Thread 64494860

>"modern armies require extremely precise logistics to function"
>"from funding to morale, military success stands at the crossroads of efficiency and proper allocation of resources and personnel"
yet the guerilla can and does still have success despite technology and commanders keeping all of the above in mind. what makes them so effective against conventional armies /k/?

>>64494860 (OP)
treaties barring crimes against humanity.

>>64494867
if shock and awe doesn't scare them then how would other atrocities make any difference?

>>64494860 (OP)
WW2 was won by propaganda far before It was won by strategy and logistics.
Propaganda Is won on the tactical level.
While retards May talk about logistica winning war all the time they want, the Spirit of a nation Trump that in so far as history Is concerned

>>64494860 (OP)
Well the point of the armies was to keep towns and such running. These towns were centers of commerce that supported the armies, made their weapons and enabled everyone to enjoy a high standard of living. The savages in the forests forgoed these standards.

>>64494878
Wipe them out so they aren't a problem anymore. You can't have an insurgency blending with the civilians if there are no civilians left.

>>64494878
>if shock and awe doesn't scare them
It would.

>Other atrocities
Burning their forest and killing their women children would just kill them outright.

>>64494883
the axis was defeated by lack of funding, PR was just used to clean up the mess
>>64494889
>>64494893
from a strategic standpoint yes, the mongols understood this very well but that practice makes negotiating notoriously hard and that and politics completely hamstrung their efforts in the west

>>64494860 (OP)
Insurgents can't defeat a military, they can't destroy the planes, tanks or ships. What they can do it retain control of cities making law enforcement impossible crippling a governments power.
>inb4 pic of dead tank
Killing a few tanks doesn't cut it.

>>64494904
>the mongols
They were only stopped because their leader died and his sons (he had like 36) fought over the empire.

>>64494904
America and britain were more moralized than germany was at the time, they won because of that.
Winston's we Will fight on the bitches speech was far more powerful than goebbel's.
They could have had their people fight twice has hard as the British did and theyd have bleed the allies dry before they reached Berlin if they werent demoralized.
Thats why arabs Will Just keep on Sting and coming, same for chinksectoids going over wire with their own bodies.
When america won gulf War how many deserted, when Russia started Rolling conscription how many deserted?

>>64494913
that's wasn't their only problem. in order to defeat European armies they had to keep them from forming coalitions, That was starting to happen and an anti mongol crusade would've likely turned them into horse meat

>>64494912
The afghans did destroy a few jets, turns out you Just have tò sneak into Mortar range to do that
>Ships
Suicide boat destroyed AN american destroyer.
You Just have to be more creative than your enemy

>>64494923
I heard somewhere that somebody had to impersonate him to give that speech because he was busy impersonating cooter brown that day

>>64494932
I new I would get a retarded response like this, that's why I tried to get ahead of it.
They can't significantly reduce the combat effectiveness of a military, killing 10 tanks out of 1,000 or 2 planes out of 500 doesn't matter at all.

>>64494946
not him but it creates a precedent and that's what they were probably going for.

>>64494946
How many countries have more than 500 jets?
How many more than 500 tanks.
...
America Is another thing entirely, and again foreign states suply insurgents with AT weapons all the time.
Than again see how the russ failed at grozny

>>64494860 (OP)
If they are so effective, why is the actual win condition of any guerilla army to... transition into becoming a regular army?

>>64494958
Russians over committed and got surrounded. same thing the somalis did to the US but luckily somebody decided to pull the plug on that before it became the complete goat fuck Grozny did

>>64494968
sounds like a pretty solid win, vietcong integrated pretty well and the country later went on to have a long win streak

>>64494860 (OP)
Guerillas don't defeat armies, they make occupation unprofitable then wait for them to leave.

>>64494923
>They could have had their people fight twice has hard as the British did
With what? Sticks and stones? Morale wasn't what caused german military collapse by 1945. Lack of materiel was. No amount of morale is gonna help you when you have no fuel, no ammo and evne fucking food is getting sparse. All while your opponents can afford to answer sniper shots with heavy artillery barrages.

