[Cosmoline]

OK, let's say the xyz forces have invaded the US and are trying to take it over. They have a full array of forces from soldiers to heavy weapons and aircraft. What's the most effective way for the unorganized militia to fight it?

I would propose that the unorganized militia can best serve a role as individual snipers, operating at 400 yards or more. Why? Let's break it down.

At that range, the assault rifles of 90% of the troops have limited value. Intermediate cartridges simply don't retain their power over distance, and most of them are not scoped. If you're dealing with AK's, they are hitting about minute of barn door at that range.

If you nail one soldier and run off, they'll have to try to chase you down. If you know the local area better than they do, you'll have an advantage. Even the IDF has failed to catch this sort of sniper after hits on checkpoints, and it's a good thing the Pals are too stupid to realize how effective this tactic is--how much more effective than blowing up school buses.

If you nail one soldier and keep shooting at the others, they'll drop down and call in support. Yes, you will be blow to bits--but you'll force them to use expensive artillery shells or (better yet) jets dropping bombs just to kill little ol' you.

Because you are operating alone, nobody knows where you are or what you are doing but you. There are no plans that a prisoner can divulge.

IF, on the other hand, you get together with your buddies and organize yourselves, then try some sort of frontal assault a la "Red Dawn," you will all be slaughtered, just like the groups that have tried to attack our columns in Iraq.

What's the upshot of this? If you really want to prepare, have a long-range rifle and know how to use it. A varmit rifle might actually be a great choice.

Don't focus on training with the pisoles and the assault rifles. Those only have strategic value when used as part of the combined forces of a military unit.

[telewinz]

Those days are long gone, any modern force would have available to them:

1. on average better trained personnel
2. in most cases, much superior weapons
3. artillery support
4 much better intelligence
5 better re-supply situation
6 better command and control
7 air power
8 more mobile
9 better access to reinforcements
10 armored vehicles
11 hi-tech detection and observation tools
12 better (secure) communications

Taking all this into account, only a fool or a person with a death wish would oppose such a force. You propose fighting a 21st century force with 19th century weapons, not even a 3rd world country would permit this sort of match-up. I suspect the attacker would not be you, contrary to your best laid plans. I have read about one man attackers in the newspaper all the time, its not even a flea bite to society, and how would you handle the legal reprisals against your neighbors?

Retreat would be no option, pursuit would be untill death. Numbers (targets) would be you hope, you might live to learn from your mistake if not the odds are they would get you next time. Your "unit" moral would hit rock bottom and the only ones left would be the social outcasts/bandits with little choice in their lives and no families. After a couple weeks of this, turncoats would make their appearance. Just who could you trust? IMHO

The best role for unorganized militia? Help your fellow citizens survive, kind of like the old Civil Defense.

[Sylvilagus Aquaticus]

Ok, let me play 'Devil's Advocate' here for a moment. "Unorganized militia" in a scenario where your native country, in this case the United States is 'invaded' would best be utilized as "unofficially' attached to S2 intel for opfor intelligence ie: 'civilians pressed into the use of the opposition' who would report depot locations, guard force scheduling, force emplacements and supply back to their liasons, much as the French Resistance, coast watchers, and other 'underground' groups did during the Second World War. Yes it'd be hazardous. All warfare has risks, some much greater than others. Some directed harrassment efforts may be used, in conjunction with 'official' forces or 'advisors' as we find to be bothersome yet in Afghanistan and Iraq. Of course, it could be likened to herding cats in some instances, but those who can't take orders or who have the Rambo complex will of course, be self-pruning.

Sometimes the best way to fight is to blend in. I believe Chairman Mao wrote something in one of his Little Red Books. Studying revolutionary works from those who have lived it before can be a good teacher. Mao, Castro, Gueverra, Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, Rommell and Patton are good sources, as well as native works such as the Rangers Handbook.

Hopefully, we will never have to put this into application.

Regards,
Rabbit.

[Zundfolge]

In a SHTF situation in the US, the only way a Civilian Militia has any chance of winning (superior weapons or not) is if a significant part of the government's military rebells with us.

Thats the only scenereo I see ... a couple of rogue generals siding with the militia and staging a coup (which could backfire, because the civilian militian could end up supporting some general who will just set himself up as President for life).

At any rate, it'll be messy :(

[Cosmoline]

to give up and hand out first aid? Will you turn in your iron, too?

[Cosmoline]

WHY the military forces of the world crack down so hard on this sort of thing. They are terrified of it. So you get them putting ten against the wall for every one of their boys shot. They NEED you to cooperate. If you are always trying to shoot at them, the ground becomes impossible to hold. Moreover, if all the civilians are resisting, there is no rear. No safe zone. We see what even a few snipers can do to bog down troops. Imagine 100 million of them.

The problem is, that most people when push comes to shove will give up and cooperate to some extent because they think it's the only way. If they're disarmed already it's the only choice.

