The French resistant was an armed group that fought the Nazi's for years. They managed to tie up some German troops with their activities, they slowed their progress, and the Nazi's had to assign troops to deal with the Resistance... but on their own, they were no more than an annoyance to the Germans.
An American force of only deer hunting Americans with out any outside help from a strong military would be an annoyance at best to any invasion.
Think about it... The US military invaded Normandy that was defended by thousands of German troops, artillery, and a hostile terrain... The US Invasion prevailed. Suppose that there were no German troops but only American deer hunters and sportsmen behind every tree in Normandy... Do you think the US invasion would have failed if the USA came up against US deer hunters??? Of course not.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
You are comparing America to a nation and even to a greater degree post WWI Europe, whose population was educated by pacifist teachers to be pacifists and had no will to fight. There are some US states that teach our children a left leaning pacifist ciriculum. But I think most Americans still have the will to fight. And they are armed with much heavier weaponry than France.
The French resistant was an armed group that fought the Nazi's for years. They managed to tie up some German troops with their activities, they slowed their progress, and the Nazi's had to assign troops to deal with the Resistance... but on their own, they were no more than an annoyance to the Germans.
The French resistance numbers topped only 100,000 at its peak and relied on outdated and improvised guns. As of today there is an estimated 65-80million gun owners in the United States.
Some good ol' boys in Kentucky
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
After watching that video, I'm pretty sure Kentucky could conquer 2011 France.
LMAO, they hold this shoot 2 times a year, one day I'll make it there
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
I love the sound of those 30 cal and 50 cal machine guns, almost as nice as the smell of napalm in the morning. Those poorly armed deer hunters that Box was telling us about.
Would the US Invasion of Normandy been turned back by American Deer Hunters and sportsmen if they defended Normandy??? Do you think they could repulse an invasion the size of the US invasion of Normandy??? Could these deer hunters defend against invading air power, drones, smart bombs, chemical weapons, tanks, napalm, white phosphorous... etc, with their 30'06 deer rifles???
If not, then how can they defeat a similarly armed, similarly prepared and equipped invasion of the USA?
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Box, you are specifically living under a government that wouldn't exist today if it wasn't for farmers and hunters who would pick up their guns at the drop of a hat to defend themselves and those around you, and you now say that it wouldn't be good enough? Now, I realize that there are new weapons that can do quite a bit, but there are only so many of those weapons, and the sheer mass of the number of guns in the United States, along with the fact that the enemy would eventually just have to go door to door to find them would be plenty to take care of the issues. That, along with the facts of American ingenuity.
Gee, where was the last place that people were fought off when they had the advanced weapons against those who were hiding and people couldn't tell who the enemy was? Oh, yeah, that was us losing, before pulling out of the Korean War.
I love the sound of those 30 cal and 50 cal machine guns, almost as nice as the smell of napalm in the morning. Those poorly armed deer hunters that Box was telling us about.
YUP! 1 Abrams tank would negate a field full of Redneck Machine guns. So would 1 cruise missile, two drones, one CNDS gas grenade, one mortar, one 155 artillery round, 5 minutes of vintage cobra gun ship, one flame tank, one CBU cluster bomb... etc etc etc.
If you think a few rednecks with hand guns can halt an armed invasion... or even slow it down, you are mistaken. The Germans in Normandy had artillery, heavy and light machine guns, mortars, land mines, Panzer tanks and rifle men. If they didn't stop the advancing US invasion, why do you assume that a few thousand RedNecks with deer rifles could have any effect on a well equipped, trained and motivated force???
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Box, you are specifically living under a government that wouldn't exist today if it wasn't for farmers and hunters who would pick up their guns at the drop of a hat to defend themselves and those around you, and you now say that it wouldn't be good enough? Now, I realize that there are new weapons that can do quite a bit, but there are only so many of those weapons, and the sheer mass of the number of guns in the United States, along with the fact that the enemy would eventually just have to go door to door to find them would be plenty to take care of the issues. That, along with the facts of American ingenuity.
