/warfare/

Another lesson is that states can be toppled by eliminating the support for them regardless of military success.

bump.

...

This is purely larping but

Honestly I don't know what's more secure for asymmetrical warfare, urban or jungle environments as seen with Vietnam. I think the tighter the city is the risk goes for both sides, as straight military action or drones leads to civilian casualties and opposing sympathies, while precision strike teams can go in, who are probably trained as fuck can go and wipe out resistance easily.

I think the wider and more suburban a city gets the less easy it becomes to "liberate", while the tighter a city is, say New York or London, the easier it becomes just because of population density.

With the advent of rifles that no longer load from the muzzle, and gas that can choke a man to death, warfare has never been more of a morbid affair. I've come with a proposal for a machine that will reinvent warfare as we know it. We utilize the trench wires that connect to thier respective telegraph system, via a compact machine in order to communicate in visual form, Images drawn using an art style that originates from the orient. These images will depict said characters with priggish expressions accompanied by a message.

Outright urban warfare is for real militaries. In an insurgency, infrastructure centers like cities are immediately occupied and fortified. The occupying force responds faster, and is more easily reinforced, both in the strategic and tactic level in infrastructure centers.

These odds are in favour of the occupier.

Insurgents can lay ambushes and bombs in urban areas, but the goal should not be to hold onto permanent territory unless they also possess significant conventional assets.

Do we have any material on the essentials of Guerilla warfare, the UK has plenty of forest and hills to hide in.

Mate you've got an old neighbour that might have something to tell you about an insurgency.

...

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying

T-Tiocfaidh ár lá

Hiding in the wilderness while a conventional military controls the cities and whatever resources they care about stealing accomplishes nothing. If you are not going to challenge the other army for control over production you may as well give up the fight.

Unless you have comparable military assets, you aren't holding territory. You know what else accomplishes nothing? Getting btfo in the first week of your war and seeing decades of hard work swept away like nothing.

Fact is, it takes extenuating circumstances to facilitate a guerilla war. Maybe you're fighting a declining empire that's seething with discontent. Maybe you're fighting a hyper-incompetent military with a second superpower looming over their shoulder. Maybe you occupy land so profit-starved that the only thing keeping the occupiers around is their perverse sense of pride (and some local collaborators).

Putting all your eggs into the violent insurrection basket is a losing proposition.

bump

Daily reminder that tankies owe the soviet union to based trotskek

I don't think there are enough examples to say for certain. I say you can hold a city hostage relatively easily if you have enough revolutionary support on your side.

There is such a thing as an urban jungle. A maze of concrete. All you have to do is understand what a city is geographically in the streets.

The point is, you can bring in the military all you want, but when worst comes to worst, how willing is the military to create civilian casualties, and when does a civilian end and a revolutionary begin

It would be much more difficult than you give it credit.

That's right. Don't fight a war unless you can win.

And in the end, if you don't die, the incoming regime will work for the same people that you were fighting all along.

It is the only proposition that has ever won anything.

If an occupier is sufficiently motivated, they will level the city, then your movement. Chechnya lost a whole generation of talented revolutionaries, Russia lost some hapless conscripts. Attrition favours the spooks, unless you have a wider movement like you say.

But if there is a wider movement, your revolution doesn't need to be limited to shooting in the streets.

I'm not discounting a revolutionary military action, btw, just giving realistic information. Last stands are heroic, not successful.

You don't need territory to fight a war.
Not on its own comrade.

Bumpo

Throwing out an idea.

Holla Forums is big on people's war for obvious reasons. However, there's a couple of important points that I never see anyone bring up.

One is that no people's war has been successful without massive foreign help. Bolsheviks won via conventional warfare, and if they had held on to the Red Army initial personnel being fully voluntary, democratically elected, committed revolutionaries. Ideologically, sure, that was beautiful, but needs must when the devil drives.

Regardless, the Soviets went on to aid the Chinese. It was legitimately a people's war, but whether it would have succeeded without Soviet help is impossible to know. And from Mao's victory onwards, the Chinese also started bankrolling some rebellions too.

The next best example of a people's war would be Vietnam. It's unquestionable that North Vietnam couldn't have survived for long without generous support from both the Soviets and the Chinese, doubly so if America had decided to invade.

So then, assuming that there will be a second wave of socialist uprising in the world, should the gommie armies adopt a strategy of people's war without a foreign power to help them? The Bolsheviks were in a unique situation, having reached power without having to fight any army. Well, at least other than the poor fuckers guarding the Winter Palace. But it's extremely unlikely a new red power will spring up like that to bankroll any people's wars, so they'll be on their own.

