rawger
Member
invaders
Go rent " Red Dawn"
Go rent " Red Dawn"
SHTF: invading army.
- Thread starter iapetus
- Start date
- Status
Ryder
Member
I found this thread to be informational. Check out the the 7'th comment. Those quotes are real eye openers. Don't bother visiting this site if you're offended by free speech or you will only be further bothered.
Full-Auto Thread on Aztlan
Full-Auto Thread on Aztlan
artherd
member
I pitty the fool nation that invades the contenintal US.
We're not too terribly bright, easially pissed off, and we've got 80million rifles.
What will I do? Make somebody's life miserable from 1200yards with my .338Lapua Magnum.
Gurilla tactics would be the rule.
We're not too terribly bright, easially pissed off, and we've got 80million rifles.
What will I do? Make somebody's life miserable from 1200yards with my .338Lapua Magnum.
Gurilla tactics would be the rule.
Fight for every square foot of ground. Hold every town and every city as long as possible. When you can't hold on any more, fall back to the next one. When an enemy unit moves on, reoccupy the area they left. Shoot up patrols and supply lines. Treat prisoners decently. Make the enemy soldiers question what on earth they're dying for. Get a good PR rep, and make your case as eloquently as possible to the international media (in an attempt to get other nations to bring pressure on your enemy). Raid air bases. Don't fight with other factions of your own people.
The Chechens did a lot of these things, and repulsed Russian invasion. It took them a couple years, and many civilians died (the Russians just loved massive bombardments), but they lost fewer fighters than the Russians and they won. They did it without foreign weapons aid, too.
The Afghans did some of these things, and while it took them a good deal longer, they also repulsed a Russian invasion. Of course, they then proceeded to fall into bitter infighting.
We did a lot of those things to the English, too. And we could do it again to anyone else that chose to invade.
B
BeLikeTrey
Guest
Look at Europe?
Invasion by immigration.
Invasion by immigration.
OrvilleYertleson
Member.
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2003
- Messages
- 398
I would join the military. It would probably be our best bet.
Ashendale
Member
Look at Europe?
"Invasion by immigration."
Nothing new to native American Indians.
Ian
"Invasion by immigration."
Nothing new to native American Indians.
Ian
Good post Ian!
Gurella warfare is a protracted war that destroys the enemies will to fight and raises the cost by tying his troops down and decreasing their numbers by ambushes, sniping and minewarfare.
You have to be in for the long hull to make this work. This is the only way we can win.
Gurella warfare is a protracted war that destroys the enemies will to fight and raises the cost by tying his troops down and decreasing their numbers by ambushes, sniping and minewarfare.
You have to be in for the long hull to make this work. This is the only way we can win.
Good thing we stopped the Independence Day alien invaders with a computer virus. I would have hated to have to run out with my AR-15 and take pots shots at invincible force fields.
This threads are just silly. As mentioned earlier, Zombie thread are more realistic.
All the guerrilla warfare scenarios assume that the invaders do want to keep the population around in some functional form. This gives the guerrillas a sea to swim in. If you are like the Warsaw ghetto and truly faced with massive forces who want you dead, you die after a brave fight.
If I invaded the USA, I would have thought out all the internet commandos and nutso in Idaho with rifles. Unlike when we invaded Iraq, it seems.
Why do we assume the invaders will leave themselves upon to such primitive guerrilla techniques. Start with a good plague that your forces have been immunized for.
This threads are just silly. As mentioned earlier, Zombie thread are more realistic.
All the guerrilla warfare scenarios assume that the invaders do want to keep the population around in some functional form. This gives the guerrillas a sea to swim in. If you are like the Warsaw ghetto and truly faced with massive forces who want you dead, you die after a brave fight.
If I invaded the USA, I would have thought out all the internet commandos and nutso in Idaho with rifles. Unlike when we invaded Iraq, it seems.
Why do we assume the invaders will leave themselves upon to such primitive guerrilla techniques. Start with a good plague that your forces have been immunized for.
Lord Bodak
Member
Ozendorph:
Any books and/or websites you can recommend?
Any books and/or websites you can recommend?
Abenaki
Member
"I agree that the only country that could ever give us trouble would be China. China's biggest problem would be to figure out how to get the Million+ troops they would need across the Pacific Ocean."
An overly simple plan would be.........
Nuke a few Military bases.
A large EMP over Kansas.... this would destroy just about all communications and most electrical hospital equipment, and a very large part of the manufacturing plants in the USA. This would destroy our infrastructure.
As for troops......
The first wave could be on airliners and cargo ships.
