Military Scenario
Cronos
Join Date: 2002-10-18 Member: 1542Members
Join Date: 2002-10-18 Member: 1542Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">A side track from another thread</div> <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=28&t=58055&st=15' target='_blank'>Continuing on From the Sidetrack in this thread</a>
A foreign army has invaded your country and is in total control. For those whom have read "Tommorow When The War Began" this first scenario will seem familiar.
Lets take it from an american perspective. July 4 comes round and everyone is on holiday.
The next day, fighting bloodshed and foreign tanks are rolling through your neighbourhood. During the night you heard hundreds, possibly thousands of foreign planes flying inland. From an international radio station, you've heard some stories of large land sea and air battles, all with similar results.
This fanciful hostile nation claims that resources are being kept from them, resources such as food, clean water, space for their burgeoning population. They plan to colonise the country with their own people if they can safely occupy the country.
Facts:
You are against a highly Trained foreign speaking enemy. Although they respect certain rules behind war (IE, POW's and such) giving in is not an option.
They are highly trained, they have heavy fire power. Your countries standing military has been crushed, although there are probably some men left in the remnants of your countries military they are probably an insignificant threat by now.
They probably have your family detained along with nearly everyone else in your locale (and possibly around the entire country), but there are some people skulking in the shadows. Some dart and hide, othes fight a clandestine guerilla war against this enemy. Rumours abound that this foreign invader destroys any facility deemed "Dangerous" with flying forces, not willing to risk soldiers to heavy ambush.
The guerillas have little chance of winning, but even so, How Would A Guerilla Force Win Against A Clearly Superior Enemy?
Discuss.
A foreign army has invaded your country and is in total control. For those whom have read "Tommorow When The War Began" this first scenario will seem familiar.
Lets take it from an american perspective. July 4 comes round and everyone is on holiday.
The next day, fighting bloodshed and foreign tanks are rolling through your neighbourhood. During the night you heard hundreds, possibly thousands of foreign planes flying inland. From an international radio station, you've heard some stories of large land sea and air battles, all with similar results.
This fanciful hostile nation claims that resources are being kept from them, resources such as food, clean water, space for their burgeoning population. They plan to colonise the country with their own people if they can safely occupy the country.
Facts:
You are against a highly Trained foreign speaking enemy. Although they respect certain rules behind war (IE, POW's and such) giving in is not an option.
They are highly trained, they have heavy fire power. Your countries standing military has been crushed, although there are probably some men left in the remnants of your countries military they are probably an insignificant threat by now.
They probably have your family detained along with nearly everyone else in your locale (and possibly around the entire country), but there are some people skulking in the shadows. Some dart and hide, othes fight a clandestine guerilla war against this enemy. Rumours abound that this foreign invader destroys any facility deemed "Dangerous" with flying forces, not willing to risk soldiers to heavy ambush.
The guerillas have little chance of winning, but even so, How Would A Guerilla Force Win Against A Clearly Superior Enemy?
Discuss.
Comments
Taking on an occupying force in a straight on fight is obviously foolish; the occupiers have superiour firepower and they would be expecting an attack against such areas.
One of the first things to do might be to try and establish contact with any remnants of the military, if any exist. These guys are the most likely to have access to, or knowledge of, heavier equipment and firepower. Plus they have a much higher level of training than any civilian. If you could manage to link up with one of them, you stand a better chance of meeting someone who has the military know-how to best attack the enemy.
However, that may be impractical. Maybe there are no military remnants left, or perhaps they're too hard to find. In that situation, you'll have to rely on local resources to fight the enemy. Seeing as we're dealing with a US scenario, a lot of people are likely to have private stores of guns, though few will have semi-automatic rifles, machine guns or anti-tank weaponry. Explosives can be made from readily obtainable resources, though one would require the relevant information. Access to the internet would make that a lot easier.
Defeating the invadors militarily will most likely not work, as stated before. Hence your task should be to try and force/persuede the occupiers to leave, perhaps by making their lives as difficult as possible. One way may be a passive-resistance campaign, but depending on your enemy that might not work. Some invaders might simply shoot everyone who resists and supliment them with their own population. Against a foe who is all too willing to bring their own population in, passive resistance would probably have minimal success.
If you are thus going to attack your foe with force, you must be careful to blend into the countryside and avoid undue attention. Single sniper attacks against exposed enemy soldiers would be a great way to bring down enemy morale whilst minimising the risk to yourself. Ambushes against convoys could also have a good effect, especially if the convoys were transporting food and ammunition to isolated outposts.
