Guerilla Army Counter

[haroldham]

I am trying to come up with a set of tactics that will enable an attacking force to defeat a home guerilla force. I welcome any new ideas and criticisms.

I have several theories ...
1) Small units (10-20 people) operate mostly indepently from high command
2) These units should be spaced very far apart so they can cover more ground but not so far that assisstence is more than a day away
3) Units must be mostly self contained, eliminating the supply chain allowing for further mobility.

I ask you all to rip my ideas to shreds as much as possible. I want all the new ideas and feedback I can get.

 

[Ender]

So far your pretty much right, but only at the tip of the iceberg.

What you truly need to do to win a guerrilla war is to win the general populous. How would you do this? First you need to make the quality of life for the general population decent. Supplying utilities, and making food and water more readily available will help.

You should also try to no alienate yourself. The U.S. did this in the beginning of the Iraq war, and it took a while to dig themselves out of this hole. If you are spending a lot of time in fortress-like bases and armored Humvees, it gives the message that you are separating yourself from everyone else. Like you said, go in smaller units in more of a neighborhood to neighborhood sort of surrounding. Interact with the inhabitants, play with the kids. Have those soldiers work neighborhood improvement projects. This should help improve public relations from the bottom up.

Another goal should be to alienate the insurgents. If, as you said, the enemy is at home with this, it will take more work to do this. You must slowly push public opinion of the insurgency down. Try to convince the public that the insurgents are just thugs. If it is an active insurgency, and they are shooting at you, then you have evidence to support this. However you would have to make sure that civilian deaths keep low. This is VERY IS IMPORTANT!! Airstrikes shouldn't be your weapon of choice. History has shown us that airstrikes will result in causalities (ex- Current Gaza Conflict). How would it look if you're telling people that the enemy is causing all the problems, if you are willing to take high civilian casualties? I'm not saying if a civilian dies you should make a huge public apology and then throw a parade. Yet I am saying being mindful of the people who live in the country is a smart thing to do.

My final point has to do with religion. Most insurgent groups today usually have some sort of religious base. To this, I would say work with religious leaders (or any sort of community leader). DO NOT INTERFERE WITH THE MOSQUE/CHURCH. Its their religion, their ceremonies, if you screw with them, you're kind of being a dick. Idk, it wouldn't probably be the worst idea on Earth to have soldiers of that particular faith to worship at that mosque. It would probably just improve public opinion, plus it would make it harder for someone to spread mass messages through that establishment.

At the end of the day, insurgencies never are fast. You have to be willing to grind it out. You know your enemy will be: THEY LIVE THERE. But if all goes well, maybe it will turn out nicely.

 

[haroldham]

All those points are really good and are necessary to taking down a guerrilla force. Do you, or anybody else, have any ideas for facing them in combat?

 

[Kosovo=Serbia]

All those points are really good and are necessary to taking down a guerrilla force. Do you, or anybody else, have any ideas for facing them in combat?

Mobilize 90 % of army, 90% of police, maximum possible mobilization of civilian to fight for you, pay for mercenaries, search for volunteers, mobilize everything of war machinery you have, new, old, withdrawn, broken, functional. . . Use propaganda, media, radio, tv, internet, leaflets, spread
word among people, use terror on the potential guerilla family members,
destroy their houses, villages and camps...
Search, seek and destroy their formations, with densely fighting teams, (for ex. made of 1 tank, 1 apc, 1 ifv, 3-5 armored cars, 3-5 police cars, 3-5 volunteers\mercenaries trucks, 2-4 mob. artillery systems, 1-2 attack helicopters, and maybe few engineers veh. )
Strike hard and fast, then move to another potential target zone and
leave behind for volunteers, mercenaries and militia to clean it up completely

 

[Kosovo=Serbia]

Mobilize 90 % of army, 90% of police, maximum possible mobilization of civilian to fight for you, pay for mercenaries, search for volunteers, mobilize everything of war machinery you have, new, old, withdrawn, broken, functional. . . Use propaganda, media, radio, tv, internet, leaflets, spread
word among people, use terror on the potential guerilla family members,
destroy their houses, villages and camps...
Search, seek and destroy their formations, with densely fighting teams, (for ex. made of 1 tank, 1 apc, 1 ifv, 3-5 armored cars, 3-5 police cars, 3-5 volunteersmercenaries trucks, 2-4 mob. artillery systems, 1-2 attack helicopters, and maybe few engineers veh. )
Strike hard and fast, then move to another potential target zone and
leave behind for volunteers, mercenaries and militia to clean it up completely

