This came up in the Conspiracy Theorist thread (for discussing theorists, not for theorists. If that doesn’t sound arsey?) and it’s such an interesting topic felt the need for a new thread.
In a nutshell, I live in Kent, which during the Second World War was at high risk of German invasion. As such, it has various relics left over. Things like pillboxes along rivers (which now all smell of wee. Least, it’s a 100% hit record for those I’ve visited, and even, just up the road, a proper, proper secret bunker
And it reminded me of the other, seemingly daft steps taken to interfere with any given invasion. Things like micro bunkers.
These were well hidden in woodland, and staffed by perhaps 10 men. Not regular Soldiers as such, but local men such as Gamekeepers who really knew the local land. They’d receive training in insurgency type stuff, and tasked with wreaking havoc on supply lines and leadership should the invasion come. Idea was they could do enough damage to slow any advance, allowing more formal forces to dig in and assemble etc. These still dot the land, and rediscovered every now and again. They’re often still in reasonable condition, considering they’ve been abandoned for what, 75 years? Not sure I’d go inside one, but the option is there!
But my favourite? It’s so, so simple in approach. Remove All The Roadsigns.
See, this was of course a good while before Motorways and A Roads were a proper thing. Certainly there’d be few if any dual carriageways. Round my neck of the woods, that means tiny twisty country lanes. Some basically single file, others not so much. In the modern day they’re great fun to drive, and I love exploring them as they often provide useful shortcuts.
But, if they were all you had to move your troops and supplies through? Bit of a nightmare. Even if you know your A-B, they’re sometimes narrow enough that even a humble Van should probably take a different route.
Remove any and all signage? Go on....find your way now, especially if Counter Insurgency have taken out bridges or blocked certain ones.
And as Overread pointed out in the CT thread, they also helped identify Spies. After all, you grew up in your village, worked in your village and probably died there too. So you’d know your way around, as would those you knew. So if a stranger is wandering around asking for directions? Reason to suspect right there and then.
Well, the Netherlands is pretty small, but our defenses have always revolved around water, with the three big rivers Maas Waal and Rhine forming a natural barrier throughout basically recorded history.
The Roman Empire more or less stopped at them, the part north of the rivers being a protectorate rather than fullblown part of the empire.
During the 80-years' war against Spain again they played a crucial part in holding off the oppressor and IIRC after the war ended and the Netherlands had won its freedom those rivers again became the border, which is why to this day the North and West of the country is predominantly protestant, while the South is mostly Catholic.
Anyhoo, as recently as WW2 the rivers played an important part in the final few months of the war (Operation Market Garden).
I'm no military man, but I believe that even today our main plan of defense is blow the bridges, punch holes in the dykes and see how well enemy tanks can float (spoiler: not very well) and soldiers swim. Then defend the few inroads not flooded like absolute madmen - the Germans in the few days of fighting here at the start of WW2 didn't actually make much if any headway.
They came to call the Afsluitdijk "der Totendam" - the Dam of the Dead - because of how many casualties they suffered trying in vain to break through.
The lack of results (the Netherlands were supposed to have been conquered in a day given our tiny and underequipped military and airforce) after a week of fighting resulted in one of Hitler's infamous rages and the first purposeful blanket bombing of civilians in the war on Rotterdam, which caused us to surrender, as unlike the UK despite the heroic defense thus far there was no way we could actually win against the far superior German Wehrmacht without help.
IEDs. Lots of IEDs. During my time in EOD I learnt everything from basic bare wire loop switches, to laser tripwires, firing circuits made from disposable cameras, light/dark sensor activated devices, aswell as the chemical composition of all types of HME and home made chemical agents.
You can also make very effective non explosive booby traps.
As an aside, we also have those pillboxes along the thames in Oxfordshire.
I think your road sign removal idea, while not terrible, wouldnt really be worth the time and effort for an enemy that, if they don't have GPS, should at least have maps...
queen_annes_revenge wrote: IEDs. Lots of IEDs. During my time in EOD I learnt everything from basic bare wire loop switches, to laser tripwires, firing circuits made from disposable cameras, light/dark sensor activated devices, aswell as the chemical composition of all types of HME and home made chemical agents.
You can also make very effective non explosive booby traps.
As an aside, we also have those pillboxes along the thames in Oxfordshire.
I think your road sign removal idea, while not terrible, wouldnt really be worth the time and effort for an enemy that, if they don't have GPS, should at least have maps...
Ah gotcha! Well it stands I guess. The vietcong were booby trap masters, and booby traps and sabotage have been used since the dawn of warfare, and you're only limited by your imagination!
Some of my favourites are using lock firearm mechanisms on train tracks to detonate charges, which were used quite extensively during wars in the 18th and 19th centuries. If you have an interest in historical IEDs and booby traps, you should check out the 'standing well back' blog.
Depending on invasion I think there's broadly two layers to it.
1) Early prevention of spies and smaller tactical insertions
2) Countering invasion itself.
Eg the signs and directions removal is clearly aimed at both, but has best effect against the first since its helping to confuse spies and other insurgents. A larger invasion force is more likely to know at least where they came from and where they are heading toward.
OF course when an invasion starts you can start to do other things such as putting up fake signs to confuse them as to where they are. Another is to damage your own infrastructure. Blowing up bridges; removing sections of railway track etc.... can all slow an invading force or even bring them to a halt. If you blow the bridge that might mean their armoured support and troop carriers have to take a much longer and more dangerous path; forcing them to slow down or split their forces and let infantry ford the river.
The Soviets also gave a great display of denying the enemy fortunes from conquest. Burn fields; destroy factories; remove food and supplies and people. Large invasion forces require supply and they often gain a significant portion from land they conquer. If you deny them resources from your land then the attacking force is reliant on their own supplies and supplychain; making any raiding of their supply chain even more damaging.
Bombs, as noted above, are also an ideal way to disrupt, harm, confuse and cause damage to the enemy directly and affect their moral. Traps and such are effective and can allow you to do damage without risking lives as directly.
Go back further in time and spiking the roadways might well prevent foot and horse travel across safe pathways. Meanwhile maps become more unreliable and communication over long distances harder and more reliant on runners
Ahh yes, the remark that sparked a fire. Sorry grotsnik for making you open another thread
Well, i am from switzerland, it'd be difficult to NOT find defensive structures, from the concrete Toblerone in my own quasi front garden, to the bunker under my house in case of air raids i have probably seen everytype of bunker and armory and magazin in my career as fodder for the army.
The hole removal off signs is actually somewhat effective if the enemy still has maps, if you have the terrain for it. And believe me, some passes and valleys are extremely difficult to discern with no prior knowledge, also getting lost means a lot of walking around again and in terrain like ours that can TAKE long.
One might notice that it used an Audi engine. And I once or twice heard rumors (and really just hearsay, I never actually read about that) that those little pockettanks where designed in a way to be able to be produced on a standard production line of the German car manufacturers, only needing few adjustments to said lines. You know, those manufacturers that pump out some tens of millions of cars per year. While one Wiesel is obviously no match for a modern MBT, the idea of being able to produce enough tankettes to put theoretically every soldier in a speedy metal box with machine gun and TOW within months sounds quite awesome.
But again: it was only a rumour and I think if there was truth in it one would have heard more about it
godardc wrote: Being Switzerland. Immediate win, noone even think about invading you !
Meh, not as easy, also it's less the terrain (which i admit honestly atrocius) it's more the population that tends to get extremely rabic and aggitated when you tell them what to do, cough napoleon learned that one the hard way, (at the blunt end of a stick in case of some of his soldiers )
Discovered The Deer Gun & Liberator Pistols via YouTube.
Kinda counter invasion, as they were intended to rapidly and cheaply arm partisans - originally in German occupied Europe (though that never panned out)
Concept was they were super simple firearms that pretty much anyone that could figure out ‘this end go bang’ could safely use.
Next to no use in an open battle, but theoretically solid for opportunity kills. From there, the wielder can loot better weapons from their victim.
Liberator as noted never really saw use. But the Deer Gun? Murkier. And also from a different era.
Cheap, easily mass produced. Just dangerous enough for the job.
