What is the most difficult environment for an offensive? I understand that there are various specific technologies for all environments, but what is the most difficult? And what environment is the most difficult when it comes to control an occupied area?
It depends on what your military capabilties are, who you're fighting, and what type of conflict it is. Waterways/Lakes can be very advantageous to countries like the U.S. with significant amphibious capabilties. Countries like China with limited naval capabilties could find it a major deteriment. Also, are we talking conventional armored offenses or counter-insurgency operations? Mountains can be very nasty and are typically some of the most favorable terrain to defend. Mountains typically mean very narrow mountain passes or valleys that can funnel attackers into kill zones. It's also extremely difficult to take high ground. If the defenders have capable artillery/mortars it can be even more difficult. Marshland/Swampland is probably the most difficult type of terrain to attack....but it's rarely if ever something worth taking. Marshland is usually altogether avoided by both attackers and defenders. It often serves as an obstacle. However, countries like the U.S. with significant amphibious capabilties could probably traverse the terrain via small boats/hovercraft/helicopters and attack an enemy in the rear.
And not even a mention of terrain like jungle, arctic, and desert. Each terrain has it's own advantages and disadvantages. And having trained in almost all of them, I have to admit that discounting proper equipment, Jungle is the hardest. Because in the Jungle, you would not only be fighting the enemy, you would also be fighting the environment. Trust me there, JOTC, Fort Sherman, Panama, 1987.
In terms of logisitics, I'm going with mountain warfare as the most difficult environment in which to operate an offensive. Jungles can always be cleared to make room for airfields, landing and drop zones; we can see the island hopping campaigns of the Pacific in WWII or the Vietnam war as evidence of that. Mountains can't be moved...anything in or out becomes a logistical nightmare. Also weather is always very unpredictable, as mountain ranges typically have their own climates. From my perspective having spent time on the logistical side of things, Mountain warfare is the most difficult terrain to contend with.
I think history agrees with you. The predominant mountainous terrain of Laos was the most bombarded in history, anywhere, any war...and the success of all that ordinance vs actually stopping the mountainous supply train lends support to the difficulties of that type of terrain.
Have you had much experience in jungle terrain? I have, and it is not the soft smooth terrain under that most people tend to think. The upper canopy is fairly flat and smooth, but the ground below is ridged, gullied, and almost impossible to navigate. This is the area of and surrounding where Fort Sherman was, the Army Jungle Warfare school. If you look in about the 7:00 area just south of what looks like a river, that is the Panama Canal and the fort location. This terrain is almost impossible to traverse, not only because of the terrain, but also because of the jungle. Clear out the vegitation, and you still have the terrain which is almost impossible to explain. And yes, it can be cleared, but only with a lot of work. And if you look at the island hopping battles that delt with jungle conditions (Guadalcanal, Philippines, Okinawa), you also find the toughest battles fought, with some of the highest casualty rates. In the Jungle, everywhere is normally a slope going up or down. And when it is flat, it is generally a swamp. Flat ground that is dry tends to be rare, and that is where you find villages. And that is not even assured, which is why most cultures that are in jungle areas build their houses on stilts of varying lengths. And Jungles have their own weather also. It tends to rain, almost all the time. This can make tracked vehicles (or any vehicle) unuseable. Even when there is a road, the foliage generally comes right up to the egde, perfect for ambushes. In fact, you mention Vietnam. Do you not think a major part of our combat operations were so rough was because of the jungle? I have trained in all kinds of climates, and by far Jungle was the worst. Desert probably came second, because of the lack of any kind of cover. Arctic was right behind that, because in the winter the cold kills, and in the summer you are basically fighting in a giant unending swamp. And good luck getting a fire going on permafrost.
I'm almost jealous of you Mushroom. I trained for about 6 weeks in the forest....then 3 and a half years in the desert. Never got to sniff a MEU, a rain forest, a tundra, a plain, or mountains.
From an aerial strike perspective, mountains are the most difficult terrains. Even nuclear bombs would be only partially effective in extremely mountainous terrain due to the dissipation of energy. From an infantry perspective, I'll take the words of others.
Well, I have not trained in all of them, but I have been in all of them. And I have enjoyed (?) all of the experiences. Ont thing that must also be considered in each is the fauna. People rarely think about the plants that are found in such environment. In Panama for example, we got to know this wicked plant all to well, known as the "Balck Palm". Think of a palm tree, that mated with a porcupine. These are all over, and the spines will go right through leather gloves like they are not even there. Then you have the insects. Termites, army ants, (killer) bees, mosquitos (and the diseases they carry), poisonous spiders, and more. Then the animals. Monkeys (which in the wild are not the cute ones you know from the zoo), fer de lance (one of the most poisonous snakes in the world), jungle cats, and a ton of other animals that would attack without warning. I have never been in an environment that was anywhere near as hostile as the jungle is.As lovely and peacefull as it is, it also hides something very deadly and dangerous. Finding a French graveyard while on patrol with over 100 graves from when that nation was trying to build the canal really drove that home to me. In the 8 years France tried to build the canal there, over 22,000 died, mostly due to disease and wildlife. That is more then the death rates of allied forces in 10 years in 2 wars. In fact, it is a toll almost 3 times higher. And even though the US discovered how to prevent malaria and yellow fever, there were still over 5,600 deaths. The worst of mountains, forests, and swamps combined, all in one nice little package.
