The science of military strategy?

[anotherlife]

For most of history, revolutionary wars were fought as a populous offense against a much smaller defendant.

But what if now you need to fight it the other way around?

Imagine that you are a small revolutionary group, and you are in a war against an invading and entrenched enemy, that has swarmed you up and has crowded you out.

Imagine that this highly numerous enemy has also the latest military technology and a lot of money. Further complication shall be that this enemy is radicalized, and there is no difference between its combatant forces and civilian population.

How do you work out a military strategy to uproot such an enemy and push it back to its own turf? Or neutralize it by kill rate? Or in any other means?

 

[ABikerSailor]

For most of history, revolutionary wars were fought as a populous offense against a much smaller defendant.

But what if now you need to fight it the other way around?

Imagine that you are a small revolutionary group, and you are in a war against an invading and entrenched enemy, that has swarmed you up and has crowded you out.

Imagine that this highly numerous enemy has also the latest military technology and a lot of money. Further complication shall be that this enemy is radicalized, and there is no difference between its combatant forces and civilian population.

How do you work out a military strategy to uproot such an enemy and push it back to its own turf? Or neutralize it by kill rate? Or in any other means?

Are you one of those people who believe there are secret places under Wal Mart where all the political dissidents are going to be locked up?

Are you looking for ideas of how to fight off the big bad government when they decide to abolish the Constitution and turn America into a police state?

Sounds like a bunch of paranoid b.s. to me.

 

[anotherlife]

For most of history, revolutionary wars were fought as a populous offense against a much smaller defendant.

But what if now you need to fight it the other way around?

Imagine that you are a small revolutionary group, and you are in a war against an invading and entrenched enemy, that has swarmed you up and has crowded you out.

Imagine that this highly numerous enemy has also the latest military technology and a lot of money. Further complication shall be that this enemy is radicalized, and there is no difference between its combatant forces and civilian population.

How do you work out a military strategy to uproot such an enemy and push it back to its own turf? Or neutralize it by kill rate? Or in any other means?

Are you one of those people who believe there are secret places under Wal Mart where all the political dissidents are going to be locked up?

Are you looking for ideas of how to fight off the big bad government when they decide to abolish the Constitution and turn America into a police state?

Sounds like a bunch of paranoid b.s. to me.

No, it is a military question. Forget the political environment if any. Let's look at it from purely the military science point of view, and maybe derive other non military aspects from that if necessary.

 

[irosie91]

For most of history, revolutionary wars were fought as a populous offense against a much smaller defendant.

But what if now you need to fight it the other way around?

Imagine that you are a small revolutionary group, and you are in a war against an invading and entrenched enemy, that has swarmed you up and has crowded you out.

Imagine that this highly numerous enemy has also the latest military technology and a lot of money. Further complication shall be that this enemy is radicalized, and there is no difference between its combatant forces and civilian population.

How do you work out a military strategy to uproot such an enemy and push it back to its own turf? Or neutralize it by kill rate? Or in any other means?

Are you one of those people who believe there are secret places under Wal Mart where all the political dissidents are going to be locked up?

Are you looking for ideas of how to fight off the big bad government when they decide to abolish the Constitution and turn America into a police state?

Sounds like a bunch of paranoid b.s. to me.

No, it is a military question. Forget the political environment if any. Let's look at it from purely the military science point of view, and maybe derive other non military aspects from that if necessary.

lets not-------your are engaging in mental masturbatory methods in order to direct
conversation to reach YOUR favored conclusion--------you should go to law school
where your sociopathy will be appreciated

 

[ABikerSailor]

For most of history, revolutionary wars were fought as a populous offense against a much smaller defendant.

But what if now you need to fight it the other way around?

Imagine that you are a small revolutionary group, and you are in a war against an invading and entrenched enemy, that has swarmed you up and has crowded you out.

Imagine that this highly numerous enemy has also the latest military technology and a lot of money. Further complication shall be that this enemy is radicalized, and there is no difference between its combatant forces and civilian population.

