Problem fixed. Very Good Post

5.56X45mm

Milforum Mac Daddy
Okay, this is a question about the possible defense of the United States against a foreign invasion, military coup, or any other possible situation.

Remember this is just for talk. Do you think that police and civilians can bolster the defense of the USA? Now most police forces have armaments to the level of a recon unit. Vehicles (Patrol Cars & Trucks), armored shock troops (SWAT, HRT, & SRT), Aerial Recon & Transport (Helicopter Unit), Marine Patrol (For those departments charged with waterways), and just your standard officer.
Now I know that most special units within the police departments can survive action with military units due to their training and issued equipment. Now, what they can mostly do is just regular infantry style warfare. But they can survive. Now that standard police officer, most have a level IIIA vest and a pistol. A shotgun, sub machinegun, or a carbine/rifle in the vehicle. And if they keep riot gear in the vehicle, they might have a Kevlar vest plus a gas mask. Also possible smoke or CS gas grenades might be within their immediately reach. As for their transport, the ever classic squad car or the SUV would be the most common.
Now in terms of weapon calibers, they use the common pistol calibers. 9mm, .40S&W, .45ACP, .38 Special, .357 Magnum, .357 Sig, and if they’re a special tactics unit; the new 5.7X28mm cartridge. For Rifles either the 5.56X45mm, 7.62X51mm, .30-06, .270 Winchester, or 300 Winchester Magnum. Which the last three calibers mentioned would more than likely be with a bolt action rifle. And for the shotgun, the universal 12 Ga. Now the main problem with any police department if they were to work together with any other group; would be the difference in ammunition calibers and firearm types. I know of departments that use the Glock, S&W Semi-Autos and revolvers, Ruger, Sig-Sauer, Styer, FN, Beretta, and other popular pistol makers. As for rifles, there is the AR-15, Springfield M1A, Sig 550, Remington 700, Winchester M70, Ruger Mini-14, and FN 2000, and the H&K G36. As for the sub machineguns, there is the H&K MP5, FN P90, Beretta CX4 Strom Carbine (Not a sub machine but a pistol caliber carbine), Uzi, Bushmaster Carbon 15 AR Pistol, and the Colt 9mm AR-15 Carbine.
That is a major problem with them, so many different weapons and calibers. They might not be able to get possibly re-supply when needed.

Now for the civilian population, I’m limiting it to two different groups. The “Militia” and the average gun owner. The militia type person is one that has a rifle, combat equipment, and some possible training. Now I don’t want to confuse those with the standard stereotypical image of the White Power Militia member. I’m just referring to someone that is prepared incase of the SHTF (SH!T HITTING THE FAN). They would be equal in terms of equipment with a special tactics officer in a police department. Most people of this group have a rifle as they’re main armament. Whether it be the AK-47, AK-74, CETME/G3 Clone, AR-15, FN FAL, Ruger Mini-14, Ruger Mini-30, Mauser 98, Mosin Nagant, Lee Enfield, M1 Carbine, Beretta CX4 Storm Carbine, SKS Carbine, M1 Garand, Springfield M1A, or another type of Semi-Auto or Bolt Action rifle that was either a military rifle is was built to compete within the market. Like the Kel-Tec Su-16 Carbine. Pistols are pretty much the same as that for the police departments.
The equipment would more than likely be a set of BDUs, Web Gear of some sort, and if some spend the money. A Kevlar Vest and Helmet. And the only mobile assists would be their personal vehicles. Cars, Trucks, and SUVs.
Now the same issue would happen to those that don’t use military equipment. Expect they would use additional calibers for mil-slurp rifles like the 7.62X54R, 7.92X57mm, 7X57mm, 5.45X39mm, and 7.62X39mm. Only those with an AR-15 rifle and Beretta 92FS/M9 pistol could get a re-supply from the military. Same deal with the police departments. And the shotgun issue is that same.