Similar to in the Tommorow series, hitting fuel dumps, either by destroying them or contaminating them, could also produce a favorable result. Sneaking an explosive device into an enemy encampment may be a little too ambitious, but if you could manage it, the results would be worth the effort.
If you focus on the peripheries, on the boundaries of the enemy's power, you can start to force them back. Taking down small outposts in towns or villages, ambushing convoys away from cities, assassinations or sniper attacks against patrols all have the intent of causing damage but at the same time forcing the enemy to retreat to safer positions. Much like the Chinese communists in China, if one could force the enemy to only be able to control the major cities and some transportation routes, you could then begin to isolate these larger pockets one by one, keeping the occupiers bottled up in urban environments.
Naturally though, this is where you hit a rather large wall. You can't assault those positions with your forces; your equipment is not designed to take that on and your numbers are too few. Contact with an outside force that is willing and able to assist you is now essential. Only with modern military equipment, and trained soldiers who can use this equipment, can you hope to take the major cities. The hope might be though that your efforts against the invaders have persueded other nations that the invaders are not as strong as they may seem. If you cannot gain that support though eventually you will lose; the enemy has the resources, technology and will to defeat you, and sooner or later they will break out from the cities and again enter the countryside.
Your only hope then is to make the occupation so much effort that it is not worthwhile doing. Continue the small-scale attacks, whittling down enemy strength and forcing them back onto the defensive. Attack the colonists they bring in in an attempt to make the invader's home population unwilling to come to your country. If the invaders sow crops, burn them.
In spite of all this though, without external assisstance your chances of success are very low. If an enemy has the power to eliminate the standing army of your nation, they will be strong enough to repress the population, and no matter how loyal you think your people are there are always collaboraters and people who will work with the enemy in exchange for a square meal and being left alone.
But seriously, what he said. But i'd steal a lot more stuff.
Anyone mind if we do that - or will that require a new thread?
Next would be to estabilish an HQ somewhere. Then I'd start sending off people to do raids on other weapons and supply stores, either friendly, foreign, or civilian. Now, we'd have knowledge of the ground, so we have the definant advantage there, so you'd start doing your ambush ops in some logical progression have no desire of thinking about atm. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
The inherent problem of having a central HQ is that it ceases to become a guerilla war and becomes an organised resistance. Going with the situation I'd think that cells of Guerillas that only meet when they need more manpower would be more effective, as well as hiding supply caches in secret locations etc.
A HQ has the disadvantage of being able to be targetted. If you have a centralised effort then the enemy can easily blow your brains out. You can keep it on the move only for so long before they corner you.
Ryo, one disagreement with you. It's not totally impossible to infiltrate an entrenched urban environment. Sewer systems can be excellent workarounds unless they patrol them regularly, and even then it's taking manpower off the streets and into the stinkholes, a definite morale hit.
The important thing to remember is NEVER to siege in any case. The Island of Malta has been sieged twice in it's history due to it's strategic location in the Mediterranean yet not once have foreign invaders ever won through a siege on that island. Sieges drain the war machine unnecessarily. Instead, focus on more important targets. Kill high ranking officers, decieve your enemy, sabotage his supply convoys, set traps. If possible, use willing spies to convey information and possibly misinform the enemy as a "Collaborator".
Organised resistance could be setup in neutral countries, such as Canada or Mexico (Assume canada to be neutral because they dont want to get utterly crushed as well) but within the country no organisational infrastructure should exist for the enemy to target.
If possible, even terrorist methods could be adopted. Nerve gas, Molotovs, even a nuke if you can get your hands on one should never be dismissed.
Sneaking a nuke into the enemy capital would definitely hit the enemy hard. They would either become despondent or enraged to new heights of fury. A furious enemy is one that cares nothing for the cost of victory, and the harder he strives to slay the resistance the more men and supplies he will lose to them.
This all, however, depends on one thing. That the citzenry will adapt quickly and learn to fight. The the citzenry are slow to adapt, too few may escape to form any meaningful resistance and any useful manpower will be concentrated in internment camps. Naturally, such camps should be hit hard to create confusion in the enemy ranks and gain recruits for your cause.
Wherever possible, raise your countries flag over a victorious outcome and sing the national anthem. It will invigorate patriotism, remind your fighters why they are fighting and what for, as well as boost your morale. Hiders and scavengers may be inspired by the raising of the flag and join your cause. In any guerilla army, recruits are important. Loyalty too is important, but not as much, since they could only ever betray a single cell, at most two.