Very simple....But it could work.
Abenaki
An overly simple plan would be.........
Nuke a few Military bases.
A large EMP over Kansas.... this would destroy just about all communications and most electrical hospital equipment, and a very large part of the manufacturing plants in the USA. This would destroy our infrastructure.
As for troops......
The first wave could be on airliners and cargo ships.
Very simple....But it could work.
Abenaki
Abenaki
Member
I forgot to toss in the untold millions of illegals wanting
the Southwest back.
And the u.n. peace keepers that would want a piece of the action.
Abenaki
the Southwest back.
And the u.n. peace keepers that would want a piece of the action.
Abenaki
Fred Fuller
Moderator Emeritus
iapetus,
http://www.warlinks.com/pages/auxiliary.html
Perhaps a bunch of superannuated auxiliaries could not have done much against the German army in WW2. But nevertheless they were organized, and trained, and had some military stores (such as they were) cached in places that are still being uncovered today.
But firearms were another story. You can find several articles on the net regarding the donation of privately owned firearms to arm the British home guard during WW2. Here's one of them, follow the link to see the pictures:
==========================
http://www.nraila.org/media/misc/lostrts.html
World War II
After the fall of France and the Dunkirk evacuation in 1940, Britain found itself short of arms for island defense. The Home Guard was forced to drill with canes, umbrellas, spears, pikes, and clubs. When citizens could find a gun, it was generally a sporting shotgun ill suited for military use because of its short range and bulky ammunition.
Prime Minister Winston Churchill inspecting a No. 4 Enfield which the British adopted after Dunkirk, because the rifle could be mass produced.
British government advertisements in American newspapers and in magazines such as The American Rifleman begged Americans to "Send A Gun to Defend a British HomeÃBritish civilians, faced with threat of invasion. desperately need arms for the defense of their homes." The ads pleaded for "Pistols, Rifles, Revolvers, Shotguns and Binoculars from American civilians who wish to answer the call and aid in defense of British homes."
Pro-Allied organizations in the United States collected weapons; the National Rifle Association shipped 7,000 guns to Britain. Britain also purchased surplus World War I Enfield rifles from America's Department of War.
Prime Minister Winston Churchill's book Their Finest Hour details the arrival of shipments of .30 caliber rifles and .75 caliber [note- 75MM] artillery pieces from the U.S. government in July 1940. Churchill personally supervised the deliveries to ensure that they were sent on fast ships and distributed first to Home Guard members in coastal zones. Churchill thought that the American donations were "entirely on a different level from anything we have transported across the Atlantic except for the Canadian division itself." Churchill warned his First Lord that "the loss of these rifles and field-guns would be a disaster of the first order."
"When the ships from America approached our shores with their priceless arms special trains were waiting in all the ports to receive their cargoes," Churchill recalled. "The Home Guard in every county, in every town, in every village, sat up all through the night to receive them.... By the end of July we were an armed nation.... a lot of our men and some women had weapons in their hands."
At his New York City shop, Maj. Anthony Fiala (l.), of the American Committee For Defense of British Homes, crates .45-70 trapdoor carbines, as chairman Cutting watches. Committee efforts led to more than 25,000 guns and two million rounds of ammunition being sent to defend Britain against Nazi invasion.
Before the war, British authorities had refused to allow domestic manufacture of the Thompson submachine gun because it was "a gangster gun." When the war broke out, large numbers of American-made Thompsons were shipped to Britain, where they were dubbed "Tommy guns."
As World War II ended, the British government did what it could to prevent the men who had risked their lives in defense of freedom and Britain from holding onto guns acquired during the war. Troop ships returning to England were searched for souvenir or captured rifles, and men caught attempting to bring firearms home were punished. Guns that had been donated by American civilians were collected from the Home Guard and destroyed by the British government.
And yet, large quantities of firearms slipped into Britain, where many of them remain to this today in attics and under floor boards. At least some British gun owners, like their counterparts in today's gun-confiscating jurisdictions such as New Jersey and New York City, were beginning to conclude that their government did not trust them, and that their government could not be trusted to deal with them fairly.
=====================
Now, if home guards are so utterly useless, why did the allies go to all the trouble to establish and arm them? I can assure you that irregulars and auxiliaries, while no match in pitched battle with a professional army, can be most irritating when employed properly by someone who knows a thing or three about guerrilla warfare.