>>64494968
Because guerillas are extremely good at defending a place, but extremely bad at taking another place. You need to become conventional to make that push against a conventional force.

>>64494977
>waste their money and make them fuck off
pretty sure when the strip club does that to me it feels like an L

>>64494975
You're dodging the question.

>>64494982
You can sintetize diesel out of trees, you can find ways around any problem if you put yourself tò It, a demoralized person wont even try, now see what happens when your entire country Is demoralized.
The Spirit of a nation does in fact Trump logistics,

>>64494989
well I'll go back to steppe armies (most effective in history) even after they became a conventional force they still employed hit and run/ terror tactics as a pragmatic way to conserve resources. modern armies usually have a lot of success when they do this IE the Phoenix program.

>>64494994
>spirit of a nation
you can't fuel trucks with ideology although the poor Germans likely tried. They were on death ground and at that point it didn't matter why they fighting, it was a matter of survival. however after the country was over ran, a bunch of dorky dads didn't and couldn't have the mentality to be any sort of resistance.

>>64495018
You can make fuel out of trees,
You can infact fuel Trucks with ideology.

>>64495032
And before you Say anything
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel

>>64494929
before forming coalitions they'd need to actually subjugate some European peoples to use them as auxilaries like they did everywhere else.

without this even individual countries or even duchies/counties would be able to withstand them, seeing as they failed to conquer undeveloped Hungary despite rolling over their military.

Even guerrillas could not operate without supply lines outside the battlefield. If North Vietnam had not had the Chinese border or the Ho Chi Minh Trail, South Vietnam might still be alive today.

>>64495032
making fuel out of trees is quite inefficient, much like other biomass due to the high water content that you have to boil off. most synthetic fuel is made from coal, which is a lot more cost efficient and still quite plentiful.

you can fuel trucks with just trees though, i have a soft spot for woodgas powered vehicles myself.

>>64495039
I know what bio diesel is you tard. you need a still to make moonshine.
>>64495054
kind of interested as to why that didn't happen. they had plenty of European spies. It could be as simple as the language barrier though and a gigantic difference in culture. as far as adopting European weapons and armor though I suspect they didn't because they saw it as inherently wasteful resource wise. that stuff is expensive even nowadays.

>>64494994
That's a lot of copium that amounts to nothing of substance while you're getting run over by millions of men supported by tens of thosuands of tanks and hundreds of thousands of airplanes and artillery pieces.

The krauts tried until the wheels came off on their entire war machine. People fought until they literally no longer had anything to effectively fight WITH.

>>64495000
>well I'll go back to steppe armies (most effective in history)
Not really. Steppe armies tended to start running into significant problems the moment they ran into serious opposition outside of the steppes.

>>64495032
>You can make fuel out of trees,
Not to any meaningful degree. Fun fact, the krauts did BETTER than that, with mass coal liquefaction. Still wasn't nearly enough to save them from getting rolled over and their military weasted until there was nothing left physically capable of putting up meaningful resistance.

>>64495086
>kind of interested as to why that didn't happen.
it is an interesting question, Hungarians were basically prime targets for that, seeing as how they Christianized only 2 centuries ago themselves, were still quite oriental if not nomadic and mingled with various nomadic peoples like cumans pretty closely and still it failed. even Kyivan Rus which mostly preferred to resist and be slaughtered to subjugation didn't resist like that. of course hungarians lucked out because their king escaped, denying mongols any continuity claims but that's not really much of an excuse when the king is far away and you're doing the fighting/resisting on your own regardless.
>s far as adopting European weapons and armor though I suspect they didn't because they saw it as inherently wasteful resource wise.
they were just plain broke, they used what they had and didn't have the industry or centralization to change that, and didn't invest in either until after mongols railed them. you also have to have an independent class of land-owning nobility that can afford to arm themselves on their own like that too.

