Military Tactics

[Enragé]

I had this discussion with some dude about how we could best go about to defend the revolution in the case of a full scale war(well it started out as a discussion about centralism and wound up being a discussion about centralised or decentralised warfare).

So my point was that we should decentralise our forces, scatter them. Like every council has a militia in its area, this would make for a motivated militia (cuz they defend their own council) and for high knowledge of terrain and the local population. Now the reason this would work is because these militias can cause mayhem in the Reactionary Forces' logistics, and make small attacks from everywhere. This would cause the Reactionary Forces to go from town to town, which would tire them, while the militias could simply melt back into the local population (since militias are not regular forces with uniforms). And when the main force of the Reactionaries have left, they would start operations again.
This would be ofcourse typical guerilla style combat.

Now the other dude said we should best concentrate our forces in the most important areas and beat the Reactionaries there. Centralism, and all the evils accompanying it, would be necessary for the time being. This would be sort of the way how lenin beat the Whites in the Russian Civil War.

Well there's reason in the other dude's idea too... so i thought i'd make a topic about it;
basicly the choice is:
Centralised warfare
or
Decentralised warfare (guerilla)

any other ideas are welcome too.

(lol 500th post)

[Organic Revolution]

i think that de-centralized warfare is a much better idea. centralized warfare, your just taking orders from the man in some city you have never been to, i would much rather defend my own city.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

It's Guerrilla warfare. I'm getting tired of everyone spelling it wrong.

[Le People]

Go with the militias, but have a main command center where all information, stratigies ect. can be anlayzed and returned to the militias. Each militia is voluntary and in time of war, the members take off work to fight and are given normal pay. Every town or city has one, and has two comanders which are elected. The one stays on the feild and is mainly the tactain and local strateigy while the other is in teh comand center making strategy in respect to the nation and other militias. Guerrilla tactics should always be used unless you have a supior force.

[Decolonize The Left]

I also think guerrilla warfare will be more effective. But the revolutionaries should concentrate their attacks on government centers, communications buildings, bridges, and other vital points of battle. There will also need to be some sort of network between the councils if this is to go anywhere. Sure fighting off the government's armies is easy when you talk about it, but you will also need to take tactical bases of the enemy in order to stay off the complete defensive.

Supply lines will need to be cut, the workers will need to stop supplying food, tools, etc... to the government.

The revolution will only succeed if the people refuse to acknowledge the government and the state. When this happens, the state will collapse and little warfare will be necessary.

-- August

[Pawn Power]

It depends on the allocation of your support. If youur support is widely distributed in numerous areas, de-centralized combat is resonable. However if your support is great only specific areas and in various regions, centralized fighting has to take place. Support that is not in those agitated areas will flock there to assist their sisters and brothers. A dozen rebels in one town cannot fight very effectively. If small amounts of scatered rebels cannot organize enough support in their localities they should assemble to a more unified area. They would be more useful united with the other revolutionaries.
If support vast centralized combat does not seem necessary. And if support is tremendously vast severe combat might not be necessary at all.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Revolution is the [email protected] 23 2005, 02:22 AM
It depends on the allocation of your support. If youur support is widely distributed in numerous areas, de-centralized combat is resonable. However if your support is great only specific areas and in various regions, centralized fighting has to take place. Support that is not in those agitated areas will flock there to assist their sisters and brothers. A dozen rebels in one town cannot fight very effectively. If small amounts of scatered rebels cannot organize enough support in their localities they should assemble to a more unified area. They would be more useful united with the other revolutionaries.
If support vast centralized combat does not seem necessary. And if support is tremendously vast severe combat might not be necessary at all.
good point


It's Guerrilla warfare

dont *****, *****.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 10:10 PM
I also think guerrilla warfare will be more effective. But the revolutionaries should concentrate their attacks on government centers, communications buildings, bridges, and other vital points of battle. There will also need to be some sort of network between the councils if this is to go anywhere. Sure fighting off the government's armies is easy when you talk about it, but you will also need to take tactical bases of the enemy in order to stay off the complete defensive.

Supply lines will need to be cut, the workers will need to stop supplying food, tools, etc... to the government.

The revolution will only succeed if the people refuse to acknowledge the government and the state. When this happens, the state will collapse and little warfare will be necessary.

-- August
DUde, I really hope DHS doesn't arrest you for this post. Because they could.

Not likely, though.

[novemba]

I hate to break it to you, but in the case of a homeland war, the US government would totally own any guerrilla force for these reasons:

1. You have no idea what the United States military has in terms of self-defense.
2. They know the land just as good as you do.
3. They have an air force.
4. They wouldn't use centralized warfare either, they would definately try to infiltrate and/or launch a contra-guerrilla attack.

I know the Cuban Revolutionary war was successful but that was against Batista's 10,000 men. There are 2 million people in the US Army.

I know that this is pessimistic but I really don't think we can just rely on old theory for a new age. I have some writings of my own that I'll post soon about this subject. Holla.

[Decolonize The Left]

DUde, I really hope DHS doesn't arrest you for this post. Because they could.

Not likely, though.

My opinions was asked, I gave it.

Zackaria, good point. Could you possibly make a new thread with the 'other writings'?
Thanks.

-- August

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

dont *****, *****.

Insulting me doesn't make your spelling any better. ;)

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 02:13 PM

DUde, I really hope DHS doesn't arrest you for this post. Because they could.

Not likely, though.

My opinions was asked, I gave it.

Zackaria, good point. Could you possibly make a new thread with the 'other writings'?
Thanks.

-- August
I know, just pointing out how fucked up our situation is here in the US. We can be arrested for just about anything, especially things such as these topics :-/

[Le People]

Look, I'm this close to breaking out my copy of Guerrilla Warfare by Che Guervara!

[Phalanx]

You'd need a mixture of forces. A guerrilla force cannot take on a highly technological force with better training without suffering heavy casualties (look at Iraq). My suggestion would be to create something like the Red Army in WWII. You'd have your regular forces (I'd hope ours would be better trained and lead then the Red Army) and you'd have your partisians destroying supply lines, ammunition, etc. You could only have a completely decentralized force if you were willing to take heavy casualties. The only way I'd suggest having a completely decentralized militia is if your standing military had no hope of even slowing down your opponent.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

For anyone that's interested, Guerrilla Warfare (http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/guwar.html) by Ernesto 'Che' Guevara & Guerrilla Warfare: A Method (http://freepeoplesmovement.org/guwarmet.html) by Ernesto 'Che' Guevara.