Arm a village or two, and you could inflict fairly decent casualties on enemy troops billeting (shoot them in their sleep, or as happened with various Resistance Groups, the young ladies appealed to certain instincts, then bumped off the invader)
Doesn’t matter they’re not robust, either. Just needed to be good enough for say, half a dozen shots.
Removing roadsigns is probably less useful in the modern age of GPS. Unless you also combine it with taking down the satellites, which would really eff with any modern military.
A bit of an outlier in that it's more down to nature than anything else... Russia. A country with the right weather, that they just had to wait for the winter for the Germans to lose the advantage they had gained.
I know people would say that the Germans had disadvantages in lack of cold weather kit, and poor tactical decisions, but I think even without those, they would never have conquered Russia. Its too massive, and with such a scale of manpower and resources.
Historically, Turkey had one of the weirdest defensive ploys. Honey.
"Indeed, in 67 B.C. Roman soldiers invaded the Black Sea region under General Pompey’s command, and those loyal to the reigning King Mithridates secretly lined the Romans’ path with enticing chunks of mad honeycomb. The unwitting army ate these with gusto, as the story goes. Driven into an intoxicated stupor by the hallucinogenic honey, many of the flailing soldiers became easy prey, and were slain."
I've come across the story before in another medium. Be warned, if you click the link, it is a foodie website from a dude who wants to eat this poisonous honey, so tons of description of the honey, and little of its possible historical defensive use.
Poison food and water is a time honoured method of dealing with the enemy. Apparently one of my relatives was the only person in a group of soldiers to survive after they broke into some food stores during WW1 and found what looked like safe food stocks seemingly abandoned. Turned out the food was contaminated which was why it had been left in the store and boarded up. The others died and he just survived.
So yep poison the food/water and you can deal a lot of damage very fast. Even if you don't kill anyone, sickness can debilitate an invading forces moral and ability to fight.
Gitzbitah wrote: Historically, Turkey had one of the weirdest defensive ploys. Honey.
"Indeed, in 67 B.C. Roman soldiers invaded the Black Sea region under General Pompey’s command, and those loyal to the reigning King Mithridates secretly lined the Romans’ path with enticing chunks of mad honeycomb. The unwitting army ate these with gusto, as the story goes. Driven into an intoxicated stupor by the hallucinogenic honey, many of the flailing soldiers became easy prey, and were slain."
I've come across the story before in another medium. Be warned, if you click the link, it is a foodie website from a dude who wants to eat this poisonous honey, so tons of description of the honey, and little of its possible historical defensive use.
Eat it? I want to ferment it! Finally.....The Infernal Hydromel! (That’s one for Alestorm fans)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
queen_annes_revenge wrote: A bit of an outlier in that it's more down to nature than anything else... Russia. A country with the right weather, that they just had to wait for the winter for the Germans to lose the advantage they had gained.
I know people would say that the Germans had disadvantages in lack of cold weather kit, and poor tactical decisions, but I think even without those, they would never have conquered Russia. Its too massive, and with such a scale of manpower and resources.
There’s an argument that what is now Scotland had much the same when it came to the Roman Empire.
No, the terrain isn’t as bad as a Russian Winter. But, when combined with the general lack of resources of interest? Probably played a part.
Granny Robinson’s family used to run a pub called the Cramond Inn, which is in the village of Cramond, now part of Edinburgh.
It’s pretty much the most northern they got. Ruins all over the shop, including under the car park.
One day I’ll win the Euromillions and free that pub from the grip of Samuel Smith’s Brewery. Oh yes! Would love to turn it into a proper, proper Gastropub type thing. Damn fine food, good beer, with a Snug type area.
On a smaller scale people have been building semi-fortified houses for ages to stop raider types, whether that be bastle houses in Northumbria, fortified towns in Anatolia or tata somba in Dahomey.
Fun fact - one of the UK Kings made it illegal to put crenellations on your buildings to stop his lords fortifying their settlements. It's apparently a law that has remained in effect to modern times (just one of the legion that hasn't be challenged and revoked due to changing times).
Didn't one general in the American civil war march his men 6 times past the enemy scouts to give the illusion his forces were much larger? Modern technology ruins all the fun like that.
The fake planes, inflatable tanks, straw planes, rock tanks etc etc used within WWII were ingenious as well. An invading force would muster based on intelligence to even destroy or avoid these 'forces' and quickly find they are not there.
Even better with the planes as they could fear they are in the air out on an attack mission.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Granny Robinson’s family used to run a pub called the Cramond Inn, which is in the village of Cramond, now part of Edinburgh.
It’s pretty much the most northern they got. Ruins all over the shop, including under the car park.
One day I’ll win the Euromillions and free that pub from the grip of Samuel Smith’s Brewery. Oh yes! Would love to turn it into a proper, proper Gastropub type thing. Damn fine food, good beer, with a Snug type area.
Whoa, easy on Sams.. thats a proper yorkshire brewery. my Grandad used to deliver for them back in the 60s.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Overread wrote: Fun fact - one of the UK Kings made it illegal to put crenellations on your buildings to stop his lords fortifying their settlements. It's apparently a law that has remained in effect to modern times (just one of the legion that hasn't be challenged and revoked due to changing times).
Really? but there are tons of buildings with crenellations, often just decorative?
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Didn't one general in the American civil war march his men 6 times past the enemy scouts to give the illusion his forces were much larger? Modern technology ruins all the fun like that.
The fake planes, inflatable tanks, straw planes, rock tanks etc etc used within WWII were ingenious as well. An invading force would muster based on intelligence to even destroy or avoid these 'forces' and quickly find they are not there.
Even better with the planes as they could fear they are in the air out on an attack mission.
I know the Confederates used fake cannons quite a bit as they had so little artillery, it makes sense to confuse your enemies over where your real forces are I suppose.
Galveston Island still has some WWI or WWII beach and artillery bunkers if you know where to look. Who did they think was going to invade Galveston Island?
They had multiple fake anti air encampments around the country during WW2. They'd guard and man them as normal so they would appear used; you'd have armed soldiers guarding cardboard guns.
However if the enemy thought it was real then that's a whole area they won't pass through with their aircraft. For the cost of a few men in uniform and some cardboard you might protect a town or factory from bombing runs.
If you can deceive your enemy you can win before you'd have to commit any actual forces. I forget its name but there was one RTSPC game that did this in having dedicated deception options to throw at the opponent to confuse them.
A complete lie, invented to stop Germany discovering it was actually Radar allowing the RAF to detect sorties.
Far as I’m aware, that naughty fib was actually believed!
That naughty fib is still going around to this day.
Amazingly, I'm sure there are scientific studies in nutrition that have been performed in recent decades that amazingly confirmed it (in a roundabout way) until fairly recently it was absolutely debunked.
It likely perpetuates easily because ultimately carrots are not bad for you and are generally good for you. So its encouraging good eating habits, if for the wrong reasons. So it takes ages to filter out of the system because there's no powerful backlash.
Yea I thought that carrot story was apocryphal, the Germans knew about our radar system and even had one of their own called Freya so seems unlikely they would have believed the carrot story.
However I do kinda hope it is true, it makes a nice story that we tricked Mr Hitler with a good ol'fashioned British wheeze!
Flame throwers on the beach,,, here in the uk that was a thing during ww2 due to the fear of invasion by Germany. Not sure if there’s evidence of the fuel rigs at some sites still.
There is the pipe line that was put down to supply the forces on D-Day from here to Normandy but that’s off topic.
Surprised no one's really mentioned one of the more common defenses against invasion: scorched earth. Whatever resources your retreating forces can't eat or use are simply destroyed. The Russians did this to great effect when Napoleon invaded.
Scorched earth policy is fine if you have somewhere to fall back/ retreat to. Imagine doing that in ww2 on the south coast of the uk, i mean we could of ended up taking drastic measures and having to live in some barren place like hmm Scotland. Lol.
xKillGorex wrote: Scorched earth policy is fine if you have somewhere to fall back/ retreat to. Imagine doing that in ww2 on the south coast of the uk, i mean we could of ended up taking drastic measures and having to live in some barren place like hmm Scotland. Lol.
