Most Sucessful Guerilla Force In History?

[KingSargent]

One could make a strong argument that the Diaper Revolution saved Moscow. Had Hitler not delayed Barbarossa they would have reached Moscow; a)before defenive works were established, b)in a shorter aggregate time period, c)with better logistics, d)with time to organize a harvest of crops, and so-on. That the entire invasion was postponed until September is extremely decisive against the Germans, imho. With Moscow taken the Soviets would not up and surrender, but with C3 devastated the war would have been converted to guerilla actions on a massive scale, with the main Soviet strength - artillery - being negated, nay usurped by the Germans.

149392[/snapback]

 

Excuse me? September? September is a few months after June, when Barbarossa started. And it couldn't have started much earlier because there was a late spring - the Germans would have been wading in mud had they gone in May.

 

Had the invasion started sooner, the defensive works would have been started sooner. If Hitler starts two months earlier, Stalin is going to wait to months before he starts digging?

 

The "delay in starting" Barbarossa wasn't the problem, it was sitting AG Center on its duff for a month after Smolensk.

 

And just how are logistics supposed to improve? If you mean they wouldn't have been attacking the last bit to Moscow in Autumn mud and later snow, that was a result of the sit-down above, and not having any definite objective.

 

And please enlighten us on how the Germans are going to usurp the Soviet artillery advantage.

[bad-dice]

Or, as in the case of von Lettow-Vorbeck, tie down as many resources (soldiers, guns, whatever) as possible so as to prevent the enemy using them elsewhere. Which he did very effectively indeed.

 

Or the aim can be to keep your fighting force in being so as to have a place at the negotiating table on the victors side after the enemy has been beaten by conventional warfare - which you've helped by keeping some of his forces busy.

 

Guerilla warfare doesn't have to be the sole means, it can be an adjunct to conventional forces, or a means to a political end short of the outright defeat of an enemy.

149386[/snapback]

 

Most of the examples quoted have the backing of a regular force to fight the major battles and/or an outside power supplying them with arms. Therefore I think Lettow-Vorbeck has to be the winner.

 

Close contenders not mentioned yet that fought with no outside help and could not be militarily defeated would be the Apache.

[UN-Interested Observer]

Oh my, that is embarrasing . I suppose that's what I get for multi-tasking on a weekend. I apologize for the horrible dates, really.

 

To clarify, a factioned nation that existed under centralized control would have difficulty organizing the production and distribution process for operating heavy equipment, let alone co-operating in operations. Wire and rail traffic highly disrupted, etc. Germans showed great aptitute at capturing Soviet guns, modifying them when necessary, and pressing them into use.

 

Furthermore, I was under the impression that the spring of 1941 was one of the earliest in history, followed by an early autumn and a bitter winter. I could easily be wrong, my cerebrum clearly not being on its game today.

 

As for logistics I was indeed referring to the only roads being made of fallen trees, through mud and snow. I was under the impression that the sit down move was desired by many leaders for the purpose of consolidation of territory and supply, as well as the virtual exhaustion of the troops. I suppose it could have been shorter, but the gist I got was that it was almost necessary.

[FlyingCanOpener]

And please enlighten us on how the Germans are going to usurp the Soviet artillery advantage.

149403[/snapback]

 

Perhaps he means that if Moscow was taken, and the Red Army went guerilla, their artillery advantage would be negated as artillery isn't all that useful for a guerilla army. I mean, stealth is kinda essential for guerillas, and towed artillery pieces kinda nix that.

 

Of course, he could have meant something else, but that's kinda how I saw it...

[gewing]

Most of the examples quoted have the backing of a regular force to fight the major battles and/or an outside power supplying them with arms. Therefore I think Lettow-Vorbeck has to be the winner.

 

Close contenders not mentioned yet that fought with no outside help and could not be militarily defeated would be the Apache.

149427[/snapback]

 

 

IMO the Seminole out did the Apache by a couple decades, etc...

[gewing]

Perhaps he means that if Moscow was taken, and the Red Army went guerilla, their artillery advantage would be negated as artillery isn't all that useful for a guerilla army. I mean, stealth is kinda essential for guerillas, and towed artillery pieces kinda nix that.

 

Of course, he could have meant something else, but that's kinda how I saw it...

149433[/snapback]

 

I was wondering if he meant that in taking Moscow they Germans would capture/etc a lot of the Russian artillery.

[KingSargent]

As for logistics I was indeed referring to the only roads being made of fallen trees, through mud and snow. I was under the impression that the sit down move was desired by many leaders for the purpose of consolidation of territory and supply, as well as the virtual exhaustion of the troops. I suppose it could have been shorter, but the gist I got was that it was almost necessary.

149431[/snapback]

 

A halt was necessary, but not that long. And they did not figure out what to do with it, swinging south towards Kiev instead of proceeding to Moscow.

