Why does high ground matter in this day and age? It gives a slight range advantage, but when the high ground is the frontline it's not like you're going to park artillery there and range on any other weapon is irrelevant. It makes sense to me that when an assault was done by running at the enemy and sticking them with a bayonet, you want your men running downhill and not uphill. But I just don't see the relevance in modern combat. Please explain
OP is gay and moronic
It's easier to take cover when you have the high ground, and harder when you have the low ground.
> your artillery gains range
> your enemy's artillery loses range
> you gain visual
> your enemy loses visual
> easy to roll down
> difficult to roll up
I don't know, it's a mystery
>Enemy artillery loses range
Why? Why doesn't the enemy just build a bigger artillery that can fire high enough to reach the spot you are at?
Indirect fires lose very little range firing uphill. They do lose some maximum range for obvious ballistic arc reasons. But much less of a factor versus the part where the high ground observers with better lines of sight can see and correct artillery much better than the low ground observers.
It's not even observers, it's mostly drones that don't have to worry about enemy EW.
>better lines of sight can see and correct artillery much better than the low ground observers.
Not a factor today as everyone uses DJI 3 drones with zoom zoom camera to aim artillery. Just lift it 300 meters above your positions and you have better view than any terrain can offer
High ground also helps you line of sight over cover.
Same principle of why Air burst is more effective on trenches.
It matters for anything direct fire. If you want to understand go buy some
Graph paper and draw some scenarios on there. Draw shooting at an object behind cover on flat ground as well as shooting an object in a foxhole, trench, or pit from flat ground. But also draw the same scenario but with you the shooter at elevation. Then get a ruler and see what you can hit in each of those cases.
Say you're 100m away from an enemy 50m higher than you. You can still crouch and take cover behind something 1.5m tall, as opposed to 1m on flat ground. 50% increase. That doesn't sound bad at first glance but I suppose having to dig your trench an extra 0.5m would actually be a pain in the ass. Thanks for the insight
Reverse slope positions are extremely defensible, higher ground gives forward observers and air controllers direct line of sight on targets, same for ATGMs, and the crest of the hill gives ample opportunities for vehicles to maneuver quickly into effective firing positions and back into cover behind the hill again.
Yes, but now everyone you can see up until the horizon can direct fire at you on the hill. It's a very precarious place to be. An increase in your ability to hit targets is somewhat irrelevant in comparison to enabling the totality of the enemy force to concentrate fires on you.
This is different from how hills have been used in previous eras, right? In Napoleonic times I'd think people would be at the crest of the hill rather than defending the reverse slope
>In Napoleonic times I'd think people would be at the crest of the hill rather than defending the reverse slope
Not quite napoleonic, but the confederate defenses at Vicksburg (very hilly terrain) tended to be at the military crest on the front side of the slope, the mortars were on the back side of the slopes. The only civil war battle I can think of where the defensive line was at the actual crest was Lookout Mountain, where the slope was so steep and rocky that it was difficult to maintain footing.
Depends on the actual situation at hand, just like everything military.
>In Napoleonic times I'd think people would be at the crest of the hill rather than defending the reverse slope
I know frick-all about the period, but it was the choice position for defense back then too. Protects from
>direct observation
>direct artillery fire - most important even back then, Napoleon himself knew that artillery is king
Also forces the enemy to come into your own preferred range, and because they're coming down a slope, there's less obstacles for your own forces to fire at them.
Wellington's defensive prowess was built on the reverse slope, and it's how he succeeded most of his defensive fights
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Waterloo
Of course having your own artillery on a crest can be very useful when the enemy is approaching. Just like having your MBTs and other vehicles can use the crest as a firing position, falling back behind the hill after firing.
>crest of the hill rather than defending the reverse slope
Crest of the hill is bad because it silhouettes you, making you easy to spot and be killed by direct fire. Reverse slope is using the hill crest as a berm of hard cover.
Enemies on the low ground get flanked from above making their trenches or berms less effective. Control of the high ground provides a good observation and direct fire positions. High ground is not invincible, but it is an advantage.
At Waterloo, Old Nosey had the bulk of his infantry lie down on a reverse slope to keep them clear of the French cannon
They stood up and took positions on the crest only when the French began to advance
This was innovation that broke arty spam - infantry column assault tactics
i'd call you ESL, but i myself am esl, and whatever your dysfunction is it is unrelated to language type.
Huh?
This Anon,
, was joking when he said he doesn't know after listing the reasons how holding the high ground provides benefits..
the high ground will always matter
>Why does high ground matter in this day and age?