>>64495128
>Still wasn't nearly enough to save them from getting rolled over and their military weasted until there was nothing left physically capable of putting up meaningful resistance.
It definitely wasn't enough once their exposed liquefaction plants got bombed into the ground, that's for sure.

>>64495135
I mean used to say somebody like Vlad wouldn't have popped up. he certainly made the Turks quit. If we're going to have a thread about guerillas he's the world heavyweight champ in certain ways. although he still had to supply his army the same way other noblemen did

>>64495140
Except they weren't? Their main coal liquefaction plants remained operational and kept putting out synthetic fuel right up until they were literally overrun by the US Army in early April '45.

>>64495135
also, for basic and plain gear there's not that much distinct about European arms, straight double edged swords, nasal helmets, mail shirts, round or oval shields were basically universal across civilizations all the way until the far east, with the obvious caveat that details, quality and quantity of the gear varied greatly over regions and historical periods.

for example in Carolingian era your typical infantry would have a spear, a shield, some sort of helmet(an iron one if you're well off) and maybe some padded cloth body armor. swords were really expensive and you'd have to be high nobility to afford a mail shirt or something similar, like a count or above. this remained similar in most times for the rest of the world. in Europe in the following centuries the growing urbanization and feudal system lead to an explosive growth so by the 11th century swords, metal helmets and mail shirts became quite common(although probably not so much among plain infantry) and real elites started getting whole suits of mail, with long sleeves, leggins, aventails and face covers. going into the 12th and 13th centuries this becomes common among lower knighly classes and other extra protection is added like enclosed and great helmets and coats of plate. then into the 14th centuries plate armor starts to replace that and in the 15th century brigandines and munition plate becomes highly accessible and common.

what i'm saying is that for hungary of the time there wouldn't be a European kit that would be different from for example arabic kit as the latter were also almost universally using straight swords and conical/nasal helmets with rare and high nobility exclusive mail at the time.

>>64495190
swords were expensive, but still fairly widespread anyways
and cheap peasant swords existed too
anyone who wasnt a dirt-poor peasant levy would have some kind of sword on their person

>>64495158
this is several centuries after Hungary deliberately westernized following their defeat during the first mongol invasion. the transformation was quite drastic and widely encompassing and didn't stop at military structures but changed socially also. that's why it's so unexpected to me that they resisted so valiantly before that.

>>64495180
'tis but a drizzle compared to their former scale of production.

>>64495193
it really depends on the period. viking age this isn't true and an axe would be carried alongside a spear if at all. vikings themselves did favor them quite a bit and often used spears for throwing like javelins instead, at least when fighting among each other.

in the following centuries this would begin to change but there's still contention on whether the depictions of battles and fighters are exaggerated towards the knightly class and to what amount that would be.

of course almost any peasant could have a local smith fashion his scythe into an improvised sword of sorts but this wouldn't really be a good sword that any professional warrior would prefer, even to only slightly more expensive waraxe, for example. i wouldn't even be sure it's something that you'd carry alongside your spear which you'd better to be able to afford when going in battle, unless you're really the absolute lowest, most pitiful peasant levy that is meant to either be a meat shield or a non-combatant to carry stuff and dig in which case your weapon doesn't mean much at all.

>>64495195
>'tis but a drizzle
And yet a far bigger one than any remotely practicable biodiesel project would've been able to provide.

>>64495211
i'm not the anon you're arguing with, i don't disagree.

>>64495075 is my first post itt

>>64494994
Go back to your tomb mao, revolutionary spirit can't ignore physics

>>64495195
they sort of westernized. belgrade hasn't shaken the eastern invasion nuisance even to this day. to my knowledge they still aren't considered balkaners

>>64494958
>How many more than 500 tanks.
Quite a lot actually.

