necessity. Heavy bombardment is allowed if it is justified by military neccessity. This is clearly covered by Article 25 of Hague 1907 IV - The Laws and Customs of War on Land and Article 51.5 of Protocol I. In the cases where troops fighting in an urban enviroment where every street if not every house is defended, then if the defending soldier know their business the attackers will need to use heavy bombardment when assualting the city. Anyone who thinks that the Soviets could have captured Hitler's festung stadten (fortress cities) without "heavy artillery and massive tank assault[s]" has clearly not thought about military necessity. Also the defenders may well be acting in a legal manner even if they are fighting amoung civilians. For example the British paratroopers at Arnhem were not war criminals for defending their bridghead in the battle of Arnhem even though Dutch civilians were still in the town during the battle.
Further the sentence which starts "In some circumstances ..." has little or nothing to do with Urban warfare. -- PBS 18:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
From the history of the article:
Source: Antony Beevor Berlin: The Downfall 1945, Penguin Books, 2002, ISBN 0-670-88695-5 p. 317 "Then they went in again for festooning their vehicles with bedsprings and other metal to make the panzerfausts explode prematurely"
Although there is a picture of a T-34 with mesh screens in Berlin in 1945 there are other tanks in the same shot without mesh screens.( See behind the two standing figures). There are also other pictures of tanks and other AFV in Berlin in 1945 without. See this page [2] particularly this picture which shows soviet tanks by the Brandenburg Gate without mesh screens.
-- PBS 21:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The "Famous urban battles in modern times". Anyone think it's long enough to be broken out into a stand alone list linked off this article? Just a thought, I won't push it either way... Mike McGregor (Can) 18:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The image provided ("A northern European apartment building") doesn't seem to be too relevant to the associated text here. The text refers to 19th century buildings surrounding a courtyard, but the architecture shown is clearly much more recent. I suggest we drop the picture until a more representative one can be located. (Same fix is needed in the main article). jxm ( talk) 01:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the image here may be implemented (after being cgi'ed). Alternatively, it could be placed at another article.