[RASH chris]

Well odds are the majority of the armed forces will defect to our side. They tend to do that in revolutions, so you have a well trained army right there.

Local areas should then set up militias to defend thier towns in case of attack, and if possible, act as guerrilas and attack things like supply lines and communication.

But the reactionary forces aren't likely to fight like that. How did the para-militaries win in Nicaragua? They attacked civilians. In a revolutionary situation in the US the government will attack the workers and the general populace using terrorist methods. They'll apply pressure until the people just get sick and want to get rid of the communists just to end the bloodshed.

So clearly you are going to need local worker's militias (and they will be necessary to keep the army in check). But you will also need a large army (though not for to long after the revolution, for obvious reasons) to repel any possible invasion.

[slim]

Ive read quite a few books on military history and tactics. This doesnt make me more "educated" or "senior" in this argument but it means i know what im talking about.

Decentralised warfare would be too demanding of the population to be effective. People in first world countries know nothing of the horrors of war. We sit here and talk about it like a set piece struggle then we try and act all intelligent when we mention logistics, dirty war and supply lines being destroyed.

The low morale of the people would aid counter revolution.

Centralised warfare is characteristic of the capitalist system of mercenaries. However, it is also effective. The problem then presents itself of how to pay for this army.

No army of "terrorists" should exist as it could be demonised by the media. In fact, any kind of skirmishing army would fail against a similarly trained enemy.

We need to introduce tactics that have never been used in such times. Personally i suggest close order formations of men armed with simple weapons. They will have the moral cause and thus cannot lose. The media would show the enemy as the ones who are "bad" and the anger against such an invader would surely influence irregular forces with poor arms to fight. After an invader is gone, then at least there will be no trouble considering existing unauthorised allied armies.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 06:47 PM

dont *****, *****.

Insulting me doesn't make your spelling any better. ;)
i bet my english is better than your dutch

and i know its with two r's, i was just typing fast.


and i agree with the thing about the hybrid army (by Khan)

and i'd also like to see those other writings by Zackaria

[RASH chris]

Personally i suggest close order formations of men armed with simple weapons. They will have the moral cause and thus cannot lose.

Essentially what you're saying here is that you want to massacre the workers?

How will this raise morale?


Decentralised warfare would be too demanding of the population to be effective. People in first world countries know nothing of the horrors of war.

Not right now, but the insurrection isn't going to happen tomorrow. Before we get to this stage we're going to see a rise in working class militancy. We're going to see violence on the picket lines, we're going to see street battles with workers fighting fascists (ones with swazis or ones with badges, either way).

And I believe this question is being posed in a post insurrectionary period. I.e. civil war, when the population has already been exposed to revolutionary violence. To put it into context, we're not talking 1917 russia, we're talking the Russian civil war.

[slim]

Sorry apc,

With the close formation thing. In Britain, the terrain is very compact and urbanised. The close order thing is meant for urban warfare. In winding streets and avenues it appears to be perfect.

[Organic Revolution]

that only in the cities... there is alot of open space.

[slim]

I live in Britain. Everything is urban.

[Decolonize The Left]

Slim, I'm intrigued by your comments, but not completely on the same page.

Define "Simple weapons", and while I see your point in urban warfare, the US has many many large open terrains... Comments?

-- August

[slim]

By simple weapons, i mean, anything the people can get their hands on. Some revolutionary wannabees talk about heavy machine guns and RPGs. This is not a viable possibility for the bulk of the population.

I would say the use of easy access weapons like AK-47s if you can get an arms route going. To those who do not have access to these arms i would promote the use of BB guns, air rifles, flare guns, molotovs, homemade weaponry, wood axes and other forms of hand weapons.

I would like to advocate shovels as effective field equipment for digging in, burying any dead, burying rubbish, destroying electric supply lines, used as a sign of the proletariat, used for vegetable gardens and self sufficiency if need be and for generally ganging up on and beating the absolute shit out of riot police.

I would suggest more offensive weapons like pick axes and petrol chainsaws but i know I and many others would not be able to use them. They are too brutal. I personally want to use a pole hammer for the image of barbary and I already have my woodaxe.

Any weapon in our future arsenal can be seen across the nation in DIY and gardening stores. A bit of imagination can bring the best results.

I want a barbaric image for British revolutionaries. Even going so far as having celtic tribal warpaint (made from rather...unpleasant ingredients lol). I want the people of the revolutionary army to be frenzied in battle, to build a reputation of fear. It was once said by a great general, if your enemy fear you then you are half way to victory already.

As for the American question; it is different terrain as you have noted. In fact, there is such a vast variety of terrain and so much land that i would give up defending the mid west until the west and eastern seaboards are secure. This is oonly a tactical point of view of course and nothing against people from the mid west. Securing New York City, Washington DC, Boston, Chicago, Sacramento, Los Angeles and Seattle would be a priority, then the land around those cities should be taken. The state of Texas could also be advantageous for its oil and as a back door for Latin American allies to break through.

Of course. This is a massive tactical issue and needs years of debate.

Slim. HRA.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 07:02 PM
basicly the choice is:
Centralised warfare
or
Decentralised warfare (guerilla)
That's a misunderstanding.

Effective guerrilla armies are also centralized.

When Ho Chi Minh, in Hanoi, gave the order for an offensive, every NVA and NLF unit everywhere in Vietnam obeyed. The same can be said for other major guerrilla armies in history.

Of course, guerrilla armies need a lot of low-level tactical intiative. The individual units aren't in close contact with the central command; they don't get orders quickly or often, so they plan their own attacks and ambushes.

But when they get an order, they obey it.

Decentralized armies are, well, not armies. No war in history has been won by scattered bands against a centralized military. Battles, yes, wars no.

It'd be easy for a centralized army to go around and take out the local militias you propose one by one. This is called "defeat in detail."