How do you work out a military strategy to uproot such an enemy and push it back to its own turf? Or neutralize it by kill rate? Or in any other means?

Are you one of those people who believe there are secret places under Wal Mart where all the political dissidents are going to be locked up?

Are you looking for ideas of how to fight off the big bad government when they decide to abolish the Constitution and turn America into a police state?

Sounds like a bunch of paranoid b.s. to me.

No, it is a military question. Forget the political environment if any. Let's look at it from purely the military science point of view, and maybe derive other non military aspects from that if necessary.

Well, if you're looking for examples, look no further than the French resistance that popped up when Nazi Germany invaded. They were a smaller force trying to resist a larger incoming one that had more advanced weaponry (tanks and howitzers as well as rockets).

If you're looking for tactics to explore, you can start there. Usually when fighting a larger enemy like that, guerilla tactics are involved.

Matter of fact, guerilla warfare is how we won the Revolution against the British.

 

[anotherlife]

For most of history, revolutionary wars were fought as a populous offense against a much smaller defendant.

But what if now you need to fight it the other way around?

Imagine that you are a small revolutionary group, and you are in a war against an invading and entrenched enemy, that has swarmed you up and has crowded you out.

Imagine that this highly numerous enemy has also the latest military technology and a lot of money. Further complication shall be that this enemy is radicalized, and there is no difference between its combatant forces and civilian population.

How do you work out a military strategy to uproot such an enemy and push it back to its own turf? Or neutralize it by kill rate? Or in any other means?

Are you one of those people who believe there are secret places under Wal Mart where all the political dissidents are going to be locked up?

Are you looking for ideas of how to fight off the big bad government when they decide to abolish the Constitution and turn America into a police state?

Sounds like a bunch of paranoid b.s. to me.

No, it is a military question. Forget the political environment if any. Let's look at it from purely the military science point of view, and maybe derive other non military aspects from that if necessary.

Well, if you're looking for examples, look no further than the French resistance that popped up when Nazi Germany invaded. They were a smaller force trying to resist a larger incoming one that had more advanced weaponry (tanks and howitzers as well as rockets).

If you're looking for tactics to explore, you can start there. Usually when fighting a larger enemy like that, guerilla tactics are involved.

Matter of fact, guerilla warfare is how we won the Revolution against the British.

This is very interesting. Does the guerilla warfare still work when you have not only the regular military of the enemy on your land, but also the overwhelming number of enemy civilian settlers? For example, what would have been the options of the Appalachian Cherokees, if they had started a resistance against the new USA? Or, following your example, if the French Flanders people were now starting a war of independence against France? Or even if Wales started a war of independence, considering they are an ethnic minority against the English in their own country?

 

[there4eyeM]

Unless there are highly advantageous geographical features to benefit from, a negotiated peace would be the best to hope for. Otherwise, there would seem to be little hope.

 

[irosie91]

Unless there are highly advantageous geographical features to benefit from, a negotiated peace would be the best to hope for. Otherwise, there would seem to be little hope.

no no no------you meant "unless there highly advantageous geographical features
FROM WHICH TO BENEFIT...............the best for which one could hope would be
a negotiated peace.....

 

[anotherlife]

Unless there are highly advantageous geographical features to benefit from, a negotiated peace would be the best to hope for. Otherwise, there would seem to be little hope.

Very interesting. What would be the best geographic advantage? I can imagine flooding a lowland plain with its rivers to turn it into a march land. Or mountainous peaks to use to control valley passages. Is fighting uphill still a disadvantage after current technology?

 

[ABikerSailor]

For most of history, revolutionary wars were fought as a populous offense against a much smaller defendant.

But what if now you need to fight it the other way around?

Imagine that you are a small revolutionary group, and you are in a war against an invading and entrenched enemy, that has swarmed you up and has crowded you out.

Imagine that this highly numerous enemy has also the latest military technology and a lot of money. Further complication shall be that this enemy is radicalized, and there is no difference between its combatant forces and civilian population.

