Can an armed yeomanry resist a professional army?

[Grant Whitley]

One of the perennial topics that comes up as a byproduct of discussions on the 2nd Amendment is the efficacy of an armed populace and/or militias in resisting professional forces. It's often stated that in a modern context, professional soldiers would quickly and easily crush nonprofessional forces and/or that this has almost always been the result of a clash between the two in the past.

 

I thought this would make good fodder for a discussion.

 

1. Can an armed populace resist a modern army?

 

2. Have armed populations been able to do so in the past?

[RETAC21]

One of the perennial topics that comes up as a byproduct of discussions on the 2nd Amendment is the efficacy of an armed populace and/or militias in resisting professional forces. It's often stated that in a modern context, professional soldiers would quickly and easily crush nonprofessional forces and/or that this has almost always been the result of a clash between the two in the past.

 

I thought this would make good fodder for a discussion.

 

1. Can an armed populace resist a modern army?

 

2. Have armed populations been able to do so in the past?

 

EjemIRAQ!

 

Yes it can, but it needs outside help or an established army to prevail. Armed populace is more effective when it works as a guerrilla, but a guerrilla alone is unlikely to defeat a conventional army so it needs a conventional side to be fully effective.

[Grant Whitley]

Playing the Devil's Advocate for a bit, I tried to think of some example in which an armed populace played a role against a professional army.

 

American Revolution: Touched off by militia forces; although professional troops grew in importance, militia continued to play an important role, especially in the lead up to Yorktown.

 

The ACW: Severe arms shortages on both sides, many private weapons in use for the first couple of years. US Regulars play a minor role at best.

 

I have a pretty deep knowledge of the Mexican Revolution(pet subject of mine), so I thought about that for a bit. When Madero issued a call for a general uprising in 1910, it was initially only acted on by residents of the former military colonies(which had been established to fight the Apache) in Chihuahua. In the several decades prior, these same colonists had been the most consistently militant opponents of the Díaz government. They would come to form the nucleus of Pancho Villa's army. A similar process occurred in Sonora- the Yaqui Indians, who had fought against the government throughout the latter decades of the 19th century, became the core of one of the major revolutionary armies. Finally, many of the various factions made use of various flavors of auxiliary troops- most notably, the Carranza government was big on "social defense" militias which essentially acted as fixed garrisons.

[Grant Whitley]

EjemIRAQ!

 

Yes, but as I've mentioned before, not usually the favored example of pro-2nd Amendment types in the US.

 

Yes it can, but it needs outside help or an established army to prevail. Armed populace is more effective when it works as a guerrilla, but a guerrilla alone is unlikely to defeat a conventional army so it needs a conventional side to be fully effective.

 

Does the Iraqi insurgency have either of these to any significant degree? Most estimates of the number of foreign fighters put them at a fraction of the native Iraqi insurgents, and Iraq is awash in weapons and shouldn't need any from outside.

[CV9030FIN]

Former Yugoslavia 1991-92. The Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) forces vs. Slovenian and Croatia ad hock military forces. Both Slovenians and Croatians fighted their independence against well armed JNA (Serbs). Slovenian militia repelled attacks within couple days with only minimal casualties on both sides but in Croatia real war broke out. Croatian situation evolved to civil war in which Serb dominated JNA started to protect and aid Serbs against new Croatian army/militia. Both Slovenian and Croatian forces got their equipment mainly from JNA depots situated their soil in eve of independece and most of their forces had had military training in JNA as a conscripts.

[LeoTanker]

Playing the Devil's Advocate for a bit, I tried to think of some example in which an armed populace played a role against a professional army.

 

American Revolution: Touched off by militia forces; although professional troops grew in importance, militia continued to play an important role, especially in the lead up to Yorktown.

 

The ACW: Severe arms shortages on both sides, many private weapons in use for the first couple of years. US Regulars play a minor role at best.

