Militias
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
Is he right, /k/?
>>29280404
Yes. Militias formed from conscripted people who are given a rifle and no proper training aren't going to be any use.
That's why having a well regulated (meaning equipped/trained) militia is important
>>29280404
To a degree. Washington was enamored with European warfare of the time. Line formations, close order drills, Etc. Fighting an enemy in this manner doesn't lead to a good impression of the militia.
But that's not how it's supposed to be used.
It's George Washington, of course he's right
>>29280426
> Militias formed from conscripted people who are given a rifle and no proper training aren't going to be any use.
Guerrilla war. There, I said it.
>>29280404
No, because during his time, the concept of Guerrilla warfare was neither known nor practiced. This battle tactic is what guarantees liberty in modern times.
Real world example:The taleban are neither trained nor disciplined, and yet they've managed to hold their own against a superpower for years on end. I can't even imagine what (roughly) 100 million armed americans - of which a few million own high-powered rifles and of which a few thousand know how to construct IED:s - could accomplish if we assume that they are atleast as resilient as their towelhead counterparts.
>>29280426
This. But i want to add that the army claims it only takes 72 hours for anybody to adapt. So, unless the radio starts playing "the state needs anybody with a gun to come to city hall as soon as possible to help rebuff an invasion" meaning little to no notice of conscription, im sure its not as bad as the quote is leading on.
Some national guardsmen, reservist -is that what you'd call someone in the reserves?- can show you how to low crawl, point post sprawl, find a good sight picture, break down your weapon, and move to cover.
>>29280463
Technically true, but a Guerrilla war fought by people who don't know how to fight in the first place isn't going to work very well. But if you have a leader who know what to so and the draftees follow orders then things should be ok.
>>29280474
this
From what I have read about George Washington, is that he saw the militia under his command as a bunch of useless drunken cowards just as likely to dessert as anything.
I think the last US conflict to involve militias was the Spanish-american war, and people weren't singing praises about the show-up-if-you-feel-like soldiers.
>>29280491
>Technically true, but a Guerrilla war fought by people who don't know how to fight in the first place isn't going to work very well.
There is no need for it to "work well", as long as it "works" well enough to stave off definite defeat, i.e. complete disarmament and unconditional surrender.
>>29280518
>From what I have read about George Washington, is that he saw the militia under his command as a bunch of useless drunken cowards just as likely to dessert as anything.
See, that's the thing: the militia is worthless to a military tactician, but priceless to a freedom fighter trying to combat his own government.
George looked at the issue from the perspective of a government official, when he ought to have viewed it from the common man's perspective instead.
>>29280404
Yes according to the MDA
>>29280518
You mean when they liberated Cuba from the Spanish empire with inferior bolt rifles and replaced them with Springfield1903's?
>>29280404
If he was wrong he wouldn't of spent all that time at Valley Forge having his troops trained now would he? Of course people in the 18th century would of had a very different community than most modern places with different tactics and equipment. Considering most mercenary bands around that time and around 1-2 centuries before would fight without really killing anyone just to make it look good the real bloody battles are the ones that get recorded and what people tend to remember when they think of battles.
>>29280629
Many were armed with trapdoor Springfields.
>>29280544
That's a bitching .22 bolter that mustache guy has.
At the time, yes. Military knowledge, tactics and training are much more readily available now and the common man can be made into an effective soldier with much greater ease nowadays.
>>29280426
> well regulated (meaning equipped/trained)
>>29280404
Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 29, "Concerning the Militia
>By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government. It is observed that select corps may be formed, composed of the young and ardent, who may be rendered subservient to the views of arbitrary power. What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government, is impossible to be foreseen. But so far from viewing the matter in the same light with those who object to select corps as dangerous, were the Constitution ratified, and were I to deliver my sentiments to a member of the federal legislature from this State on the subject of a militia establishment, I should hold to him, in substance, the following discourse:
1/?
no. guerrilla warfare was not widespread back then. they had militias lining up and trying to shoot it out. of course it didnt work out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Hinson
partisans are extremely effective with the right tactics
>>29280463
>Guerrilla war. There, I said it.
One of those things that can only ever be a minor annoyance to a domestic power and a slight inconvenience to a foreign one?
