How Do Troops Protect Themselves From Ambushes By Enemies Armed With Guns Hiding Behind Opened Doors Or Hanging Atop Ceiling And Other Unusual Place?

[vetinari]

You are right but a lot of the time you are not facing that kind of enemy sometimes they will do something to confirm their presence when you shell or hose down the building they are in. On top of that the mere act of shelling or firing on the area itself changes the situation to one where you can might gain more information*.

It also depends on what form the enemy takes, yes an good infantry squad might hunker down and ride it out (not having many other options), but what if it's a recon unit who might think they have been spotted they may well scoot, hell it may be other unit that rely on scoot as part of their tactics.

On top of that we know it's recon by fire just to see, but the other side don't always know that and sometimes it hard to tell the difference when the walls and ceiling are shaking

Basically while you are right in principle and certainly right about the only way to be 100% sure is to send in boots, but in practice there is a lot of 'just give that thing a burst or a round and see what happens', because a lot of the time you are trying to bait teh opposition into doing something. and teh ting is about sending in boost it it happens in wider context, you are committing to an action are you actually in a position to that, do you have higher priorities on you to do list that will get in the way of it, and so on.

And finally there is the question of just basic time, there could be a lot of possibles you might want to investigate and you just don't have the time to send a squad for each one every time

Also as aside infantry retreating to a basement to hide from artillery is fine until the building take a round and potentiality collapse enough to block your escape.


*sadly a classic is send civilians in the area running grab one ask who is in the area, and especially that if you know where your real target is you stop taking more general potshots

The Australian Army is extremely cautious with it's men and it has plenty of time to check out obstacles. Advance rates for infantry units is usually measured in a few thousand metres a day in close country and a few kilometres in open country. We tend to look carefully before we advance. We make sure our route is clear of enemy, as much as possible. We tend to protect civilians as much as possible. We rarely engage in wild firefights just for the hell of it. We maintain our fire discipline as much as possible. I have taken part in range practices where we would be ordered by sections to fire at specific targets. The US Army's habit of firing at anything or anybody they observe to their front or flanks is openly discouraged.

 

[TDM]

The Australian Army is extremely cautious with it's men and it has plenty of time to check out obstacles. Advance rates for infantry units is usually measured in a few thousand metres a day in close country and a few kilometres in open country. We tend to look carefully before we advance. We make sure our route is clear of enemy, as much as possible. We tend to protect civilians as much as possible. We rarely engage in wild firefights just for the hell of it. We maintain our fire discipline as much as possible. I have taken part in range practices where we would be ordered by sections to fire at specific targets. The US Army's habit of firing at anything or anybody they observe to their front or flanks is openly discouraged.

And honestly that sounds great*, and I think we all hope we will be operating such forgiving contexts and with such operational freedom, but in the history of actual conflicts involving many countries in many contexts how often has what you described actually been the reality especially in situations were you not doing peacekeeping with a superiority of resources?


But to be fair what I was describing was not wildly firing at everything in your cone of vision!


*sorry that sounds like I'm taking the piss, I'm not!

 

[RanulfC]

Grenades.. another thing I'm not allowed to use in video games

Not really my fault those windows/doors as so narrow!

Randy

 

[Sam R.]

I’ve been looking at support arms replacing infantry arms. Red Crescent has reported on Russia’s pioneering work with fuel air explosives in this regard. There must be something fundamentally repugnant to the human being even in industrial warfare about sucking civilians or even unrecognized guerilla government’s staff inside out by their lungs given the limited use of these devices in highly reported warfare. They produce dead without rubble and clear buildings.

There are moral limits to fish / mout. Artillery bombardment might be limited by rubble formation but even in Grozny it was the media or a sense of moral outrage that limited the use of fae, no?

 

[vetinari]

And honestly that sounds great*, and I think we all hope we will be operating such forgiving contexts and which such operational freedom, but in the history of actual conflicts involving many countries in many contexts how often has what you described actually been the reality especially in situations were you not doing peacekeeping with a superiority of resources?

The Australian Army prides itself on it's discipline and professionalism. We take care to shoot at only people who are shooting at us or about to. We do not engage in wild firefights. It enabled us to win nearly all engagements we engaged in, in Vietnam/Somalia/Iraq/Afghanistan/Iraq. We fight the enemy at their own game and usually beat him.

But to be fair what I was describing was not wildly firing at everything in you cone of vision!

That is not the impression I receive from watching newsreels/video taken in warzones. The US Army's idea of fire discipline would earn its practicers a fizzer the first time and a literal boot up the arse the second time if they were part of the Australian Army. Soldiers seem to let fly at any provocation.

*sorry that sounds like I'm taking the piss, I'm not!

Apology accepted.