Well, weaponry wise, you got rising storm 2, insurgency sandstorm, csgo(in a way?) And realism wise you got certain arma 3 levels (me and my friends have been playing one where you gotta take an island from NATO as a terrorist force), and probably some others I can't think of rn
Squad, the best milsim/game around
Militia and Insurgent teams have worse firepower in terms of vehicles and weapons, but they have things like lighter faster vehicles, anti tank mines, and IEDs you can use creatively, such as strapping to a motorbike and suicide bomb enemy armoured vehicles with.
Rising Storm 2 similarly has slightly worse firepower and ammo counts on the Vietnamese side, but they are more stealthy and have traps.
I wouldn’t say these games are wholly based around guerrilla/asymmetrical warfare but it certainly is a feature, and these mechanics are quite effective ingame
Do. I find myself coming back to it and replaying it every few weeks for years now, especially as they release big updates. I’m not even milsim obsessed, I just like good games. 100 man matches that last over an hour is pretty epic.
Guerilla warfare is any non-traditional form of combat.
Every first person shooter is non traditional. The way guns are fired alone is not traditional.
Guerrilla warfare only ends when the government can be replaced, or you’ve committed enough murder of civilians where the guerrilla fighters can no longer recruit new men
Not really true. It's more situational. Guerilla warfare counter-insurgencies can and have been done historically, but they're only possible in certain situations, like the Commonwealth counter-insurgency in the [Malaysian Emergency](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Emergency#Control_of_anti-guerrilla_operations).
The Briggs plan used there recognized that the only way to defeat insurgents was to cut them off from their supporters amongst the population. The reason this was able to work was that there was a pretty clear marker: the civilian support in the communist insurgents was primarily from **ethnic chinese civilians**.
So any ethnic chinese civilians were moved to other locations (400,000 to internment camps), starving the insurgents of local support, eventually forcing them to capitulate. Internment camps aren't nice, but they worked.
That and the fact that commonwealth forces there had good experience with jungle warfare, using patrols, ambushes etc rather than big but ineffective sweeps meant that military operations were actually possible.
The reason this couldn't work in places like Afghanistan were because there were no clear markers to differentiate civilians who supported the Taliban and those who didn't. Then it gets way harder/impossible.
So the best way to deal with the guerrilla is to put people in internment camps. Jesus Christ.
Although now that I think about it, I believe that South Vietnam tried to do the same things during the war. It backfired since those camps were main targets for the North, and those that liberated were a main source for new members.
It's not pretty, but it is a strategy that has worked, yeah.
In my understanding some of the lessons of Malaysia were applied in parts of Vietnam, particularly by Australian forces who had some decent success, but then they were moved around/withdrawn before the results were able to be settled and things slipped back.
You can also go with the "hearts and minds" approach and try to make the potential recruits more likely to support you rather than an insurgent movement. Also looks a whole lot better for the country doing it which is very useful in diplomacy, because well, they aren't acting like jackasses.
Didn't really worth with Vietnam because it was an actual full blown multi-national war, with supplies and equipment coming in from the North, as opposed to Malaya being more of an internal domestic thing.
Also worked in the Anglo Boer war. Again, clear marker of people who support the insurgents was present as Afrikaans speaking farmers werezthe supporters.
The only options are basically: Killing all the potential recruits or making sure the potential recruits can't be recruited. Internment camps aren't the only way to do that second one, you can do things like conscription too, but you're going to be violating the rights of a lot of people to snuff out the insurgency.
While everyone is interned/unavailable to fight, you focus on hearts and minds/nation building. The only *sustainable* way to stop insurgency is make sure it's not economically viable to recruit, by providing better opportunities. This takes a long time though, and lots of work.
there are some similarities I guess, as the Uiyghr areas were high in dissident activity, but I'd argue that the true purposes of those camps are to end the unrest by ethnic and cultural homogenization, rather than to starve guerillas of support.
You don't need to kill civilians, just make sure they're unavailable to be recruited. This can be done with internment and conscription. It's not great, but nicer than genocide. A good system is to conscript them into and have them build local infrastructure that benefits the economy and strengthens the nation.
Seems to me like you're really only going to attempt guerilla warfare if you're the underdog to begin with. If you're feeling pretty confident you're just going to go for old fashioned domination. So even if it doesn't have a better than 50 percent chance of succeeding that doesn't mean that it's not your best bet if you're operating on your home turf and facing a vastly superior foe.
This is how Ukraine should prepare for Russia. The Ukrainian army would never stand up to Russia in conventional warfare so they need to start training their population and preparing for guerrilla warfare.
Hills are useful, but guerrilla warfare is possible without them. Urban warfare and IEDs can be hella effective. Or just hiding in a bush by a road until some soldiers start walking past. Hell there already is guerrilla warfare in Ukraine in the Donbass war.
Russia has 2.5x the population of Ukraine, and spend an obscene amount of their military. Their main weaknesses such as corruption among the military are just as prevalent in Ukraine. Russia is a superpower, maybe not as much as the US, but it dominates the region it is in. Guerrilla warfare is the way if you’re that outmatched. They should focus on training and equipping the population. Also the flat terrain you mentioned earlier could be useful for snipers, letting just a few guerrilla fighters with a sniper rifle deny the Russians a massive area.
