Guerrilla warfare * Part 1 *

[Skippy00004]

his idea was to dig a really deep hole and they'll fall in and won't be able to get out.

Like this one?

http://youtu.be/wzqXggZU3eE

[mountainredneck2051]

Lol, don't worry i asked him what he meant and he said in a wrol situation his idea was to dig a really deep hole and they'll fall in and won't be able to get out.

followed up by gasoline?

[Dave_M]

seeing how only 49% of the battles were won by the larger forces from 1950-1999

wouldn't you also venture to say that what made those tactics successful was the small units having automatic weapons such as ar15's ak47's instead of back in the day when one man fired one round?

No, not at all. Let me explain: FA (Full Auto) weapons have been prevalent on the battlefield since ~WWI (although yes, FA first appeared in medium machine guns it quickly moved to PDW's (though that particular term had yet to evolve) and later light and medium MG's.

Yes, there was a huge change when MG's entered the scene in WWI (arguably the most significant change in warfare within the last 150 years) but that doesn't begin to explain asymmetric fights whatsoever. South African SF ('Recce' they called them) and later Merc's quickly found out. especially because of their medium calibers (.308, in this case) weren't exactly conducive to individual effective FA fire (I have many other examples, if need be). Semi-auto reigned supreme due to it's controllability and effectiveness. 'One man, one round' is not the pivotal point in the change in warfighting; individual prowess and flexibility most decidedly, is.

The advent of micro (and, to a lesser extent, macro) maneuver warfare is what really changed things. By all accounts, if the current US military, even avoid of current technology, were to somehow travel back in time to 1968 in Vietnam, I have no doubt that they would have decisively won that conflict.

So, a correlation of the availability of FA small arms and conflict domination is invalid and a large oversimplification, IMO.

[mountainredneck2051]

what i was trying to say was once people started to get  30rd mag rifles 1 man became 10 and manpower ( as far as numbers go)  wasn't as important as it used to be in comparison to how you use your men

[Dave_M]

what i was trying to say was once people started to get  30rd mag rifles 1 man became 10 and manpower ( as far as numbers go)  wasn't as important as it used to be in comparison to how you use your men

I see what you're saying but it works both ways. Hence why FA wasn't necessarily the deal-maker it was promised to be.

[mountainredneck2051]

i just suck at wording things  [img]http://www.arrse.co.uk/at

[APX808]

seeing how only 49% of the battles were won by the larger forces from 1950-1999

wouldn't you also venture to say that what made those tactics successful was the small units having automatic weapons such as ar15's ak47's instead of back in the day when one man fired one round?

No, not at all. Let me explain: FA (Full Auto) weapons have been prevalent on the battlefield since ~WWI (although yes, FA first appeared in medium machine guns it quickly moved to PDW's (though that particular term had yet to evolve) and later light and medium MG's.

Yes, there was a huge change when MG's entered the scene in WWI (arguably the most significant change in warfare within the last 150 years) but that doesn't begin to explain asymmetric fights whatsoever. South African SF ('Recce' they called them) and later Merc's quickly found out. especially because of their medium calibers (.308, in this case) weren't exactly conducive to individual effective FA fire (I have many other examples, if need be). Semi-auto reigned supreme due to it's controllability and effectiveness. 'One man, one round' is not the pivotal point in the change in warfighting; individual prowess and flexibility most decidedly, is.

The advent of micro (and, to a lesser extent, macro) maneuver warfare is what really changed things. By all accounts, if the current US military, even avoid of current technology, were to somehow travel back in time to 1968 in Vietnam, I have no doubt that they would have decisively won that conflict.

So, a correlation of the availability of FA small arms and conflict domination is invalid and a large oversimplification, IMO.

I agree with Dave_M about this stuff.
I would like to add that a guerrilla's supply line usually suck so a FA weapon is a luxury you can't afford.

BTW, nice doc about asymmetric warfare Dave  [URL=http://www.smileyvault.co

[Ghost]

Dave_M for President!


Guys this tread is great. Keep it going.