That's been proven against and again; at least as far back as the Peasant War in 16th-century Germany where the large but uncoordinated peasant armies were defeated one by one, due to their local narrowness and refusal to support each other....

And of course the times the disciplined armies of civilization have proven their superiority over tribal war bands...who have sometimes had superior weapons and skills as individuals. But they've only been more effective as armies when, like the Mongols, they've made civilized military discipline their own.

Military decentralization is about as progressive as a flint hand-ax.

In a world where all major political questions are ultimately settled by armed conflict, it's necessary to take military questions seriously and not by romanticizing guerilla warfare as somehow mystical, magical, or totally different from other types of warfare.

It's a tactic, that's all. And like all tactics, is most effectively applied by disciplined, professional, centralized military organizations.

And, like all tactics, is not a cure-all for all situations; it's necessary to be prepared to use different tactics in different situations.

If you're professional, you'll learn to use different tactics capably. If you're not, you won't use any of them well.

Heck, that principle's wider than just military questions. "Anything worth doing is worth doing right."

[Enragé]

this defeat by detail can be overcome by the simply melting away of militias, they do not have to make a stand against superior numbers. They are not conventional armies. You can see this in Iraq, the US takes over a city, sometimes with even no resistance, and when the US has left, the insurgent take over once again.


Personally i suggest close order formations of men armed with simple weapons. They will have the moral cause and thus cannot lose.

WW1 tactics? This might work against riot police but not against an army! (one machine gun and everyone's dead!)


we're not talking 1917 russia, we're talking the Russian civil war.

indeed, i shall make a new topic for "anti-police tactics". lets leave this then for the military tactics of a post revolutionary society ok?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Let's talk a little bit about logistics. The UK is not some backwater banana republic, and as a result weapons are not easy to come by, especially for the civilian population.

In the initial stages I would recommend trying to get as many weapons as possible off the black market - the same place where gangs in London get theirs. This might require us to rob a bank or several, dependoing on the state of the market. Magazines and armouries might defect to our cause, and in that case we can take from there.
After this I think we should try and confirm to the NATO standard as much as possible, as invaders are most likely to be NATO members. Ammo and weapons factories should also be appropiated, we should for our own sake avoid imports such goods like the devil.

Uniform dress code should be loose as possible, woodland camo (Combats) or kahki jackets (The sort with lots of pockets preferably) combat (Woodland or urban if appropiate) or dark coloured cargo trousers, with a dark coloured shirt or T-shirt under the jacket. Some sort of insignia should be sewn onto the jackets to show some sort of commonality.
Sturdy boots will be a necessity.



I would suggest more offensive weapons like pick axes and petrol chainsaws but i know I and many others would not be able to use them. They are too brutal. I personally want to use a pole hammer for the image of barbary and I already have my woodaxe.

Try not to be too extravagant with your choice of melee weapons - keep them light, small and simple. The largest blade you could possibly need would be a machete.
I could easily gut you if you tried attacking me with a sword or chainsaw and I was armed with a bayonet or a knife. Katanas are a possible exception because despite their length they are light and durable.

As for ranged weapons, soldiers in rural areas should stick with an assault rifle on semi-auto and a machine pistol, and urban soldiers should have an SMG/Assault carbine and a pistol. Stun and frag grenades should be standard issue, with maybe a squad leader armed with smoke canisters.

This 'Red Army' should be flexible, responsive and possess initiative as any orders they recieve will likely be infrequent.

[Enragé]

"This 'Red Army' should be flexible, responsive and possess initiative as any orders they recieve will likely be infrequent. "

so more cellular based kind of activities?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 04:11 PM
"This 'Red Army' should be flexible, responsive and possess initiative as any orders they recieve will likely be infrequent. "

so more cellular based kind of activities?
Well, sort of. The army would be divided into detatchments that cover what is now a county, and these would operate within these boundaries. However, they should be able to operate outside their recruitment zones should the need arise.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by NoXion+Aug 25 2005, 05:43 PM--> (NoXion @ Aug 25 2005, 05:43 PM)
[email protected] 25 2005, 04:11 PM
"This 'Red Army' should be flexible, responsive and possess initiative as any orders they recieve will likely be infrequent. "

so more cellular based kind of activities?
Well, sort of. The army would be divided into detatchments that cover what is now a county, and these would operate within these boundaries. However, they should be able to operate outside their recruitment zones should the need arise. [/b]
and these cells would they be under the command of a local council for regional operations? (where possible)

[RASH chris]

Well I think again we're looking at different situations. Especially in all this talk of logistics.

We are talking post insurrection we're talking about defending the revolution. So we will have weapons, we will have supply lines etc.

As such I see no reason why regular military tactics, supplemented by worker's militas is not the best idea.

Obviously in an insurrectionary environment there will be far fewer weapons. Until things like armories and gun stores were liberated.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier+Aug 26 2005, 12:51 AM--> (NewKindOfSoldier @ Aug 26 2005, 12:51 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 05:43 PM

[email protected] 25 2005, 04:11 PM
"This 'Red Army' should be flexible, responsive and possess initiative as any orders they recieve will likely be infrequent. "

so more cellular based kind of activities?
Well, sort of. The army would be divided into detatchments that cover what is now a county, and these would operate within these boundaries. However, they should be able to operate outside their recruitment zones should the need arise.
and these cells would they be under the command of a local council for regional operations? (where possible) [/b]
Yes, during peacetime. During times of war, the entirety of the army may be under control of a war council, selected by lottery.

[slim]

New Kind of Soldier,

They would not machine gun anyone. It would cause an international uproar. Also, you do not know Britain very well. Using a machine gun in an urban warzone is very impractical.

Noxion,

London gangs? I have arms links and i can say that the arms that these people obtain are not real guns. They are air rifles and such. Any arms they do have i would say are ancient. The arms they get are probably via the channel. The sea is all but impossible now with the patrol fleet looking for smugglers. The channel link is easy to search. I reckon if you want good guns from London, it will cost you more than it is worth. If you want weapons set up a secure route or steal them from the enemy barracks and armouries (as you also suggested).

Robbing a bank is not effective warmaking. All they have to do is freeze the money and track you down via the unique number on the edge of the note. If they had the ambition they could issue a new type of currency, exaclty the same but with different appearance.

I dont see how a pole hammer is extravagant. Its a bastard of a weapon that was actually designed for its lightweight capabilities.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 11:40 AM
New Kind of Soldier,

They would not machine gun anyone. It would cause an international uproar. Also, you do not know Britain very well. Using a machine gun in an urban warzone is very impractical.


i know britain very well, and using machine guns would not surprise me.
In a revolution, the ruling classes will do anything to protect their power, they'll just shoot everyone and say "they were all terrorists trying to blow up another train". And, they did it in Derry against a bunch of unarmed peopel,why wouldnt they do it on the mainland agaist a bunch of lunatics in celt warpaint in close formation (which is what you were proposing).

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

London gangs? I have arms links and i can say that the arms that these people obtain are not real guns. They are air rifles and such. Any arms they do have i would say are ancient.

Ah, this would explain why an innocent girl in Manchester was riddled with bullets, something that doesn't happen with airguns.

Even if the only guns available were Stens, .22 pistols and maybe the occasional old Eastern Bloc weapon, it would be better than nothing.


Robbing a bank is not effective warmaking. All they have to do is freeze the money and track you down via the unique number on the edge of the note. If they had the ambition they could issue a new type of currency, exaclty the same but with different appearance.

If banks are too much bother, how about jewellers? I doubt the black market has any reservations trading in stolen goods. Gold and silver are easy enough to melt down if they can be tracked via hallmarks.



I dont see how a pole hammer is extravagant. Its a bastard of a weapon that was actually designed for its lightweight capabilities.

How long are they usually? can they be drawn quickly? How would they encumber somebody expected to crawl, climb fences and other obstacles, and carry a rifle? Can they be used in confined spaces?

[slim]

New Kind of Soldier,

If you are reffering to Bloody Sunday, different situation, different place, different social conditions plus, no machine guns and it was the British paras who were using colonial tactics.
As for lunatics in celt warpaint and close formation. If you were a British soldier trained to fight irregular style tactic opponents and had just finished training or had even seen fighting in Iraq against the "ghost" enemy; would you truly be prepared to fight against a horde of rampaging revolutionaries who go so far as to have semen as warpaint and have built a reputation for using weapons that no man can protect against unless they have about 5 inches of armour plate covering their bodies?

They do not train men for such an enemy. By the time they have adapted the reputation for victories will already have taken hold.

Noxion,

Manchester and London are totally different places.

I agree that jewellers perhaps but we must not attack our own people and destroy their trades.

Pole hammers are about 15 inches long. They look like hammers but with a long spike at the end. It is a 13th century teutonic weapon that is designed to punch through thick armour and are perfectly balanced. They arent drawn as such. You could hang it off a belt. They could be carried in dense and difficult terrain with ease. You probably couldnt carry a rifle as well. Perhaps a pistol. They could be held further up the hilt and used in confined spaces. Mel Gibson uses one in the film Braveheart at Stirling. You see him swing downwards to smash through a cavalrymans helmet and through his skull. Not pleasant but an object of fear that can be used practically to fight riot police and generally scare people who get too close. This weapon can be made with ease i guess.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 01:49 PM
New Kind of Soldier,

If you are reffering to Bloody Sunday, different situation, different place, different social conditions plus, no machine guns and it was the British paras who were using colonial tactics.
As for lunatics in celt warpaint and close formation. If you were a British soldier trained to fight irregular style tactic opponents and had just finished training or had even seen fighting in Iraq against the "ghost" enemy; would you truly be prepared to fight against a horde of rampaging revolutionaries who go so far as to have semen as warpaint and have built a reputation for using weapons that no man can protect against unless they have about 5 inches of armour plate covering their bodies?

They do not train men for such an enemy. By the time they have adapted the reputation for victories will already have taken hold.


err you dont need training to pull a trigger or throw a grenade.

its as easy as that, do you know how easy it is to kill 10 people with (sub)machine guns when they are standing close together? Just pull the trigger and spray. You'll be dead before you reach even one soldier.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Manchester and London are totally different places.

They are both major cities with gangs. The principle difference is that Manchester is farther from the channel.

Where do you think the Manchester gangs get their weapons from? The Tooth Fairy?


Pole hammers are about 15 inches long. They look like hammers but with a long spike at the end. It is a 13th century teutonic weapon that is designed to punch through thick armour and are perfectly balanced. They arent drawn as such. You could hang it off a belt. They could be carried in dense and difficult terrain with ease. You probably couldnt carry a rifle as well. Perhaps a pistol. They could be held further up the hilt and used in confined spaces. Mel Gibson uses one in the film Braveheart at Stirling. You see him swing downwards to smash through a cavalrymans helmet and through his skull. Not pleasant but an object of fear that can be used practically to fight riot police and generally scare people who get too close. This weapon can be made with ease i guess.

Well, I'm not stopping you, but the longest melee weapon I would willingly use would either be a katana* or a mechete, as you can carry a rifle as well.

*or it's shorter cousin

[TheReadMenace]

Hell, I'd be pulling out my battle-axe. The Irishman in me would come out like nobody's business, and there will be quite a few bodies lying about, hah.

In all seriousness, you guys should read 'Rebels: The Irish Rising of 1916' by Peter de Rosa. It's a day-by-day chronical regarding the rebellion and some of their battle tactics. I mean, it doesn't go too far in-depth as far as detailed warfare goes, but it's still pretty good.

But we're talking about after the revolution - what about that actual revolution?


Andrew

[slim]

ReadMenace,

Axes, i love axes lol. Perhaps it is an irish thing lol. I find the Rising to be a good way for potential revolutionaries to learn form the successes and failures of that week and potentially affect the way you think when the time comes.

I agree, we should talk about during the revolution. I believe that the army afterwards should be taken from part of the revolutionary army. Despite seeing myself as a kind of leader figure in the coming revolution I will be at the forefront of my unit. What happens to the fighters will happen to me so i take these armaments debates quite seriously.

Noxion,

I would imagine that the Manchurians get their arms from the port at Liverpool.

Ah...the pole hammer. lol.

New Kind of Soldier,

If pulling a trigger is so easy then why do soldiers go through training? It takes discipline, skill and strength.

[Decolonize The Left]

In my humble opinion, axes are too large for close-combat battle. A short sword would be ideal as it is more adaptable. It is also lighter.

Now an axe most certainly does receive the 'intimidation factor', cause some charging you with a battle axe compared to a short sword, um, yeah you get the picture.

But as for function, short swords of whatever type would be the most useful, if not simply guns.

-- August

[slim]

Perhaps a personalised mix of many different hand weapons would be pracitical. Im sure not everyone has the same favour for axes, or the stomach to use them in battle. Using a combination of axes for fear and imagery; and short swords for practicality and longevity in comparison to the axe.

Im just wondering how we are to stand against armoured vehicles?

Will we hijack enemy vehicles or will we develop a way for our infantry to combat them?

How about our logistics vehicles and supply trucks, scouts and recons, patrol units, mounted units, troop transports, even artillery? Will we specialise in the image of infantry to reflect our proletarian position against the oppressor or will we adopt the use of vehicles?

In respect of mounted units, I think that having a line of revolutionaries on motorcycles would be very effective at breaking up enemy infantry before our infantry charge.

[Decolonize The Left]

This is quite an amusing thread, especially for the imaginative...lol.

I think an army of revolutionaries brandishing swords, sheilds, axes, pikes, and other mideval weapons is pretty bad-fucking-ass... I don't know how effective, but gets a 10 on the badass meter for sure.

-- August

[slim]

That my friend is why it cannot be beaten lol.

If revolutionaries try to adopt western tactics then they will be soundly beaten by regular forces or at least suffer heavy losses.

Western troops have never faced such revolutionary tactics. The revolution needs to embrace all aspects of the word revolutionary lol.

[Enragé]

hit and run tactics and ambushes is what we need. You see an enemy patrol coming, throw a molotov, and run like hell. Lure them into an alley and then fire at them from the roofs. If all goes well, 10 dead on their side, 0 on ours

"the first duty of a revolutionary is to get away with it"

we shall beat them by attrition, and on top of it all, we got the numbers (by that time) :)

[Decolonize The Left]

Slim, an army of medival badass revolutionaries would only succeed if we win the first few battles. After the governmental army sees a bunch of soldiers dismembered and decapitated by a badass mob, they will think twice. Of course if these first efforts fail, all is doomed as the morality of the army will falter.

-- August

[slim]

Hit and run tactics would fail. You cannot gain ground that way. You can only stop advancing troops from attacking your homes and such. What if the army stays in their bases? Resort to what they call terrorism?

August, you are correct about the first few battles thing. Any firearms available would be appreciated and used but priority should be placed on melee weapons. I fee that these weapons can be used in a totally new way. New tactics can be developed and we could even intertwine melee tactics in compiment with skirmishers and armoured vehicles.

[novemba]

Slim and August..have you lost you fucking minds?

Medieval weapons?!?!!?

I have to go get a job but I'll post a rebuke in like 30min

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 04:36 PM
Slim, an army of medival badass revolutionaries would only succeed if we win the first few battles. After the governmental army sees a bunch of soldiers dismembered and decapitated by a badass mob, they will think twice. Of course if these first efforts fail, all is doomed as the morality of the army will falter.

-- August
err...do i have to remind you that our main objective is to win people over and keep them on our side? by chopping up enemies we get a fucked reputation, and rightly so, the enemy is the enemy, but also a human being.


You cannot gain ground that way

after the enemy is sufficiently weakened a more traditional battle would take place.


What if the army stays in their bases? Resort to what they call terrorism?


nope, attack the supply lines! They will have to come out of their bases then or else they'll simply die of starvation.

Also they will want to keep control of the cities, and if they would stay in their army bases they will be unable to do so.

Also, if we've captured some artillery, we could bomb the shit out of them.

But fine...if you want to wave your axe to an oncoming tank or B-52, have fun.
This aint the middle ages you know, times change, and so do weapons.

[Decolonize The Left]

Ok I'm gonna address a few big issues I see here:

1) When referring to medival weapons, I was saying that it would be "badass" not necessarily effective, Slim has yet to convince me thoroughly on this yet.

2) What is this shit about cutting supply lines? Are we forgetting who is fighting this revolution? It is the fucking supply lines! A general strike has to occur before a revolution, therefore there will be no supplies for the enemy...

3) Yes new tactics will be a necessity to the revolution. I dunno if it's medival weapons (which do get the intimidation points), or what, I'm gonna focus on how to sow the seeds of this revolution, but I'm happy to toss in thoughts about weapons n shit for the rev.

Personal Opinion: There should be some medival weapons, imagine the cover of Le Monde, or the Guardian, where there are some workers brandishing axes, pikes and swords chasing down policemen in riot gear... Funny shit...

-- August

[novemba]

THIS ISN'T A VIDEO GAME!

There is NO way in HELL that you would EVER launch a succesful ANYTHING with MEDIEVAL weapons!

WTF?! STOP WATCHING LORD OF THE RINGS!

[Decolonize The Left]

Lol, no need to "yell". If you read my post thoroughly, you would detect my sarcasm as well as my skeptiscm about the idea of medival weapons.

-- August

[Enragé]

2) What is this shit about cutting supply lines? Are we forgetting who is fighting this revolution? It is the fucking supply lines! A general strike has to occur before a revolution, therefore there will be no supplies for the enemy

foreign governments could very well supply our hypothetical enemy.


imagine the cover of Le Monde, or the Guardian, where there are some workers brandishing axes, pikes and swords chasing down policemen in riot gear... Funny shit...


imagine the cover of Le Monde, or the Guardian, where there are some soldiers with m16's mowing down approaching workers carrying axes...funny shit... :huh:

[slim]

NKOS,

And mowing down workers with MI6s and removing heads with shells wont produce a bad image? War is war. War is violent, bloody and fucked up to put it simply.

More traditional battle? Will this be with axes or what? It still has to adress the question.

