Fighting styles - Soldiers vs. Guerrillas

Hey, Kate -

In developing the fighting styles and telltales that will help differentiate your nomadic guerrillas from your regulars, it may be helpful to consider what each group is trying to accomplish. That will tell you a lot about how they are going to fight, and what they are willing to do to achieve their goals. As a general rule, regular forces seek to achieve a particular goal (usually political), while irregular forces opposing them seek to prevent them from achieving their goal--if the irregulars/guerrillas have a political goal of their own, it is usually secondary to preventing the regulars from achieving theirs.

For example, your army troops may be attempting to establish (their version of) order in a particular area, or to assert their government's undisputed control over the same area. That's going to require them to establish a continuous physical presence over a wide area (that's what bases of operations and patrols are for). Occupying a wide area is much easier when nobody is shooting at you, so the regulars will be seeking to:

- Find those who oppose them;
- Get them all in one place;
- Fight (and win) a decisive battle, eliminating the enemy's will and/or capacity to resist;
- Accept the surrender and/or concession of the enemy leaders so they can continue with their mission;
- Repeat as necessary until all enemy groups no longer resist.

Decisive battle is important because it resolves the dispute quickly--if one side is no longer capable of continuing the fight, the other will have much less trouble accomplishing its goals. Regular forces are designed, trained, and supplied to facilitate victory in decisive battle, and that's where they have every advantage over irregular forces.

It's not surprising, then, that an irregular force's focus will probably be on avoiding decisive battle. Instead, it will seek to render the regular force incapable of accomplishing its goals with a variety of tactics and techniques:

- Avoiding operations that require it to concentrate in large numbers, instead operating in small, semi-independent units;
- Attacking the regulars where they are weak, like supply trains, rear echelon forces, command posts, or isolated patrols, and striking in a hit-and-run manner to inflict casualties rather than hold ground or destroy enemy units;
- Using tactics that minimize exposure, like snipers, mines, and boobytraps;
- Turning the local population against the regular forces by persuasion, encouragement, coercion, or terrorism;
- Any other tactics that might help prevent the regulars from accomplishing their goals while minimizing their advantages.

A regular force's ability or inability to bring an irregular force to decisive battle, or even to identify the members of the irregular force (as irregulars, they may or may not wear uniforms) will contribute to more or less discriminate tactics against those suspected of being enemy or enemy sypathizers. If the irregulars have had success with the local population, the regulars may respond by attacking the population directly, either as "punishment" or to encourage the irregulars to "stand and fight" and seek decisive battle. Of course, if the regulars do not see the will of the governed as critical to the establishment of a government, they may attack the population anyway.

All that is a very long-winded explanation to inform the differences that might tell between your nomads and regulars impersonating them. Off the top of my head, I'd recommend the following, assuming there's no obvious ethnic difference between the groups:

- The impostors carry more, or carry in a more standardized way, than the nomads would;
- The impostors attack in a more deliberate manner, communicating in short phrases that sound like commands and moving in concert to a greater degree than the nomads would;
- The impostors shoot at their targets in a different way than the nomads--if the nomads have limited ammunition, they might take only short-range or certain-kill shots and do most of their work with hand weapons, so grouped shots might indicate the work of regulars;
- If the nomads have a distinctive way of marking the bodies of their kills (like scalping or some other form of ritual mutilation), the regulars might try to imitate it but get some telling detail wrong--someone familiar with their techniques might be able to say something isn't right about the bodies;
- The nomads may loot their kills--bodies that retain ammunition, guns, food, or some other commodity the nomads prize may implicate somebody else.

I hope this is helpful. Sorry it turned out so long-winded!

HN

The guerilla would try to employ tactics meant to minimize the chances of major engagements (as the army would have technological—weapons advantage).
Using the relief (mountains, hills, rivers, forests, desert, etc) would be a major plus in the fighting. Mobility and knowledge of the terrain will play major roles. Guerilla will try ambushes, along with hit and run tactics, night engagements, maximize concealment (by using natural cover), but also would take full advantage of traps (tunnels, poison water sources, pits, home made explosive devices, punji, gaot, etc).

Tactics

Kate,

I don't know if this seemingly insignificant detail will help your novel, but I was a tactical small arms instructor in Vietnam in the mid-'60s.