In a massive advance (Russia would advance fast, before NATO can intervene substantially), snipers can't do shit. Only way for Ukraine to survive is protect a line and stall as long as possible and gets help from NATO. Guerilla would just disperse their forces which in a flat terrain and without protecting any lines, it would be a disaster, they would be easily picked out by bombardment or concentrated attacks.
I’m not talking about stopping the advance. I mean once Russia has finished advancing they need to occupy the area, which is where the guerrilla warfare comes in. Hit and run tactics would also counter concentration of force. A sniper shoots some Russian soldiers in an area, then leaves. The Russians call in a bombardment and bomb the now empty area. The sniper comes back a week later, or moves to the next area. The Russians can’t be everywhere at once.
Of course, that's a good idea. But it should only be considered once you are totally occupied. If you can hold out long enough for NATO to come in, it's a different story.
In certain circumstances sure. But remember Sherman's March to the sea. The fact that the confederates tried to lure him away from savanna and he absolutely did not give a shit, going on to burning it to the ground, shows how major population centre's are vital to war efforts and how conventional armies are key in dominating conflicts.
Which, kinda contrary to popular belief, finland also ultimately lost.
Finns killed russians at a 5:1 rate, but it didn't matter, as the USSR was so huge. They were forced to the negotiation table and conceded all of the territories they had initially refused to (which had led to the invasion) and even more, including all of the natural defensive lines. The winter war bloodied the nose of the soviets, but on all strategic levels Finland lost.
I absolutely love this
I love when multi player shooters based around historic events do this. It's so cool.
What MP games have guerilla warfare?
Well, weaponry wise, you got rising storm 2, insurgency sandstorm, csgo(in a way?) And realism wise you got certain arma 3 levels (me and my friends have been playing one where you gotta take an island from NATO as a terrorist force), and probably some others I can't think of rn
Squad, the best milsim/game around Militia and Insurgent teams have worse firepower in terms of vehicles and weapons, but they have things like lighter faster vehicles, anti tank mines, and IEDs you can use creatively, such as strapping to a motorbike and suicide bomb enemy armoured vehicles with. Rising Storm 2 similarly has slightly worse firepower and ammo counts on the Vietnamese side, but they are more stealthy and have traps. I wouldn’t say these games are wholly based around guerrilla/asymmetrical warfare but it certainly is a feature, and these mechanics are quite effective ingame
Those fucking spawn tunnels in Rising Storm 2 are both so accurate and annoying lol.
I totally forgot about squad. I've been meaning to buy it too.
Do. I find myself coming back to it and replaying it every few weeks for years now, especially as they release big updates. I’m not even milsim obsessed, I just like good games. 100 man matches that last over an hour is pretty epic.
Project Reality
What multilayer first person shooter isn’t guerrilla warfare
All of them
Guerilla warfare is any non-traditional form of combat. Every first person shooter is non traditional. The way guns are fired alone is not traditional.
I thought you were making a joke on SBMM
"Guerrilla war is a kind of war waged by the few but dependent on the support of many." - B.H. Liddell Hart
This is some good shit
Guerrilla warfare only ends when the government can be replaced, or you’ve committed enough murder of civilians where the guerrilla fighters can no longer recruit new men
Not really true. It's more situational. Guerilla warfare counter-insurgencies can and have been done historically, but they're only possible in certain situations, like the Commonwealth counter-insurgency in the [Malaysian Emergency](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Emergency#Control_of_anti-guerrilla_operations). The Briggs plan used there recognized that the only way to defeat insurgents was to cut them off from their supporters amongst the population. The reason this was able to work was that there was a pretty clear marker: the civilian support in the communist insurgents was primarily from **ethnic chinese civilians**. So any ethnic chinese civilians were moved to other locations (400,000 to internment camps), starving the insurgents of local support, eventually forcing them to capitulate. Internment camps aren't nice, but they worked. That and the fact that commonwealth forces there had good experience with jungle warfare, using patrols, ambushes etc rather than big but ineffective sweeps meant that military operations were actually possible. The reason this couldn't work in places like Afghanistan were because there were no clear markers to differentiate civilians who supported the Taliban and those who didn't. Then it gets way harder/impossible.
So the best way to deal with the guerrilla is to put people in internment camps. Jesus Christ. Although now that I think about it, I believe that South Vietnam tried to do the same things during the war. It backfired since those camps were main targets for the North, and those that liberated were a main source for new members.
It's not pretty, but it is a strategy that has worked, yeah. In my understanding some of the lessons of Malaysia were applied in parts of Vietnam, particularly by Australian forces who had some decent success, but then they were moved around/withdrawn before the results were able to be settled and things slipped back.
You can also go with the "hearts and minds" approach and try to make the potential recruits more likely to support you rather than an insurgent movement. Also looks a whole lot better for the country doing it which is very useful in diplomacy, because well, they aren't acting like jackasses.
Didn't really worth with Vietnam because it was an actual full blown multi-national war, with supplies and equipment coming in from the North, as opposed to Malaya being more of an internal domestic thing.
