Can an armed yeomanry resist a professional army?

[medicjim86]

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

 

Things change faster today than 70 years ago.... look at the state of the US military 6 years before or after WW2.

[seahawk]

Things change faster today than 70 years ago.... look at the state of the US military 6 years before or after WW2.

 

Yet the US military was strong enough to prevent an invasion of the US 6 years before and 6 years after WW2. I find the topic much interesting when thinking about smaller and less powerful countries. For those there a not many exampels that did not have a had a conscript army or were part of a conscript army before war broke out and that did not depend heavily on stocks and experience from that conscript army. Perhaps in Africa those genocide style civil wars, could be taken as an exampel as those militias surely did not have much formal training and support. But even Eritrea and Ehtiopia at least based their forces on a kind of rebel movement that fought to overthrow the former leader.

[p620346]

Could the armed militia of Texas repulse an invasion by the Mexican Army?

[Ken Estes]

Could the armed militia of Texas repulse an invasion by the Mexican Army?

Would we want them to? The clincher would be when we insisted they take Puerto Rico, Florida, California as well....

[Junior FO]

...

Edited September 19, 2024 by Junior FO

[SILL2]

Could the armed militia of Texas repulse an invasion by the Mexican Army?

 

Not that I've heard. Seem to be losing.

[SCFalken]

The only thing analogy that even comes close is the WWII invasion of Russia and that covered a much smaller area. How do you want to get 150 Divisions to the US?

 

Only way to do it is to establish a foothold on some other part of North America (Mexico, Canada, CentAm, etc), consolidate and then jump off into the CONUS. Not the work of a fortnight, and subject to US military intervention at any time.

 

Even having accomplished all that, the US is now ready for you. See: Germans in Russia.

 

 

Falken

[Grant Whitley]

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.

 

Weren't these just regiments of British regulars that were raised in America? ISTR similar units being used in sieges of Cartagena or some other Spanish port during the same period.

 

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.

 

I wish a had a good book like Mr. Polk's Army for the Mexicans. Been eyeing one recently, but I haven't had a chance to pick it up. My understanding is that most of the Mexican army were unwilling conscripts; I think you'd only class them as "professional" in the most superficial sense. The cavalry and sappers were supposed to be better.

[Ken Estes]

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.

 

You are right Ken, I was being sloppy. I added the Phil Insurr as an afterthought but failed to factor it in correctly. Last year, I liked it as a parallel to Iraq03, because it had the US, we went in easily, decapitated the former regime, thought we would be welcomed as liberators and then found a hornet's nest. It diod not end in 1901, as some relate, but rather in 1913 when the Moro [islamic] resistance collapsed. The US promised independence in 1916 as part of the pacification effort.

 

As Arthur MacArthur would later relate:

When I first started in against these rebels, I believed that Aguinaldo’s troops represented only a faction. I did not like to believe that the whole population of Luzon — the native population that is—was opposed to us and our offers of aid and good government. But after having come this far, after having occupied several towns and cities in succession, and having been brought much into contact with both insurrectos and amigos, I have been reluctantly compelled to believe that the Filipino masses are loyal to Aguinaldo and the government which he heads.

 

The Germans in the Balkans 'were streched very thin'?? What better parallel could you wish for the US in Iraq [or Phil.]? I am beginning to like it more as a parallel to Iraq than the Phil Insurrection.

 

In any case, I remain convinced that foreign intervention [e.g. AQ] in Iraq has not been the major stumbling block to our actions or fortunes there.

[Junior FO]

...

Edited September 19, 2024 by Junior FO

[SCFalken]

Exactly. The W Allies operations in Europe in WWII don't even come close in comparison. Once a nation crosses a specific size it practically becomes immune to invasion.

 

The only even remotely possible scenario for some kind of war in the US is a civil war of some sort.

 

 

Or a "Death of a Thousand Cuts"-scenario, where US strength and territory are attrited over time (decades). You'd still need to prevent the US from recapturing lost territory and counterstriking. And I can't see a scenario that puts the US completely on the defensive.

 

 

Falken

[Animal Mother]

Or a "Death of a Thousand Cuts"-scenario, where US strength and territory are attrited over time (decades). You'd still need to prevent the US from recapturing lost territory and counterstriking. And I can't see a scenario that puts the US completely on the defensive.

Falken

 

Zombie apocalypse?

 

[exT70]

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?

 

Re: 1. In the modern battlespace (conventional warfare) an armed populace can only be sucessfull should the opposing modern army be absolutely hopelessly incompetent, which is exactly why such conflicts go unconventional. It is the only way the populace can resist/have a chance at success. Think of how many wars of insurgence have been lost/won?

 

Re: 2. 1st South African War. Armed local militia sent the "might" of the British Empire packing in something akin to conventional warfare at the time. The 2nd (also called Anglo-Boer War) was not a whole heap of fun for the Empire either, but did go unconventional after being vastly outnumbered and badly organised began to tell against the locals.

