Civilian Militia Effectiveness

[Humanoid]

As many are well aware, the United States is one of the fewer nations that allows their citizens arms. However, I am wondering how effective would a citizen militia be in combat against an invading force(providing they do not come to open fighting, guerrilla and sabotage tactics would be used).

But, seeing as how everyone can admit that in a prolonged invasion or campaign, un-trained civilians are in the end far from the caliber of trained soldiers; I would like to ask everyone's opinion on how long do you think an armed populace could stave off an invading force of large numbers before the U.S. military would have to fully deploy to counter?

Of course this is completely hypothetical, and seeing as how arms possessed by invaders would be a required, let us hypothesize that the Chinese, using superior numbers, and some manner of stealth, have been able to cross the Pacific and somehow have launched an invasion on the California coast, let us say San Francisco or San Diego, making a missile strike from the U.S. impossible due to civilian casualties.

[Gremlin29]

Shades of Red Dawn! :)

To begin with, since California is packed full of flaming liberals (not everyone in California is a flaming liberal mind you) and they've given up their weapons with high cap mags etc, they don't have too many folks equipped to even run with a militia. Besides, if the Chinese want California all they have to do is agree to take Nancy Pelosi as part of the deal and they can have it without firing a shot. :onfloorl:

Okay seriously, and this is strictly my "opinion". A militia isn't going to stop an invasion of any kind. There's just no way a casual group of armed citizens are going to be any kind of a match against a trained modern military. They wouldn't even be speed bumps. Acting as partisans they could create all sorts of trouble, much like the insurgents/irregulars/partisans from wars past, but not enough to actually discourage and drive away invaders. Now, if the invader were much like the US or our allies, we'd have a chance at winning a political decission ala North Vietnam versus the US.

Militia's in the US are considered to be enemies of the state, more or less. Admitting to militia activity is a sure fire way to lose or never get a security clearance in the military so it gives you an idea on how our government views them. So "organized" militia's are few and far between, and most of the members never had the balls to serve anyway so I wouldn't expect them to man up when the chips are down.

[kato]

The German approach in the later Cold War was that about every mid-sized town would get and maintain a light infantry company, to be staffed by older reservists from the town, and to be equipped from a ready depot equipped with 160 automatic rifles, MGs and grenade and rocket launchers, and to be made road-mobile with civilian vehicles.

I'd give that more of a fighting chance than a militia equipped with sports and hunting rifles, even if the latter would have provided three to five times the manpower in the same area from existing weaponry.

[Humanoid]

The German approach in the later Cold War was that about every mid-sized town would get and maintain a light infantry company, to be staffed by older reservists from the town, and to be equipped from a ready depot equipped with 160 automatic rifles, MGs and grenade and rocket launchers, and to be made road-mobile with civilian vehicles.

I'd give that more of a fighting chance than a militia equipped with sports and hunting rifles, even if the latter would have provided three to five times the manpower in the same area from existing weaponry.

So, along this approach then, seeing as how I agree they would be overran if poorly equipped, say we took this approach, maintaining a semi-trained group of individuals, still not the equivalent of a modern soldier, but not exactly a hick with a rifle either. What would their, tentative, effectiveness be on a short timeline? Say a week at shortest, a month at longest

[Feanor]

What type of militias are we talking about? The MVD in Russia maintains armed forces that could be classified as a militia... but they have APCs, and until a little while ago even tanks.

[Waylander]

Hmmm, first I am a little bit surprised about the idea that the US is one of the fewer countries that allows it's citizens arms.

There are enough countries out there which still have conscription.
And such a reserve system is a huge advantage compared to a bunch of armed civilians.

Like Kato said a country with a halfway working reserve and conscript system has the ability to form alot of company sized units with their older males (and in Israels case also females...) give them some light equipment and put them into nearly any village with more than 1000 people as well as into every wood big enough to hide them.
The younger ones go into the reserve formations and operate alongside the regular units.

While such a unit is not going to hold a position very long without any support it considerably slows down the enemy because he has to clear every village, town and forest he comes across. Otherwise his supply lines are going to get harassed by these units. A nice bonus is that it also considerably hampers the chances of the enemy to infiltrate into your backyard and to find a secure landing zone for an air assault.
Just two companies waiting on the ground can be a real pain in the ass for every airborn operation.
And while they may consist of older males at least they have some sort of training, unitary equipment and are organized and attached to the regular chain of command. This makes them so much more effective compared to a civvi with a hunting rifle sniping at some guards.

For sure they can resort to terror attacks and such stuff but this is not going to help alot against a determined enemy while the organized reserve units may give you alot more advantages if your country is threatened by invasion.

A good enemy unit is going to clear a village from some sort of rag tag militia in no time while a reserve company might give them some surprises.

