The 1870 Franco-Prussian War, or a textbook example of how random civilians with....

[Deleted]

Ask people who have invaded Afghanistan how big of a pain in the *** random rebels are.

Oh my, they managed to *annoy* the US soldiers. Much win, great succeeding, wow wow.

[Oktoberfest]

Do you have an example of random rebels fighting sucessfully invaders ?

Afghanistan against the Soviet Union

[Kellhound]

Oh my, they managed to *annoy* the US soldiers. Much win, great succeeding, wow wow.

2000 US KIA, 20,000 WIA. Thats with a great deal of the fighting being inter-tribal. The Soviets fared far worse.

[Deleted]

2000 US KIA, 20,000 WIA. Thats with a great deal of the fighting being inter-tribal. The Soviets fared far worse.

Yeah, and how many dead hadjis for each dead US grunt? 20? 50? 100?

[apples]

hi, im the tyrannical US government and i want to remove peoples guns

step 1: make it a crime punishable by death to be someone i dont like
step 2: remove access to cell phones and internet
step 3: do watever the fk i want

[Aphrel]

Also lets take in the fact that 10-20 years from now we will most likely have "self-flying" drones shooting ppl not with expensive missiles but with cheap rifle bullets. We already have ai capabale of driving cars (ai can already recognize pedestrians and other vehicles decently), warfare is going to keep evolving and an army of spreadout civilians with guns are going to be less and less a threat to any invading army or goverment army.

[Akka]

It seems that most people arguing have missed the main point (or that it's a continuation of a discussion with a different point, but whatever).
The main point was that TRAINING and DISCIPLINE made the regular army able to crush UNTRAINED and UNDISCIPLINED levies. And, well, this one is pretty true. Most gung-ho "2nd amendment" braindead zombies tend to make man-to-man childish comparison (like "I know this tough guy who can open can with his teeth, lol he would beat that other skinny guy working in some military office so hard, it totally prove that irregular rebels can kick the army ass !"), completely ignoring that a war is not a serie of duels.

[le fu]

It seems that most people arguing have missed the main point (or that it's a continuation of a discussion with a different point, but whatever).
The main point was that TRAINING and DISCIPLINE made the regular army able to crush UNTRAINED and UNDISCIPLINED levies. And, well, this one is pretty true. Most gung-ho "2nd amendment" braindead zombies tend to make man-to-man childish comparison (like "I know this tough guy who can open can with his teeth, lol he would beat that other skinny guy working in some military office so hard, it totally prove that irregular rebels can kick the army ass !"), completely ignoring that a war is not a serie of duels.

The insurgents from Yemen are potheads eating Khat all day long and they were destroying the saudi military on the borders not a year ago. You're gonna tell us the saudis are bad at warfare cause corruption and nepotism and what not and you're right.

However the houthi yemeni rebels aren't better trained nor better equipped.

Fighting is a mindset, if you're a born soldier, who gives a damn you got your training from "the military". You can learn LOTS of things as a civillian. Including from instructors that may have been policemen and soldiers themselves.

Sure an organised armed force with its communication and observation means is an impossible ennemy to fight if you're a mob of people. But this formidable power relies on a very fragile thing : LOGISTICS.

How are your super soldiers gonna do when they can't have fuel for their vehicles, power for their electrical devices, or even ammo for their guns ?

How many of the military know how to properly reload ammunition to not have their gun blow up ? Not a lot.

During ww2, if the SS were able to slaughter so many civillians, it was not only because they were a superior military force with equipment and training, it was because theses civillians were unarmed. Whenever they were, it was'nt the same anymore. See Yugoslavia where partizans fought against the german army with military equipment lend by the soviets, or the french resistance with english supplies.



You're just trying to tell us terrorists in uniforms and organised are better at killing people than untrained unarmed civillians. That's right, ISIS did that very well against yazidis, christians, shias, and other sunnis in Iraq and Syria.

[Puupi]

Both were supplied by foreign powers, plenty of pics out there of Finns wearing using German kit.

In Winter War, Finland wasn't supplied by Germany. In Continuation War, yes, Germany provided some supplies. Considering the context of this thread, we would be talking about Winter War.

Also, just having equipment built somewhere else doesn't mean it's supplied by foreign powers. You probably have a chinese/korean/whatever cellphone, is it supplied to you by some foreign nation? No, you just have bought a foreign product.

I maybe be wrong here, but even though Finland inflicted heavy casualties, they were still fought into submission were they not? I'd imagine that in this context a country demanding that you cede parts of your territory as a part of an end of hostilities is somewhat of an indication of your inability to continue to fight.

Stalin's plan was to hold a victory parade in Helsinki after two weeks (on his birthday) of starting the invasion. Didn't go as planned.

[Azadina]

Both were supplied by foreign powers, plenty of pics out there of Finns wearing using German kit.

Yes, they were, but both were the underdog by very large margin. I think that's the essence of the thread.

I maybe be wrong here, but even though Finland inflicted heavy casualties, they were still fought into submission were they not? I'd imagine that in this context a country demanding that you cede parts of your territory as a part of an end of hostilities is somewhat of an indication of your inability to continue to fight.

