I am talking about modern cities, basically WWI and later. Also, just cities that were big at the time, not cities that were rinky dink when they were overtaken and are now metropolis’s.
The reason I ask is because Baghdad seems very big, as well as modern, and seems like it would be extremely difficult to control a city of that size without incurring massive casualties on both sides.
Also, does anyone know if we are planning on occupying Baghdad and maintaining a force there post war? That seems as though it would be vrey difficult as well.
It all depends on what you mean by overtaken; because the population of Paris was overtaken by the germans and then ‘liberated’ by allied forces (not exclusively American).
As to the OP; I really don’t know:
Do you mean only US forces, US lead forces, US forces part of a coalition? and what do you mean by overtaken - taking a hostile city, occupied city or any city; does it have to really be overtaken by force or does surrendering work?
I don’t know that you are going to find comparable to Bagdad’s potential 5 million in 2003. Germany’s largest city (Berlin)'s Population in 1939 was circa 4.5 million. Tokyo’s population was circa 6.5 million, but Japan had surrendered by the time the U.S. occupied it.
To attempt give a positive answer to the OP: One situation (not necessarily the only one) I would submit comparable to the current situation: Halle, with a population of over 210,000, was the tenth largest city in Germany. It was the largest Nazi city to suffer relatively light allied bombing. It was Nazi center too, very strong with the party & organization. They blew the bridges to refuse the USArmy a river crossing and pretended to think about surrender to delay the inevitable. In the end they fought.
The U.S. Army alone took the city. Elements of the USArmy blocking forces from leaving/retreating while others fought for the city (nastily house to house, some units - including Hitler Youth -fighting to the death).
Since I tried to answer the OP in an honest spirit, I would also submit that the capabilities of this USArmy are so beyond those of the 40’s that it makes direct comparisons hard.
I don’t know if it was an entirely “hostile” or “enemy city”, but the United States army took Seoul twice in the Korean War (took it in 1950, later expelled, and then in 1951 retook it for good). Seoul had one or two million people then, and I am sure many did actively support the communist side. I don’t think the fighting was as heavy as it was in other places.
I know SenorBeef. My point re Berlin was that it was the largest city in Nazi Germany & still had a smaller population than Bagdad 2003. If I had used English in my first scentence rather than some “manglish” pigeon-hybrid that would’ve been more clear.
Though it’s almost an order of magnitude smaller, Manila seems to serve as one of the most applicable examples if we are attempting to compare with a contested investment of Baghdad.
In another thread I mentioned that Manila had a pre-war population of 600,000. In 1945, the Japanese cut most of the routes of ingress and egress to the city in order to ensure that most of the civilian population remained in place. The city held out for a month, and by the end of it it ranked right up with Warsaw and Berlin as among the most devastated cities in the Second World War.
It appears as if 300,000 civilians became casualties, with as many as 100,000 dead.