[OPSSG]

So, along this approach then, seeing as how I agree they would be overran if poorly equipped, say we took this approach, maintaining a semi-trained group of individuals, still not the equivalent of a modern soldier, but not exactly a hick with a rifle either. What would their, tentative, effectiveness be on a short timeline? Say a week at shortest, a month at longest

Why go half way in training for a citizen army? ;) Especially since I was a conscript and reservist in my past life.

Never underestimate the fighting will of a determined people. Let me remind you of 3 examples, in reverse chronological order:

(i) Vietnamese forces who defeated the French at Dien Bien Phu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dien_Bien_Phu) and the Vietcong (aided by N. Vietnamese forces and eastern block allies) fought until the Americans lost their will to fight;

(ii) Mao's PLA who fought the nationalist KMT forces and the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA); and

(iii) Look at the cost the IJA inflicted on the American forces at the Battle of Iwo Jima, most of which fought to the death even when it was clear they would lose. The IJA decided to surrender because they thought the Americans had more nuclear bombs, after 2 were dropped.

[Gremlin29]

The OP was questioning the effectiveness of armed American civilians versus an organized army, in his example the Chinese.

Perhaps it's a language/culture barrier, in the US we have the National Guard and the Army Reserve, the US Air Force Reserves and the Air Guard, plus Navy and Marine reserves as well. As you know, most of these part time warriors served active duty before going to the guard/reserves and most of them have deployed for 1+ years to support the GWOT. They are professional warriors, that happen to have full time civilian jobs. I reallize these forces would be considered "militia" in most other countries but here in the US, we do not apply the term "militia" to our guard/reserve forces. In the US today the term militia means a group of civilians that have formed paramilitary units. Most of these individuals have never served in the military and are for the most part, complete whack jobs. They wear BDU's, carry semi-auto military "style" weapons and practice for the end of times ie WW3. The majority of them are unqualified for military service for a variety of reasons hence they feel the need to "play" soldier. It's a sub culture thing, sort of like the air softers that buy all the battle rattle of a real soldier and try to mimic SEALS, SAS, SF etc.

OPSSG bring up some interesting points. The success of the Viet Cong versus the US is directly tied to the US's unwillingness to fight unconventional forces in an unconventional way and the insistance on ROE and for the most part, complying with the Geneva Convention and the Haque Accords etc. Had the US ignored these "rules" like the North Vietnamese did, the war would have been over in very quickly indeed. You can't win a street fight if your going to use the rules of a boxing ring and the other guy isn't.

The Germans were ruthless to partisans, which is why the French partisans laid low until the allies landed. They were pretty effective of minimizing partisan activity to virtually nil because they dealt with these activites in the most harsh and extreme way. Partisans lose support of the population instantly, when the invader/aggressor is willing to round up the first 100 citizens and execute them due to the death of one soldier. This is how I would expect the PLA to handle civilians taking up arms against them.

[Waylander]

Oh. I thought he was talking about forming a rag tag militia out of the masses of americans (or another country) who are not part of the active, reserve or NG forces but own a weapon and send them to harass the enemy in case of an invasion.

If we are talking about these hillbilly militias then I would expect them to last even shorter than a normal civvi.
Their "training" might make them believe that they actually can engage enemy forces in a conventional way. Like running heads on into a slaughterhouse...
And I expect alot of these militia guys not to be that brave when the brown mass hits the rotating thing...

[OPSSG]

In the interest of disclosure, I am a Chinese Singaporean (who lives in a multi-ethnic society) that is also UK educated and have a very different perspective from China born Chinese.

Oh. I thought he was talking about forming a rag tag militia out of the masses of americans (or another country) who are not part of the active, reserve or NG forces but own a weapon and send them to harass the enemy in case of an invasion.

I was thinking like Waylander.

If we are talking about these hillbilly militias then I would expect them to last even shorter than a normal civvi.
Their "training" might make them believe that they actually can engage enemy forces in a conventional way. Like running heads on into a slaughterhouse...

Against regular army, the hillbilly militias, if any, will be wiped out (if they come into contact). In many ways leadership is key and leadership will determine tactics.

The Germans were ruthless to partisans, which is why the French partisans laid low until the allies landed. They were pretty effective of minimizing partisan activity to virtually nil because they dealt with these activites in the most harsh and extreme way. Partisans lose support of the population instantly, when the invader/aggressor is willing to round up the first 100 citizens and execute them due to the death of one soldier. This is how I would expect the PLA to handle civilians taking up arms against them.

Further, IMHO, from a cultural point of view, there is less respect for the Geneva Convention in many non-western armies. I expect armed resistance to be met by extermination measures by local commanders.

The IJA came into Singapore and executed approximately 25,000 Chinese civilians in Singapore during WWII. On rare occasions, groups of skulls and bones are still turning up due to earthworks. IJA applied extermination measures to any resistance they encountered all across their conquered territories in Asia. That is why Japan as a country is so lonely, especially when there are Japanese idiots who attempt to revise their WWII historical record.

[Tavarisch]

What type of militias are we talking about? The MVD in Russia maintains armed forces that could be classified as a militia... but they have APCs, and until a little while ago even tanks.