 

I have a pretty deep knowledge of the Mexican Revolution(pet subject of mine), so I thought about that for a bit. When Madero issued a call for a general uprising in 1910, it was initially only acted on by residents of the former military colonies(which had been established to fight the Apache) in Chihuahua. In the several decades prior, these same colonists had been the most consistently militant opponents of the Díaz government. They would come to form the nucleus of Pancho Villa's army. A similar process occurred in Sonora- the Yaqui Indians, who had fought against the government throughout the latter decades of the 19th century, became the core of one of the major revolutionary armies. Finally, many of the various factions made use of various flavors of auxiliary troops- most notably, the Carranza government was big on "social defense" militias which essentially acted as fixed garrisons.

 

The Poles tried it in Warsaw 1944. Didnt work out to well though. The partisan campaigns in the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia against the Germans during WWII could maybe pass as an example of a pretty effective "peoples war". A lot of the partisans were ex Red/Yugo Army soldiers though.

 

I guess the Tamil Tigers and Hezbollah are too mouch "Ordinary Old School Guerilla Movements" to fit the criterias...

[Exel]

If the "armed populace" has had military training at some point, they can probably organize and fight effectively. I seriously doubt the ability of the "2nd Amendment" type of home Rambo militias to fight effectively though unless they organize some kind of improvised training (like terrorist training camps).

[Grant Whitley]

I guess the Tamil Tigers and Hezbollah are too mouch "Ordinary Old School Guerilla Movements" to fit the criterias...

 

I actually don't mean to focus on guerilla warfare specifically- conventional warfare played an important or preeminent role in all of my examples.

[Old Tanker]

A similar process occurred in Sonora- the Yaqui Indians, who had fought against the government throughout the latter decades of the 19th century, became the core of one of the major revolutionary armies.

 

A side note:

 

The Yanquis weren't a recognized tribe in the U.S. There were very few if any in the U.S. when Arizona became a state in 1913.

The wars with Mexico led them to start migrating since it seems the Mexican gov't was out to commit genocide to the Yanquis(same with Apaches earlier).

From about 1915-20 quite a few fled to the U.S. They settled in a village called Guadalupe , just south of Tempe and another area just SW of downtown Tuson.

They received no tribal aide or such until about 1970-5 when the Feds finally recognized them. Guadalupe is close to being a war zone today.

[Ken Estes]

EjemIRAQ!

 

Yes it can, but it needs outside help or an established army to prevail. Armed populace is more effective when it works as a guerrilla, but a guerrilla alone is unlikely to defeat a conventional army so it needs a conventional side to be fully effective.

What RETAC sez. As to examples of Grant and a few other as well, they confirm the need for a conventional army. In the Am Revn, the Militia myth was fostered historically by the states as a means of keeping the federal govt weak and decentralized. But Washington and others realized from the outset that a conventional military victory would be required to convince Parliament to call off the dogs, Hessians, etc. Washington and the Continental army always sought that field victory and not once but twice was a British field army forced to surrender.

 

The Spanish War of Independence vs. France 1808-14 illustrates the same pattern. Highlighted for the 'guerrilla' ops, it is often not understood that the Spanish army remained in the field even when Moore and Wellington were forced out, forced one double army at Bailen to surrender, prevailed in other battles as well and crossed into France with Wellington in 1814.

 

Even Mao and his disciple Che needed conventional forces to settle the final issues, despite all the swill about the army swims among the population like fish in the sea and other aphorisms.

 

The revolt against Spanish rule in the Americas was fought by conventional forces and a rebel field army stood vs. Spain in Cuba in the 1890s.

 

Did anybody mention Vietnam??

 

The Yugoslav resistance vs. the Germans 1941-45 deserves mention, if only because it resembles the US/Iraqi situation more than any people's revolution. There is also the Philippine Insurrection. In both cases, the occupier 'went Roman' and was still defeated by a well armed population, led by native officers, aided in Yugo by foreign advisors and materiel, but largely fought by the natives with paramilitary forces. Thanks to the military experience of the Former Regime Loyalist crowd, and the preps by the Saddam regime for a resistance, the cellular command structure and the underground support system has sustained the Iraqis against very well trained and technologically superior troops. No foreign assistance has proven decisive. In fact, the Iraqis may eventually eliminate the terrorists in their midst, but still continue their insurrection vs. the US.

[Biscuitsjam]

In regards to the Second Amendment, this is the wrong question to ask. You presume that an armed populace and the military are separate things, when, in fact, they are not. If the National Guard were called upon to fight their family and neighbors, many would resist. Lots of police would also be reluctant to confiscate firearms from law-abiding citizens.