The second issue is, the viability of a protracted people's war given the ever increasingly destructive weaponry used by Porky. One of the ideas behind guerrilla war isn't necessarily to win militarily, but at least to remain willing and able to fight for longer than the enemy. To use Vietnam again, they definitely had the will, as they saw the war as both one of reunification and liberation, and the general populace were enured to war by now. They were also able to keep fighting, thanks to Chinese and Soviet materiel and a very large manpower pool. It's commonly known that NVA and VC killed far fewer soldiers than the Americans did. Hell, it was pretty much genocide. Yet the Vietnamese kept on unrelentingly.

Now then, the battlefields there rarely allowed for destroying a lot of enemy soldiers and materiel in quick strikes. It was a war of attrition, with a lot of engagements between small groups. As far as heavy weaponry went, the NVA and VC had next to nothing, while America had, well, everything, especially bombers. And despite having the firepower of Zeus, they rarely could do much damage at a time, thanks to the jungle terrain and the Vietnamese tactics. Thus the natives could sustain a protracted war for a long, long time.

Okay, now let's look at America's current military. Soldiers are pampered and full of body armor and shit, tanks galore, artillery with absurd ranges, naval power that can strike from way out in the sea, a preposterous number of bombers, and now the latest big thing, drones. And of course, the actual ordinance is more lethal than ever, be they bullets, bombs, shells, mines and rockets, to say nothing of unusual shit like napalm, lasers, cluster bombs and, God forbid, NBC. Now, with all this absurd firepower at its disposal, America could cause immense numbers of casualties in short spans of time, so much so that even a country with Vietnam's willingness and capacity would be overwhelmed. In simpler words, modern Porky armies have so much destructice power that even guerrilla armies, used to living with high losses, can't cope.

Am I talking sense here?

I heard somewhere in this board that the american military is incredibly expensive, so they're prepared for a decisive strike, a war of only a few months to occupy the country and let a client state in power to deal with the rest. Now, the way to win over American military should be endurance by our part, simply resist the attacks, counterattack them when they are exhausted and so. I'm pretty sure that, if the Vietnam war happened during our time, the Vietnamese could have won to America even harder than before because the war could have drown out more resources from the american treasury than in the 60's (Something that would be wonderful for the military complex but not for the people). Then they have 2 options, or let the client state to conquer our state, or continue the war against us, and we know how inneficient this client state armies can be (I'm pretty sure that the country shouldn't be very stable if there's a revolutionary war going on, but I'm going to say something like Iraq against ISIS in the first stage of the war), so, thats it.
To win over the EE.UU, we need to endure their attacks, resist them, and attack at objectives that the americans don't expect to be attacked.

Also, in the book of 5000 years of debt, of David Graeber, he talks of how much of the money putted into the american army is for the air force (That, from what I heard in this board, the new models are… mediocre), so we would need to counter their air force by, for example, building tunnels like the Vietnamese did and making provisional subterranean cities and shit like that, to make the air force useless and expensive. Now, what I said earlier, about the tunnel, the american army countered this.
¿How? You may ask.
Well, simple, if they thought that a vietnamese village was cooperating with rebels, they throwed napalm in there, filling the tunnels with smoke, asphyxiating the supposed rebels that were in the tunnels and burning everything in the village.
If a village is no more, that means there are no vietcongs in that village, because there's no more village there, amirite?
Another good thing the american army did was how they managed the refugees in the korean war, you see, there where refugees who were going south to save themselves from the raging war, but between the refugees there were communist agitators, so what did the american army? Fucking bombard them.
If there are no people, there are no communist agitators, amirite?

The only good american soldier is the dead one

So, I would say to make your territory hell for the enemy, make every city being conquered by the americans fucking Stalingrad, even if it's a town of 10.000 people only, make useless their air force by building tunnels and shit.
Also, some advice for attacking tanks. I don't know if this is true anymore, but the soviets fucked up german tanks in the second world war throwing at the german tanks molotovs (thing that the hungarian rebels did at the soviets tanks too), I don't know if this works with modern tanks, but would be a good way to fuck a tank if you're at close quarters, like in a city. Another thing, most of the vehicles that use the american army to move troops here and there can be attacked with anti-tank rifles (Or maybe not, but I think they do not have that much protection). With that, you could shoot at the engine and some more thousand of american treasury dollars go to the garbage or at your side if you manage to capture it.

I'm fairly sure this is outlawed by international conventions.

Bump

Everyone should read On War by Clausewitz and Caesar's Gaul commentaries.

Logistics win wars.

US imperialist militaries can't slaughter people in mass willy nilly. You're only thinking in the context of a single war, not in the context of all US interests and future potential wars. You kill too many civilians you lose legitimacy. If too many proles think the the US will kill them regardless of what they do or how docile they are, then you got a real uprising on your hands.
PR has been a huge issue to porky since WWI. Wars have been fought on lost because of the perception of who is the "bad guy".
People on this board way underestimate how important agitating and educating as well as the press.