What happened to the tanks?

@Feanor, is the Border Guard liaised to the MVD?

[Humanoid]

Oh. I thought he was talking about forming a rag tag militia out of the masses of americans (or another country) who are not part of the active, reserve or NG forces but own a weapon and send them to harass the enemy in case of an invasion.
If we are talking about these hillbilly militias then I would expect them to last even shorter than a normal civvi.
Their "training" might make them believe that they actually can engage enemy forces in a conventional way. Like running heads on into a slaughterhouse...
And I expect alot of these militia guys not to be that brave when the brown mass hits the rotating thing...

Quite honestly that was my original question, but, when within the first two replies it was established they would be nothing more than speed bumps, and it was brought to my attention that the German's provided a small armory for mid-sized towns, I decided that for purposes of discussion I could possibly ask how much effect a small armory in the hands of untrained civilians would have against an organized invasion

[Humanoid]

Basically,

To eliminate confusion as to the make-up, I'm wondering if we could apply the tactics used by the Minutemen(everyday citizens with nothing more than weapons of less than professional build, i.e. no heavy weapons nor standard military equipment) of the revolution to briefly hold off a modern orgazined invading force

[Gremlin29]

I don't think the Minuteman concept would work today. Back then it worked because the British didn't have any real technical advantage of equipment. They couldn't cut us off from natural resources so their biggest advantage of sea power was negated. Also today's forces have maneuvering elements that didn't exist back then, plus there's the added dimension of aviation.

All that said, alot of Americans over the years prepared (and continue to prepare) for that "big invasion" ala the classic 80's movie Red Dawn. The current state of the worlds military forces makes an invasion of the US a physical impossibility. I think the biggest military threat we have on our soil, is a civil war. That would be an engaging topic!

[Humanoid]

All that said, alot of Americans over the years prepared (and continue to prepare) for that "big invasion" ala the classic 80's movie Red Dawn. The current state of the worlds military forces makes an invasion of the US a physical impossibility. I think the biggest military threat we have on our soil, is a civil war. That would be an engaging topic!

I agree, that would be fascinating. Which catagory would a topic like that go under?

[Gremlin29]

Good question, it would seem to me that here in the GD section would be okay. If in doubt just PM a mod, that way they don't have to move it to the right section.

[Humanoid]

Well,
As I wouldn't have the first idea to start a topic like that, would someone possibly with alot more experience do the honors?:confused:

[StingrayOZ]

The minute man concept won't work because you don't have access to simular type of weaponry and logistics. You can't buy a RPG or a few decent jet fighters down at the local store. Where as previously, in the early days of the rifle, you could.

Militas do well when they are supported by other nation or nations. Give them tanks, RPG's, aircraft etc then yes, they can make a very significant contribution.

Or as a gorillia force militas have worked well, when they know their limitations and are supported by the local population and outside (international?) backing. They also work well as a starting point to increase the size of an existing force with additional equipment and training.

As a hill billy milita? Not a chance. They would be the dust blown off at the start of a conflict. How can rifles succeed against helicopters and tanks and jet aircraft in a flat out open battle conflict.

But milita come in all shapes and sizes. If you had a very well trained (years, in a well designed program), well armed (small arms, point and click weapons that favour less trained, hidden and mobile forces), well supported milita ($ and people on the ground) it could cause all sorts of problems to an invading force depending on the rules of engagement. Usually these milita become the local warlords the in anarchy of change and you end up having to deal with them on some level.

Is/was the IRA an army or a militia or just a terrorist group?

[11561]

Hello Gents,

I think that you all are selling the US away fairly cheaply. I'd surely agree that a horde of civillians without military training armed with double-barreled shotguns and bolt-action .22's would suffer enourmous casualties and would be unable to coordinate attacks or defence effectively. They'd take 10 dead for every 1 enemy wounded/ killed, and would in no way be effective as a fighting force. And adding in enemy arty, airpower, and armor, any civillian resistance is totally doomed to failure.

BUT...

I'd like to point out that any hypothetical invastion of the USA would be nothing like a random mob of civvies w/ .22's.

Firstly, the enemy would NOT enjoy air superiority. At worst, the enemy would have a contested airspace, which would mean that enemy aircraft are all in SEAD or AtA. I don't think that the enemy would be able to get effective AtG sorties going anytime soon. So Militia concentrations would initially be safe from enemy air attack.

Secondly, the Militia would never be a bunch of moron civillians armed with varmint rifles. For example, I personally have a pair of Mossberg 500's 1 w/ stock and the other pistol grip and a Mauser 98K. Both types of weapons are perfectly capable of killing a man from a distance or close up. I am pretty good with both weapons at the range. How good I am shooting at a man instead of paper remains to be seen.

Third, There are many military vets that aren't involved in the National Guard, meaning that in time of war, there would still be plenty of military-experienced men available for instruction and or service. I'm sure that one of the hundreds of thousands of military vets out there could command or at least instruct an organized partisan unit. Though the elimination process for new militia-civillians would be ruthlessly Darwinian, I'm sure that a few good soldiers would come up from each militia unit to train others if the war of occupation were to become protracted.