Ukraine does not have control of the air (in fact neither side does but Russia has more airplanes and helis). Thus highground matters. And artillery gets more range and power.
Even USA would prefer to NOT fight up hill if they have to. GPS and air dominance help alieviate it, but high ground still is important.
He's being sarcastic, Anon. Are you literally autistic that you cannot catch that?
That's not me being mean by asking a rhetorical question, by the way. I'm genuinely curious.
Watch some helmet cam footage and it should be immediately obvious just how big an advantage elevation is. Even when it's perfectly flat fields, visibility sucks when you have to stay in cover. A little grass and uneven terrain is all it takes to reduce visibility to a few dozen meters, and if you're in a trench the effect is made significantly worse. Even a few feet of elevation will make a massive difference in how far out you can really see.
>Even a few feet of elevation will make a massive difference in how far out you can really see.
And from how far the enemy can see (You).
On the defensive, where the enemy has the initiative and freedom to concentrate superior forces at your part of the line, that's a very, very, very bad thing. You have practically no chance of gaining fire superiority or maintaining combat sustainability if you are in a visible position like that.
As the defender it's always better to have situational awareness than any advantage that being at a lower elevation could confer. There are ways to mitigate your visibility and how exposed may be up on a hill. There's nothing you can do about being blind.
>As the defender it's always better to have situational awareness than any advantage that being at a lower elevation could confer.
It does you absolutely no good to know that an enemy armored company has formed line abreast in support of a mechanized battalion assaulting you, if you are in their direct line of fire. Rout or die, if you can even leave your positions.
>There's nothing you can do about being blind.
That is why recon and scouts exist. Drones too, these days. Maintaining constant contact with the enemy is a given so long as they are in your AO.
The value of a good laser designator can't be overstated.
It certainly does matter that you know if a massive enemy force is preparing to attack your position, precisely because you then have the option to retreat or call for support before they're on top of you. If you're completely outmatched, being in a less defensible location isn't going to help you in any way. Recon and scouting is the entire reason why elevation matters. You aren't going to scout shit if you can't see shit. Drones just make it so that low ground doesn't even offer an advantage of concealment.
>It certainly does matter that you know if a massive enemy force is preparing to attack your position
You do not need to hold indefensible, vulnerable positions to maintain contact with the enemy. All you need is a pair of eyes, not a defensive position. Depth is maximized in the defence specifically so the first contact you make isn't at your primary defensive position.
> If you're completely outmatched, being in a less defensible location isn't going to help you in any way.
Of course it will. A good defensive position is the difference between delaying or stopping the enemy advance, vs being brushed aside by it unimpeded or outright destroyed then and there. Retreating without immediate threat of destruction is not acceptable. Any defensive action that attrits and slows the enemy is a delay in his operation and a change in organization that will ease or enable the operations of other units, as well as your future operations should you retreat or disengage.
>Drones just make it so that low ground doesn't even offer an advantage of concealment.
Low ground forces drones to fly overhead, leaving them far more vulnerable against anti-air. Without low ground, the enemy drone can loiter at a distance and maintain constant overwatch with minimal threat.
this Black person's an ostrich
This. If you watch any trench fighting footage from this war you'll see scenario illustrated a hundred times.
Soldiers 15 yards away from each other firing blind until they receive directions on where to throw their grenades from comrade drone operator who doesn't know the war is real and thinks he's playing Men of War: Assault Squad.
It is locally pretty nice to be uphill. Yes, that goes both ways and also exposes you, until you take out your shovels and dig into said slope until you're safe in a hidey-hole everywhere you want to be safe, and have good observation and firing points everywhere you want those.
Couldn't the guys on the hill just roll grenades to the foxholes on the slope?
Counter-argument: your hidey-hole doesn't stop suppression.
The more positions the enemy has to fire from, the harder they are to suppress.
As long as they are on a frontal slope, nothing stops the attacker from just bringing in more firepower into the game. Because the attacker has the initiative, they can concentrate a shit-ton of power into that specific position if they so choose.
A rearslope position means the only fire support that can directly shoot into your positions are cresting a hill, skylined on it, might not have the gun depression needed and are all on a pre-sighted line where AT and indirect fires can be focused on them from a million different positions.
So you still want to start the battle owning the high ground.
It only becomes disadvantageous if the enemy concentrates a ton of force to bombard it.
At that point, if you look behind you and comrade commissar is pointing at his pistol and shaking his head, the high ground was a bad choice.
Otherwise you just fall back and the other side of a hill is a good defense.
I think it's accurate enough to shorten all that to "high ground good".
What's he doing with the snake?
It's a gummi worm
Those tanks are firing wrong.