Also, it's worth remembering that a bullet from a 100 year old Mauser will still kill, probably better than a bullet from an assault rifle. Dead is dead. Any sub-MOA rifle can be a very potent tool. Every one of us should have one.

[AnchorYanker23]

Yep, technology wins everytime, boy we showed them vietnamese, didn't we? man we whipped em good!:rolleyes:
the fact is our military has the best equipment in the world but even good equipment is useless if your people don't have the warrior's heart. The trick is to force your enemy to fight where his strengths are minimized or where they become a weakness. look at how those abrams got taken out. if the iraqis had been well-disciplined and intelligent enough to retain the initative they could have turned that battle into a slaughter. they waited for the tanks to get into an urban enviroment where their visibility and maneurverability where compromised then they hit those tanks in there weakest point; the rear. if they had hit the first and last tanks in the column they could have possibly boxed those tanks in and taken em out, especially if they had people on the roofs with ATGMs to hit the weak top deck armor.
Better trained? Soldiers are trained to follow orders and operate their equipment, and while the technical training may be first rate and the tactical training top notch, the tactical training can make them predictable to an enemy than is smart enough to take advantage of it. As an anecdotal example I have several friends in the Marines and Army, and they are usually smart and creative but whenever we play paintball in the woods it's like their minds shut down and they follow their training with little leeway or independent thinking. Needless to say I know what they are going to do and usually wax their asses because they can't respond quickly enough to an opponent that's unpredictable and doesn't care whether or not the tactics I use are in some field manual or not. Sometimes I do things that may not be the best thing to do according to the manual but I've found that doing something that may not exactly be the most sane or advisable Often pay off for the increased risk by giving you the advantage of surprise, which can be more than enough. As murphy says, "professionals are predictable, but the world is full of amateurs."

[Zundfolge]

So the plan is to give up and hand out first aid? Will you turn in your iron, too?

God no! I wasn't discussing willpower, just tactics.

I firmly believe that if we faced another civil war or some sort of civilian militia insurgency we'd see at least half of the US military refuse to kill Americans and a large percentage of those turn their weapons against their commanders.

We're not going to win some sort of hypothetical revolution by buying the coolest military style toys (I would buy those because they are fun) we're going to win by convincing as many people to believe in the constitution, freedom and free markets so that those in the position to do so will take up arms when needed (and by "those in the position" I mean people in our own military and law enforcement).

A while back there was an urban myth about some sort of survey the US Marines took which (among other things) asked Marines if they "would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the United States government". The response from Marines to the myth was overwhelming. To even Marines the idea of firing on US Citizens is repugnant (I don't mean to sound "anti Marine", but based on my experience with young Marines, I believe they would be the second easiest group to get to turn their arms against civilians ... the easiest would be the FBI/BATFE, but they are LEOs not Military.)

[AnchorYanker23]

Don't know about that, Zundfogle.
My good friend that was in the corps told me about how in the training they receive on how to quell 'civil disturbances' that it was constantly drummed into them that "civilians are bad, weak, and evil, they'll turn against the government in a hearbeat, never trust them, The're the enemy, etc.,etc.,.." This is from the horses mouth, so to speak. He has told me that it really disturbed him, some of the things they were saying, and he felt they were trying to "brainwash" him into thinking that maybe shooting civilians wasn't so bad. It's been a couple years since he was in, but he tells me that it still upsets him whe he thinks about it today.:fire:

[Majic]

I think some have redirected the original thread. This started out with another government invading us, not a revolution among ourselves.
I may be wrong, but snipers are feared more than any other attack. Snipers are undetected and unpredictable. They have no battle lines drawn in the sand so there is no retreat from them. No one is safe from a sniper and that is the fear. Military deals with snipers by sending out a force. If the number of snipers is large and dispersed then the military doesn't have the manpower to deal with it. Even if the military calls in for support from artillery or airpower they to can come under attack from snipers and bog them down.
For those who are worried about others being executed for your sniper actions then you have already lost. People will die, that's a fact of war, but that may stir others to join the cause. Are you willing to be herded like sheep to slaughter, or to actually defend your right to freedom that is spoken so highly of?

[Bigjake]

a SHTF situation.... I'd say the sniper thing too. Someone already mentioned vietnam, learn from that. screw going toe to toe with some modern army, i'd like to live longer than that. personaly, i'd take to the hills with whatever i could carry, bunch of provisions, winchester 94 and beretta and ammo for the both of them. booby trap whatever i could, just be a general pain in the @ss for enemy. every drive down the turpike in cent tenn.?? all them hills and trees lining the place? they'd have to work pretty hard to root me out of the hills and caves there. there is no submiting if they occupy us, so what have we to loose? do whatever you can to take america back. if we did loose, i'd be doing my best to take several of "them," to the hereafter with me.

