Assaulting Buildings

calvin2224 SG

Unless one is in a hostage situation, why bother assaulting the building at all? Just blast it up. During the Moscow coup, the parliament was shelled instead of assaulted.

SpecOps87 SG

Its not always classic case of why preserve the building's structural integrity, but its like, some of these buildings are like national monuments etc...now the scenario is only a 20F HDB block, but what if give you Swissotel or Republic Plaza...den die alr lor..

Quirinus SG

The ideal "textbook" situation is always going to be a Top Down attack.
The advantages of such an attack are obvious.

Firstly, grenades roll downwards. Thus, it's easier for you to lob a grenade at the enemy than it is for the enemy to throw one at you.

Secondly, attacking downwards allows your support weapons to come into play. By attacking downwards, any escaping enemy are "flushed" towards the buildings exits. By siting MG weapons in position to guard the exits, any escaping enemy will be wiped out with no further risk. On the other hand, enemy always escape AWAY from the the direction your attack is coming from so if you attack top-up, you might find that you've chased all the enemy and trapped them in the top floor. This is BAD for the infantryman because a cornered and trapped enemy will more likely put up a more aggressive defence since they have no other alternative than to fight. Clearing this last floor will definitely result in more friendly casualties.

Lastly, attacking top-down will allow a force to side-step more enemy obstacles and traps since these are more likely to be placed at exits and entrances.

Quirinus SG

The urban warfare doctrine in the SAF has become a bit diluted since most ground commanders fail to realise the inherent benefits of the top down approach.

Since most training occurs in fibua villiages like those in Tekong or BCTC where it is extremely difficult for a clearing force to climb stairs without becoming decisively engaged (always only got 1 set of stairs which are always well guarded), trainees in Sispec or OCS are always taught to go bottom up. This is good for such low level structures but it teaches future commanders the wrong principles for when they tackle multi-level structures in real battles.

Also, command schools always lack necessary items like folding ladders which facilitate the top-down strategy.

SpecOps87 SG

Truth be said, for low buildings of like 1 to 3 floors, the bottoms-up approach is pretty okay. However, if multi-level, I pity the shagged assault force once they reach the top.

Joshua1975 SG

bottom up or top down????

does not all come down to "WHO" plan the attack?
what support you will be getting?
what are the numbers or even the capability of the enemy?

does anyone in (wearing green) here think that they are really going to clear any building more than 20 story in any war? well think about it...

i dun get to plan, so the things i can do is the perfect my skill... is that not better than to tell yourself... fcuk (HE) get us to do the fcuk way up...

beavan SG

if u have to clear out 20 levels of HDB flats, the war is pretty much over.

there would be alot of civilian casualties when it happens

insouciant SG

Actually, in Blackhawk Down, they cleared top down and bottom up when they initially assaulted the target building no? It was only after they were stuck on the ground with heavy gunfire that they couldn't clear buildings from top down (can't land helicopters to pick them up), and that will probably be the case in war as well.

But speaking on a local context, trying to clear a 12 storey HDB long block will be a killer. You'll definitely need more than 1 company to clear the building. One platoon alone will be needed to cover the ground floor to ensure no enemy escapes.

In a war situation, you'll probably need the entire PDF and then some just to clear one housing estate!

Lastly you don't really need to repel to land a rooftop lah, helicopters can hover close enough that you can jump on to the roof (unless its a sloping one). The only problem is that roof exits on HDB blocks are limited, making for perfect traps.

Rockhound SG

u need at least a company of soldiers to clear a hdb block….to have any success…and i pity the medics…

zoik SG

i guess we need to look at recent examples, especially with regards to housing estates built on blocks like many are in singapore.

grozny - had the hell pounded out of it...
balkans - had the hell pounded out of it...
once pounded, both were followed by alot of bitter, aggressive, nightmarish, room-to-room, street to street fighting...