Frick what game I think I remember this
you absolute fricking legend. biggest nostalgia jolt of my life. i used to play this game to bits, but couldn't remember the name.
>So you still want to start the battle owning the high ground.
Yes, but you don't actually want to try to hold it, or get into a firefight from it. Screening forces (ATGMs, scouts etc.) and forward observers are ok, but others are too much. Ideally the enemy's forward recon should at the least be defeated from these positions.
>Otherwise you just fall back and the other side of a hill is a good defense.
The chances of falling back from such a tenuous position are less than acceptable in active combat, unless you've drilled your way through the hill itself. It's a real win-or-die place to be in.
>The chances of falling back from such a tenuous position are less than acceptable in active combat
I...uh... what the frick? Why would you not he able to fall back
Do you want to run up a hillside while under fire?
looks like the other guy found a yuge gummy worm on that side of the hill, so frick yea I wanna run up that hill
It's a dildo. They're Russians.
this is a great diagram, I'm glad someone drew it. I almost drew something similar. Well done Anon
Bruh did you just depict throwing grenades up hill as an advantage?
You want to think that over?
Of course it's an advantage, stupid! Either they land in the enemy trench or roll back down to you so you can throw them again! Win-win.
It isn't just about the increase in maximum range from being higher but the increased difficulty for the enemy to place assets for counter battery fire in place when you're on the heights.
High angle fire is anything where the max height is greater than the distance covered and is more likely to be required to hit an enemy on a height. 155mm shells can clear 50,000 feet when fired at a very steep angle under the right conditions. Moving through that much vertical space, with all the variance in wind speeds and air pressure density (a human being would suffocate pretty much instantly at those altitudes from the pressure change), fricks with accuracy. Guided shells help, but even the way the shell responds to the fins varies with air pressure. There is a reason even guided artillery is only so accurate. The only way to make it super accurate for hitting moving vehicles I am aware of is to have it fire an aimed EFP in the terminal phase so that it can be redirected at extremely high velocity at the end of the flight.
So it still matters and probably will until something like thrust vectoring RAF becomes a thing and cheap, which might very well be never, or until coil gun artillery is more than just a DARPA project, since then you could also easily adjust the exit velocity along with the angle to calibrate things exactly how you want.
but what if i just draw the red line so it goes over the mound and make it hit the enemy?
>just reverse the ballistic trajectory blah blah physics
nice try, but the wind in the picture is blowing left to right
>wind
just shoot faster than the wind?
>just reverse the ballistic trajectory
not even, just see
>ok there is a mound and we know the enemies are behind it
>ok the mound is x distance from us
>adjust the angle to be a bit further past the tip of the mound
i mean its that easy
and today a $500 drone(free in terms of military spending) can tell you this info days weeks or months in advance.
I can't believe this bait worked. Have a you, humble farmer.
You gain a +2 in attack rolls
It's over, American!
I have the high ground!
why exactly did those morons put that base in such a moronic location?
Post when hohols have taken bakhmut.
I guess a mere Padawan wouldn't understand
>play advanced squad leader board game with dad
>play Crete scenario
>send units over top of hill to take position
>no high ground bonuses
>units basically in open
>lose squads to MG from building
>lose scenario because of it
Still salty til this day. I know it's just a game but it was meant to be realistic and maybe it was but I still cannot believe a bunch of guys up on a Ridgeline spread out couldn't deal with one fricking MG in a house
>Why does high ground matter in this day and age?
Better question is why does Bakhmut matter. It's time to let go.
There's literally no advantage to recapture a pile of rubble.
buckmut breaking the russians would be a huge political scar on putin, increasing opposing faction's powers. if putin falls, the russian war effort will probably grind to a halt.
Because gayner were for all intents and purposes rendered impotent as shown by their rush to get out afterwards. The Russian regulars replacing them have shown little will to fight lmao.
I've noticed that there's not a lot of fighting happening during weekends. Are both establishments and their media in Moscow and Kiev observing shabbat?
How do you remember to put on your pants every morning? I swear to God, people on /k/ have gotten so stupid.
Visibility, you moronic goon. I'm gonna brick in your pretty little mouth.
One more thing, I know it's probably nothing but I was just thinking about the duration of you 3 day special military operation
DON'T TRY IT
You hold the high ground to give the infantry the advantage.
The infantry defends the artillery and anti-air assets, which depend on high ground for observation of the enemy.
Unless you’re a Marine in Khe Sanh in 1968, and have nearly the entirety of the USAF in SE Asia at your disposal, plus every tube artillery within range to basically rain down shit on the high ground around the clock 24/7 for months on end.