The more trickery and subterfuge you use, the better. You have few advantages in this particular scenario. You cant outmanouver your enemy for slash and bleed attacks, you cant overpower them with firepower as theirs is superior, you outnumber them, but they are more highly trained and will most likely slaughter you by the dozens. Your advantage will be to think past their discipline and beyond their training. An injured man may not seem to be a threat until he unleashes a flamethrower and cooks the troops before they can react.
Ambushes, trickery, subterfuge, sabotage.
If anything, send a message to the enemy that your willing to negotiate at a location and kill any uniform that shows up.
It would be most important to avoid killing civilians, including collaborators. Although collaborators are traitors to your cause, the average joe will in all probability not distinguish between a collaborator and a civilian. The more your resistance appears to be the shining light of defiance against the conquerors the better. It inspires your people. It gains sympathy from other nations and it annoys the heck out of your enemies.
Only if a place is valuable (Nuclear Silo, large munitions Depot, a place where the enemy is forced to accept great casualties etc) should it ever be defended solidly and with force. There is no shame in retreating from your foe, only in not fighting him.
Dont siege. Keep him spread thin while you skulk in the shadows and wear his resolve and his men/munitions away. Dont attack anything large or well defended openly unless the risk is worth it. Do not discount the value of diversion.
The guerilla forces would have to capture at least some enemy munitions. Anti-armor and anti-air weapons would be like gold. That would mean either ambushing supply routes or assaulting supply depots. I'd prefer to ambush, since supply depots are more likely to be heavily defended. I suppose it's a risk-reward thing.
Next, I'd try to organize/train local forces. Basic infantry tactics aren't too hard to learn and there are quite a few military veterans in America. Even if the veterans have all been rounded up, I'm sure that finding old field manuals wouldn't be too hard. The guerilla forces would have to ignore things like taking POWs. Stealth and mobility are necessary for a guerilla campaign, so a take no prisoners policy would have to be the general order. Of course, trying to capture an officer or NCO and interrogating them might be useful, but probably an unnecessary risk.
Next, I'd push the homefield advantage. I'd use hit-and-run tactics in urban environments. Use the height advantage of buildings against armor units, since the armor on tanks is thinner on the top (which is why Hellfire missiles are so effective). Even if the enemy uses airstrikes liberally, there aren't exactly an overwhelming number of places that can support military aircraft, so you'd have at least a few minutes to get out of the area. Remember when ambushing, take out the first and last vehicles, so you create a killbox. I can think of at least 10 places around my town that would be a nightmare for an occupying army to move through.
Hit airfields/supplies for aircraft. Having air superiority is a huge advantage, so you want to limit that as soon as possible. You'd probably be better off either 1. Killing pilots while their on the ground or 2. Destroying the planes when their on the ground. If you can get your hands on a good heavy MG like a .50, then you'll be better off at actually destroying the plane instead of just damaging it. Destroying the actual runways may or maynot be a good idea. Airstrips that aren't effectively attacked can be pretty easy to repair, so you'd be better off investing your energies elsewhere.
Maybe more later. I need to think about it.
some of you have seen red dawn too many times
An excellent question. This whole thing rests on so much unexplained conjecture that there's no real way to answer it from a military standpoint. Did the invaders come from China via the Bering Sea? Did we get punked out by Mexico and the EU is coming to get lower tarrifs the hard way? I need a lot more info on the scenario and a far more plausible one than we woke up one day and were occupied. The reaction to occupation depends completely on the preceeding years-long war to accomplish the occupation.
Not enough data, does not compute. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Yeah, I'd need more specific information before I could REALLY assess the situation. Though Ryo-Ohki offered a very well educated conjecture.
Like I said: how the hell did they avoid getting nuked in the first place? No, with current technology it's nigh impossible. Damn yanks would probably rather blow the whole world than get occupied ;-/ Anways, some of USAs own military branches have to be with the occupying nation. Civil war with one side getting help from other nation? Yeah, we need more info on that.
I guess the more plausible scenario would be just USAs government starting to oppress people. Which basically means that most parts of the military(probably all higher level units like nukes, tactical bombers, satellites etc.) would be under governments control and some small parts of the military infantry/tank divisions would rebel. And get smashed soon. However, in this case it would be easier to use demonstrations because it's your own government. It's harder for them to get more labor if they just start popping peaceful people.
With the military blinded due to a virus and weakened due to holidaying troops and parades, the US would be wide open to a blitzkreig that would put normandy to shame. The CIA probably would notice enemy troops of the theoretical country massing but I'm not sure what would be done about that.