Now for the second group, they would use their hunting firearms. Lever Actions, Bolt Actions, and Semi-Auto rifles. Anything chambered from .17 mach 2 to .45-70 Government. And pistols could be from .22LR to .45 Long Colt or .50AE. Shotguns could be either single or double barreled side-by-sides. Pump Actions, or Semi Autos. And the ammunition could be from .410 Gauge to .12 Gauge. Equipment would be little to nothing, and personal transport is the same as the other civilian group. Cars, Trucks, and SUVs. I would say that this would be about the same as the insurgency. Nothing more than a firearm and a pair of legs.



Now what I’m getting at is what do you think each group can do and how would they use their resources. Subjects like this always interest me and I know that some other people must think about it too.
 
I think it would depend on how quickly tactics could be learned and if a chain of command could be established. If rank can be quickly established based on experience and/or other criteria, and rank is followed, you might be able to do something. Once that's been established, and if tactics can be taught, then that's your basic Army right there. After all, what you're describing is essentially what happened during the American Revolution.
 
I think that the population of a country could put up a major fight against an occupying force (maybe not to so much of an extent during the initial invasion, but definitely after occupation or at least after a period of time after enemy troops entering the country). We've seen this many times in history, and I don't live in the US, but I know that in NZ there's allot of places for locals to hide, group, stock supplys, whatever, and guerilla warfare can overwhelm, or at the very least be a major thorn in the side of, a far larger military fighting force. In a country in the US, where far more superior weapons can be bought far easier than most other countries, it'd be even more so.
Imagine what 10 average guys with even just sub-par hunting rifles, perhaps some low grade pistols, and a decent knowledge of basic combat and some explosives could do.
There's no doubt that you could wreak havoc, to some extent at least, but the only question is; how many people are truly willing to put their lives on the line?
A sufficiently determined and motivated civilian population could definitely be a major advantage to a defending country.

The police? I don't know- there's no history I am aware of where police have made a notable difference. I'm sure they have, but in the majority of cases police aren't going to be targeting enemy forces- they'll either be policing civilians or just doing whatever the hell else everyone else is doing.

It all depends, of course, on the scale of the invasion. How many land forces are there? How well equipped are they, and do they have air support? Is naval, or even missile, based combat going to play a role? Are they deep into the country and cities, or being held at a distance by defending forces? Depending on the stage, scale, and development of the invasion, the civilians and police could play extremely different roles.
 
As far as LE assisting the Military. The ROE's are different the tactics are different. Even the tactics of a tactical team making entry are different from an Infantry fire team conducting MOUT Operations. Unless you had a strong makeup of former Infantry in a particular Dept. then your learning tactics all over again.

IMO the best use for LE would be as a rear area PMO type force multiplier. That could free up MP units to move forward and conduct LI type ops in support of the Forward manuver elements.

The idea that LE has more Veterans in it is both right and wrong. Yes there are alot of vets but then you have to look at their former MOS. I'll use some from my dept.

USMC Infantry- 1, USMC Motor T- 1, USMC Arty-1, USAF Security Forces-1, USN Electronics Tech-1 USN Gunners Mate -1 US Army Air Defense-1, US Army Infantry-1

So even the vets would require some level of basic infantry training.
 
I believe that we could withstand an invasion. not to get off subject, but i heard somewhere that switzerland or however you spell it actually trains civilians? someone back this fact up please?
 
Yeah mate, i think i heard about that Switzerland thing too, or maybe it was Finland. Not sure.

Now, in this thread, we would have to assume that America's allies are incapacitated, because for the most part i think the American government would prefer life to go on as normal and not have a bunch of wannabe Rambos running around making a mess of their carefully planned tactics - they would rather have highly trained allies such as Australia, Britain, New Zealand etc coming over to it's aid. But let's just say, for argument's sake, that we have our own problems and we've told our allies to sod off.

For the basic armed civvie, it's not gonna be as easy as grabbing some guns, going up into the mountains, painting their faces, calling themselves the Wolverines and trying to fight back the commies - because they would not be trained enough to conceal themselves for long enough, and not many people know how to build a defendable base (which my mates and i are actually planning to do for some paintball games).