How do you work out a military strategy to uproot such an enemy and push it back to its own turf? Or neutralize it by kill rate? Or in any other means?

Are you one of those people who believe there are secret places under Wal Mart where all the political dissidents are going to be locked up?

Are you looking for ideas of how to fight off the big bad government when they decide to abolish the Constitution and turn America into a police state?

Sounds like a bunch of paranoid b.s. to me.

No, it is a military question. Forget the political environment if any. Let's look at it from purely the military science point of view, and maybe derive other non military aspects from that if necessary.

Well, if you're looking for examples, look no further than the French resistance that popped up when Nazi Germany invaded. They were a smaller force trying to resist a larger incoming one that had more advanced weaponry (tanks and howitzers as well as rockets).

If you're looking for tactics to explore, you can start there. Usually when fighting a larger enemy like that, guerilla tactics are involved.

Matter of fact, guerilla warfare is how we won the Revolution against the British.

This is very interesting. Does the guerilla warfare still work when you have not only the regular military of the enemy on your land, but also the overwhelming number of enemy civilian settlers? For example, what would have been the options of the Appalachian Cherokees, if they had started a resistance against the new USA? Or, following your example, if the French Flanders people were now starting a war of independence against France? Or even if Wales started a war of independence, considering they are an ethnic minority against the English in their own country?

Ask ISIL to see if guerilla warfare works. They seem to be using it quite effectively by hiding in with the populace and making strikes against their enemy when they appear to have light defenses.

As far as the Native Americans? If they would have gotten together at the beginning (in the time of muskets and before the repeating rifle or the Colt), they would have been able to stop the Europeans from coming here, because at that time, a bow and arrow were just as deadly, and could be fired faster, than any musket the Europeans had. Trouble is, they were tribal and didn't trust other tribes to form coalitions with them.

And................if this is just about tactics that would work against an enemy in your own land with overwhelming numbers, why are you asking about revolt against the current government like you did with your French example?

Sorry, but it still sounds like you are looking for ways that a revolt against the government would succeed.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Unless there are highly advantageous geographical features to benefit from, a negotiated peace would be the best to hope for. Otherwise, there would seem to be little hope.

Very interesting. What would be the best geographic advantage? I can imagine flooding a lowland plain with its rivers to turn it into a march land. Or mountainous peaks to use to control valley passages. Is fighting uphill still a disadvantage after current technology?

Yes, fighting uphill is still a disadvantage, even in spite of current technology. Not only is gravity against you, but quite often you would be looking up into the sun to try to aim on the people at the top of the hill.

 

[there4eyeM]

Lots of rivers and lakes could help in addition to mountains. Rain forests and deserts favor dispersed forces. The trick is to remain in groups too small to hit hard that are close enough together to assemble rapidly for offensives.

 

[there4eyeM]

See General Forest Bedford for tactical use of terrain.

 

[anotherlife]

For most of history, revolutionary wars were fought as a populous offense against a much smaller defendant.

But what if now you need to fight it the other way around?

Imagine that you are a small revolutionary group, and you are in a war against an invading and entrenched enemy, that has swarmed you up and has crowded you out.

Imagine that this highly numerous enemy has also the latest military technology and a lot of money. Further complication shall be that this enemy is radicalized, and there is no difference between its combatant forces and civilian population.

How do you work out a military strategy to uproot such an enemy and push it back to its own turf? Or neutralize it by kill rate? Or in any other means?

Are you one of those people who believe there are secret places under Wal Mart where all the political dissidents are going to be locked up?

Are you looking for ideas of how to fight off the big bad government when they decide to abolish the Constitution and turn America into a police state?

Sounds like a bunch of paranoid b.s. to me.

No, it is a military question. Forget the political environment if any. Let's look at it from purely the military science point of view, and maybe derive other non military aspects from that if necessary.

Well, if you're looking for examples, look no further than the French resistance that popped up when Nazi Germany invaded. They were a smaller force trying to resist a larger incoming one that had more advanced weaponry (tanks and howitzers as well as rockets).