As for supply lines they could send civilian couriers. If we want an image for barbary then we would stop them.

Just for reference. I never said the word medievil. I didnt say no guns either. I just said guns are hard to come by and axes are damned good.

Why would they send a B-52? Especially when we have control of the airfields, fuel and by bombing their own cities they would defeat their objective to defend them.

August,

I totally agree. SOME melee weapons.

Zacharia,

This isnt a video game, we cannot win a campaign if we are structured the same way as a more experienced enemy. They would win. Innovation is the key. They wont know whats going on. How would a field officer react? By running away or at least giving ground.

NKOS,

They wouldnt mow them down, much less put it on the cover of a magazine.

[RASH chris]

I tried my best to keep this on topic. But it isn't.

The whole point of this was to discuss fighting a war AFTER THE MOTHER FUCKING REVOLUTION!

But either way, slim, you are a pompous ass who is pretending to know something about military tactics. You don't know anything. If a mob of people with primitive weapons charge soldier they'll get mowed down, and the soldiers will easily be able to justify it. "Gee Captain, he had an axe, he could've killed me". Go ahead and run around with a sword, I'll stick to a rifle.

[Enragé]

More traditional battle?

no, conventional large scale confrontations (after guerilla attacks to weaken the enemy)


As for supply lines they could send civilian couriers. If we want an image for barbary then we would stop them.

there will always be those who will side with the forces of reaction, they are called class-enemies, or collaborators


Why would they send a B-52? Especially when we have control of the airfields, fuel and by bombing their own cities they would defeat their objective to defend them.

there are such things as military airfields controlled, secured and operated by military personel. And, you naive fuck, what the hell do you think they did in Fallujah?!?! And Najaf?!?!


By running away or at least giving ground.

how about by throwing a grenade, wiping out some of your axemen and then laughing out loud?

as for the rest


But either way, slim, you are a pompous ass who is pretending to know something about military tactics. You don't know anything. If a mob of people with primitive weapons charge soldier they'll get mowed down, and the soldiers will easily be able to justify it. "Gee Captain, he had an axe, he could've killed me". Go ahead and run around with a sword, I'll stick to a rifle.

[Decolonize The Left]

there will always be those who will side with the forces of reaction, they are called class-enemies, or collaborators

True. But I hope we all agree a revolution cannot occur without the vaste majority of the population... So with that in mind, these "collaborators" will be outnumbered and weak. They will not be able to supply the military themselves...
You all seem to forget that the revolution involves a general strike (and it must to succeed), where everyone stops working, in the factors, fields, offices, etc... All symphathetic stop work and therefore stop production. What do collaborators and the military have on this? Kill everyone?!?
If a general strike occurs just before violent confrontation, victory is practically secured (as long as we stick to the goals of course).


And, you naive fuck, what the hell do you think they did in Fallujah?!?! And Najaf?!?!

Ahem, firstly lets not resort to name calling. Secondly lets remember we are talking about the US here, our home nation, not a foreign nation. There would be no large scale bombing of anything, most if not all the fighting would occur on the ground, by military forces.


The whole point of this was to discuss fighting a war AFTER THE MOTHER FUCKING REVOLUTION!


Well who the fuck wants to talk about that? Why would we spend time talking about what might happen, if the revolution goes successfully...?

It is much for feasible and intelligent to discuss the fighting of the revolution, as it clearly will occur before the end of the revolution, and therefore before fighting after the revolution.

-- August

[RASH chris]

Well who the fuck wants to talk about that? Why would we spend time talking about what might happen, if the revolution goes successfully...?

The person who started this thread wants to talk about that. I want to talk about that. Why should we spend time talking about having a revolution if we're not going to defend it?

There is already a thread for the discussion of insurrection. It is entitled "anti police tactics".

[Decolonize The Left]

Perhaps a better question to ask yourselves would be, who are we defending it against?

-- August

[RASH chris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 10:25 PM
Perhaps a better question to ask yourselves would be, who are we defending it against?

-- August
That is quite possibly the most absurd question I have ever heard from somebody who claims to be a communist.

We need to defend it against the police, reactionary elements of the military, and foreign military.

Do you really think a revolution would be unopposed? Will managers stand with workers or bosses? (they'll surely go both ways) Will factory owners side with the workers? Of course not! They're going to hire mercenaries to fight the workers and the revolutionaries *cough*Coca Cola in latin america*cough*. Will politicians just sit back and watch communities take control of themselves? Of course not, they will try to convince people to fight against the revolution. And some will buy into it. Will religious authorities (like Pat Robertson) just allow "godless commies to lead this country into the arms of satan"? Of course not, they'll encourage all "good god fearing people to take a stand".

You seriously need to learn some history. The Russian revolution had relatively little violence. The civil war lasted a very long time. The Sandinistas won thier revolution, but failed to defend it.

In Spain they managed to elect a fairly left leaning socialist government quite peacefully (after a failed anarchist revolution, mind you). But they couldn't defend this revolution from the forces of the military, foreign nations, police, and religion.

Happy, asshole?

[novemba]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 10:05 AM
This isnt a video game, we cannot win a campaign if we are structured the same way as a more experienced enemy. They would win. Innovation is the key. They wont know whats going on. How would a field officer react? By running away or at least giving ground.

I believe using melee weapons would be the complete opposite of innovative.

Just wait for my post.

SO MUCH TO DO SO LITTLE TIME

STORY OF MY LIFE!

[Enragé]

You all seem to forget that the revolution involves a general strike (and it must to succeed), where everyone stops working, in the factors, fields, offices, etc... All symphathetic stop work and therefore stop production. What do collaborators and the military have on this? Kill everyone?!?
If a general strike occurs just before violent confrontation, victory is practically secured (as long as we stick to the goals of course).


In 68 in france there was a general strike, streat battles with cops etc, you know what de Gaulle did? He issued a state of emergency, outlawed leftist groups, had the leaders arrested, and used the labour unions to get the workers back to work again.
AND IT WORKED.
A general strike does not mean a revolution will work.
Also, it doesnt take many to supply a well organised military, especially if they are funded from abroad, which they probable will be.