Yeah. It only really works in Russia because there's a lot of Russia. You could fit another Austria between the Polish/Russian border and Moscow.
Lets not also forget that it works in Russia under Soviet rule because not only is there a lot of Russia, but Soviet Russia doesn't really care if the peasants don't have enough food at the end of the scorched earth tactics. Or homes, or jobs or towns or anything.
Scorched Earth is a very valid tactic, but for it to work long term its only going to be valid when you've got an opposing force that is making a very single attack into your nation through a narrow band (comparable to your nation). At that point you can focus your resource denial whilst leaving the rest of the country functional.
If its a broad invasion sweeping across large areas then, whilst it can also work, you also run the risk that you deny the invaders one year; but you cripple your own food and survival for the following year.
Yeah I dont really see scorched earth as a defensive strategy..its more an area denial thing once youve finished your conquest of an area. at best a tactic to protect your rear flank.
If my memory serves me, William the Conqueror used the scorched earth policy after his conquest over the English by burning a lot of the farmland around York to deny the populace of food production.
His way of keeping the English under his so called control plus making them rely on the Norman occupation to provide food and resources.
Well that's got to be the first time someone considers nuclear technology and rocket science to be simple
You don't need a rocket delivery system for defense. A car or motorboat will do. Nowadays even a megaton warhead will fit comfortably in the trunk of a car.
Then all you need is a volunteer to deliver it, either with a timer or a manual detonator.
Having said that... yeah, making a nuke isn't as groundbreakingly difficult as it was in 1944. But it's not even as simple as rocket science even today. But if you HAVE the nukes, they become the best defense there is, because no one wants to assemble an overwhelming invasion force within range of those nukes for the obvious reason.
xKillGorex wrote: If my memory serves me, William the Conqueror used the scorched earth policy after his conquest over the English by burning a lot of the farmland around York to deny the populace of food production.
His way of keeping the English under his so called control plus making them rely on the Norman occupation to provide food and resources.
Yup. he paid the vikings to go home, then starved the remaining rebels out, although accounts describing the scale of the devastation caused may be somewhat exaggerated.
Mr Nobody wrote: As a north american, we have a simple two step system.
1. The Atlantic
2. The Pacific
Fallow these simple instructions and you rarely must worry about invasion.
Hell, the 20-odd miles of English Channel have worked pretty damn well for us. A good old ditch or moat is incredibly effective against pretty much everything.
Mr Nobody wrote: As a north american, we have a simple two step system.
1. The Atlantic
2. The Pacific
Fallow these simple instructions and you rarely must worry about invasion.
Hell, the 20-odd miles of English Channel have worked pretty damn well for us. A good old ditch or moat is incredibly effective against pretty much everything.
And you can even pump gallons upon gallons of filth and waste into it, just like a real moat (seriously from what I've read some moats - like the one around London Castle - stank like crazy when they were siphoned off a main riverway of water because it wouldn't always flow enough to carry it all away - esp a tidal one like the Thames)
Mr Nobody wrote: As a north american, we have a simple two step system.
1. The Atlantic
2. The Pacific
Fallow these simple instructions and you rarely must worry about invasion.
Hell, the 20-odd miles of English Channel have worked pretty damn well for us. A good old ditch or moat is incredibly effective against pretty much everything.
Yup, it's how we Dutch defend our country as well.
Mr Nobody wrote: As a north american, we have a simple two step system.
1. The Atlantic
2. The Pacific
Fallow these simple instructions and you rarely must worry about invasion.
Shame about the 2 massive land borders you do have though, best hope the Mexicans and Canadians dont decide to invade!
I'd totally agree with natural defences perhaps being the simplest and most effective... but I did have a little chuckle at the irony since every nation (to my knowledge) in the Americas can trace their roots back to invading powers!
Mr Nobody wrote: As a north american, we have a simple two step system.
1. The Atlantic
2. The Pacific
Fallow these simple instructions and you rarely must worry about invasion.
Shame about the 2 massive land borders you do have though, best hope the Mexicans and Canadians dont decide to invade!
I'd totally agree with natural defences perhaps being the simplest and most effective... but I did have a little chuckle at the irony since every nation (to my knowledge) in the Americas can trace their roots back to invading powers!
Well, natural barriers don't help much if there is no actual organized resistance. Plus thanks to the diseases they inadvertently brought over by the time any serious colonization was happening they were mostly settling in empty lands. Millions of natives died without seeing a single European settler because they died from a disease that got sent along the various trade routes.
The entire Mound Builder civilization in the central US was gone without a trace a couple centuries before any Europeans began exploring the area.
Truthfully, there wasn't much invading being done during the colonization of the Americas, especially North America. It was mostly just moving into unoccupied territory.
Popular quote (erroneously) attributed to Yamamoto, and promoted frequently: "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."
In the dawn of the USA, the right to keep and bear arms -- not hunting pieces, ARMS, military grade weapons and their training and ammunition -- for the people, ALL the people, not just the ones the government uses to arrest folk -- was the main bulwark against invasion.
Or tyranny.
Dukeofstuff wrote: In the dawn of the USA, the right to keep and bear arms -- not hunting pieces, ARMS, military grade weapons and their training and ammunition -- for the people, ALL the people, not just the ones the government uses to arrest folk -- was the main bulwark against invasion.
Or tyranny.
Thus allways to tyrants.
True, but lets face it, The US populace is not as heavily armed many believe..... But more armed than they might expect.
Rumors, lies, and misinformation.
Dukeofstuff wrote: In the dawn of the USA, the right to keep and bear arms -- not hunting pieces, ARMS, military grade weapons and their training and ammunition -- for the people, ALL the people, not just the ones the government uses to arrest folk -- was the main bulwark against invasion.
Or tyranny.
Thus allways to tyrants.
True, but lets face it, The US populace is not as heavily armed many believe..... But more armed than they might expect.
Rumors, lies, and misinformation.
Yes and no.
Its true that only 1/3 of people actually own guns. But those who do tend to own a lot, enough to arm their compatriots quickly. Plus gun ownership is most likely under-reported.
Dukeofstuff wrote: In the dawn of the USA, the right to keep and bear arms -- not hunting pieces, ARMS, military grade weapons and their training and ammunition -- for the people, ALL the people, not just the ones the government uses to arrest folk -- was the main bulwark against invasion.
Or tyranny.
Thus allways to tyrants.
True, but lets face it, The US populace is not as heavily armed many believe..... But more armed than they might expect.
Rumors, lies, and misinformation.
Yes and no.
Its true that only 1/3 of people actually own guns. But those who do tend to own a lot, enough to arm their compatriots quickly. Plus gun ownership is most likely under-reported.
Kinda where I was going. I just didn't want to put numbers to it. That would be part of the "misinformation" category.
Mr Nobody wrote: As a north american, we have a simple two step system.
1. The Atlantic
2. The Pacific
Fallow these simple instructions and you rarely must worry about invasion.
Shame about the 2 massive land borders you do have though, best hope the Mexicans and Canadians dont decide to invade!
I'd totally agree with natural defences perhaps being the simplest and most effective... but I did have a little chuckle at the irony since every nation (to my knowledge) in the Americas can trace their roots back to invading powers!
Well, natural barriers don't help much if there is no actual organized resistance. Plus thanks to the diseases they inadvertently brought over by the time any serious colonization was happening they were mostly settling in empty lands. Millions of natives died without seeing a single European settler because they died from a disease that got sent along the various trade routes.
The entire Mound Builder civilization in the central US was gone without a trace a couple centuries before any Europeans began exploring the area.
Truthfully, there wasn't much invading being done during the colonization of the Americas, especially North America. It was mostly just moving into unoccupied territory.
The Iroquois, Cherokee, Sioux, and Navaho would disagree with that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dukeofstuff wrote: In the dawn of the USA, the right to keep and bear arms -- not hunting pieces, ARMS, military grade weapons and their training and ammunition -- for the people, ALL the people, not just the ones the government uses to arrest folk -- was the main bulwark against invasion.
Or tyranny.