If you're looking for tactics to explore, you can start there. Usually when fighting a larger enemy like that, guerilla tactics are involved.

Matter of fact, guerilla warfare is how we won the Revolution against the British.

This is very interesting. Does the guerilla warfare still work when you have not only the regular military of the enemy on your land, but also the overwhelming number of enemy civilian settlers? For example, what would have been the options of the Appalachian Cherokees, if they had started a resistance against the new USA? Or, following your example, if the French Flanders people were now starting a war of independence against France? Or even if Wales started a war of independence, considering they are an ethnic minority against the English in their own country?

Ask ISIL to see if guerilla warfare works. They seem to be using it quite effectively by hiding in with the populace and making strikes against their enemy when they appear to have light defenses.

As far as the Native Americans? If they would have gotten together at the beginning (in the time of muskets and before the repeating rifle or the Colt), they would have been able to stop the Europeans from coming here, because at that time, a bow and arrow were just as deadly, and could be fired faster, than any musket the Europeans had. Trouble is, they were tribal and didn't trust other tribes to form coalitions with them.

And................if this is just about tactics that would work against an enemy in your own land with overwhelming numbers, why are you asking about revolt against the current government like you did with your French example?

Sorry, but it still sounds like you are looking for ways that a revolt against the government would succeed.

I think France is a particularly suitable example for such a question. I think this is because France was established by a revolution that had as one of its major and central goals to crowd out the homelands of all people who disagreed with it. Flanders is a good example, as well as the occitan, the Provence, and so on. Theoretically, if one of them got an assignment to get independence from Paris in military terms, then they would have the exact problem of the OP, an overwhelming number of settlers of the opponent language plus an overwhelming national army against them. A very interesting military situation.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

See General Forest Bedford for tactical use of terrain.

Who?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

See General Forest Bedford for tactical use of terrain.

Who?

Those are all of the Civil War buffs crying over that statement!

 

[there4eyeM]

France was not established by its revolution. The greatest part of the political integration of the modern nation had already been achieved before 1789.
What might be interesting to think about is the June, 1940 position of France and the arrival of the Wehrmacht. Of course, The situation should not have been as it was; France should have driven deep into Germany at the beginning of Sept., '39. But, given that they waited and Guderion came through the Ardennes, what could the French Army have done?
Well, Paris is indefensible strategically. We assume that the French had not made the mistake of betting everything on the bad British strategy and the the army itself had not been flanked. Withdrawing into the massif central and moving the fleet from the Med around to the Atlantic, they could have given the Germans hell for a long time, and maybe have better negotiated an armistice. They had good fighter planes and good tanks. These were just poorly used.

 

[there4eyeM]

Yeah, yeah, typed too fast, sue me.
Bedford Forrest.

 

[alpine]

in modern military history, Afghanistan is a good example of such a war fought by an inferior resistance force against an invading superior army.

As long as you have enough anti air capabilities(stingers did it in Afghanistan), a very costly attrition war could and would break the spirit of any such army trying to invade and control a foreign territory, unless of course, the objective of the war is not to obliterate and destroy the populace all together, which can easily be done by WMDs of a technologically advanced army...

 

[shadow355]

For most of history, revolutionary wars were fought as a populous offense against a much smaller defendant.

But what if now you need to fight it the other way around?

Imagine that you are a small revolutionary group, and you are in a war against an invading and entrenched enemy, that has swarmed you up and has crowded you out.

Imagine that this highly numerous enemy has also the latest military technology and a lot of money. Further complication shall be that this enemy is radicalized, and there is no difference between its combatant forces and civilian population.

How do you work out a military strategy to uproot such an enemy and push it back to its own turf? Or neutralize it by kill rate? Or in any other means?

The first book I wrote - I spoke of military strategy. I am prior service - Army.

History teaches lessons. By studying the tactics and strategy of past military leaders, clear back to the 17th and 18 th century , one can learn a lot.

Sometimes the simplest of tactics can't be seen.

Shadow 355