And I can guarantee you that in the US of A we will not have to beg firearms from anyone else... nor ask for the return of those we "lent" in 1940. Tell your government 'thanks' for taking such good care of them, by the way :^).
lpl/nc (funny green hat country in nc, and I don't mean Girl Scouts)
http://www.warlinks.com/pages/auxiliary.html
Perhaps a bunch of superannuated auxiliaries could not have done much against the German army in WW2. But nevertheless they were organized, and trained, and had some military stores (such as they were) cached in places that are still being uncovered today.
But firearms were another story. You can find several articles on the net regarding the donation of privately owned firearms to arm the British home guard during WW2. Here's one of them, follow the link to see the pictures:
==========================
http://www.nraila.org/media/misc/lostrts.html
World War II
After the fall of France and the Dunkirk evacuation in 1940, Britain found itself short of arms for island defense. The Home Guard was forced to drill with canes, umbrellas, spears, pikes, and clubs. When citizens could find a gun, it was generally a sporting shotgun ill suited for military use because of its short range and bulky ammunition.
Prime Minister Winston Churchill inspecting a No. 4 Enfield which the British adopted after Dunkirk, because the rifle could be mass produced.
British government advertisements in American newspapers and in magazines such as The American Rifleman begged Americans to "Send A Gun to Defend a British HomeÃBritish civilians, faced with threat of invasion. desperately need arms for the defense of their homes." The ads pleaded for "Pistols, Rifles, Revolvers, Shotguns and Binoculars from American civilians who wish to answer the call and aid in defense of British homes."
Pro-Allied organizations in the United States collected weapons; the National Rifle Association shipped 7,000 guns to Britain. Britain also purchased surplus World War I Enfield rifles from America's Department of War.
Prime Minister Winston Churchill's book Their Finest Hour details the arrival of shipments of .30 caliber rifles and .75 caliber [note- 75MM] artillery pieces from the U.S. government in July 1940. Churchill personally supervised the deliveries to ensure that they were sent on fast ships and distributed first to Home Guard members in coastal zones. Churchill thought that the American donations were "entirely on a different level from anything we have transported across the Atlantic except for the Canadian division itself." Churchill warned his First Lord that "the loss of these rifles and field-guns would be a disaster of the first order."
"When the ships from America approached our shores with their priceless arms special trains were waiting in all the ports to receive their cargoes," Churchill recalled. "The Home Guard in every county, in every town, in every village, sat up all through the night to receive them.... By the end of July we were an armed nation.... a lot of our men and some women had weapons in their hands."
At his New York City shop, Maj. Anthony Fiala (l.), of the American Committee For Defense of British Homes, crates .45-70 trapdoor carbines, as chairman Cutting watches. Committee efforts led to more than 25,000 guns and two million rounds of ammunition being sent to defend Britain against Nazi invasion.
Before the war, British authorities had refused to allow domestic manufacture of the Thompson submachine gun because it was "a gangster gun." When the war broke out, large numbers of American-made Thompsons were shipped to Britain, where they were dubbed "Tommy guns."
As World War II ended, the British government did what it could to prevent the men who had risked their lives in defense of freedom and Britain from holding onto guns acquired during the war. Troop ships returning to England were searched for souvenir or captured rifles, and men caught attempting to bring firearms home were punished. Guns that had been donated by American civilians were collected from the Home Guard and destroyed by the British government.
And yet, large quantities of firearms slipped into Britain, where many of them remain to this today in attics and under floor boards. At least some British gun owners, like their counterparts in today's gun-confiscating jurisdictions such as New Jersey and New York City, were beginning to conclude that their government did not trust them, and that their government could not be trusted to deal with them fairly.
=====================
Now, if home guards are so utterly useless, why did the allies go to all the trouble to establish and arm them? I can assure you that irregulars and auxiliaries, while no match in pitched battle with a professional army, can be most irritating when employed properly by someone who knows a thing or three about guerrilla warfare.
And I can guarantee you that in the US of A we will not have to beg firearms from anyone else... nor ask for the return of those we "lent" in 1940. Tell your government 'thanks' for taking such good care of them, by the way :^).
lpl/nc (funny green hat country in nc, and I don't mean Girl Scouts)
Fred Fuller
Moderator Emeritus
Good thread, thanks for starting it. The issue is still worth talking/thinking about, even today. For example, most people don't know that a number of states in the US have established official militias, which they call state defense forces or state guards. These organizations are under the command of the governor of the state by way of the state's adjutant general or military department.