[hops]

The biggest advantage a home militia would have is Home Field advantage. When fighting on your turf, psychologically the defender has a huge advantage. You may not want to die for Uncle Sam in Vietnam or Iraq, but on the homeland most of us would fight to the bitter end - theirs or ours. The agressor would rather be home, where ever that is.

Look at what has been going on in Afghan-land and Iraq since our greatest victory of all time. Our folks are still getting killed. Guerrilla warfare is a long and slow process and odds are that the invader will lose. (Vietnam vs. France, Japan and the eventually the US. Took 35 years, but Ho Chi Min and company won.)

So when betting on the invader or Cosmoline - I'll put my money on Cosmoline. I may just have to wait 30 years before I can collect.

[Bostonterrier97]

OK, let's say the xyz forces have invaded the US and are trying to take it over. They have a full array of forces from soldiers to heavy weapons and aircraft. What's the most effective way for the unorganized militia to fight it?

I would propose that the unorganized militia can best serve a role as individual snipers, operating at 400 yards or more. Why? Let's break it down.

At that range, the assault rifles of 90% of the troops have limited value. Intermediate cartridges simply don't retain their power over distance, and most of them are not scoped. If you're dealing with AK's, they are hitting about minute of barn door at that range.

If you nail one soldier and run off, they'll have to try to chase you down. If you know the local area better than they do, you'll have an advantage. Even the IDF has failed to catch this sort of sniper after hits on checkpoints, and it's a good thing the Pals are too stupid to realize how effective this tactic is--how much more effective than blowing up school buses.

If you nail one soldier and keep shooting at the others, they'll drop down and call in support. Yes, you will be blow to bits--but you'll force them to use expensive artillery shells or (better yet) jets dropping bombs just to kill little ol' you.

Because you are operating alone, nobody knows where you are or what you are doing but you. There are no plans that a prisoner can divulge.

IF, on the other hand, you get together with your buddies and organize yourselves, then try some sort of frontal assault a la "Red Dawn," you will all be slaughtered, just like the groups that have tried to attack our columns in Iraq.

What's the upshot of this? If you really want to prepare, have a long-range rifle and know how to use it. A varmit rifle might actually be a great choice.

Don't focus on training with the pisoles and the assault rifles. Those only have strategic value when used as part of the combined forces of a military unit.



In which case...militia members who concentrate on buying AK's, AR's, Fals, etc...are really not buying effective rifles..they would be better served by an Accurized Bolt Action Rifle topped with excellent optics and accompanied by a Laser Range Finder.

Buying Surplus Ammo would also not be in their best interest, rather handloading a small amount of precision cartridges with hunting bullets to increase lethality would be in their best interest.

An interesting and valid point..since "Rambo's" will quicky be neutralized through the enemies superior firepower.

[Feanaro]

The two best things a person could do to aid our military if we were invaded would be to either find a commander that is willing to make use of such people or to simply screw with the enemies minds. Randomly pick off soldiers then pack up and buzz off. Left, right, behind, around. Make noises, leave messages from soldiers that have disappeared into the night. It's not the actual damage you do to the army but the damage you do to the MIND. A soldier who is constantly watching out for that elusive sniper(Even if he hasn't been around for a while) is going to be a frazzled, worried bastich.

Course the question is will people actually do that? Who knows. But I think our country misses out on a great opportunity to discourage both invasion and terrorism. Make a local militia center where people can meet and drill, like the reserve but you don't have to pay them! 'Course then they might get in the way of making the USSR. United States Socialist Republic.

[Ian]

Ambushes and hit-and-fade raids are essential elements of a guerilla/militia campaign, IMO. Snipers alone, while potent tools, don't have enough impact on a military machine. When a supply convoy cruises by at 30 or 40 or 50 or 60 miles/hour, how many trucks can a sniper reliabily take out? A good ambush can ruin the whole convoy (and swipe whatever useful stuff was being hauled).

The ideal weapon for such an ambush would be a battle rifle, I think. A FAL or M1A or HK-91 (or other similar designs) has the range to make initial shots from several hundred yards (which may be necessary, depending on the terrain) but can also be fired rapidly when fighting closes in on the convoy. Such rifles also give a group of fighters the ability to fight their way out of unexpected skirmishes (enemy patrols and such) much more easily than a sniper team might.

As with many things, a combination of weapons is probably the most effective choice. Give most of the fighters battle rifles (possibly with low-power scopes for longer-range accuracy) for general combat, plus a few precision bolt rifles, and (if practical) a single .50 BMG team. A couple RPGs/one-man missiles would round out the squad nicely and allow it to fight effectively against a wide variety of threats.

The rifles I tend to look down on (when they are mentioned in the context of militia use) are AKs and SKSs. Wimpy (comparatively) cartridges AND crappy sights. Yick. Not rifles for riflemen, IMO (great plinkers and truck guns, though).