They didn't get whole Finland, so I'd call it a successful defense really

If Finland was "unable to fight", then Stalin would've done what he actually wanted, which is take over the entire country. Of course the defender, being attacked by a much more powerful force, does everything to try and stop the assault, which in this case meant having to come to some kind of a peace agreement.

Or is there some proof somewhere that Stalin only wanted the parts of Finland that he eventually ended up with, and nothing more?

Yeah, some parts of other European countries sure weren't enough for him. He invaded them in full. There's no reason to believe he didn't want entire Finland aswell, but it proved more trouble than worth.

[Akka]

Yes, they were, but both were the underdog by very large margin. I think that's the essence of the thread.

Hu, no, from what I read, the essence of the thread is to say that untrained and unruly mob don't fare well against professionnal armies, even with equal-quality weapons. Being "underdogs" has nothing to do with that.

In fact, Finalnd defense was a trained militia + army vs a completely disrupted army (decapitated by Stalin's purge of its competent officers and having a lot of discipline and organizational problems), which could in fact be argued to be a good example of what the OP describe (though not as clear-cut, obviously).

[Kellhound]

Yeah, and how many dead hadjis for each dead US grunt? 20? 50? 100?

Body counts dont win wars, if they did the US would have won Vietnam and the USSR would have won Afghanistan.

[lokinrond713]

Fuck you for using this tragedy as your god dam platform and fuck the mods for encouraging this

[Kellhound]

I'm pretty sure the results would be the same if the US citizens tried to organize into a rebellion. They'd be canon fodder, nothing else. 0 training will make it a joke to deal with them for professional armies whether those would be west-european, asian or russian forces.

I bet even a small african military force of 60 could wipe the floor with a thousand armed US citizens.

Most of the worlds armies are not made up of professional soldiers, and the US military is dependent on secure logistics from soft US bases.

- - - Updated - - -

Hu, no, from what I read, the essence of the thread is to say that untrained and unruly mob don't fare well against professionnal armies, even with equal-quality weapons. Being "underdogs" has nothing to do with that.

In fact, Finalnd defense was a trained militia + army vs a completely disrupted army (decapitated by Stalin's purge of its competent officers and having a lot of discipline and organizational problems), which could in fact be argued to be a good example of what the OP describe (though not as clear-cut, obviously).

You are making an assumption that the "rebels" would have no training and no discipline.

[Independent voter]

This is what I was thinking of, the Germans had developed these cannon that could fire very fast in comparison to anything the French had.

But the Germans/Prussians also relied on telegraph lines and the Belgians and French citizens would cut the lines.

[Akka]

You are making an assumption that the "rebels" would have no training and no discipline.

From what I've understood, it's not an assumption, it's the premisse. The entire point seems to be about how discipline and training are what allows an army to fight off a disorganized mob. So obviously, if the rebels have training and discipline, it's not about the same argument anymore.

Though I'd say, if they have training and discipline, then usually it's because they are retired soldiers, so it kinda confirm the OP argument.

[Kellhound]

From what I've understood, it's not an assumption, it's the premisse. The entire point seems to be about how discipline and training are what allows an army to fight off a disorganized mob. So obviously, if the rebels have training and discipline, it's not about the same argument anymore.

Though I'd say, if they have training and discipline, then usually it's because they are retired soldiers, so it kinda confirm the OP argument.

Or former scouts, or former cadets, or part of a militia, or led by the same, or....

[May90]

One thing to mention is that in many countries there is still active conscription, that is all able males and sometimes females (with some exceptions usually) have to go through military training. It doesn't mean that they will be able to fight well against a heavy trained professional army, but it doesn't mean that they can be much more than just "disorganized mob". Imagine, for example, an attempt to invade North Korea, in which everyone serves in the army for a few years upon achieving a certain age, no exception (well, Kim Jong-un is one ). Almost everybody there past the age of 18 will be able to fight with relative effectiveness. Even despite their severely outdated tech, devastated economy and lack of real allies to defend them - fighting over a dozen million armed fanatics would be nasty, and the body counts from both sides would be staggering. Same with Hitler invading Soviet Union: even though the active army wasn't large enough to beat him, dozens millions civilians with military training took arms and eventually drove the invaders away: Soviets lost way more than Germans did in the infighting, but they ultimately won due to superior manpower in the area.

Civilians with military training are not all that defenseless. And it so happens that countries in which typically wars happen tend to offer mandatory military training to, at least, their male population. So, "random civilians" need to be clarified. Random civilians with no training whatsoever - yeah, that would be a steamroll, no matter how eager they are to fight.

[Akka]

I don't think North Korea is a good example actually. From the little we know about it, it's an oppressive regime fully bent on keeping itself in power.
I wouldn't be surprised that the whole army service were about indoctrination first, second and third, and actual military training a very distant fourth. I'd be very doubtful of the actual real combat effectiveness of the NK army, not so much because of material but more because of the extreme politization of the armed body instead of raw professionalism.

[sarahtasher]

Isn't this the war where the Germans had developed a rapid fire cannon? Well more rapid fire than the French cannon? One of those paradigm shifts.

I forgot about this thread (I could not participate due to an ''heated exchange of arguments leading to a cooling off period, so small necro.

The Krupp field gun was better than the French guns, but the French rifle was better than the Prussian ones.