[Colombo]

That was a good read Dave  M[URL=http://www.smileyvault.co
I suspect the simplest way to look at successful guerrilla warfare from the weaker side is never to be enticed into a head on fight with equal forces and never to engage the strengths of your opponent. Harassing long range fire from a well chosen point that is immediately abandoned leaving no target to close and destroy with will do more long term damage to enemy moral and effectiveness than trying to pull off a close destroying ambush particularly against experienced troops. The number of troops as well as their required logistics to secure an area will be higher and as a result uneven in employment over a large area. Heavy lines of supply required by an occupying standing army will be more and more vulnerable the larger an area that is being attempted to control. Supply troops or contractors are often less well trained and armed, obviously an effort should be made to gain intelligence to that end. The simple size of this country and the amount of armament the civilian population has makes me doubtful of conventional military action against us.

      Then there's the local population in guerrilla warfare, as always it's a balancing act between the occupier and indigenous forces. How well the locals are treated will tip the balance one way or the other, raids, seizures or just plain ill mannered disrespectful attitudes can make life miserable for those short sighted enough to engage in them. There are many historical examples of subtle help tilting the balance, something as simple as a fisherman holding a pole at a different angle could tell friendlies that an ambush is waiting, are you the friendly, or the asshole that tossed that guys house and leered at his daughter?

      There's a pile of information out there, take a little time to find it and study it. The U.S. army did a lot of the gathering and writing  down and published a number of manuals on this subject. Avoid the typical booby trap manuals and other surplus store ninja fluff and go for the meat and potatoes,   go native and use your brain.

[CrystalHunter1989]

      Then there's the local population in guerrilla warfare, as always it's a balancing act between the occupier and indigenous forces. How well the locals are treated will tip the balance one way or the other, raids, seizures or just plain ill mannered disrespectful attitudes can make life miserable for those short sighted enough to engage in them. There are many historical examples of subtle help tilting the balance, something as simple as a fisherman holding a pole at a different angle could tell friendlies that an ambush is waiting, are you the friendly, or the asshole that tossed that guys house and leered at his daughter?

There was an African guerrilla leader that established a strict code for his men. They were not allowed to drink or smoke when people could see them. Additionally, if anyone acted out of line, he was punished publicly so the locals could watch. I can't for the life of me remember who it was, Sipsey Street did an article quoting him.

[CrystalHunter1989]

Something else everyone must consider is professional training. Washington's Continental Army knew how to maintain and fire their muskets, but it was the Hessian Barron von Steuben who helped furnish their tactics. 

[disposable]

Read this somewhere but cant remember but #1 rule is to Stay Alive. You do no good to whatever cause you are fighting for iF your dead. You need to be able to fight Today,Tomorrow, and Everyday afterwards.

Also might want to talk about ROI or Return On Investment. Basically if you are going to invest in something (such as an Ambush, etc.) are you going to get More in return or Less in return? (Think long term guerilla warfare. your trying to keep yourself alive but cause the enemy to spend as much money,man power, supplies, etc. as possible)

Example of ROI:

S has hit the F. A local gang has been terrorizing your community or AO or whatever. Your investment: Manpower and some supplies to immobilize/destroy their Vic's. Return: They now have to either repair or replace thoes Vic's.

thats just a small example of an ROI, i had others type out but i then realized if i posted some of them they would have A: got deleted or B: we would DEF make an SPLC watch list hahaha

[Reaver]

    " Terror tactics " are just another word for guerrilla warfare


No it's not. Maybe with the common vernacular but guerrilla warfare or asymmetric tactics, in and of themselves, are a far cry from terrorism. 

So if the Government decided to have a take over, and someone started a guerrilla war.
You honestly think the very first things out of their mouths wouldn't be. " Help us find the terrorist " ?