 

Given a large enough revolt though, what is the military to do though? Launch artillery barrages against their own cities? Our professional army is small in comparison to our total population, and, in a modern war, many weapons and tactics would be unavailable. And, if some military joined the side of the rebels, it wouldn't nearly be so lopsided a war as many seem to think.

 

Also, I think some of you miss the mark with your analysis of the Revolutionary War. Sure, conventional forces played a huge role in that eventual victory, but how many of those armies existed in 1774? There were some trained officers and some organized militia groups in the colonies, but the army was created almost entirely from scratch from an armed yeomanry.

 

I don't think we'll see another War Between the States any time soon, with armies arising almost overnight and fighting in epic conventional battles. More likely, if a civil conflict were to occur, it would start out as a very low-level insurgency, with bombings, snipings, and other asymetrical tactics. Only if the insurgency started to gain a great deal of popular support at the expense of a weakened government would we actually see civilians taking on the military directly. If the civilians lost the first few battles, the armies would melt back into the insurgency without breaking the back of the rebellion, to try a conventional attack again when the rebels regained enough power.

Edited May 28, 2007 by Biscuitsjam

[KingSargent]

I would say that it depends largely on the size and armament of the yeomanry and the size of the professional army.

 

Sticking to American examples:

 

Prior to 1745 colonial warfare in America was largely in the hands of colonial militias, who became professional enough to take the "impreganble" fortress of Louisbourg ("gateway to Canada") from the French in 1745 without Regular help - or British money - only to have Britain return their hard-won prize to France in the peace negotiations. This slap was the main reason the British had to rely on Regulars (albeit many recruited in America) to fight the French and Indian War/Seven Year's War.

 

As has been mentioned, the "armed yeomanry" formed the basis of the Continental Army durng the ARW, and there were (some) "militia only" victories against British/Loyalist professionals.

 

In the War of 1812 the greatest American victory (although it occured after the peace treaty was signed) was Jackson"s "armed yeomanry" at New Orleans vs. British Peninular veteran regulars - and if there was a more "professional army" that Wellington's vets in 1815, I'd like to hear about it.

 

The Regular US Army fought the Mexican fracas with aid of State "armed yeomanry". AIUI (Grant would know) the Mexican Army was largely professional - ie, not militia, however poorly trained and equipped.

 

More later, gottago.

[Jim Martin]

I've made the point in another thread that, just as the militias made it nearly impossible to control the American colonies outside of British cantonments, and made campaigning in the countryside exceedingly difficult as well (Battle of Bennington, death knell of Burgoyne's offensive into New York, dealt by militia, setting the stage for Saratoga), today the United States is much, much larger than were the colonies, and the US government does not have the military wherewithal to control the entire country by military force--even if the Guards of the various states remained loyal to the Federal Government.

 

No, the armed citizenry couldn't engage in a stand-up fight against so much as a company of mech infantry, or even light infantry most likely. But convoys would be harrassed, patrols ambushed, and it would be a very bad time. Good luck getting food to the troops, when all the farmers in the Cornbelt are pissed and packing.

[SCFalken]

Depends.

 

 

What are the Force Ratios?

 

What are the yeomanry armed with? Rifles and pistols have their place, but explosives, machineguns and rockets/mortars are vital.

 

How long are the Invader's LOCs?

 

What are the extreme ROEs observed by the Invaders? If the option is available to simply start liquidating population centers, you won't have an insurgency long.

 

 

Falken

Edited May 29, 2007 by SCFalken

[SCFalken]

Given a large enough revolt though, what is the military to do though? Launch artillery barrages against their own cities? Our professional army is small in comparison to our total population, and, in a modern war, many weapons and tactics would be unavailable. And, if some military joined the side of the rebels, it wouldn't nearly be so lopsided a war as many seem to think.

 

 

Agreed. A large enough "insurrection" is likely to be seen as a political, rather than military, matter. The Army stands around and makes sure no one gets lynched or burned out. Orders to shell Dallas aren't likely to be given, much less obeyed.