Thus allways to tyrants.
And thus in 1812 the British invaded America and were easily thrown back into the sea... no, wait, they blasted straight through the defenses and militia to take Washington DC, and were only chased out by a massive storm that night.
It's also worth noting that in this age of modern weapons, your room full of ARs and ammo won't do a whole lot of good against GPS-guided rounds from a battery-six of even light 75mm howitzers. Or a single tank, for that matter.
Don't get me wrong. I support the right to bear arms, but now it's primarily a self-defense right with only symbolic use against tyrants who have access to modern military gear.
Well you have the regular military and so many armed citizens supplementing this to worry about. It's a real enough deterant to invasion no-one wants to get stuck in a protracted guerrilla war. And no-one is going to go all genocidal because the global community would likely curbstomp their arse pretty quick.
Against a tyrannical government in the US, well I'd say a large section of the military would say: This is bs, we're not going to kill our own people.
Because it's not a country with a military geared towards suppressing its own population.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Australia's plan during WW2 was to draw a line across the continent and say this is where we'll actually start fighting. I guess the idea was their lines of supply would be stretched to breaking point before they even came to battle.
But as someone born in northern Australia it sounds like the typical cop-out someone in Canberra would think of when the Japanese were invading PNG.
Also considering the our navy any supply convoys would have to make a long and dangerous voyage to even land their cargo, and that cargo would be thousands(I'm not exaggerating) of kilometres from the front.
And I guess overextended supply lines o only a few roads makes great fodder for things like beaugfighters and commando raids.
Mr Nobody wrote: As a north american, we have a simple two step system.
1. The Atlantic
2. The Pacific
Fallow these simple instructions and you rarely must worry about invasion.
Shame about the 2 massive land borders you do have though, best hope the Mexicans and Canadians dont decide to invade!
I'd totally agree with natural defences perhaps being the simplest and most effective... but I did have a little chuckle at the irony since every nation (to my knowledge) in the Americas can trace their roots back to invading powers!
Well, natural barriers don't help much if there is no actual organized resistance. Plus thanks to the diseases they inadvertently brought over by the time any serious colonization was happening they were mostly settling in empty lands. Millions of natives died without seeing a single European settler because they died from a disease that got sent along the various trade routes.
The entire Mound Builder civilization in the central US was gone without a trace a couple centuries before any Europeans began exploring the area.
Truthfully, there wasn't much invading being done during the colonization of the Americas, especially North America. It was mostly just moving into unoccupied territory.
The Iroquois, Cherokee, Sioux, and Navaho would disagree with that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dukeofstuff wrote: In the dawn of the USA, the right to keep and bear arms -- not hunting pieces, ARMS, military grade weapons and their training and ammunition -- for the people, ALL the people, not just the ones the government uses to arrest folk -- was the main bulwark against invasion.
Or tyranny.
Thus allways to tyrants.
And thus in 1812 the British invaded America and were easily thrown back into the sea... no, wait, they blasted straight through the defenses and militia to take Washington DC, and were only chased out by a massive storm that night.
It's also worth noting that in this age of modern weapons, your room full of ARs and ammo won't do a whole lot of good against GPS-guided rounds from a battery-six of even light 75mm howitzers. Or a single tank, for that matter.
Don't get me wrong. I support the right to bear arms, but now it's primarily a self-defense right with only symbolic use against tyrants who have access to modern military gear.
I am not sure if you are considering the use of guerrilla warfare can be very effective in slowing the advance of even very modern armies, that very few modern MBTs actually have engine protection to stop liquid fire damage, in other words the humble Molotov cocktail is still as useful as it always was, throw in IEDs and just the constant threat of random sniping fire and, well yeah you can frustrate a bigger force quite well. Also who uses 75mm howitzers these days? Don't they know that a Karl G is lighter and easier to move. I mean it's no howitzer but it is packing more explosive power and more usable by an infantry section. GPS guided rounds - Well it would seem like a waste to be using these in rear areas against patisans and not your frontline, against the real enemy army, so in a way the said partisan is doing their job right if they are having GPS directed rounds and MBTs redirected to them.
I do understand a bit about partisans and guerrilla warfare from various studies, yes.
I also know a bit about the... shall we say, general physical condition of many Americans? Put it this way. Most of them, even the amateur outdoorsmen or ex-soldiers among them, in a guerrilla setting and that will to fight won't last terribly long once the Big Macs run out. We've grown WAY too used to a) our comforts, and b) being the biggest bully on the block.
Remember, we faced an exceptional guerrilla army over fifty years ago, and went and made the exact same mistakes not quite twenty years ago in the same situation. Something in the American psyche does not handle anything less than a stand-up fight very well anymore.
Yes, there are some really hardcore survivalists in America too, who would be magnificent guerrilla fighters. They will be a terror against those who come against their enclaves, but will be easily avoided by avoiding said enclaves.
And let's face it. If America falls far enough to realistically be invaded by someone, the rest of the world won't be in good enough shape to protest genocidal policies anyway.
Lets face it, if you are trying to invade modern america, it's because you want to capture it, it's absolutely no use to you if you destroy everything in it along the way, all you've acquired is a vast amount of land and rubble, at which point it just becomes an expensive liability, so bring all the heavy weapons you want, you are only hurting yourself by using them.
The exact same would be said for the UK if an enemy force decided to wipe london off the map and many other built up places around the globe.
Vulcan wrote: I do understand a bit about partisans and guerrilla warfare from various studies, yes.
I also know a bit about the... shall we say, general physical condition of many Americans? Put it this way. Most of them, even the amateur outdoorsmen or ex-soldiers among them, in a guerrilla setting and that will to fight won't last terribly long once the Big Macs run out. We've grown WAY too used to a) our comforts, and b) being the biggest bully on the block.
Culdn't even handle a short quarantine without the "survivalists" losing their mind sand marching on their own capitals.
Any halfway decent Psy-Ops program will get these guys too busy fighting themselves and their own government just as much as any "invaders".
Vulcan wrote: I do understand a bit about partisans and guerrilla warfare from various studies, yes.
I also know a bit about the... shall we say, general physical condition of many Americans? Put it this way. Most of them, even the amateur outdoorsmen or ex-soldiers among them, in a guerrilla setting and that will to fight won't last terribly long once the Big Macs run out. We've grown WAY too used to a) our comforts, and b) being the biggest bully on the block.
Culdn't even handle a short quarantine without the "survivalists" losing their mind sand marching on their own capitals.
Any halfway decent Psy-Ops program will get these guys too busy fighting themselves and their own government just as much as any "invaders".
High opinion of your fellows , but in General i doubt that that would work.
Heck it didn't even work on us during napoleons rule and attempt at establishing a puppet state against a completely disarmed , outnumbered and divided population with serious Love Of shanking each other.
People tend to focus on the so called militias is the US. They forget about the other groups that are technically militias: the "street gangs'. Those guys have not only the firepower but nearly perfect geographical knowledge of their 'turf' to put up a strong urban defense. Capturing one of the larger cities would be similar to the WW2 battle for Stalingrad. And while most gang members can barely use a firearm, an invasion would give them more than enough practice to "git gud".
If its a straight up up battle for survival against an invader then wide scale co-ordinated scortched earth tactics along with supplies cut off & harrassments.
In modern times youd ramp that up with insurgency in an urban territory with IED and hit n run tactics. Destroy the infrastructure and food supply as you leave the area and make the enemy pay 100 fold for every inch of worthless land. Let the climate and diseases do the work.
When invaded by superior force, outside of sheer dumb luck its the only thing that's ever worked in history IMO. If you look at where any invasion and occupying failed I.e. Mongols, Romans being thwarted its due to this.
The British isles were not "pacified" by the Romans near on 300 years after initial "conquest"
But currently I dont think we have conflict drivers that would warrant an "invasion". Present times, a war of conquest for "Land & resources" doesn't make sense... concrete has no real value. And if you rally wanted that resources you could just "buy" it through corruption etc. Just look at CIA relationship to latin americas for context.
So the next thing would be some sort of war of extermination or one based on ideology (Potentially religion?). But in these circumstances establishing ground control is pointless if an option to carpet bomb cities is on the table why would you ever "invade" ?