[Skippy00004]

Both of these lists are not only amusing, but completely true. Especially for this topic.

http://www.murphys-laws.com/murphy/murphy-war.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2127083/posts

[sledge]

Funny and true at the same time.  It's not often you find so much wisdom compiled onto one page.   [URL=http://www.smileyvault.co 

[PatriotSeeker]

Thanks Reaver. This is quality info. Now Im not going to promise that Im not going to try to re-create any of this, but Ill try not to. The toe popper is fucking genius. Simple and affordable. You get more K+  [URL=http://www.smileyvault.co

[Reaver]

Thanks Reaver. This is quality info. Now Im not going to promise that Im not going to try to re-create any of this, but Ill try not to. The toe popper is fucking genius. Simple and affordable. You get more K+ 

Lol, thanks man. I have actually known about that one since I was about 6...it really is amazing I'm still alive 

[Outonowhere]

I completely agree with you on the propagandists use of words to rally people to their cause, but I will say that there is a difference between the two words.

Guerrilla Warfare - A style of combat which focuses on small unit tactics and hit and run maneuvering.  Targets are generally, government, military or logistical in nature.

Terrorism - The act of inciting fear and terror within a citizenry by means of violence, most of the time to invoke a desired reaction.  Targets are the people of the country, the softer the better.

[Reaver]

Well, you get my point though right?

[Dave_M]

So if the Government decided to have a take over, and someone started a guerrilla war.
You honestly think the very first things out of their mouths wouldn't be. " Help us find the terrorist " ?

'take over'? WTF does that mean? Current administrations don't, 'take over' shit; they already have control.

If you have some misguided idea that 1950's tactics would actually work against our current force then you'd be terribly wrong.

[Reaver]

So if the Government decided to have a take over, and someone started a guerrilla war.
You honestly think the very first things out of their mouths wouldn't be. " Help us find the terrorist " ?

'take over'? WTF does that mean? Current administrations don't, 'take over' shit; they already have control.

If you have some misguided idea that 1950's tactics would actually work against our current force then you'd be terribly wrong.

Ok, so IED's and Sniper fire don't kill troops almost every day in Iraq and The Stan almost every day.  [URL=http://www.smileyvault.co

They work. 

[sledge]

I do not see Guerrilla Warfare taking place in the United States unless states start to withdraw from the union do to a crash of the economy and a difference of ideological beliefs.

That's not as far fetched as it may seem.  Texas has been the state that usually comes to mind when this topic comes up.  However, I think if it were to occur that Montana would be the catalyst that puts the ball in motion.

Bob Fanning and Chuck Baldwin are running for Governor and Lt. Governor of Montana in 2012.  If they were to win, which is entirely possible given the state's independent minded population, all bets are off the table.

[Dave_M]

Ok, so IED's and Sniper fire don't kill troops almost every day in Iraq and The Stan almost every day. 

2 points:
-The Iraq fight has been done for years now.
-Your idea of, 'works' also involves about a, oh, 50-100:1 kill ratio. You think that's either successful or sustainable? hahaha

I think this is another one of those topics that people will read and go, "oh, those are the crazy gun people we keep hearing about". I think any idea of a, 'revolution' is just mental masturbation for the fringe element. Compare 1968 to today and then check back in.

[Dave_M]

I do not see Guerrilla Warfare taking place in the United States unless states start to withdraw from the union do to a crash of the economy and a difference of ideological beliefs.

That's not as far fetched as it may seem.  Texas has been the state that usually comes to mind when this topic comes up.  However, I think if it were to occur that Montana would be the catalyst that puts the ball in motion.

Bob Fanning and Chuck Baldwin are running for Governor and Lt. Governor of Montana in 2012.  If they were to win, which is entirely possible given the state's independent minded population, all bets are off the table.

A Balkanization may indeed precipitate some sort of conflict but I don't see that as the source.

[APX808]

Ok, so IED's and Sniper fire don't kill troops almost every day in Iraq and The Stan almost every day. 

2 points:
-The Iraq fight has been done for years now.
-Your idea of, 'works' also involves about a, oh, 50-100:1 kill ratio. You think that's either successful or sustainable? hahaha

In Nam you got similar ratios and you had to retire.
War success is defined by political goals, not casualties.