[Bigjake]

in that context, battle rifles would be great, but how many folks would you depend on organizing like that? that and how many of us have battle rifles (not me)?? i've got the "apalachian assault rifle", and thats about it. if we could pull something like what your saying together, awesome, but otherwise i think the sniper would be the most effective tool we have. another thought, where would we get all that eqipment? how many folks do you know that pack .50's and RPG's? seems a bit much to depend on, at least until you kill some BG's and borrow theirs.

[Feanaro]

seems a bit much to depend on, at least until you kill some BG's and borrow theirs.

And that my friend is one of the biggies of such warfare. Make their stuff yours. Such a raid could however be conducted with whatever you have on hand. It just wouldn't go off as well, without more effort. Gathering an "arsenal" should be one of the goals of a harassment group because it give you a wide variety of options and the ability to use anything the enemy leaves behind.

[Ian]

Bigjake - Well, I have some friends with .50s (no RPGs that I know of, though). Like Feanaro said, the best source of heavy shoulder-fired weaponry would be the opposing force. One potential 'heavy' weapon that could be gotten peacefully would be mines - the militia force wouldn't have much trouble manufacturing crude explosives from common materials. The Afghan method of mine use is a good example - set a handful with manual electric detonators to be used to kick off an ambush.

As for the training, well that's something people have to decide to do and find teammates for. Personally, I think Airsoft skirmishing is a good first step - it may not teach long-range stuff, but it definitely smacks you in the face with the importance of teamwork. Alternatively, after fighting starts this sort of organized team will probably emerge through painful experience.

[Orthonym]

Read "Guns of August" and find out how the Germans were _shocked_ to find out that some (ugh) CIVILIAN had the effrontery to take a shot at them. (Man hat geschossen! Francs Tireurs!) Of course, they did murder whole townsful in retaliation, not to mention burning the library in Louvain. Burned the same library again in 1940, I think. Also you might read "Free Men" by Heinlein, published in the late '40s. Available in anthologies, public libraries,etc.

[telewinz]

Watch the movie "Red Dawn" if you haven't yet. Still sounds to me that for the militia to be effective AND survive, the invader better be pretty dumb and not have access to a .50 caliber M2. All things considered the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of the invader. I don't need to know every rabbit hole or deer path to take you out, not if I'm using napalm or willy-pete. In a few weeks time I'll have turn-coats who know the land as well or better than you, I'll know your name and all about that cave or hut so have built down that little hollow 50 yards away form that hillside spring. There isn't anything you are planning now that you haven't discussed at the gunclub or gunstore. All I need to do is open a bar, sell the beer, select a "topic" for dicussion and turn on the tape recorder. In a week I will know everything there is to know about you and your "bandit" friends. In two weeks I will have my law enforcement teams (your former neighbors) hunting you down. If you kill a couple of them so what, that just increases the community's passion against you and gains me more "converts".

You see, in reality I will have all the advantages. I was picked and trained for my job while you are just a novice at this sort of thing and was picked by no-one. BTW: my convoy of wounded POW's (American) you attacked by mistake still got through thanks to the heroic efforts of MY unarmed medical personnel. That nurse you sodomized and left for dead will recover and will be getting an award for her bravery in "protecting her patients". You see, I control the national and local media while you only control the few square feet you occupy.

I can wait, in a few weeks you will grow weary of your thankless, hard life. Who knows, maybe you will be the one that tries to cut a deal for your freedom by turning traitor against your fellow bandits. You will surrender to your own LEO's, not me. You will stand trail and be convicted like any over criminal, I might put a newspaper article about your prison sentence on page 5, unlike old America, WE don't have the death penalty because we are a nicer, friendlier government. It's childs play, We will win the peoples hearts and minds by kindness, not force.:evil:

[NIGHTWATCH]

I think we are overestimating our armed forces. 3 points.

1) I dont believe if given the order to attack american civillians and cities that they would all comply. The armed forces would fragment in such a way as to make them defeatable, or at least ineffective. They would sustain massive losses that they would not be able to replace. And hindered from using their massive firepower because of a civilain population. Militia has no uniform.

2) 80+ miilion gunowners, trained or not, can take on a modern army. "Dead is dead" as someone said earlier. Sniperlike tactics could go a long way in whipping any armed force overtime. Politicians not excluded.

3) WILL POWER. You dont need to have all the modern weapons and training of a modern army to win a war. What you do need is the will power to do what the other guy is not willing to do. Self-preservation is not a winning factor in this discussion.

PS- When you stop to think about the DC sniper and every other sniper type activity between civilians and LE over the past 30 years, you learn very fast that one sniper can cause chaos. How about a conservative number? 1 million. How about a few hundred thousand assassins and suicide patriots?

Remember the teachings found in the book, "The Art Of War". The determination of an army returning home. Never confront an army on these terms.

How about confronting a civilian army that is home? WILL POWER.