As a file, successful insurgencies only engage conventional forces for PR value.
Their main target is the civilian side of the government : civil servants, political leaders, local police forces... All of which allows the government to actually run the territory. You either kill or scare enough of these guys, you can fill the void with your own shadow administration. Do it enough and the government will abandon everything safe for the big cities and a few bases. At this point, you are de facto running the country while the government must still maintain a very large security force to prevent you from sabotaging the cities. If the government deploys troops outside the cities, it's either for patrols or for garnisons. You can pick a fight with either of those but you want to do it when they are in low numbers, outside fortifications, surprised and where you can get away. The aim is just to show the people you can fight the army and do whatever wherever whenever on your turf so the people don't actively help the government since they fear you'll come at night to pull them out of their beds for a speedy revolutionnary trial before vanishing.

You don't need to destroy tanks or planes for this. But if you have the opportunity to do it without risking much, that's nice bonus PR.

>>64495891
in theory if all armies applied tzun tsu they would all fight as if they were guerillas. the chess model is inherently wasteful and modern warfare is always geared toward a political result. of course if the war creates wealth that's another story but the idea of war creating wealth is questionable

>>64494860 (OP)
>modern armies have the same requirements as all armies ever have required for success
Wow really big think brain shit going on in that opinion.

>>64495950
they aremuch more expensive and now the battlefield is 6 dimensional if you want it to be but basic ideas of supply and movement is same as it has always been

>>64495772
>belgrade hasn't shaken the eastern invasion nuisance even to this da
that's only after they got railed several times in turns by Austrians and turks, and then particularly hard by the communist muscovites. the latter really knew how to poison and destroy a nation's blood and heart.

>>64494878
Do what Britain did, they were extremely successful versus insurgencies. They rounded up everyone in the affected area, and put them into concentration camps, and then moved any and all crops or animals out too, or put them into supervised new "villages", where nobody was allowed to leave without permission, or enter. The guerillas had nobody to gain supplies or intelligence or shelter from, and no excuse to wander or be about their business. They did this in South Africa and Malaya, all of the guerillas eventually starved to death or surrendered. Its a lot of effort but guerillas ultimately only work as a kind of social parasite, where they make all of society a schodinger's combatant, it puts everyone at risk and lends itself to unfortunate little accidents. If you just arrest everyone then they cant do it and burn themselves out.

The Germans didnt have the balls/willpower to arrest literally everyone, but the czechs started behaving after the assassination of heydrich when the Germans just started mass-executions. Should've done the same to the French but they needed the co-operation of the Vichy government.

If you dont actually control most of the country in a meaningful way e.g. US in vietnam, then you have to do that first. The US lacked political backing to do what it needed to do, both in Korea and Vietnam, if you arent even allowed to fight the war you cant proceed to deal with insurgency.

>>64495000
I have no comprehension of your definition of 'conventional' in a medieval context. Steppe armies are a niche min-max wildcardd, their benefit was the nature of steppe society meaning that all of their manpower was militarily capable and easily mobilised and kept in the field. Their tactics were effective, but they ran into more and more problems the further west they moved when they encountered more and more fortifications and rivers, and ultimately did have to fight conventional battles in conventional manners, and lost.
The mongols also had some of the most biblical luck with regards to the abysmal state of their opposition at the exact times as they made their moves.

>>64495086
It was too far away, they were recalled to the kurultai from Hungary and then after that it went immediately to power struggles and their death spiral. They also didnt have the numbers to push through the density of fortifications and river crossings, and werent able to fight in open battle without suffering massive casualties. The mongol elite were heavy cavalry, they only won vs the hungarians due to gunpowder, the few knights which Bela had absolutely destroyed the mongolian Kheshig, so much so that the aftermath of mohacs was infighting after so many of the important mongols had died. They didnt have the capacity to repeat that 20 times with increasing difficulty and 50,000 castles.

>>64496251
Didn't work in Vietnam.

>>64496327
don't do it half-heartedly and fucking commit. it started working once US planners pulled their heads out of their asses to the chin level and put their eyes a little bit on the war they were fighting rather than doing theatrics for the soviets and the chinks. when they finally mined the ports and rivers they immediately saw results.