Yeah...when has that ever actually worked out? inb4 Viet Kong, they got crushed every time they tried to fight, especially when they tried to help the NVA during Tet.
>>29281085
>"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
>"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia.
2/3
>>29281103
>The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.'
3/3
>>29281100
Here's the thing though, any invader doesn't give a shit about decimating the local fauna with HE and napalm. They're not going to level an entire block of infrastructure because someone took pot shots from inside a McDonalds.
>>29281096
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_T._Anderson
civil war guerrillas are rarely talked about but they did some real damage.
>>29281125
>They're not going to level an entire block of infrastructure because someone took pot shots from inside a McDonalds.
Forgetting that the US would do something similar with JDAMs in Iraq, are we, and we're the nice ones about that.
>>29281172
Exactly, counter-guerilla tactics and methods are even more brutal than guerilla warfare itself. I think too many people consider guerilla warfare to be a magical answer to a better outfitted enemy. But it's not. Guerilla warfare has it's advantages and disadvantages but it isn't the magical panacea some people make it out to be. Otherwise, all the major military powers in the world would just disband their regular armies and adopt a "Guerrilla only" military.
>>29281054
Tell it to a liberal.
the argument of Citizen Solider vs Professional Armies has been going on since we invented militaries
>>29281263
a Guerrilla only army is not useful if you are trying to play world police or steal another nation's oil.
>>29280404
In washingtons time he was probably right.
But history in the modern era has proven him fairly wrong.
The invention and introduction of IEDs and "hide in plain sight" tactics have changed guerilla war as we know it.
In most modern cases though the militias are former military or have experience and bring their skills with them.
>>29281100
It worked well in Algeria and Ireland.
It has continued to work decently well in Afghanistan, seeing as the Taliban will likely take over once we leave.
Speaking of the Taliban, see the soviet invasion.
See the Chechen militias during the war.
See numerous African conflicts.
It CAN work.
>>29282106
It can also fail. Once again, it is a strategy with strengths and weaknesses. It is not completely useless, but it is not an invincible method of waging war that cannot be countered. A lot of it comes down to who is doing, why they are doing it, and most importantly how they are doing it.
>>29280518
>I think the last US conflict to involve militias was the Spanish-american war, and people weren't singing praises about the show-up-if-you-feel-like soldiers.
This.
The militia literally lost America several major battles of 1812 because they simply pussied out. And good thing too, noone likes it when their country is annexed by a hostile foreign power.
>inb4 you'd be better off if we had
Piss off, statist.
>>29280538
>George looked at the issue from the perspective of a government official, when he ought to have viewed it from the common man's perspective instead.
Considering he led the militia into battle on multiple occasions, and they got their shit pushed in repeatedly, I think he had a very clear view of how valuable they were in a conventional war.
It wasn't until the entire continental army was reformed that it became a fighting force that was a credible threat to anyone but backwoods garrisons and isolated patrols.
>Guerrilla Warfare
The end goal of any insurgency is to gather enough support and strength to switch to conventional tactics, and face the enemy head on.
>>29280458
Now compare those european armies of the time to the fighting power of a modern army. It's even worst.
>>29282106
Yeah, but if you don't have a sugar daddy supplying you. Or if you insist on tangling with heavy infantry on a regular basis who have, like, support and logistics and training and stuff. Milfags have told us that the staying power of jihadis in the places like Fallujah was actually pretty low, because they only had as much water and ammo as they carried on their greasy bodies, and their idea of medivac was park the wounded in the corner of the mosque and stick a has pipe in his mouth.
I'm sorry, but most self styled militias are no more advanced. Just look at the Malheur debacle. Small arms are for self defense, not revolution.
>>29280463
>No, because during his time, the concept of Guerrilla warfare was neither known nor practiced
>What was the Portuguese Restoration War, from which the term "guerilla warfare" came and ended in 1668.
>>29280404
Im pretty sure that I heard it on /k/ but when a liberal goes off and does the "well regulated militia" spiel and that only people in a militia need guns but didn't the founding fathers mean it as any able bodied person that could serve in the militia has the right to own guns or something like that? Someone on here explained it with a lot more eloquence than me. That and "shall not be infringed" seems to make the most sense imo.