[amprecon]

Take a guess at how many hunters there are in this country that hunt with a scoped rifle. 1, 2, 3 million or more (maybe this is a conservative number)? That is 1, 2 or 3 million snipers, not general infantry troops trained with the .223 at intermediate ranges, but snipers that normally practice at 300yd ranges and more with long-range ammo.
They are trained either by themselves or through tradition via family members. They are taught to keep still, keep upwind and wait, to be patient, and most of all, they train to be as accurate as they can be with everything from the lowly .22lr to the .375 H&H.
I don't care what the spin-doctors or anyone else says, I am an able bodied male and I make up the militia per our Constitution. My services have not become necessary yet in my life time to perform my duties. I feel I will know when they do become necessary and I will know, without orders, what to do and who the enemy will be.
I don't have to abide by the Geneva Convention or the Treaty of Hague or whatever rules of war there might be. I will be a sneaky, dirty, cheating, underhanded, notoriously cruel son-of-a-b*tch. I'll dip my bullets in manure and pick out officers and shoot them in the head. I'll toss cartons of 10 penny nails in the streets. I'll do whatever I can to make their objectives as hard and miserable as humanly possible.
You see, this is my country, I love it and I won't oblige anyone by using a playbook or abiding by rules. BTW is that an oxymoron or what? Rules of War, what a joke.

[Bigjake]

thats a lot of real fine though my friend, but what good is your specific training when some good ol boy with a deer rifle perforates your head and your special training drains out? ;) i'm going to be aiming for anyone who looks important, somehow stands out, or i just that unlucky on the particular day i crawl outa my hole to cause havok.

[280PLUS]

is to capture the "superior weapons" from the enemy and turn them against him.

the rest is just harrassment designed to make him spend money, equipment, food and lives at a greater cost than he can afford.

as well as break the morale of the troops...

unless the invading force is seen as a liberator and wins "the hearts and minds" of the general population they have little chance of keeping their conquests against a determined resistance

if the general population is unwilling to reject and point out the underground forces and instead provides them with safe haven and provisions, an invading force will eventually whither away as the expenditures needed to support them begin to dwindle

or the invading govt finally decides it's spent enough $ and lives in the efforts to keep its aquisitions

the nam was maybe the most recent example of this that anyone in the USA can recall, lets hope iraq is not the next...

but on the other hand, thats why no country will ever invade and hold the US, because this country was created by guerilla forces and if ever in danger from outside it would quickly resort to its old ways

and thats when all the REAL nasty stuff being mentioned here will come off the shelves

i can think of no better place to go out than behind the same stone walls that nathan hale used around here for cover when he helped free this country from the british.

his home and burial place are both within 5 miles of here so we have quite a legacy to live up to in my neck of the woods...

lafayette and his boys tramped their way through here too

even though they were french...

;)

ps, 1, 2, 3 million hunters with scoped rifles?

geez, from what i'm hearing theres probably well over 10 million in TEXAS alone!

now theres a state to love...

:D

[TheMariner]

telewinz

I think you have an overly pessimistic view and overly confident in special forces or any force in general.... I refer to the already referenced war in Vietnam... how many of them did we supposedly get to betray their friends? How many of those betrayals were traps themselves?

A Disciplined and determined force, maybe twenty people or less, could play hit and run games forever and a day against any military in the world, ours included, when they got to play on their own turf... such as NYC (THE ULTIMATE of the city battle grounds.. and you thought Stalingrad sucked for the Germans) or the Rockies...

I know for a fact that a dedicated unit could easily rip apart lesser militaries than our own..

[Crimper-D]

Fighting on your own turf is a weapon in itself... and an effective one. In summertime foothills like the Pacific Coast range, decoy a light recon colum into a canyon, block the road, Set the canyon AFIRE! a little homebrewed napalm would go a long way:eek: Armor dosen't do very well in a firestorm... a few snipers to pick off those who bug out would help. :)
Chemical Warfare??? Ever seen what happens when you breath Poison Oak smoke? Ever tried to fight in 100 degree+ temps zipped into a chemical suit? Ever get 40 miles from your base under those conditions and have your water run out??? (Your water tanker just got shot full of .30cal holes, and your airevac can't find you colum for the smoke???
Now shall we switch to an Urban scenerio... I'd be vastly entertained to see ANY armed force try to take out East LA = if the LA SWAT can't do more than penetration raids, even with citizen cooperation, what would come of a force that the whole neighborhood rose up to fight???:rolleyes:

[Strings]

> A while back there was an urban myth about some sort of survey the US Marines took which...<

Although I've never heard it was a myth. My understanding was that the survey was given to a group of enlisted marines by a Naval officer, as research for a college paper. The conclusion was that the Corp would be something like 80% combat ineffective should such an order be issued. Of course, it might be nothing more than an urban legend...

As for the original question: I think there would be a wide range of uses for the militia in the case of an invasion. Let's expand...

A a major bio attack occurs in several US cities, enough to have the military called in to help secure the effected areas. While that rodeo is goin' on, a force of UN "Peacekeepers" crosses our borders to "give aid" (read: advance the "disarm the world" idea). These "peacekeepers" haven't been requested, and our govt says they aren't wanted...

What kind of rection would you have from Joe Citizen then? Just snipers, or would we have a few cutting throats at night and rigging everything that they could to blow?

[St. Gunner]

Not to long ago a duo of Rifs held the beltway hostage, I saw implications of the havoc they caused all the way to Texas when a young man told me I shouldn't sit outside because I could get shot. Thus is the fear most men have of the one aimed shot, it is random, unannounced, and normally lethal; no gangland spray and pray. Most men of action know how to negate the gangland spray and pray by placing their own projectile squarely into center mass. But when one shot rips out across the sky, smashes your leader square in the chest and he dies in front of your eyes blowing red tinged foam out his mouth and nose, it takes some amount of time for you to even begin to figure out where the shot came from. The first thought is it came from someplace close, meanwhile 3-4 hundred yards away the man who fired that shot is leaving. You re-cache your weapon somewhere near where you plan to take your next shot from and then go home, kick your feet up and watch tv, maybe stopping long enough to tell the neighbor about your grueling day at the office and how you heard another man had been killed.

Just one shot every three or four days would make an impact, imagine 500 people in a city of a million doing the same. :uhoh:

Shoot you could buy a bunch of old Turk mausers, get em tuned up and shooting well and if the time came stash five or ten of em around the city. You can hit a man in the chest with a decent one at 400yds. Hide em in the sewer someplace, fire out of street drainages, run a couple blocks and stash it again. :evil:

The main goal is to remember you are a help if you are alive, if you are dead you cease to be of use, one shot, hit or miss you leave.

I own an AK, it is one of the greatest up close and personal smackers of all time, reliable, with the right ammo outright lethal up to a 100yds. Mine shoots right at 3" at 100yds. It is a great hog eradication rifle when they are running like crazy and you have a bunch around you and can't stop to reload. But most folks when you hand em a semi-auto spray and pray, they don't pick their shots and execute those shots. So for most folks they would do better with a bolt gun, because they would make the shots count. I keep mine loaded here at house with a few mags nearby for assorted vermin, if I was taking a frontal assualt from a band of enraged Chinamen bent on taking Texas, i'd probably prefer it to anything, but i'd as soon dodge the frontal and shoot em in the back as they raped and pillaged my unarmed fellow citizens. :what: :neener:

[Strings]

... during the beltway incident was "it may only be one gun, but how many shooters?"...

Take a decently accurate bolt rifle. Have a small group train to use just that one rifle (so they all know where they shoot with it). And then it goes something like this:

Joe takes the first shot, at someone downtown. On his way home, he hands the rifle off to Sharon, who takes her shot out in the 'burbs a couple days later. She hands off to Frank, who hits a golf course, and hands off to Fred, who hits...

Even if the shooter is spotted by a witness, that only removes one shooter. The cell could be 20 or more people. However, by using the same rifle, it seems like the act of a lone gunman (who would be profiled as a white male, aged 25-40, lives alone, doesn't get along with women...).

And now that we're done discussing sedition and terrorist tactics...:rolleyes:

[DangerousSubvert]

People like to use the Vietnam example -- but that unhappy nation is the source of another example as well.

Two years ago I had the privilege of meeting an elderly Vietnamese gentleman who had participated in the Saigon uprising of 1945, which was led by dissident, non-Moscow directed communists. French colonial authorities trying to regain control of their colonies after the Japanese surrender, the forces later to become the Viet Minh (official Communists), and Japanese POWs rearmed by the French, all cooperated to destroy the forces of the Saigon Workers Council, arguably still the only democratically-elected body in all of Vietnam to date. Several future Vietnamese leaders, including Ho Chi Minh (of the “North”) and General Than (of the “South”) participated, honing their fighting skills by slaughtering their countrymen seeking socialism and freedom.

It was illegal for a French colonial subject in the cities to possess firearms. Most of the dissidents’ tiny arsenal of weapons came from their service in the anti-Japanese underground during the war – a few Vietnamese Communist Party people defected to the Council, and a few leftist French soldiers smuggled some arms to them, but basically they were holding sticks and knives while facing well-armed, trained soldiers with modern equipment.

Needless to say they were slaughtered.

My acquaintance, before he died three months ago, left me with this advice (paraphrased, not exact words): “If the government bans weapons, hide yours, and hide it well. Keep it quiet. Anyone who argues that it is unpatriotic to refuse to follow such laws is a fool, and will probably try to turn you in later. You would be surprised at the seemingly honorable, decent people who will collaborate. I saw men who faced torture under the Japanese occupation without flinching, point out Council members to the French and cheer while they were executed. Anyone who tries to disarm the general population is your enemy, even if they are your countrymen, and even if their ideology resembles yours.”

I will never forget him, OR his advice. And he put his money where his mouth was – after his death, his son told me, his family inspected his southern California property prior to selling it and found weapons cached all over the place.

I neither know nor want to know whatever happened to those weapons.

So the bottom line? How do you know that in a resistance situation that a group you'd think would help you might not turn against you -- say, the Republican Party declares the resistance to be "terrorists" and cooperates with the invaders?

Ultimately it comes down to mass public support. With it, it's POSSIBLE to win, but NOT inevitable. Without, you are as dead as Carthage. And if your adversary has no problem killing EVERYONE you can't win. The U.S. wanted to maintain the "South" Vietnamese state -- that made it impossible for the U.S. to win with the vast majority of the population against it. Ditto the Soviets with the soft left regime in Kabul, and the U.S. with its new Iraqi stooges today. Now if you DON'T care about leaving some of the occupied people alive, winning's easy -- especially in the modern world. Just dust the place with radioactive waste or even simpler -- just nuke it.

Just a few points to think about.

[DF357]

I think you all overestimate the 'sheeple'. I firmly believe that a VERY significant part of the masses will just cave in immediately. Look at the average American now... He can't tie his shoe without the gov't telling him how. "I'm out of work, pay me! My house (5 feet fromt the ocean) just washed away, pay me. I need a shrub trimmed - who do I call? My lawn needs mowing, I don't know how to mow it I just have the neightboohood kid come and take care of it. Help me ! I can't do it ! Who do I call ? Who do I call? I wouldn't think of owning a gun, they're dangerous to kids and are the main reasons for crime. Don't hurt me - you want those with guns - Joe's got a gun ! I need food, I'm hungry - you say milk comes from cows!!!?? The electricity is off in my apartment, how do I keep warm? Who do I call?" ETC ETC ETC All you have to do is cut off electricity, food and water to the cities and we're done.

The average American male has been 'feminized' so much that he is pitiful. I won't say that the 'core' part of our country is that way but the major populated areas certainly are. I only pray the the'core' is sufficient to do the job for the rest of the slobs.

I'm fear that it won't be.

Sorry to be a bummer.

[Sam Adams]

"At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth in their military chests; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in the trial of a thousand years."

Abraham Lincoln
January 27, 1838
________________________________
This is only a partial quote - the rest dealt with the only threat to our freedom being an internal one (this was one wise DWM - he could foresee the anti-constitutionalists of the present era).

Anyway, the heart of it is true - any foreign invader that came here intending to conquer this nation would face millions of well-armed, motivated enemies. These enemies would blend in well with the local population (since that is who they would BE), and would be able to strike anywhere, any time. No, individuals and small groups would not be able to take on organized armies in the field, but that is beside the point - resistance movements composed of non-soldiers NEVER do this as it is suicidal. Resistance groups operate on the principle of the pinprick, rather than the executioner's ax - lots of pinpricks will kill a person as surely as chopping off his head, but the former gains a lot less attention than the latter.

One could presume that any invading force would be from China, the old Soviet Union or several other countries combined with one or both of these (how they would get past the US Navy I have no idea, but I'll play with the cards I'm dealt). In other words, we are speaking of armies that operate from the top down and DON'T encourage initiative by those in the lower ranks, armies that would be as dangerous as a headless snake if their leaders were suddenly "unable to exercise command." This is where snipers or those willing to lay mines or set other boobie traps would be most effective. One person need not do very much by him/herself - with, say, 10 million participating members of the unorganized militia, if only 5% were seriously active and killed only one enemy per during the entire course of the war, then you are looking at 500,000 enemy dead. The half-starved, untrained Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto, armed with very few obsolete weapons managed to do better than that against battle-hardened German troops - so the much-maligned militia (which isn't yet poorly armed) should give a much better account of itself. And even if we are poorly armed at the time of this hypothetical invasion, we could obtain limitless supplies from the invader. The procurement process is outlined in Unintended Consequences, not to mention many other books written by or about resistance fighters throughout the 20th century.

Now imagine how you, as an enemy commander, would operate with 500,000 dead. And this is with conservative numbers, and no participation by the military (let alone nukes)! I think that our militia would actually kill a whole bunch MORE than 500,000 - do you think that all those former SF and Rangers will take only 1 enemy? How about guys that shoot prairie dogs at 300 yards - how hard will it be for them to kill humans at 500 yards from behind cover, and then disappear? The unorganized militia will create a bunch of widows and childless parents overseas, have no doubt about that.

I wouldn't want to be a militia member facing an organized military invader - it won't be a game, but neither would I want to be an invader. They will die lonely, brutal deaths in a hostile foreign land. And they won't get a single drink from the Ohio, either. Hell, an army invading Texas will be lucky to get out.