I don't think there is any country that is so rich in some sort of resource that would warrant an invasion which you could not produce or import or just work around it with technology. So from a conflict driver perspective why is the invasion taking place ? WW2 was a different animal and a much emptier world.
In the edge case of severe environmental collapse, countries that still have good arable land and freshwater supplies would be very tempting to countries that are now sat on desert, but I don’t think that’s a likely scenario outside of Mad Max.
To be honest the most likely scenario in the modern world is a power hungry dictator, who sees more land = more power (see Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, etc.)
Argive wrote: If its a straight up up battle for survival against an invader then wide scale co-ordinated scortched earth tactics along with supplies cut off & harrassments.
In modern times youd ramp that up with insurgency in an urban territory with IED and hit n run tactics. Destroy the infrastructure and food supply as you leave the area and make the enemy pay 100 fold for every inch of worthless land. Let the climate and diseases do the work.
When invaded by superior force, outside of sheer dumb luck its the only thing that's ever worked in history IMO. If you look at where any invasion and occupying failed I.e. Mongols, Romans being thwarted its due to this.
The British isles were not "pacified" by the Romans near on 300 years after initial "conquest"
But currently I dont think we have conflict drivers that would warrant an "invasion". Present times, a war of conquest for "Land & resources" doesn't make sense... concrete has no real value. And if you rally wanted that resources you could just "buy" it through corruption etc. Just look at CIA relationship to latin americas for context.
So the next thing would be some sort of war of extermination or one based on ideology (Potentially religion?). But in these circumstances establishing ground control is pointless if an option to carpet bomb cities is on the table why would you ever "invade" ?
I don't think there is any country that is so rich in some sort of resource that would warrant an invasion which you could not produce or import or just work around it with technology. So from a conflict driver perspective why is the invasion taking place ? WW2 was a different animal and a much emptier world.
For historical examples (Romans, Mongols etc) I do wonder what the general lack of organised agriculture and differing environments might’ve played in seeing supply lines overtaxed?
I mean, when Romans ate Mediterranean food, because that’s where they’re from, how much of that could they have successfully farmed in Britain? Without greenhouses (I think? As always, prepared to be better educated at all times!) and selective breeding, they’d be surviving on the same grain and veggies as the natives.
Now, if the Natives lived in clans or what have you of a few hundred, spread out over their turf, how well would existing resources support invading forces the size of the Romans?
TLDR I'd be skeptical of the credibility of claims of overly effective British resistance to the Roman invasion/occupation.
Spoiler:
I mean Beodicca did have that revolt, but when actual legionaries, extremely discplined heavily armoured shock troops, and not town watch reservists arrived and offered battle(said legionaries were approximately outnumbered 10-1) the slaughter was basically completely one sided. This is basically what happened to Spartcus and no doubt many others history has forgotten.
I'd not say the Britian resistance to the Romans was especially effective, there was rebellions everywhere, I mean look at Judea (who were much more united than the British tribes) and how many times the legions were brought in to quell, or even Switzerland which even well into the 2nd century AD was basically a bandit filled frontieer region(being much more remote and challenging terrain).
The Romans also took plenty of auxilaries, from such regions and all over the empire, which made up most of their army, the legions were elite shock troops. You'd not send them into mountains pursuing guerrillas.
The Roman army was also extremely self sufficient, it is one of the first truely modern armies as it had such an efficient logistics apparatus, So feeding the troops for invasion of Britain? Just ship grain from the bread bowl that was Gaul at the time, and cart it up the highways that the legion itself is building. Ever wonder why a unit of 80 fighting men is called a century? Likely as not the other 20 are logistics, messenger, and command personnel.
Romans ate barley which has been grown in Britian since the Celts first got there, and particularly loved sea food(which well Britian is an Island), and even imported dates and other presurved food from the mediterrainian.
The Romans basically crushed/bribed/coerced/threatened and even befrineded the tribes, and being assimilated into the empire was not actually a bad thing (unless you're a Druid) becasue they also brought effective law and order and stopped a lot of tribal and feuding violence, and Druid style human sacrifice. They might take you as a slave, but everyone took everyone as slaves, so it was sort of expected at the time. You might be drafted as an auxilia, but then your children would be Roman citizens, with every right of a freeborn Roman. Also you have to remember that there was no real unity between the tribes and they were as likely to side with the Romans against someone they held an old grudge with, than they were to fight the Romans.
We havent mentioned the techniques of Vlad the impaler.
Aparantly left 20 000 people impaled on spikes left as a deterrent to the Ottomans.
I'm not sure how true this is as some believe that the accounts of Vlads brutality were exaggerated or entirely fabricated by the Transylvanian Saxons.
I think that one was recorded by the Turks as the final straw in a long guerilla campaign through scorched earth.
Yeah, it looks like Vlad had a list and was crossing off points..
"Let's see...burn housing, check , poison wells, check, ferocious night raids, check block roads, check. HA! construct demoralising edifice... not check!"
The stories about him are pretty horrifying, especially considering that Romania seems to hold him up as a national hero. I'm not one to apply modern moralistic principles to history, especially warfare, but the accounts of women and children also being impaled got to me a little.
Vulcan wrote: I do understand a bit about partisans and guerrilla warfare from various studies, yes.
I also know a bit about the... shall we say, general physical condition of many Americans? Put it this way. Most of them, even the amateur outdoorsmen or ex-soldiers among them, in a guerrilla setting and that will to fight won't last terribly long once the Big Macs run out. We've grown WAY too used to a) our comforts, and b) being the biggest bully on the block.
Culdn't even handle a short quarantine without the "survivalists" losing their mind sand marching on their own capitals.
Any halfway decent Psy-Ops program will get these guys too busy fighting themselves and their own government just as much as any "invaders".
High opinion of your fellows , but in General i doubt that that would work.
Heck it didn't even work on us during napoleons rule and attempt at establishing a puppet state against a completely disarmed , outnumbered and divided population with serious Love Of shanking each other.
Were I to invade America?
First thing I'd upon capturing a city is round up everyone on the Democratic voter's registration, and have agents provocateur contact the real nutcase white supremicists. Then after a few days of letting the nutcases do their worst 'purging' those they view as enemies, I'd stop them into the ground and release the Democrats. Thus, I make use of the political divide to make Americans fight themselves and do most of my work for me.
And they'd do it with gusto, believe me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Argive wrote: If its a straight up up battle for survival against an invader then wide scale co-ordinated scortched earth tactics along with supplies cut off & harrassments.
In modern times youd ramp that up with insurgency in an urban territory with IED and hit n run tactics. Destroy the infrastructure and food supply as you leave the area and make the enemy pay 100 fold for every inch of worthless land. Let the climate and diseases do the work.
When invaded by superior force, outside of sheer dumb luck its the only thing that's ever worked in history IMO. If you look at where any invasion and occupying failed I.e. Mongols, Romans being thwarted its due to this.
The British isles were not "pacified" by the Romans near on 300 years after initial "conquest"
But currently I dont think we have conflict drivers that would warrant an "invasion". Present times, a war of conquest for "Land & resources" doesn't make sense... concrete has no real value. And if you rally wanted that resources you could just "buy" it through corruption etc. Just look at CIA relationship to latin americas for context.
So the next thing would be some sort of war of extermination or one based on ideology (Potentially religion?). But in these circumstances establishing ground control is pointless if an option to carpet bomb cities is on the table why would you ever "invade" ?
I don't think there is any country that is so rich in some sort of resource that would warrant an invasion which you could not produce or import or just work around it with technology. So from a conflict driver perspective why is the invasion taking place ? WW2 was a different animal and a much emptier world.
Which is probably the ultimate confirmation of my point. Anyone wanting to invade America now is looking to destroy it, not conquer it. They're not going to shy from the odd megadeath if it furthers their goal of destroying America. And your room full of ARs won't do a thing to protect you from THAT.
As I said, the right to bear arms in modern times is more a self-defense issue than a resist tyranny issue. And for that, pistols are your weapon of choice for general carry, shotguns for home defense. And sure, rifles for hunting, but don't tell me you're using a 5.56 for deer.
