Best way to capture a city where enemy has mustered itself and self sufficient.

[Goenitz]

capture and occupy?? can always rebuild what's left.

not sure.. ok lets say occupy... but when say capture the culprit... does it mean we want to blow the person ?
anyway...the Cengiz khan style may help.. like burnt down the city.. kill most of workers/peasants etc... Transfer influential people to capital for years.. tehn start building city from scratch with placing those influential people back to fallen city...

 

[Aepsilons]

Complete and utter annihilation through air strikes and daisy cutters just like what uncle Sam did in Afghanistan.

The Ottoman Empire's siege and conquest of Constantinople comes to mind. The utter decimation of the Byzantine Army was witnessed.

not sure.. ok lets say occupy... but when say capture the culprit... does it mean we want to blow the person ?
anyway...the Cengiz khan style may help.. like burnt down the city.. kill most of workers/peasants etc... Transfer influential people to capital for years.. tehn start building city from scratch with placing those influential people back to fallen city...

That's usually the best strategy in classical warfare. Take the city, and repopulate it with one's own people.

 

[Goenitz]

Complete and utter annihilation through air strikes and daisy cutters just like what uncle Sam did in Afghanistan.

is taht a taunt or strategy??? bcz before killing in that much number make sure you are super power iwth all the weapons, media and trade in yuor hand

 

[Aepsilons]

is taht a taunt or strategy??? bcz before killing in that much number make sure you are super power iwth all the weapons, media and trade in yuor hand

@Goenitz ,


That was the very strategem used by the Roman Army during the 3rd Punic Wars; the Roman Empire raized the city of Carthage to the ground, the entire population was either put to the sword or enslaved. Carthage, literally, was erased from the histories. And thus disappeared the great Carthaginian Empire.

This same tactic was used again by the Romans to put down the Jewish Rebellion in Judea, and the Romans raized the city of Jerusalem to the ground and dispersed the Jews out of Judea, and erased them from the region for at least 2 millenia.

 

[Goenitz]

The Ottoman Empire's siege and conquest of Constantinople comes to mind. The utter decimation of the Byzantine Army was witnessed.



That's usually the best strategy in classical warfare. Take the city, and repopulate it with one's own people.

its more like placing brainwashed people.. not completely invading forces people... as those influential people (artists, judges, speakers, etc) belong to the fallen city at first palce.. yeas but transfiguring locals in huge numbers with mixing rest with invading forces' people is best.. like Tsar or Stalin did to Kazak land or Chchyan
but this is post victory strategy. And this is very effective
Imagine if ukaraine had shifted eastern provinces public to west then russian back rebels or russian themselves would not be welcome by locals.

 

[Sarmad Ajmal]

capture and occupy?? can always rebuild what's left.

He is gonna blow whole city by TNTs. He needs much effort to rebuild by remains left

Complete and utter annihilation through air strikes and daisy cutters just like what uncle Sam did in Afghanistan.

They ran of nuclear resources, other wise the case would not be different from Heroshima and Nagasaqi.

 

[Goenitz]

@Goenitz ,
This same tactic was used again by the Romans to put down the Jewish Rebellion in Judea, and the Romans raized the city of Jerusalem to the ground and dispersed the Jews out of Judea, and erased them from the region for at least 2 millenia.

I know the 2nd example.. but you know Roman were world super power. So they could do that. In todays world we can't do that. The latest examples were set in WW2. After that, its hard to do.
Anyway for taht much destruction, u hv to be super power to face opposition/retaliation from rest of teh world.

 

[Aepsilons]

They ran of nuclear resources, other wise the case would not be different from Heroshima and Nagasaqi.

Nuclear strike is over-kill. Besides, the use of a nuclear weapons would affect the attacking army's ability to use the city as a military outpost or rebuild it for later use; as per the OP's background position.

I know the 2nd example.. but you know Roman were world super power. So they could do that. In todays world we can't do that. The latest examples were set in WW2. After that, its hard to do.
Anyway for taht much destruction, u hv to be super power to face opposition/retaliation from rest of teh world.

hehe, you're adding new variables now. International opinion wasn't mentioned in your background position.

 

[Goenitz]

hehe, you're adding new variables now. International opinion wasn't mentioned in your background position.

Let me add in Todays world ..but in my comments i said its a 4th gen war..

but you people are thinking of immense fire power. think in term of small scale but technical feat that cause enemy hamper/demoralized/unwilling to continue fight as their number is huge.
Take inspiration from a mosquito. Very small but in right conditions and poor medial set up, it can be lethal.

 

[Aepsilons]

Let me add in Todays world ..but in my comments i said its a 4th gen war..

In that case we'll have to conduct the seizure more civilly. Limitations such as the Geneva Convention and all...

 

[Goenitz]

@Rajput_Pakistani @Windjammer @Horus

 

[jhungary]

I think its more of 4th gen of war... yes artillery shelling with drone assistance may help. As civilians are there (let me include that)..
Only infantry can capture then on full assault, but brick by brick. Modern weapons will stop any tank or amroured advancement which will lower the moral of strike force

........

I think you misunderstand what 4th Generation warfare mean.....

In Warfare Science, 4th Generation warfare define a decentralised form of warfare, meaning there are no nominated factor of defence or offence force, the line between military and politic have been fused together.

Not all insurgency are classified as 4th Generation warfare, however, one very solid part of any 4th generation warfare is the local insurrection.

The meaning of decentralised warfare means there are both component of nominal fighting and insurgence in the mix, basically is an insurgent with its own national army.

When we classified insurgency, we see that it is either an army without local support or an resistance movement without an armed support, they can be peaceful or violent. But 4th Generation warfare bring a third element into the mix, which would be an organised fighting force. When you introduce that into the insurgency, then you have a 4th gen war at your hand.

Like all 4th gen war, the only way you can win is first by defeat the garrison, and start pacification. And if you are not talking about a local partisan but an foreign invading army, then it is nearly impossible to win in a 4th gen war. Anyone can fight off an garrison, but you need local knowledge to pacify the insurgency part of the element. And most likely the reason of insurgency was rooted at that invading foreign army in the first place.

But the question is, is your scenario point to a 4th Generation war??

It's too little to say, since you say the invader are technological more advance than the defender, but then negate that effect by saying the defender process modern weapon that can demoralise the invader.

 

[Goenitz]

But the question is, is your scenario point to a 4th Generation war??

It's too little to say, since you say the invader are technological more advance than the defender, but then negate that effect by saying the defender process modern weapon that can demoralise the invader.

1. Actually, I am not a military personal to draw lines between categories.
2. I put the thread keeping in mind the current yemen situation (taking back capital from rebels)
3. But rebels can get hands off on rpg or tows missile (even javilon) as US forces left in haste from yemen, which are very effective in urban set up but not in open conflict.
bascially by 4th gen I menat, not minor ops but a fight with untrained/unorganized militias in urban environment which have a political agenda.

 

[EyelessInGaza]

rushing with bicycle down south and made buzz whiz along the way

@Nihonjin1051 @mike2000 is back
ing the remind me with the fall of Singapore heh

Well, if we're really going to talk history, you'd also need the enemy (British) guns pointing the wrong way, seawards....

 

[Nike]

Well, if we're really going to talk history, you'd also need the enemy (British) guns pointing the wrong way, seawards....

it just a myth, actually the British has lost much of their gun in pre-eliminary battle during Malaya campaign and the lost of HMS Repulse and Prince of Wales has much to do with their deteriorating morale in the whole campaign