 

I mean, AG South was stalled, but take Moscow and the Sovs will retreat in the south. If they don't you can swing south from Moscow and have the biggest encirclement in history.

 

It's like they diddled around debating for a month and just said, "Screw it, we'll go to Kiev."

[ink]

Redbeard,

 

but Tito's partisans in WWII could be another candidate.

 

Didn't read my post eh? Tut tut.

 

 

As for the Op Barbarossa debate, I think too much emphasis is placed on the effect of taking Moscow. First of all, WWII isn't the Napoleonic campaign, armies had stopped retreating out of cities in the same way. Moscow could easily have become Stalingrad* for the Germans - I highly doubt that the Soviets would have given it up easily (esp ad uncle Joe was still there at the time). Also, even if the Germans took Moscow before that winter I still think that the Soviets would have carried on fighting in an effective manner (or started to anyway). A back up command in the Urals had been ready for some time from what I remember.

 

* Whats more its bigger, easier to supply from the rear, larger population, more built up etc etc.

[KingSargent]

Redbeard,

Didn't read my post eh? Tut tut.

As for the Op Barbarossa debate, I think too much emphasis is placed on the effect of taking Moscow.

They didn't necessarily have to go for Moscow, but a fixed objective of some sort would have helped the Germans.

First of all, WWII isn't the Napoleonic campaign, armies had stopped retreating out of cities in the same way. Moscow could easily have become Stalingrad* for the Germans - I highly doubt that the Soviets would have given it up easily (esp ad uncle Joe was still there at the time).

Stalingrad wasn't decisive because it was hard to take, it was because the Soviets pulled off a very neat counteroffensive and encirclement. I doubt very much if they were capable of that in 1941.

Also, even if the Germans took Moscow before that winter I still think that the Soviets would have carried on fighting in an effective manner (or started to anyway).

Really? How? If Moscow goes, Leningrad has no rail link with the main USSR, so it goes too. Take Moscow and the northern part of the USSR is a goner, and the southern part doesn't have real good communication with your hideout in the Urals.

A back up command in the Urals had been ready for some time from what I remember.

Ready to do what?

* Whats more its bigger, easier to supply from the rear, larger population, more built up etc etc.

149464[/snapback]

A larger population is more people you have to feed. There was one rail link heading east from Moscow, don't you think the Germans are going to be interdicting that as much as possible?

As for more built up, Leningrad was the place where street fighting would be a nightmare. About all you could do with Leningrad was starve it out, and that becomes a lot easier if Moscow falls.

[Christian Lupine]

IMO the Seminole out did the Apache by a couple decades, etc...

149438[/snapback]

 

I was wondering about Native Americans, I would have thought that they were one of the best guerilla forces ever, but my limited knowledge of the westward expansion of the US does not bring to mind any great holdouts against the US Army. It seems like that the technology difference, i.e. railroads and rifles, and maybe the NA's superdiverse nation/states of tribes were an easy match for the US Army. Little Big Horn wasn't really a guerilla action, anyone know of any Native American examples of guerilla operations that were a big sucess?

 

P.S. Thanks for the free education with all your great responses

[ink]

Stalingrad wasn't decisive because it was hard to take, it was because the Soviets pulled off a very neat counteroffensive and encirclement. I doubt very much if they were capable of that in 1941.

Well actually the Soviets did mount counter attacks (obviously of a more limited scale) in '41. But you're assuming that the Germans would have control of Moscow and the surrounding area (enough to prevent large scale counter attacks) by '41 - I think that this is a rather flimsy assumption.

As for Stalingrad, my understanding is that mounting that ocunter attack would not have been possible (at least not in the same way) if the 6th Army wasn't bogged down in an attempt to take control of a city - i.e. had Paulus been sitting cosy in Stalingrad at the time things would have looked a little different on the steppe outside too. I could be mistaken but it feels like a safe assumption at the moment.

 

Ready to do what?

 

To take over as a central command from Moscow - complete with Mr Stalin arriving in his armoured train.

 

Really? How? If Moscow goes, Leningrad has no rail link with the main USSR, so it goes too. Take Moscow and the northern part of the USSR is a goner, and the southern part doesn't have real good communication with your hideout in the Urals.

Certainly it would have been a harder fight - the issue I am debating is whether the Germans could have smply taken Moscow in the way that you appear to be suggesting.

 

A larger population is more people you have to feed. There was one rail link heading east from Moscow, don't you think the Germans are going to be interdicting that as much as possible?

As for more built up, Leningrad was the place where street fighting would be a nightmare. About all you could do with Leningrad was starve it out, and that becomes a lot easier if Moscow falls.

