What good can a handgun do against an Army?
- Thread starter funnybone
- Start date
- Status
Most of the enemy combatants captured on the battlefield were in no uniform and were members of no organized regular army. To have Geneva convention protections they would need to meet a number of criteria that most of them failed, simple stuff like wearing a uniform so that they can be clearly differentiated from noncombatants. By not doing so, most of them should actually be classified mercenaries or brigands, neither of which categories have very much protections under the Convention.
And yes, while rights are inalienable, the only government required to protect your rights is your own. The US has no more responsibility to protect the rights of unlawful enemy combatants than they do to prosecute civil rights violations in France. Furthermore, the military isn't police, and the circumstances under which they detain people is fairly often not conducive to evident collection or witness interviews. If the combatants want their rights protected they should seek redress from their respective governments. Tellingly, most of the people detained are not wanted back by their home countries. Also tellingly, most of the people that complain about the violated rights of a few thousand people seem to overlook the fact that the US actions have given self determination and universal suffrage to millions of people and that most of those detained have the removal of those rights and the building of a repressive state as the goal that they were carrying arms for.
The point the article is missing is the will in mass is required for successful insurgency. This is the most lacking aspect in the US today. For all the talk of restraining an out of control government, the last 8 years have shown that we can't even rally against a common enemy for more than 6 months after a direct attack. If I were running a repressive government in the US, I'm fairly certain I could find a few bright boys to run divide and conquer games against nascent groups and keep critical numbers from coalescing for a good long time.
And yes, while rights are inalienable, the only government required to protect your rights is your own. The US has no more responsibility to protect the rights of unlawful enemy combatants than they do to prosecute civil rights violations in France. Furthermore, the military isn't police, and the circumstances under which they detain people is fairly often not conducive to evident collection or witness interviews. If the combatants want their rights protected they should seek redress from their respective governments. Tellingly, most of the people detained are not wanted back by their home countries. Also tellingly, most of the people that complain about the violated rights of a few thousand people seem to overlook the fact that the US actions have given self determination and universal suffrage to millions of people and that most of those detained have the removal of those rights and the building of a repressive state as the goal that they were carrying arms for.
The point the article is missing is the will in mass is required for successful insurgency. This is the most lacking aspect in the US today. For all the talk of restraining an out of control government, the last 8 years have shown that we can't even rally against a common enemy for more than 6 months after a direct attack. If I were running a repressive government in the US, I'm fairly certain I could find a few bright boys to run divide and conquer games against nascent groups and keep critical numbers from coalescing for a good long time.
Orange_Magnum
member
In Chicago, D.C., Baltimore, Detroit, L.A., Atlantic City, places where the American Democrats govern, things have gone wrong. People are poor, afraid, stripped of dignity, all because of what leftwing politics do to people, no matter where in the world it pops up. People are mad at what their politicians have done to them and their cities. Of course the politicians there are worried and seek to disarm the angry mass.
Now, if only the nuts who vote on those politicians would start to think... and stop voting on them. Because if not, soon they will have nothing.
Now, if only the nuts who vote on those politicians would start to think... and stop voting on them. Because if not, soon they will have nothing.
Nope they are not protected under the laws designed by and for the benefit of militaries of powerful nations. Laws like those of the Geneva Conventions.
That has little to do with protection under our constitution.
While I don't like the idea of our rights going to people that fight against us, if you were in another nation shouldn't you at least be protected by the rights in thier own system?
Or should you be subject to special foriegner justice?
I think we should set a good example.
Don't worry though if you don't want them to have rights. They will just start sending more of them to places like Egypt, like they do already for special extra cruel torture during interogation. The type our military is not supposed to use.
The Original Post is excellent. A traditional handgun really is an assassination tool rather than a combat arm against a military.
Though one could be setup in a submachinegun role with projectiles designed to defeat soft armor.
That would give it close to the same roles as arms used for that purpose, some created specificly for that role.
Most military sidearms are not setup for that role because they are merely a backup weapon, not a primary weapon.