 

Past a certain point, the use of force to establish political control loses legitimacy. Especially to modern ethics. For similar reasons, the South* seceding might work today (especially since we aren't an agricultural economy anymore...) whereas it did not in the 19th Century. Killing large amounts of folks because they don't want to be your brethren isn't very acceptable any more. Especially since we've carved up a few countries in the name of self-determination...

 

Falken

 

*-just an example.

Edited May 29, 2007 by SCFalken

[mcantu]

WOLVERINES!!!!

[A2Keltainen]

WOLVERINES!!!!

 

Thanks to a mole in Pentagon, I recently acquired the TOP SECRET Sensitive Compartmented Information classified document titled:

 

STRATCOM 2843-34 Single Integrated Operational Plan - Extremely Sensitive Information Volume 1: Major Response Attack Options in Case of Large Scale Nuclear Attack Against the United States of America

 

Since I assume all intelligence service infiltrators from the Enemies of Freedom and Good have since long left TankNet as a result of the mindnumbing debates about ship armament calibers etc., I dare to reveal the table of contents of the document without feeling that I throw the western civilization to rot down in the sewers of the world forever:

 

Chapter 1: Chuck Norris

Chapter 2: John Rambo

Chapter 3: Wolverines

Chapter 4: Nuclear Weapons

 

So, there you have it in black on white, directly from the deepest and most secret vaults of the Pentagon.

[seahawk]

It does depend very much. If there is no professional force to provide training to the militia and if there is no stock of supplies to fraw from, then the chances of a militia a pretty small. All modern insurgencies that could be called militia style either based on a previous conscript army (Irak, former Yugoslavia) and drew knowledge and weapons from there, or where supported by outside forces. (Vietnam for exampel)

 

In the past the chances for militias was much better, but with todays heavy forces a milita would quickly run out of heavy weapons and would be forced to go the IED road, which would make them just an insurgency and surely unabel to defeat an enemy professional force in an open battle.

[Kenneth P. Katz]

I think that there is insufficient information to support the conclusion that you have made in bold.

 

With regard to the US counterinsugency in the Philipines, the US emerged victorious, so I don't see how you can say that the United States was "still defeated". Two differences between the Philipines and Iraq were the were that the United States played far rougher in the Philipines and the absence of foreign support for the insurgents in that conflict.

 

I think that the German defeat in Yugoslavia proves very little. The Germans were stretched very thin and the Balkans were of tertiary priority to them. After World War II, the Soviets managed to suppress insurrections in the Ukraine and the Baltic states. They didn't do it nicely, it didn't happen quickly, but they won decisively.

 

The Yugoslav resistance vs. the Germans 1941-45 deserves mention, if only because it resembles the US/Iraqi situation more than any people's revolution. There is also the Philippine Insurrection. In both cases, the occupier 'went Roman' and was still defeated by a well armed population, led by native officers, aided in Yugo by foreign advisors and materiel, but largely fought by the natives with paramilitary forces. Thanks to the military experience of the Former Regime Loyalist crowd, and the preps by the Saddam regime for a resistance, the cellular command structure and the underground support system has sustained the Iraqis against very well trained and technologically superior troops. No foreign assistance has proven decisive. In fact, the Iraqis may eventually eliminate the terrorists in their midst, but still continue their insurrection vs. the US.

[Redbeard]

After WWII a Homeguard was instituted in Denmark. It was from the start based on volunteers (no pay) having equipment, weapons and (some) ammo at home. At its peak during the cold war it had some 80.000 members, but after the wall fell has fallen to about 50.000 and only few have weapons at home.

 

Tactics were from the start based on close co-operation with regular army and Homeguard units rarely act in larger formations than the squad.

 

80.000 men (and women) on 47.000 sq.km and armed with assault rifles, LMGs, LAWs and CarlGustafs would ofcourse be quite a nuissance to any intruder, but it was never assumed that the Home Guard could fight alone apart from an ambush here and there. Main tasks would be guard duties and surveillance, and in NATO manoeuvres many units experienced that you couldn't operate anywhere on Danish soil without being seen and reported by the Homeguard - and occassionally ambushed too.

