[ham_sandwich]

Urban combat tactics are fascinating. I’m reminded of this post that explains how the IDF in the early 2000s would try to “walk through walls” in urban combat. It also discusses how the film ‘Die Hard’ is a study of architecture. [0] The underlying essay referenced in the post is brief and interesting as well, discussing how those urban tactics were influenced by postwar French thought, in particular the ideas of Deleuze & Guattari.

[0] http://www.bldgblog.com/2010/01/nakatomi-space/

[secfirstmd]

Mouse-holing, which is essentially what you describe, is a pretty old tactic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouse-holing

The IDF also extensively used "neighbour pressure"[1][2] and "human shields"[3] against civilians as operational Urban Warfare techniques in the 2000s. Basically grabbing an innocent civilian and sending them into a dangerous location nearby to clear the trail in front of you in the knowledge an enemy is less inclined to kill a neighbour.* Of course, how is that innocent civilian supposed to know where a landmine or tripwire is placed? Something not as readily available to US forces in Iraq.

[1] "IDF to appeal human shield ban"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4333982.stm

[2] https://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/wp-content/uploads/201...

[3] https://www.btselem.org/topic/human_shields

*Yes this is a war crime and a violation of Geneva Convention. Even the Israeli Supreme Court said it shouldn't be allowed.

[paganel]

I’ve seen the same tactic used in the Syrian Civil War, especially during the battle of Aleppo. I’m on my phone and can’t easily searched for image references but the first image link that I could find [1] is pretty self-explaining. Too bad YT took down almost all of the videos related to the war, even the non-gory ones, it was a good resource for amateurs like myself interested in modern-day warfare and tactics.

[1] https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/en/security/2013/10/syria-d...

[monocasa]

These guys did some really great work archiving as much as they could.

https://media.ccc.de/v/33c3-7909-syrian_archive

[secfirstmd]

Various groups at the ICC have been documentating videos from the conflict for potential use in trials.

[PhasmaFelis]

Jesus fuck, that's scummy.

[tomcam]

Permit me to agree but to ask the obverse question. They are dealing with an enemy that routinely uses hospitals and dwellings for military purposes. Both are war crimes.

But... Could it be (not trying to take sides here for the sake of this though experiment, honest) "cheaper" in terms of civilian lives to use a few as shields? In other words, suppose taking an opposing officer's family hostage saves 100 lives on your side and 500 lives on their side. Ethically, which is the right decision? Kill one family to save many or kill many more soldiers and perhaps more civilians?

This is the decision Harry Truman had to make... I think.

[PhasmaFelis]

That's a thorny ethical question, but it's not really relevant to what the IDF has apparently been doing. The article says they like to grab random nearby civilians and force them to do things like remove suspected IEDs and, literally, stand in front of Israeli soldiers in a firefight in hopes that the enemy will hesitate (they often don't). It's not just a few psychos; the IDF as a whole is claiming in court that they have a right to use random bystanders as ablative armor. That's unequivocally evil.

[remind_me_again]

Using human shield is a war crime [1]. But they appealed(?) regardless?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_shields_(law)

[programd]

There's an excellent account of how the US forces in Vietnam forgot and re-learned the lessons of WW II urban warfare during the Tet offensive in the battle for Hue in Mark Bowden's "Hue 1968: A Turning Point of the American War in Vietnam" [0]. It's an excellent study of urban warfare and in general a great military history. Includes first hand accounts by soldiers and civilians from all sides. Highly recommended.

[0] https://www.amazon.com/Hue-1968-Turning-American-Vietnam/dp/...

[AWildC182]

In terms of military doctrine, one thing that really struck me recently was learning that urban areas are considered similarly to mountain ranges and water from a theater-maneuvering point of view. Your tanks will get bogged down in a town just as fast as if you tried to drive them through a swamp. With the rise of increasingly large urban centers, a modern conflict could be very different than the second world war... At least until the slaugherbots are perfected :P

[jandrese]

Urban combat is terrifying. In an open field a tank is pretty hard to counter since they can see further and shoot better than a person. It's very hard to hide, especially from IR.

In a city there is almost an uncountable number of places for someone to hide and launch an ambush. They can get extremely close to a target without being detected, which opens up a lot of options for anti-tank warfare. They can also block paths extremely easily (with say a dried up cement truck) and neutralize combat vehicles. They also have a good idea of where you will be when planting IEDs, unlike in a wide open field.

[azernik]

One big lesson of the Libyan and Syrian Civil Wars was that, in an even close-to-symmetric war, large urban areas modified for military use are more effective than purpose-built fortifications for defense.