The world's largest army...
- Thread starter Corey
- Start date
shortbus4x4
Expedition Leader
Actually I believe Admiral Yamamoto of WWII fame came to the conclusion (long before any bloggers did) that any Japanese invasion of the US mainland would be facing serious resistance from the civilian population who was well armed with hunting rifles. I think he said "there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."
adrenaline503
Explorer
Not to mention the lack of logistics or standardized equipment to such an "Army" running.
Alfo
Are you kidding???? Id be quite confident that the people of this country would be able to wage a guerilla warfare better thenehn any of the third world countries in the world. Christ, half the people in this forum are better armed the afghan rebels and insurgents in iraq that give our soldiers problems everyday
Are you kidding???? Id be quite confident that the people of this country would be able to wage a guerilla warfare better thenehn any of the third world countries in the world. Christ, half the people in this forum are better armed the afghan rebels and insurgents in iraq that give our soldiers problems everyday
dwh
Tail-End Charlie
A) "Quantity has a quality all its own."
The point is, that the hunters in just 4 American states outnumber any organized army in the world. Now add in the fact that there are also a lot of gun owners who don't have hunting licenses, and the fact that there are an additional 46 states which weren't even counted. That's a LOT of shooters.
Sure, they're not up to the training standards of a regular army, but with oh... say 30-1 odds (or more) in their favor, they stand a pretty good chance in a conventional war. Even if they are fat. Or at least fat when the war starts - they wouldn't stay fat for long. And then there is the home field advantage as well. Plus a whole bunch of them ARE military trained, and they'd be training those who aren't.
B) A rifle is a pretty good "gun to get a gun".
Shoot a guy who's got an AK, and now you've got a rifle AND an AK. Shoot a guy who's got a SAW, and now you've got a rifle, an AK and a SAW. Couple more guys with rifles and you've got a rifle squad. EDIT: And let's not forget, there's a whole bunch of National Guard Armories, which is a pretty good stockpile of military grade weapons.
Of course, all of that is unnecessary - all we really have to do is unleash Ted Nugent and then just sit back and count the bodies.
The point is, that the hunters in just 4 American states outnumber any organized army in the world. Now add in the fact that there are also a lot of gun owners who don't have hunting licenses, and the fact that there are an additional 46 states which weren't even counted. That's a LOT of shooters.
Sure, they're not up to the training standards of a regular army, but with oh... say 30-1 odds (or more) in their favor, they stand a pretty good chance in a conventional war. Even if they are fat. Or at least fat when the war starts - they wouldn't stay fat for long. And then there is the home field advantage as well. Plus a whole bunch of them ARE military trained, and they'd be training those who aren't.
B) A rifle is a pretty good "gun to get a gun".
Shoot a guy who's got an AK, and now you've got a rifle AND an AK. Shoot a guy who's got a SAW, and now you've got a rifle, an AK and a SAW. Couple more guys with rifles and you've got a rifle squad. EDIT: And let's not forget, there's a whole bunch of National Guard Armories, which is a pretty good stockpile of military grade weapons.
Of course, all of that is unnecessary - all we really have to do is unleash Ted Nugent and then just sit back and count the bodies.
Last edited:
Soobarubin
Observer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Resistance
And most of them were farmers, probably never even handled a firearm in their lives.
I wouldn't doubt for a minute, that in my area for sure, the hunters with guns, would be willing to militia and do what needs to be done in a heartbeat.
I'm proud to be part of the worlds largest civilian army.
-Jaren
And most of them were farmers, probably never even handled a firearm in their lives.
I wouldn't doubt for a minute, that in my area for sure, the hunters with guns, would be willing to militia and do what needs to be done in a heartbeat.
I'm proud to be part of the worlds largest civilian army.
-Jaren
Mr. Leary
Glamping Excursionaire
The numerical advantage is much less meaningful when there is no chain of command and no direction. The military operates successfully because the mission is clear and officers are given just enough autonomy to bend the rules in order to complete the mission.
A hunters rebellion would be effective as a harrassment force, but lacks the organizational ability to mount an effective defense against an army of the caliber of the US. Not a chance, but there would be lots of blood on both sides...
dwh
Tail-End Charlie
That statement is based on the assumption that American civilians are utterly incapable of establishing a chain of command or clearly defined objective.
I, for one, do not believe that assumption is at all accurate. And again, don't forget that there are a whole of lot of ex-military civilians in the U.S. Trained by the U.S. military itself. There's gotta be at least a couple who know how to organize a fighting force.
There may be no chain of command and no direction -at the moment-, but that would not be the situation for long if it came to defending the homeland.
overlander
Expedition Leader
US defenses are designed by echelonment:
lines of defense:
Russia was able to turn the tide on the Nazi offensive through vast numbers, rudamentary equipment and unity of command.
When I was in Iraq, the Iraq federal law stated every household was allowed to have 1 AK47 for personal defense. Many times I had my soldiers take the 2nd and 3rd AK, and give one back. What they lacked was the will or motive to fight us. It was only the original Bathists and those paid by foreign insurgents/Iran that would actually put up any kind of fight.
If there was a US invasion, as a military officer, I believe we would have the potential to open up a big can of woopass as a nation in a large scale defensive insurgent war, eventually transitioning to a regular conventional fight after the militias were trained and better organized.
lines of defense:
- regular army units forward deployed on foreign soil
- US based regular army units
- national guard and reserve units
- national draft trainees for replacements and standup augmentation units
- militia units as descriped by OP organized under regular army and reserve command elements/officers (much like the revolutionaray war)
Russia was able to turn the tide on the Nazi offensive through vast numbers, rudamentary equipment and unity of command.
When I was in Iraq, the Iraq federal law stated every household was allowed to have 1 AK47 for personal defense. Many times I had my soldiers take the 2nd and 3rd AK, and give one back. What they lacked was the will or motive to fight us. It was only the original Bathists and those paid by foreign insurgents/Iran that would actually put up any kind of fight.
If there was a US invasion, as a military officer, I believe we would have the potential to open up a big can of woopass as a nation in a large scale defensive insurgent war, eventually transitioning to a regular conventional fight after the militias were trained and better organized.
cruiseroutfit
Supporting Sponsor: Cruiser Outfitters
Fact check, far from the worlds largest army:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_total_troops
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_total_troops
overlander
Expedition Leader
Brazil. Now that one caught me by surprise.
For those that don't know, general rule of thumb in warfare is the offensive fighting force needs at least a 3:1 ration of forces. Exception to that would be alien invasion of earth, which would likely be inverted ratio.