[WRW]

will the UN be involved and CNN - do the professionals need to have anyone of the civilian left alive

[Junior FO]

...

Edited September 19, 2024 by Junior FO

[Jim Martin]

Would we want them to? The clincher would be when we insisted they take Puerto Rico, Florida, California as well....

 

 

The Cubans are welcome to West Palm Beach. I'm sure the citizenry wouldn't mind losing the franchise anyway, considering they aren't competent to read a f***ing ballot.

 

[Edit]I just got a chuckle when it came to mind that I'm currently wearing a West Palm Beach polo shirt, given to me by a girl I dated whose dad was once City Manager of said haven of incompetents. [/Edit]

[Kensuke]

Well, at least as far as the US is concerned, I have my doubts that many US troops would willing engage in a protected conflict with American civilians who have legitimate grievances against the Federal Government. You'd undoubtedly see a lot of flag officers resigning, and the media would have a field day demonizing the military. Kent State had a ripple effect that's still being felt (when was the last time you say NG troops with ammunition?).

 

Bottom line is I think there would be a serious morale issue here.

 

- John

[Jim Martin]

Well, at least as far as the US is concerned, I have my doubts that many US troops would willing engage in a protected conflict with American civilians who have legitimate grievances against the Federal Government. You'd undoubtedly see a lot of flag officers resigning, and the media would have a field day demonizing the military. Kent State had a ripple effect that's still being felt (when was the last time you say NG troops with ammunition?).

 

Bottom line is I think there would be a serious morale issue here.

 

- John

 

I dunno about the NG, but reliable sources have informed me that USMC LAV's and helos deployed to South Central LA during the riots were loaded with 25mm and .50 cal, respectively, though they apparently didn't fire it.

[medicjim86]

The US military is arguably the smallest problem. The problem with invading the US are supply lines and force/space ratios. Who has the logistical capability to get a sizable force there in the first place and once they are there, what are they going do they do? Burn Washington? Who cares. Occupy a few thousand square km? So what.

 

The only thing analogy that even comes close is the WWII invasion of Russia and that covered a much smaller area. How do you want to get 150 Divisions to the US?

 

I doubt even the US in WWII could have invaded and sustained an invasion like that (essentially invading itself) even if that had been the only theater.

 

Step #1 - Look at what changed regarding the US army between 1936 and 1945 and between 1945-1951

Step #2 - Apply the 36-45' change in force to China, beginning today

Step #3 - Apply the 45-51' change in force to the current US military, beginning today

Extend the historic rate of change for a duration of say...20 years.

[Junior FO]

...

Edited September 19, 2024 by Junior FO

[CV9030FIN]

Re: 1. In the modern battlespace (conventional warfare) an armed populace can only be sucessfull should the opposing modern army be absolutely hopelessly incompetent, which is exactly why such conflicts go unconventional. It is the only way the populace can resist/have a chance at success. Think of how many wars of insurgence have been lost/won?

 

What about JNA vs. Croatian/Slovenian 1991-92 (with Croatian = lost / with Slovenia = lost) ?

[Guest aevans]

Step #1 - Look at what changed regarding the US army between 1936 and 1945 and between 1945-1951

Step #2 - Apply the 36-45' change in force to China, beginning today

Step #3 - Apply the 45-51' change in force to the current US military, beginning today

Extend the historic rate of change for a duration of say...20 years.

 

You can't take those kinds of things in a vacuum. The US buildup for and during ww2 happened because there was a war on. China isn't facing those circumstances. Niether are we facing the circumstances that led to our military downsizing post-war (and not anywhere near to its pre-war levels, BTW).

[medicjim86]

You can't take those kinds of things in a vacuum. The US buildup for and during ww2 happened because there was a war on. China isn't facing those circumstances. Niether are we facing the circumstances that led to our military downsizing post-war (and not anywhere near to its pre-war levels, BTW).

 

Yes, yes. The earth is flat... got it.

[seahawk]

What about JNA vs. Croatian/Slovenian 1991-92 (with Croatian = lost / with Slovenia = lost) ?

 

Not really. Slovenia and Crotai heavily depended on Territoral Forces on the opening phase, that where reserve formations of the Yugoslav standign army. Weapons and trainig where provided by a regular army. Afterwards they established their own armed forces. More like an army splitting into factions, then a yeomanry fighting a professional army.

[Guest bojan]

What about JNA vs. Croatian/Slovenian 1991-92 (with Croatian = lost / with Slovenia = lost) ?

 

That was actualy Army vs Teritorial Defence & Special purpose (anti-terorist) police units.

That is more in line of eg. US Army vs National Guard & local SWAT teams.

Most "self organised armed population" on all sides fared badly vs any kind of oponent.