>>64496251
The insurgents can't hide among the populace if there is no populace.

>>64496327
Vietcong were being fed by large farms which the US military knew existed in the south. also they pioneered an advanced tunnel system which was never fully rooted out. however if the bombing campaigns had targeted the agriculture they would've had a much harder time, I have no idea why that didn't occur other than it likely being seen as a war crime. but compare to carpet bombing the jungle I don't see how that's so bad.

>>64496294
>luck
more like a highly advanced spy network. the only time they were truly stomped was when the sultans were able to infiltrate them and knew when they were moving before they did.

>>64494860 (OP)
Wrong. Most Guerilla movements can only survive with geographicall advantages and even then they suffer tremendous casualties:

The PIRA had more of its members arrested than enemies killed, despite routinly targeting off-duty Soldiers and police. They failed at their goal.

The Vietcong was supported by the NVA and North Vietnamnese Industry. And after the Tet Offensive they got crippled into irrelevancy.

the anti-Rhodesia Rebels haven't archieved anything of note, the rest of the world had to step in to sanction Rhodesia into submission (despite Blacks outnumbering Whites 10-1).

The Guerillas in Myanmar are propped up by the Black Market, at their peak (Operation 1027) WA state and China supplied them with tons of resources. Now that Chinese Support has dried up, the Tatmadaw which is a Third rate Military force and the only rebel force ble to go toe to toe with them is the Arakan Army which is a large, organised military force fighting them conventional.

>>64497712
>if you have outside support you aren't a real guerilla
kind of a convenient cop out there

>>64494860 (OP)
economics ruined warfare
in the olden times the romans would continue pacification wars against even the poorest of people simply for the religious mandated genocidal fun of it

>>64494860 (OP)
guerrilla warfare is obsolete, flir and techical edge in jamming, drones and sigint means crushing defeat or miserable no possibility of victory, partisan shit mayve, actual guerrilla warfare is as obsolete as musket volley fire

>>64494883
>WW2 was won by propaganda far before It was won by strategy and logistics.
absolute nonsense

>>64494923
>Thats why arabs Will Just keep on Sting and coming, same for chinksectoids going over wire with their own bodies.
deluded,
" Approximately 21,000 Chinese Prisoners of War (POWs) were held by United Nations (UN) forces during the Korean War, with about 14,300 of them choosing to go to Taiwan instead of being repatriated to Communist China. The remaining two-thirds were repatriated to mainland China. "

>>64498826
>Thats why arabs Will Just keep on Sting and coming

>>64494923
>Thats why arabs Will Just keep on Sting and coming,

>>64498808
most of Islam and the CIA disagrees with u

>>64494860 (OP)
They have the support of the local population, and can therefore turn an entire country into a battlefield, and attack from all sides. That's how this guy beat the Dutch army in 1948

>>64499846
Also, if you want to read about a classic case of a succesful guerrila conflict, read this

>>64498762
Didn't state that.
OP's entire point is that Guerillas are better because they do not require technology, logistics and organisation. My comment only served to disprove his point

>>64499846
he did very well, and they didn't even have vehicles or monetary support at first if I remeber.

>>64500315
you really didn't though, as far as long standing success in theater well funded insurgents have actually taken the fight 100 percent of the time. all goals achieved. armies that's try to achieve a black and white political result always fail.

A competent military will prevent guerillas from even being a thing. A good example is the current war in Ukraine where Russian security services work behind the lines to prevent any guerilla activity. It's true that their job is easier due to the population in the occupied regions being generally pro-Russian but don't think for a second Ukraine wouldn't stir shit up there if it could.

The US has lost Vietnam because CIA was basically incompetent and busy fucking the people they were supposed to protect (Americans)

>>64500337
>prevent insurgency and destroy fighting spirit
as much as I hate the Ukraine thing putin's people played right into nato's hands. they didn't achieve either of these goals. CIA is busy handling the china issue. which I really wonder wtf they are doing with that.