There is an umbrella organization known as the State Guard Association of the United States ( http://www.sgaus.org/ ). Links to state militias can be found at http://www.sgaus.org/states.htm . The following states have organizations:
Alabama
Alaska
California
Colorado State Defense Force (Provisional)
Connecticut
Georgia
Georgia 3rd Brigade
Indiana Guard Reserve
Iowa
Maryland Defense Force
Massachusetts Volunteer Militia
Mississippi
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York (click on NY State Guard Icon)
North Carolina
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
1st Battalion, 8th Brigade, Texas
4th Airwing, Texas State Guard
Vermont State Guard
Virginia Defense Force
Washington
=============
lpl/nc
There is an umbrella organization known as the State Guard Association of the United States ( http://www.sgaus.org/ ). Links to state militias can be found at http://www.sgaus.org/states.htm . The following states have organizations:
Alabama
Alaska
California
Colorado State Defense Force (Provisional)
Connecticut
Georgia
Georgia 3rd Brigade
Indiana Guard Reserve
Iowa
Maryland Defense Force
Massachusetts Volunteer Militia
Mississippi
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York (click on NY State Guard Icon)
North Carolina
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
1st Battalion, 8th Brigade, Texas
4th Airwing, Texas State Guard
Vermont State Guard
Virginia Defense Force
Washington
=============
lpl/nc
I agree the thread is silly. Heck, I'd *welcome* the Chinese--cheaper manufactured goods and Ted Kennedy facing a firing squad.
That said, the history of armed struggles against determined ruthless invaders is not good. The Afghans had a terrible time against the Russians until the US began supplying them with arms, especially something to deal with the Hind helicopter that until then was blowing the heck out of the resistance.
The U.S. was hindered more by resistence at home than by resistance in Hanoi during Viet Nam. The Russians began winning in Chechnya when they turned off the TV cameras and just went at it.
How many of us could really retreat up into the woods and rough it without drivethroughs and computers? Not too many.
Fun to think about but about as serious as playing Delta Force.
That said, the history of armed struggles against determined ruthless invaders is not good. The Afghans had a terrible time against the Russians until the US began supplying them with arms, especially something to deal with the Hind helicopter that until then was blowing the heck out of the resistance.
The U.S. was hindered more by resistence at home than by resistance in Hanoi during Viet Nam. The Russians began winning in Chechnya when they turned off the TV cameras and just went at it.
How many of us could really retreat up into the woods and rough it without drivethroughs and computers? Not too many.
Fun to think about but about as serious as playing Delta Force.
Cosmoline
Member
Alaska actually got invaded half a century ago by the Empire of Japan. Thankfully they never pressed the attack beyond a few islands, but there were plenty in their army who thought taking Alaska and forgetting Midway might be a good idea. In hindsight they were right. Had the entire fleet swung north it could have landed a large force at Dutch Harbor and Kodiak, and from there moved into SE and started bombing runs on BC and Seattle. Not a bad plan of action.
In 1942 there were virtually no troops in the territory. The citizens were told if the Japs came they could either try to fight or give up and take their chances. Now at that time given the very low population I doubt the locals would have been able to do much more than annoy a strong force of troops. But it would have been very interesting to see. Certainly today if North Korean paratroops landed in certain parts of Alaska they'd rue the day they were born. Rifles would appear everywhere, just as they do when a brownie is threatening people. Against lightly armed and confused paratroops, we'd stand a very good chance. Against a major force backed by heavy weapons? We'd have to resort to hit-and-run strikes. In the end the resistance would need to secure a steady supply of heavy weapons and organize itself. But for the short run small arms would work far better than no weapons at all.
In 1942 there were virtually no troops in the territory. The citizens were told if the Japs came they could either try to fight or give up and take their chances. Now at that time given the very low population I doubt the locals would have been able to do much more than annoy a strong force of troops. But it would have been very interesting to see. Certainly today if North Korean paratroops landed in certain parts of Alaska they'd rue the day they were born. Rifles would appear everywhere, just as they do when a brownie is threatening people. Against lightly armed and confused paratroops, we'd stand a very good chance. Against a major force backed by heavy weapons? We'd have to resort to hit-and-run strikes. In the end the resistance would need to secure a steady supply of heavy weapons and organize itself. But for the short run small arms would work far better than no weapons at all.
Brian Ellis
Member
- Joined
- May 3, 2004
- Messages
- 3
Thinking back a year or so, there was a programme on the local TV station (I live in the South East of England) regarding the preparations for a German invasion in WW2.
Aside from the obvious preparations of a Home Guard, tank traps on the beaches etc, there appears to have been a much more secret plan to set up a series of resistance cells in SE England, with orders to hold up the invaders at pretty much any cost.
The programme interviewed a couple of the men picked for the UK resistance, who had been given caches of weapons, ammunition and explosives, together with the training needed to use them effectively.
