Military Tactics - Insurgency - Surviving an Invasion (Part 2)

[applications]

Let's stick with the Red Dawn scenario in the loosest form possible. A superpower has come and overthrown another country's government (doesn't have to be the U.S. specifically) and their goals are: occupation, control and complacency among the nationals.
They are not looking for complete annihilation of the country, but instead are looking for assimilation of the general populous and usability of natural resources. 
During a takeover of a country there are going to be huge gaps - at all levels of government. The transition time for government takeover varies by the complexity of the occupied country's infrastructure prior to the invasion - the more complex, the more challenging it will be for the occupying force to insert itself into every facet. 
As discussed in Part 1 the two foremost goals of this type of "insurgent warfare" whether violent or non-violent are:  
Survival 
&  
To convince the enemy’s political decision makers that their goals are either unachievable or too costly for the perceived benefit.

It may be tempting to immediately fight and attempt to repel an invading force, but if it's a full-scale invasion you'll most likely fail. Instead hide, regroup, plan and then take the fight back to the enemy when the time is right.

Information and communication are key. Radio or other forms of telecommunications may be knocked out or compromised so it may be required to use runners or people capable of quickly traveling from one place to another to transport information with notes or by word of mouth. Throughout history though this has been considered to be one of the most dangerous of jobs. World War I & II saw many runners who had to leave the safety of trenches or bunkers to get to another during combat to relay orders or field updates.

When a base of information has been established within a close-nit group (or multiple groups) operations can begin. Whether it be setting up a headquarters or multiple bases of command or even beginning to probe an occupy force's capabilities proceed with the utmost caution. Work with locals for support either with food and supplies or intel, but give them respect and even refuge when needed as supporting insurgents can be as dangerous and risky as being one.

When they're attempting to rebuild and restructure would be the best time to enact subversive acts. Much of the effort of the occupying force will be focused on rebuilding state infrastructure and using propaganda to quell uprisings, while at the same time cracking down on possible insurgenceies if they even exist yet. Remember if you're playing the part of insurgent you are the bad guy.

One of the greatest examples of insurgencies (in my opinion) is the Warsaw Uprising between August and October 1944. Although they did finally surrender - historically it was an amazing event considering the strength and aggressiveness of the Nazi army versus what was generally considered just a city's resistance. Granted there was some support from the Allies, but not much. To this day some Poles still feel betrayed by their allies for this, I would know because I've been there. The German causalities were quite high and frankly they had to level most of the capital before the resistance couldn't fight back anymore. That's a real fight from the heart right there.

Warsaw c. 1950

Getting back to our scenario at hand during the rebuilding state and initial hold of the country by the occupation will mark a weak point in the occupying forces. Subversive acts are hard to counter when the OPFOR are spread thin trying to "keep the peace" over a large blanketed area.

Setup small and specialized teams to attack small outposts and and others to stall any QRFs (Quick Reaction Force). It won't take long to demoralize occupying forces when doing this as it makes it more difficult for them to occupy a specific zone with any level of safety and confidence. Look at some of the more dangerous outposts in Afghanistan, such as the Korangal Valley (See: Restrepo). People are only human and can only be subjected to so much pressure and stress.

Observe MSRs (Main Supply Route) and look for openings for ambush or ways to disrupt them temporarily or permanently. It isn't always possible to airlift supplies or equipment - most armies still transport fuel, food, equipment and even vehicles by land. Long convoys always have vulnerabilities, usually in the middle whereas armed escorts are usually situated at the front and rear. Of course it's best to watch and take note of convoy layouts before taking a course of action.
Heavily-armed Russian convoys fell pray to endless ambushes by the Mujahideen during the Soviet War in Afghanistan (See: 9th Company) and did so again countless times during the first and second Chechen War.
Supplies HAVE to come in for units in the field to stay operational, which means there will always be something to disrupt.

 (More in Part 3...)

Military Tactics - Insurgency - Surviving an Invasion (Part 1)

[intro]

All this is sadly because I dragged myself through the remake of John Milius' Red Dawn. Which made the original look like a masterpiece in its own right. Now that's saying something. 
But films of this nature do tend to bring up that question: what would you do in that situation?

Granted the remake of Red Dawn certainly made it look (relatively) easy to overthrow the N. Korean rule of an American prefecture, but we all know that kind of scenario more or less leads to... well... death for starters.

Source material is good for understanding what real guerrilla warfare is all about and one of the best sources is the historical writer Anthony James Joes. His knowledge of the subject is infallible and his writing is actually quite intriguing. The body of work isn't as dry as you'd think, but it certainly helps if you're interested in the subject too.

[terminology]

In 1989 a team of United States analysts made it a point to specifically break up conflicts of past and future based on tactics and abilities into "generations".

First-generation warfare - In its most common usage, "First generation warfare" refers to battles fought with massed manpower, using line and column tactics with uniformed soldiers governed by the state. Much of the Revolutionary War and Civil War in the U.S. were fought in this manner.

Second-generation warfare - Second generation warfare still maintained lines of battle, but focused more on the use of technology to allow smaller units of men to maneuver separately. These smaller units allowed for faster advances, less concentrated casualties, and the ability to use cover and concealment to advantage. 
The contributions of the second generation were responses to technological development. The second generation saw the rise of trench warfare, artillery support, more advanced reconnaissance techniques, extensive use of camouflage uniforms, radio communications, and fireteam maneuvers.