Secondly lets remember we are talking about the US here, our home nation, not a foreign nation. There would be no large scale bombing of anything, most if not all the fighting would occur on the ground, by military forces.

Do you think they care that its their nation? OFCOURSE NOT.
ITS ABOUT CONTROL, not about national borders.
They'll just say "Terrorists have taken control of Michigan, we have sent our forces to liberate our people!" and then bomb the crap out of us.
The whites (tzarists) destroyed half of the country, and that country was their's (Russia).
The Nationalists in China destroyed half their country too.
South Vietnam destroyed half the country as well, with help of the US.
The Fascists in Spain asked Hitler to perform THE VERY FIRST AIR ATTACK ON A CIVILIAN TARGET, ON THEIR NATIVE SOIL!


The person who started this thread wants to talk about that. I want to talk about that. Why should we spend time talking about having a revolution if we're not going to defend it?


exactly but this doesnt matter, this is interesting too, i never knew there were so many misconceptions. I might create another thread specifically for AFTER the revolution.

[OleMarxco]

Oops. My bad........No need to get huffy...
Anyway's, on the subject of Military Tactics...

Now, I don't think a revolution really should be this strict, but since you asked....
The brute offensive forces should wield sticks and rocks...NAAWW, jus' kiddin',
they're the ones who take most fire, draw fire, take out the enemy resistance.
So they'll have fully automatic's, of course ;)

Like,
pushin' lil' children!
With 'eir fully-automatic's.
They like to -
PUSH THEIR FIGA'ROOOOO!

Okay, enough quotin' of S-O-A-D- of a Down by me,
let's talk about YOU :lol:

There'll more likely be some medieval weapon's however,
beside from support troop's with rocket launcher's, chain gun's
and sniper-rifle's, there'll be scout's and rogues with stuff like
SHORT SWORD's, CROSSBOW's, DAGGER's and QUARTERSTAFF's.
Shit like that. Jus' in case, we wanna make a silent attack! That's the advantage :P

In-case-of-a-water-landing, you may us...ehh, I mean, if they use bomb's against us, we'll of course scram and relocate, then re-unite, forcing them to meet us, "face to face"...or so'rey atleast think =D

[Decolonize The Left]

A general strike does not mean a revolution will work.

What you just described was not a general strike. A general strike is where everyone stops working and refuses to go back working until demands are met. In this case the government will not acquiese to the demands, and so violence will break out.


They'll just say "Terrorists have taken control of Michigan, we have sent our forces to liberate our people!" and then bomb the crap out of us.

Honestly, are you serious? If this does happen, it will purely generate more support for our cause. Let them bomb Michigan, and let all the residents of Michigan who were not supportive lose their houses, and cars, and family members, (everything they were trying to protect) and see what happens. They won't turn to the government and say "thanks man! Go get them rascals!"....

NKoS, I think you are looking at the actual revolution wrong. This is not a revolution of the Left, or of Leftist groups, which can be sigled out and destroyed. This is an uprising of the fucking people. Most, if not all, the people. And by people of course I mean the working and lower-middle classes, to use capitalist terms.

-- August

[Enragé]

What you just described was not a general strike. A general strike is where everyone stops working and refuses to go back working until demands are met. In this case the government will not acquiese to the demands, and so violence will break out.

entire france was put to a halt, 95% of the workers were on strike (you cant get much higher than that, there will always be people who will continue to work)


Honestly, are you serious? If this does happen, it will purely generate more support for our cause. Let them bomb Michigan, and let all the residents of Michigan who were not supportive lose their houses, and cars, and family members, (everything they were trying to protect) and see what happens. They won't turn to the government and say "thanks man! Go get them rascals!"....

Honestly, i dont think you know the influence of propaganda.
Anyone but the people in Michigan will think "oh great we liberated michigan", and those who try to say otherwise will be ridiculed

Just look at Fallujah.



NKoS, I think you are looking at the actual revolution wrong. This is not a revolution of the Left, or of Leftist groups, which can be sigled out and destroyed. This is an uprising of the fucking people. Most, if not all, the people. And by people of course I mean the working and lower-middle classes, to use capitalist terms.

ofcourse, but there will always be parts of the "people" who will continue to support capitalism, just look at Russia.

[Adam_Arachnid]

How do you plan on gettin a-hold of all your fellow comrades such as myself, when the shit hits the fan......Smoke signals. lol :lol: Our chances grow thin as time hits us in the face. In all reallity, the time is now people. WAKE UP! :ph34r:

[Decolonize The Left]

The time is most certainly not now.

The workers of this country don't know what is really happening and arn't ready to assume the responsability of controlling industries.
We need preparation before the revolution, or all is doomed.

-- August

[RASH chris]

What you just described was not a general strike. A general strike is where everyone stops working and refuses to go back working until demands are met. In this case the government will not acquiese to the demands, and so violence will break out.

What just happend in Bolivia? The whole country was shut down, there was a general strike, the workers were fighting the police (miners were throwing dynamite at them), they were blocking off every street, attempting to shut down congress.


Honestly, are you serious? If this does happen, it will purely generate more support for our cause. Let them bomb Michigan, and let all the residents of Michigan who were not supportive lose their houses, and cars, and family members, (everything they were trying to protect) and see what happens. They won't turn to the government and say "thanks man! Go get them rascals!"....

And the president will go on TV and commend the people of Michigan for thier great sacrifice in this war on tyranny and opression. And he will say god bless America and the people of this country will say "if only those damn communists would stop this revolution then people would stop dying."


NKoS, I think you are looking at the actual revolution wrong. This is not a revolution of the Left, or of Leftist groups, which can be sigled out and destroyed. This is an uprising of the fucking people. Most, if not all, the people. And by people of course I mean the working and lower-middle classes, to use capitalist terms.

Who do you think leads the revolution? And I'm not even talking about a centralized vanguard (in the Leninist sense) of leadership. The people who inspire the workers will be IWW members and leftists who have been active in class struggle politics for years and have experience. And those people will be singled out and killed and blacklisted and portrayed to be unbelieveably evil. (Berlin 1919)

Revolution isn't a tea party. Its not easy and the civil wars which inevitably follow are not short.

