From: Gary Coffman <emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu>
Subject: Re: No Army Needed(
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:39:57 GMT


From Gary Coffman <emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu>

In article <Bzo8os.C69@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Tim Smith <tssmith@netcom.com> writes:
>In article <BzM9op.M1x@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>I think Dan is raising an interesting question, and one that is
>perfectly appropriate for this group.  Dan has covered most of the
>trouble spots, especially keeping the discussion out of
>talk.politics.guns, and focusing the discussion on military strategy
>and tactics, rather than on gun ownership politics.

I too would like to tread carefully into this area.

>Dan continues:
>>         For a start, let us assume that 50% of the populace own guns,
>> and can use them fairly effectively.  Variations are welcome, of course.
>> This strikes me as a hopeless situation for a war.  As you drive down
>> the street, some farmer with an old .30-30 shoots at you from the sewer.
>> On the other hand, you do control the streets.
> 
>>         So what is the military significance of deer rifles in the hands
>> of farmers, bankers, and the like?  I would like to think that it would
>> make the war too costly, but know that I could be merely looking at the
>> military situation through rose-tinted goggles.
> 
>OK, let me start off by throwing down the gauntlet.  My basic belief
>is that in 20th century warfare, guerrilla movements that are armed
>with small arms only (such as the deer rifles that Dan mentions)
>have not been effective.
>
>There are a number of test cases that we can discuss.  Let's take three of
>the most well-known:
>
>- France in WWII
>
>- the "Viet Cong" in the 1965-1975 phase of the war in Vietnam
>
>- the Afghan guerrillas in the 1979-198? time frame
>
>Some discussion points are: 
>
>(1) Were the French Maquis effective?  They did perform effective sabotage,
>    destroyed trains, and generally tied down a few regiments of German
>    troops.  Would they have been able to liberate France without Allied
>    (including Free French) intervention?  Not at all likely.  Could armed
>    French civilian resistance have prevented the capture of the country
>    in 1940?  Not at all.  Panzer divisions and Stuka Geschwader weren't
>    troubled much by civilian small arms.

I think this situation doesn't fit Dan's model well. I doubt that 50%
of the French population was armed pre-war and that most who were were
armed with shotguns for small game hunting. So they brought few materials
or skills to the fore during the confusion of the blitzkrieg. After the
invasion, a Vichy government retained a semblance of normal government,
the general population was disarmed by French police who knew who had
weapons and what kind, and resistance forces were slow to develop effectively,
allowing the Germans to solidify their hold on the country. The Maqui were
most valuable as intelligence gatherers and saboteurs. They had no hope of
effectively combating main line troops in standup battles. That isn't the
way resistance groups operate in any event.

>(2) The Viet Cong were, I believe, not very effective.  They were able to
>    terrorize and perhaps control some of the civilian population, but they
>    seem to have been losing badly to the US and SV until the NVA
>    intervened.  (I'm raising issues and questions for discussion
>    here, not trying to provide expert opinion--I have no particular 
>    expertise about the war in Vietnam.)
>
>(3) The Afghan guerrillas were not particularly effective until the
>    US began arming them with Stingers, with which they could threaten
>    and kill the Soviet helos.  These are not small arms.

These two cases are vastly different. The VC controlled the night and
effectively controlled all territory outside of base camps and urban
centers. The US could not win the war as long as it took at least platoon
strength to travel the countryside. The US could win any standup battle
with the VC, but that's not important when the VC wisely refrained from
standup battle. The purpose of guerrilla warefare is to sap your opponent's
will, deny hin effective governance and police presense, and eventually
drain his treasury by tying up so many of his front line troops with 
garrison duty protecting vital infrastructure and political officials.

The same situation was faced by the Soviets in Afganistan. The Soviets
did not control the countryside. They could only travel in strength.
They could not maintain local civil control. They only owned the few
urban centers and base camps. The countryside belonged to the guerrillas.
Soviet air power was feared by the guerrillas, but until they had Stingers,
they simply hid when it was overhead. You don't own ground until your
ground forces stand on it unopposed. No matter what air superiority you
have, you can't win while your troops have to travel in strength for
protection and local civilians only obey your orders when you are
physically present standing over them with a gun.

>>         Insight is appreciated.  Mainly, I'm after a military reason
>> to fear or respect civilian gun ownership, but I am perfactly willing
>> to be convinced of the opposite reaction.  Between the US Constitution
>> and various "Vietnam" movies it seems the military is in deep trouble
>> if it goes up against an armed populace, and I felt this is the
>> proper group to address the idea.
>
>My guess is that most well-trained, well-equipped, and well-supplied
>military units of sufficient size do not have much to fear from 
>a citizen militia.  The firepower of a modern infantry company, with a
>heavy weapons platoon, even when not supported by artillery, or
>armor, or air (and it usually is), is enough to scare the sh*t out
>of most citizens armed with deer rifles and shotguns (or even AK47's).

But of course guerrilla forces never fight stand up battles and
infantry companies can't govern. The guerrilla can maintain a constant
state of warfare until the occupying forces give up and go home, or
have their strength so sapped that they can finally be fought and
defeated in the conventional way. Guerrillas don't win battles, they
win wars of attrition.

Gary
-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu


Newsgroups: sci.military