Okay. Let’s assume that you and your buddies are a trained militia. Not “I play paintball once or twice a year” or “I spend every weekend at the range shooting”. I mean you actually have a command structure, know how to move as a unit, and are dedicated enough that you will lay down your life for the person next to you.
What are you going to do against an armored vehicle? Or a drone? Or even just indirect fire.
Because… any “reasonably” equipped military can kill millions of people with minimal effort. Just look at what is happening to Palestine.
Just because this topic interests me due to being the intersection of history, military history, “guns are cool even if I don’t think civilians should have them”, and “the thing that comes after social activism”:
Even in the 1700s, a farmer with a gun in the shed was pretty much useless. Battles were won by large groups of people and the only reasons the US managed to beat the Brits were a combination of more or less “stealing” the British military structure that had been set up to defend ourselves coupled with most combat boiling down to sheer number of people who could sort of hold up a gun and maybe fire it. A couple angry farmers might be able to kill even twice their number of soldiers. But they would be up against ten or twenty times that number and one person going down doesn’t stop the volley. And if you were actually an amazing shot with dozens of muskets and Heath Ledger to reload them for you so that you could constantly unload on anyone who approached your house on the hill? That is when they get the cannon or mortar.
It was largely the late 1800s to mid 1900s where the idea of a militia could actually fight against an army. Particularly the time around World War 2 when we saw a fundamental shift on the battlefield to where even an individual soldier, let alone a squad or company, had enough firepower to make a significant difference. Line of sight was still essential, even for indirect fire, and armored vehicles could still be consistently negated by bottles of gasoline. This is why we even famously saw things like the Wilmington insurrection of 1898 where a relatively limited number of people could cause widespread damage and be “not worth” the army intervening (racism helps a lot too)
But the tail end of the 20th century has largely negated that. Because yes, the individual soldier has more firepower than ever. But satelites and drones mean that you don’t even need line of sight to devastate with indirect fire. And those individual soldiers likely have MUCH better gear than civilians (by design and law). For example, there is a lot of talk about whether the US “still owns the night” now that consumer grade night vision is “good enough”. And that does make a significant difference in terms of raids. We likely will never be able to walk around double tapping helpless brown people (without prep work involving tying them up, cop style…) ever again. But it still means we can maneuver at night when most countries would need to take a break because their eyes hurt or they are nauseous from the FOV. Same with body armor and, probably, optics if the new rifle is any indication.
Which, funny enough, puts us back to the 1700s. A bunch of farmers/klansmen/activists/whatever can equip themselves and even train into a cohesive unit. Sure. And they’ll kill maybe even ten to one in terms of infantry. And then an artillery strike or a missile or even just someone with a joystick inside of an APC will slaughter them and there will be nothing they can do.
Which is why the successful insurgencies are more about unrest and trying to outlast an occupation than anything else. And… that doesn’t work when the country occupying your country is… your country.
Your entire post ignores the reality of what urban small arms warfare looks like. Look at the hellish time militaries have in urban settings: Fallujah, Kabul, Aleppo, Gaza City. Yes, militaries are way better than regular civilians, but there’s something like 400 million guns in the US. This isn’t just a few people we’re talking about here. If 1% of the population puts up a half decent resistance there’s going to be a hell of a fight.
Oh I was hoping somebody would play the “the brave men and women of the mujahideen” card!
Yes. Let’s look at them
If an army does not want to destroy a population center or be seen as oppressors, they can put up a significant fight. That… mostly accomplishes nothing aside from slowly bleeding an army and leading to a withdrawal. Which, as I said, above, only works if there is somewhere to withdraw to. If that is the army’s “land” then they won’t pull out
So… let’s now look at Gaza. Hamas engaged in a horrifically evil terrorist attack. The IDF instantly used that as an excuse to level Gaza to the ground and ethnically cleanse anyone who opposed them. It doesn’t matter how great your small arms tactics are or how many ambushes you have set up if the army is willing to level a few city blocks… or a small city.
And just look at how much the Black Lives Matter movement was vilified by right wing chuds for the recipe for that.
Which gets back to: What are you and your, I am sure incredibly well trained, buddies going to do with all them guns when a tank or even just an APC rolls up? And this ain’t like the movies (… or Russia in Ukraine) where it is a lone tank only defended by Brad Pitt’s winning smile. There will be infantry as well to prevent you from running up and throwing molotovs at it (which wouldn’t even impact an Abrams since that runs so freaking hot?). What will you and your buddies do against drones that are either dropping bombs, launching missiles, or spotting for artillery?
I’m not sure where you think I argued that the civilians would win. My argument is that there would be a civil war because there would be a ton of armed people on both sides of the conflict. You bring up Gaza City like they’re all finished clearing it out. It doesn’t matter how well an army is trained or equipped, urban warfare is absolutely brutal and it would be in America too. You think that the US military could take a city like New York without heavy civilian resistance? Don’t make me laugh.
To answer your question: Me and my buddies would likely be the first to die.