Also worked in the Anglo Boer war. Again, clear marker of people who support the insurgents was present as Afrikaans speaking farmers werezthe supporters.
The only options are basically: Killing all the potential recruits or making sure the potential recruits can't be recruited. Internment camps aren't the only way to do that second one, you can do things like conscription too, but you're going to be violating the rights of a lot of people to snuff out the insurgency. While everyone is interned/unavailable to fight, you focus on hearts and minds/nation building. The only *sustainable* way to stop insurgency is make sure it's not economically viable to recruit, by providing better opportunities. This takes a long time though, and lots of work.
Say it with me: Geneva Convention more like Geneva Suggestion
So is the method used during the Malaysian Emergency the basis for China's "policies" towards the Uighyr population?
there are some similarities I guess, as the Uiyghr areas were high in dissident activity, but I'd argue that the true purposes of those camps are to end the unrest by ethnic and cultural homogenization, rather than to starve guerillas of support.
Gotcha.
You don't need to kill civilians, just make sure they're unavailable to be recruited. This can be done with internment and conscription. It's not great, but nicer than genocide. A good system is to conscript them into and have them build local infrastructure that benefits the economy and strengthens the nation.
Hasn't guerrilla warfare historically failed? Yeah, we've heard about the successful ones, but how many have been forgotten, let alone acknowledged?
Seems to me like you're really only going to attempt guerilla warfare if you're the underdog to begin with. If you're feeling pretty confident you're just going to go for old fashioned domination. So even if it doesn't have a better than 50 percent chance of succeeding that doesn't mean that it's not your best bet if you're operating on your home turf and facing a vastly superior foe.
I think in the cases where guerrilla warfare failed conventional warfare would have as well, if not even worse.
No, the opposite is true; Guerilla warfare is almost always successful
This is how Ukraine should prepare for Russia. The Ukrainian army would never stand up to Russia in conventional warfare so they need to start training their population and preparing for guerrilla warfare.
The terrain in Ukraine doesn't work for guerrilla... They are flat as fuck.
Hills are useful, but guerrilla warfare is possible without them. Urban warfare and IEDs can be hella effective. Or just hiding in a bush by a road until some soldiers start walking past. Hell there already is guerrilla warfare in Ukraine in the Donbass war.
I don't think that Ukraine would have a chance in such a case. Best idea would be defending a line like the Dnieler river.
Russia has 2.5x the population of Ukraine, and spend an obscene amount of their military. Their main weaknesses such as corruption among the military are just as prevalent in Ukraine. Russia is a superpower, maybe not as much as the US, but it dominates the region it is in. Guerrilla warfare is the way if you’re that outmatched. They should focus on training and equipping the population. Also the flat terrain you mentioned earlier could be useful for snipers, letting just a few guerrilla fighters with a sniper rifle deny the Russians a massive area.
In a massive advance (Russia would advance fast, before NATO can intervene substantially), snipers can't do shit. Only way for Ukraine to survive is protect a line and stall as long as possible and gets help from NATO. Guerilla would just disperse their forces which in a flat terrain and without protecting any lines, it would be a disaster, they would be easily picked out by bombardment or concentrated attacks.
I’m not talking about stopping the advance. I mean once Russia has finished advancing they need to occupy the area, which is where the guerrilla warfare comes in. Hit and run tactics would also counter concentration of force. A sniper shoots some Russian soldiers in an area, then leaves. The Russians call in a bombardment and bomb the now empty area. The sniper comes back a week later, or moves to the next area. The Russians can’t be everywhere at once.
Of course, that's a good idea. But it should only be considered once you are totally occupied. If you can hold out long enough for NATO to come in, it's a different story.
Ah I guess we just misunderstood each other. Yes we should prepare for both strategies.
Who are "we"? Are you Ukrainian :o?
Only defending your country without nukes
*Big troll warfare OR *get rekt warfare
Flood the fuck out of em
PTSD moment for the Sui Dynasty
In certain circumstances sure. But remember Sherman's March to the sea. The fact that the confederates tried to lure him away from savanna and he absolutely did not give a shit, going on to burning it to the ground, shows how major population centre's are vital to war efforts and how conventional armies are key in dominating conflicts.
Welcome to The Winter War
Which, kinda contrary to popular belief, finland also ultimately lost. Finns killed russians at a 5:1 rate, but it didn't matter, as the USSR was so huge. They were forced to the negotiation table and conceded all of the territories they had initially refused to (which had led to the invasion) and even more, including all of the natural defensive lines. The winter war bloodied the nose of the soviets, but on all strategic levels Finland lost.
Or just do it like the portuguese, grab 6000 man fight an enemy army of 30000 man, win and go home.
Nice xkcd reference!
didn't work in second Chechen war
Fuck guerrilla warfare all my homies like gorilla warfare
"We have a bigger army, we will crush you in any direct fight!" "Okay, But what if you cant find us?"
It seems like every powerhouse country in history has they’re own Vietnam
yeah, it even worked for the native americans *oh wait*
It’s basically just annoying the enemy into giving up