What struck me was that this operation was run entirely by the Ministry of Defence in London, and kept totally secret from the Home Guard, Local Authorities and Police. The reason given was that the Govt. in London did not trust the local authorities to resist the Germans effectively, and suspected that many would collaborate with the invaders. One of the men interviewed had been given sealed orders to the effect that he should shoot the local Chief Constable as soon as the invasion started. I am sure that similar orders were given to kill local politicians and council officers to prevent them co-operating with the Germans.
Aside from the obvious preparations of a Home Guard, tank traps on the beaches etc, there appears to have been a much more secret plan to set up a series of resistance cells in SE England, with orders to hold up the invaders at pretty much any cost.
The programme interviewed a couple of the men picked for the UK resistance, who had been given caches of weapons, ammunition and explosives, together with the training needed to use them effectively.
What struck me was that this operation was run entirely by the Ministry of Defence in London, and kept totally secret from the Home Guard, Local Authorities and Police. The reason given was that the Govt. in London did not trust the local authorities to resist the Germans effectively, and suspected that many would collaborate with the invaders. One of the men interviewed had been given sealed orders to the effect that he should shoot the local Chief Constable as soon as the invasion started. I am sure that similar orders were given to kill local politicians and council officers to prevent them co-operating with the Germans.
so we are gonna assume that some country or group of countries was able to defeat our army/navy/airforce and render all our nuclear capabilities useless, and somehow manage to get a LARGE ground combat force on our soil. we're talking at least a million+ combat troops.
given a force that superior it sounds like a rather hopeless scenario. might as well go down fighting, inch for inch, house for house, town by town. make it as costly as possible for the invading force.
given a force that superior it sounds like a rather hopeless scenario. might as well go down fighting, inch for inch, house for house, town by town. make it as costly as possible for the invading force.
one45auto
Member
I have to respectfully disagree with The Rabbi because a well-armed population (even possessing small arms) who are bound and determined to defend their homeland can battle an army to a standstill - even one armed with advanced weaponry. Casualties would be great, no doubt, but in the long run they would be heavier on the side of the aggressor. The Nazi's understood this very well, which is why they never attempted to invade Switzerland during WW2. Also, many years ago, I remember reading an article somewhere (just where I cannot recall) in which a high ranking Soviet defector in the late 80's once remarked that his favorite movie was "Red Dawn", and when asked why the Russians never considered such an attack his response was that they knew gun ownership in the United States was common. Apparently we're well-known for being "gun nuts", thank God.
fjolnirsson
Member
It's fairly easy to produce potable water. My only worry would be in true desert area, and I ain't going there, so no trouble. Food? I've been told rats and squirrels make fine eatin'. I could stand to lose a few pounds anyway. Lots of natural insect repellent around, too.
I believe Hank Williams Jr. said it best:
Country boys can survive.
I am not sure on what basis 1-45 maintains his position. Resistance requires communication and coordination, neither of which are we prepared for. It also requries mobility, which is tough enough without kids but add in wives kids etc and it is just impossible. Try lugging a few thousand rounds of even .223 for an hour and you'll get the idea.
In WW2 the Jews managed to organize some good resistance in partisan units. The only reason they did so well was that they had deep thick forest to retreat to to make/repair weapons, produce food, treat wounded etc. The Germans didnt have the airpower and technology to sniff them out but a couple of bombs would have wiped out the whole operation. Today the same technology could probably be bought from Bass Pro.
As far as Switzerland, it is questionable what the rationale was by the Nazis. Certainly the fact that Switzerland was the repository for a lot of Nazi loot had a lot to do with it. I wouldn't rule out complicity by the Swiss government as well.
In WW2 the Jews managed to organize some good resistance in partisan units. The only reason they did so well was that they had deep thick forest to retreat to to make/repair weapons, produce food, treat wounded etc. The Germans didnt have the airpower and technology to sniff them out but a couple of bombs would have wiped out the whole operation. Today the same technology could probably be bought from Bass Pro.
As far as Switzerland, it is questionable what the rationale was by the Nazis. Certainly the fact that Switzerland was the repository for a lot of Nazi loot had a lot to do with it. I wouldn't rule out complicity by the Swiss government as well.
Joe Demko
Member
I just got back from a workshop where we did that, among other things. I would ammend your statement to read "It's fairly easy to produce potable water for one guy when you are in good health, not trying to avoid armed opponents, can openly operate in daylight, and build fires."
45+
Member
Even ineffective resistance is better than living as a slave…
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