 

Two points here:

1. Yes a larger population is harder to feed but also forms a larger (and if hungry) more desperate resistance force. I am simply trying to suggest that taking Moscow would have taken more than simply getting to the door and driving in with tanks - looks to me more like it would be a long protracted affair with lots of casualties on both sides and leaving the Germans in a quagmire that makes Falluja look like a walk in the park.

2. Stalingrad had no rail link and was blocked by an awkwardly placed river on exactly the wrong side from the Soviet point of view - a logistical nightmare to resupply the troops. Its a given that German supply lines would be easier to stretch to Moscow than to Stalingrad but the same is true for the Russians. Basically I am suggesting that your scenarios (where Moscow falls and causes that to be an issue elsewhere - Leningrad for e.g.) aren't looking at the possibility of Moscow being taken but not quite falling and still being a very big problem for a long time.

 

Finally, is it possible that the Germans were plannign a Leningrad style seige for Moscow? From what I can remember reading about it they were hopign to be in the city for the winter but surely they cannot have assumed that the Soviets would just pull out and leave them to burn the furniture to keep warm? Does anyone know what the plans were - how were the Germans plannign to deal with Moscow?

[KingSargent]

I was wondering about Native Americans, I would have thought that they were one of the best guerilla forces ever, but my limited knowledge of the westward expansion of the US does not bring to mind any great holdouts against the US Army.  It seems like that the technology difference, i.e. railroads and rifles, and maybe the NA's superdiverse nation/states of tribes were an easy match for the US Army.  Little Big Horn wasn't really a guerilla action, anyone know of any Native American examples of guerilla operations that were a big sucess?

 

P.S. Thanks for the free education with all your great responses

149562[/snapback]

 

Depends on what you mean by success. The Apaches raided for decades (counting what they did to the Spanish and Mexicans) and certainly terrorized the frontier. Their ambush tactics seem more akin to guerilla warfare than the coup-counting insensate heroics of other tribes.

 

In the end, it was quite simple to end the Apache menace. George Crook hired other Apaches to chase Geronimo and his people down (and invaded Mexico to do it). Most of the "Indian Campaigns" were largely Indians fighting other Indians.

 

None of the Indian resistance stopped the advance of the White Man and "Civilization." Whether this was good or not is a big PC item now, but it is always important to remember that every inch of "Indian Land" had been stolen from other people who were usually killed or enslaved in the process - just like "civilized" folks did in Europe and Asia, yupyup.

 

BTW, You're welcome for the "free education." Some of us get off on this, it's what we're here for.

[p620346]

IMO the Seminole out did the Apache by a couple decades, etc...

 

Technically, the Seminoles probably held out for almost 100 years. In the 1920s of 30s, 2 Seminoles were charge with murder but the charges were dropped when they claimed that they were still at war with the US since a formal peace treaty was never signed. I would imagine that one was signed soon after that otherwise there would be open season on US citizens killing Seminoles and Seminoles killing US citizens.

 

My brother, an airline pilot, used to live in Naples, Florida and fly out of Miami. He said that there were numerous incidents of Seminoles blocking "Alligator Ally" and robbing the cars on it. He used to carry an old Spanish .38 with one bad chamber for protection and I told him many times that this was just enough gun to get him into trouble and not enough to get him out. I suggested an M1 carbine, Mini-14 or AK with a folding stock and several extra magazines.

[nitin]

John, I remember from a Timewatch episode that it was a British army Tank commander who discovered the Arminius battlesite with a metal detector. Can you remember his name, ive been meaning to get his book for ages.

 

I can agree with most of what Baron says about most of the Mujihadeen. Most were content to sit on their arses and take the credit (like osama), while a few good leaders did most of the fighting (Like Shah Mashood). Most of their success probably comes from the fact the Soviet army was particularly bloody awful at fighting in mountains, and never really got their act together. Helicopter use was relatively intelligent, but they never had enough. And army level commanders were interested in 'big sweep' rather than long term methods of fighting the war. Id submit its more a case of the Soviet loosing the war, rather than the Mujihadeen winning it. Look how long it took them to ultimately when when the soviets withdrew.

149246[/snapback]

 

I wouldnt say that the Russians were bloody awful at fighting in the mountains- they were as bad as anyone else. They used their SF pretty successfully and repeatedly and made life a ruddy hell for the Mujahids. Ultimately, they lost the war at home, in the minds of the public- which I would submit, is similar to what happened to the US effort in Vn as well. Military victories are only one part of the eqn; its staying power that counts and you cant stay if the ppl at home say pull out.

[nitin]

My vote for the 20th century onwards thing would go to Von Lettow- Vorbeck. He really ran a superb campaign.

 

Earlier campaigns- there are many that were pretty succesful. The Maratha chietain Shivaji ran a guerilla campaign that the powerful Mughal empire was never able to defeat and ultimately ceded a lot of ground and territory to Shivaji who promptly built up a top notch regular army. The Marathas went on to become exceedingly powerful.