The M-16 .223 rifle, each with capability to select fire to full automatic, was replacing the M-14 .308 semi-automatic rifles in use by U.S. forces (except some marine units kept their M-14s).

Simplified, the problem was that distribution of the M-16 got ahead of training. For one thing, many troops when involved in firefights went full auto, and at 800 round a minute exhausted magazines in a few seconds.

In the case of some ambushed U.S. forces, everyone in a patrol was out of rounds and reloading at the same time. Guerrilla elements, such as Viet Cong, quickly learned to take cover during the first few seconds of withering fire and then take deadly advantage of the few seconds of lull which followed to move in.

Until U.S. soldiers learned to stagger bursts, poorer armed guerrilla forces could often wreak havoc on better armed, more numerous regular soldiers.

This may not be what you're looking for, but there's a great book called Guerrillas in the Mist: A Battlefield Guide To Clandestine Warfare, published by Paladin Press. Here's the company's description of the book:


Learn every facet of the grim, violent world of guerrilla warfare: basic fieldcraft; mines and booby traps; tunnel construction and strategy; ambushes; urban and nocturnal tactics; interrogation, indoctrination and exploitation; psyops; and more.

I read this book and thought it was really interesting, and I'm not usually into this kind of subject. (I work for a book wholesaler, and whenever any Paladin Press books end up in the warehouse, I get to keep them - my boss doesn't want these books on his store shelves.)

Kate_Sherwood said:

Okay, I'm still working in the dystopic future from my earlier post (re. post-Apocalyptic technology and weaponry). I've taken some of the ideas from that post, and I'd like to have two distinct groups fighting in my story. There will be organized, army-style soldiers based in the cities, and more guerrilla-style fighting from the nomads living in the lands between the cities.

So far, I'm thinking that the soldiers will have more guns and ammo, since they have more reliable access to the manufacturing, but my nomads will have SOME firearms. And I'm thinking that the soldiers would be more 'move forward, set up a base of operations, have patrols, engage with the enemy, move forward again, worry about supply lines, etc.' while the nomads would be more, well, nomadic, with lightning strikes and then fading back into the forest, living off the land, etc. Are there any other tactical differences that would make sense? I'm trying not to draw too many parallels to Natives vs. Colonials in North America (or elsewhere), because I don't want to be making a political statement, but I think there are a lot of similarities between the set ups.

And, hopefully - I want there to be a scenario in which a group of soldiers pose as nomads, and attack a different group of soldiers (trying to stir up feelings against the nomads). And I want this deception to be discovered, eventually, but not right away. Can anyone think of battle styles or weaponry or something else that would be a clue that the 'nomads' were really soldiers? So far, I'm just thinking that they would be really BAD at being nomads - making too much noise in the forest, jumping out and standing in a line before shooting instead of firing from cover, using more guns than most nomad bands would have, wasting precious ammo, etc. Does anyone have any other ideas for this?

Thanks very much for your time! I hope this isn't too much of a 'do my thinking for me' post - I'm not trying to steal your imaginations, but many of you have more weaponry/military background than I do, so your suggestions would be really useful.

Click to expand...

K_S,
All good advice from knowledgeable people...

There any many sources and models to draw from, and could even include what we label today as 'terrorism'. But I'd suggest one additional model to consider, that of the French Resistance in WW2. The Wehrmacht overran France. The Resistance concentrated on attacking the German military infrastructure, and didn't engage in pitched battles if possible.

You could incorporate several models of conflict between nomads and regulars, choosing features from each as desired.

As always, take what you need, ruse the as cannon fodder.

--Stan

Kate-

I think you'll get even more useful information if you clarify the level of technology and the kind of terrain you're using. While I noticed you mentioned "forest" and "guns," there's a big difference between, say, British Army tactics in the Boer War and their tactics in the Malay Insurgency - and much of that change was driven by the firearms they used, the equipment they had, and the terrain they fought in.

There's also the giant question of civilian populations. Do the guerrillas use locals as shields/hostages/support? Are they on their own?

The US Army now has an entire new field manual devoted to "counterinsurgency." And the new name for guerrilla warfare is "asymmetric warfare." The Wikipedia article for asymmetric warfare might give you some more leads.

I just wanted to add that being the invader or conqueror requires a hell of a lot more troops then being the guerrila defender.