Gee, where was the last place that people were fought off when they had the advanced weapons against those who were hiding and people couldn't tell who the enemy was? Oh, yeah, that was us losing, before pulling out of the Korean War.
Rampage. Explain again how a force consisting of a few machine guns and mostly deer rifles, could defeat one Abrams tank. Just one tank... but of course a well equipped invading force wold first destroy most of the enemy with artillery, naval gunfire, air strikes or drop mines to negate much of the resistance.
In one night raid on Tokyo, March 10, 1945 WW2 B-29s dropping incendiaries bombs destroying 267,000 buildings. What would the Red Neck deer hunters do as their homes were being bombed? Remember GWB's "shock & awe"? How would Rotterdam survive a week of that? The US Military is an awesome force... unmatched in the world. The US deerhunter is but an annoyance against most modern armies.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Regular Hunting Rifles– This is a serious threat to an occupying army. Hunting rifles are
effective at ranges out to 500 yards especially with high power scopes. The person shooting them needs to have some skills of course but most hunters do. There are many millions of so equipped hunters in the USA. The hunters also have the bush craft skills enabling them to move about in the wilderness quietly. And undetected. They have camouflage clothes. The regular military rifles issued to a soldier are usually not very useful past 100 yards by most of the soldiers.
Maybe some could use the weapon out 200 yards and a few to even 300 yards. The point is a hunting rifle like a common Remington bolt action 30-06 can work well out to 300 yards and for some even out to 500 yards with a good scope. The soldier can be outgunned by sniper activity. Snipers do not always have to hit live targets. They can hit refrigerators,
radiators of cars, motor blocks, generators, air conditioners, water tanks, tires, radios, heaters, fuel supplies, transformers, telephone equipment, and so forth. Snipers can also target moving or parked vehicles. and the same for aircraft and marine vessels. This torments the soldiers when moving about.
Hunting rifle bullets are hard to stop with armor. If the hunter uses serious bullets not hollow points, things like core lok Remington bullets designed to stay together after impact, then the armor becomes less effective. These bullets can rip through engine blocks. When you get into the heavier hunting caliber bullets armor becomes less and less effective. Body armor usually will not stop hunting bullets, especially the heavier calibers. Hollywood portrays snipers as those killing humans but a lot of what they do is to destroy equipment of the enemy. This number one keeps the enemy undercover for minutes to hours after the shot(s) are fired.
The enemy is on edge for days afterward. The destroyed equipment can destroy the will and comfort of the enemy. Their will to fight then starts to diminish. I do know that many thousands of gun owners in the USA are familiar with sniper techniques. All you need to do is go any gun show and you too will know this. They have shooting schools in the USA for the last 25 years that have been teaching sniper methods to civilians. Hunting and sniping is not so different anyway. So a country with millions of so equipped hunters is a major big time headache to an occupying army. High Powered Rifles –There are numerous rifle calibers that are all considered high
power in the USA. These guns deliver a heavy bullet at high velocities. These bullets will penetrate a lot of material and armor. These rifles are also effective out to 1000 yards with some training and practice. This is a major nightmare for an occupying army. The sniper can get them and the chances of them getting the sniper are close to zero. There are a massive amount of such rifles with high-powered scopes in the USA with countless rounds of ammo. .50 Caliber Rifles– In the last twenty years many people have started to buy .50 caliber
rifles. This is not a hunting gun unless you hunt dinosaurs. The round is a 750-grain bullet. A 30-06 is usually a 150 to 180 grain bullet for comparison. This round usually travels in excess of 3000 feet per second. Stopping this round with a armor in its normal configuration usually requires explosive armor usually found on tanks or heavy armored military vehicles, which is only good for one shot. Forget body armor or light vehicle armor. Now the custom loaders in the USA have improved this round.
One way to get there is to use a sabot. This is a plastic insert, which allows the .50 caliber case to expel a much lighter bullet, think 250 grains. This bullet would now move at over 5000 feet per second. This is also done with lesser rounds like the .308 and 30-06 for instance. Forget anything but explosive armor stopping these high-speed rounds. There is a lot of this ammo floating around in the USA. Another way is to use molybdenum metal in the bullet. This metal is extremely hard and rips through obstacles like sheet metal, armor plating etc. The bullet weight can be the same or one could use a sabot with the molybdenum bullet and I doubt anything short of explosive armor on tanks would work against it.