Third-generation warfare - Third generation war focuses on using speed and surprise to bypass the enemy's lines and collapse their forces from the rear. Essentially, this was the end of linear warfare on a tactical level, with units seeking not simply to meet each other face to face but to outmaneuver each other to gain the greatest advantage. The German Blitzkrieg of World War II is often cited as a perfect example of Third-generation warfare.

Fourth-generation warfare (4GW) - Used to describe warfare's return to a decentralized form. In terms of generational modern warfare, the fourth generation signifies the nation states' loss of their near-monopoly on combat forces, returning to modes of conflict common in pre-modern times. 
The use of fourth generation warfare can be traced to the Cold War period, as superpowers and major powers attempted to retain their grip on colonies and captured territories. Unable to withstand direct combat against bombers, tanks, and machine guns, non-state entities used tactics of education/propaganda, movement-building, secrecy, terror, and/or confusion to overcome the technological gap.

Fourth-generation warfare as a term can be applied to most insurgency and terrorism for the last half century. This is also related to unconventional warfare, but at the same time can be applied to non-violent actions as well - such as Gandhi's opposition to the British Empire in India or Martin Luther King's marches.

Fourth generation warfare goals:

• Survival
• To convince the enemy’s political decision makers that their goals are either unachievable or too costly for the perceived benefit

Yet another factor is that political centers of gravity have changed. These centers of gravity may revolve around nationalism, religion, or family or clan honor.
 
Disaggregated forces, such as guerrillas, terrorists and rioters, lacking a center of gravity, deny to their enemies a focal point at which to deliver a conflict ending blow. As a result strategy becomes more problematic while combating a VNSA (violent-non-state-actor).

It has been theorized that a state vs. state conflict in fourth generation warfare would involve the use of computer hackers and international law to obtain the weaker side’s objectives, the logic being that the civilians of the stronger state would lose the will to fight as a result of seeing their state engage in alleged atrocities and having their own bank accounts harmed.

 [brief history]

Most people in the U.S. live in a bubble, rarely looking outward at the rest of the world. They know little about world history or even U.S. history for that matter and care only about what effects them. Never the big picture. So when a film like Red Dawn comes out (both the original and remake) and however bad the movie is, it makes you wonder what it'd be like to have your country invaded.  You have to remember there are plenty of countries that have had similar things happen throughout history.
In what I'll call the "modern era," this has happened many times over. Whether it be Nazi Germany's invasion and occupation of several countries during WWII or the Soviet Union invading and occupying over a dozen countries throughout the Cold War. Even more recent: the Argentinian invasion of the Falkland Islands or the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
While we live in relative safety (or at least used to) the rest of the world has seen this kind of violence for years. We're really just starting to see the face of it in our backyards now and clearly we're not ready. We're more apt to bicker with each other rather than solve issues.

(More in Part 2...)

Military Tactics - Defense - Reverse Slope Defense and Defilade use

A reverse slope defense is a positioning technique characterized by the location of defensive forces on a slope of a hill, ridge, or mountain that descends away from the enemy. It is one of several time tested techniques that may be used as part or all of a unit defense.^[1]

There are numerous recorded instances of this tactic being effectively used throughout military history from the Falklands War of 1982 all the way back to the Second Punic War fought between 218 and 201 B.C. It is clear that it is a time-tested and still currently well-documented by the U.S. Army's wide array of field manuals.

The reverse slope defense protects the infantryman from enemy long-range direct and indirect fires.

Defilade is also used to refer to a position on the reverse slope of a hill or within a depression in level or rolling terrain. Defiladed positions on hilltops are advantageous because "dead space" – a space that cannot be engaged with direct fire – will be created in front of the position. Ideally, this dead space should be covered by the interlocking fields of fire of other nearby positions, and/or by pre-planned indirect fire.

Artificial entrenchments can provide defilade by allowing troops to seek shelter behind a raised berm that increases the effective height of the ground, within an excavation that allows the troops to shelter below the surface of the ground or a combination of the two. The same principles apply to fighting positions for artillery and improvised fighting vehicles or technicals.

Below is showing the prevention of "skylining" with background cover to conceal the outline or silhouette of a vehicle (or in this case a tank) while in a defilade.

Uses of defilade and concealment. (Clockwise) 1.) Turret-down position, no background concealment 2.) Turret-down position, background concealment 3.) Hull-down position, no background concealment 4.) Hull-down position, background concealment

These tactics for tanks and armored vehicles can be easily extrapolated for use with improvised fighting vehicles. Being armed on top of a piloted-pickup truck (for example), while hiding in a defilade (See Figure 0-1) allows for an effective ambush position as well as cover to move to another another fighting position or concealed exit route if needed.

In a survival scenario use of the reverse slope defense may become invaluable to those avoiding detection from hostiles.  This tactic can be used when seeking refuge or looking to ambush a force of much greater strength and numbers.

  

References

1. Reverse Slope Defense: Light Infantry in Action [http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/call/call_1-88_chpt3.htm]
2. Combat  Techniques of Fire [http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/23-65/Ch6.htm]