Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
What would you do?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="dennishoddy" data-source="post: 3149852" data-attributes="member: 5412"><p>Not sure where that comes from but the greatest defeats of any army has been when they made the decision to take low ground.</p><p>I can cite many incidents from the early wars of the British in 1800's, French in the 50's and as recent as the US Army in the current conflict in Afghanistan where they were destroyed by the enemy that occupied high ground. Poor decisions by leadership.</p><p>That being said, the situation being discussed was addressed by some with taking cover beyond the minimal railing. No competent shooter would stand and shoot. The person on the ground would probably be wondering where the shots came from for a bit because of the presence of the urban echo, giving the defender on the high ground the advantage. Of course if you can't shoot beyond 5 yards like most do in indoor ranges and haven't practiced beyond that, the defender would be at a disadvantage if the first shots didn't connect.</p><p>In current warfare, I bring what I remember one of your comments about the rancher and his family that the .gov was trying to run off their land during a standoff. There was a pic of a guy on an overpass with an AR pointing at the .gov folks on the ground. That high point position which gave the person total control of the groups below him defused the situation. No one could deny his tactical position. </p><p>No army wants to fight uphill.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="dennishoddy, post: 3149852, member: 5412"] Not sure where that comes from but the greatest defeats of any army has been when they made the decision to take low ground. I can cite many incidents from the early wars of the British in 1800's, French in the 50's and as recent as the US Army in the current conflict in Afghanistan where they were destroyed by the enemy that occupied high ground. Poor decisions by leadership. That being said, the situation being discussed was addressed by some with taking cover beyond the minimal railing. No competent shooter would stand and shoot. The person on the ground would probably be wondering where the shots came from for a bit because of the presence of the urban echo, giving the defender on the high ground the advantage. Of course if you can't shoot beyond 5 yards like most do in indoor ranges and haven't practiced beyond that, the defender would be at a disadvantage if the first shots didn't connect. In current warfare, I bring what I remember one of your comments about the rancher and his family that the .gov was trying to run off their land during a standoff. There was a pic of a guy on an overpass with an AR pointing at the .gov folks on the ground. That high point position which gave the person total control of the groups below him defused the situation. No one could deny his tactical position. No army wants to fight uphill. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
What would you do?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom