If you had to arm a militia of 10 men (2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Assuming urban ops against an occupation force:

Printing equipment
Shortwave radio
Secure, anonymous internet access
Mortars
IEDs
Handgrenades (for throwing into meetings of low level collaborators, not actual engagement with soldiers)
Firebombs
Whatever firearms can be scrounged or fabricated for personal protection/the occasional assassination
Counterfeit money
A steady supply of reliable fake IDs
Nondescript civilian vehicles
Serious security culture
Absolute coldbloodedness

Red Dawn is a great movie, but an actual resistance situation is more likely to revolve around urban terrorism. Killing collaborators, sabotage, assassination, etc. Of course, a ten man unit might not want to be in posession of all of this gear. Why risk the propaganda apparatus when the cops are looking for the man and woman who emptied their homemade Stens into the most recent gathering of the (insert occupying group)-American Friendship Society? Best to have multiple teams who work together when necessary.
 
A mortar is a crew-served weapon. You don't have "a" mortar man- you have a minimum of two, and preferably 3 or 4, men per cannon.

Even direct lay with a small- 60mm- mortar, you need at least two people to be effective at all.

If you had the resources, a jeep-like vehicle, say something like a Suzuku Sidekick, would be great for a 4-man mortar team. One guy to drive and pull security, one to work the ballistic computer, two to run the 60 or 81mm.
 
Someone trained in explosives or a good chemist is generally alot more useful than any one firearm. The ability to make plastic explosives, gunpowder, nitroglycerine and so on would be the way to go and setting up explosive ambushes. Being able to build improvised munitions such as mines, grenades, ieds and so on is what you need. You might even be able to get ahold of the likes of bazookas, piats, and so on and armed the warheads so you have rpgs.
 
I dont mean to sound harsh...

(I don't like looking/acting like a jihadist but they are very effective)

If I'm defending my country on our soil, I'm going to do WHATEVER it takes, because my guess is that the people who are invading are not here to "secure freedom".
 
If I'm defending my country on our soil, I'm going to do WHATEVER it takes

Agreed...I don't like it because it doesn't fit the "stand up John Wayne" ideal a lot of us grew up with it but I admit that it is very effective and I'll do what it takes to defend.

You don't sound harsh, we are in agreement.
 
In the original "If you had to arm ten men" (the M1 rifle vs. carbine thread) I proposed th efollowing set up, and I think I would still stick with it.

6 M1 Rifles (not the M1a, but that beautiful original spawn of Saint John C. Garand)
2 M1918A1 Browning Automatic Rifles
1 M1919A4 LMG (two-man LMG team)
1 Remington 1100 12ga 3.5" Magnum w/ 22" Barrel and magazine extension, loading 00 Buchshot and slugs as needed. (for the other guy on the 1919 team)

This type of setup (and team) would mainly concentrate on operations in the country side. Due to the presence of the BAR's, the 1919 could also be swapped for a 60MM Mortar if avalable and as needed. If a DM were deemed necessary, mount a long relief scope on one of those M1s. The shotty for the guy on the 1919 team is in the event that anyone gets two close to the MG's position, the spare man could hose the attacker with high knockdown power rounds in a short time and get back to his job of feeding ammo.

Yes, .30-06 is heavy, and yes these weapons are,for the most part, antiquated, but the heavy punch of the big .30 round reduces the need for follow ups. The limited ammo capacity would also, theoretically, force my novice riflemen to fire slowly and think about where they are shooting. Besides, in the event of SHTF, there's going to be a bum-rush for 7.62 and 5.56, but big cases of old government .30 should still be avalable, much of it already in en bloc clips. Those who cannot tolerate the kick of the M1 could instead receive a carbine, or be relegated to the MG team. Preferably the latter, to preserve ammo commonality. But M1's don't kick that hard, and if some little pansie can't handly it, maybe I don't want him fighting with me.

And the attack strategy? Supress and flank! That's where the BARs come in, they can either supress or flank. Hell in a pinch, the M1's can lay down a base of fire (mainly to give the MG crew cover to pack up and bail out) for limited periods.

Oh yeah, and every man gets a pistol.

And hand grenades, demo gear, or IEDs
 
There's a HUGE difference between the stereotypical "jihadi"/terrorist and a guerilla war-fighter.

The guerilla doesn't attack the noncombatants (on purpose, at least).
 
threads like this truly support Admiral Yamamoto's reputed saying, “You cannot invade America. There is a rifle behind every blade of grass.”

i love this country. :D

personally, i'd go with bow and arrows, with hunting knives as my CQB weapon.:evil:
 
The stand up John Wayne types unfortantly are the first ones to be shot down. Its death just waiting to happen. Even with guerilla warfare tactics you have a fairly high probrobality of death. but its still better than standing up against a well equiped army. Thats just suicide.
 
If it was me I would arm 2 of my best shooters with scoped mounted semi-auto Barrett 50 cal, and arm the rest with scope mounted semi-auto 308 cal rifles, like the M1A HK-91 etc. Everyone would be armed with a 9mm side arm for a last ditch weapon. I figure any invading force in this senario would be armed more than likely with russian weapons. I would not want anything smaller than a 308. because I want to make sure the guy goes down on the first shot, and plus they might be wearing kevlar vests. The idea is to ambush them at either short range or long range like 500 yards are more. hit them at short range, then they cant bring there air support or artillery into play ( remember what the Viet Cong said about fighting us during the vietnam war- In order to fight the Americans you must cling to there belts.) And the reason for long range ambush is that the enemy would not be able to reach you with his AK-47 or 74, The russians learned this the hardway when the Afghans were picking them off at long range with old WW1 303 Enfield rifles but you would be open to air and artillery attack so you would have to shoot and scoot.:D
 
I'd say American By Blood has it all down, except for the part about cars that Don't Tread mentioned.

While the 1919 is a fantastic weapon, it has pretty much no real use in a guerilla war in an urban environment, or even out in the open.
 
I think I agree...if you're getting into situations in which you would use/need a machine gun (as such), you would be dead inside of an hour from initiation of contact.
 
lots of interesting replies. i thought this thread would be a dud...

I liked the JShirley idea of a suzuki sidekick mortar vehicle. If you could actually acquire a mortar, and had smart/experienced operators for it, it would be devastatingly effective as a guerrila weapon (as long as the vehicle looked normal when driving around)

The scenario i laid out is flawed though, because the identity of the enemy is very important to how you would fight them (merciful occupation by "UN", or culture smashing all out war from the "Chinese-led axis alliance")

The UN occupation would allow melting back into society after an ambush, and making potshots at oblivious troops in a city setting.

But a brutal, pillaging invasion of our land would require more of a "russian partisan during ww2" methodology. It would be nasty. Many would die, probably all those who stay faithful to the cause, due to modern military technology. Hopefully we would all be brave enough. As another American so eloquently said it: "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" P.Henry 1775

PS: Ive never seen Red Dawn, just started this thread because of the original m1/carbine thread.
 
NFA carbines/submachine guns/assault rifles. Such as milled AKs, Colt Commandos, HK MP5s, Mini-14s, etc. Fully automatic weapons.

Kevlar vests/helmets, and riot shields if possible.

This is for close urban warfare.
 
While the 1919 is a fantastic weapon, it has pretty much no real use in a guerilla war in an urban environment, or even out in the open.
With respect, how do you figure that? I thought the basic concept of fire and manuever dictated that the ability to deliver sustained and continous suppressive fire was a decided advantage, even over weapons chambered in a similiar caliber but not capable of the same sustained volume. This would seem to be especially so in an urban environment, where it could be used to control a chokepoint, with limited avenues to return fire. With a small force this would seem be indicated since for the cost of a gunner and an ammo bearer to establish a base of fire, the majority of your force is freed for assault. While it wouldn't do for sustained action, for a quick, savage ambush a 1919 firing from a window across an intersection, while your main force hits the target from another direction would appear to be a sound tactic. And the weapon is light enough that the entire group can be gone seconds after the action's over. Or your riflemen hitting a target and then leading the pursuit to a hasty defensive position, and using their combined firepower to overwhelm the pursuers. What makes it unsuited for those uses?
 
Probably because there are much lighter and more portable systems available today that fill the same role, just as effectively.

I have been thinking about this and I wonder how many people actually think they stand a chance of winning? Hit and run tactics and guerilla warfare are excellent force multipliers, but the fact of the matter is that most militaries are getting much better at defending against it. Looking at our own military, you'd have the increasing speed and profeciency of small and mobile special operations groups with tactics they've practiced and proven in combat. You have UAVs and other high flying airborne threats that you are unlikely to be able to defend against. Many of these can or are developing the technology to carry and deliver a formiddible weapon load accurately, but really, the cameras and infrared technology they possess is dangerous enough if you are trying to evade or escape. There are snipers that are going to simply outclass anything you can try and compete against them with, even with your shiney Barrett. Artillery and air support are getting more and more precise, so really, the sniper or UAV doesn't really even have to expose itself if they don't want to. All they have to do is call in the target coordinates and precision fire can rain down on you from no where, and there is absolutely nothing you can do to defend against it--esp if you have no artillery or air support. The best defense against this would be to stay in an urban setting where high explosive rounds pose too much of a threat of collateral damage. But this assumes the enemy cares about how many non-combatants it kills, we all know how good modern militaries are getting at urban combat, and that still leaves snipers that you really can't compete with. Then you have armored vehicles with no plausible offense or defense against them unless you can lure them next to a really, really big IED. In the meantime, again using our own military as an example, the main guns on the Bradley and Abrams are sub-MOA accurate with an effective range measured in the thousands of meters, and with infrared technology that makes it really hard to hide from them.

Then you got the issue of numbers. You're going to have a hard time finding competent people to fight with you. Yes, there are an estimated 65 million gun owners in the US, but not all of them are going to fight with you. In fact, most of them probably won't. Let's assume you get 6.5 million to fight in your cause. But this is spread over an entire continent. How many of them are local enough for you to reach and organize? If gun owners are like the rest of the American population, then more than half of them are overweight and a quarter of them are obese. You can't resist a modern fighting force if tubby can't make it up a stairwell carrying himself, let alone a weapon and gear. And lets face it, a lot of us, including myself for the moment, really have little or no training or experience in this kind of thing, and probably more ideas than sense. I'll have some training soon, but if you limit yourself to ex-military gun owners who are willing to resist a modern, well-equipped fighting force and are located close enough to you to be organized, all with what they have in their gun cabinets, you are going to have your work cut out for you. And this is very bad. Consider the kill ratio in Iraq right now. This enemy has been fighting this style of warfare since at least the 70s. They've had some practice, and currently have some damn good bomb builders. In 3 years they've managed to kill what, like 2944 of us, and inflict 20000 or so casualties in just under 1300 days. Does anyone have any official numbers on how many of them have been killed? Fighting this kind of technology, even if you have the desire, know how, and equipment, is man-power intensive and costs lives. If a modern military invades us, they are going to take over hospitals. If you show up with gunshot or shrapnel wounds, chances are you're going to be captured, not cured. So even if you have a doctor on your team, they still have to find adequate medical equipment and fascilities.

This whole thing strikes me as a mental masterbation exercise, if you will excuse the term. I think the best we can hope for if we all manage the testicular fortitude to resist, is to to inflict as much damage as possible before we disappear in a massive explosion we never saw coming, or take a bullet to the face from someone we never even knew existed.
 
Well Before I go into paranoid mode and answer the question seriously... (hhmm I dunno if thats the right phrasing), I'd just like to ask can we arm our men with kindness, love and understanding?

I like George Carlin's answer to that. "Pacifism is a wonderful thing. But it'll get you killed."
 
No NFA? Why?

Everyone SHOULD be getting NFA weapons while it's relatively easy to do so. MGs may be out because they're hideously overpriced and increasingly worn out (overturn 922(o) now!). For the rest, there's little reason to not get SBRs for confined-quarters urban CQB, silencers to protect hearing and conceal position, destructive devices to make really big holes, and AOWs for unusual scenarios.

The arguments against NFA stuff:
- Illegal in local jurisdiction (but legal in most - do what you can)
- Obnoxious (about the same as for a car)
- Registered with potential opponents (NICS registers everything anyway)
Most NFA stuff is such precisely because it is significantly more useful for military applications than for sport - take the hint.
 
I thought the basic concept of fire and manuever dictated that the ability to deliver sustained and continous suppressive fire was a decided advantage
That's great - if you have a supply line that can deliver literally tons of ammo to the front line. Vietnam's alleged average 25,000 rounds per kill is not a viable option for geurilla warfare.

I wonder how many people actually think they stand a chance of winning?
Given the appropriate situation, one may decide there isn't a choice. "Molon Labe", "Remember the Alamo", "Custer's Last Stand", etc. all recall long-praised incidents where our heroes died, every last one - but did what they had to. Sometimes the dragon wins, and probably will, but that doesn't necessarily preclude taking it on anyway.

Yes, the military is getting very good at handling geurillas. The latter get good too. If you're talking tyrants vs. citizens, fact is the military can be outnumbered if the people decide to take 'em on. Our nation exists because a rag-tag bunch of farmer types took on the reigning world superpower - and won. The US may be winning in Iraq, but hostilities continue and losses continue while the badly trained & equipped terrorists just keep on keepin' on. There is only something on the order of 30,000 front-line trigger-pullers in the US military ... contrast that with some 16,000,000 citizens decked out in full-blown sniper gear just for deer season.

Yes, small groups against a major military face severely shortened lifespan averages. That doesn't mean they should give up entirely.

When asked about the possible German invasion of Switzerland, a major military vs. mere citizens, a Swiss leader opined his people would "shoot twice and go home".

The biggest problem with this thread is the lack of defined situation. 10 men against who? for what goal?
 
What long arms would each member of your team recieve?
(No illegal or NFA weapons allowed)

When the time comes to start "assaulting supply lines" using unorganized militia, the time to stop worrying about gun laws has also arrived.

As far as broader tactics, there's virtually no chance unorganized militia would be able to stop an invading military force beyond a squad of lost paratroopers or a downed air crew. But they can have a tremendous impact on the ability of an invading military to hold ground and take more. The invading force NEEDS THE LOCAL CIVILIANS TO COMPLY. They need the services, goods and talents of the locals to keep going. And they need a rear area to organize and regroup in. Constant low-level sniping and insurgency tactics make this exceptionally difficult or impossible, as our own forces found in Vietnam and are discovering again in Iraq. Hunting down and crushing each little squad of unorganized militia requires the expenditure of men and material, sometimes a lot of it. The fact that the squad always loses misses the big picture. The squad can tie down ten times as many uniformed forces for days or weeks, and a bunch of squads and snipers can tie down a whole army. Not to mention the psychological effects of never being able to let your guard down.

If I had my choice of people to work with, it would be these guys:

732321_lg.jpg


Screw the rifles. I can shoot a rifle, and I can teach someone else in short order. Any old Mosin will work fine. I want someone who can make a liquid fuel rocket in a DAY and any number of high explosives from houshold chemicals.
 
ANFO, and lots of it.

Crater runways, topple control towers. Drop bridges, block roads, blockade ports with sunken ships. Twist rails, destroy rolling stock, turn rail maintenance equipment to slag. The ant farm is far from the radio, so sneak in and destroy (or steal) connectors, anything with a switch or light on it, and cut guy wires. Anything parabolic, put a bullet in it. Batteries with holes in them aren't batteries anymore. POL, the most needed and hardest to replenish part of any mechanized force, burn it. You get the point.

No army on Earth can live without beans, bullets, and bandaids. No army on Earth can operate effectively without comm, gas, antifreeze, grease, etc, etc. If the enemy is in Montana, burn their cold weather gear. If they're in Arizona, punch holes in their water cans.

Just to address the original question, .50 and .308, and lots of it.

S/F

Farnham
 
Probably because there are much lighter and more portable systems available today that fill the same role, just as effectively.
The statement was that a 1919 was useless, not that there were better alternatives. And the 1919 has the advantage of fairly ready availability, at a reasonable cost, unlike say an M60.

That's great - if you have a supply line that can deliver literally tons of ammo to the front line. Vietnam's alleged average 25,000 rounds per kill is not a viable option for geurilla warfare.
Penny wise, pound foolish. Ammo is a consumable and hopefully you've standardized on something you can obtain, replace, or steal from your enemy. But you have to burn what the mission requires. And it's not as if you're supplying a corp or even a division, you're supplying 10 guys; even with fairly liberal usage, a pickup truck load will last you a little while. You're not going to get into a firefight or a planned ambush daily, and a lot of days you're not going to fire a weapon.

Also, if you limit your tactics and objectives to only those that can be accomplished with 3 cartridges, youve really limited the scope of the targets you can reach and therefore psychological impact you can have, which is the guerilla's greatest weapon. A well planed action that takes out an enemy leader or intelligence section AND gets well known throughout the countryside ("...people are fighting back...") and through the enemy's troops ("...they got to him where?") is probably well worth burning a large percentage of your ammo supply. And yeah, you can do that with snipers, but that trick only works a finite number of times.
 
2 50cal rifles
2 MP5PDWs
8 AR15s with underslung shotguns
10 stainless Mini14s(amphibous ops)
10 stainless 357 mag revolvers (amphibous ops)
10 silenced 22 semiautomatic pistols
10 silenced HK USP 9mm pistols
10 Applegate Fairbairn knives
10 Ka Bar knives
10 handguns single shot small enough to conceal easy powerful enough to preform the coup-de-grace to my men were they to be captured.
And the most important weapon I would give them is the backing of the people so the could move like goasts.




one shot one kill
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top