Fourth, the weapons brandished by a civillian militia in time of war wouldn't stay only civillian guns for long. One of my friends is NYPD, and they gave him an M-4 to use if the situation warrants it. There are plenty of military-grade rifles in general circulation. Also bear in mind that the British won back the Falklands with semi-auto FN's. The Argies had full-autos, and they lost.

I'm definitely not trying to put forth the idea here that a civillian militia would be comparable to any organized invading military force, but I would like to say that a civillian militia in the continental US would present any possible invader with a whole new set of serious problems to counter.

[kato]

Any such civilian movement lacks coordination on a military level. They'd at most operate at a platoon-sized level, more likely far less. While they might hide well, that means that in a confrontation with a military formation, they're pretty much sitting ducks for incoming fire. They can't even perform a tactical retreat without losing unit cohesion.

Even the firepower on a one-for-one basis is not even remotely comparable. Say you have a well-armed group, 10-15 men with shotguns (your Mossberg), a few bolt-action rifles (your K98), and a couple paramilitary semi-autos (that M4). A comparably-sized military formation can counter your range with penetrating suppressive automatic fire, can blow your defensive cover to bits with GLs and RLs, and doesn't care much about the shotgun because they can just toss a couple hand grenades in a situation where a shotgun would be applicable.

On the bigger level? Take out any sizable formation with mortars, artillery and tanks, and from there on it becomes a counter-sniper exercise and house-to-house clearing.

There are other factors - logistics, medical, recon. A military force can soak up casualties, a civilian force is essentially screwed until it builds itself up to a military level (recently seen a documentary where they showed Vietcong MASH hospitals, rather interesting). An individual civilian force might have recon of its domain, but it can easily be flanked and found on the larger picture with modern means.

[Chino]

So-called "hillbilly" militias have proven to be extremely effective against regular army units.

Mujahideen/Talibans, Viet Minh/Viet Cong, Hamas, PLO etc...

Time and again, they have been proven near impossible to eradicate by military means alone. Kill one militia fighter, 5 of his friends and relatives sign up etc...

In fact, it has been written that proliferation of small arms for civilian militias in the 20th century have completely changed the rules of warfare. Any unpopular invader is sure to face long and determined civilian resistance making occupation a difficult business.

Add to that the proliferation today of communications devices like phones and internet.

...

Avoiding to fight the way your enemy expects you to fight is a sound military tactic and one which good militias have practiced with great results.

A civilian militia seldom face down a regular army unit unless the odds are overwhelmingly in their favour. But that's no meansure of its effectiveness (or not). A civilian militia is best for harassing role by tying down a great number of enemy troops. Intel gathering. And also subversion of the population - which usually regular army units fail to do well. Militias are also invaluable as guides as they have good local knowledge.

They don't "win" military victories in the classic sense. But that's not what they should set out to do. When the VC made the mistake of Tet Offensive, they were nearly wiped out.

[Chino]

A military force can soak up casualties, a civilian force is essentially screwed until it builds itself up to a military level...

History and current events have shown that a (invading) military force cannot absorb casualties like a determined (defending) civilian militia can.

The militia is fighting for their "justice" and "survival" etc etc and it recruits readily from the patriotic home population.

The invading military is fighting for ... hmm... what? And they recruit from a civilian population back home that usually don't want to die invading another country.

[Chino]

Fourth, the weapons brandished by a civillian militia in time of war wouldn't stay only civillian guns for long. One of my friends is NYPD, and they gave him an M-4 to use if the situation warrants it.

That's right.

The only widespread use of shotguns in recent insurgency would be the Maoist peasants of Nepal. (And they won!!!)

Anyway, forget .22 and shotguns: all famous insurgencies were armed with military grade weapons from the Vietnam War 40 years ago till now in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[kato]

History and current events have shown that a (invading) military force cannot absorb casualties like a determined (defending) civilian militia can.

I don't mean absorb as in fighting morale.

I mean soak it up as in they can have soldiers wounded and return them to the front line within weeks or months whereas a civilian force will have definitive problems soaking up any wounded. A wounded civilian fighter will be either captured or dead within days, there will not be any Medevac, or a MASH waiting for him behind the front lines. In modern combat, that's an important statistic - as over 90% of all casualties will be wounded, not instant death.

[Gremlin29]

I still think a critical component of this discussion centers on how the invading force handles dealing with irregular forces. The VC were so effective in VN because they did not even remotely adhere to any rules of warfare, nor did they show any regard for casualties/POW's. They routinely executed entire villages if they appeared to by sympathetic to ARVN or US troops. They were able to wage a campaign of terror against their own countrymen making them reluctant, to cooperate with ARVN or even US troops. Same goes for Iraq/Afghanistan. Captured US troops can look forward to having their heads sawn off on TV, captured insurgents will be jailed, and even have the chance at a trial. Heck, some of them have been released and recaptured or killed fighting again.