There would have to be someone running the show, someone powerful or charismatic who knows what they're doing and can teach the other civvies how to do things properly. Now, unlike most other countries, Americans have access to every little bit of hardware that they could want, which means that one guy might have enough guns and ammo to adequately arm a small cell for a reasonable amount of time - but the biggest thing would be food and supplies. They would have to fend for themselves for the most part and probably raid the canned section of the supermarkets. But what makes them even more unreliable is the unpredictable nature of civvies. The army has a pecking order, but a militia organized by untrained idiots is gonna have backstabbing and all that kinda crap, which is likely to hurt their efforts if they ever see battle.

The best shot for a militia cell to survive is for it to be gathered up as quickly as possible by local authorities and handed over to the nearest Army Reserve or National Guard (Weekend Warrior types) battallion and be temporarily inducted as an infantryman, supplied with food, extra ammo if it can be found, and told that they are now subject to military justice if they fail to obey orders. They wouldn't have to do anything too advanced, so i think they would have the best chance of surviving like this.

I agree with above about the cops just policing the public - they would probably be able to get militia people to the reserve units or national guard.

Rich.
 
Ahh, cool...

Come on people, this is a good thread, very interesting. Like Johnny Five used to say - NEED MORE INPUT.

Rich.
 
I suspect an invasion in the U.S. might become similar to Viet Nam, only with the tables turned, so to speak. The majority of Americans who would join the fight would be the out-doors types who have weapons, know the territory and would be able to survive almost indefinitely while mounting small-scale attacks.

There is still a great deal of very formidable terrain here, and us "rednecks" know it pretty well. ;)
 
Haha, yeah i didn't think of that man, that's a very good analogy. Nobody knows their home better than the person who owns the home right? You'd have to be crazy to try and invade America anyway, but it's a thought that has to be taken into consideration.

Rich.
 
I think that the U.S. navy should be able to repel any sea based invasion, especially near the coast under land and carrier based suppport. Not just that, our ships would be closer to home and easier to resupply.
Failing this and if we are invaded; I feel sorry for them. After being in a democracy and having our own freedom for so long, I would hate to try to take it away.
I think the initial assaults would be brutal, and the resistance immensly strong. As far as militia resupply goes, I would probably just strip weapons and ammo off of the enemy. Much as the french did during WWII.

Beyond this, dont we have tactical nukes for ground assaults that we would use in a 'worst case' scenario? What would constitue a worst case?
 
Mmmm, yeah. I know for certain though, that i have no idea how to use an AK-47 except for the aim and shoot bit. I've got no idea how to take care of it or any of that because i have no training in it - so if i take one of an enemy guy, chances are that i'm gonna accidentally switch safety on or something and i'm gonna get killed because i don't know how to turn it off etc etc.... If it comes down to a bolt action rifle however, something that i have a lot of experience in, i'm going to wanna keep that so i know that i'm experienced in the weapon that i have.

I don't know what would constitute a worst case scenario though.... Probably if 70 or 80 percent of the defending army was wiped out and the capital was about to be taken?

Rich.
 
I don't think it is possible in the near future for an invasion of America to take place. The boardering countries have fractions of a percentage of the millitary power America wields. Any seaborne invasion from any fictional "EU Empire" scenario or "Superpower China" scenario would be seen way off due to the size of the logistics for such an invasion and promptly sunk. Bikinni attol would have nothing on what happens to that fictional fleet.

The only way to get at America is through blockade of things like oil.
 
Ok I argree that the US could fight off an invasion, and the thing about the Navy. Thats why we have a Coast Guard, and they're not what everyone thinks. They're got some nice stuff.

Ok, not to boast :lol:. I'm a Militia.

For weapons, I have a Mk.II Savage .22, Win-Mag 30-30 Lever Action, and about 80 rounds of military issue 5.56mm.

For gear I've got Level IIII Personal Armor System Ground Troops- Vest, Level I Vehicle Crewman Vest, two M1 "Steel Pots, and a PASGT helmet, LBV, two ALICE vests, two M17A2 NBC masks, and some BDU's.

I can also get my hands on an AR-15/M16A1, M14 and a few M60's and an APC, but thats if it comes to the worst.


For training, I have qualifed with the M16A2 and have extensive knowledge of all weapons currently and passed service. Also have a basic knowledge of USSR, Chinese, Romanian made arms and am AFIST qualifed (trained by my dad). I can also driver any tank drom the M26 to the M1A2.
 
