Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Has there ever been an "army" throughout history that was not eventually victorious while employing hit-and-run gorilla tactics?
I'm thinking that the American Revolution War was 'won' by the army that for the most part employed such tactics. Then the Vietnam experience. Now, there are conflicts in the middle east where the combatants are difficult to identify from the civilian population. Do gorilla armies eventually prevail?
I guess some of the Imperial Roman armies defeated their adversaries, but I can't think of any other examples.
Yeah Fidel won, but Commendante Che didn't.
Same time, I must agree, that GUERRILLA, or partisan warfare IS very effective, as a secondary mean of deterrence of military forces from primary battlefield. WWII was rich in very successful partisans. Bielorrussia. Yougoslavia. Bulgaria. Poland. China.
Historically, there are several countries that NEVER were conquered simply due to mostly guerrilla indigenous population tactics. Afghanistan. Monte Negro. Georgia.
I think guerrilla armies are more effective because they are usually much more fervent in their beliefs in their cause. They are united by the strength of common goals, ideology, and beliefs. The motive power of belief in the hands of a tireless, fanatical minority is almost unstoppable.
Quite aside from the humor involved in the misspelling contained in the thread title, I think the answer is "it depends". The outcome could go either way, depending on lots of factors, even including the terrain on which most of the fighting takes place.
The guerilla warfare in Syria is a case in point. Its outcome is still in doubt, but I have been surprised by the tenacity of the Assad government, which I had thought would have fallen some time ago. I do not support that government, but they have received considerable outside help from Iran and have shown remarkable resiliency.
Guerrilla warfare is why we failed in Vietnam, why we failed in Korea, why we are failing in Afghanistan and why we will fail in any county where the natives don't want us there. Not only can these forces hit quickly and unexpectedly but they can disappear just as fast. The biggest problem when dealing with guerrilla fighters is that you never really know who your enemy might be.
WW II, the underground movement in every country that Germany occupied came back to bite them in the a$$. Japan had the Filipinos on their butts and like somebody said, without using guerrilla tactics, it's doubtful that America would have ever won it's independence. Guerrilla forces may not often win wars outright but they can sure as hell keep the other side from winning.
Im not sure I would classify the current fighting in Syria as primarily guerilla in nature. The rebels have gone toe to toe with Assad army on occasion. They have not entirely adapted a true guerilla method of warfare in which you pick your battles, fight them and then go back and blend in with the population.
To truly defeat a guerilla army you have to be extremely brutal. That would mean destroying their homes, their families; basically denying them their support areas.
Its been done but politically its not very acceptable.
I still find it unusual that the Soviets did not go to a scorched earth policy when they were in Afghanistan. I suspect that they never really wanted to fight a full fledged war. I read that they rarely had more than 100,000 troops in that country at any given time.
I think a good example of defeating a guerilla army was when the British took on the Malaysian communists in the 50s. They were able to defeat them by denying them their support network and using small unit tactics similar to the guerillas.
Guerrilla warfare is why we failed in Vietnam, why we failed in Korea,.
My buddies who fought in the Korean War would hardly call it a guerilla war. It was far from that. We failed in Korea because we fired MacArthur who had some b$%lls
My buddies who fought in the Korean War would hardly call it a guerilla war. It was far from that. We failed in Korea because we fired MacArthur who had some b$%lls
I agree with you that Korea was not primarily a guerilla war. The North Korean Army fought pretty much as an army. Then when that army had been more or less destroyed, the Chinese came in in massive numbers. And although they were under-equipped and relatively primitive, they also fought pretty much as an army (i.e., with supply lines, infantry attacks, etc.).
However, I disagree with you about MacArthur. There is a big difference between having balls and being pig-headed. MacArthur failed to head the signs that the Chinese were coming because that wasn't what he wanted to hear. Any high-level commander who lives in a fantasy world like that is doing a disservice to his country and to the troops under his command.
I think if the humans had been able to speak and organize better they would have made life highly miserable for the gorilla soldiers, and their chimp overlords. It wasn't until Tailor arrived with his gift of speech and and the renagade chimps that they started to reorginize. Of course the top apes didn't want anyone to know the humans, until they destroyed each other, had run the place.
The best answer is 'it depends'. It's how many follow the call, and how much they are willing to lose, and how many outside forces add their fight. France, the underground made a lot of intellegence possible and the harrassment distracted the Germans. With other forces they made a big contribution but never could have freed themselves alone.
Modern guerrilla tactics really began with the OSS in WW2. Locals were supplied and trained to distract and blunt the ability of armies to react, and supplied intelligence. People who had long been surpressed saw it as a way to force those controlling them to go (like the French in Vietnam). The style of warfare has been used before in history but the second world war refined it and set up the world which followed.
As for the Gorillas, nobody really liked them. They were just the ones who went out and bulied the disconted around so the apes who really ran things had sufficent interferance they weren't in the crosshairs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