Vulcan wrote: And sure, rifles for hunting, but don't tell me you're using a 5.56 for deer.
Many do. Its perfectly adequate for white and black tail. I prefer my AK as I can tackle bigger game if needed but 5.56 is a perfectly acceptable hunting round. You certainly wouldn't go after Elk or Bear with it, but most hunters aren't so lucky to get a tag for those. Which is why ARs and AKs are good firearms. They can be for hunting, self-defense(criminals and tyrants), and just having fun at the range.
Vulcan wrote: And sure, rifles for hunting, but don't tell me you're using a 5.56 for deer.
Many do. Its perfectly adequate for white and black tail. I prefer my AK as I can tackle bigger game if needed but 5.56 is a perfectly acceptable hunting round. You certainly wouldn't go after Elk or Bear with it, but most hunters aren't so lucky to get a tag for those. Which is why ARs and AKs are good firearms. They can be for hunting, self-defense(criminals and tyrants), and just having fun at the range.
Wasn’t 5.56 originally adapted from a hunting round in the first place?
It was, though the original .222 Remington was designed as a "varmint" cartridge, intended for long range engagement of stuff like prarie dogs, coyote, rabbits, foxes, etc. It'll do smaller deer just fine (particularly with modern hunting ammo), though the larger issue is many locales require a .30 or larger for such things by law.
Liste wrote: taking off Road-Signs seems to be a Pretty big Job for the Little time left then
On the other hand you spread the word around and if someone in every household(or every road lol) removes the closest sign well that's a lot of signs suddenly missing in a short amount of time, also if they're wooden you can just burn them
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Hunting Calibres: I guess the funny thing is in Australia is the animals you're allowed to shoot are all feral, so no-one really cares what you use. As long as the landowner is cool, you can use whatever you want.
Vulcan wrote: And sure, rifles for hunting, but don't tell me you're using a 5.56 for deer.
Many do. Its perfectly adequate for white and black tail. I prefer my AK as I can tackle bigger game if needed but 5.56 is a perfectly acceptable hunting round. You certainly wouldn't go after Elk or Bear with it, but most hunters aren't so lucky to get a tag for those. Which is why ARs and AKs are good firearms. They can be for hunting, self-defense(criminals and tyrants), and just having fun at the range.
Ah... as I recall 5.56 is ILLEGAL for deer hunting as it doesn't score a clean kill on one hit. As I recall you're required to use at least a .30 caliber of some sort. or 7.62x51/30-06. 5.56 is rated as a varmit round, for stuff like racoon, coyote, and the like. (Of course, this might be just a local regulation, YMMV.)
Now if you get an AR in 7.62 (and yes, I've seen them), THAT would be fine for deer hunting, but that's not a 5.56...
Vulcan wrote: And sure, rifles for hunting, but don't tell me you're using a 5.56 for deer.
Many do. Its perfectly adequate for white and black tail. I prefer my AK as I can tackle bigger game if needed but 5.56 is a perfectly acceptable hunting round. You certainly wouldn't go after Elk or Bear with it, but most hunters aren't so lucky to get a tag for those. Which is why ARs and AKs are good firearms. They can be for hunting, self-defense(criminals and tyrants), and just having fun at the range.
Ah... as I recall 5.56 is ILLEGAL for deer hunting as it doesn't score a clean kill on one hit. As I recall you're required to use at least a .30 caliber of some sort. or 7.62x51/30-06. 5.56 is rated as a varmit round, for stuff like racoon, coyote, and the like. (Of course, this might be just a local regulation, YMMV.)
Now if you get an AR in 7.62 (and yes, I've seen them), THAT would be fine for deer hunting, but that's not a 5.56...
You can get an AR platform up to .50 cal, if you have the money. I know someone with a .45 cal platform he uses for hunting bear.
Vulcan wrote: And sure, rifles for hunting, but don't tell me you're using a 5.56 for deer.
Many do. Its perfectly adequate for white and black tail. I prefer my AK as I can tackle bigger game if needed but 5.56 is a perfectly acceptable hunting round. You certainly wouldn't go after Elk or Bear with it, but most hunters aren't so lucky to get a tag for those. Which is why ARs and AKs are good firearms. They can be for hunting, self-defense(criminals and tyrants), and just having fun at the range.
Ah... as I recall 5.56 is ILLEGAL for deer hunting as it doesn't score a clean kill on one hit. As I recall you're required to use at least a .30 caliber of some sort. or 7.62x51/30-06. 5.56 is rated as a varmit round, for stuff like racoon, coyote, and the like. (Of course, this might be just a local regulation, YMMV.)
Now if you get an AR in 7.62 (and yes, I've seen them), THAT would be fine for deer hunting, but that's not a 5.56...
Hunting regulations vary by state. Some states allow .223/5.56 for deer, others don't.
Vulcan wrote: And sure, rifles for hunting, but don't tell me you're using a 5.56 for deer.
Many do. Its perfectly adequate for white and black tail. I prefer my AK as I can tackle bigger game if needed but 5.56 is a perfectly acceptable hunting round. You certainly wouldn't go after Elk or Bear with it, but most hunters aren't so lucky to get a tag for those. Which is why ARs and AKs are good firearms. They can be for hunting, self-defense(criminals and tyrants), and just having fun at the range.
Ah... as I recall 5.56 is ILLEGAL for deer hunting as it doesn't score a clean kill on one hit. As I recall you're required to use at least a .30 caliber of some sort. or 7.62x51/30-06. 5.56 is rated as a varmit round, for stuff like racoon, coyote, and the like. (Of course, this might be just a local regulation, YMMV.)
Now if you get an AR in 7.62 (and yes, I've seen them), THAT would be fine for deer hunting, but that's not a 5.56...
I have yet to hear of any place in the US that bans specific calibers for hunting, but I'm not familiar with the regulations everywhere.
At least here in CA, as long as it is a legally owned rifle chambered in a center fire cartridge, and as long as the ammunition is an expanding bullet, you can take game with it. IE: Anything that isn't a rimfire is legal.
It’s because the only rimfires that commonly exist today are .22 Caliber. Too weak to reliably kill game. Which is why you can’t use them. It’s “unethical”
Note that you can use them for stuff like rabbits or coyotes. Those are not ‘game’ animals. It’s only larger stuff that is considered game.
Vulcan wrote: And sure, rifles for hunting, but don't tell me you're using a 5.56 for deer.
Many do. Its perfectly adequate for white and black tail. I prefer my AK as I can tackle bigger game if needed but 5.56 is a perfectly acceptable hunting round. You certainly wouldn't go after Elk or Bear with it, but most hunters aren't so lucky to get a tag for those. Which is why ARs and AKs are good firearms. They can be for hunting, self-defense(criminals and tyrants), and just having fun at the range.
Ah... as I recall 5.56 is ILLEGAL for deer hunting as it doesn't score a clean kill on one hit. As I recall you're required to use at least a .30 caliber of some sort. or 7.62x51/30-06. 5.56 is rated as a varmit round, for stuff like racoon, coyote, and the like. (Of course, this might be just a local regulation, YMMV.)
Now if you get an AR in 7.62 (and yes, I've seen them), THAT would be fine for deer hunting, but that's not a 5.56...
You can get an AR platform up to .50 cal, if you have the money. I know someone with a .45 cal platform he uses for hunting bear.
Yes, I've seen a 12.5x44 (.499) AR platform as well.
It's STILL not a 5.56, which is what I was originally talking about and what most AR owners have.
.22 rimfire LR ... 120 ft lbs energy .223 ar 15 round ... 1200 ft lbs energy 3030 deer hunting round ... 1700 (ish) ft lbs energy ak47 round (note its the same width as a 3030, basically) 2100 ish ft lbs energy. .308 hunting round 2550 ft lbs energy shotgun slug (3 inch / 12 gauge) 2300ish ft lbs.