What is the best MBT
and why its Armata

youtube.com/watch?v=4kb7yA9-Hdg

Perhaps there also necessary design and build cheap SAM rocket, radars and stuff.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_F-117A_shootdown
But german soilders destroy far more soviet advanced tanks used simple and cheap panserfausts.

...

Who needs things like production, food, or a population of potential replacements for lost fighters?

The Vietnamese war for independence was not a guerilla war. How does it keep getting used as an example of guerilla warfare?

That is not true. It kept getting destroyed, but they did have heavy weapons.

The Vietnamese learned that they could not engage the Americans for more than a few minutes before the American Air Force would arrive and obliterate them, so they avoided all small engagements until the Americans started sending small fire teams on their own into the bush to bait them into taking the chance. While the resulting type of engagement was common, it was not the strategy of the NVA to fight that way. Such engagements favored the Americans who could afford to risk their soldiers' lives for the chance to keep a larger Vietnamese force in place long enough for aircraft and artillery to wipe them out. The Vietnamese wanted to take and hold ground, as they tried to do in the Tet Offfensive. That is why they kept moving armor along the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

Read something like "Bazooka: How to built Your Own" and see that it isn't so hard.

There are also other ways to destroy armor. Methods vary according to the type of armor and the landscape through which it is moving. I really wish that I knew of a book that explains small-scale infantry tactics.

I think the US military puts out copies of its various infantry manuals and doctrine, but that might be only after they are out of date. I think I have some related PDFs but I'm at work now, so I'll have to wait to check.

Just because a new red power won't be there to prop up a socialist revolution doesn't mean any such revolution won't get any outside support. We live in a world where imperialist powers are always at each other's throats, and will be more than willing to back commies if it means screwing over their rivals. A socialist uprising in America for example would almost certainly get Russian and Chinese support, simply because it would undermine the American Empire and suit Russian/Chinese imperial interests. Look at the Russian Revolution, not only did the Germans ship Lenin to Russia, but they actually initially armed the Bolsheviks as well. Or look at Rojava, the Viet Minh or Yugoslavia, who all managed to gain western support despite being ideologically opposed to America because they shared a common enemy.

Indeed. Also remember that an American seperatist movement someplace like California or the Northwest would immediately be a nuclear power.

In Siberia separatist could receive same + huge amount oil.

It would be poetic if Siberia were to seperate from Russia and take Alaska with them.

that seems awesome, free territory 2.0 when?

Siberia + Alaska + Cascadia Socialist Republic when comrades?

just join the YPG you fucking pussies. playing XCOM =/= combat experience

What about the entire War on Terror? America was mobilized for years. We drop absurd amounts of bombs because there isn't any will to do a ground war, and the bombs are incredibly expensive.

In fact, the huge amount of money invested in our high tech military seems like a response to the unrest that occurred from the Vietnam War. America's military strategy is to destroy their targets as quickly as possibly and minimize American deaths through air strikes, artillery, etc. so that there isn't to much war fatigue at home.

They just lie about the civilians they kill, and try to restrain reporters to what they are willing to show. Of course, reporters still get pictures of kids in hospital beds, but it didn't seem to result in much here for Iraq or Afghanistan.

It's incredibly expensive and soaking up vast resources that regular Americans desperately need and are getting increasingly upset that they're being spent on endless wars and interventions.

Sorry i dont serve imperialist interests

...

...

...

...

...

...

And that's all the war/strategy/tactics related books I have. Please consider downloading the library in the books thread if you haven't already.

Thanks comrade

You fucking rock. The ranger manual will be particularly handy. I have to show it to my father one day to see what he thinks of it.

bump

bumparooni

bumpini

bump

Bumping af.
Main point: suburbia should be avoided like plague, you cannot effectively fight as guerillas in suburbs. Urban and rural, absolutely, even semi suburb farms (example being places like the north bay in where I live, Cali) can work, but suburbs have nearly zero potential except in sieges, or for supply raids to feed the troops

Final bump so a buddy can get the PDFs.

btdig.com/6a5ac77098568be9b8038f9b968e40627663443b/kurt-saxon
Additional books for poorfag warrior.

Nice

Americans happily did way worse than level town with 10k population in Korea.

You have to immobilize the Abrams, then drop a shitload of thermite on the hatch to get the crew. Otherwise they'll simply dump ordnance and infantry on you until they save their people. Or, perhaps dumping combustibles under the tank that don't particularly care about oxygen. Armored warfare is some really horrifying stuff.

Guerrilla war is born of exhausting morale. Direct battle will play into the strengths of the occupier. Ambushes that force increasing oppression onto the population will be ideal. The harder the boot comes down, the more the population will side with you. The goal isn't to fight the occupiers, it's to wait them out so that conquering you is no longer profitable.

I agree with you but try harder