And the problem grows geometrically by a factor of 2 with area. So, the larger the region you are trying to control the more troops you need to maintain control/order.

Also, when you are protecting/patroling, you have to be vigilant 100% of the time, and that is physically and mentally exhausting.

Whereas when you are the guerrila soldier, you can fight whenever and wherever you want usually.

Historically, you need about ten times as many soldiers to conquer a territory than you need to defend an area (of course this varies with technology, terrain, enemy capabilities, etc but you get the point). Basically, being the invader/occupier is ten times harder than being the defender who is familiar with the terrain/area..

You will want to read up on Vietnam and a concept called Asymmetric Warfare.

And in terms of writing the actually combat/fight scenes, I suggest you read John Ringo. He is a very good military sci-fi writer (the Best IMO), read his Hymn Before Battle it is incredible

Lastly, you will have to do a lot of research so be prepared for that aspect. Biggest mistake you can make is to be too amateurish when writing a fight scene. Many of your readers will be in the know and authors that get basic stuff wrong really turn their readership off.

One thing that Eric Flint did that he found helpful was to have military experts write a rough draft of a particular military heavy scene that he wasn't knowledgeable in (like his airplane/flying scenes), then he'd take that draft and rewrite it into his style. There is a 'feel' to proper military engagements, read basically anything by John Ringo or David Weber and you will know EXACTLY what i'm talking about.

good luck

Mel...

What kinds of technology will still be available to either side? What kind of military hardware? Will aviation assets still be viable? Will either side have previous military experience, such as cavalry training or SOF/LIC? If you want to boil it down to substantive differences, you need to figure out what those are in advance.

There's a History Channel DVD on Sun Tzu's Art of War and how it can be applied to various battles in history. I've only watched part of it (I need to watch the rest of it) but personally, I think it does a very good job of explaining Sun Tzu's philosophy.

I think we need to know more about their technology before we can really answer this.

I can guarantee traps are going to be part of it though. As will ambush engagements.

Like for example, if I know the patrol routes of the enemy I would set up an ambush of snipers somewhere along their path. When they get in we would pick our targets and take down the patrol in a second and either loot them or escape.

However, if they have armor this game changes, depending on the quality of the armor. most effective place to hit a man from a long distance is his torso. The head is too risky a shot, but if the enemy is wearing armor strong enough to stop your bullets then you have to kill them more with traps and less with gun fire.

A lot also depends on the landscape of the area. You fight in a dense jungle a lot differently than a rolling grassland. And those are a lot different than a desert.

So what are their terrain and technology? Either will help with your tactics greatly.

Are we talking smooth bore muskets? Break action rifles? semi auto? full auto? And what about armor. Will any of them be wearing any? How good is it? Flack jackets, kevlar with or without ceramics, dragon skin?

Nivarion said:

However, if they have armor this game changes, depending on the quality of the armor. most effective place to hit a man from a long distance is his torso. The head is too risky a shot, but if the enemy is wearing armor strong enough to stop your bullets then you have to kill them more with traps and less with gun fire.

Click to expand...

True to a point. Tactics will adapt inferior weapons to defeat armor. You use what you have until you can get something better.

When I was in Iraq, the trauma plates we wore in our body armor would stop a 7.62mm rifle round, but the kevlar without the plate wouldn't. Most of the enemy couldn't hit you if they unloaded a whole magazine in your direction, but they did have some snipers--and those figured out where the edges of the trauma plates were and could hit just above or around them. Those plates provide very good protection, but a shot angled in from around the edge will still kill.

For what it's worth.
HN

Hi Kate,

As in your other thread, I will preface my remarks by saying that I am NOT a weapons or strategy expert. Many who commented in this thread obviously are, and I hope someday when I need such practical advice, I will receive a similar amount help.

But a few other things to consider:

Your nomads don't have a safe, walled city to house their non-combatants. So the nomad forces would have to stealthily travel long distances to engage the "islanders", otherwise their campfires alone would give away their positions, spelling certain doom for their women and children.

Also - and I know I'm going a bit off-topic here - but I got thinking about the "islands of civilization" in a post-apocalyptic world. It seems to me that they would spring up around pre-existing resources. So, one of your "islands" might be built up around a Campbell's Soup factory, another around a brewery, and of course, the most formidable, around a munitions plant. The point being is that they would each pose their own challenges for the nomads, but the trade routes between them would provide opportunities for the nomads.