For taking deer, the recommendations are about 1000 ft lbs at the point of delivery -- note that shotgun slugs fall off fastest. The .223 round would work if you snuck up real close, but since those guns are pretty much going to lose their Ke (much like the shotgun) out past 100 yards to below the "good" deer kill level.... it makes sense to not use them in open areas. Of course, the ar15 is pretty accurate even farther out than that -- so I suppose some hunters would try to take longer, still accurate, but weak shots with the .223, resulting in a falloff of energy and wounded deer rather than "clean" kills.
Its less of an issue in some geographic areas. My understanding is taking deer on the west coast or "out west" in the less tree covered areas of the country (or more sparse) with hills and valleys, gives more opportunities for almost sniperlike precision firing with high velocity rounds. By comparison, the close in deer hunting on the east coast generally happens below 100 yards, so the larger, slower, but solid 30/30, ak47, and similar are excellent choices. The ar 15 might work here, but not out west, as well, which is a fairly sane reason to consider the laws different by geography.
Also, among humans, the 22lr is the most lethal round in the USA, historically. No kiddin.
Emmm. .223/5.56 doesn't really drop off that fast. It keeps its power further than that, which is one reason why it is such a flat shooting and accurate round. It just has less overall than other calibers. 7.62 and 3030 have more energy total, but they have a big drop off which means you have to account for bullet drop. 5.56's main advantage is that it doesn't begin to drop for a very long way.
5.56 doesn't really need you to be close, if anything its the opposite. It gives you a longer window to take a good accurate shot because you can take them. It just relies more on being accurate because it is a little wimpy.
Though those are NATO spec ammo stats IIRC. If you get a heavier hunting rounds you can get more energy.
One certainly imagines the wider spread a given calibre (right word? Clueless on guns except they go bang, and which end you point at the target ) then the more they’ll be used to hurt people.
Now, what about modern day, non-fire armed robbery bomb based ways to thwart or slow an invasion? The clever things, not the outright destructive things.
One certainly imagines the wider spread a given calibre (right word? Clueless on guns except they go bang, and which end you point at the target ) then the more they’ll be used to hurt people.
Now, what about modern day, non-fire armed robbery bomb based ways to thwart or slow an invasion? The clever things, not the outright destructive things.
Generally tho, there are 2 types of things you can target:
targeting the Infrastructure: especially bridges, rail hubs(depending on terrain to be effective since raillines can be easily remande), Entrances into cities, - valley, forrests, hydroelectric dams, dams in general.
Aim, slow down an enemy, make terrain difficult, strengthening your own defensive position.
Industry and Production / money: Aka, Blowing up industrial building facilities, destroying machinery (especially precision one), destoriyng industrial shematics, hiding schematics, throwing gold reserves into lakes, blowing up mining facilities ( if you have any), destroying chemical plants, destroying fuel depots, destroying ressource stockpiles.
this is more to lower potential gains of an attack. There is no worth f.e. in conquering a country and dealing with it's occupation if what you wanted is just destroyed. Depedning on ressources and industry this might be less or more effective with the more raw ressources making it less effective.
Then there is detterence via weaponry. Let's just say that if we were to look in some arsenals and magazins we'd break the conventions on warfare quite heavily, heck only last year we managed to "finish" the destruction of our cluster bomb stockpile. Also "Finish "
( it wouldn't surprise me if they' d find chemical warfare agents left over from the coldwar. no seriously it wouldn't, considering we find whole tanks in our bunkers which we lost?)
( it wouldn't surprise me if they' d find chemical warfare agents left over from the coldwar. no seriously it wouldn't, considering we find whole tanks in our bunkers which we lost?)
glorious, ehhh.
It's more like the : "Why can't you be normal? REEEEEEEE" meme.
especially for the actual related countries to us.
Tbf that is also kinda wanted because idological defense is the whole foundation of swiss defensive stratagems but to explain that propperly i'd have to write too much.
Oh yeah, I understand it being a pain in the arse and real world consequences of having explosives etc still scattered over the countryside, not to mention the cultural fallout from being right in the middle of something like the coldwar.
But I do love tanks and the idea of finding a lost tank, well yeah, ultimate hidden treasure. I mean it'd be like someone else finding a vast hoard of gold, becasue if I found a vast hoard of gold I'd spend it on a tank.
OldMate wrote: Oh yeah, I understand it being a pain in the arse and real world consiquences of having exsplosives etc still scattered over the countryside, not to mention the cultural fallout from being right in the middle of something like the coldwar.
But I do love tanks and the idea of finding a lost tank, well yeah, ultimate hidden treasure.
Nah, we never really had explosives in our country, EXCEPT WHEN THE AMERICANS CAN'T BLOODY READ A MAP, THIS IS WHY GEOGRAPHY IS IMPORTANT!.
As for the self sabotage thing, that is a non issue if you work with precision and care.
it also helps when litarlly half the population knows that: gun / explosives + non education in these matters = dangerous.
Btw, there were multiple occaisons of finding "tanks", between the 400 in wallis and the 12 centurions, to the time in a drill where a squad lost it's transport tank and a year later the peasant shows up asking when they intend to take it back because it's blocking his barn.
yeah, not uncommon, also don 't be surprised when you find an assault rifle on a train... it's probably one of the most often lost pieces of equipemnt and in general things lost on trains.
LOL with the Americans not reading maps, in the second battle of El Alamein, American bombers took part in the softening of axis positions(Yeah I did not know this either).
Anyway, so naturally something goes wrong and a wing of bombers basically drops all their bombs on a very nearly empty desert, except there's two Australians, lying on the ground with bombs going off all round them(one was already injured) wondering what they did to deserve this.
By way of explosives I didn't mean unexploded ordinance I was referring to that article you linked in there was a bridge that was found to still have explosives on it, rigged to blow in 2014!
Automatically Appended Next Post: We sort of have an issue with un-exploded ordinance nearby becasue around a local dam was the Jungle training area in WW2. Occasionally something shows up,
Mine is more in the take it down while you retreat/retrograde aspect.
Transportation - I would take down power poles, trees, and other long heavy awkward things to put in major roadways and cause diversions. Its easy to use a map when you have a straight line from point a to point b. Turning around and finding new routes can be confusing even with GPS.
Take down power/water - there would be an assumption that a modern fighting force would try to stay in the buildings of those places they are fighting around. No need to make it easy on them.
Damage the integrity of bridges and other similar structures without destroying them. If they are on the attack and not really looking at the integrity we could get one or two tanks to sink into a river and drown their crew if they aren't inspecting the bridges before hand.
Without going down the poisoning water/food/alcohol route that can get quite dark I'll stick with these.
Jjohnso11 wrote: Mine is more in the take it down while you retreat/retrograde aspect.
Damage the integrity of bridges and other similar structures without destroying them. If they are on the attack and not really looking at the integrity we could get one or two tanks to sink into a river and drown their crew if they aren't inspecting the bridges before hand.
Build roadblocks near the end of the bridge, on the side you are on. Sets up a kill zone on the bridge that further blocks access.
Use cars rigged with explosives/mines so any tank is disabled if it goes over/through it. Make sure the cars have full gas tanks. Tankers hate fire. So does Infantry.
I remember reading about one of the special operations the allies undertook just after D-day, to slow German reinforcements;
Block the road with a tree.
A few miles later, block the road with a tree and lay anti-tank mines, to take out the recovery vehicle
A few miles, another tree, this time with non-magnetic anti-personnel mines to blow up the guys checking for anti-tank mines.
Etc.
(I think there were a few more steps, but the ultimate result was half a dozen guys held up an entire armoured column for about days without ever actually engaging the enemy, just by predicting how the enemy would respond to each new challenge)
Could also throw some basic spike traps in there th keep the infantry on their toes. I mean you're not combat ready if you have a hole in your foot. You could do certain things to encourage infection, that would amplify the effect. And it's cheaper than a mine.
Cheaper than a mine, yes, but a bit more labor intensive.
It would be another thing you'd want the locals involved in, for extra labor and to remember where the traps are so they can be filled in once the need is gone.
Nah, barbed is better. If someone does remove a caltrop from their foot they're not going to leave it on the ground for the next guy to step on. Might as well make the wound as nasty as possible.