[Feanor]

What happened to the tanks?

@Feanor, is the Border Guard liaised to the MVD?

The border guard I believe are FSB. The tanks were handed over to the MoD as far as I know. Probably scrap by now, as they were iirc T-62s.

[kato]

Tanks aren't that unusual, especially if the unit is considered for wartime combatant roles. The German Border Guard used to have Saladins with 76mm guns, the French Gendarmerie has ERC90 and VBC90 with 90mm guns.

[Feanor]

True. It's just that when I heard the words militia, what came to mind were the state militias in the US. So compared to them, the MVD would be a big step forward.

[bruceedwards]

Using the VC and Taliban as examples of militia resisting superior, professional forces it seems the militia have a number of clear advantages:

1. They can soak up large casualties (and they need to!) as new recruits are plentiful.

2. They have no ROE - and can be as ruthless as they wish.

3. They can hide in the civilian population if required.

4. They have no vulnerable 'soft spots'. No (or minimal) supply lines, forward operating bases, airstrips.

Of course, these advantages can be viewed as disadvantages - casualties are bad, being ruthless can sour your support, hiding in the populace can make the populace a target, and no supply lines also means you are hungry and short of ammo.

But the point remains - until a Militia hits a 'tipping point' with regards to training and equipment, it will remain resistant to the tactics and weapons that have evolved to fight a larger, more static foe.

A militia may not stop an invasion outright, but it can make the occupation a nightmare.

[Feanor]

Except that they do have supply lines. Afghan insurgents get lots of supplies from Pakistan, just like the VC got supplies from North Vietnam, and ultimately the USSR. I think one of the reasons that the Iraqi insurgency was relatively unsuccessful (other then not having a real base) was that it did not have major outside suppliers. Though Iran certainly tried.

[kato]

I've actually read some of those "militia manuals" (of US militia groups, on the internet) a couple years ago, and they frankly have me shaking my head at all of them.
Carlos Marighella's Minimanual Urban Guerilla for example makes a lot more sense, since it actually goes into the details and problems faced, presenting a workable solution for both defensive and offensive application. And one that's actually adaptable and extendable while not relying on non-quantified values such as "the patriotic feelings of the population that will support us" (brrr).

[StingrayOZ]

They do have supply lines. But they are different. Militas have no problem buying or operating a black market. Each unit can be funded not from a central pool but from what ever they can get (legally or illegally or both). Stashes are often made of cheap and important items (food and small arms) or captured or found (UXB's). There is often no predefined front, so fight can be moderated to the supplies.

We now have militas building there own missiles and explosives. I suprised there we haven't seen more advanced versions. Using a phone, game console remote, a few industrial IC's and propellant/explosive made from agricultural or common industrial supplies you could make a very advanced guided missile to shoot targets on the ground, air or over the horizon.

Look at the bomb problem in Iraq. Things are getting developed and improved.

Those that operate in a milita can often find medical attention in local civilian hospitals. if your shot, shoot a few locals and go in with the group.

Subduing conquered lands has been an eternal problem. If a populace really doesn't want you there, you aren't going to be able to win.

[kato]

We now have militas building there own missiles and explosives.
Like? IEDs in Iraq maybe, and they seem to tend to take a page out of established manuals often. Missiles, perhaps UAVs? Like Hamas or Hisb'allah? Both of which aren't really militias anymore, at least since the 80s, but well-established nation structures with military components.

Those that operate in a milita can often find medical attention in local civilian hospitals. if your shot, shoot a few locals and go in with the group.

Err, the first thing an occupation force will do is have an eye on any and all hospitals. :rolleyes:

[StingrayOZ]

Well whats a milita and whats not? Is it something that is a paramilitary force not lead by the head of state of that nation.

Err, the first thing an occupation force will do is have an eye on any and all hospitals.

But it does get to a point where your milita isn't made up of males ages 15-35 but of old men and women and gets a little confusing..

[Humanoid]

They do have supply lines. But they are different. Militas have no problem buying or operating a black market. Each unit can be funded not from a central pool but from what ever they can get (legally or illegally or both). Stashes are often made of cheap and important items (food and small arms) or captured or found (UXB's). There is often no predefined front, so fight can be moderated to the supplies.

This is true. Supply lines don't apply in the traditional sense to a guerrila militia. If say I, and a group of fellow locals, were to say, plan an attack, or a sabotage attempt within fifteen miles of my home, there is no need for a supply line. And if we are to be under the impression that every town would do a lot of it's own work, then a militia-man/skirmisher, would only have to operate within small distances of his place of residence. This virtually would eliminate supply lines. Because lacking uniforms, covering faces, and the like, makes a 'skirmisher' just another civilian in a supermarket or public place.