Okay. Let’s assume that you and your buddies are a trained militia. Not “I play paintball once or twice a year” or “I spend every weekend at the range shooting”. I mean you actually have a command structure, know how to move as a unit, and are dedicated enough that you will lay down your life for the person next to you.
What are you going to do against an armored vehicle? Or a drone? Or even just indirect fire.
Because… any “reasonably” equipped military can kill millions of people with minimal effort. Just look at what is happening to Palestine.
Just because this topic interests me due to being the intersection of history, military history, “guns are cool even if I don’t think civilians should have them”, and “the thing that comes after social activism”:
Even in the 1700s, a farmer with a gun in the shed was pretty much useless. Battles were won by large groups of people and the only reasons the US managed to beat the Brits were a combination of more or less “stealing” the British military structure that had been set up to defend ourselves coupled with most combat boiling down to sheer number of people who could sort of hold up a gun and maybe fire it. A couple angry farmers might be able to kill even twice their number of soldiers. But they would be up against ten or twenty times that number and one person going down doesn’t stop the volley. And if you were actually an amazing shot with dozens of muskets and Heath Ledger to reload them for you so that you could constantly unload on anyone who approached your house on the hill? That is when they get the cannon or mortar.
It was largely the late 1800s to mid 1900s where the idea of a militia could actually fight against an army. Particularly the time around World War 2 when we saw a fundamental shift on the battlefield to where even an individual soldier, let alone a squad or company, had enough firepower to make a significant difference. Line of sight was still essential, even for indirect fire, and armored vehicles could still be consistently negated by bottles of gasoline. This is why we even famously saw things like the Wilmington insurrection of 1898 where a relatively limited number of people could cause widespread damage and be “not worth” the army intervening (racism helps a lot too)
But the tail end of the 20th century has largely negated that. Because yes, the individual soldier has more firepower than ever. But satelites and drones mean that you don’t even need line of sight to devastate with indirect fire. And those individual soldiers likely have MUCH better gear than civilians (by design and law). For example, there is a lot of talk about whether the US “still owns the night” now that consumer grade night vision is “good enough”. And that does make a significant difference in terms of raids. We likely will never be able to walk around double tapping helpless brown people (without prep work involving tying them up, cop style…) ever again. But it still means we can maneuver at night when most countries would need to take a break because their eyes hurt or they are nauseous from the FOV. Same with body armor and, probably, optics if the new rifle is any indication.
Which, funny enough, puts us back to the 1700s. A bunch of farmers/klansmen/activists/whatever can equip themselves and even train into a cohesive unit. Sure. And they’ll kill maybe even ten to one in terms of infantry. And then an artillery strike or a missile or even just someone with a joystick inside of an APC will slaughter them and there will be nothing they can do.
Which is why the successful insurgencies are more about unrest and trying to outlast an occupation than anything else. And… that doesn’t work when the country occupying your country is… your country.
Your entire post ignores the reality of what urban small arms warfare looks like. Look at the hellish time militaries have in urban settings: Fallujah, Kabul, Aleppo, Gaza City. Yes, militaries are way better than regular civilians, but there’s something like 400 million guns in the US. This isn’t just a few people we’re talking about here. If 1% of the population puts up a half decent resistance there’s going to be a hell of a fight.
Oh I was hoping somebody would play the “the brave men and women of the mujahideen” card!
Yes. Let’s look at them
If an army does not want to destroy a population center or be seen as oppressors, they can put up a significant fight. That… mostly accomplishes nothing aside from slowly bleeding an army and leading to a withdrawal. Which, as I said, above, only works if there is somewhere to withdraw to. If that is the army’s “land” then they won’t pull out
So… let’s now look at Gaza. Hamas engaged in a horrifically evil terrorist attack. The IDF instantly used that as an excuse to level Gaza to the ground and ethnically cleanse anyone who opposed them. It doesn’t matter how great your small arms tactics are or how many ambushes you have set up if the army is willing to level a few city blocks… or a small city.
And just look at how much the Black Lives Matter movement was vilified by right wing chuds for the recipe for that.
Which gets back to: What are you and your, I am sure incredibly well trained, buddies going to do with all them guns when a tank or even just an APC rolls up? And this ain’t like the movies (… or Russia in Ukraine) where it is a lone tank only defended by Brad Pitt’s winning smile. There will be infantry as well to prevent you from running up and throwing molotovs at it (which wouldn’t even impact an Abrams since that runs so freaking hot?). What will you and your buddies do against drones that are either dropping bombs, launching missiles, or spotting for artillery?
I’m not sure where you think I argued that the civilians would win. My argument is that there would be a civil war because there would be a ton of armed people on both sides of the conflict. You bring up Gaza City like they’re all finished clearing it out. It doesn’t matter how well an army is trained or equipped, urban warfare is absolutely brutal and it would be in America too. You think that the US military could take a city like New York without heavy civilian resistance? Don’t make me laugh.
To answer your question: Me and my buddies would likely be the first to die.
Ah, so death cult with no actual interest in accomplishing anything.
Well, thanks for admitting it
An armchair war commentaror? ON THE INTERNET?!?!?!?!?1one