Remember the idea of them is to hurt and slow the advance of the enemy and perhaps cripple some of their troops and horses.
Barbed means its going to do more damage going in and out and makes it harder to pull out. So that not only means more pain, and more chance if disabling injuries (esp on livestock); but also means more time spend dealing with them. That means slowing the marching column and that means you've bought yourself precious time to prepare/run away.
Only the losers get tried for warcrimes. And only if the people in power care about prosecuting them.
The idea of warcrimes is silly anyway. Like when the Germans in WW1, the inventors of flamethrowers and chlorine gas, complained about the Americans using shotguns...
Re: hunting, raw foot-pounds is a poor way to assess lethality/ethicality, since there are other factors that have significant effects, like penetration/expansion based on bullet geometry. Dukeofstuff's numbers are off to begin with. 7.62x39, the caliber fired by an AK-47, has around 1500ft*lbs of energy in soft-point hunting loads from a 16" barrel. For comparison, .223 is ~1200ft*lbs from the same barrel length, so they're very close to one another, with .223 having significantly better expansion in soft tissue. No idea where that 2100 number comes from.
Anyways, I find it really interesting to read about misdirection efforts in prior conflicts- the example in the OP of removing all the street signs is something that wouldn't be too effective in the age of satellite imagery, for example. Conversely, cyber-warfare is becoming an important element in misdirection, with GPS spoofing having been used in recent conflicts to compromise fire coordination or positioning.
Vulcan wrote: It's also worth noting that in this age of modern weapons, your room full of ARs and ammo won't do a whole lot of good against GPS-guided rounds from a battery-six of even light 75mm howitzers. Or a single tank, for that matter.
I'd have thought that after nearly twenty years of the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, people would start to recognize that howitzers, tanks, helicopters, and JDAMs aren't a trump card against insurgents with rifles. Those are all great when an unconventional force is operating in the open and you have intelligence/air superiority to preemptively engage, but helicopters can't patrol city blocks, tanks can't go door-to-door, and an AR will work just fine against a police officer or uniformed soldier.
I don't disagree about most Americans not having the stomach for prolonged insurgency, but we've had too many soldiers and .govs killed by half-century-old AKs wielded by illiterate goat herders for me to buy the idea that high-tech weapons alone can crush an insurgency on its home turf.
Jjohnso11 wrote: Usually the victor gets to determine who plays in the war crime trials.
True. All the more reason to pull out all the stops on the defense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
catbarf wrote: Re: hunting, raw foot-pounds is a poor way to assess lethality/ethicality, since there are other factors that have significant effects, like penetration/expansion based on bullet geometry. Dukeofstuff's numbers are off to begin with. 7.62x39, the caliber fired by an AK-47, has around 1500ft*lbs of energy in soft-point hunting loads from a 16" barrel. For comparison, .223 is ~1200ft*lbs from the same barrel length, so they're very close to one another, with .223 having significantly better expansion in soft tissue. No idea where that 2100 number comes from.
Anyways, I find it really interesting to read about misdirection efforts in prior conflicts- the example in the OP of removing all the street signs is something that wouldn't be too effective in the age of satellite imagery, for example. Conversely, cyber-warfare is becoming an important element in misdirection, with GPS spoofing having been used in recent conflicts to compromise fire coordination or positioning.
Vulcan wrote: It's also worth noting that in this age of modern weapons, your room full of ARs and ammo won't do a whole lot of good against GPS-guided rounds from a battery-six of even light 75mm howitzers. Or a single tank, for that matter.
I'd have thought that after nearly twenty years of the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, people would start to recognize that howitzers, tanks, helicopters, and JDAMs aren't a trump card against insurgents with rifles. Those are all great when an unconventional force is operating in the open and you have intelligence/air superiority to preemptively engage, but helicopters can't patrol city blocks, tanks can't go door-to-door, and an AR will work just fine against a police officer or uniformed soldier.
I don't disagree about most Americans not having the stomach for prolonged insurgency, but we've had too many soldiers and .govs killed by half-century-old AKs wielded by illiterate goat herders for me to buy the idea that high-tech weapons alone can crush an insurgency on its home turf.
Let's bear in mind the Americans most likely to own lots of guns and become 'insurgents' have cracked after less than two months of isolation in their own homes. They wouldn't last two weeks in genuine insurgency conditions.
Let's bear in mind the Americans most likely to own lots of guns and become 'insurgents' have cracked after less than two months of isolation in their own homes. They wouldn't last two weeks in genuine insurgency conditions.
Let's bear in mind the Americans most likely to own lots of guns and become 'insurgents' have cracked after less than two months of isolation in their own homes. They wouldn't last two weeks in genuine insurgency conditions.
Not really the same situation.
No, it's not. COVID is likely to kill far more people than a typical occupation if not contained and controlled properly.
Back on subject South Africa has historically relied on the fact that any foe has to come by land over vast distances, therefore any attacker has to move hundreds and hundreds of miles on a few roads through the veldt.
And more crucially any assault would rely on very long supply lines along said roads, so in response South Africa has many wheeled AFVs (IFVs(with a wide range of weapons including 90mm cannons, mortars and dedicated ATGM vehicles) mobile artillery) which can drive to the battlefield rather quickly and with less logistical strain than tracked vehicles(they'll break out the 50 year old centurions if gak gets heavy,) to respond to a developing situation.
What's more the Rooikat (Africans:red cat, (caracal)) armoured car is designed to basically travel extreme ranges across said velt, is mine protected and armed with a 76mm cannon which might not sound impressive in today's world but you know it's more than adequate for brewing up soft skin trucks and any kind of convoy escort vehicle, becasue you can't have tanks everywhere. And with a 76mm you can store a heap of ammo in comparison to a 105 or 120.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So yeah, distance.
OldMate wrote: Back on subject South Africa has historically relied on the fact that any foe has to come by land over vast distances, therefore any attacker has to move hundreds and hundreds of miles on a few roads through the veldt.
And more crucially any assault would rely on very long supply lines along said roads, so in response South Africa has many wheeled AFVs (IFVs(with a wide range of weapons including 90mm cannons, mortars and dedicated ATGM vehicles) mobile artillery) which can drive to the battlefield rather quickly and with less logistical strain than tracked vehicles(they'll break out the 50 year old centurions if gak gets heavy,) to respond to a developing situation.
What's more the Rooikat (Africans:red cat, (caracal)) armoured car is designed to basically travel extreme ranges across said velt, is mine protected and armed with a 76mm cannon which might not sound impressive in today's world but you know it's more than adequate for brewing up soft skin trucks and any kind of convoy escort vehicle, becasue you can't have tanks everywhere. And with a 76mm you can store a heap of ammo in comparison to a 105 or 120.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So yeah, distance.
That being said I've worked with both the artillery guys and the Gripen/Hawk/Rooivalk guys and they are very capable. While we do have a lot of dead weight the pointy end guys are sharp as ever. While the SANDF probably isn't up to the level of the Bush War SADF I wouldn't want to invade SA. There's also the benefit that not many of our neighbours will want to invade us.
The idea of "leave behind saboteurs" is a decent one IMHO. The advent of night vision and thermal imaging has made their jobs harder though.
In the 80s Australia had really good submarine fleet(the old Collins class) that was very suited to operating in shallow water and had indigenously developed(we asked America and Britain, but no-one wanted to share) stealth tiles. Glued them on with the glue they use on road reflectors, never lost a tile.
They'd be ideal for hitting convoys even in the shallow waters of the Indonesian and New Guinean islands, and if need be on Australia's coastline.
In exercises they were able to slip US anti submarine patrols around the enterance of Shoalwater bay(which is really narrow) and do a lot of damage to amphibious assault ships.
Also in the 60-80s we had Canberras, then replaced by the F-111s which were basically maintained becasue they could fly over Jakarta (Yeah, for a long time Indonesia was our biggest(still is) and most aggressive(not so much at the moment, we're getting along pretty well) neighbor, so if anyone was going to invade us... we'd be outnumbered in a very big way), and drop a nuke.
I mean we fought Indonesian militias in Malaysia and then East Timor, and East Timor was only twenty four or so years ago.