 

During the could war it was often discussed among Homeguardsmen what to do if the country would be totally occupied, and the general consensus was to go into partisan warfare. This did not have a clear place in official doctrine, but took up a prominent place in training. Each company commander (volunteer) had/has the authority to mobilise his/her company on indications of enemy activities, not at least as a precaution towards potential communist coup during the cold war. There is a number of special Police companies, intended to give support to the police in mobilisation/wartime - ranging from traffic control to combat duties vs. 5th collumn.

 

Regards

 

Steffen Redbeard

[Luckyorwhat]

 

 

Conquest is easy. Control is not.

 

 

LeoTanker look at the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising though for a comparison. If you had to estimate the effectiveness of the two possible options, you'd have to admit armed resistance was better than unarmed compliance. And for the USSR partisans being ex-army, at first yes, but those mostly tried to surrender, and they weren't much different from a civilian with a rifle anyway. The partisans for the most part were locals who knew their land and were strongly motivated, aiui. They didn't beat the Germans but they helped a lot.

 

 

Exel I think the point of armed citizens is to prevent control, not conquest. If a military power is willing to take total war down to the household level, like the Turks to the Armenians or such, then the armed citizens would likely lose. But they are going to die or be abused anyway, why not shoot back? It makes it a lot more costly for the military.

 

 

Biscuitslam

Given a large enough revolt though, what is the military to do though? Launch artillery barrages against their own cities?

Never underestimate the capacity of humans occupying the offices of government officials to do and justify absolutely anything to maintain their position. That's straight from an ex PM to my Dad, I believe it.

 

 

Seahawk in the long run they survive by eating the aggressors. The invaders provide the supplies, provide the training. The enemy supports both their own forces and the yeomanry. Thus it is more costly than imaginable. And the psychological effect shouldn't be negated.

[Guest aevans]

The ACW: Severe arms shortages on both sides, many private weapons in use for the first couple of years. US Regulars play a minor role at best.

 

A lot of state and local militia armory weapons of various technological types were used, but relatively few private weapons, AFAIK. Also, the role of US regular units is not really relevant to the conflict, since the vast majority of both armies from almost the very beginning were state regiments of citizen soldiers. As Lincoln put it, they were "all green alike", becoming less so as time went on. Also, when one or the other side (the Confederates mostly) resorted to guerilla tactics, they were opposed by local posses, militias, and whatever government troops were in the area, at whatever level of training experience those troops happened to have.

[rmgill]

In the past the chances for militias was much better, but with todays heavy forces a milita would quickly run out of heavy weapons and would be forced to go the IED road, which would make them just an insurgency and surely unabel to defeat an enemy professional force in an open battle.

 

 

How long before machine shops with CNC gear start turning out GPMGs like the MG42? Give it a few years and everyone with a computer and metals will be able to print a Machine gun from scratch. Sears is selling a CNC Mill for wood that's sub $2000! How long before small CNC machines are easily obtained?

 

I know a guy that has a small shop in a house trailer. Builds Semi-Auto Brens and prototypes other MG looking weapons. He'd have NO problem running real functional MGs if the BATF let him. HE's even an SOT mfgr. Give him a couple of CNC machines and you're going to have a hard time telling a machine shop from a cluster of houses. Good luck scouting his place when there's a War of 'Liberal' Aggression going. He's surrounded by homes flying the Rebel Battle Flag, sneaking up on his place would be hard.

 

These same shops could turn out IEDs and all sorts of stuff. I know one guy who works at GTRI who could build radar systems jammers and other sorts of oddities for an insurgency. His job is building Warsaw Pact Radar systems from scratch for OP For tests.

 

Then how are you going to stop the small shops from turning out Machine guns and other heavy weapons? US small shops spread all over the place, people with welding gear, machine tools, gun knowledge, explosives knowledge, the Iraqi's would be peanuts compared to what an insurgency in the US could produce. Especially if you have whole states utterly off limits.

[rmgill]

I do have to point out that the traditional militia composition involves citizen soldiers commanded by officers appointed by the state. Typically standing officers or retired officers. There'd be lots of NCOs and junoir officers to source from in such a contingency.

[seahawk]

Sorry, it is too much of a fantasy story to think of en exterior power trying to conquer and control the US.