Full auto and 2-3 round burst handguns exist, and most can be converted. Projectiles still useful on a modern battlefield can also be employed instead of standard ammunition.
TexasSkyhawk
Internet SEAL
These posts from folks never in the military or active combat units about military matters and situations really crack me up.
I rest my case.
While I certainly would not want to go up against an entire brigade armed with only my old Gov't 1911, there is a reason that handguns are still a standard part of today's military--and probably always will be.
Jeff
I rest my case.
While I certainly would not want to go up against an entire brigade armed with only my old Gov't 1911, there is a reason that handguns are still a standard part of today's military--and probably always will be.
Jeff
You presume to know more than you do.
You obviously did not read the original post that comment goes with.
Most modern militaries in the world now use body armor, body armor that defeats traditional handguns (and several rifle calibers in various spots with plates).
It might not be the most noticable thing when you are tackling insurgents and dirt poor adversaries, but if you take on regular troops, as this thread is dealing with then it is important.
The only places a traditional handgun would effectively down a soldier in modern armor wearing adequate helmets is in a tiny portion of the head, and the spine of the neck. Even then only very small portion of the exposed head, not most of the exposed face which can be just a superficial wound.
That requires one to be quite close.
You are not going to get that close engaged in a fire fight with troops using rifles, and while being shot at with those rifles at close range and have a good chance of delivering rounds to that limited area.
So against modern troops a traditional handgun is worthless for killing unless you get right up close and kill them while they are not attacking you. That is called assassination.
Yes assassination, just like I said.
Your "Gov't 1911" .45 ACP would not do any damage to a soldier in body armor with plates designed for rifle rounds.
Lets give an example. The Tyler Texas Courthouse shooting. Where Mark Allen Wilson, a CCW holder armed with coincidentaly a .45 , fired at the subject not even shooting at him, a target without any head protection on. The rounds merely impacted his body armor, Arroyo the shooter armed with a rifle, turned his attention on the CCW holder, and proceeded to execute him after chasing him around a pickup truck.
That was one target not expecting to be shot, and without head protection like most soldiers have.
.45 ACP is one of the absolute worst defensive cartridges against body armor because its low energy and wide diameter spreads that limited energy over a wide area already. The area it is spread over is increased even further in expanding ammo. The armor then spreads it over an even wider area.
If we went into a large scale, long term, extensive war against modern forces with a modern military, most traditional handguns would be phased out of service. Replaced by something more adequate for defeating at least pistol rated armor.
Of course we would likely use nuclear weapons in such a conflict, so how long it would last is questionable, perhaps not long enough for improvements.
Yes the military is often slow to upgrade pistols because they are a secondary arm. What is issued does not impact the outcome or performance of the soldier that much as a secondary arm, and currently our military is fighting enemies that do not have standard issue body armor. So outdated weapons, in either .45ACP or the 9mm that makes NATO happy is just fine.
Last edited:
A system I was trying to violently overthrow?
Umm...no, I wouldn't expect to receive the same treatment that citizens of the government I was trying to destroy enjoy. I would hope for a miserable, but torture free ("real" torture free not what some whiny Americans consider "torture") captivity and a speedy trial in a kangaroo court and a swift execution.An indefinite stay at Gitmo with the luxuries they enjoy is a huge bonus for them, especially since they could have been killed on the battlefield.
Maybe against the Bolivian army.
The theory doesn't work against the overwelming tech advantage and training of the US military.
How many Iraqi rebels are attacking us with US weapons?
I didn't see any. I have heard about it. Sort of. Maybe.
Che Guevara and a bunch of other people have said that the opening campaign of any armed insurgency is to make small attacks to gain more weapons and ammo. Yes, but they and all other successful rebels fought only hand me down equipped, not exactly the best trained armies. Doesn't mean you can't win. It just means you have to win politically. Ala Vietnam, Iraq, Ireland and such.