Alternatively, if the enemy country makes use of terrorists in hiding in the US, strategically placed and timed EMP's could also knockout the computer networks for long enough to make such an invasion possible.
The enemy itself is unknown but powerful, but for arguments sake lets say that it's a newer, more powerful, much larger China launching the assault. Assume that this China of the future has absorbed it's surrounding nations into itself. It threatens NATO with the bloodiest wars it's ever seen if it intervenes, has nukes pointed at Europes throat and just about controls the pacific ocean assuming an invasion from the west coast of america (Hawaii is the first to go down).
Even so, civilians wouldnt be privy to this information except for those that own Shortwave radio.
The important thing of note is that it is a blitzkreig. Sweep through and elminate the military targets. During the week or two in which the blitzkreig has to take place, Civvies have enough time to find out whats happened, get their hands on essentials like food clothing guns and ammo and organise some kind of resistance. Once the occupational lockdown kicks in, it will be harder for guerillas to move around and organise. The time in which the enemy is occupied beating the remnants of the military silly is the time where they can best sabotage the enemies sortie in the country.
So assume that the military or any other organisation capable of defending the country had it's brains blown out by a potent computer virus or EMP, in the window of opportunity, a large contingent is sent to begin a blitzkreig on the mainland whilst Hawaii is taken by a smaller contingent to serve as a halfway house for troops/colonists. Nuclear Capability is bunk because of said Virus/EMP and allies are scared Sh!tless because they dont want to be invaded/nuked (But said allies are willing to help via more clandestine means) and you have that week or two of golden opportunity where there are power vacuums all over.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
They'd certainly have trouble if the government ordered ISPs to pull the plug, even temporarially.
I don't claim to be expert but it sounds really dumb to connect your ICBMs to anykind of network. I believe atleast part of them are completely isolated and only way to launch/contact them is by calling the key guards.
And I believe the password-computer is not connected to the intarweb either.
Edit: So I guess it's multiple EMPs then. You could blow them all up at different times even, because USA couldn't know who's doing it. Then again, attacking without proper evidence wouldn't be the first time <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
And our missile defense is on its own network that is encrypted, and has failsafes, and many redundancies. Same with our ground networks. It'd take quite a concerted effort involving many insiders, and the people whose job it is to watch those insiders. Not to mention that it's hard to create a virus that can live in a system with a hardware OS that filters itself and flashes on reboot.
For resistance, well, you just have to be in for the long haul. There is no way to overthrow such a force in the short term. We're talking 5-10 years. And ya better hope the people still like ya after that, 'cuz you'll need their support.
The entire scenario has holes you can drive an oil tanker through. None of the described situation is particulary plausible at all.
But... but... in the movie wargames you can connect to NORAD with a crappy modem and it has tic-tac-toe on it! You mean they lied!?
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
*Points at Vietnam*
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*Points at Vietnam* <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Word. Also point at Chinese Communists vs. Nationalists, Cuban Commies vs. Batistas, Afghan Mujhadeen vs. Soviets, etc.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*Points at Vietnam* <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not sure if Vietnam is a good example. The US lost Vietnam because it refused to win Vietnam. The mantra of 'Remember Korea!' resulted in an ineffective, greatly neutered policy. Vietnam was 100% winnable, had the military been given the go-ahead to win. Thats OT though.
A good example is Soviets vs Mujahadeen.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*Points at Vietnam* <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not sure if Vietnam is a good example. The US lost Vietnam because it refused to win Vietnam. The mantra of 'Remember Korea!' resulted in an ineffective, greatly neutered policy. Vietnam was 100% winnable, had the military been given the go-ahead to win. Thats OT though.
A good example is Soviets vs Mujahadeen. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well then tell me how a fully mechanized westren army lost to a rag-tag group of peasants with little to no combat traning? Sure some of it had to do with morale, but it was largely lies within their tatics.
What you do is recruit people for your "central command."
You then tell these people to recuit other people. And then those people head over with "new identities" to the attacking country. They then sign-up for their military and try to conceal as much of their true nature from the enemy.
When a attack goes out where resistance fighters outnumber the enemy above 50%, the resistance fighers part-way through the fight switch sides and kill their so-called "friends". The enemy is killed before it can send out the message that there are traitors in their ranks, instead, the message is sent from the resistance members even AFTER the attack. Resistance, after sending the phony message, disconnects contact to enemy forces and either:
Retreat from the area
or
Stay in the area and lay in ambush or perhaps trick the enemy's counter attack.