It may take more than a few decades for American superpower to shift.

Right now American power is at its zenith, it shows no signs of decling as of yet. Doesn't mean it won't. We don't know yet how long the the zenith will last.

The reason I'm saying this is, I read an article once (a while back) about the life and death of empires (and superpowers for that matter).

The author basicly stated that the time for the rise of an empire (or superpower) is roughly equal to the time for it decline. Most all leading empires throughout history followed this pattern of rise and decline, of both roughly equaling each other.

Of course certain factors can push an empires decline sooner, or it can simply drag out to a slow decline, with the lack of outside factors. So it will decline roughly in porportion to its ascent.

Since it took the USA 200 years to get here at its height, how long this height will last, we don't don't know, could be 5 years could be 100 years, no one is sure, it could be that the it has not reached there yet. But once this period is over it will take roughly another 200 years for a full decline (give or take 50 to a hundred years) due to outside factors or lack thereof.

That doesn't mean it can't be challenged by a powerful enemy in the near future. Empires constantly face these test. If they overcome it they last longer, or grow even stonger, if not, they decline quicker.

Examples:

Roman Empire: long rise---long decline
Nazi Empire: short rise---short decline

Both exihbit a rise roughly the same lenght of its fall. Give or take a few years in porportion with its timeline.

For a succesful invasion of the American mainland to occur. The enemy must be powerful enough to conquer Europe. After this they need to take Asia. Africa will fall easily, whether it is taken before or after Asia.

The next part will be the subvertion or outright conquest of South America. An outright invasion into the USA across the Alantic is simply too difficult. To do this you will need a absolutely massive navy, with total air superiority, at this point there is no one who can achive this yet.

Their best strategy once the rest of the world is conquered is to subvert S.A. but this could take some time maybe 50 years, if it at all works. If Mexico falls only then can an all out invasion with any chance of sucess occur.

But by then it will mean the end of democracy for the world for at least couple of thousand years, the world will be plundged into a new dark age as far as human freedom goes.

Why any Westerners would like to see the decline of the USA (there are some that do) is beyond me, I don't think they realize the consequnces.
 
I dont, really?

Okay the USA declines in power, China (which is not a democracy) becomes the absolute power in Asia and the Pacific. There are no other candidates here so this is the logical solution.

Can you please enlighten me to what they will do to ensure the spread of democracy, or even keep it stable for democracy?

Or even what interest they have of insuring other countries maintain their democracy when they can push and shove their way with no one to say otherwise?

Lets just start with one scenario for now, since you must be one of those people who naively thinks once the US is gone there will be no one to fill that vacuum.
 
Yeah, hey, let's not start a debate about whether or not Uncle SAm is gonna get bashed and who's gonna sit in his old rocking chair. I don't wanna see a decline in America, i just wanna see a decline in Americanisation/gangs/doing everything the easy way/fast food etc etc. America is the big kid that everyone wants to be friends with but nobody really likes, but everyone knows that they need. There's no need for a big argument to happend here, because the thread is just gonna get knocked down and it's a good thread, i don't wanna see that happen

Someone mentioned something about a dark age though, so i thought of something interesting. What if this guy nukes that guy, these guys nuke those guys, and all of a sudden global communications are down, society breaks down and all of a sudden we are on our own. No internet, no television, no satellites - nothing. Suddenly we have to learn about self-sufficiency and self-preservation. Cities would become murder holes, private militia would be formed and king-pins would emerge - the basest, cruelest thugs that had enough guns to run the show.

Those in close knit farming communities band together and do the best - they've got food, animals for transport and eating, they've most probably got weapons for defense and are remote enough for safety. But they will eventually have to defend themselves. Roaming military units, a government attempting to re-unite the country. Gasoline is only provided to those who control its creation. Economies fail, paper money is only good for burning and the real comodity becomes food, weapons, animals. We go into a semi-civilised dark age where small communities survive like they used to, and the tradesman is valued above anything else.

Are any of you prepared for that? Do u have plans? Supplies? Does anyone? I know me and mine would be able to survive, but what about u and yours? Any ideas?

Rich.
 
Back
Top