If the army came to your door to drag your @$$ to Guantanamo and you shot a few of em and took their rifles you better live near a big deep swamp, go in and never come out again. If you think you are going to win that one without an organized, massive, and physical/mentally prepared force (hard to organnize with the senate passing the phone tap bill), well, I'm going to disagree.
Just my uneducated opinion. Feel free to bitch me out/make me look dumb-I can take it.
Dan
The theory doesn't work against the overwelming tech advantage and training of the US military.
How many Iraqi rebels are attacking us with US weapons?
I didn't see any. I have heard about it. Sort of. Maybe.
Che Guevara and a bunch of other people have said that the opening campaign of any armed insurgency is to make small attacks to gain more weapons and ammo. Yes, but they and all other successful rebels fought only hand me down equipped, not exactly the best trained armies. Doesn't mean you can't win. It just means you have to win politically. Ala Vietnam, Iraq, Ireland and such.
If the army came to your door to drag your @$$ to Guantanamo and you shot a few of em and took their rifles you better live near a big deep swamp, go in and never come out again. If you think you are going to win that one without an organized, massive, and physical/mentally prepared force (hard to organnize with the senate passing the phone tap bill), well, I'm going to disagree.
Just my uneducated opinion. Feel free to bitch me out/make me look dumb-I can take it.
Dan
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Oh it would most certainly work. Just because the Iraqi insurgents are not using US weapons doesn't mean the tactic is unsound it's simply that Iraqi insurgents are being provided plenty of arms from other sources.
If you are alone you are right. If 4 million other armed Americans are shooting back at the same time, things change.
If US troops start kicking in doors of US citizens en masse a political victory would be quite easy.
I am not trying to start a personal argument on this thread but..
Even if somehow 4 million people care to band together (remember this is the government {good at shaping mass opinion} they are forming up against and you are a "terrorist" or a "rebel" or something like that right?) I think that a few Raptors, some Apaches or AC-130s with IR and big accurate weapons (not your M-4s and 30-30 lever guns) and a bunch of satelites and unmanned, hellfire shooting predators, uhhhhh... Abrams tanks, Strykers, Bradleys and other such things... Yeah I think you're pretty screwed.
Im just saying...
Even if somehow 4 million people care to band together (remember this is the government {good at shaping mass opinion} they are forming up against and you are a "terrorist" or a "rebel" or something like that right?) I think that a few Raptors, some Apaches or AC-130s with IR and big accurate weapons (not your M-4s and 30-30 lever guns) and a bunch of satelites and unmanned, hellfire shooting predators, uhhhhh... Abrams tanks, Strykers, Bradleys and other such things... Yeah I think you're pretty screwed.
Im just saying...
Last edited:
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
You assume these 4 million are all standing together in a field somewhere.
They historically are not grouped together in this manner.
All the AC130's will do is kill innocents, helping gain the political victory sooner.
Look at the uproar today when the US military has an accidental killing of non-combatants.
What if the building being razed by the AC130 is a school outside Denver for example, because someone targeted the wrong thing. Happens every day in combat to one extent or another.
The idea that the US Army, or any army, has the sophistication to surgically remove millions of citizens is ludicrous. If it were possible to do what you describe we would have been done and out of Iraq many years ago.
How do these sophisticated armys detect who the badguys are in a shopping mall, in a grocery store? Historically it's been almost impossible, including the action in which we are currently engaged.
zoogster:
the Geneva conventions only deal with protections given to POWs in conflict.
Our own Constitution describes rights of men, which are never to be infringed.
Question is, does the Constitution only apply to US Citizens? I don't think so. We should uphold the Constitution to everyone we have jurisdiction over (like it says) instead of finding slimy ways to have unscrupulous allies torture them for us.
We should be a light unto the world, a shining beacon of democracy and freedom.
(sorry if it sounded a little corny at the end)
the Geneva conventions only deal with protections given to POWs in conflict.
Our own Constitution describes rights of men, which are never to be infringed.