The benefit of being unorganized, is that there are relatively few prominent leaders for the occupation forces to root out and publicly execute etc. and if the operating group is different on each operation, it means there isn't a roster sheet with the names of fifteen saboteurs convinietly available for an insider to happen upon.

Also, another benefit of being unorganized, is that intel would be incredibly hard to gather on the movement making suprise raids more viable. Ambushes on small convoys would be ideal if IED's were employed effectively etc. If this were to occur, the invaders would have two options, move in large convoys, costing them more resources, or spreading themselves thin to secure more area making them vulnerable to attacks on their soldiers themselves.:nutkick

[Chino]

Except that they do have supply lines. Afghan insurgents get lots of supplies from Pakistan, just like the VC got supplies from North Vietnam, and ultimately the USSR. I think one of the reasons that the Iraqi insurgency was relatively unsuccessful (other then not having a real base) was that it did not have major outside suppliers. Though Iran certainly tried.

Would like to point out the Tamil Tigers and Nepali Maoists - 2 of the oddest, maybe the loneliest insurgent movements, one being on the island of Sri Lanka and the other in the isolated mountains of Nepal.

I could be wrong but both these groups get little to no outside help in terms of arms supply etc and rely entirely on their own ingenuity to secure arms.

Yet both scored spectacular military successes against better armed and organised government forces. The Tamil Tigers even sent the Indian Army packing (no offense intended) by inflicting heavy casualties on them, IIRC...

And the Tigers themselves absorb pretty heavy casualties. And even without 100% support from the Tamil population, they fight on and on.

Again goes to show, a popular insurgent movement is nothing to scoff at. The Chicom won the fight for one of the largest and most populous countries on earth.

[Chino]

The Viet Minh - predecessor of the Viet Cong - militarily defeated the French at Dien Bien Phu in a conventional set-piece battle.

There's no "rule book" and what separates a true blue military from a rag tag insurgent group can easily get blurred.

A people's militia can sometimes just be a conventional army without the uniforms.

And...

The Karens and other Burmese insurgent groups at the height of their power, HAD uniforms and badges etc.

And then there's China during the "Warlord" era pre-KMT. Some of them were armed, equipped and trained just like any true "armies" and some had officers graduating from foreign (Japanese or German) military academies.

They collect taxes (esp opium) and openly bought weapons with these money.

[bruceedwards]

They do have supply lines!

Yep, I somehow completely forgot about the Ho Chi Minh trail etc. (Note to self: Do not post when tired).

I guess I should have rephrased it as: They are not as reliant on supply lines as set-piece armies.

I know I'm pointing out the obvious, but the lack of centralisation and standards creates another advantage/disadvantage scenario. They are unpredictable and hard to kill with one method of warfare, but lacking a consistent plan and structure most militia struggles devolve into bleeding the enemy to death.

[Todjaeger]

With regards to a civilian 'militia' being effective, it is dependent on how well the members train and operate together, what sort of equipment and logistical support the have, and how they are employed.

If one were to look at nations with large scale conscription and organized reserve/homeguard/milita forces (Israel and Switzerland come to mind) then these nations could likely rapidly call up forces capable of low-level conventional or unconventional ops in fairly short order. A country like the US, which in addition to the regular volunteer forces has the Reserves and various state Guard units, these can be somewhat different from Reserve units in other nations because (at least in the Reserves) the personnel are essentially former members of the regular forces who are just completing their terms of service. Also, the units also engage in regular, large scale deployments alongside and in concert with regular forces. This has been the case in Iraq, as well as during GWI and back in the 80's with exercises like ReForGer. As such, the equipment types used by the Reserve units is most often the same as that used by regular units and therefore the units are suitable for conventional ops.

Now, if one is talking about use of civilian/non-military personnel... This situation becomes quite different and complex, particular if the 'militia' is formed as an adhoc force during a time of crisis. While such a force would likely prove useless for conventional ops, guerrilla warfare waging attacks by partisans could prove quite effective in 'occupying' and ocuppying enemy. Pardon the pun.

In a case like this, the equipment already available to the civilian population could be turned into various weapons, IEDs, etc. Also various non-military organizations like local law enforcement/police, or First Responders like Fire and EMS, could provide people with potentially applicable skills and training that could be useful or adaptable into partisans.

As for the US, it is hard to say whether or not it would prove effective. IIRC there are something like 900 million (yes, million) firearms in private ownership within the US. It works out statistically to there being roughly 3 for every man, woman and child within the country. From a pratical matter, many or most of the weapons are unsuitable for use in combat (a Ruger 10/22 is a nice gun, but not something I want to shoot someone with unless I just want to annoy them). Also the statistics are somewhat skewed as many of the privately owned guns are owned by the same people, meaning that while many households will own no firearms, those that due can often own more firearms than the statics indicate. This does make some sense though when one considers the different types and uses of various civilian fire arms (hunting of small or large game, various bird guns, target shooting as well as self-defence). A great deal would depend on the will of the local populace vs. that of the occupying force. Something I will need to ponder a bit.

