Phil Carter’s Intel Dump has reposted an old article, Why is urban combat so bloody?, that cites five reasons why it “remains a Hobbesian form of warfare where technological advantages are often offset by the complex terrain and presence of civilians”:
- Three-dimensional combat
- Cover and concealment
- Civilians and paramilitaries
- Communications
- Force structure
Why Better Firepower Flops in Urban Combat (also from a year ago, right before the US took Baghdad) shares some interesting details:
“Helicopters become unusable, because they can be taken out with groundfire,” Meade said.When Israeli troops went into Beirut in 1984 to fight the Palestinians, they found their tanks were more vulnerable to close-range attack, and they were difficult to maneuver.
[...]
The casualty rates — friendly casualties — for urban combat situations is about 30 percent, compared to 10 percent in other types of warfare, said retired Marine Col. Randy Gangle, an expert on urban assault training.“Standard communications equipment tends to become lost in those urban canyons as they call them,” Gangle said. “[Wearing] night vision goggles ? in a city as you are maneuvering through buildings you can open a door, end up in a brightly lit room and end up with what we call a whiteout.”
Beirut — and other city battles in other wars — demonstrates that urban combat in a city like Baghdad will have at least a three-dimensional quality. The enemy is equally likely to be above you in a building, behind you on the streets or underground in a basement.