It is war at its dirtiest, with collateral damage difficult to avoid and a high potential for confusion. Even untrained militia can stand against highly trained troops in the confusing twists and turns of a high population center. Urban warfare is a nightmare in modern times. Albans, discussed below.) Unfortunately this kind of warfare still takes place in various conflicts around the world. (See for example the two medieval Battles of St. Significant street fighting of this type was seen at least as early as World War II (especially the Battle of Stalingrad), though there are several Napoleonic war battles (most notably the Sieges of Zaragoza) that foreshadowed the urban warfare of the 20th century and such battles likely occurred even earlier than that. After all, it's very difficult to grow adequate food supplies in an urban area, and breaking the defending force's spirit is preferable to a drawn out conflict.
Yet another option is to besiege the city. At other times, they simply flatten as much of the city as possible before/while/instead of fighting over it, thereby neutralizing the "urban" aspect, and usually rendering the place strategically worthless in the process, as well as being, shall we say, problematic to any remaining citizenry. As an unfortunate side effect of the dirty, casualty-ridden, and momentum-killing nature of the fighting, armies are often forced to simply leave the job half done by avoiding it all together (usually due to political implications of such a prolonged, bloody conflict).
0 kommentar(er)