-Cheers

[Feanor]

Well if you close off all the borders leading into a territory, where will the insurgency get their weapons? Assuming you can rely on your own troops not to sell theirs, that would cut supply lines.

[kato]

IIRC there are something like 900 million (yes, million) firearms in private ownership within the US.
1997 numbers, legal firearms:
- 65 million handguns
- 127 million long guns

Numbers have been rising a bit, current estimates put it at 220-230 million total, with some excessive estimates topping 250 million in private hands. Plus around 25 million in government hands (police, military).

[Chino]

Well if you close off all the borders leading into a territory, where will the insurgency get their weapons? Assuming you can rely on your own troops not to sell theirs, that would cut supply lines.

Even when the Germans closed up the Jewish ghetto, the resistance were still able to arm themselves.

[Gremlin29]

Even when the Germans closed up the Jewish ghetto, the resistance were still able to arm themselves.


This is true, and they put up a valiant fight for which they shall always be remembered however, the net effect to the German war machine was neglible at best.

Keep in mind guys that the US is not as homogenous as you might think. Different regions, different mentalities. An invader would have a tougher go in certain regions, versus others. I'm not convinced California as a whole, has the mentality or material to resist. Put the invaders into Washington or Oregon and you'll see a different response and greater possible impact.

[Waylander]

I would like to emphasize on the will of the attacker to inflict civilian casualties to any country which resists with a certain amount of guerillas.
Sure insurgencies can be a real pain in the ass but a country which is able to conquer the US at some time in the future and makes the creation of guerilla forces necessary might be a very powerfull one.
And if this country decides that it isn't going to play by the rules it could get very very nasty.
Modern armed forces can wreck havoc on civilian centres with a very short reaction time. That's if their leaders let them loose.

A insurgency can be very effective if their enemy plays by the rules and tries to win the hearts and minds of the people.
If the attacker just decides to go roman and answers any resistance with overhelming force and destruction it becomes unwinnable very fast.
Not a very effective way of resistance if the enemy wipes out a small village for every soldier lost to a guerilla attack.

[Gremlin29]

A insurgency can be very effective if their enemy plays by the rules and tries to win the hearts and minds of the people.
If the attacker just decides to go roman and answers any resistance with overhelming force and destruction it becomes unwinnable very fast.
Not a very effective way of resistance if the enemy wipes out a small village for every soldier lost to a guerilla attack.


I agree 125%! :) I could be wrong but I feel that is why US civilian types fighting a PLA force using guerilla tactics wouldn't be effective or last long.

[Waylander]

As often it is a question of determination, will and resources.

If the conqueror is determined to hold on what he conquered and has the resources and will to go after an insurgency even if it is for decades he will win in the end be it because the guerillas/the population lost the will to go on or because there is no one left to resist.

I am also very sceptical about insurgencies as a whole.
There are many people out there who point out that insurgencies are seen as relatively impossible to beat these days.
They say that one just has to look at the Taliban or Hezbollah to see that.
What they often fail to show is that neither of these insurgencies has been able stop a determined foe of entering their territory and are not able to stop him from acting as he wants albeit he takes some losses.

An insurgency is a last resort and often enough causes much more pain for your own country than for the attacker.

[Todjaeger]

1997 numbers, legal firearms:
- 65 million handguns
- 127 million long guns

Numbers have been rising a bit, current estimates put it at 220-230 million total, with some excessive estimates topping 250 million in private hands. Plus around 25 million in government hands (police, military).

I am a bit fuzzy on the numbers (one side effect of posting when :sleepy), it is possible the 900 million was worldwide small arms total. From what I do remember of the recent numbers, there has been a dramatic upswing in the numbers and availability of firearms in private hands within the US. I would not be surprised if the number more than doubled from 1997 to now. Particularly with the changes in the US sociatel and legal climate both post-9/11 and after 2004.

As a side note, I regret not being able to open my own gun store 3 years ago, I would have made out like a bandit;)

As both Waylander and Gremlin29 commented, an insurgency is a effort of last resort, to be used when fighting an opponent that one is one able to engage in directly (conventionally). Unfortunately, it also relies upon the enemy somewhat to be effective... If faced with a ruthless foe who does not have an issue with committing atrocities to achieve victory, an insurgency becomes ineffective as the insurgents rely upon knowledge of local areas and the ability to blend in with non-combatants. If a the occupying for adopts an attitude of everyone being a combatant...

[kato]

Well, the higher quotes are from 2005-2007...

[Chino]

There are many people out there who point out that insurgencies are seen as relatively impossible to beat these days.

Maybe it was what I said earlier?:
"Time and again, they have been proven near impossible to eradicate by military means alone."



If the conqueror is determined to hold on what he conquered and has the resources and will to go after an insurgency even if it is for decades he will win in the end be it because the guerillas/the population lost the will to go on or because there is no one left to resist.

Any examples?

Most examples of invasion followed by occupation I can think of in the last few decades are/were met with determined insurgencies. And time and again, it is shown that the local resistance usually has more lasting power than most invaders.