Also, I'm assuming the islands would be relatively new "nations" who need to defend their borders (or city walls, or at the very least, their interests). So there'd likely be taxes. Not necessarily monetary, but maybe squirrel pelts, first-born sons, virgin daughters, whatever. Regardless, at least some of the common folk would be pissed-off about taxation, and might be inclined to collaborate with the nomads.

And of course you should consider the willingness of the combatants. The nomads probably NEED to fight just to survive, while many of the "island forces" would likely be conscripts, who'd rather just give up and go hang out at Taco Bell with their friends.

So, maybe desertion would be the way to make the "poseurs" ineffective.

Ok, enough for now, I'm tired and I know I'm not articulating myself very well. Just some things to consider.

You should definitely watch The Postman; a movie from 1997(I think) with Kevin Costner. Sounds like you're along roughly similar lines.

As for weapons and tactics, it sounds like the nomads will be at a disadvantage in terms of numbers and supplies. However, they have the upper hand in terms of mobility and adaptability: they aren't tied to any location, and they're used to moving around and making use of whatever they can get hold of. I'd expect them to apply this philosophy to combat as well. Hit-and-fade raids, where they strike without warning, using their knowledge of the terrain to get close undetected and to get away and disappear afterwards. In a straight fight, they'll probably lose, because they have inferior weapons, they're outnumbered and the enemy have walls and defences, so they'll avoid fights like that by using stealth, speed and surprise.

Gugland's point about the 'islands' growing up around key supply sources is a great one, because it's exactly how I'd expect it to happen, and it also makes for some interesting dynamics and plot points. It means that the 'islands' will probably have to trade - for example, the group who live at the soup factory would trade food for guns and ammo from the group at the munitions factory, and medical supplies from the group who live round the hospital etc. These trade routes provide targets for the nomads, who can live off the stolen supplies as well as using it as a way to weaken a troublesome enemy by starving them of a particular resource, like food or ammo. Pretty standard harrassment techniques: scatter around, blend into the landscape, and hit the enemy's supply lines with hit-and-fade raids, ambushes and traps, stuff like that. The latter books in Orson Scott Card's Shadow saga describe this pretty well.

Without a reliable source of ammo, the nomads would likely turn to any kind of weapon they can find. The best they could get would be proper guns, most likely taken from city folk, either stolen from trade caravans or taken from dead enemies. Next would be zipguns; improvised firearms made from bits of pipe and stuff. It's an old practice, and the internet is full of photos of crude yet perfectly functional guns made from plumbing and duct tape. After zipguns, the next resort would probably be crossbows and slingshots, firing things like six-inch nails, ball-bearings (taken from busted engines or wheels, perhaps) and stones. Body armour would stop the vast majority of these (at close range, a sharpened six-inch nail shot from a decent crossbow might get through light Kevlar) but it's still a weapon, and you can reload it easier (any DIY store will have tons of nails, ball bearings and stuff, and you can always just find gravel, or sharpen bits of tree branch as crossbow bolts). A hit to the head would do fine, and the limbs tend to be un-armoured; it'd be dangerous enough that an enemy wouldn't run into a hail of nails and stones any more readily than they would a hail of bullets. After that, you're down to melee weapons; knives are the obvious, but in modern forces they're a last resort, so expect more extreme stuff, like short swords, axes, baseball bats with nails and razor blades stuck in them, whatever.

A lot of it depends on how desperate the nomads are. If they're doing ok, living comfortably enough, just casually raiding trade routes to keep their supplies topped up, then they'd only send people with proper weapons - real guns, maybe the better zipguns. If they're getting desperate, they'll send more people, and with only so many weapons to go around, the improvised stuff will get more useage. If they're under attack and fighting for survival, they'll go at it tooth and nail, and everyone capable of swinging a blunt object will grab whatever nearby item seems most capable of inflicting injury and start looking for someone to hit with it.

K_S,

Looks like you've struck a vein of solid information and ideas that could sustain a series of books on the subject.

Hope you are having fun with it.

This gets more interesting with each new post. I might have to start my own distopian world.

--Stan