Question is, does the Constitution only apply to US Citizens? I don't think so. We should uphold the Constitution to everyone we have jurisdiction over (like it says) instead of finding slimy ways to have unscrupulous allies torture them for us.
We should be a light unto the world, a shining beacon of democracy and freedom.
(sorry if it sounded a little corny at the end)
TexasSkyhawk
Internet SEAL
Let me guess. . . you read this in a book somewhere or on the internet, right?
Because you sure haven't seen in it in person while you had a gun in your hand and the guy trying to kill you a few paces away had a gun in his hand.
You should go teach at the JFK school at Bragg. . . .
Soon as I go clean the bovine excrement off my Tony Lamas, and then forward this pearl of wisdom to my buddies in our VFW post, I'm adding you to my Ignore list.
There's a difference between opinion, opinion based uopn experience, and flat-out misinformation based upon prejudicial interpretations arrived at from watching too much Military Channel replete with retired generals who hadn't seen action since their O-1 days.
Not all armys are "modern" as you envision. In fact, most are not. In many climates, the body armor you describe is a hindrance and can end up being detrimental to your well-being--so it is not worn.
Additionally, it was kinda hard for us to wear all that body armor you describe under our wetsuits (even harder under the occasional dry suit) on the way out to an oil rig or rogue ocean-going vessel. Guess we shoulda considered it, but those damn rigs and vessels were hard enough to board as it was.
But with the price on the other end being that the bad guys could only kill me by shooting me in a minute, remote area of my spine. . . hell, it might've been worth wearing.
If it didn't drown me first.
Jeff
Wes Janson
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2006
- Messages
- 1,962
Who said the line "You can hide some of the politicians all of the time, or all of the politicians some of the time"?
You obviously take everything out of context. TexasSkyhawk.
The post is about handguns, and thier use against professional soldiers.
I didn't say they were easy targets, which is exactly why I said a traditional handgun is a poor weapon for anything except an assassination against a modern soldier in body armor.
Many militaries of the world are equiped with body armor standard, including most of the first and second world. Even some of the third world.
Yet you would highlight just the third world armies, which have little to do with standard issued gear a more modern military will have as it relates to handguns, the focus of this thread?
The forces put into contact with civilians on a regular basis from a modern military will be so equiped.
Yes I am sure you can find many examples where the armor is a burden, but you are going for the extreme. Scuba diving, maritime interdictions, I mean come on. We are talking about forces most civilians are coming into contact with on dry land. Not the exceptions.
Those forces will be wearing body armor over most of thier torsos and helmets that defeat most pistol rounds. Not exiting the water in wetsuits, or boarding the civilian's private yacht.
You had a problem with:
You don't think the US would resort to nukes facing a first world military? The type of Military possessed by most of the forces of Europe, China, Russia etc?
I think such escalation would happen fairly soon. In fact we had this whole thing called the Cold War and both sides essentialy promised just that for decades while in an arms race.
The post is about handguns, and thier use against professional soldiers.
No, it is fairly obvious as the most unprotected vital locations on a soldier in modern body armor.
I didn't say they were easy targets, which is exactly why I said a traditional handgun is a poor weapon for anything except an assassination against a modern soldier in body armor.
Yet the Germans as mentioned in the OPs story were the most modern military in the world, it would be the equal of taking on the US military today.
Many militaries of the world are equiped with body armor standard, including most of the first and second world. Even some of the third world.
Yet you would highlight just the third world armies, which have little to do with standard issued gear a more modern military will have as it relates to handguns, the focus of this thread?
The forces put into contact with civilians on a regular basis from a modern military will be so equiped.
The thread is about handguns. Traditional handguns are poor performers against body armor, especialy armor designed to provide some protection against rifles.
Yes I am sure you can find many examples where the armor is a burden, but you are going for the extreme. Scuba diving, maritime interdictions, I mean come on. We are talking about forces most civilians are coming into contact with on dry land. Not the exceptions.
Those forces will be wearing body armor over most of thier torsos and helmets that defeat most pistol rounds. Not exiting the water in wetsuits, or boarding the civilian's private yacht.