Even in current Iraq and Afghanistan where the occupying foreign armies are not 100% unwelcome, resistance was/is still very fierce.

I can't think of many good examples of low resistance to foreign enemy occupation.

I can think of Tibet. Any more?



What they often fail to show is that neither of these insurgencies has been able stop a determined foe of entering their territory and are not able to stop him from acting as he wants albeit he takes some losses.

That's not the role of insurgents or guerillas. The Vietnamese resistance from French to US occupation, operated by day as farmers and insurgents by night. They are not 24hrs in military mode.

And because you use conventional standards to measure insurgency success/failure, you keep coming up with the result that most insurgencies are NOT successful.

The Vietnamese insurgents probably suffered many times the casualties of the invaders and regular armies. But you can't say that they have failed. They won. They won by wearing down the enemy, by tying him down etc... not defeating it in the conventional sense.

Like ants. You can kill many of them. But eventually you move your picnic somewhere else.

But it is also incorrect to say that insurgents has never been able to deny an area to an invading army as there are many examples where they have.



An insurgency is a last resort and often enough causes much more pain for your own country than for the attacker.

??

Maybe if the invaders are really nice, the civillians may not resist.

But in general, invasions/occupations are resisted.

[Feanor]

The Second Chechen war is an example of an insurgency suppressed by military means.

[kato]

But in general, invasions/occupations are resisted.
Sudetenland '38
Albania '39
Iceland '41
Baltic Shield '45
Germany '45
Tibet '50 (until the USA got involved '56 anyway)
Egypt '56 (ok, a couple days...)
Namibia '66
Czechoslovakia '68
Falklands '82
Kuwait '90
Solomon Islands '03

[Chino]

Sudetenland '38
Albania '39
Iceland '41
Baltic Shield '45
Germany '45
Tibet '50 (until the USA got involved '56 anyway)
Egypt '56 (ok, a couple days...)
Namibia '66
Czechoslovakia '68
Falklands '82
Kuwait '90
Solomon Islands '03

Yup, it is a pretty short list.

And I said "in general", which is different from "definitely". Besides some of your examples are incorrect (in red):

- Germany offered fierce military resistance. But the people were eager for the war to end, why would they fight the occupation?

- Tibet is a "maybe" because apparently there was an armed uprising.

- Egypt 1956 is a military vs military action. Irrelevant.

- Falklands? One website described the Falklands 1982 as having "a population equal to a large block of flats" - about 1,800 people and a lot of sheep.

- Kuwaiti military and civilians (in smaller numbers) both resisted the Iraqis until liberation.

- Solomon Islands? Gee man... I won't call a peacekeeping mission requested by the local government an "invasion/occupation".

My time frame reference was more "post-ww2" because that's when large war-stock became available to those shrewd enough to squirrel them away. And also heavy industralized production of small arms especially by USSR.

EDIT: add "respectfully".

[Chino]

The Second Chechen war is an example of an insurgency suppressed by military means.

An honest question... They were definitely (and ruthlessly) crushed militarily. But are the Chechens considered completely subdued yet?

[Chino]

An interesting account of the Maoist Nepali resistance.

http://neilsnepal.wordpress.com/2007/04/30/my-time-with-the-pla/

They are armed mostly with captured security forces weapons including:

- 7.62 NATO Bren
- .303 Lee-Enfield
- FN FAL SLR

There's also what looked like a small hand-held mortar.

[kato]

Yup, it is a pretty short list.


Because i was too lazy to list more.

[Feanor]

An honest question... They were definitely (and ruthlessly) crushed militarily. But are the Chechens considered completely subdued yet?

Chechnya is more stable then the rest of the North Caucus from what I can tell. The security there has been handed over to local Chechen units, and only the 42nd MRD elements are still present there. There are occasional terrorist attacks, but relatively few and far between. Compared to a region completely in control of Chechen and foreign fighters, recognizing no overall lawful authority, the situation right now is peace. I would consider that a victory.

[Honorforall]

Greetings everyone, I am new to the forum and would like to start off by saying thank you to every American soldier from the past, present and in the future. By serving, you allow us civilians to own firearms among many other rights. I would like to say that I believe in a time of severe crisis, the great people of this country will unite and learn how to survive in combat. Everyone is born with honor and courage. It takes a kick in the ass to make us understand it and to live by it. A young person joins the military, the instructors kick em' in the ass to learn honor and courage and many many other skills. Civilians dont have that luxury. Some choose not to and some were not allowed to. If this country ever got invaded, that will be the kick in the ass civilians need to learn and they will be come just as deadly as a American soldier. I give credit to ALL militias in this country. Not only will they defend our country from foreign invaders but domestic tyrants trying to turn this awesome country into something our forefathers never wanted it to be. They train alot, especially the Michigan militia. You must also remember, alot of soldiers will put in their mandatory minimum time in the service but militia members stay for life.