 

The Mukti Bahini campaign against Pak in 1971 was also exceptionally successful. The Pak Army suffered thousands of casualties within the space of a year or lesser per the Hamoodur Rehman report. The Mukti Bahini also provided accurate intel to Indian forces when war broke out.

 

On the other side- where guerilla warfare was effectively defeated- I'd put the British success in Malaya and the Indian success in Punjab as the best examples.

[bad-dice]

None of the Indian resistance stopped the advance of the White Man and "Civilization."

I think Red Cloud's war 1865-68 qualifies. He succeeded in forcing the US to abandon the Powder River country, close the Bozeman Trail, and abandon forts Smith, Kearny, and Reno.

[UN-Interested Observer]

Depends on what you mean by success. The Apaches raided for decades (counting what they did to the Spanish and Mexicans) and certainly terrorized the frontier. Their ambush tactics seem more akin to guerilla warfare than the coup-counting insensate heroics of other tribes.

 

In the end, it was quite simple to end the Apache menace. George Crook hired other Apaches to chase Geronimo and his people down (and invaded Mexico to do it). Most of the "Indian Campaigns" were largely Indians fighting other Indians.

 

None of the Indian resistance stopped the advance of the White Man and "Civilization." Whether this was good or not is a big PC item now, but it is always important to remember that every inch of "Indian Land" had been stolen from other people who were usually killed or enslaved in the process - just like "civilized" folks did in Europe and Asia, yupyup.

 

BTW, You're welcome for the "free education." Some of us get off on this, it's what we're here for.

149603[/snapback]

 

 

I was just reading about 'wild west' conflicts, and it seems, according to 1 source, that in 1830 the Apaches were very friendly. They welcomed white men with open arms, but over thirty or fourty years of murder, abuse, rape, kidnapping sex slave etc. the Apaches lost that goodwill. It seems that the merchants in the area were lobbying for military action for several reasons, none of them altruistic. Keep in mind that however well the Apahces performed their numbers were likely never greater than 6000, including women and children. That does make them look rather efficient, if not ultimately successful.

[R011]

I think Red Cloud's war 1865-68 qualifies. He succeeded in forcing the US to abandon the Powder River country, close the Bozeman Trail, and abandon forts Smith, Kearny, and Reno.

149664[/snapback]

A temporary success, I'm afraid. The US took the Powder River lands back in 1876 after Little Big Horn.

[WRW]

The 1920s IRA did not do too bad !

WRW

[Sikkiyn]

Alamo Scouts.

[Durandal]

My vote for anyone who keep fighting when the rest of a nation is giving up.

[SALADIN]

The British and Dutch were quite a while competing for dominance in the Far East.Finally under an agreement in the late 1870s they each agreed on their respective spheres of control: the Dutch agreed to give up any claims on India and the British agreed to do likewise wrt Indonesia save that both sides recognised an independent kingdom of Aceh (yes the place where the tsunami struck the hardest).

 

This agreement was amended in 1874 iirc to allow a dutch occupation.What followed was the toughest colonial war the dutch fought with over 10000 casualties and a guerilla war which by some accounts that lasted till 1942.That was when the japanese took over Indonesia.After the defeat of the japanese in 1945 the dutch came back to all of indonesia ....save for aceh.

 

An article from an aussie newspaper,

http://www.worldpress.org/Asia/1179.cfm

 

 

Modern day guerillas who were effective?.

The Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka are higly effective force who have held the much larger SLA to a stalemate.Oh before we forget ,AFAIK they were the first to use suicide attacks.

 

The other one IMO is the Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon who gave a great deal of problems to the IDF and eventually brought about its withdrawal.

[Sardaukar]

Sertorius did run very successful guerilla campaign against Pompeius Magnus (Pompey the Great) in Spain. Sertorius was supporter of Marius and one of the unknown but brilliant Roman generals. Pompeius was unable to defeat him (and he wasn't exactly meager commander himself).

 

Cheers,

 

M.S.

[ShotMagnet]

The Israelis. For having run both the longest and most successful campaign, starting with Pharaoh Rameses II (I think) and finishing in 1948 when they won for themselves a nation. Granted that it was more a case of someone ceding them a parcel of territory than them wading in and outright taking it, but they did have to defend it subsequently against all comers. They also had kept at it for thousands of years.

 

I admit I haven't given this particular notion a rigorous evaluation, but at first blush it does seem as if the Israelites (later Israelis) should at least be considered for top honors in this regard.

 

 

Shot

[Tzefa]

I wouldn't say the Israelis for the whole lenght of time, however the Maccabees did ran a very successful guerilla campaign against the Seleucid empire starting in 165BC, eventually winning independance.

Of course two later wars against the Romans were surprisingly successful at first - defeating the legions and driving them out, and of course both ended in catastrophic defeat.