You had a problem with:
You don't think the US would resort to nukes facing a first world military? The type of Military possessed by most of the forces of Europe, China, Russia etc?
I think such escalation would happen fairly soon. In fact we had this whole thing called the Cold War and both sides essentialy promised just that for decades while in an arms race.
Which is exactly what I said. My post was in agreement with that, but I mentioned it hardly matters because they will just end up in places now without those protections.
The whole point is there will not be 4 million. And if there was they would get reduced to about 10,000 in a couple WEEKS. After that it will continue too go down. Since when do civilians matter all that much? Remember the "outrage" after Waco? Insurgencies work by dragging conflicts out. Not by getting shot up by a couple gunships. You are NOT going to blend in here because you will not have the support of the population. Everyone in Amerca these days wants to believe that the government is acting in their best interest and therefore will inform on you, especially for a few thousand bucks. You will not have the advantage of being "oppressed and occupied by the infidel". You will just look like a bunch of "militia nutjobs". Or anarchists. Trust me your message won't get out to the point that you need it to to win politically.
Oh, and a 130 could take you out without civilian casualties even if you are IN the other end of an occupied school building. It can put steel on steel all day long so I doubt it would miss your "hideout". The man (shorter than the government) will see you through walls have a map of your location and you won't even hear it coming. Unless you want to take a few hostages. Winning the populous over I see? What kind of terrorist would take over a school anyways? Any dead kids are going to be on you-not them.
The army is more mobile, better equipped, has more popular support, is better trained, in better shape, has better intelligence than any 10,000 "Homegrown American Insurgents" (this healthy number is based on how many I am thinking would really load up a ruck and head out to the assembly area when the call reaches them, In time to make a difference and without getting caught on the way) could ever hope to in 20 years of battfield accuisition. How many Irishmen were ready to ready to fight a foreign army in there own country, with the (general) support of the population? Do you think they would have won if they took hostages out of the general public? Or occupied schools?
That's what I am giving you. 10,000 at the very most. And a lot of hard times ahead. Basically, if you try to start a full-on armed revolution in the US you will die.
Oh, and a 130 could take you out without civilian casualties even if you are IN the other end of an occupied school building. It can put steel on steel all day long so I doubt it would miss your "hideout". The man (shorter than the government) will see you through walls have a map of your location and you won't even hear it coming. Unless you want to take a few hostages. Winning the populous over I see? What kind of terrorist would take over a school anyways? Any dead kids are going to be on you-not them.
The army is more mobile, better equipped, has more popular support, is better trained, in better shape, has better intelligence than any 10,000 "Homegrown American Insurgents" (this healthy number is based on how many I am thinking would really load up a ruck and head out to the assembly area when the call reaches them, In time to make a difference and without getting caught on the way) could ever hope to in 20 years of battfield accuisition. How many Irishmen were ready to ready to fight a foreign army in there own country, with the (general) support of the population? Do you think they would have won if they took hostages out of the general public? Or occupied schools?
That's what I am giving you. 10,000 at the very most. And a lot of hard times ahead. Basically, if you try to start a full-on armed revolution in the US you will die.
justin 561
Member
They could have the best weapons in the world, if they're poorly trained, they're going to be slaughtered. Alot of the skirmishes in the Iraq theater are high casualties for resistance due to the lack of training.
TexasSkyhawk
Internet SEAL
Let's see. . . thinking back to '79 and Cambodia--didn't see much body armor there, but they sure were scrappy and mean. Then there was Egypt and Libya in '81 . . . El Salvador, Grenada, Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama . . . then back to Sandland in 90-91, Bosnia. . .
Hell, I haven't met a modern "first world or second world" army yet that we needed to fight, or one that intended to invade us.
What modern armies have you come up against and had to fight that were clad head to toe in nuke-proof armor?
And I never said it wasn't.
What I'm saying is you know exactly zilch about what actually goes on in combat on a battlefield. So your torso is protected. Great.
