Jarek T'chort
Nov 1st, 2003, 04:09:38 PM
Urban combat techniques:
Heavy bombardment of cities has always had two significant drawbacks.
1) Destruction of population centers, in turn creating more problems;
a) refugees
b) economic collapse of worlds
c) loss of production centers
2) The bombardment, by either artillery or orbiting capital ships can create a veritable maze of ruins, in which defenders can incur heavy losses on our forces.
So, how can these problems be averted (at least to some degree ) ?
- Seige
* Advantages: Prevents heavy losses, cuts off the enemy from supply and keeps the enemy penned in and subject to whatever incursions are deemed neccesary.
* Disadvantages: Takes time. In most ground campaigns, fast, fluid movement is required in order to prevent the enemy from settling in secure positions. There may be a set time schedule also. It also ties up forces that may be needed elsewhere.
- Surgical bombardment
* Advantages: This method effectively rules out the need for massive waves of ground troops or for intense shelling of enemy cities. Through these strikes with TIE bombers we can wipe out command structures, governmental centers, millitary structures and so forth.
* Disadvantages: Surgical strikes need excellent, up to date intelligence. This may not always be the case, plus surgical bombardment cannot deal as effectively with underground bunkers.
- Commando raids
* Advantages: Intelligence commandos are used to pacify enemy 'hotspots'. They are inserted behind the lines and take out key targets, as well as providing intel on the tactical situation.
* Disadvantages: They are massively outnumbered by enemy forces, therefore they cannot take and hold key structures or be used to wipe out enemy resistance.
- Armoured thrust
* Advantages: Walkers and repulsorlift vehicles are used to pacify enemy fortifications and forces. Close suppourt ground troops clear anti - vehicle defenses and enemy infantry. For fast suprise attacks this can be an excellent choice for an Imperial ground commander. The sheer weight of an armoured thrust into a city center can be enough to dislodge enemy forces.
* Disadvantages: Narrow routes and the veritable maze of structures can lead to armoured columns to be easily ambushed. Technological advantages can are often mittigated by the restrictions of an urban enviroment.
e.g. Take a typical cross roads surrounded by ferrocrete structures.
The enemy sets up say four E-web repeating blasters along with anti - vehicle weaponry. They can easily take out vehicles and their infantry suppourt in close quarters.
Note: All the above are used in tandem with close air and artillery suppourt.
So, what is an ideal option for a ground force tasked with securing a city?
In my opinion, Imperial forces should advance quickly, bypassing enemy strongholds, in order to take control of the key strategic points within a typical city, i.e; spaceports, production facitities, governmental structures, food supplies etc.
Troops should, ASAP, take up defensive positions around these strategic points, forcing the enemy to launch offensive operations. Keep in mind that Imperial Army troopers are adept at hand to hand and close quarters combat. After this, air suppourt can be called in deal with strong enemy fortifications and positions within the city.
Once this is done, Imperial Stormtroopers can be used to rapidly assault key sections of the city still under enemy control.
Also, if Imperial forces are outnumbered by an enemy they must seek to hold their defensive poitions whilst keeping armour and walker outside the city, in order to defend against encirclement.
In conclusion, mobile warfare, as is practised by the Sovereignty, must be switched to defensive tactics within urban areas. By utilising the superb quality of the Imperial forces, Urban conflict can be resolved with fewer losses and greater gain ( in terms of economic infastructure being captured largely intact ).
Heavy bombardment of cities has always had two significant drawbacks.
1) Destruction of population centers, in turn creating more problems;
a) refugees
b) economic collapse of worlds
c) loss of production centers
2) The bombardment, by either artillery or orbiting capital ships can create a veritable maze of ruins, in which defenders can incur heavy losses on our forces.
So, how can these problems be averted (at least to some degree ) ?
- Seige
* Advantages: Prevents heavy losses, cuts off the enemy from supply and keeps the enemy penned in and subject to whatever incursions are deemed neccesary.
* Disadvantages: Takes time. In most ground campaigns, fast, fluid movement is required in order to prevent the enemy from settling in secure positions. There may be a set time schedule also. It also ties up forces that may be needed elsewhere.
- Surgical bombardment
* Advantages: This method effectively rules out the need for massive waves of ground troops or for intense shelling of enemy cities. Through these strikes with TIE bombers we can wipe out command structures, governmental centers, millitary structures and so forth.
* Disadvantages: Surgical strikes need excellent, up to date intelligence. This may not always be the case, plus surgical bombardment cannot deal as effectively with underground bunkers.
- Commando raids
* Advantages: Intelligence commandos are used to pacify enemy 'hotspots'. They are inserted behind the lines and take out key targets, as well as providing intel on the tactical situation.
* Disadvantages: They are massively outnumbered by enemy forces, therefore they cannot take and hold key structures or be used to wipe out enemy resistance.
- Armoured thrust
* Advantages: Walkers and repulsorlift vehicles are used to pacify enemy fortifications and forces. Close suppourt ground troops clear anti - vehicle defenses and enemy infantry. For fast suprise attacks this can be an excellent choice for an Imperial ground commander. The sheer weight of an armoured thrust into a city center can be enough to dislodge enemy forces.
* Disadvantages: Narrow routes and the veritable maze of structures can lead to armoured columns to be easily ambushed. Technological advantages can are often mittigated by the restrictions of an urban enviroment.
e.g. Take a typical cross roads surrounded by ferrocrete structures.
The enemy sets up say four E-web repeating blasters along with anti - vehicle weaponry. They can easily take out vehicles and their infantry suppourt in close quarters.
Note: All the above are used in tandem with close air and artillery suppourt.
So, what is an ideal option for a ground force tasked with securing a city?
In my opinion, Imperial forces should advance quickly, bypassing enemy strongholds, in order to take control of the key strategic points within a typical city, i.e; spaceports, production facitities, governmental structures, food supplies etc.
Troops should, ASAP, take up defensive positions around these strategic points, forcing the enemy to launch offensive operations. Keep in mind that Imperial Army troopers are adept at hand to hand and close quarters combat. After this, air suppourt can be called in deal with strong enemy fortifications and positions within the city.
Once this is done, Imperial Stormtroopers can be used to rapidly assault key sections of the city still under enemy control.
Also, if Imperial forces are outnumbered by an enemy they must seek to hold their defensive poitions whilst keeping armour and walker outside the city, in order to defend against encirclement.
In conclusion, mobile warfare, as is practised by the Sovereignty, must be switched to defensive tactics within urban areas. By utilising the superb quality of the Imperial forces, Urban conflict can be resolved with fewer losses and greater gain ( in terms of economic infastructure being captured largely intact ).