They have been selling molybdenum .50 cal bullets for 15 years now. Have no idea how many there are in the USA. One with some training and practice can hit a melon at distances of up to a mile with a .50 caliber rifle and a good scope. The military has been using them for years. The sniping value is amazing. Three or four people with these rifles can terrorize a military base with 5000 troops. Think what 3 or 4 people with 50’s can do with another 12 people with regular hunting rifles. The troops would sit inside and crawl around when they had to move or else go about in armored vehicles.
Then comes the destruction of heaters in winter, electrical generators, water supplies, refrigeration for food, gas supplies, vehicles, and aircraft on the ground, air conditioners in summer, and so forth. See an armed country cannot easily be occupied and if it is occupied the army will often give up and leave. The Russians in Afghanistan. The USA in Vietnam are examples of this. They leave a lot of death and destruction in their path but they eventually leave. Assault Rifles –The people of the US have a massive mount of assault rifles. Most are in
semi-auto mode. They can engage a military on equal small arms footing. Not a pleasant thought for an enemy. The first priority of an occupier would be to round up the guns. Better yet get the guns before they go in. Night Optics –The people in the US have been buying night vision devices for about 25
years now. They have night vision rifles, scopes, and night vision glasses and binoculars. This is a real headache for an army trying to occupy it. They better equip all their occupying troops with these devices. Body Armor –Countless people in the USA have been buying body armor for 25 years.
Most can only stop handgun ammo with their armor. A smaller amount of people has armor that will stop assault rifle rounds. Very few people have armor that will stop armor piercing ammo. Enemy soldiers would be confused and bewildered by a population that is not only heavily armed but also has body armor. Armor Piercing Ammo –In the USA it is legal to own armor piercing ammo in rifle
calibers. There are millions and millions of rounds of such ammo being stored in the USA. Of course this is a major headache for an occupying army. Imagine when their troops realize the civilians can defeat their armor, even their heavy-duty armor. Summary –This should illustrate why the USA presently would be a nightmare to occupy for an Army. Why the US government wants take the guns away from the people has no good answer, does it? Guns in the USA--Over One Million Sold in April 2009
Regular Hunting Rifles– This is a serious threat to an occupying army. Of course this is a major headache for an occupying army. Imagine when their troops realize the civilians can defeat their armor, even their heavy-duty armor. Summary –This should illustrate why the USA presently would be a nightmare to occupy for an Army. Why the US government wants take the guns away from the people has no good answer, does it? Guns in the USA--Over One Million Sold in April 2009
A great description Shadow... But if you are facing an equipped trained invading force, you assume that you will use these weapons in sight of your enemy. ~ Chemical agents will leave all the weapons you mentioned totally useless. ~ Tactical artillery launched nukes will negate using these weapons. ~ None of the weapons you mentioned have any effect on an Abrams tank. ~ Satellite or drone surveillance will divulge your position, while you will be blind to enemy location. ~ Night vision and heat seeking optics would point out your exact location, at night, out of range of all your weapons... but in range of your opponents.
"The Good Ole Boy, US Deer Hunting Militia" makes a good movie... but it's pure fiction.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
There's one fact that you forget Box. How many soldiers will be willing to use bombs, chemical weapons, missiles, and artillery on their friends and families and will instead desert to go and join the opposition. It could end up 1 million against 65 to 80 million and those odds aren't too good.
There's one fact that you forget Box. How many soldiers will be willing to use bombs, chemical weapons, missiles, and artillery on their friends and families and will instead desert to go and join the opposition. It could end up 1 million against 65 to 80 million and those odds aren't too good.
Shadow assumes that the INVASION we've been discussing, will actually be a CIVIL WAR, not an invasion. (Of course he does... Conservatives always view their government as the enemy)
My posts have been in response to Henry's post #5: "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." - Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Logged