Your legs ain't. And if you're not mobile, you're dead.
Your arms ain't. And if you can't hold a weapon and fight back or operate a radio, or use your hands to tend to your other wounds, you're dead.
And while you're tending to your wounds, or lying there because I just shot your legs up, I got plenty of time to draw a bead on your little fraction of face (which, I'll guarantee you will NOT be a superficial wound as you so mistakenly stated earlier), after which I'll take your rifle, frags and anything else of use to me.
Then I'm going to go find your buddy and do the same to him, then give HIS rifle and frags and ammo to MY buddy, who's trained like I am and has been there, then we're going to use our newly acquired rifles and go acquire some larger rifles.
Nobody ever talked about using handguns for the duration. Handguns are a tool. You foolishly state they are of no value or use on today's battlefield against the "modern soldier's armor."
I say you're wrong.
Jeff
People seem to think the insurgents will be off in the woods fighting. they would be crushed that way.
However, if they operated like the french resistance normal everyday people by day/freedom fighters by night. How would the goverment track people down?
However, if they operated like the french resistance normal everyday people by day/freedom fighters by night. How would the goverment track people down?
What are you talking about Texas Skyhawk?
Has little to do with civilians facing the most modern and powerful military forces that would in fact have modern equipment. This was a comparison of what a handgun was good for against German troops and how that relates to handgun use today.
Not what it can do in some third world undeveloped nation.
From the perspective of the civilian armed with a handgun against the soldier no.
You are not going to take down soldiers in modern body armor by shooting them in thier legs and arms with a handgun, and do it quickly enough to avoid return fire by him or his buddies stationed with him.
I will refer you to the North Hollywood shootout since it is widely known and taped for all to reference, where police armed with handguns (and shotguns with buckshot) attempted to do exactly that, and the bad guys were not even trained soldiers, or with head protection (though one did have leg protection).
The bad guys were hit several times. They still fired a number of rounds even if it did effect them. Such hits do not end the targets ability to fight or return fire, even if it makes them immobile. It is a pistol wound, and now you are going to advance on someone you merely wounded whos fellow soldiers will be returning fire, armed with a pistol? You have some confidence.
By the time the first one is downed you need to already be downing the next or retreating. That means you need a decisive shot they don't see coming, not numerous rounds in arms and legs.
If you are in a fire fight with a pistol against soldiers you already did something wrong! Your best bet is to retreat and try again later not attempt to hit them all in thier arms and legs.
You are far better off with an improvised explosive or grenade attack than a pistol attack. Use the pistol to finish off the wounded after the explosives do most of the work. These are soldiers, trained to fight, you don't take them on with a pistol. You don't get to engage in prolonged firefights as the insurgent, that is a quick way to lose. Air support, loyal civilians, other infantry, local LEO etc can all come to thier aid in short order in an urban environment.
As a soldier you can wound other soldiers that way, or enemy combatants, and once wounded you gain the upperhand. You can then advance on the wounded with the advantage, or let them bleed out and need medical treatment.
That is not the case for the insurgent armed with a pistol facing soldiers.
You wounded him in the arms or legs with your pistol, now his team is returning fire with rifles, and he is not incapacitated for the duration of the brief fight himself. Yeah real effective.
The body heat gives them away.
Arguably even in the city night favors those would better optical equipment. Only during the day is there an equal playing field in who can see what.
The main threat to fight in such a society is the survelience. Can you imagine an insurgency in a place like London where cameras watch everything all the time, and even if they cannot prevent it, they can track down those responsible by tracking them through the video?
It adds a whole new dimension to blending in. Drop or move something somewhere that later explodes? They will look back through the video, figure out who did it, and do thier best to track you down. Since most of the streets are covered in survelience they can track exactly where you came from and went fairly well. If they have good records of most of the population it is not too difficult.
Survelience will be one of the primary ways to enforce tyranny. Obviously they can attack or arrest anyone that damages the cameras.
All types of cameras can be used, infared, thermal (still expensive for widespread use passive use)etc.