Having a story similar to that of survivors from the "first wave" and then encounter the second enemy wave as enemy then "ally" makes the story that much beliveable that the resistance had originally won. If the resistance plays their cards right they could technically kill off as many as <b>6</b> enemy waves like this.
Then after abit of that the resistance would make their soldiers gain ranks, perhaps enough to reach close enough to a higher ranking enemy commander or even general. If the opertunity arises, killing a VERY high ranking officer would distrupt that area's command for quite awhile. (did you know that at one time all of the US Military's Generals were in the same place? With one explosion or accident the entire upper area of the US military could've been shut-down) And then you have the loyal betrayer scenerio where a resistance fighter makes his way up the ladder enough to get control of his own squad, maybe even battalion/regiment/whatever or mis-relay coordinates so that a non-resistance position gets nuked or the attack misses the resistance or similar things.
basically the best way is to work like AIDS; get into their body, cause some initial damage, then lay silent for some years, and then finally blow out in a full-on infection. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
[edit - and do note, Vietnam [conflict] kicked the US's butt because of the superior tactics and the enviroment itself.
"The forest has eyes." was probably the last thing a soldier said before stepping onto a landmine/tripwire/infront of a pillbox/ankle breaker trap/etc]
But... but... in the movie wargames you can connect to NORAD with a crappy modem and it has tic-tac-toe on it! You mean they lied!? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Come back WOPR, all is forgiven.
After the United Nations slap the invading nation on the wrist and make empty threats, and it becomes apparent that the only countries that would help are too worried about public oppinion, I would take action. I would plan several massive strikes to occur at once, announcing our resistance afterwards. I would do so to establish a clear enemy, so that the occupying forces do not easily confuse civilians for the resistance.
The layout and placement of bases would dictate the method of attack. A non lethal radiation or chemical atack would be the first mode of attack. This would hopefully demoralize the troops, and if done right they might not even realize the have been attacked. I would keep attacks to a minimal than until a comanding general comes to help booste moral. I would then attempt to assassinate the general.
There are countless methods to attack. The methods i would use would be a form of misdirection of covert attacks.
Do like handman did, totally forget cronos mentioned america, and take it from here:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You are against a highly Trained foreign speaking enemy. Although they respect certain rules behind war (IE, POW's and such) giving in is not an option.
They are highly trained, they have heavy fire power. Your countries standing military has been crushed, although there are probably some men left in the remnants of your countries military they are probably an insignificant threat by now.
They probably have your family detained along with nearly everyone else in your locale (and possibly around the entire country), but there are some people skulking in the shadows. Some dart and hide, othes fight a clandestine guerilla war against this enemy. Rumours abound that this foreign invader destroys any facility deemed "Dangerous" with flying forces, not willing to risk soldiers to heavy ambush.
The guerillas have little chance of winning, but even so, How Would A Guerilla Force Win Against A Clearly Superior Enemy?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ryo gave an good reply to this underlying question and set aside the fact that it was unfeasable for america to be the case in point here.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well then tell me how a fully mechanized westren army lost to a rag-tag group of peasants with little to no combat traning? Sure some of it had to do with morale, but it was largely lies within their tatics. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We "lost" because the entire conflict was a political boondoggle that should never have happened, combined with the restrictive ROE given out by micro-managing armchair general politcians.
We actually WON most of the engagements, if casualty count is the determining factor. In Tet we nearly wiped the viet cong out of existance. The problem is, we had our hands tied behind our backs. And by that, I don't mean "aww they didn't let us use nukes". I mean conventionally, we had our hands tied behind our backs. We could see the SAMs being offloaded from russian ships into large caches in the cities- but we were not allowed to touch them. Everyone knew the vietnamese were going through laos and cambodia, for a long time we weren't allowed to officially do go in and do anything about it. It was, however, a good example of a war without clear "front lines."
Morale was smashed because we had no clear, good, reason to be there except for the cold war agenda to "stop the spread of communism". It just wasn't good enough to convince a bunch of draftees to fight for anything but to stay alive once they get there.
That being said, you can't just say "well, we'll do what the vietnamese did..." and assume it will work. What if the enemy's hands are NOT tied behind their backs? Besides the fact the vietnamese were USED to war. They fought off the french a few years earlier, gaining valueable experience- by the time america got involved, they already had the whole tunnel and supply system down like clockwork.
The thing is, a large, well armed, regular military force has the luxary of experimenting with new and innovative ways to wipe you out. They have the equipment, support, cash, and personnel to try something else if one attempt fails. You, on the other hand, don't have the luxary of making mistakes.