[AZRickD]

Funny how the original question (an invading force) gets turned into fighting the US Govt.

Nevertheless, George Washington wrote a bit about how to and how not to use the Citizen Militia. There were certain things they were good for and some they were not.

From memory: harrassing supply lines. protecting flanks. They couldn't be kept out in the field indefinately like paid (even poorly paid) troops since they had real lives to lead. So, Washington learned that they had to be called up only when battle was pretty close at hand.

Currenlty, the problem with using us Title 10 USCode unorganized militia types is that we are truly unorganized. Go to your local range and see how many people have a pretty AR, FAL or AK clone in a range bag. I wonder if they have any loadbearing gear to hold an extra, say, eight or more mags? A buttpack for food and medical supplies? A hydration system?

For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about, go over to http://www.practicaltactical.net and see what is available.

Another limitation of the UOMilitia is that it is difficult to communicate with them or between them. Difficult to mass them, and difficult to communicate changing situations. Small cell activities would be the rule, at most.

So. We have about 19 million hunters in this country (we used to have many more). Of those, lets say only ten million hunt with scoped rifles. If only one percent of those decide to do some ocassional sniping, that's 100,000 snipers. 2,000 per state.

But the real issue is one of tactics. Would you really want to go out and purposely engage a well-armed occupation force? Maybe, if you had to. But you have to remember that there could be as many as 2-million of these well-armed pawns (including regulars, reserve, N-Guard, and police).

Why mess with those numbers when they are controled by a handful of legislators, mayors and governors? I'm thinking "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross, here, of course.

Here is another idea for a novel:

I live in a capitol city and I am sure that I have a dozen politicos living within 10 miles of me.

And if you can't easily get to them, you can get to their businesses, their property, their family, their staff. The more personnel being used to protect these things, the less they have to pick on the peasants.

A target-rich environment to be sure.

Rick

[Majic]

AZRickD,
Snipers don't use black rifles or require extra mags. Since most will be operating close to home a canteen will suffice and food can be left behind. As far as tactics go, the less known about a sniper the greater his/her chance of survival. If the US military has failed to the point that we have to defend our own lands, then I personally wouldn't put much faith in them trying to direct me as a sniper to support them.
I would hope that more than 1% of the shooting community turn up to defend their land. But if it does turn out to be only 2000 snipers per state, then possibly the invaders could lose 100,000 men. That in itself is no small number.

[AZRickD]

There will only be one Majic and one AZRickD. To each his own based on his skills and his equipment.

I wasn't limiting the discussion to snipers. Some will snipe others don't have the equipment or the skills. Some will want to work solo. Others in groups. Some will have rifles. Some will have concealed handguns and street clothes. Others will have TNT "borrowed" from a local supplier. Molotov cocktails anyone?

Black rifles, you say? As far as what makes a good rifle for a sniper, well, what about a National Match M1A with a scope? Might as well bring along a few extra mags. Or a scoped AR15. Why not use what ya got?

My low-ball 1% estimate was used to show how even a small percentage could make a difference, which you seem to agree.

Okay, let's double it. Imagine if just 2% of the 6-million European jews had a Mauser rifle with a few hundred rounds of ammunition? How many Nazis would 120,000 pissed-off Hebrews with nothing to lose be taken out given a 400 yard range of useful lethality?

Thats a lot of dead Fascists. I wonder how many of them wouldn't have been spared for duty in Sicily or Normandy?

Oh, another thing that Washington discovered. Militia harrassment of British foraging detachments caused the Brits to send out larger and larger groups to appropriate supplies from the countryside. They were so big that on the way back the Brits consumed much of what they obtained.

The KLA in Kosova is another example. They (media) say that the Serbs were defeated with air power alone. What they omit is that the KLA forces (some 30,000) were pesky enough such that the Serbs had to concentrate their troops more than they would like. The original Serb plan was to disperse so as to make themselves less dense targets for NATO airstrikes. With KLA patrols, that made dispersal very risky. As a result, bombings were more successulf.

Rick

[Travis McGee]

St. Gunner:

You and I see eye to eye on "real" rifle tactics. In fact, the type of activity you describe is exactly the scenario which unfolds in my novel Enemies Foreign And Domestic, as pissed off citizens go politico plinking with old Nagants etc. If you haven't seen it yet, I have posted the first 20 chapters of the book on my website.

Matt Bracken

[Freedspeak]

Bostonterrier97

Shhhhh...!

Remember, you must let them thimk we're not that smart!

Hunter Rose

As to UN peacekeepers, do we really want purple flowerpots? If it occurs there will be an over supply
:D

St. Gunner
Well said, placed shots have definately more impression/impact on the receiver.

DF357
Your comments seem to be mainly about the urban folks, and I aggree, most non-urban folks are more cantankerous!

Basically most folks that would go sniper type would be ex mil or folks that are taciturn to begin with, so it would be hard to find them.