Accurate detailed records of the population, with streamlined databases. I think it will be fairly easy to enforce tyrany in the future.
We are already getting thigns like facial recognition software, cameras that can see under garments and clothing, and many other things that could be passively used on the population as a whole.
Here is an article on the cameras that see under clothing
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article3512019.ece
It is already garnering widespread government interest.
Okay third world nations, before current body armor was even widely fielded.
Has little to do with civilians facing the most modern and powerful military forces that would in fact have modern equipment. This was a comparison of what a handgun was good for against German troops and how that relates to handgun use today.
Not what it can do in some third world undeveloped nation.
Yes we have been 'fortunate' that the only people we are willing to engage in war with have been third world nations.
What is with these exagerations? We are talking about body armor as worn by modern militaries and how it relates to traditional handguns.
From the perspective of the soldier being attacked or doing the attacking yes.
From the perspective of the civilian armed with a handgun against the soldier no.
You are not going to take down soldiers in modern body armor by shooting them in thier legs and arms with a handgun, and do it quickly enough to avoid return fire by him or his buddies stationed with him.
I will refer you to the North Hollywood shootout since it is widely known and taped for all to reference, where police armed with handguns (and shotguns with buckshot) attempted to do exactly that, and the bad guys were not even trained soldiers, or with head protection (though one did have leg protection).
The bad guys were hit several times. They still fired a number of rounds even if it did effect them. Such hits do not end the targets ability to fight or return fire, even if it makes them immobile. It is a pistol wound, and now you are going to advance on someone you merely wounded whos fellow soldiers will be returning fire, armed with a pistol? You have some confidence.
By the time the first one is downed you need to already be downing the next or retreating. That means you need a decisive shot they don't see coming, not numerous rounds in arms and legs.
If you are in a fire fight with a pistol against soldiers you already did something wrong! Your best bet is to retreat and try again later not attempt to hit them all in thier arms and legs.
You are far better off with an improvised explosive or grenade attack than a pistol attack. Use the pistol to finish off the wounded after the explosives do most of the work. These are soldiers, trained to fight, you don't take them on with a pistol. You don't get to engage in prolonged firefights as the insurgent, that is a quick way to lose. Air support, loyal civilians, other infantry, local LEO etc can all come to thier aid in short order in an urban environment.
As a soldier you can wound other soldiers that way, or enemy combatants, and once wounded you gain the upperhand. You can then advance on the wounded with the advantage, or let them bleed out and need medical treatment.
That is not the case for the insurgent armed with a pistol facing soldiers.
You wounded him in the arms or legs with your pistol, now his team is returning fire with rifles, and he is not incapacitated for the duration of the brief fight himself. Yeah real effective.
Yes especialy now with various thermal optics. The days of guerrillas in the woods are numbered. A helicopter with FLIR can find a normal person in the woods easily.
The body heat gives them away.
Arguably even in the city night favors those would better optical equipment. Only during the day is there an equal playing field in who can see what.
The main threat to fight in such a society is the survelience. Can you imagine an insurgency in a place like London where cameras watch everything all the time, and even if they cannot prevent it, they can track down those responsible by tracking them through the video?
It adds a whole new dimension to blending in. Drop or move something somewhere that later explodes? They will look back through the video, figure out who did it, and do thier best to track you down. Since most of the streets are covered in survelience they can track exactly where you came from and went fairly well. If they have good records of most of the population it is not too difficult.
Survelience will be one of the primary ways to enforce tyranny. Obviously they can attack or arrest anyone that damages the cameras.
All types of cameras can be used, infared, thermal (still expensive for widespread use passive use)etc.
Accurate detailed records of the population, with streamlined databases. I think it will be fairly easy to enforce tyrany in the future.
We are already getting thigns like facial recognition software, cameras that can see under garments and clothing, and many other things that could be passively used on the population as a whole.
Here is an article on the cameras that see under clothing
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article3512019.ece
It is already garnering widespread government interest.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