With this kind a tactic we manage to completely destroy KLA guerilla for 65 days (from 25 july to 29 sept.) 1998 !
there were 5 stages :
1.12-15 days : equipment, bringing new forces and regrouping police and army forces, liberating and unblockade village of Kijevo and liberating propulsion of Belacevac of thermal plant Obilic .
2. 5-7 days: unblockade of communication and cutting of KLA forces in
Jablanica-Drenica space.
3. 9-10 days: fighting and destroying KLA forces in direction Junik-Jablanica-Ovcarevo village .
4. 7-8 days: destroying KLA foces in the central part of Metohija
5. 12-15 days: destroying KLA forces in the central part of Kosovo , on the mountain of Cicavica, Crnoljeva, Nerodimka and on lake mountain (Jezerska planina )
After action KLA forces were reduced from more than 20000 people to 7190!
There were around 39 action (together army and police) which involved
forces with strength from 12 armed mans up to 4000-5000 for an action !
Average time of action were 29h, but there were few which lasts 3 days !
In all of this were involved around 20000 members of army and police, (13.1500 army and 6500 police)
There were action in 306 populated places :
Pristina-36
Kosovska Mitrovica-50
Pec-63
Djakovica-80
Prizren-47
Urosevac-30
or on 45% of Kosovo territory !
During these action the roads were unblocked in total length of 166 km !
In actions on state border toward Albania, were 666 killed, 856 wounded,
822 captured KLA rebels !
There were condemned over 150 tons of weapons and ammunitions ! :
8156 rifles, 1148 machine guns, 425 mortars and RPGs, 46 cannons, 2784 mines and rockets, 13178 hand grenades, 126 AT mines, 1878883 all caliber bullets, disarmed 93 albanian villages (in municipality of Djakovica 32, Prizren 38, Pec 20, Pristina 2 and Urosevac 1 )
There were killed 79 mans ( 22 army and 57 police )
heavily wounded 119, easily 87 and kidnapped 2.
Total loses in percents were 22% in army and 70% in police, and around 8 %
volunteers, mercenaries and militia -number unknown
Source: classified

 

[haroldham]

That sounds like it would work, but the plan will only work if you have the local population on your side. How would you suggest fighting Hamas in Gaza or Al Queda in Iraq. The local populations will not help in those places and furthermore they are willing to aid the guerrillas.

 

[Kosovo=Serbia]

That sounds like it would work, but the plan will only work if you have the local population on your side. How would you suggest fighting Hamas in Gaza or Al Queda in Iraq. The local populations will not help in those places and furthermore they are willing to aid the guerrillas.

Personally instead draging around Iraq with few thousand soldiers, for years, spending LOT of money, killing so many civilians and with no pure effect, I would do next :
bring in around 800000 US soldiers and around 800000 coalition soldiers, hundreds of hard equipment and plough in hole country for few months, and get back home (losses in money, people equipm. would possible be 3 or 4 time lower and effects 3 or 4 time better )
But, right now it is too late for that.
Now I dont know what US should do

 

[Ender]

Personally instead draging around Iraq with few thousand soldiers, for years, spending LOT of money, killing so many civilians and with no pure effect, I would do next :
bring in around 800000 US soldiers and around 800000 coalition soldiers, hundreds of hard equipment and plough in hole country for few months, and get back home (losses in money, people equipm. would possible be 3 or 4 time lower and effects 3 or 4 time better )
But, right now it is too late for that.
Now I dont know what US should do

I can't disagree more. Your saying get a huge force, with huge international support, then steamroll the country for a few months. Then pull out...

Ok, so using your plan for Iraq, you want us to wipe out Saddam's army, then stay there for a bit so we can put down any supporters that might rise up just by sheer numbers. Then we can leave.... You do realize we go to war with an intent. You don't smash through a country, destroy its government, then leave so the country can instantly fall to civil war.