[Omri Evron]

A full scale war against the capitalist governments of the world is hopeless, at least at this age. I don't know how you expect the proletarian to gather a large army with high technology sufficient of fighting against the modern armies of the US and NATO, but even if so- would we want a war where both sides (or only the capitalist side) has nuclear weapons and other means by which to destroy any part of the world? Even if the US or Western Europe were actually threatened by a gigantic proletarian army that is capable of opposing their armies in combat- the capitalist governments would have no choice but use all the weapons they have. This means the only possible outcome of a military conflict between the revolutionaries and capitalism is defeat (such as a single small country vs. the US) or the destruction of at least substantial parts of the human race (in the case of a world war).
Guerrilla warfare does stand some chances of wining the military conflict, as long as it makes the foreign capitalists suffer so much that they'll think it unprofitable to continue the war. But even then, the war might not be worth it- as in most wars the majority of the casualties will be civilians, and overall the casualties of the war would be huge (ex. Vietnam). One most also remember that usually in order to win this war you have to murder as many proletarians from the invading countries.

So, I think the only reasonable way for the proletarian to defend themselves and the revolution is not by waging a war on the capitalist countries (even if defensive by nature) - but by direct action, non-violent resistance and civil disobedience. If the Proletarian simply refuse to cooperate with the capitalist government- that government is rend powerless and will fall. Even if it a cruel dictatorship with a vast and strong army that is backed up by the capitalist regimes of the world (like Guatemala under the dictator Jorge Ubico in 1944), all it takes for the workers to overthrow that regime is to unite and stop cooperating with the government, without needing to use a single gun.

To conclude, I don't think any revolutionary army can stand against such powerful capitalist armies as those of the US or NATO, and that even if such a force did arise, the consequences of a war between them would be destructive to humanity and the world. Yet if the workers of the world really would unite, they'll have no problem overthrowing the capitalist governments simply by not recognizing their authority, and without having to go on a full scale war. Overthrowing capitalism with a superior army is unrealistic- replacing the capitalist system by the united effort of the working class can achieve Socialism and prevent the waist of many human lives.

[RASH chris]

Omri, you're simply not taking history into account. In the Russian civil war the reds beat the whites, and the whites were supported by other capitalist nations.

During revolutions large portions of the army usually defect to the side of the revolutionaries. Large portions of the population stop working, meaning that the country essentially shuts down. As long as the revolution involves a general strike, massive popular support, mass defections from the military, and support (in the form of other revolutions) abroad then it is quite easy to see it ocurring sucessfully.

[Enragé]

So, I think the only reasonable way for the proletarian to defend themselves and the revolution is not by waging a war on the capitalist countries (even if defensive by nature) - but by direct action, non-violent resistance and civil disobedience. If the Proletarian simply refuse to cooperate with the capitalist government- that government is rend powerless and will fall.

in the end our goal is a global revolution, and thus confrontation with the reactionaries, now im not saying it has to be WW3 (capitalist countries might very well be already in decline when the global revolution picks up pace) but there is going to be some fighting.

As for the rest, i agree with anarchopunk

[Adam_Arachnid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 07:46 PM
The workers of this country don't know what is really happening and arn't ready to assume the responsability of controlling industries.
We need preparation before the revolution, or all is doomed.

-- August
Having friends of hi status in the media would be a huge leg up in inpiring the working class to emancipate themselfes from this slavery. Wouldn't you agree?

--Adam-->

[Decolonize The Left]

Having friends of hi status in the media would be a huge leg up in inpiring the working class to emancipate themselfes from this slavery. Wouldn't you agree?

I would. Although I think it would develop into a war on the airwaves, where our side gets viciously attacked by Republicans and Democrats alike.
I'm not saying it won't reach many people, but I think it might cause the revolution to fizzle out, as the capitalists can simply bombard our simple representatives from all angles, at all times.

-- August

[Enragé]

we have to disrupt mainstream media and spread our own news, not become part of the system of lies.

[Adam_Arachnid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 04:22 AM


Although I think it would develop into a war on the airwaves, where our side gets viciously attacked by Republicans and Democrats alike.
I'm not saying it won't reach many people, but I think it might cause the revolution to fizzle out, as the capitalists can simply bombard our simple representatives from all angles, at all times.


Mud slinging has always played a role in revolutions. And if showing the people that we can play the media game as well as the opposition, it would heighten the morale of the working class as well. Right? And how would it "fizzle out" if we're still hitting them from the other points? And why do you think they would be " simple represenatives."? :blink:
<Adam> <_<

[Adam_Arachnid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 02:28 PM
we have to disrupt mainstream media and spread our own news, not become part of the system of lies.
I never said to lie.

[RASH chris]

The slogan is "sieze the media". There is a reason that is the slogan. Traditional media is never going to be supportive of a revolution. Media is corporate, they get money from multi-nationals, so they&#39;re not going to allow a person to incite revolution on air, nor would the state allow it. Any person with considerable public influence who took the side of the revolution would surely be labeled a traitor or a terrorist and detained/killed.

[Adam_Arachnid]

True, but there&#39;s nothin wrong with slingin a&#39;lil mud. lol

[RASH chris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 04:02 PM
True, but there&#39;s nothin wrong with slingin a&#39;lil mud. lol
Yes there is. It&#39;s unproductive and useless. We&#39;re not trying to sling mud, we&#39;re trying to sieze control of the means of production.

[Adam_Arachnid]

Whatever works man, I&#39;m just a noble pothead ready to grasp to the coat tails of the Revolution and help out an ANY way that I can brothas and sistas. =D :ph34r:

[RASH chris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 05:33 AM
Whatever works man, I&#39;m just a noble pothead ready to grasp to the coat tails of the Revolution and help out an ANY way that I can brothas and sistas. =D :ph34r:
Whatever works? That&#39;s my point, it doesn&#39;t work. What we need to do is create an alternative to corporate media. Clearly you&#39;re interested in media and how it realtes to class consciousness and revolutionary potential. So I reccomend you go to www.indymedia.org and find out how you can help the independent media movement. Maybe your town allready has an IMC (indymedia center) or maybe you can find some people and work on creating one.

That will work.