Oh...dude you need to put a smiley face or something, I can't tell tone without it. Apologies are in order then. I would not begin to compare my experiences to what a Marine/Army infantryman endured in the jungles of Okinawa in WWII or in Vietnam. Clearly on that level, jungle warfare is not a walk in the park. Supporting those boots on the ground, particularly in Vietnam required a high degree of air mobility...and the jungle topography was not as much of hindrance to that mission as say the mountainous regions of Afghanistan have been. I did stipulate that my opinion was based solely on my area of knowledge...not the ground pounders perspective. Given a hypothetical scenario of a military offensive, these require mobile logistical support to keep up with the expanding front. In mountain warfare, and jungle warfare for that matter, due to the terrain...much of the logistical support falls on air logistics. Whether it's rotary or fixed wing aircraft, mountainous terrain presents an extra hazard to contend with, and would make supporting the ground troops more difficult. Higher altitudes reduce the lift capability of helicopters, as an example. In addition mountain/cold weather combat typically provides the advantage to defensive positions, rather than offensive...historically there are plenty of examples for that.
Neither do I. JOTC school in Panama did have a 10 day course for aircrews teaching jungle survival training. Never attended it. I suppose I would not last long if someone dumped me in the middle of the Amazon. There are a lot of critters for sure.
I think the majority here knows the truth. You can't drive your vehicles up cliffs and through large bolders. There are usually few roads. Flying aircraft, especially helos throught the harsh winds and weather of large mountian ranges is very tough. Only the largest militaries can mount a large amphibious attack. But that is a matter of industrial capacity and naval and air superiority. Jungles are no big deal as long as the mountains arn't invovled.
Any enviornment cosigned to the invader where the defender is entrenched and uses its terrain to its advantage. A thick Forrest is fairly tough terrain as it allows the enemy to take cover. Does not allow the invader the ability to locate you far enough in advance to mount a strategy against your defense. The only way to defeat an entrenched army in a thick Forrest is by air or overwhelming force on the ground by simply outnumbering them. However, from the air it is hard to tell if you have defeated your enemy. You would have to destroy the entire Forrest and would still have to send in ground forces to clear the area
I would think an urban environment is the toughest. It reduces the options, and exposes you to attacks by irregular forces.
Urban is really not all that tough, it all depends on your ROE really. The biggest reason it is a problem now is because our Rules of Engagement (ROE) dictate the minimization of collateral damage and civilian casualties. Remove those conditions, and things change rapidly, but with a greater number of dead civilians. The consideration is really the terrain in and of itself, not the kinds of troops being fought. And all things being equal, I would still say jungle is the hardest. In a city you can have overwatch positions and channel the enemy. In the jungle, they can literally be dug in 5 feet away and you would never know they were there. In a city they have to come into the open at some points, in the jungle they are constantly under overhead cover, and have both cover and concealment everywhere.
I would think Tundra environment would be the most difficult. The exposure to the elements could claim a lot of lives besides the fighting. Air assets and vehicles do not do well in extreme cold, likewise neither do people. Someone launching an offensive against someone dug in and climatized in a tundra environment, is going to find that very difficult.
The difficulties in Vietnam indicate the jungle is a tough enviornment to operate in...the U.S. went so far as to use Daisy cutter bombs and chemical defoliants to clear the jungle so they could actually find the bad guys. The difficulties in fighting the Taliban in the Hindu-Kush mountain range in Afghanistan near the Pakistan border indicate the mountains are challenging. We did very well in the open desert during the Persian Gulf war, our armor rolled over the bad guys with no serious problems...logistical or otherwise. So jungle and mountain warfare are probably the tougher environs...using historical examples.
Actually, fighting in tundra can be very difficult, but not in the winter. Winter is actually the perfect time to fight here. The ground is frozen, and you can take all kinds of vehicles across it. And air assets work just find in the cold, they are designed to work in extreme cold temperatures after all. However, there are challenges in operating from extreme cold conditions, but not in extreme cold conditions. For example, during the early days of the cold war when we had 24 hour on call flight crews for fighters and bombers in Alaska, the aircraft were almost never shut down, and allowed to run for days on end in idle, only shutting down for quick maintenance unless inside of a heated hangar. Where you can't fight very well at all is in the tundra between Spring-Fall. That is because the term for that is "marsh". Vehicles can't go anywhere, even tractors and recovery vehicles sink in the ugly mess which is the frozen layer between the ground and the permafrost. Just watch any documentary on the building of the Alaska Highway to see what I mean.
This is true, airman from the NY Air National Guard use C-130s equipped with ski landing gear to re-supply McMurdo Station, Antarctica. This is by no means a modern aircraft...it was designed in the 1950s and operates very well in cold environments given certain parameters are followed in operating in extreme cold. I have seen flightlines shut down before in temperatures approaching -30 below based CONUS...in areas like North Dakota. This is typically not a sustained shut down and it's mainly applied to aircraft in transit that are not prepped for such temperature extremes and parked outside.
Antarctica. We have C-130s on the ground and a C-17 in the air. Tundra warfare wouldn't be as much of a challenge in the Winter as Mushroom alludes...when it's warmer and the ground gets marshy, yes that could hinder mobility. However machines can operate in extreme cold, I don't see that as big of a hindrance as would soft ground when the warmer temperatures are a factor.