That sounds like it would work, but the plan will only work if you have the local population on your side. How would you suggest fighting Hamas in Gaza or Al Queda in Iraq. The local populations will not help in those places and furthermore they are willing to aid the guerrillas.

Al Queda in Iraq is being defeated, and thats because Sunni groups finally got fed up with them and started to push them out.

Hamas is much more of a government figure in Gaza, and Israel isn't very well liked there. This means they can't really enter as a "hero-like" figure themselves. Israel is trying to take them out. Tried starving them out not that long ago, now doing want looks like an all out attack....

 

[Kosovo=Serbia]

I can't disagree more. Your saying get a huge force, with huge international support, then steamroll the country for a few months. Then pull out...

Ok, so using your plan for Iraq, you want us to wipe out Saddam's army, then stay there for a bit so we can put down any supporters that might rise up just by sheer numbers. Then we can leave.... You do realize we go to war with an intent. You don't smash through a country, destroy its government, then leave so the country can instantly fall to civil war.

exactly !
Then if you want you can return and help finishing that war, but that isnt really matter, because you destroyed what you want to destroy -Al Queda!

 

[haroldham]

Al Queda being gone from Iraq is not good enough. Al Queda and Hamas, and all terrorist organizations for that matter, should be reduced to the point where they can no longer commit any more acts of terror. I am starting to think that the only way to do this is to kill off whatever hard core support they have. Not civilians, but investors and suppliers.
As for Israel, they are playing into Hamas' hand. Hamas is storing their missles in residential areas and Israel is destroying them any way. Hamas rules through popular support in Gaza. Every civilian kiled aids their cause more than 10 fighters or 100 missles. Every civilian killed set Hamas' support base more firmly against Israel.

 

[Kosovo=Serbia]

Al Queda and Hamas, and all terrorist organizations for that matter, should be reduced to the point where they can no longer commit any more acts of terror

That point is when 1. short term - they are all dead
2. long term - IDEA is dead
For first you use fire, for second another IDEA

 

[willur]

interesting thought

using a force of that size is tactically unapproachable because it leaves no reserves for an extented fight. also the UN would call such use of force (90%) an invasion, I understand the use of it in your example but there were no solid borders or oceans to cross(an ocean is a solid border or obstacle).
although all these ideas have merit, I believe in planning an operation or skirmish you must remember some golden rules.
1/remain fluid
2/hearts and minds
3/catch or kill
4/do not over commit
5/take and hold


ps removing an idealogy is almost impossible and is considered to tryanny

 

[haroldham]

using a force of that size is tactically unapproachable because it leaves no reserves for an extented fight. also the UN would call such use of force (90%) an invasion, I understand the use of it in your example but there were no solid borders or oceans to cross(an ocean is a solid border or obstacle).
although all these ideas have merit, I believe in planning an operation or skirmish you must remember some golden rules.
1/remain fluid
2/hearts and minds
3/catch or kill
4/do not over commit
5/take and hold


ps removing an idealogy is almost impossible and is considered to tryanny

That will not work because the 'golden rules' you have provided are flawed for most situations. It may be difficult to win over the home population upon invasion. If you fail to win over the home population, the rest falls apart. You will not be able to catch or kill many guerrilla fighters if they are being sheltered by civilians. You will not be able to get a good hold on what you have gained because you will experience surprise attacks that can not be prevented because the fighters ca be anywhere.

 

[willur]

was always told/advised that you can make the best battle plan that can win the war.....and when war starts you throw in the back of the landrover and fight the war.
at the moment you can't see the forest for the trees or you read and live by the bible(not a go at religon merely a metaphore or a go at you)rules yes, unbroken rules no. this is merely a guide not hard fast rules which can not be broken you are looking the at your question as a soldier on the ground or like some current generals target fixated not as a commander.
(this is not to say anything horrible about soldiers and the rules can be applied to a soldier)
your question is dependant on variables outside your or my control so you would first develop a battle plan with all the good stuff generals like (cordon/control, CQB,MOUT,S&D) then once that goes to FUBAR enact the five golden rules because these rules can be applied to the soldiers on the ground also.
the golden rules are flawed but so is war just because you planned this to happen does not mean it will work. from a commanders position (remember) if you do not allow soldiers to think, then they will be stupid and act that way.
and you could take these as titles....
basically what I believe the answer you want is there is no perfect way, every way could work or fail.
i will try to expand my thoughts and experiences with these five rules and they are mine and similar to the ones i was instructed on from some great combatants.
war is kinda like chess but chess is friendly.