[i'm only familiar with the balkans - havent been to chechnya lol - and while western training was always done on - probably - the same principles as used by SAF : balkan training areas are composed of mixed terrain with 1-3 storey buildings in village or small town arrangements, i dont recall anyone particularly relishing - or practising - the task of fighting within the city areas, especially where there are alot of residential city blocks, much like in singapore]

as somone else pointed out i guess it would be down to what assets you have and the options open to how deliver them.

an alternative to going top down through the roof exit would be to going on the sides down on the balconies.
but i dont think the ordinary grunt has this option, therefore if you can, maybe a combined force, one that can go top down [a special forces unit of sorts - if black hawk down is used as a reference, yes they went top down, but it was the special forces delta unit that went top down, the grunts [rangers] covered from outside [and even shot at their own delta in a blue on blue incident] - showing the example of a combined/multi unit force approach] and the ground convoy also composed of seals.

and since SF are taught and do practice top down approaches, they can carry on doing that, and the grunts can carry on going bottom up, or some sort of mixture can happen [for example SF clear and hold the top few levels, and the grunts - because of greater numbers - can hit the rest of the floors in multiples simultaneously].
this would lessen the need for the smaller numbered SF to clear all rooms/levels whilst grunts just sit outside covering exists [which is fine for smaller levels but not for 20+lvl HDB's..], and lessens requirement for grunts to learn and operate top down approaches.

~ just thinking aloud...

Daniel-Lim SG

The last battle in Saving Private Ryan is another good example of FIBUA.

The US troops were entrenched in the BUA. They had MG and snipers up on the high floors.

But the majority of the troops remained on the ground. This will usually be the case as those on the high floors always run the risk of being trapped.

Also, on the high floor you can't react to changes in the battle situation. If for example enemy is nearly breaking through one part of the defence perimeter, it will be difficult for troops up in high floors to go and reinforce that area.

Saving Private Ryan also showed the value of tanks in FIBUA. When enemy is entrenched inside a concrete building, there's nothing like a good old tank canon to blast them out.

This awesome combat video of The Big Red One in Iraq gives you a good idea of FIBUA. A lot of times you are shooting at concrete as you can't see the enemy. It's another kind of jungle.
www.combatreform.com/ArmyBIGREDONEinfallujah.asf

It gives you an idea of how helpless you feel with a rifle or even MG for shooting at unseen enemy behind concrete and cement. You really hope for a big tank cannon. Otherwise you'll have to clear every room in that city.

SpecOps87 SG

What about the use of flame weapons? If I’m not mistaken, PLA still uses flameweapons to help clear out buildings.

zoik SG

Iraq has also demonstrated the weak points of using heavy armour [or even light armour] in FIBUA situations.
The ability for insurgents to hide until the vehicle has come close or past, and then to pop out, firing into the weak points of the vehicles [engines, fuel tanks, rear, etc] - i believe SPR also showed the vulnerability of armour in built up areas [though less effectively than say BHD which demonstrated thin skinned lightly armoured support isnt really.. iraq and afghanistan experience have repeatedly shown this as well].

as for flamethrowers - well i gather theyre treated as 'illegal' weapons but in times of war who knows what wil be used as the means to an end.
The balkans has shown this as has, allegedly, the us in iraq.

[edit]
www.combatreform.com/ArmyBIGREDONEinfallujah.asf
cant get this link to work

0lala SG

To me,logic would say that when infiltrating a building,it would be betetr to assualt from the top
reason why,there are less defense as compared to ground

storm_freaky13 SG

I read about this top down or bottom up tactic on some website before... Ideally its best to go top down HOWEVER, thats not always the case as it really depends on the situation. Usually for police tactics they will do it bottom up. Simply because the suspects will have a harder time trying to escape from the police assault teams. Unless they superman from building to another or just jump. Thats why police tactical units usually carry body bunkers when entering a building.

the benefits of top down many of you have already mentioned so i will not say more. Apparently in the Israeli - Hezbollah conflict the israelis suffered heavy casualties when doing hse to hse search using bottom up. usually they were ambushed in the hse.

One thing about top down when using choppers is when fast roping down, alot is at risk. In an urban environment, snipers can be anywhere and being on the roof is extremely vulnerable. therefore both tactics have its pros and cons. It really depends on the situation before any tactic can be employed.

zoik SG

true about the police thing.
i did a basic 4 storey training thing and all we did was bottom up...

« Previous Page