take and hold-surprise attacks/counter attacks - remain fluid, attacks are expected and if you expect a counter attack you are prepared for it.
insurgents hiding with local populace- hearts and minds, remember you can not remove an idealogy completly because you would be a tyrant. and catching a guerilla is difficult killing means wounding they do have to get medical attention somewhere. holding forever is a occupying or invading force so you would have to only take the points of interest and secure random supply routes to insure consisent supply.
and fighters are not everywhere thats water cooler heresay and the first step to loosing hearts and minds.

 

[riksavage]

History has shown us time and time again that unless you can convince the local population to cease their support for a guerilla campaign then you are doomed to spend years entrenched in a bloody unrelenting struggle. Just look at what Israel's doing in Gaza today, they are basically beating an ant hill with a baseball bat - killing thousands of ants in the process, but unless they can kill the queen (guerilla / terrorist's ideological reason to exist) then 2-5 years down the line you will end up with yet another angry ant hill!

As Field Marshal Sir Gerald Walter Robert Templer said "The answer [to the guerilla uprising] lies not in pouring more troops into the jungle, but in the hearts and minds of the people.

This is why the Afghanistan campaign is still winnable against the insurgents, the population does not support the ideology of the Taliban, currently they live in fear and provide resources / protection to stop themselves being shot, beheaded or severely beaten.

 

[willur]

Good point but this is the 21st cebtury with ipods and computers under what i see you saying is kill the internet, people's freedom remove democratic right and free speech, torture those who are dis-believers in the the good ole boy belief...ok a bit far although it mat be freudian to compare terrorism with an ant hill and one queen, the current sitituation is not so quaint.
Israel's effort is not what I call ideal and won't discuss their pro-con as this is not the place or the need
yes thoughts on the current afghan operation is correct but have they removed completely world-wide the idealogy or will they without infringing freedoms hard fought for in preivous wars and did templar remove his idealogy completely.....I beg to differ. what the answer is i don't know maybe we all breed our own enemy within ourselves and foster others. Quote "one man's freedom fighter is another's man's terrorist."

 

[Kosovo=Serbia]

Best way to deal with guerilla is nuke!
I am serious, and it is really best way!
Because guerilla is pussy movement, theh play like hookers, from behind, behind their families, wifes, kids, behind nights and lies. . .
They will never fight open, on field, never ...
I hate all guerilla movements, all all, they and their idea is pure evil.
Nothing more or less

 

[haroldham]

Best way to deal with guerilla is nuke!
I am serious, and it is really best way!
Because guerilla is pussy movement, theh play like hookers, from behind, behind their families, wifes, kids, behind nights and lies. . .
They will never fight open, on field, never ...
I hate all guerilla movements, all all, they and their idea is pure evil.
Nothing more or less

No, nuke is the worst way. Then you kill more civilians than guerrialls. WAY more civilians.

 

[willur]

guerilla war...there is no best way and most of the training to counter this type of warfare has a time limit on it because they adapt to your tactics. It all depends on the war you are fighting in real time, thinking outside the square and at times bending the rules to get a job done.

 

[British Post]

I am trying to come up with a set of tactics that will enable an attacking force to defeat a home guerilla force. I welcome any new ideas and criticisms.

I have several theories ...
1) Small units (10-20 people) operate mostly indepently from high command
2) These units should be spaced very far apart so they can cover more ground but not so far that assisstence is more than a day away
3) Units must be mostly self contained, eliminating the supply chain allowing for further mobility.

I ask you all to rip my ideas to shreds as much as possible. I want all the new ideas and feedback I can get.

Well, this is an interesting scenario...
First of all; NEVER use nuclear weaponry, warheads, or long-range balistics in guerilla warfare. I'm sure the rebels in Africa learn this lesson each day they fight. Just stick to your basic 'shadow-force' black list mercenary styles and with patience you'll come out on top. The imperative thing in guerilla warfare is to wait, and don't rush into things...

-*clicks glass* Cheers